| by Phil Dowds
Mineral Management Services (MMS) has released its Cape Wind Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). As of this writing in January,
the chapter is proceeding with its detailed review — but if we were hard
on a deadline, and had to throw a banner head at the story, it would be
“Cape Wind: No Big Problems!” Building on the analyses of the Army Corps
of Engineers and many other parties, MMS finds virtually all anticipated
environmental and socioeconomic impacts to be either “negligible” or
“minor.” For some coastal and marine birds, the impacts of the wind
turbines are projected as “negligible to moderate” — an equivocal range
that represents inconclusive data rather than any real fear of species
decimation. In fact, MMS finds no major impacts of any kind. (Well, not
quite: MMS predicts a turbine will provide a major visual impact if you
moor your boat to one.) That seven years of exhaustive investigation
have yet to disclose a significant downside to Cape Wind will not
surprise many of those following this controversy. More surprising,
perhaps, is what MMS found when it evaluated a range of alternatives to
the Cape Wind proposal.
Among the alternatives considered are two other placements of the
turbine array (shallow water locations northeast and southwest of
Nantucket), and three modifications: phased implementation, a half-size
project, and putting the turbines closer together. Overall, the two
alternative locations were judged to have equal, or possibly slightly
more impacts, than the Cape Wind Horseshoe Shoals site. Of the three
modifications considered, only the halfsize version was judged to have
consistently less impact than the current Cape Wind proposal. Most
interesting is that seven other waterbased windfarm sites were rejected
without much study due to problems of technical infeasibility. In other
words, good locations for windfarms are elusive; put the windfarm
“somewhere else” is easy to say, but hard to do.
The MMS document, however, is just a statement, not an approval.
Other public agencies must provide permits of many kinds before Cape
Wind construction can begin. In making permitting decisions they will
rely in part on the findings of MMS. One consideration not yet resolved,
and apparently unaddressed in the DEIS, is the amount of rent the
developer should pay for access to, and use of, federal waters.
Monitoring the actual performance of the project, and mitigations of
undesired impacts, remain important to establish, because a “successful”
Cape Wind implementation can help open the door for more windfarms along
our coasts while a “failed” Cape Wind could set us back years, if not
decades.
Comments about the draft (written, and oral testimony at hearings)
will be received by MMS through mid-March 2008. Those who want a close
encounter with the 718-page DEIS can trace it through the MMS website at
http://www.mms.gov/; the website also describes hearing locations and
dates and how to submit comments.
Philip Dowds was Chapter Chair in 2008. |
|
