A CAPE WIND PAPER TRAIL
I have been researching this project for four years. Please accept this fruit of my labor, and consider the merit of the arguments against Cape Wind the project provided. This information is only about public safety and avian concerns. There are many other concerns, adverse impact to historic features, decimation of the fishing industry, and so on that are not addressed in the correspondence and by the quotes I provide here.
Barbara Durkin
Northboro, MA=======================
May 26, 2007
Dear Senator Murray:
I ask that you please take the time to review my concerns regarding the Cape Wind Project proposed for Nantucket Sound by a private developer. The acceptance of the Cape Wind FEIR by State Secretary Ian Bowles was no more than a rubber stamping of one of the world's largest experimental industrial projects in my personal opinion. The EPA Region 1 had issued Cape Wind a Category 3 rating on the Cape Wind DEIS. The Cape Wind FEIR is even more flawed. What is most flawed is a process that prescribes 30 days to review 4,000 pages (FEIR) referencing 4,000 more pages (DEIS), and to comment upon the same. The Regional Planning Authority, the Cape Cod Commission, requested supplemental information be produced by this applicant. They were ignored.
Elizabeth Higgins, director of the EPA's regional Office of Environmental Review, said that because of the scale and unprecedented nature of the projects, "It's essential that the analysis be done properly." And "Renewable energy is a vital part of our region's future, and we need renewable energy projects, but in order to proceed with a project of this scale and magnitude we need to be sure that the questions are answered up front," she said.
http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050226/NEWS/502260366/1003/NEWS02
Senator Murray, the term NIMBY obfuscates the serious issues presented by this unprecedented project. If Cape Wind is permitted in this federal donut hole surrounded by state sanctuary waters, we will have ignored all warnings. If Cape Wind is constructed, the courts may eventually decide that the state and federal regulators failed to do their jobs to adequately protect citizens and the environment; and Cape Wind would then be determined as not responsible for this off-shore failed industrial project. My concerns align with The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy: "User conflicts can and do arise when incompatible activities take place in the same area. A comprehensive offshore management regime is needed for the balanced coordination of all offshore uses." And, The Pew Oceans Commission and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy: "The oceans and its resources are too valuable a resource to continue to manage in an ad hoc and reactive manner."
Thank You for your consideration of my letters and information. Cape Wind presents multiple use conflicts as proposed for Nantucket Sound. The general public, particularly off-Cape residents, do not understand the depth of this issue. The devil lives in the details of the Cape Wind project. The state, by acceptance of the Cape Wind FEIR, has elected to ignore the devilish details that indicate that Cape Wind is an incompatible use proposed for Nantucket Sound.
=======================
May 22, 2007
Dear Mr. Speaker:
I have been closely following the Cape Wind debate as a Central MA resident who owns no property at the Cape or islands. I am a tourist who appreciates the scenic values offered at the Cape and Islands. I have evolved into a citizen watchdog after independently researching this project for four years.
It came as a great disappointment to me that Mass Audubon issued its "Challenge" last spring, their preliminary approval of this project. Their staff scientists arrived at avian mortalities per year as up to 6,600 by this project. Mass Audubon's fine print in their support of this project is the Adaptive Management Plan, a multi million dollar "monitoring contract." Dr. Taber Allison has denied Mass Audubon's testimony to the USACE on bird kill subsequent to their press release, "Challenge".
As Mass Audubon is a self appointed reviewing agency for Cape Wind, they are in a position of conflict of interest as they stand to profit by bird deaths if Cape Wind is constructed. The protocol for fatality counting of bird carcasses over water does not exist. Hence, monitors, if Cape Wind is approved, could return a false reading of "no impact." Some within the ornithological community have become infected with the scent of wind energy money that feathers their nest, monitoring contracts. Mass Audubon's upper management, Dr. Taber Allison, and Jack Clarke, by all appearances, have sold out the birds by endorsing Cape Wind, and the Adaptive Management Plan. They are a self appointed permit review agency, with a potential financial benefit, worth multi-millions, if this project is permitted.
Nantucket Sound is an endangered species habitat and flyway. Location is everything, and this developer has selected this site as we have failed to zone the Outer Continental Shelf. Zoning is a measure that addresses public safety issues by policy.
The 6,600 birds that Mass Audubon staff scientists have predicted will die per year by Cape Wind is a known to threaten the economic viability of wind plants internationally. Altamont, CA is a bell weather for this industry, and it compares to Nantucket Sound as they are each migratory routes. I have much more information about bird mortalities and projects failing to progress due to this environmental issue, but this is not the topic that concerns me the most about Cape Wind.
Governor Deval Patrick jumped on the bandwagon and endorsed Cape Wind in a move that likely put him in office. He called the project "America's first commercial wind farm" after his "extensive research" in his press release published in the Cape Cod Times during the election that put him in office. Wind plants have been operating in the U.S. for over 20 years, and Cape Wind is proposed offshore.
The National Environmental Policy Act NEPA provides assurance of many things to the American Public. The most important assurance under NEPA is a safe public. The most significant public policy decisions center on public safety.
Cape Wind has selected a site under current and conflicting use. Cape Wind poses a threat to public safety. It's not because I say this is so, Mr. Speaker. It is because the experts most familiar with the area and who are in charge of public transportation call this project a public safety hazard. I am so concerned about this particular threat by Cape Wind, that I intend to provide my research to every Senator, Congressman, state and federal regulator, and major media outlet in the United States. You are the first to whom I respectfully bring my concerns.
The following expert testimony and quotations should preclude Cape Wind's from ever being constructed in Nantucket Sound as the evidence that this project is a public safety threat is overwhelming.
Thank you for your time, Mr. Speaker. I invite you to contact me for clarification, or for any purpose regarding the Cape Wind project and impacts. I will gladly provide you with additional information. I am very concerned that Cape Wind could become the Biggest Big Dig, and pose a "lethal" threat to humans, birds, and mammals in this developer selected location, Nantucket Sound.
=======================
I respectfully submit for your consideration that it is the responsibility of all agencies, public servants, state and federal regulators, to protect the public safety. I ask that you please recognize that the issue of public safety is so paramount that it is only "too late" for the public or any entity to present, and for agencies to reflect by policy, any comments regarding public safety impacts by any given project, when serious bodily injury has occurred.
In November of 2004, The Nantucket, Martha's Vineyard and Barnstable Airports filed a formal objection to the placement of 130 Turbines in the middle of the 3 airports flight paths. These concerns were based on recent radar studies conducted by the UK Ministry of Defense. The FAA has not yet responded to their appeal.
Based on MOD studies accepted by our DOD, as it stands, wind towers create clutter, shadowing, and masking of a Hawk Jet flying at altitudes between 2,000 and 24,000 feet over wind towers, (test study range).
Cape Wind is lethal according to public officials, professional navigators, airport officials and others users of Nantucket Sound. There are an average of 400,000 annual flights in this airspace; and approximately 3 million ferry passengers annually traverse Nantucket Sound.
This is a partial list comments made by the users, public officials, transportation officials, who are all concerned about public safety threats, in the airspace and waterway of Nantucket Sound, if Cape Wind is permitted.
The Federally Recognized Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) is opposed to Cape Wind.
The Federally Recognized Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe opposes Cape Wind.
Congressman William D. Delahunt to House Chairman Committee on Homeland Security Honorable Peter T. King:
"I am deeply concerned about the project's proximity to key civilian and military radar installations." The Air Force's PAVE PAWS radar-part of the country's early warning system for ballistic missiles-is located on the nearby Otis Air National Guard base."
The Congressional Defense Committee:
"The Effect of Windmill Farms on Military Readiness" cites:
"For UK air defense radars, the radar operators must be able to reliably track all aircraft that could pose a threat. The operators must include the ability to track by primary radar alone if necessary. UK studies to date have concluded that the radar's probability of detection is reduced in air space over wind turbines due to technical aspects of radars and the large cross section of wind turbines, and no mitigation solutions have yet proven the required level of radar coverage. On this basis, the UK Ministry of Defense must be consulted on all proposed wind turbines that are within the radar line of site of an air defense radar, regardless of distance.
"The results from those flight trials documented that state-of-the-art utility class wind turbines can have a significant impact on the operational capabilities of military air defense radar systems. The results demonstrated that the large radar cross section of a wind turbine combined with Doppler frequency shift produced by its rotation blades can impact the ability of radar to discriminate the wind turbine from an aircraft. Those tests also demonstrated that the wind farms have the potential to degrade target tracking capabilities as a result of shadowing and clutter effects."
National Air Traffic Controllers Union Cape Air Approach:
"could not think of a worse place to put these turbines."
National Air Traffic Controllers' Cape TRACON to the USACE:
"Placing 130 of these turbines in this area, in our opinion, is a disaster waiting to happen.
"We have some very serious worries over the location of this project. Cape Wind Associates has published "Airplane Flight Routes" on its web site, which depicts flight paths that are well clear of the proposed Wind Farm. The reality of this situation is quite different. This is a very heavily traveled area for air traffic. If you were to ask me, where is the worst possible place to construct a hazard to aviation and jeopardize safety in the Cape and Islands airspace, I couldn't have picked a better spot than the current location.
"The evidence of endangerment to all who travel by air sea over and upon Nantucket Sound is compelling."
Nantucket Memorial Airport to Congressman Delahunt:
"The Sound is a primary lifeline to Nantucket Island for both surface marine activity and aviation. It appears obvious that any interruption of reliable radar coverage would pose a serious concern to the safety of this area. The vertical obstruction also poses a challenge to any search and rescue efforts in a relatively large area."
Barnstable Airport Manager to the FAA Marion Blakely:
"The purpose of this letter is to seek the FAA's cooperation to immediately suspend its current finding of "No Adverse Effect", regarding the proposed Cape Wind Farm proposed for Nantucket Sound. This project not only poses a threat to more than 24 square miles of pristine waterway, but more so the FAA's previous ruling is more than four years old and quite rudimentary, given the immersion of new facts surrounding the numerous negative effects of large-scale wind projects such as the one proposed for Nantucket Sound."
Barnstable Airport, Martha's Vineyard Airport, and the Nantucket Memorial Airport have appealed the FAA "no hazard" and strongly object to Cape Wind. The FAA has not responded to these airports concerns.
Barnstable Airport officials call this project "Lethal."
Port Captain Charles Gifford to Marine Minerals Management Service agency of the DOI:
"My name is Captain Charles Gifford, I am the Port Captain for the Wood's Hole, Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket Steamship Authority. I'm a U.S. Coast Guard licensed Master Mariner and an approved instructor at the Massachusetts Maritime Academy.
"The Steamship Authority annually makes 22,000 trips transporting close to three million passengers and over 600,000 cars and trucks to the Islands of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket. It is our opinion that the 130 wind turbines planned for Horseshoe Shoals and Nantucket Sound has a potential for creating a significant hazard to safe navigation for our vessels and other users of the waterways."
Flying Cloud Captain Bruce Malenfant:
Said he is "horrified" at how close the proposed wind farm would be to his Barnstable-Nantucket route. He called this proposal "well within an area we operate in" and he referred to the displacement of boating traffic by Cape Wind saying, "That is a dangerous recipe."
William H. Rypka retired lieutenant commander in the U.S. Coast Guard:
"Accidents can and will happen, and the wind plant would increase both their frequency and the potential for loss of life and oil spills. There is an active commercial fishery in the Sound along with the many fishing boats, ferries and pleasure craft that transit the area. The 130 steel and concrete structures would be located adjacent to the main shipping channel and would be huge hazards to navigation; they could not possibly be viewed as navigation aids."
Mass Fishermen's Partnership (MFP) press release fall 2006:
"Cape Wind puts fishermen at risk" -- MFP is a Coalition of 18 Massachusetts commercial fishing organizations that call on Cape Wind to "stop making false claims" about their offshore wind project's impact on fishing. "Navigation of mobile fishing gear between the 130 wind towers would be hazardous or impossible"
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Environmental Attorney:
"Nantucket Sound is among the most densely traveled boating corridors in the Atlantic. The turbines would be perilously close to the main navigation channels for cargo ships, ferries and fishing boats. The risk of collisions with the towers would increase during the fogs and storms for which the area is famous. That is why the Steamship Authority and Hy-Line Cruises, which transport millions of passengers to and from the cape and islands every year, oppose the project."
David F. Scudder, Vice President of Hy-Line Cruises in his letter to Senate and House Conferees of February 26, 2006:
"On the basis of public safety concerns, we have consistently and adamantly been against the wind farm project in the Sound since its inception. Navigating Nantucket Sound in all kinds of weather and traffic conditions is challenging enough without the introduction of these structures to complicate and restrict our routes."
-----------------------
Supplemental Information on avian mortalities:
The President of Mass Audubon, Laura A. Johnson, submitted Mass Audubon's comments on the Cape Wind DEIS on February 23, 2005; to Ms. Karen Kirk Adams, the Cape Wind Energy Project Manager U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England District
Reference File No. NAE-2004-338-1
EOEA No. 12643http://www.massaudubon.org/PDF/CapeWindDEIS.pdf
"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."
Mass Audubon is not the "regulatory agency" in the Cape Wind permitting process, this responsibility falls to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The Endangered Species Act requires the Minerals Management Service, the permit granting authority for alternative use of the Outer Continental Shelf, to go through a formal process (called Section 7 consultation) with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that will analyze in detail the impact of the Cape Wind project on federally listed species like the Roseate Tern, the Piping Plover and the Bald Eagle.
USFWS and NE Regional Director, Michael Bartlett's scoping comments on the Cape Wind project to Marine Minerals Management Service agency of the Department of the Interior of July 11, 2006:
"Had the applicant conducted the three year radar study to identify the spatial and temporal use of the airspace by avian species and the other supporting studies recommended in Service scoping comments, the information needs for those resources would be largely satisfied. However, they have not, and it will now take three additional years to collect the necessary baseline information identified in our previous scoping comments and in our comments on the Corps DEIS. Accordingly, we recommended that MMS devise a schedule for the NEPA process based on the time it will take the applicant to collect the data necessary to address scoping comments dating back to 2002 and data deficiencies identified in comments on the Corps DEIS in 2005."
https://ocsconnect.mms.gov/pcs-public/do/CommentDownloadPDF?objectId=09011f80800d5264
=======================
May 19, 2007
Subject: H.R. 2337 Title II; Subtitle D
To the Honorable Nick J. Rahall II, Chairman, House Resources:
I strongly support HR 2337 Title II Subtitle D. Wind towers kill birds in unacceptable numbers, especially when they are sited in migratory flyways; location, location, location as the saying goes. I have just received an American Wind Energy Association Legislative Action Alert by email that asks that I tell Congress to oppose the Anti-Wind Energy Section of H.R. 2337. I think that H.R. 2337 is a call for responsible stewardship of the Public Trust that should be heeded.
I am actively involved as a private citizen in the Cape Wind issue where a private developer has proposed an industrial wind facility at the location of His choice, Nantucket Sound. I am a non-resident of the Cape and Islands.
We cannot afford to ignore wind industry experience or relevant laws such as the Endangered Species Act and other species protections. You have astutely drawn attention to our past failure to observe applicable laws and to enforce the same.
It's deplorable that we would also ignore the DOI/USFWS wind tower siting guidelines, and allow a developer to site an industrial scale wind facility in a migratory flyway as in the case of Cape Wind . We have developer directed development ongoing as we have not done our job by zoning first. We need to create exclusion zones that apply to alternative energy, or alternate use projects being proposed for the Outer Continental Shelf.
While I object to Cape Wind proposed for Nantucket Sound as a tourist who appreciates the current scenic value, I also recognize that Cape Wind would create a public safety hazard, kill birds in unacceptable numbers, some endangered, and destroy the fishing industry according to actual fishermen working in this Essential Fish Habitat. Cape Wind promises to give wind energy generation in the U.S. a black eye.
"The Altamont is seen as a black eye in the industry nationwide and worldwide" due to the bird deaths, said Julia Levin, California policy director for the National Audubon Society.
I am grateful to you for pointing out that a Government Accountability Office study in 2005 criticized FWS oversight of the wind industry and concluded that more research on the effect of the wind energy on wildlife populations was needed.
I know that you, as the Natural Resources Committee Chairman, have stated that " ... wind projects are on a regular basis in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Endangered Species Act, yet no enforcement action is being taken."
These laws are not optional for us to observe, while we don't enforce them when birds are being killed by the thousands by wind towers.
FWS Dale Hall said, according to CongressNow staffer:
"... because of jurisdictional limits, it is hard for the FWS to investigate violations of endangered species laws. The agency may only investigate a corporation after the fact and cannot determine whether to prosecute an offender, he said. It can only to refer the case to the U.S. District Attorney."
"I believe if you go through all this effort to try and come up with guidelines, they should be more ecological," Hall said. "However, I don't know exactly what kind of legal authority you would have to make those guidelines."
What will it take to empower federal FWS to uphold federal law, I wonder?
I am also interested in providing you with a sobering overview of the public safety threats posed by Cape Wind. There are on average 400,000 flights traveling in this airspace, annually. The following is just one quote among a considerable list of others available upon your request that pertain to Cape Wind said to pose a public safety hazard. The three local airport have formally objected to this project. Barnstable airport officials call Cape Wind "lethal" as proposed for Nantucket Sound."
National Air Traffic Controllers' Cape TRACON to the USACE:
"The evidence of endangerment to all who travel by air sea over and upon Nantucket Sound is compelling."
The present focus is to gather support for HR 2337. Please let me know if there is anything that I do as a private citizen to support your efforts.
I hope that my research is helpful to you as I think it supports the premise of HR 2337. Thank you for responding to a clear need for our responsible stewardship and the enforcement of laws that protect species, especially those endangered and present in Nantucket Sound.
Wind energy interests will be well served if we help them to avoid another Altamont, CA.
I will substantiate or clarify to the best of my ability any of this information.
=======================
A brief synopsis of wind tower siting and avian life:
Strong Case Against Cape Wind
January 10, 2006, by Barbara Durkin, Northboro, in The Providence Journal
I would like to offer my response to Edward Achorn's Jan. 3 Commentary column, "Curb your environmentalism": Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is an environmental lawyer who recognizes, appropriately, that not all locations are suitable for an industrial-scale wind facility.
The Nantucket Sound region is a fragile marine environment on the active list under consideration for sanctuary status by the federal government. Nantucket Sound exists in the North Atlantic Flyway. It is a habitat to endangered species protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
The Department of the Interior, the lead permitting agency, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued guidelines for siting wind towers in 2003:
-- 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.
Avoid siting wind towers in Nantucket Sound, in other words.
=======================
A more detailed synopsis on wind tower siting and avian issues:
Altamont, CA, is a flyway with endangered species present. Wind towers are killing thousands of birds where they are sited in areas of high bird concentration. Wind tower "shut downs" occur when poorly sited wind towers kill unacceptable numbers of birds. Altamont is a migratory flyway as Nantucket Sound is a migratory flyway.
The House Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans
Testimony of Donald Michael Fry, PhD Director, Pesticides and Birds Program, American Bird Conservancy
May 1, 2007
Room 1324 Longworth House Office Building.
http://www.abcbirds.org/policy_wind_testimony.htmDr. Fry's testimony:
"Identification of important bird areas."
"These areas should be off-limits to wind development unless adequate preventative measures can be discovered to minimize incidental take of protected bird species."
It is important and relevant to Cape Wind to note: "... the American Bird Conservancy has designated Cape Cod and the nearby islands as an Important Bird Area"
"Killer Wind" by Joe Eaton:
http://www.earthisland.org/eijournal/new_articles.cfm?articleID=940&journalID=82Altamont CA wind tower siting workshop:
http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_workshops.php=======================
The experts:
"Altamont is seen as a black eye in the industry nationwide and worldwide" due to the bird deaths, said Julia Levin, California policy director for the National Audubon Society.
To: Chris M. Bazar
Community Development Director
Alameda County, CA (full copy below):"Increasingly, the operators of wind farms are recognizing that siting is a critically important factor in the construction of new facilities, with some sites causing less environmental damage than others. The local, national and international concerns about the operations at Altamont attest to the reality that Altamont is not an appropriate site for wind farms."
"We agree with those spokespeople of the industry who point out that many more birds are killed by collisions with windows, wires and towering structures including skyscrapers. Domestic and feral cats take an unacceptable number of birds and other wildlife. But golden eagles, red-tailed hawks, burrowing owls, and other species of particular concern are killed in disproportionate numbers at Altamont."
"Citizens of Alameda County place an increasing value on wildlife. This value must now be a component of longer-term planning. Wind farms will provide energy but will kill birds and bats; they must therefore be located, at least in the future, in areas where damage is minimal."
Peter H. Bloom
W. Grainger Hunt
Hans J. Peeters
Robert W. Risebrough
Brian J. Walton"Our combined credentials include more than 175 years as practicing scientists in fields related to wildlife conservation with a particular focus on raptorial birds."
Henning Grastrup, the offshore pioneer and key figure in the Danish government's first programme for wind energy research, retired after 31 years with Danish utility Elsam:
"What lessons have we learned in planning the Horns Rev project, Henning?"
"I think the most important lesson is that if there are concerns about bird restrictions from the European Commission, for instance, they should be taken seriously because they will not go away. I have seen some international projects failing to make progress because the warnings were not taken seriously."
=======================
A letter from Michael Boyd, President of Californian's for Renewable Energy (unpublished):
Editor, USA Today:
"Cape Wind is about the blood of eagles not politics as usual with Senator Edward M. Kennedy and Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly as the USA Today's recent coverage seems to suggest. Siting wind turbines in a major bird fly way chops large hawks and eagles up like large birdy blenders. I know about this because my organization is suing the County of Alameda California over its approval of Conditional Use Permits for thousands wind turbines located in the Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area that are killing thousands of these birds every year. My organization Californians for Renewable Energy, Inc. (CARE) is taking on the wind industry because the blood of eagles gives wind energy a black eye. Wind energy is all about location. Don't forget Enron got started in the wind industry."
Mike Boyd, President, CARE -- Californians for Renewable Energy
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/programs/bdes/altamont/altamont.html
=======================
California A.G. Bill Locklear has responded regarding the legal implications of the deaths of thousands of birds in a flyway with endangered species present at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area APWRA. This project is the harbinger, in my view, of what we can expect if Cape Wind is constructed as each site is a migratory flyway.
Bill Lockyer, A.G. of CA to the Almeda County Board of Supervisors in his letter of July 6, 2005, available upon your request:
"The ongoing harm to protected bird species at the APWRA is serious and unacceptable."
"Because the APWRA is the largest of its kind in the world, what happens here could set an important precedent for how these issues are addressed elsewhere in California and the United States ."
=======================
"Selling the wind" by National Audubon (excerpts below):
Audubon: 11/06 LTE-TWISTING IN THE WIND
You are severely missing the main point of fluid dynamic and wind power ("Selling the Wind", September-October 2006). Wind turbines not only kill birds, they extract less than a fourth of the energy that passes through them. We knew how to do this thing right when we built the NASA Ames low-speed wind tunnel. At that time we also knew how to do propulsion and dams properly. Had we done so we would not have an energy crunch today. This is not a minor consideration. If you want those who follow us to have a life instead of going the way of the dodo, we need to pay attention to reality instead of the few tax-supported bucks that farmers get from wind turbines. I implore you to do your homework on this issue before you publish on it.
Hugh Coleman
Kelso, WA-----------------------
From "Selling the Wind", National Audubon, on wind tower siting:
"The fear is that with all the new wind farms rolling out, there is a new Altamont being created today," says Greg Butcher, National Audubon's director of bird conservation. "But because we don't have the data, we just don't know about it.
(I agree, Mr. Chairman, Cape Wind would be the next Altamont.)
"The exact reasons for the improvement are a matter of debate, but collisions seem far fewer when wind farms keep out of major flyways and give a wide berth to rich prey sites like Altamont and attractive bird habitats such as wetlands. Some researchers speculate that modern technology also helps reduce the risks, since newer turbines allow the same amount of electricity to be generated with far fewer turbines.
"The National Wind Coordinating Committee Wildlife Workgroup, a collaborative of scientists, conservationists, and wind-industry representatives that formed in 1994, has worked to standardize and summarize the disparate existing research on wind and wildlife and to find ways to satisfy the demands of both business and science.
"Audubon and industry representatives have since met with state officials, agreeing to develop a set of wind-power siting guidelines, to secure additional funding for the state's cash-strapped wildlife agency to conduct research, and to move forward on a five-year, $25 million study of birds and bats at prime wind resource areas.
"Participants hope this proactive approach will help wind developers identify and avoid sensitive areas from the start; this would not only reduce ecological impacts but could also head off late-stage lawsuits and bad publicity. "If we can do an overarching baseline study of bird migration and habitat use in the state, it could have a huge impact," says Glenn Olson, director of Audubon California. "It would provide the biological information we need, and wind companies need, to do projects right."
=======================
By Chris Metinko, Inside Bay Area 4/24/07
"According to a study released in 2004 by the California Energy Commission, an estimated 1,700 to 4,700 birds die each year by flying into whirling turbine blades or being electrocuted by transmission lines that thread through the 50,000-acre Altamont Wind Resource Area."
The fatalities: "116 golden eagles, 300 red-tailed hawks, 333 American kestrels and 380 burrowing owls, the study found."
"A lawsuit filed against the county in October by the Golden Gate Audubon Society, Californians for Renewable Energy and four other local Audubon chapters challenged the county's decision o renew permits for Altamont Pass wind turbines. A subsequent settlement forces the wind industry to commit to a 50 percent reduction in raptor deaths by November 2009, and remove the deadliest turbines and continuing winter shutdowns of the wind machines.
"That settlement assumes there are 1,300 golden eagles, red-tailed hawks, American kestrels and burrowing owl deaths in that Livermore area each year."
=======================
Wind Tower Siting Guidelines,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
October 16, 2002"Although land use plans combined with appropriate levels of environmental analysis will be used to assess individual wind energy project proposals, the BLM's overall wind energy policy is to minimize negative impacts to the natural, cultural, and visual resources on the public lands. Negative impacts can be minimized by avoiding special management areas with land use restrictions, avoiding major avian (bird) migration routes and areas of critical habitat for species of concern, establishing siting criteria to minimize soil disturbance and erosion on steep slopes, utilizing visual resource management guidelines to assist in proper siting of facilities, avoiding significant historic and cultural resource sites, and mitigating conflicts with other uses of the public lands."
=======================
The Department of the Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, lead federal regulatory reviewing agencies for Cape Wind, issued guidelines for siting wind towers in 2003:
"-- 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."
=======================
The Sierra Club:
"opposes development in protected areas such as national and state parks, national monuments, wilderness areas, wildlife refuges, designated roadless areas, critical habitat and designated habitat recovery areas for wildlife, and areas of cultural significance, sacred lands, and other areas that have special scenic, natural or environmental value. In these areas, it is inappropriate to build wind turbines, roads, transmission lines, or any other structure related to wind development.
"NOT APPROPRIATE SITES -- The Sierra Club will usually oppose wind development in areas that are Not Appropriate (all the categories below include prior-designated or prior-proposed areas):
"National parks, Marine preserves or parks, State parks, National monuments, Wilderness areas, Wildlife refuges, Federally-designated roadless areas, Critical habitat for Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species or habitat for indigenous species critical to a region or state's biodiversity"
=======================
American Bird Conservancy:
Donald Michael Fry, PhD Director, Pesticides and Birds Program, American Bird Conservancy, May 1, 2007
"Identification of important bird areas. These areas should be off-limits to wind development unless adequate preventative measures can be discovered to minimize incidental take of protected bird species.
"Sites requiring special scrutiny include sites that are frequented by federally listed endangered species of birds and bats, in known bird migration pathways, areas where birds are highly concentrated, and areas that have landscape features known to attract large numbers of raptors."
=======================
Greenpeace:
"Greenpeace opposes building wind farms on sensitive bird habitat."
=======================
Mass Audubon:
http://www.massaudubon.org/news/index.php?id=92&type==news
"Unless it can be shown that the construction and operation of wind turbines would not significantly lower the habitat value or pose undue mortality risks for wildlife at a proposed site, we recommend, that wind energy facilities avoid ... [among other locations] sites documented as important habitat for state and federally listed endangered species ..."
Note: Michael Boyd informs me that the fine established by CA Courts for the death by a wind tower of one Golden Eagle is $500,000.
=======================
Jon Boone of MD, an environmentalist, states, and I would like to locate this ruling:
"And, as is the outrageous case at Altamont, who is really going to dismantle an installation like Cape Wind if it is built and if good studies actually show extensive wildlife mortality and habitat degradation? The courts are likely to rule that the regulators who allowed the project to be built may not have adequately protected the wildlife, and that the wind developers themselves are not responsible. This is, in fact, what a judge in California has just ruled in the Altamont case."
=======================
The siting conflict, avian issues and Cape Wind:
Mass Audubon comment to the USACE on the DEIS Cape Wind :
"This area of Nantucket Sound is within the eastern U.S. migratory bird flyway and hosts high concentrations of wintering waterfowl, and is in close proximity to nesting, foraging and staging areas for federally endangered roseate terns and threatened piping plovers. Substantial numbers of federally endangered sea turtles and protected marine mammal species frequent the proposed project site. In addition, the proposed site provides habitat for federally regulated finfish and shellfish populations."
http://www.massaudubon.org/PDF/CapeWindDEIS.pdf
Mass Audubon does Not reference Bald Eagles present in Nantucket Sound in their testimony to USACE, or to the Department of the Interior Minerals Management Service. This reference to Bald Eagles is on their website. The Bald Eagle is an endangered species in Massachusetts . There is no incidental take permit allowed for this endangered species, my understanding:
Bald Eagle:
"In New England, however, the states of Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Connecticut still list the species as Endangered due to the low numbers of breeding pairs in their respective states (MA Division of Fisheries and Wildlife 2000) ...
"The Bald Eagle is presently protected by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940, Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and the Lacey Act. It is listed as a "threatened" species in the lower 48 states. Although Bald Eagles have made an encouraging comeback throughout the U.S.A. since the early 60s, they continue to be harassed, injured and killed by guns, traps, power lines, windmills, poisons, contaminants and destruction of habitat. Public awareness about their plight, strict enforcement of protective laws, preservation of their habitat, and support for environmental conservation programs can assure a healthy and secure future for the U.S.A.'s majestic and symbolic national bird."
http://www.eagles.org/moreabout.html
Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program of the Commonwealth of MA Division of Fisheries & Wildlife:
The Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bird, sea eagle, white head) or the Massachusetts Endangered Bald Eagle range:
"In Massachusetts, Bald Eagles utilize the Quabbin Reservior, part of the Connecticut River, and the "Assawompsett Pond system throughout the year as both nesting and wintering habitat. Bald Eagles also overwinter along the Merrimack River and along the coast of Cape Cod, Buzzard's Bay and the islands of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket. Historically, the Bald Eagle bred throughout most of North America . Today, it is recolonizing much of its historic range where suitable habitat still exists."
Mass Audubon's website featuring Bald Eagle presence in NS:
"During our two crossings of Nantucket Sound, we have a good chance of seeing ... the largest concentration of overwintering bald eagles in New England. ...
www.massaudubon.org/NH_Travel/template_new.php?id=North%20America
Mass Audubon's testimony on Cape Wind to the USACE:
The President of Mass Audubon, Laura A. Johnson, submitted Mass Audubon's comments on the Cape Wind DEIS on February 23, 2005; to Ms. Karen Kirk Adams, the Cape Wind Energy Project Manager U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England District -- Reference File No. NAE-2004-338-1, EOEA No. 12643
"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
When a permit reviewing agency stands to financially benefit by the outcome of permit review process, bias is a component of the critical environmental review of a project. By all appearances, Mass Audubon is marketing, successfully, Cape Wind -that would kill up to 6,600 birds per year by Mass Audubon's own staff scientists' testimony to the USACE.
Cape Wind, according to the federal regulatory reviewing agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, has not produced the "baseline" information that NE FWS has been seeking regarding bird life in Nantucket Sound since 2002.
USFWS and NE Regional Director Michael Bartlett's scoping comments on the Cape Wind project to Minerals Management Service agency of the Department of the Interior of July 11, 2006:
"Had the applicant conducted the three year radar study to identify the spatial and temporal use of the airspace by avian species and the other supporting studies recommended in Service scoping comments, the information needs for those resources would be largely satisfied. However, they have not, and it will now take three additional years to collect the necessary baseline information identified in our previous scoping comments and in our comments on the Corps DEIS. Accordingly, we recommended that MMS devise a schedule for the NEPA process based on the time it will take the applicant to collect the data necessary to address scoping comments dating back to 2002 and data deficiencies identified in comments on the Corps DEIS in 2005."
https:/ocsconnect.mms.gov/pcs-public/do/CommentDownloadPDF?objectId=09011f80800d5264
USFWS:
Mass Audubon is not the "regulatory agency" in the Cape Wind permitting process, this responsibility falls to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The Endangered Species Act requires the Minerals Management Service, the permit granting authority for alternative use of the Outer Continental Shelf, to go through a formal process (called Section 7 consultation) with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that will analyze in detail the impact of the Cape Wind project on federally listed species like the Roseate Tern, the Piping Plover and the Bald Eagle.
Summary:
Cape Wind's siting in Nantucket Sound would be in conflict with industry wisdom; the federal regulators' siting recommendations; and the siting recommendations of environmental organizations that endorse Cape Wind ; as well as in conflict with relevant species protection laws. These laws, the ESA, etc., have not been enforced by the federal government charged with enforcing species protection laws and preserving the Public Trust.
=======================
The Cape Wind FEIR states:
"The best available data suggests that fatal bird collision resulting from the operation of the Cape Wind Project will be in the range of 0 to 2 birds per turbine per year or a maximum of 260 bird fatalities annually."
While Mass Audubon's comments on the Cape Wind DEIS conflict:
"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."
What happened to 6,340 previously declared annual avian mortalities? This glaring inconsistency is passed over in the Cape Wind FEIR that was accepted by state Secretary Ian Bowles.
There is staggering profit by way of contracts payable to avian specialists in an industry born from wind towers that kill birds. This fledgling industry is referred to as "Adaptive Management," and/or "long term environmental monitoring." It is a service industry that represents $2 to $3 million first year startup for a wind project; based on the value of Altamont , California wind tower monitoring contracts. These contracts represent $1 million per year paid to the monitor during construction phase; and impose terms as Mass Audubon has in their "Challenge" press release: "We also propose adoption of an Adaptive Management Plan that includes a rigorous monitoring program beginning at the construction phase and continuing for at least three years post-construction."
Mass Audubon appears to have a multimillion dollar financial interest in the outcome of the Cape Wind permit application process as a self appointed permit reviewing agency. If Cape Wind is constructed, they are in effect positioned to profit by counting bird carcasses, "monitoring," while attempting to "solve" this problem; the industry term for this is "mitigation."
How does one mitigate the missing carcasses when the protocol and technology to perform this kind of monitoring is in development phase, according to Michael Boyd, who is working with a group of scientists on this currently?
MMS acknowledges in their PEIS that cumulative adverse impacts increase when alternative energy facilities are sited where more activities are ongoing in a single region. Adverse impacts such as construction & operational noise, marine vessel strikes, adverse impacts to fish, marine mammals, coastal birds/migrating birds, visual resources, and archeological resources increase exponentially in areas that compare to Nantucket Sound:
"The potential for cumulative adverse impacts to these resources would require particular attention when planning and siting new alternative energy facilities."
As to the industry claim that improved wind tower design standards have proven effective in helping to reduce bird kill, this is not a claim supported by the Florida Power and Light spokesperson:
FPL Energy, Altamont's biggest operator with 2,000 turbines:
"Certainly the turbine owners hope fewer, taller turbines reduce collisions," says FPL spokesman Steve Stengel. "But there has not been research done to verify that."
The Sierra Club is apparently prepared to ignore their own wind tower siting guidelines when it comes to Cape Wind. Mr. Pope of the Sierra Club recently told Cape Cod Today, "This is a good project, and as long as it is built within the guidelines being developed by the ongoing process, we will support it."
The Sierra Club usually opposes wind projects that are proposed for areas that are "Not Appropriate": "Critical habitat for Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species or habitat for indigenous species critical to a region or state's biodiversity."
There are many documented endangered species in Nantucket Sound that are critical to the region's biodiversity. Federally endangered roseate terns, threatened piping plovers, federally endangered sea turtles, protected marine mammal species, federally regulated finfish and shellfish are present in Nantucket Sound. According to Mass Audubon's website, New England's largest population of overwintering Bald Eagles is present in Nantucket Sound.
Mr. Pope of the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, ABC, Mass Audubon, and others appear to be willing to ignore their own wind tower siting guidelines that each has developed or ascribed to in response to unacceptable bird kill by wind towers by their support of Cape Wind.
Mass Audubon has publicly recanted their testimony to the USACE on bird kill by Cape Wind:
SouthCoastToday: 8/03/06 LTE -- "Letter writer gets bird facts wrong" by Taber Allison of Mass Audubon:
"Barbara Durkin repeatedly misquotes our public comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Study for the proposed Cape Wind project in Nantucket Sound as she does most recently in her July 26 Letter to the Editor. Mass Audubon scientists have never concluded that up to 6,600 birds, or any number of birds, would be killed if this project is permitted ..."
Mass Audubon's testimony to the USACE is public record:
"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."
=======================
The Adaptive Management Plan:
Upper Cape Codder: 4/20/06
Allison & Clarke: "Challenge to Cape Wind: Get it right"
By Taber Allison and Jack Clarke"Mass. Audubon challenges the developer of Cape Wind and its permitting agencies to accept comprehensive and rigorous monitoring and mitigation conditions that will reduce the risk to birds and other wildlife. If these conditions are adopted, and remaining significant data gaps are addressed, Mass. Audubon will support Cape Wind, the largest, clean, renewable-energy project in the Northeast.
"Mass Audubon: "We also propose adoption of an Adaptive Management Plan that includes a rigorous monitoring program beginning at the construction phase and continuing for at least three years post-construction, mitigation measures in the event that the project results in significant adverse environmental impacts, compensation for the use of public lands and waters and enforceable procedures for decommissioning any abandoned turbines.
"An independent panel should be responsible for collecting and analyzing data collected during monitoring and preparing reports for peer review and dissemination to relevant agencies, Cape Wind and the public.
"Finally, an independently administered mitigation fund should be established for conservation of bird habitat around Nantucket Sound. Monitoring and mitigation should be funded by Cape Wind with contributions from independent institutions and government agencies as appropriate ..."
=======================
Mass Audubon's influence is wide reaching:
"Following a preliminary assessment by the Mass Audubon Society, the Sierra Club cautiously concluded that the project does not pose a significant threat to birds, marine animals and marine habitat." (Press Release, contact: James McCaffrey, Massachusetts Director Sierra Club, May 19, 2006)
Cape Cod Times: 5/19/06 -- "Sierra Club decides to back Cape Cod wind farm project"
By KEVIN DENNEHY: Sierra Club leaders were also encouraged by recent findings of the Massachusetts Audubon Society that the turbines would not likely threaten birds, said James McCaffrey, director of the 28,000-member Massachusetts Sierra Club ..."Letter from Chris Miller of Greenpeace: "The Massachusetts Audubon Society gave its preliminary blessing yesterday to a large-scale wind power project ..."
www.climatecrisiscoalition.org/
=======================
The experts:
Chris M. Bazar
Community Development Director
Alameda CountyDear Mr. Bazar,
Four of the undersigned are the authors of a letter that was delivered to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors at their meeting of November 4, 2004. It addressed scientific and legal issues deriving from the deaths of wildlife species caused by the operation of wind farms in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA). In this letter we are joined by Brian James Walton, Coordinator of the Santa Cruz Predatory Bird Research Group. Our combined credentials include more than 175 years as practicing scientists in fields related to wildlife conservation with a particular focus on raptorial birds. We have no financial interests in the decisions related to Altamont that must be made by the Board of Supervisors.
Increasingly, the operators of wind farms are recognizing that siting is a critically important factor in the construction of new facilities, with some sites causing less environmental damage than others. The local, national and international concerns about the operations at Altamont attest to the reality that Altamont is not an appropriate site for wind farms.
Nevertheless the windmills are there, and decisions must be made about how -- and perhaps also how long -- they will continue to operate. It is our hope and intention that our conclusions, reached after considerable deliberation, will be useful to you and your colleagues in making these decisions.
We are skeptical about the claims that a 50% reduction in the level of fatalities can be achieved through the recently-recommended on-site mitigation efforts within a few years, but we agree that the companies must make a commitment to significantly reduce the fatalities and that a goal of a 50% reduction over the next five years is appropriate. Specifically, the counts of dead birds during the fifth year of monitoring should be no more than 50% of the total recorded during the first (baseline) year. Moreover we suggest that commitment to such a goal be a condition for receiving a permit to continue operations. Contrary to the recommendations you have received from others, we believe that ground squirrel removal from the APWRA would reduce the number of golden eagle fatalities.
All parties appear to agree that a monitoring program is necessary to record the numbers of birds being killed. It is our obligation, in this letter, to convince everyone that it will be a very difficult task to obtain accurate counts that are acceptable to all parties and that will withstand intensive scientific scrutiny. The monitoring program must be carefully designed. For credibility it must be carried out by an independent group, under the supervision of a governing body. In the past the majority of the operators and landowners have been helpful to our research programs. Access to all areas of the APWRA, however, must be freely granted. Without such conditions it will not be possible to create a data base of actual, unbiased, counts. How should such a program be funded? Clearly, by the wind companies in proportion to their respective productivities, as a component of the permit fees. Periodic reports to the public from the monitoring program should be expected.
The wind may be free but the full and fair price for this form of 'green' energy must be paid. Again, there appears to be a general acceptance of some kind of off-site mitigation to compensate for the wildlife losses that can not be averted through the sum of the on-site mitigation efforts. Again, how should such a program be funded? Companies that kill no birds should hardly be expected to contribute. One-time purchases of land for off-site mitigation as a condition for the granting of permits for operation would provide no further incentives to reduce fatalities and not mitigate for birds killed by wind farms in the future. Only a payment per bird or per bat would be fair, with higher values given to those species such as golden eagles that receive extra protection under the law. We are not proposing token fines, but rather the substantial amounts already specified by law. These monies would be used to secure long-term conservation easements for wildlife killed at Altamont Pass. Conservation easements would surely be, in general, more cost-effective than land purchases.
We agree with those spokespeople of the industry who point out that many more birds are killed by collisions with windows, wires and towering structures including skyscrapers. Domestic and feral cats take an unacceptable number of birds and other wildlife. But golden eagles, red-tailed hawks, burrowing owls, and other species of particular concern are killed in disproportionate numbers at Altamont .
Although our proposals might be received by the industry as 'tough', we believe that they are fair. Citizens of Alameda County place an increasing value on wildlife. This value must now be a component of longer-term planning. Wind farms will provide energy but will kill birds and bats; they must therefore be located, at least in the future, in areas where damage is minimal.
How the wind companies might achieve an on-site mitigation goal of a 50% reduction in fatalities over the next five years, should, we strongly believe, be their decision; a wide range of potentially viable options has been provided in reports to the California Energy Commission. However, with all due respect to you, other County Planners, Supervisors, lawyers and well-meaning bird-watchers, we suggest that you, and they, be cautious in predicting the effects of on-site mitigation efforts. As practicing scientists we know very well how easy it is to be wrong when so many variables must be considered.
Respectfully submitted,
Peter H. Bloom
W. Grainger Hunt
Hans J. Peeters
Robert W. Risebrough
Brian J. Waltoncc: Board of Supervisors of Alameda County
Golden Gate Audubon
Los Angeles Audubon
Audubon CaliforniaBrief summaries of our respective biographies follow:
Pete Bloom has studied birds of prey in California for more than 35 years and has produced numerous peer-reviewed articles and reports on subjects ranging from flammulated owls to California condors. He and his colleagues have banded more than 35,000 birds of prey, most of them nestlings, as part of natal dispersal and other long-term ecological studies. He spent 5 years on the California condor program and was the principal investigator on two DF&G funded state wide raptor (Swainson's hawk and northern goshawk) status studies. Mr. Bloom has spent 1.5 years working in the Altamont Pass and portions of 8 years in India assisting with raptor conservation projects. The Western Section of the Wildlife Society has recently presented to him the Raymond R. Dasmann Award for Professional of the Year, which recognizes any Western Section member "who develops, applies, administers, or completes an especially significant program of management, education, research, or communications that results in an outstanding contribution to wildlife resources in the Western Section geographic area". He is presently summarizing some of these results in a Ph.D. program at the University of Idaho.
Grainger Hunt is a specialist on birds of prey, with an emphasis on population and foraging ecology. He was principal investigator on a study of golden eagle ecology in the Diablo Mountains in California during 1994-2001. He conducted three long-term, comprehensive studies of wintering and breeding bald eagles in Washington, California, and Arizona, spanning 13 years. A commercial pilot, he tracked peregrine falcons and bald eagles on long-distance migrations and conducted aerial surveys of habitat selection. He was a member of the Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team for the western states and the California Bald Eagle and Peregrine Falcon Working teams. He has nearly 40 years of field experience with raptors, numerous publications, and an academic background in ecology. Dr. Hunt received his Ph.D. in Zoology from the University of Texas in 1970.
Hans Peeters is Professor Emeritus of Biology at Chabot College, Hayward, CA, and has studied Golden Eagles and other raptors for over 20 years in southern Alameda County, at times in conjunction with the Predatory Bird Research Group, University of California, Santa Cruz. He served on the Technical Advisory Committee regarding Golden Eagle mortality in the Altamont for Alameda County in the late 1980s. He is the co-author of Mammals of California (U.C. Press, 2004) and, with Pamela Peeters the author of Raptors of California (U.C. Press, 2005).
Robert Risebrough was until retirement a Research Ecologist at the University of California. He is the Executive Director of the Bodega Bay Institute, a non-profit corporation devoted to environmental research and education. He is the author of numerous peer-reviewed scientific publications on the effects of contaminants on raptors, has served on the California Bald Eagle Working Team, and is currently a member of the California Condor Recovery Team. He is an advisor to the Division of International Conservation of the US Fish and Wildlife Service and in that capacity has made several trips to India to participate in studies of the effects of contaminants on raptors and of the disappearance of vulture populations. He received his Ph.D. in Molecular Biology from Harvard University in 1962.
Brian James Walton has been the Coordinator of the Santa Cruz Predatory Bird Research Group since 1978. In that role, he has designed and conducted research for management and monitoring of threatened and endangered raptors, with a particular emphasis on falcons and eagles. He has authored over 100 articles and studies primarily related to the study of raptors and has made numerous presentations on the status of raptors in California. The mortalities of birds of prey on the Altamont wind farms have been a principal concern.
=======================
Thank you for your consideration of this information. Nantucket Sound should be considered unsuitable for Cape Wind's industrial scale wind facility. It is suited for the National Trust Heritage Tourism Program. The industries of tourism, commercial and recreational fishing continue to peacefully co-exist here. Cape Wind would would deliver much more adverse impact than most could comprehend simply because Cape Wind has selected the wrong site, Nantucket Sound.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your introduction of H.R. 2337. In the words of Mahatma Gandhi, "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."
Respectfully,
Barbara Durkin
=======================
Bias is a problem that must be acknowledged regarding the wind industry. A "Complaint in Regards to Wind Industry Bias" -- Ref: Environmental Impacts of Wind Energy Projects Pin BEST-K-05-01-A -- made to the NAS by Michael Boyd should be answered.
Michael Boyd is the President of Californians for Renewable Energy. Michael, along with Golden Gate Audubon, the Center for Biological Diversity, and 4 other Audubon chapters, has taken the issue of unacceptable numbers of birds being killed by wind turbines, including Golden Eagles, and other species under federal protections, to California courts. The AG of California, Bill Locklear's statement is provided in this correspondence.
2nd complaint to NAS :
From: Michael Boyd
Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006
Subject: Re: E-mail Submitted from PARO Web form -- Complaint in Regards to Wind Industry Bias; Ref: Environmental Impacts of Wind Energy Projects PIN BEST-K-05-01-ADear David Policansky,
I wish to file an additional complaint to object to your failure to notify me of the response to my August 14, 2006 complaint with your agency as regards to the bias of one of the members of your Committee on Environmental Impacts of Wind Energy Projects, a Mr. Dale Strickland, of the resource consultant firm Western EcoSystems Technologies or WEST. I recently noticed that you had posted a "Disclosure of Conflict of Interest" for Dale Strickland at your website at:
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/CommitteeView.aspx?key=174
I respectfully object to your violation of your organization's Committee Appointment Process and Section 15 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. How can it be claimed that "selection of appropriate committee members, individually and collectively, is essential for the success of a study" and that "all committee members serve as individual experts, not as representatives of organizations or interest groups" when Dale Strickland has such a clear conflict of interest under your own policies?
"Even though we have concluded that he has a conflict of interest because he is a principal of WEST, Inc, a consulting firm that performs pre- and post-installation studies of the effects of wind-energy installations on birds and other wildlife species and provides scientific information and review in support of permit applications for current clients whose financial interests could be affected by regulations concerning the siting of wind-energy installations"
I am concerned because the wind industry recently decided to mount an attack on the scientists who have provided peer reviewed research on the wind industry's continuing slaughter of thousands of birds in the Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area (APWRA) in northern California that this industry does not support. (See attached letter from CA AG's Office.) I am especially concerned that you are claiming that after "an extensive search, we have been unable to find another individual with the equivalent combination of current practical experience and expertise as Dr. Strickland who does not have a similar conflict of interest." Which begs the question who did you solicit for this Committee position you claim is so vital to the report? Did you include Dr. K. Shawn Smallwood for example? If you are truly concerned I would happy to provide you a list of other scientists who are qualified and do not have this conflict of interest?
Also I am curious to know who is on the peer review Committee for this Report, and does it also include members who represent the interests of the wind industry?
Respectfully in behalf of CARE I object to your failure to remove Dale Strickland from the Committee, and your recognition that he has a Conflict of Interest pursuant to Section 15 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires the "Academy shall make its best efforts to ensure that no individual appointed to serve on [a] committee has a conflict of interest that is relevant to the functions to be performed, unless such conflict is promptly and publicly disclosed and the Academy determines that the conflict is unavoidable."
Respectfully Submitted,
Michael E. Boyd -- President, CARE
-----------------------
Disclosure of Conflict of Interest: Dale Strickland
In accordance with Section 15 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the "Academy shall make its best efforts to ensure that no individual appointed to serve on [a] committee has a conflict of interest that is relevant to the functions to be performed, unless such conflict is promptly and publicly disclosed and the Academy determines that the conflict is unavoidable." A conflict of interest refers to an interest, ordinarily financial, of an individual that could be directly affected by the work of the committee. As specified in the Academy's policy and procedures (http://www.nationalacademies.org/coi/index.html), an objective determination is made for each provisionally appointed committee member whether or not a conflict of interest exists given the facts of the individual's financial and other interests and the task being undertaken by the committee. A determination of a conflict of interest for an individual is not an assessment of that individual's actual behavior or character or ability to act objectively despite the conflicting interest.
We have concluded that for this committee to accomplish the tasks for which it was established its membership must include among others, at least one person who is currently engaged in performing practical studies of the effects of wind-energy installations on birds, including both pre-implementation studies of proposed installations and post-implementation studies of operating installations.
To meet the need for this expertise and experience, Dr. Dale Strickland is proposed for appointment to the committee even though we have concluded that he has a conflict of interest because he is a principal of WEST, Inc, a consulting firm that performs pre- and post-installation studies of the effects of wind-energy installations on birds and other wildlife species and provides scientific information and review in support of permit applications for current clients whose financial interests could be affected by regulations concerning the siting of wind-energy installations.
As his biographical summary makes clear, Dr. Strickland is a nationally recognized expert on sampling, and pre- and post-installation studies of impacts of wind-energy installations on birds and other wildlife. He has extensive experience in performing practical studies and providing advice to both industry and governments regarding the effects of wind-energy installations on wildlife, including birds. He has provided peer-review services to federal and state agencies related to wind energy and wildlife. This familiarity with the practical aspects of environmental impacts of wind-energy installations is critical for the committee in meeting its task. We believe that Dr. Strickland can serve effectively as a member of the committee and that the committee can produce an objective report, taking into account the composition of the committee, the work to be performed, and the procedures to be followed in completing the work.
After an extensive search, we have been unable to find another individual with the equivalent combination of current practical experience and expertise as Dr. Strickland who does not have a similar conflict of interest. Therefore, we have concluded that this potential conflict is unavoidable.
=======================
From: Michael Boyd
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006
Subject: E-mail Submitted from PARO Web form -- Complaint in Regards to Wind Industry Bias; Ref:Environmental Impacts of Wind Energy Projects PIN BEST-K-05-01-ADear David Policansky,
I wish to file a formal complaint with your agency as regards to the bias of one of the members of your Committee on Environmental Impacts of Wind Energy Projects, a Mr. Dale Strickland, of the resource consultant firm Western EcoSystems Technologies or WEST. Dale Strickland and WEST clearly represent the interests of the Wind Power Industry his presence on this Committee taints any draft report by the Committee on Environmental Impacts of Wind Energy Projects with "conflict of interst".
See http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/meetingview.aspx?MeetingID=1462&MeetingNo=5
"WEST's clear and continuing financial conflicts of interest disqualify it from serving as a neutral scientific monitor of Altamont Pass bird kills," said Jeff Miller of the Center for Biological Diversity. "WEST has long sought to minimize the significance of the staggering numbers of raptors killed by Altamont wind turbines. The Supervisors must reject the Planning Department's nomination of WEST as the neutral scientific monitor, which would be a clear case of the fox guarding the henhouse."
See http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/PRESS/altamont-04-03-2006.html
I wish to file this Complaint in behalf of my organization CARE. My name is Michael Boyd and I am the president of the Board of Directors of Californians for Renewable Energy, Inc. (CARE) a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation.
My Complaint is based on the fact that by publishing your draft report in its current form containing Mr. Strickland's industry bias your organization is continuing the wind industry's policy in support of continuing slaughter of thousands of birds in the Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area (APWRA) in northern California. My organization CARE has filed a law suit in superior court over these wind farm operations against Alameda County and the wind farm owners who have employed WEST.
I request that your draft report be revised to be more in line with the conservation community like the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) or Golden Gate Audubon Society for example and less aligned with that of the wind industry. See:
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/programs/bdes/altamont/altamont.html
http://www.goldengateaudubon.org/html/conservation/birdsatrisk/altamont.htm
I also respectfully request that Dale Strickland be removed from the Committee on Environmental Impacts of Wind Energy Projects and any contributions he has provided to your draft report be striken.
According to your organization's Committee Appointment Process,
"Selection of appropriate committee members, individually and collectively, is essential for the success of a study. All committee members serve as individual experts, not as representatives of organizations or interest groups" and "any issues raised in that discussion or by the public are investigated and addressed"
"For this purpose, a "conflict of interest" means any financial or other interest which conflicts with the service of the individual because it could significantly impair the individual's objectivity or could create an unfair competitive advantage for any person or organization. The term "conflict of interest" means something more than individual bias. There must be an interest, ordinarily financial, that could be directly affected by the work of the committee."
Cleary Mr. Strickland, and WEST, have just such "conflict of interest" and therefore I wish to file this Complaint.
The relief I seek is for Dale Strickland to be removed from the Committee on Environmental Impacts of Wind Energy Projects, any contributions he has provided to your draft report be striken, and that your draft report be revised to be less aligned with the interests of the wind industry.
Respectfully,
Mike Boyd President-CARE
=======================
The Hill, May 23
"Keep 'Cape Wind' Out of Nantucket Sound"
I am in favor of H.R. 2337 introduced by Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.), as it is a bill that supports observance and enforcement of important federal laws that provide endangered species' protections. The California Energy Commission estimated 1,700 to 4,700 birds die each year by flying into whirling turbine blades or being electrocuted by transmission lines that thread through the 50,000-acre Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area.
Greg Butcher, the National Audubon Society's Director of Bird Conservation, has stated, "The fear is that with all the new wind farms rolling out, there is a new Altamont being created today. The exact reasons for the improvement are a matter of debate, but collisions seem far fewer when wind farms keep out of major flyways and give a wide berth to rich prey sites like Altamont and attractive bird habitats such as wetlands."
Nantucket Sound is within the eastern U.S. migratory bird flyway. It is a nesting foraging and staging area for federally endangered birds. It hosts the largest concentration of over-wintering bald eagles in New England. Substantial numbers of federally endangered sea turtles and protected marine mammal species are present. Nantucket Sound is also an Essential Fish Habitat, with federally regulated finfish and shellfish populations. ...
Nantucket Sound is a place for "Cape Wind" to keep out of, as it is a major flyway and certainly a wetland.
~~From Barbara Durkin, Northboro, Mass.
=======================
A Letter to the Cape Cod Commission by Sherrie S. Cutler, A.I.A. President ECODESIGN, INC., Environmental Planning and Architecture, Boston, MA
May 20, 2007
Mr. Phil Dascomb
Cape Cod Commission
PO Box 226
Barnstable, MA 02630Re: Cape Cod Commission (CCC) Review of Wind Turbine and Cable Component Proposals
Dear Commissioner(s),
The attached ECODESIGN letter expresses the concerns of serious pro-alternative energy environmentalists to the specific wind turbine development proposed by Cape Wind.
Pro-alternative energy objections to installation of 130 untested, 40-building stories high wind turbines along a major shipping channel, under a busy airspace and in a 24 acre Federal "doughnut hole" in Massachusetts' coast and Massachusetts Sanctuary include:
-- "Federal vs. States rights", -- "Lack of coastal zoning", -- "No competitive bid", -- "Developer land grab", -- "Illegal spot zoning", -- "No siting provisions", -- "Navigational hazards to major transportation and commercial routes", -- "Dangerous radar interference in busy airspace", -- "Homeland Security re: radar interference", -- "Inadequate, misleading Environmental Impact Statement", -- "Effects on marine-life and fishing industry", -- "EIS critical mass of adverse and unknown effects including socio-economic", -- "Untested technology / maintenance for harsh, corrosive and inaccessible marine conditions", -- "Safety of search and rescue operations by helicopters or surface vessel in adverse sea or weather", -- "No exit strategy re: technology failure or obsolescence", -- "Special Energy Bill exemptions to this developer", -- "Violation of State Sanctuary", -- "No comprehensive ocean policy", -- "Tax benefits and subsidies over $800m. to developer", -- "Loss of opportunity/ time/ money/ resources better spent to develop state-of-art technology required to utilize more energy-productive off-shore wind energy sites".
These are all serious issues that relate the CCC jurisdiction that require the fullest consideration and review of the Cape Cod Commission. There will be important permits, licenses, grants, etc. required from Minerals Management, local towns, including Chapter 91 from MA Department of Environmental Protection.
Chapter 91 regulations and their impact on this project are a critical view of this proposed development; CCC will be requiring the developer's presentation of a Ch 91 License. I am familiar with Chapter 91 from other projects and realize that Chapter 91 is one of extremely few MA regulations that protect our coast from development and preserves our access to our Massachusetts State waters. Chapter 91 dates to the earliest of MA laws; it now prevents development of areas of tidal waters for anything other than water dependent uses. Chapter 91 has been much abused in recent years and now MA citizens and MA government officials have become concerned and activated. Concerns regarding Chapter 91's application to the transmission cable component of the Cape Wind's Proposal raise many questions.
1. What specifically is the permit regarding the cable component that is required from offshore and near-shore wind turbine proposals under Chapter 91?
2. Are these turbine permits to be year-to-year licenses or long term leases?
3. What are the terms and conditions of the permits or leases?
4. Can the permits be denied or terminated and on what basis (i.e.: Is there both an activation and an exit strategy)?
5. Is a separate Impact Statement required from MA agencies for the separate cable component?
6. Who else is allowed to use this cable or cables?
7. Is this the best location for MA for such a transmission cable vs. an alternative cable location or "site" or "right-of-way" that leads to potential true "blue water" offshore sites on the continental shelf that will be more productive in the future?
8. How many cables can we support that connect to the main grid (i.e.: Will there be many other requests and how will they be administered)?
9. Are there separate impacts re: upkeep and maintenance, shifting, restrictions on anchorage, disruption of seabed, dangers due to damage to the cable(s), etc.
10. Will transmission cables be terrorist targets requiring additional security and protection and who would pay the costs of this?
11. Will there be a fee paid for the lease of the MA seabed over which the cable(s) would pass? How much and to whom?
How, as well, do rules and regulations of 2002 Regional Policy Plan (as opposed to the 1996 Regional Policy Plan) apply?
1. How and where will the cable connect to the mainframe electrical grid and what is the condition of the grid at that point (i.e.: Is it as obsolete and inadequate as most of the Northeast grid and who will be updating and maintaining it)?
2. Where are the monitors quantifying the power to be supplied by Cape Wind and are there independent monitors?
3. If Cape Cod airport safety is affected, including future uses on Cape both military and commercial, aren't commercial assets of the Cape restricted in a permanent way by this project's irreversible impacts?
These are some of the considerations that fall to the Cape Cod Commission (CCC) review of Wind Turbines.
Sincerely,
Sherrie S. Cutler, A.I.A.
ECODESIGN, Inc., President
Environmental Planning and Architecture=======================
In closing;
Mark Rodgers of Cape Wind states that Cape Wind will not require dredging. The Cape Wind spokesman's comments reported by Cape Cod Today are contradicted by Conservation Law Foundation, Cape and Island's Self-Reliance, Clean Power Now, Clean Water Action, Earth Policy Institute, Environment Massachusetts, Environmental League of Massachusetts, Greenpeace, Healthlink, MA Climate Action Network, Mass Energy, and George M. Woodwell. Each of these organizations' representatives have signed a letter written to State Secretary Ian Bowles dated March 22, 2007. This CLF letter to Secretary Bowles includes "dredging" in language that contradicts Mark Rodger's statements regarding Cape Wind made to the Cape Cod Times as well.
The defining paragraph of the CLF letter signed by the above mentioned, states under 'Water Quality':
"We appreciate that the FEIR addresses the water quality impacts of the project, including impacts from the proposed jet plow method of embedding the submarine cables, as requested. Further, the project proponent has responded favorably to the Secretary's request (in the DEIR Certificate) to backfill the area that is excavated at the transition point between the submarine cable and the Horizontal Direct Drilling (HDD) cable, so as to nearly replicate the sediment transport attributes of the area as they are prior to dredging."