28Apr/100

SaveOurSeaShore’s Response to the National Parks Conservation Association’s Letter

This is SaveOurSeaShore's response to the National Parks Conservation Association's letter in support of keeping industrial wind turbines out of Cape Cod National Seashore.

Save Our Seashore

Wellfleet, MA

Ms. Darcy Shiber-Knowles

Senior Program Coordinator

National Parks Conservation Association

Northeast Region

731 Lexington Avenue, 6th Floor

New York, NY 10022

April 27, 2010

Protecting Our Parks for Future Generations

Dear Ms. Shiber-Knowles,

I am writing to you and to your colleagues at the National Park Conservation Association

on behalf of all of the members of Save Our Seashore -- and on behalf of a large,

informal network of other concerned groups and individuals, including Save Our Woods,

Citizens for a Responsible Green Wellfleet and others -- to express our deepest gratitude

and our collective thanks for your recent expression of encouragement and support of our

efforts to oppose the installation of any industrial wind turbines within the National

Seashore in Wellfleet, MA.

Over the past several months, I have had the good fortune to be associated with many

worthy individuals who were united by their shared love of a particular patch of ground –

the Cape Cod National Seashore -- and who have worked tirelessly to preserve and to

protect the natural and historic landscape, the pristine quality of the soundscape and the

fundamental integrity of the unfragmented habitat therein – “for all future generations” --

against a relentless and determined attempt to industrialize the park under the banner of

“enlightened environmentalism” -- but primarily for the purpose of financial gain.

Last November, when I contacted all of the official historians of the National Park

Service to ask for their help and guidance in this matter, one of the senior historians

remarked to me that the Wellfleet story was eerily familiar. He kept repeating to me that

this story sounded “just like Hetch Hetchy” and urged me to research the Hetch Hetchy

episode in more detail since it was so instrumental to the founding of the national park

service.

I soon understood what he meant when I encountered the idea of “controlled

exploitation” – the idea habitually put forth by developers that we should be able to

harvest just a few trees, build just one dam, or build just a few towering, 410 foot wind

turbines within the boundaries of the park – without compromising its integrity.

I also quickly grasped, in the context of both Hetch Hetchy and Wellfleet, why the

founding language of the national park system is so categorical and, ultimately, so

elegant and powerful in its simplicity:

“…the purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and

the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner

and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future

generations.”

The language in the founding legislation of the national park service -- which also now

includes the bedrock prohibition that “no commercial or industrial use of land is

permitted within the park” – offers no room for debate over whether park resources, or

land within the boundaries of the park, may be even partially exploited, and to what

degree; nor does it offer any latitude for interpretation of “good industrialization” (such

as mammoth industrial wind turbines) vs. “bad industrialization.” The purpose for

establishing every national park – and the express intent of Congress – is simply to

preserve such an area “in its original condition for all future generations.”

The national park service historian advised me that if the superintendent of the park itself

– the National Seashore – was openly and enthusiastically supportive of such a project

(which was a shame), then we needed not merely to oppose the implementation of this

particular project, but to make our case at the policy level. He also said that we were

hopelessly overmatched and outgunned in such a struggle and that we stood no chance of

resisting such an affront without a highly respected partner. He urged me to get in touch

with a higher power. He suggested I contact the National Park Conservation Association

(and other conservation groups) and tell them my story – which lead us to you.

We recognize that the NPCA has limited resources, an ambitious agenda and a deeply

ingrained sense of responsibility to its members, who expect great things from the

organization that serves as America’s leading voice in protecting, and improving, our

national parks and historic sites. We also fully appreciate your need to choose your

battles and to study all issues carefully prior to committing precious resources, offering

an opinion or providing support. We are thankful for your leadership and for your

careful, and methodical, approach; and we are extremely grateful that you have already

devoted considerable time and resources to following the events in Wellfleet and in the

National Seashore.

I do want to urge you, however, not to close the file on this episode as it is far from over.

Although the Board of Selectmen did, indeed, vote unanimously on March 30th not to

pursue the project -- after reviewing, and appreciating its many troublesome implications,

and not least its perceived adverse impacts to the park -- there is still a group in Wellfleet

that is determined to bring the wind turbine proposal back to life.

On April 17th, the Chairman of the Wellfleet Energy Committee (WEC) distributed a

letter to voters decrying the decision of the Selectmen, accusing them of not adequately

“consulting” his committee, of not having treated the committee with “truth and respect”,

of having been “ill-informed,” of having fallen prey to an “intensive lobbying campaign”

of “unsubstantiated assertions” and “erroneous information” and of having, essentially,

been derelict in their duty, lazy, foolish and incompetent. He concluded by saying that

the town needed better decision makers who were “willing to familiarize themselves with

the details of complex issues”, who exhibited “trust and respect” toward other town

committees and who would have the good sense to “respect the will of the voters.”

Since this call to action was printed and distributed to voters at the “Candidate’s Day”

event in Wellfleet (in front of upcoming elections), it is impossible not to view this as a

strident call to “throw the bums out” – and start all over again. And, in fact, we have

been approached by several people who have warned us that the proponents are not

giving up the fight.

As you may recall, the Wellfleet Energy Committee recently sought an amendment to the

Wellfleet Wind Turbine Zoning Bylaw to increase the maximum permissible height for a

“utility-scale wind turbine” from 400 to 415 feet. The reason for this is because the WEC

had hoped to install a slightly larger, more powerful machine, the Vestas 1.8MW V90

instead of the 1.5MW V82 (which the WEC said was being “discontinued”). The

Chairman took it upon himself to place a new article on the Town Warrant (Article 23) to

change the zoning bylaw to 415 feet, from the current 400 feet, without discussing or

debating this issue with his committee during any open meetings and without prior

consultation with the Town Administrator, the full Planning Board (which typically

debates and considers all zoning bylaws) or the Board of Selectmen.

Last evening, at the April Wellfleet Town Meeting, the voters approved a

recommendation by the Planning Board (in the wake of the Board of Selectmen’s

decision to provide no further funds for the project) to “indefinitely postpone”

consideration of this article increasing the height – but just barely. The motion to

“postpone” the article (to some future Town Meeting) passed by a vote of just 128 to 126.

If one person had changed his mind, the vote would have been tied. It only takes a

simple majority to decide such procedural issues.

Since the law requires a 2/3 majority – 170 votes – to approve a change in the zoning

bylaws (to allow the greater height), it is doubtful that such a change could have been

accomplished last evening. But, as a new day dawns, there is a contingent who have

already vowed that they will attempt to bring this issue back “as often as it takes” to get it

passed.

That is the situation in Wellfleet, where there is no current proposal extant, but where

there is still apparently a significant and determined number of people who have no

compunction about erecting a 410 foot wind turbine in the heart of the National Seashore.

In our view, the situation within the walls of the Cape Cod National Seashore is even

more troubling for the following reasons:

1. Wellfleet is one of only six towns abutting the Cape Cod National Seashore.

Various other towns have pursued, or are exploring, the installation of industrial

wind turbines at other sensitive sites in areas directly abutting, or within the

boundaries of, the National Seashore.

On November 25, 2009, for example, the Webb Research Corporation / Notus

Clean Energy LLC filed an application with the FAA for a permit to build a 409

foot Vestas V90 wind turbine – the same massive machine to which the WEC

sought to upgrade and for which it needed an amendment to the zoning bylaw.

2. As recently as November and December of last year, Lauren McKean, the

Principal Planner of the CCNS, had filed applications with the FAA to build up to

two of its own industrial wind turbines -- with an overall height of up to 334 feet -

- at the CCNS Highlands Center in Truro, MA (the next town up from Wellfleet).

In our view, the superintendent’s permissiveness and/or encouragement towards

industrial scale windmill developers – not to mention his enthusiasm for the idea

of erecting them right on Seashore property – reveals a disturbing willingness to

“adapt” the mission of the park to suit his personal vision of the future.

It appears that all of these permits were subsequently denied by the FAA due to

the proximity of these locations to a major radar installation in Truro (a fact that

both Mr. Price and Ms. McKean declined to mention to the Advisory Commission

members in their respective updates at the meeting); but the fact that all of these

parties – including the superintendent -- felt inspired to file for the permits

required to construct such massive industrial structures within the National

Seashore boundary is not a good omen.

3. The Superintendent of CCNS, Mr. George Price., has not yielded an inch in his

public insistence that, under many circumstances, the installation of huge

industrial wind turbines within the boundaries of the National Seashore is

perfectly appropriate. “It’s not a question of if we should have wind turbines, but

where to put them,” according to Mr. Price.

Furthermore, the superintendent continues to cite “global warming,” “rising sea

levels,” “beach erosion,” the “national mission to convert to renewable energy”

and the “municipal use exemption” as reasons to condone such activity – the last

item being a murky, ill-defined, presumptive special prerogative of the towns to

install wind energy “utilities” on their own property within Seashore boundaries --

even though the superintendent himself has categorically stated that the same

projects would clearly be considered as “industrial and commercial” if owned and

operated by a private developer in the same way at the same location – and

therefore prohibited.

Since his arrival in 2005, making frequent reference to his experience at Harbor

Islands, Mr. Price has also repeatedly urged the town developers to conduct an

exercise which he calls “view shed analysis” to determine which views within the

park are untouchable “money shots” and which ones are expendable – or, in the

minds of the developers, less objectionable.

Why a park superintendent should be re-interpreting his Congressional mandate

“to conserve and to preserve the natural and historic landscape” of the park “in its

original condition for all future generations” as a mapping exercise for 400 foot

industrial wind turbines – lead by the Principal Planner and including only those

parties interested in scouting the best locations for their wind turbine projects -- is

beyond our comprehension. Yet Mr. Price persists in clinging to the legitimacy of

this indefensible, sham process.

In a telephone conversation in late February, or early March, the Principal Planner

of CCNS, Ms. Lauren McKean, promised to respond, in writing, no later than

March 22nd (the next CCNS Advisory Committee meeting) to a letter dated

January 28th that contained a detailed list of nuts and bolts questions regarding

certain routine factual matters and about the policies, practices and point of view

of CCNS on several specific pertinent issues relating to wind energy.

To date, we have received no response to this, or any subsequent letters addressed

to Ms. McKean – not even to a written request that she clarify certain statements

that she made at the March 22nd meeting regarding other wind turbine projects

that she asserted are under consideration within the national park system and

which seemed, to us, to be in error.

On January 30th, we sent a detailed letter to Mr. Price asking for clarification on a

number of items that are crucial to understanding CCNS and/or NPS thinking and

policy on industrial wind turbines. Later, at a lengthy personal meeting on March

1st with me, Mr. James Rogers and Mrs. Patricia Rogers at the CCNS

headquarters, Mr. Price advised us that he would not answer any of our questions

at that time, but that he intended to provide answers, in writing, prior to the March

22nd meeting.

We are still waiting for a reply from Mr. Price to this letter -- and to several

subsequent letters asking him to clarify other specific issues including, but not

limited to:

a) the disposition of the national park service regarding the approximately 875

feet of the Wellfleet wind turbine manufacturer’s “safety perimeter” which would

shadow CCNS property, and place park users at potential risk, at the proposed

Site #2; and

b) the national park service interpretation of its own legal rights, regarding its

ability to challenge any actions by developers such as the Town of Wellfleet, in

the wake of an aggressive legal opinion issued by Wellfleet’s Town Counsel

asserting, that for all intents and purposes, the NPS has no legal rights to

challenge any activity whatsoever!

We suggested to Mr. Price that he ask NPS legal counsel to prepare a

memorandum addressed to the Advisory Commission members, to clarify the

NPS position, since there seemed to be a great deal of confusion on this point and

it seemed unreasonable for the members to have an informed opinion or provide

any worthwhile advice to CCNS if they could not understand the basic rights of

the NPS vs. the towns.

We are still awaiting a response from CCNS on all of these issues.

When Mr. Edmund Doyle asked Mr. Price (among other things) how the intense

flicker effect from Wellfleet’s industrial wind turbine would affect the quality of

the experience within the park, Mr. Price replied that this was of no concern to

him, as superintendent, because it would mainly affect homeowners, who are

stationary, rather than “transient park users.” He suggested that Mr. Doyle take

this matter up with the Town of Wellfleet.

In reply, Mr. Doyle reminded Mr. Price that: a) ALL park users are “transient

park users”; and b) that the flicker effect is much more intense the closer one

approaches the wind turbine – say, within 425 feet at the CCNS boundary -- and

asked Mr. Price how he could possibly dismiss this issue without any further

investigation or thought.

Though this exchange took place in mid-March, Mr. Price has made no further

reply to Mr. Doyle.

As you know, the NPCA has been provided with copies of most, or all of these

letters and I presume that you may be as interested in the answers to these

questions as we all are.

Most recently, at the aforementioned March meeting of the CCNS Advisory

Commission, Mr. Price embarked upon a strange soliloquy about “shale gas”

during the time allotted for discussion of Wind Turbines as an agenda item,

saying that he had recently learned that other national parks were under pressure

to allow drilling for shale gas underneath park service land. His point seemed to

be either that this was business as usual within the national park service, or that

we should consider ourselves fortunate to have the “wind resource” to construct

mammoth wind turbines within the park – rather than to have to deal with those

shale gas drillers.

Frankly, I don’t know what on earth he meant – we’ll have to try to puzzle it out

from the transcript when the minutes from this meeting are approved and

published – but it was obvious to all in attendance that this was yet another

attempt by the superintendent to provide additional “perspective” on the vastness

of our energy crisis – and perhaps to suggest that prohibitions like “no

commercial or industrial use within the park” were rules that were regularly bent,

if not broken, in other parks as well, to suit our other national objectives.

Despite our written requests for clarification on any number of issues, and our

lengthy conversation with the superintendent on March 1st, when he told us firmly

that he would not provide any answers “prior to the Advisory Committee

meeting,”(and which lead us to believe, innocently, that this was the forum where

some of these questions might be addressed), the superintendent really had

nothing to say about any of the substantive issues that we had raised – not even

the 150 page Wind Turbine Guidelines published by the USFWS Federal Advsory

Committee.

In fact, if memory serves, Mr. Price has never mentioned or acknowledged the

very existence of the Guidelines, let alone shared his thoughts with us on the

relative merits of these detailed policy prescriptions vs. the lofty Executive Orders

that he has so often previously quoted to justify industrial wind turbines in the

national park.

As you can see, we have many unanswered questions.

Both Mr. Price, the superintendent, and Mr. Karlson, the Chairman of the Wellfleet

Energy Committee, seem to regard these persistent questions as a form of harassment or

intimidation. In fact, Mr. Karlson made this explicit accusation in an editorial that he

published in all three local newspapers in February, and more recently in the tirade that

he printed and circulated to voters on April 17th.

But we really, truly want to know the answers to these questions. And we found, once

similar questions were posed in the Town of Wellfleet, that voters and decision makers

wanted to know the answers, too.

With respect to the National Seashore, we are at a loss to reconcile our perception of the

purpose of the park – preservation and conservation in its original condition – with Mr.

Price’s vision of the relative importance of so many other competing claims on this

resource.

And we are at a loss to reconcile the various detailed policy prescriptions that would

seem to have a powerful bearing on the day-to-day management of the park with Mr.

Price’s expanded vision of his responsibilities as superintendent.

For example, how do we reconcile Congressional legislation directing the superintendent

to “preserve the original landscape” with Mr. Price’s view that the goal is to “protect the

money shots”?

How do we reconcile detailed Director’s Orders – such as Director’s Order #47, which

instructs superintendents to preserve the soundscape intact -- with Mr. Price’s apparent

disregard for the effects of “chronic noise” upon the environment – or upon the

enjoyment of the park users? Is this, too, to be explained by the fact that park users are

mere “transients” and not permanent residents?

How do we reconcile the detailed policy guidelines for “responsible wind energy

development” recommended by a blue ribbon panel of experts -- under the auspices of

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Secretary of the Interior -- with the lofty

Executive Orders and the Secretarial Orders to which Mr. Price refers in explaining the

“national mission” to undertake a crash program to increase our renewable energy

resources?

We can’t do it without Mr. Price’s help. And, to be honest, we’re not sure it can actually

be done, since Mr. Price’s ideas seems so directly contradictory to our own reading of the

various laws, statutes and regulations – not to mention the venerable traditions -- that

have protected the parks for nearly 100 years.

But we do know that the Cape Cod National Seashore remains at risk for as long as the

superintendent continues to condone or encourage the permitting, planning and

construction of such projects – or until the National Park Service issues clear guidelines

about the appropriate – and inappropriate – use of land within the boundaries of the

Seashore – and preferably the entire national park system -- for the purpose of producing

industrial wind energy.

Thank you again for your words of support and encouragement and for your continued

interest. As you can tell, we still believe that there is much important work left to be

accomplished.

We look forward to a long and fruitful relationship with the National Park Conservation

Association.

Sincerely,

Eric Bibler

Cc: Mr. George E. Price, Jr.

Cc: CCNS Advisory Commission

28Apr/100

National Parks Conservation Association Letter of Support!!!

We are overjoyed to receive the support of the National Parks Conservation Association the leading voice in protecting and enhancing America's National Parks with more than 340,000 members. We are humbled by their words of encouragement and support in our effort to protect Cape Cod National Seashore from industrial wind turbines.

Tagged as: Alternative Energy, Cape Cod, Cape Cod National Seashore, Conflict of Interest, Danger, George Price, National, National Park, National Park Service, Nature, Problems, Save Our SeaShore, SaveOurSeaShore, SaveOurSeaShore.Org, Wellfleet, Wellfleet Energy Committee, wind industry, wind turbines No Comments

13Apr/100

Open Letter to the Citizens & Voters of the Town of Wellfleet from Selectman Beebe

On March 30, the Board of Selectmen of the Town of Wellfleet voted unanimously to suspend work on the proposed wind turbine project. It grieved me to make the decision and to have to disappoint so many people, especially those members of the Wellfleet Energy Committee (WEC) who gave literally years of their time, effort, and energy to this project. The vote has caused confusion and some controversy. I am writing to clarify why I chose to vote against the project, and why that evening and not at or after the Annual Town Meeting.

As a selectman I have been discussing the possibility of a wind project for Wellfleet for at least three years now. Like so many of you, I was very open to the possibility of a wind turbine for Wellfleet. I traveled across the country two years ago and saw turbine farms in Arizona. I did not stand at the base of one, nor did I hear one. In retrospect, I was probably 100 miles away, but I thought they were beautiful and decorative, and in no way marred the landscape. I was present when the MET tower was erected in the rear of the parking lot at White Crest Beach, and when we received the data from the met tower, and decided to move forward with a formal study. I voted in favor of all these steps, including the article at town meeting to authorize the board to spend money for the necessary studies. At each juncture, although very excited and hopeful, I realized that at any time in the process we could come across information that would be a deal breaker for the town. We were cautiously optimistic, and for me, it was all still conceptual.

Like all towns, we are facing many difficult decisions, quite a few of them are financial, even if they do not appear to be on the surface. Each year we face increasing challenges to balance the budget with the needs of citizens. We need to pay for our employees, keep our schools educating children, and continue to provide the town services that people rely on. Add to this mix that no one wants to pay more taxes, and many residents can not afford to. Paradoxically, as a town, we are conservation minded and really care about our land. We actively pursue placing more and more land into conservation and have worked to limit new building growth via zoning rules, both of which will continue to place more tax burden on existing property owners. In other words, it is all complicated, and never just about one thing. We are all struggling to find and keep a quality of life, and it is different for all of us. Our values are often not the same, and this leads to conflict, debate, and many tough decisions.

This winter I began to look more closely at the progress of the wind turbine project. Like most people, I had made assumptions regarding the siting and other issues, and the WEC had moved well beyond where I was. One of the changes was that the turbine could not be sited at White Crest (site 1) where the met tower was erected and the wind testing was done, so the WEC moved to the alternative site back into the forest of Wellfleet by the Sea (site 2) approximately 1/2 mile into the woods. Two other factors entered into the mix: the Board began to get more regular updates from the WEC (as they had new and important data and many time constraints and decisions to make) and there was a growing and active opposition to the project, raising concerns and demanding answers to questions. I read all of the studies that had been completed to date (available on the town’s website) in order to be more ready to respond. I started to do my research, ask questions, and discuss the project. I walked to the proposed site (site 2), from both directions, and started to take a look at both the east and west entry road proposals. I spent many hours trying to understand sound modeling data, and trying to understand the scale and measurements of the turbine. I admit that it was very difficult for me to wrap my brain around the scale of the turbine. I had envisioned something like what is at country gardens in Hyannis: what I perceive as a benign, beautiful, slim structure, propelled by the wind and soundlessly somehow converting wind to electricity, maybe with batteries. (It is a blonde wind vision). What I began to see and read and conceptualize, was very different. At first, it gave me pause, and I wanted to study more, but then I received two more updates from the WEC (3/23 & 3/30) and my growing concerns became solidified. My concerns centered around: the appropriateness of Site 2, the need to build major road access and what that would do to the land approaching from either east (White Crest) or west (Duck Pond Road), the financial projections and reliance on many assumptions, noise issues and the short distance between the turbine and residential homes, and insurance issues. I thought at the time, that any one of these could be deal-breaker issues for me in analyzing the benefits vs. risks of this project.

On 3/23, the Board received an update from the WEC which provided negative data regarding the financial projections, insurance concerns, and site access issues. The following week, the town would be signing a contract to engage consultants in what would be one of the longest and most expensive studies to date, the environmental/migratory bird study which would continue for 6 months, and would give us data on an entire nesting season. There was now a time element introduced, and a decision needed to be made.

On 3/30, the WEC presented a more positive presentation to the board, but even then, tossed the responsibility and liability for possible unanswerable questions squarely in our domain, where I admit, they belonged. While the citizens present heard only the positive presentation, we, as board members had two written updates prior to the meeting, so at that point, barring any new information, I was ready to make a decision.

These were and remain my concerns:

The issue of noise: A turbine is a rotary engine that extracts energy from airflow and converts it to electricity. Turbine engines create most of our electrical power, and also power everything from refrigerators to jet engines and even the powerful space shuttle. The process of energy conversion is not just the wind turning the blades as I thought, it is an engine that is converting wind to electricity, and it makes noise. At times, the noise can be a mechanical whooshing sound, and at other times much louder, anywhere from a refrigerator to an airplane engine.

The models available to predict sound and the standards available to regulate levels of sound, were inadequate in predicting what close neighbors would hear, and at what levels they would hear sound. I read the sound data presented by our consultants, but also did research on several models available for predicting sound from the turbines. The best one was a UMASS study which took into effect: groundcover, height of turbine, length of blades or “tip height”, and projected “adequate” distances. The truth is, turbines do make noise, and it is constant. It changes in different wind speeds and at different wind directions, but 24 hours per day, as long as the turbine is turning, there will be noise. The National Park Service Natural Program Sounds Group evaluated the sound study completed by our consultants, and NPS scientists found problems with the report, including that there was insufficient data, based on the fact that our study collected data in a single day. Their other concerns were: that the estimation of ambient noise in the area was too high, that the data was measured at inappropriate locations, and they believed they would need much more comprehensive information to perform a reasonable evaluation, including a minimum of 30 days worth of sound data. The WEC recommended that we study the sound issue more, but the turbine chosen is fairly new, and since wind direction, wind speed, and the characteristics of site are so variable, the truth is, we can’t really “know” what the neighbors will hear until after it is built and operating. From site 2, we have 38 homes ¼ mile away, and many more up to ½ mile away. At these distances it is likely that residences will be impacted by noise, and experience in other locations tells us that some will be truly negatively impacted. Shouldn’t we learn from other people’s mistakes? I would prefer to have at a site with a larger radius of no homes, at least ½ mile, so we could be more confident that residents would not be adversely affected. The WEC was very clear in the presentation of 3/30 that while they were confident that the project could meet the state standard, they could make no other assurances that the problems that have occurred in other communities would not happen here in Wellfleet. In fact, with our wind speeds and directions, the model suggested there would probably be the most noise in the summer months and up-wind of the turbine, the precise area where we have the most density of private residences. In my mind, this was a guarantee of problems.

Financial risk: Black & Veatch, the engineering consultant that did the feasibility study, judged this project to be not attractive for any private developer, which was the reason we initiated a municipal study. In order to make it financially feasible, lots of complex issues needed to be resolved and agreements honored by other government entities. The initial cost of the turbine would be 5.3 million dollars. All proforma budgets are based on certain assumptions and ours was no different. The wind turbine at Site 2 was expected to generate a revenue stream that was over four times the current wholesale rate of electricity. This was due to two sources (“net metering” and “renewable energy certificates”), both of which are supported by legislative subsidies and/or consumer surcharges. Our financial proforma assumed that these subsidies would be available in the future. The “net metering” subsidies are subject to an aggregate “cap” for all renewable energy projects statewide that is equal to 1% of peak electricity production. The WEC predicted that this “cap” would be reached in 2011 and would require a legislative decision to continue the subsidy by raising the cap to accommodate new electric producers, or the “race” was on to see who could erect a turbine the fastest in order to qualify for the better rates. The numbers in the proforma depended on meeting the goal of completion by 2011. Any project delays would have possible dire financial implications. Going in, we knew there was no definite assurance, but we explored anyway, in the hope that other information would assist us in calculating the risk.

The projections assumed two other facts that were variable: that the proposed turbine would have a “capacity factor” of 30%, and that the price that Wellfleet is paid for its new electricity would increase each year. (The price of electricity declined by about 50% between 2008 and 2009.) Cape & Vineyard Electric Cooperative for the town of Harwich estimated capacity for a wind turbine similar to Wellfleet’s at 24.3% and a wind turbine of almost identical height at Hull (Hull II) has a capacity factor of 24%. If a capacity factor of 25% was assumed and energy prices did not rise every year, then the project would have produced much less revenue than predicted. If the price of electricity fell, or we did not qualify for the net metering, or the capacity of the turbine was less than anticipated, or any combination occurred, annual financial losses would occur and the project would become a disaster for the town.

Weather related risk. In the memo from the WEC dated 3/23, I learned that the proposed turbine is guaranteed to survive only up to 95 MPH winds, certainly a great wind speed, but one that we see here at least once each winter. I think it is likely that in the life of the turbine we will have wind far in excess of this. We are a coastal New England town that commonly deals with winter storms and high winds, and what about a hurricane? It seems likely that we may have periods of non-functioning, and possibly a collapse. The WEC actively investigated the current insurance market, and there is insurance for weather related issues up to a limit of $500,000. Replacing parts every once in awhile after a winter storm is possible, but will be expensive, replacing the whole turbine, even once in its 20 year life span, will make the project financially unfeasible. At the time of our 3/30 meeting, we had just sent the financial proforma out to an independent consultant for review, but the financial and insurance issues were racking up, with so many potential pitfalls. I had to ask myself what our current tolerance for financial risk was. Should we, the Board of Selectmen be prepared to support the project in light of the knowledge that incorporating more modest expectations for the performance of the turbine, coupled with real insurance issues, indicates a possibility of substantial losses to the Town of Wellfleet? It seemed like gambling to me, and truly, we cannot afford to gamble right now.

Site 2: The turbine itself grew in proportion from a small enterprise to an industrial size turbine with a "hub" of 264 feet (the size of the Pilgrim Monument) with blades at 420 feet long (a football field is 360 feet long). It does not arrive in pieces, but is brought in on huge trucks that need to have wide, flat roads on which to travel. It would have required major destruction to create the site and get the turbine in: including cutting and filling a 30 foot-wide, 1/2 mile long road, and building an immense concrete slab to support the structure. Site 2 is located in the forest 1/2 mile behind site 1. It is difficult to walk from site 1 to site 2 as there are no paths, but easy to go from Old County Road or Duck Pond Road through the forest to the site. From a few hundred yards past the new site, there, you can see the “east route” or clear through to the low brush near site 1. If you walk either route, you will clearly be able to see the kind of immense project that clearing and filling the land to make a road would be. This part of the woods has some of the most dramatic grade changes in Wellfleet. The road option (west) was a long run starting at the now narrow, dirt Duck Pond Road, crossing woodlots owned by the town, the housing authority development, the power line and thru the woods to the site. The road option (east) is from Ocean View Drive, across dramatic grades, into the forest and to the site. In the memo from the WEC dated 3/23, both options were discussed in detail, also citing that NHESP and MESA review may cause additional delays in the project due to environmental issues. In the report on 3/30, the WEC stated that a decision was made to use the east route (the original route) despite the grade changes. I agreed the east access was better, because I had grave concerns re: the Duck Pond access, but even with the east access, there is no doubt in my mind the site work would be very expensive and extremely intrusive to the area. It wouldn’t be just a quick fire road, it would completely change the landscape of an area we have successfully protected from development for over 50 years and that many residents and visitors use and cherish. This is the single largest parcel of conservation land the town has left, and resides in the heart of the National Seashore Park.

I had to weigh the benefits to the community that would balance this level of environmental destruction, aside from financial risk and resident dissatisfaction, and I didn’t see those benefits. I began to see the incalculable risks instead.

Ultimately, from the remarks of the other Selectmen as well as my own, I think we all decided that while we need to pursue forms of alternative energy for the town, Wellfleet really is not the place for a power plant, however benign it may be compared to other power plants. We would still be taking great financial risk and destroying a precious part of our rural environment to sell energy to the grid. I hope, as a community, we will aggressively pursue smaller, more beneficial alternative energy sources: hydropower (the new herring run tide gate, perhaps), solar panels (town buildings) and possibly smaller wind projects, but most importantly, energy conservation efforts, using less rather than creating more. We have not given up on alternative energy; we just need to do things more suited to our rural scale. The Vesta (maker of the turbine) tagline is, “a more efficient way to more power”, I would suggest that our motto should be,” a more efficient and environmentally friendly way to responsibly use our existing power.

Sincerely,

Jacqui Wildes Beebe

Wellfleet Selectman

jacquiwildes@comcast.net

Tagged as: Alternative Energy, Board of Selectmen, Cape Cod, Cape Cod National Seashore, Conflict of Interest, Costs, Research, SaveOurSeaShore, SaveOurSeaShore.Org, too close, viewshed, Wellfleet, Wellfleet Energy Committee, wind industry, wind turbines No Comments

13Apr/100

Cape Wind rejection recommended

WASHINGTON - A federal agency on historic preservation has recommended that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar reject a proposed massive wind energy project in Nantucket Sound - an area that is sacred to the Wampanoag nations and qualifies for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

On April 2, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation issued a seven-page report of its findings and recommendation to deny permits to Cape Wind Associates to construct a wind energy plant consisting of 130 wind turbine generators that would tower 440 feet above water level in a 24-square-mile area on Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound, which lies between Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket. The proposal includes plans for a 66.5-mile buried submarine transmission cable system, a centrally located electric service platform and two 115-kilovolt lines totaling 25 miles connecting to the mainland power grid.

"The historical properties affected by the project are significant and closely interrelated," ACHP wrote. "The project will adversely affect 34 historic properties, including 16 historic districts and 12 individually significant historic properties on Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Island, and six properties of religious and cultural significance to tribes, including Nantucket Sound itself. These districts and standing structures reflect the broad array of properties that represent the rich and unique architectural, social and cultural history of Cape Cod and the island."

The project would also destroy, damage and alter part of the seabed of Nantucket Sound, potentially destroying archeological resources.

"The ACHP recommends that the secretary not approve the project," the report says.

The report stressed that the development of renewable energy projects "is not inherently incompatible with protection of historic resources so long as full consideration is given to historic properties early in the identification of potential locations." It suggests that the Cape Wind project could be relocated to an alternative site "in the vicinity of the current project area."

Salazar had turned the Cape Wind proposal over to ACHP for comments March 1 after the developer failed to convince the Aquinnah and Mashpee Wampanoag nations, on Martha's Vineyard and Cape Cod, respectively, to abandon their opposition to the project. The nations rejected a $1 million incentive offer from Cape Wind to give up their opposition.

Nantucket Sound is a sacred area to the Wampanoag nations - the People of the First Light. The wind energy plant would obscure their view of the rising sun in ceremony, and the Sound, which was once dry land, is where their ancestors lived and were buried.

The Wampanoag leaders welcomed the ACHP recommendation.

"We're extremely gratified that the council has heard our voice and agrees that Nantucket Sound is an inappropriate location for Cape Wind. We hope that Secretary Salazar will make the right decision and deny the project in its present location. As we've said all along, we're not opposed to wind energy or the specific project, but to the location, and we stand ready to work with all of the agencies on determining an appropriate site for Cape Wind," Aquinnah Chairwoman Cheryl Andrews-Maltais said.

"With today's recommendation by the ACHP, every historic preservation agency at both the state and federal level has come to the same conclusion - that Nantucket Sound is a place of deep historical, spiritual and cultural significance," said Mashpee Chairman Cedric Cromwell. "We are gratified that the ACHP has validated our concerns related to the proposed Cape Wind project, and we hope that Secretary Salazar will agree with their conclusion that Nantucket Sound is an inappropriate site for the project."

The council is the last agency to be consulted on the project before Salazar renders his decision in mid-April.

It joins the Massachusetts' Office of the State Historical Preservation Officer, who determined that the proposed Cape Wind site is a traditional cultural property that should be preserved, and the National Park Service, which said in January that Nantucket Sound is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places as a significant traditional, cultural, historic and archaeological property. A designation on the National Register would place Nantucket Sound under a number of federal laws providing protection and preservation of historical and sacred sites.

The ACHP report also recommended that improvements be made in the process for evaluating offshore energy projects.

"The ACHP's review of this project has highlighted the need for broader coordination among federal agencies, states, Indian tribes, industry, consulting parties and the public to address these challenges," the council wrote.

Tagged as: Alternative Energy, Cape Cod, Cape Cod National Seashore, Cape Wind, Conflict of Interest, local issue, Massachusetts, National, National Park, National Park Service, Problems, viewshed, wind industry, wind turbines No Comments

7Apr/100

Preserve and protect our Seashore

April 07, 2010 By ERIC BIBLER

Although there were many reasons to believe the Wellfleet wind turbine project was a terribly ill-conceived idea, it is gratifying to know that, at the end of the day, the town of Wellfleet — the developer of the project — just couldn't bring itself to sacrifice the incomparable natural beauty of the landscape or the pristine upland pine woods in the heart of the National Seashore.

The voters of Wellfleet, and the board of selectmen by unanimous vote, ultimately rejected a project from which they stood to profit, in order "to preserve the character of the Seashore." We applaud their decision.

We hope the management of the National Seashore will take heart from Wellfleet's example and reassess the paramount importance of its primary mission — to preserve the park in its natural, unimpaired condition for all future generations — relative to the other competing interests to which Superintendent George Price has repeatedly and steadfastly insisted that it must be "sensitive," including the interests of the abutting towns and the perceived interests of other organs of the federal government.

All national parks have a very clear mandate from Congress that intentionally includes categorical prohibitions against any encroachment on their core conservation mission: "no commercial or industrial use is permitted within the park." This mandate is fortified by hundreds of pages of detailed director's orders and almost 100 years of tradition.

In addition, with respect to land-based industrial wind turbines, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, responding to an order from the secretary of the Interior and in cooperation with a federal advisory committee especially appointed for that purpose, has spent over two years developing detailed policy prescriptions for "responsible development" of land-based industrial wind energy resources. It is abundantly clear from reading these guidelines that the fundamental concept underlying the recommendations of the wind turbine advisory committee is the urgency of avoiding inappropriate sites for wind energy development — such as fragile habitats, conservation areas and, by extension, national parks.

We hope Price can now finally appreciate that in his mission to safeguard the integrity of the National Seashore and to reject any form of intrusion compromising the core conservation mission of the park, he has the full backing of Congress; the Department of the Interior; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; the Wind Turbine Guidelines Federal Advisory Committee — whose members are drawn from the ranks of both prominent wind energy developers as well as every leading conservation group in the country; the board of selectmen and voters of Wellfleet; and, doubtless, the majority of both the local residents and the citizens of the United States.

http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100407/OPINION/4070344

In other words, in considering any projects — including wind turbines — that are incompatible with the fulfillment of the park's mission and threaten the fundamental integrity of the park, the only sense of "balance" that must be applied is to reject them out of hand. The superintendent has Congress, the law, 100 years of tradition, the entire apparatus of the Department of the Interior and popular sentiment on his side. What authority does he lack?

As they consider any other current or future proposals to introduce industrial wind turbines within the National Seashore, we urge the superintendent and the advisory commission to use these tools, without apology, for the continued preservation of the park, and on behalf of all of the park users who place their faith in them and rely upon them to do their duty for the sake of "all future generations."

Eric Bibler of Weston, Conn., a longtime regular visitor to Wellfleet, is president of Save Our Seashore.

3Apr/100

Blow dealt to Cape Wind project

April 03, 2010 By Patrick Cassidy pcassidy@capecodonline.com

Top Photo of the proposed Nantucket Sound wind farm scored a key victory yesterday when a federal panel on historic preservation recommended that U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar kill the project.

The recommendation from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) is the final piece required in the review of Cape Wind's effects on historic properties, including sites considered sacred by Indian tribes on Cape Cod and Martha's Vineyard.

The federal panel joins the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe, the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) and the top historic preservation official in Massachusetts in calling the plan to build 130 turbines on Horseshoe Shoal inappropriate and damaging to historic and cultural properties. The National Park Service in January determined the Sound is eligible to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

In its seven-page recommendation to Salazar, the advisory council included suggestions for evaluating historic impacts of future offshore alternative energy projects.

The review of Cape Wind's effects on historic properties did not occur early enough in the review process and did not allow for adequate consultation with the local Indian tribes, according to the advisory council.

"With today's recommendation by the ACHP, every historic preservation agency at both the state and federal level has come to the same conclusion — that Nantucket Sound is a place of deep historical, spiritual and cultural significance," Mashpee Wampanoag chairman Cedric Cromwell said.

The Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) is thrilled with the advisory panel's recommendation and "hopeful that Secretary Salazar will also recognize the significance of the shoal and view shed, support our collective position and deny the permit for that location," tribal chairwoman Cheryl Andrews-Maltais said.

Both tribes have argued their ancestors once lived in the area that is now the Sound and are likely buried there. They also contend the 440-foot-tall turbines would interfere with important sunrise ceremonies, although a small group from the Aquinnah tribe contends the sunrise ceremonies have been overblown.

Salazar has said he would make a decision on whether to approve Cape Wind by the end of April.

"He will fully and carefully consider the information and recommendations provided by the council as he moves forward to make a final decision on the Cape Wind power project," his spokeswoman, Kendra Barkhoff wrote in an e-mail to the Times.

Barkhoff would not say when Salazar's decision would come, but a comment period on an updated environmental review of the project does not end until Wednesday. Despite the advisory council's recommendation, Salazar could still approve the project.

The advisory council's recommendation represents only one of many concerns Salazar will evaluate in making his decision, Cape Wind spokesman Mark Rodgers said.

"The bulk of the record was contained in a very favorable final environmental impact statement issued by the Minerals Management Service of the Department of Interior last year that looked at every benefit and impact of the project," Rodgers said. "The (environmental report) found Horseshoe Shoal to be the optimal site for this project."

The advisory council's recommendation is not surprising but it is disappointing, said Barbara Hill, executive director of the main pro-Cape Wind group, Clean Power Now.

Cape Wind has been a driver for the creation of a regulatory process for offshore wind projects, she said. "It has provided lessons learned for everyone," Hill said. "Given that, I do believe that (the historic review of Cape Wind) has been thorough."

The benefits of Cape Wind far outweigh any of the negative impacts of the project, she said.

But for the main Cape Wind opposition group, the advisory council's recommendation adds to a long list of problems with the project.

"I think it's a major setback for Cape Wind," said Audra Parker, president and CEO of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound. "The advisory council has basically said historic preservation and renewable energy are compatible but just not in Nantucket Sound."

Salazar must give considerable weight to the advisory council's recommendation, she said, adding that if he does not, his decision will be open to legal challenges.

In addition to the historic review, there remains the outstanding issue of whether the Federal Aviation Administration will ultimately approve the turbines, Parker said. The FAA has said Cape Wind would have to substantially mitigate the effects of the wind farm on flights over the Sound, something the company has said it can do.

Tagged as: Alternative Energy, Cape Cod, Cape Wind, Costs, Danger, Fight, local issue, Massachusetts, Nature, Problems, Wind, wind industry, wind turbines No Comments

31Mar/101

Will Lessons be Learned about National Parks and Wind Turbines? OP-ED SaveOurSeaShore

March 31, 2010

Dear Mr. Price, and Members of the CCNS Advisory Commission,

Although there were many reasons to believe that the Wellfleet Wind Turbine Project was a terribly ill-conceived idea, it is gratifying to know that, at the end of the day, the Town of Wellfleet – the developer of the project – just couldn’t bring itself to sacrifice the incomparable natural beauty of the landscape or the pristine upland pine woods in the heart of the National Seashore. The voters of Wellfleet, and the Board of Selectmen by unanimous vote, ultimately rejected a project from which they stood to profit in order “to preserve the character of the Seashore.” We applaud their decision.

We hope that the management of the National Seashore will take heart from Wellfleet’s example and reassess the paramount importance of its primary mission – to preserve the park in its natural, unimpaired condition for all future generations – relative to the other competing interests to which Superintendent Price has repeatedly and steadfastly insisted that it must be “sensitive,” including the interests of the abutting towns and the perceived interests of other organs of the federal government.

All national parks have a very clear mandate from Congress that intentionally includes categorical prohibitions against any encroachment on their core conservation mission: “no commercial or industrial use is permitted within the park.” This mandate is fortified by hundreds of pages of detailed Director’s Orders and almost one hundred years of tradition.

In addition, with respect to land based industrial wind turbines, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, responding to an Order from the Secretary of the Interior and in cooperation with a Federal Advisory Committee specially appointed for that purpose, has spent over two years developing detailed policy prescriptions for “responsible development” of land-based industrial wind energy resources. I think that you will agree, when you read these Guidelines, that the fundamental concept underlying the final recommendations of the Federal Advisory Committee is the urgency of avoiding inappropriate sites for wind energy development – such as fragile habitats, conservation areas and, by extension, national parks.

It is our hope that the Superintendent will appreciate that he now has the full backing of Congress; the Department of the Interior; the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service; the Federal Advisory Committee – whose members are drawn from the ranks of both prominent wind energy developers as well as every leading conservation group in the country; the Board of Selectmen and the voters of Wellfleet; and, doubtless, the majority of both the local residents and the citizens of the United States; to safeguard the integrity of the National Seashore and to reject any form of intrusion which compromises the core conservation mission of the park.

In other words, the only sense of “balance” that must be applied to the consideration of any projects – including wind turbines -- which are incompatible with the fulfillment of the park’s mission, and which threaten the fundamental integrity of the park, is to reject them out of hand. You have Congress, the law, one hundred years of tradition, the entire apparatus of the Department of the Interior and popular sentiment on your side. What authority do you lack?

We urge the Superintendent and the Advisory Commission to use these tools, without apology, for the benefit and preservation of the National Seashore and on behalf of all of the park users who place their faith in you, and who rely upon you to do your duty.

Sincerely,

Eric Bibler

President

Save Our Seashore

Tagged as: Cape Cod, Cape Cod National Seashore, Massachusetts, National, National Park, Nature, SaveOurSeaShore, SaveOurSeaShore.Org, viewshed, Wellfleet, Wind, wind industry, wind turbines 1 Comment

30Mar/101

WE STOPPED THE WIND TURBINES IN WELLFLEET, MA

WE STOPPED THE WIND TURBINE!!!! March 30, 2010

The Wellfleet Board of Selectmen wisely voted 5-0 to spend no more money to develop a wind farm.

Thanks to everyone that helped out!

Once you take the time to understand the issues, no other honest judgement could be made!

Tagged as: Alternative Energy, Cape Cod, Cape Cod National Seashore, Massachusetts, too close, Wellfleet, Wellfleet Energy Committee, Wind, wind industry, wind turbines 1 Comment

24Mar/100

Long time Resident Makes Statement on Wellfleet Wind Turbine to Cape Cod Advisory Commission

3/22/2010

Good afternoon. Thank you to Chairman Delaney, to Mr. Price and to all of the Members of the Advisory Commission for this opportunity to speak today.

I am Lilli Green, a registered voter in Wellfleet. I’ve worked as a naturalist for Cape Cod National Seashore / seasonal interpretive ranger. I also directed the National Environmental Educational Development program in Truro. I built a

passive solar super insulated home in Wellfleet approximately 30 years ago. I,

like many of my fellow citizens of Wellfleet were of the impression that the

industrial wind turbine proposed to be constructed in the National Park in

Wellfleet was located near White Crest Beach and that its size was

approximately 50 feet high or so. Even in the minutes of your Nov. 16th meeting of 2009 it is referred to as White Crest starting on page 27. Just over 2 weeks ago I learned this is not true. It is approximately 400 FT and the proposed site is near Duck Pond, in the middle of the beautiful serene woods, on one of the highest spots in the woods, almost at the tree line. I was shocked for many reasons and I am opposed to this project. So are many Wellfleet voters. In fact a group of over 20 Wellfleet voters have started a petition against the industrial grade wind turbine in the National Park and we have over 100 signatures at this time; and we have just started to let people know. This is not an appropriate location for an industrial wind turbine! This is what I and many many Wellfleet voters say to me.

I fell in love with this National Park at age 10. Whether one grew up here and

chooses to stay, or one visits and makes a choice to live here, there is one

common thread, we in Wellfleet are very lucky to live in a treasure of a town that has the implicit contract with “we the people”, the American public, and The United States government. Approximately 60% of Wellfleet is in a National Park. We choose to live in Wellfleet because we know that the National Parks are entrusted to the future of the world and mandated by law according to the

mission of the National Park Service in 1916 “to conserve the scenery and the

natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the

enjoyment of the same in such a manner and by such means as will leave them

unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” The purpose of Cape Cod

National Seashore, which is also printed in the handbooks for members of the

Advisory Commission, is to “Preserve the nationally significant and special

cultural and natural features, distinctive patterns of human activity, and ambiance that characterizes the Outer Cape, along with the associated scenic, cultural and recreational values.” And to “Provide opportunities for current and future generations to experience, enjoy and understand these features and values.”

Because there is an anomaly of town owned land in this national park, I implore

you – do not set a precedent here in CCNS for all National Parks throughout

America, or set an example for any. Send a clear and strong message that the

purpose of the National Parks is two-fold; for preservation and recreation, and

any industrial wind turbine in a National Park is neither. They are NOT

APPROPRIATE for a National Park. Don’t let this be your legacy. Not on our

watch.

In my opinion, we on Cape Cod do not have the moral or legal right to speak for

the American people or to rewrite the laws, or change the purpose of this

National Park. We do not have the right to set precedent for industrial wind

turbines to be placed in Cape Cod National Seashore or to have this National

Park to be used as an example for others. This is a time to think clearly and

critically and send a clear message.

In closing, during my two weeks of research concerning industrial grade wind

turbines I have been struck with the similarity of a book I read in the late 60s,

early 70s which helped to shape my passion for environmental issues. It’s called Silent Spring by Rachel Carson. I re-read it recently and put post-its on any page in my opinion had analogies to the situation I speak of today, industrial wind turbines in a National Park. I have three very short lines to quote.

At the beginning of her book on page 6 she quotes Albert Schweitzer, as he says

“Man can hardly even recognize the devils of his own creation.”

And at the end on pg. 296, “Though all these new, imaginative, and creative

approaches to the problem of sharing our earth with other creatures there runs a constant theme, the awareness that we are dealing with life – with living

populations and all their pressures and counter-pressures, their surges and

recessions.”

And the next page, the last page, “The ‘control of nature’ is a phrase conceived in arrogance, born of the Neanderthal age of biology and philosophy, when it was supposed that nature exists for the convenience of Man.”

As custodians of the future of Cape Cod National Seashore and our National

Parks, say no to industrial wind turbines in CCNS. It is not an appropriate

location. Let’s work together on responsible solutions for CCNS and be an

example to our nation for responsible solutions.

I was asked to include the following for the record by the Chairman of the

Advisory Commission and the NPS representative present at the meeting today:

I saw two Common Loons, Gavia immer, on Duck Pond in Wellfleet on Sunday, March 7th mid day. Noel Parker saw six loons on Duck Pond on Monday, March 8th. On Wednesday, March 10th, there were no loons witnessed by me on Duck Pond. As we know, Cape Cod is an eastern flyway for migratory waterfowl. Every spring, very early in the spring and every fall very late in the fall, even the last week of November, since 1991, I’ve witnessed the loons as well as many different species of water fowl stopping but for a few days on Duck Pond. I sincerely hope that the environmental study for the proposed industrial wind turbine in the National Park near Duck Pond is conducted for a long enough duration; i.e. for one full year, and takes into account the migratory waterfowl patterns.

24Mar/100

Cape Wind: State official says it would harm the area

State historical preservation officer Brona Simon spoke out against the Cape Wind turbine project proposed for Nantucket Sound during a hearing in Barnstable on Monday. She noted that the project is 24 to 25 square miles. "You can see the concern we have with the adverse effects of the proposal," she said. "The visual element will alter the setting outside the character of the historic properties."

March 24, 2010 in The Patriot Ledger

BARNSTABLE - State historical preservation officer Brona Simon spoke out against the Cape Wind turbine project proposed for Nantucket Sound during a hearing in Barnstable on Monday.

She noted that the project, which would include 130 giant wind turbines, is 24 to 25 square miles.

"You can see the concern we have with the adverse effects of the proposal," she said. "The visual element will alter the setting outside the character of the historic properties."

Simon, head of the Massachusetts Historical Commission, noted that since the sound isn't yet listed as a National Historic Landmark, the National Park Service determined the effects would be indirect, but she noted the sound was important to both the Wampanoag tribes and European settlers.

"In addition, there are underwater cultural resources likely to be imperiled by construction," she said. "(It is an area) likely to have been utilized by native American ancestors."

Simon said alternative sites have been suggested - such as south of Martha's Vineyard.

"In the years since (2001), deep-water wind technology has made considerable progress," she said.

The federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation held Monday's meeting in Barnstable to collect comments about the effects of the wind farm.

That agency will send the comments to Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar before April 14, and he'll determine whether the Minerals Management Service will issue the project a permit for development in federal waters.

"Cape Wind has been sensitive to historic and cultural concerns through nine years of this process," Cape Wind spokesman Mark Rodgers told the panel. "The only impacts to historic properties identified there previously are visual. The impacts are minimal only, and the National Park Service has determined Cape Wind has no direct adverse historical impact."

http://www.patriotledger.com/business/x126578903/C...

Tagged as: Cape Cod, Cape Cod National Seashore, Cape Wind, Conflict of Interest, Costs, local issue, Massachusetts, National Park Service, Problems, too close, viewshed, Wind, wind industry, wind turbines No Comments

23Mar/100

RECORD ACTIVITY FOR SAVEOURSEASHORE.ORG

Yesterday March 22, 2010 broke the record for the most active day for our website SAVEOURSEASHORE.ORG We recorded 192 hits which considering the modest Wellfleet population, IS HUGE! The previous most active day was set five months ago just after our startup. I want to thank the many people getting involved in saving Cape Cod National Seashore. Let's keep getting the word out to protect our National Parks.

If the town is successful in developing this commercial industrial wind farm in our National Park; will the National Park Service see this as a opportunity to develop all the NATIONAL PARKS? No one debates whether this land is in the park boundaries. There is no doubt this is industrial equipment and the commercial purpose is to make money. Once Pandora's box is open then will any park be protected? Mr Price the CCNS Superintendent currently believes this is part of a National mission. Let's not give them that green light!

Tagged as: Alternative Energy, Cape Cod, Cape Cod National Seashore, Conflict of Interest, local issue, Massachusetts, National, National Park, National Park Service, Nature, Save Our SeaShore, SaveOurSeaShore, SaveOurSeaShore.Org, too close, viewshed, Wellfleet, Wellfleet Energy Committee, wind turbines No Comments

23Mar/100

Winds of opposition build against Harwich turbines

Credit: By William F. Galvin, Cape Cod Chronicle, www.capecodchronicle.com March 18, 2010

HARWICH — The winds of defiance continue to howl from the neighborhoods that could be in the shadow of two proposed commercial wind turbines. Monday night, about a dozen residents continued their protest of town plans to lease land to Cape and Vineyard Electric Cooperative.

The rancor was fortified by news of two turbine failures in Nantucket and Marstons Mills. A broken blade was cast nearly 200 feet at Bartlett’s Ocean View Farm on Nantucket in late January.

Those incidents raised questions of safety to go along with concerns for noise and shadow flicker among residents of neighborhood in Headwaters and North Harwich.

“It’s a great concern of the board of health,” chairman Dr. Stanley Kocot told selectmen of the flying object.

Kocot was before selectmen to provide a report as requested by the board. He said the report is not ready and they would need more time. A preliminary report would be ready in the first week in April, he said. When pushed by selectmen, Kocot said they have read numerous articles citing noise impacts, but there are no physical effects on health from the turbines.

Town Administrator James Merriam said they have scheduled a community forum on wind turbines for Saturday, April 17 at 9:30 a.m. at the community center. He said experts will be available to answer questions.

There will certainly be questions. The residents in the area of the proposed wind turbines are concerned about the proximity of the structures to their homes and the potential for noise, flicker and property devaluation.

North Harwich resident Linda Solomon said she understands the town is hurting for money and the selectmen are looking at this as a moneymaker. But she cited the problems with two turbines in Vinalhaven, Maine that have caused 24 of 38 homeowners to complain. She asked if the town is ready to buy these homes if property values drop.

“I assume the board of selectmen did not do a proper investigation before jumping on the bandwagon,” Solomon said. “Or you don’t care about the 350 homeowners (within a half mile). If that’s the case, you don’t care about the people of Harwich and you have no right holding your jobs.”

Selectman Larry Ballantine said he’s read the reports on decibel levels and the real estate reports. He said you can read the data on both sides of the argument and he admitted selectmen do not have an easy decision. But he also said sound is measured differently by individuals. He said at last week’s turbine visit he could barely hear it at 800 feet, but admitted someone else might have another opinion.

“Harwich wants to put this in a residential area with way more homes than in any other case,” Solomon said.

Selectman Larry Cole challenged that, citing the turbine placed in Portsmouth, R.I., near 200 homes. He said there was one complaint about flicker. There were discussions about the two turbines working in Hull and differing views on the neighborhood acceptance there.

Selectmen have cited a real estate impact study that was conducted at University of California Berkeley to show property values do not drop in areas where wind turbines are located. The study examined 7,500 homes at 24 sites in nine states.

But Headwaters resident Maura Toma said she did her own research on that report and it shows less than 1 percent of the homes in the study are within a half mile of the turbines, and only 1.7 percent are within a mile. Some residents in the Headwaters area could be within a quarter of a mile of one proposed site.

“The reason I’m up here, I’m scared it will affect my property value, my quality of life,” said Alice Kuntz. The homeowner said she purchased her house just two months before the November town meeting vote to support leasing the land.

She cited concerns for flicker and its impact every 1.3 seconds for 600 hours a year as a Weston & Sampson Engineering study concluded could happen in close proximity to the turbines. She had someone flick the room lights off and on every 1.3 seconds to demonstrate her point.

Headwaters resident Rick Toma said he is speaking for a lot of people when he says the town could have done a better public relation job and in getting more people involved before the town meeting vote.

Toma said in doing more research he learned about the state of Vermont considering legislation to keep turbines one-and-a-quarter miles from homes. The French government is looking at a mile-and-a-half, and Minnesota is working toward a half mile.

“I would feel better if my neighbors and the town knew what the project was and then voted on it,” Toma said of the unknowns still remaining.

“If it doesn’t meet the planning board site plan special permit requirements, it doesn’t go anywhere,” Selectman Angelo LaMantia said. “Nobody’s issued a building permit; this is only one stage, part of the process.”

“That land has always been open space, good habitat for what’s left for all the critters on the Cape,” North Harwich resident Chris Norcross said. “You’re going to turn that land into Disneyland. The noise itself will disrupt animals there. The town has changed fast enough. How much more do you want to disfigure it?”

Tagged as: Cape Cod, Fight, Harwich, Health, local issue, Massachusetts, Problems, SaveOurSeaShore, too close, viewshed, Wind, wind industry, wind turbines No Comments

22Mar/100

DID YOU KNOW?

72% of visitors say that one of the most important reasons for preserving national parks is to provide opportunities to experience natural peace and the sounds of nature.

Why does the National Park Service management follow it own finding when it comes to wind energy development in Cape Cod National Seashore.

See what the National Park Service writes about the importance of sound will they protect Cape Cod?

http://www.nature.nps.gov/naturalsounds/

Contact George_Price@nps.gov to make your feelings know!

The increasing energy development is resulting in greater noise impacts on park acoustical environments (soundscapes). Noise-related impacts on park acoustical environments may affect visitor experience, wildlife habitat, migration routes, and reproduction.

Tagged as: Cape Cod, Cape Cod National Seashore, Massachusetts, National Park, Nature, Noise, Problems, SaveOurSeaShore, too close, wind turbines No Comments

21Mar/100

Wind farms’ effect on radar a clear concern

The U.S. military is growing increasingly concerned that proposed wind farms can disrupt or block radar designed to detect threats and protect America's skies, a problem that is stalling the alternative energy projects around the country. A top U.S. general told Congress on Thursday that federal agencies need to work better together on a formal vetting process for the wind projects.

March 21, 2010 by Lolita C. Baldor in Associated Press

WASHINGTON - The U.S. military is growing increasingly concerned that proposed wind farms can disrupt or block radar designed to detect threats and protect America's skies, a problem that is stalling the alternative energy projects around the country.

A top U.S. general told Congress on Thursday that federal agencies need to work better together on a formal vetting process for the wind projects to prevent them from being built where they will interfere with radar defenses.

Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, head of U.S. Northern Command, said a number of projects raise "real concerns" involving radar interference, and he suggested that requiring companies to conduct early checks during the approval process for such obstruction might be needed.

"We've heard concerns that wind turbines may interfere with radar and impact military training routes," said House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, D-Mo. "While we must find new ways to meet our energy security needs, we must not compromise our national security."

While the radar interference issue isn't new, it has become a bigger problem as more wind projects move through the permit process. Industry leaders and the Energy Department have said that wind power could provide as much as 20 percent of the nation's electricity by 2030.

Last month, Pentagon officials raised the issue with Congress, saying they are devoting a lot of time and effort to the growing challenge of ensuring that energy projects don't conflict with military requirements.

"The current process for reviewing proposals and handling disputes is opaque, time-consuming and ad hoc," said Dorothy Robyn, deputy undersecretary of defense for installations and environment.

The Federal Aviation Administration reviews wind farm projects, looking at any interference with air navigation or radar systems. But while the FAA can flag problems during its review of a project, it can't force a change or prevent a wind farm from being approved if a change isn't made. Its recommendations, though, sometimes can affect a local zoning or other approval process.

Renuart and others say a more coordinated, interagency process is needed to better evaluate proposals.

It's difficult to say how many projects are tied up regarding the radar issue, but in a 2009 survey, industry executives said that more than a dozen had been stalled, according to Laurie Jodziewicz, manager of siting policy for the American Wind Energy Association.

Jodziewicz said that projects totaling 10,000 megawatts of wind power were built in the U.S. last year, while projects involving another 10,000 megawatts were stalled by the radar issue. Projects vary in size and can include any number of turbines, but one turbine can generate 1.5 to 3 megawatts of power in an hour at higher wind speeds.

The industry, Jodziewicz said, wants to work with federal agencies and officials are getting closer to finding a process that works. She conceded, though, that bringing everyone together can be a challenge.

Jodziewicz also said that, at times, the interference can be solved by upgrading the older radar systems, and that developers will work with the Defense Department to do those improvements.

In other cases the problem can be solved by shifting the configuration of the wind farm.

Renuart said the North American Aerospace Defense Command, which he also heads, is putting together a radar obstruction evaluation team to determine the impacts of proposed wind energy projects in close proximity to our radars.

The Pentagon released a report in 2006 detailing the concerns with the wind farms, and said the Defense Department is developing other ways to deal with the problem, including technology improvements to the radar systems.

http://www.amarillo.com/stories/032110/bus_biz7.sh...

Tagged as: Alternative Energy, Cape Cod, Conflict of Interest, Danger, International, National, Problems, Radar, Research, Wellfleet, wind industry, wind turbines No Comments

21Mar/100

NATIONAL SEASHORE MUST BE PRESERVED

GUEST COMMENTARY – CAPE CODDER – FRIDAY, MARCH 19

NATIONAL SEASHORE MUST BE PRESERVED

There have been several statements recently relating to the Town of Wellfleet’s proposal to install a huge industrial wind turbine within the National Seashore shich are worthy of correction or comment. Here are two:

1. Town of Wellfleet to NPS: None of Your Business.

At a recent meeting of theWellfleet Forum, both Mr. Dale Donovan, Chairman of the Board of Selectmen, and Mr. Karlson referenced – and even quoted – a legal opinion provided by Wellfleet’s Town Counsel asserting that the Town of Wellfleet can do whatever it pleases on Town land within the Seashore – anything – because the Town was there before the Seashore. According to these gentlemen, even if the NPS opposed Wellfleet’s ambitions, they would be wasting their time because “they have no legal standing.”

Clearly, this assertion takes direct aim at the bedrock provision contained in the enabling legislation for the National Seashore – and for ALL national parks – prohibiting “commercial or industrial use” of land within the park. This categorical prohibition against such use, which is embedded within the Act of Congress that created the Seashore, applies to all land within the boundaries of the park and not merely to “government property”:or to “property owned by the national park.

Mr. George Price, Superintendent of the National Seashore, who was in the audience then came forward at the end of the meeting to flatly contradict this assertion and even cited the Blasch case as proof that the NPS does indeed have legal standing to defend its rights.

So who is right? Since this is a matter of fundamental importance, it would be extremely helpful to all interested parties – including park users and the Town of Wellfleet -- if the National Park Service would issue a response to the Town of Wellfleet elaborating on whether or not Congress intended the park service to have control over the use of land within the Seashore and if park users can expect any relief or assistance from the NPS or from Superintendent Price in resisting such a desecration of this beloved national park.

2. “Preservation of the Natural and Cultural Landscape in Its Original Condition”

Recently, Ms. Helen Miranda Wilson repeated a statement that she had made to the CCNS Advisory Commission to the effect that she believes that colossal industrial wind turbines are beautiful objects which would grace the landscape of the park. As many know, the Seashore has conducted an exercise they call “view shed analysis” in the company of a handful of wind turbine proponents (primarily members of the respective Energy Committees of the towns that abut the Seashore) in an attempt to determine the least objectionable sites to install the massive structures. Some members of CCNS management have asserted that the perceived effect of industrial wind turbines upon the visual landscape is “inherently subjective.”

Mr. Karlson has duly picked up on this theme, insisting that any opinion of the appropriateness – or inappropriateness – of installing wind turbines within the National Seashore is a matter of “mere personal preference.” In fact, at the Wellfleet Forum, Mr. Karlson displayed a pronounced proclivity for dismissing almost any concern about the numerous adverse impacts of industrial wind turbines as “matters of personal preference,” with the obvious intention of de-legitimizing any such criticism.

In fact, those who have decried the intrusion of one or more massive 410 foot industrial structures into the scenic landscape are NOT objecting as a “matter of personal preference” but are insisting upon adherence to the Congressional mandate that created the Seashore, which specifically provides that “in order that the seashore shall be permanently preserved in its present state, no development ….shall be undertaken therein which would be incompatible with the preservation of the unique flora and fauna or the physiographic conditions now prevailing.”

This as an objective, rather than a subjective, criterion and any discussion of “personal preference” or “aesthetic beauty” completely misses the point. The Seashore is a national park – not a sculpture garden – and it was created expressly for the purpose of preserving the landscape “in its original condition for the enjoyment of future generations”, despite the personal preferences of Mr. Karlson, Ms. Wilson or anyone else.

Eric S. Bibler
Save Our Seashore
Wellfleet, MA

Tagged as: Alternative Energy, Cape Cod, Cape Cod National Seashore, Conflict of Interest, Costs, Danger, Massachusetts, National Park, National Seashore, Nature, SaveOurSeaShore, Wellfleet, Wellfleet Energy Committee, Wind, wind industry, wind turbines No Comments

8Mar/101

Camp Edwards Get a 389 Ft Wind Turbine

By George Brennan November 03, 2009

CAMP EDWARDS — Rose Forbes, the woman who spearheaded a wind turbine project for the Air Force, said recently it made little sense for the base to clean up groundwater using energy that fouled the air through fossil-fuel emissions.

Yesterday, federal, state, local and military officials gathered to celebrate her vision.

More than 200 people huddled under a tent at the base of the 389-foot turbine as the wind whipped outside. They were invited to celebrate the completion of the $4.6 million, 1.5-megawatt turbine and a milestone in the massive cleanup of pollution at the Massachusetts Military Reservation.

"The Air Force can now say all environmental cleanup decisions and remedies are now in place," said Doug Karson, a spokesman for the Air Force Center of Engineering and the Environment and yesterday's master of ceremonies.

The last two decisions on how to treat two chemical spills were signed within the past few weeks, Karson said.

"Today is the culmination of a long and, at times, arduous saga," U.S. Rep. William Delahunt, D-Mass., said. There were times when it was difficult to see the "end of the cleanup tunnel," he said.

The end is still several decades away, but the wind turbine is expected to make the effort less expensive.

The Air Force expects its turbine to generate 30 percent of the electricity needed to operate the water treatment plants on the base, a savings of about $600,000.

It is located outside one of the nine treatment systems that pump and treat 15 million gallons of water polluted by training and weapons testing on the Upper Cape base.

Several speakers, including Ira Leighton, acting regional administrator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, noted the role community activists played in holding the military accountable for pollution.

The community was angry and distrustful of the military, Delahunt said.

They and other speakers pointed out that the wind turbine represents the change that's taken place at the base over the past three decades.

"This one turbine represents just the beginning of (Massachusetts Military Reservation's) energy independence," Maj. Gen. Joseph Carter, adjutant general of the Massachusetts National Guard, said.

The Guard has filed plans to add as many as 17 wind turbines on the 22,000-acre base and is working with the Federal Aviation Administration to make sure they won't interfere with the base airfield.

"We will not only have the greenest cleanup," Delahunt said, "but we are setting this base up to be the first energy-independent military installation in the United States."

With all the parts finally in place, the Air Force is eager to take its new wind turbine for a spin but has to finalize some agreements with NStar and finish some electrical work before flipping the switch, Forbes said.

That could happen any day, she said.

The turbine stands as a testament to the state's commitment to alternative-energy sources and to eliminating roadblocks to getting them built, Ian Bowles, secretary of the state Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, said.

"It's a symbol of clean energy," he said.

http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091103/NEWS/911030317

Tagged as: Alternative Energy, Cape Cod, Massachusetts, wind turbines 1 Comment

4Mar/101

Harwich Resident Learns about Wind Turbine and Doesn’t Like IT

I recieve this from a Harwich resident that is dealing with learning the truth about their planned Wind Turbine

Hi All,
I went rogue last night at the Board of Selectman's Meeting! Below is what I said during the public comment section early on. At around 10:30 they got to the agenda item about the wind turbines.
If you're interested, the meeting is on channel 18 at 7:00 tonight. I'm at the beginning and not again until around 10:15.
See you Thursday night.
Terry Hayden

My name is Terry Hayden and I live at 2 Headwaters Dr., at least according to where 0 Headwaters Dr. is located.

At the Harwich special town meeting of Nov. 12, voters supported an article authorizing selectmen to enter into an agreement with Cape and Vineyard Electric Cooperative to install two 400-foot turbines on town-owned land. These are 145 ft taller than the Pilgrim Monument (252 feet) in Provincetown.

Shame on me for not doing my homework before the special town meeting. The one turbine location was advertised as “Zero Headwaters Dr”. I incorrectly assumed that the property was at the beginning of Headwaters Dr. My house is about 1,000 feet from one of the two 400-foot turbines so for me this literally is a NIMBY issue. I have been living in my home and paying real estate taxes for 29 years. My home is one of 500 homes located within 3000 feet of these turbines.

I truly want to believe that none of you knew that there were 500 homes within 3,000 feet of these turbines. I KNOW that the majority of these homeowners still do not realize that their homes will be that close to these 400 foot turbines.

The Headwaters neighborhood is the largest panhandle development in the country. A panhandle development means that there is only one way in and one way out. Have you looked at the extra safety concerns this brings?

I believe that there are serious health issues to be considered. There will be noise. There will be flicker. Some people’s sleep will be disturbed by the noise and others will suffer migraines from the flicker. I look forward to hearing the Board of Health’s recommendation.

Everyone’s property value will be affected. What is the total property value of those 500 homes now? What will the figure become when these turbines are up and running?

While the town’s committees have been working for 8 years to get wind turbines erected it has only been within the last year that these sites have been considered.

I feel that I as a registered voter/taxpaying neighbor and you as elected officials have not been treated honestly and respectfully by the utilities and energy committee. They have told you as selectmen and us as neighbors that they planned a public communication effort that would include discussion with residents in the Headwaters area. This has not happened. I gave the committee all of my contact information as requested at their meeting that I attended and have not heard a thing from them.

We were promised a visit to a similar size working turbine and the surrounding area back in December and that has not materialized.

We were told in January that there would be a public informational meeting hopefully within 30 days with written notification going out to neighbors within 3,000 feet. It has since been discovered that there are 500 homeowners to notify. We now understand that a meeting of that type probably will not be scheduled until April.

The committee and the CVEC present more studies to more boards that are like comparing apples to oranges. There have been no studies published that have 500 homes within 3,000 feet of 400 foot turbines. Why do you think that is? I think it’s because we would be the first!

Do you really want to take that kind of chance? 500 homes within 3,000 feet.

I look forward to hearing the benchmarks and schedule for the wind tower approval that is on tonight’s agenda.

Thank you very much for your time and hopefully consideration.

Tagged as: Cape Cod, Conflict of Interest, Costs, Harwich, Health, letter, local issue, Massachusetts, Noise, Problems, too close, viewshed, wind industry, wind turbines 1 Comment

3Mar/100

Cape college fails to clear wind turbine hurdle

Cape Cod Times

pcassidy@capecodonline.com By Patrick Cassidy March 03, 2010

Following more than four hours of passionate debate and deliberation, the Old King's Highway Regional Historic District Commission voted 5-0 yesterday to uphold a denial of the college's plan to build a 243-foot-tall turbine on its West Barnstable campus.

"The height as you move away from it becomes more and more obvious, it becomes more and more imposing," George Jessop, Barnstable's representative to the commission, said prior to the vote, which was cast in a meeting room at the West Barnstable fire station packed with more than 50 people. "The size is key here."

Jessop, who could not vote because it was a decision by the Barnstable Old King's Highway Historic District Committee that the project's proponents appealed to the regional commission, said the size of the turbine was simply inappropriate for the area.

Several neighbors agreed, arguing the project would have a negative effect on their property values and quality of life.

"The turbine has no place in this historic district," said Mark Bonaiuto, who lives on Acorn Drive, less than a half mile from the turbine's proposed location. The noise from the turbine, he said, would be like "dripping water."

For Bonaiuto's wife, Marianne, the flicker from the spinning blades she experienced during a visit to the turbine at the Massachusetts Maritime Academy in Buzzards Bay was "disturbing," especially because of her tendency to develop migraine headaches.

"I'd love to see a turbine," just not in the style, scale and location of the college project, she said.

'What could be better?'

But for every person who objected to the turbine two rose to support it.

"We are losing youth on Cape Cod precisely because of that type of mind-set," said Sarah Cote of Sandwich, an executive assistant at the pro-wind energy group Clean Power Now.

As for setting a precedent by approving the turbine: "What could be better?" she said.

Other speakers questioned how communication and water towers are built in the district but a wind turbine is denied.

Attorney Bruce Gilmore, who represented the college and the state, argued the Barnstable historic district committee did not account for benefits the turbine would bring to the college and the community in energy savings, environmental protection and educational.

"I would say on its face that that is a fatal flaw," he said of overlooking the project's benefits. The historic district's enabling act specifically requires that energy benefits of a proposal be considered, he said.

The wind turbine would produce more than one million kilowatt hours of energy and save the college an estimated $170,000 annually, said Dixie Norris, vice president of administration and finance at the school.

The college uses about 4.6 million kilowatt hours of electricity annually and spent an average of $725,049 a year on electricity over the past four years, she said.

Norris said an estimated $50,000 of revenue each year from unused energy the turbine produced would have gone to a low-income energy conservation program.

The project would also provide a "living laboratory" for students learning about renewable energy, college president Kathleen Schatzberg said.

No one is benefiting from the turbine now. The windmill is sitting in pieces inside a hangar at Otis Air National Guard Base, where it has been since arriving from India last year.

The Barnstable historic district committee called a halt to the project in the fall because the college and state had neglected to seek the local panel's approval before moving forward.

The college, which is typically exempt from local zoning law, was unaware that it needed the historic district committee's approval, Gilmore said.

Little room to compromise

After receiving approval from the state, the college moved the project from one side of the campus to the other and reduced the turbine's height from 400 feet to 243 feet because of demands from the Federal Aviation Administration, he said.

The FAA's stance left the regional historic district committee and the college with little room to compromise, said the panel's chairman, Peter Lomenzo of Dennis. "What could we do?" he said after the regional commission found the Barnstable historic district committee had not acted arbitrarily and capriciously in its decision. Local historic district committees and alternative energy committees should get together in the future to work out issues like this before they get to this point, he said.

The college and state have 20 days after a written decision is filed with the Barnstable town clerk to appeal the ruling to Barnstable District Court, a move Schatzberg said she will try to push forward. "That would be a joint decision," she said, citing the state Division of Capital Asset Management's responsibility for the project.

http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100303/NEWS/3030307/-1/NEWS11

Tagged as: Cape Cod, Costs, FAA, local issue, Massachusetts, Noise, Problems, too close, viewshed, wind industry, wind turbines No Comments

23Feb/100

URGENT Cape Cod Commission Planning Meeting to determine rules for near shore waters

Wind energy planning district hearings

Feb 23 6 p.m. Assembly of Delegates Chamber, Barnstable District Courthouse, Barnstable
Feb 24 6 p.m. Bourne High School library
Feb 25 6 p.m. Provincetown High School library

EASTHAM — Even in the chilly world of winter on the Outer Cape, talk of offshore wind turbines can generate some heat.

"I just don't think that wind energy is economically feasible for people of Cape Cod," Mary Allen Bradley of East Orleans said during a hearing yesterday at Eastham Town Hall on a proposed wind energy planning district for Cape waters.

The true cost of energy from wind should be examined more closely before any projects are approved, Bradley said.

"I find that to be just outrageous, as a ratepayer and a taxpayer at the federal and the state level," she said of subsidies and premiums that wind energy needs to compete with fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas.

The hearing was the second of five being held by the Cape Cod Commission on the designation of a so-called Capewide District of Critical Planning Concern, or DCPC, for renewable-energy projects such as wind turbines. The designated area would begin about 1,500 feet out from mean high water and extend to three miles offshore, covering 521,552 acres of open water.

A DCPC protects designated areas from specific types of development. There have been nine such planning districts established in seven Cape towns since 1990.

Martha's Vineyard, which is also moving forward with plans to establish a wind energy planning district, has 26 of the protected planning areas for various resources and uses, including four that are islandwide.

Full range of views

The Cape Cod Ocean Sanctuary off the Cape Cod National Seashore is already protected under the Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan, which was finalized at the end of last year. The state plan leaves areas in the waters around Cape Cod open to the possibility of as many as 24 community-sponsored wind turbines but gives authority to the Cape Cod Commission and the Martha's Vineyard Commission to determine the appropriate scale of the projects and the rules developers must follow in each agency's jurisdiction.

Despite a turnout of fewer than a dozen people, many of the viewpoints argued by those for and against offshore wind turbines during the debate that has raged for nine years over the proposed Nantucket Sound wind farm were represented.

The planning district would not affect Cape Wind's plan for offshore turbines, as the site envisioned is in federal waters.

If nothing is done, climate change could have devastating impacts, especially for a place like Cape Cod, said Eastham Selectman David Schropfer.

"If anyplace is vulnerable to rising sea levels it is certainly this peninsula," he said. He noted that the high point of land in Eastham is between 16 and 18 feet above sea level, and a parking lot near his home has lost more than half of its parking spaces to the sea over the years.

He also told the Cape Cod Commission representatives that on a recent trip to Alaska he took his wife to see a glacier he had last visited about 15 years earlier.

"It was 100 miles away," from where it had been during his previous visit, he said.

Still, the need for renewable energy must be balanced by its impacts on tourism and the local economy, he said.

"How do we protect this area and how do we use it at the same time?" he asked.

Scaring off developers

Susan Kadar, a former Cape Cod Commission representative from Truro, outlined three reasons she opposes the planning district.

She said it appears the county is wresting power from municipalities over projects off their coast rather than delivering more control to local towns, as county officials have argued. The Cape Cod Commission also seems to be encroaching on towns' control over their "community character," she said.

Finally, Kadar argued, the involvement of the Cape Cod Commission could scare off wind-energy developers who do not want to go through the expense and process of appearing before the agency.

"There are occasions where businesses say, 'I would rather not'" appear before the commission, she said.

For others in the audience the hearing was a chance to learn more about the proposal.

Regulatory authorities need to catch up to changes in what is now possible, Dennis Clark of Truro said after the hearing.

"It's a lot better to have the regulations in place than no regs," he said.

The commission is scheduled to make a recommendation March 11 to the Barnstable County Assembly of Delegates on whether to designate the planning district. The assembly then has 60 days to decide whether to move forward.

If the district is designated, the towns and the Cape Cod Commission would have one year to adopt regulations for the district.

For more information go to www.capecodcommission.org

http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100223/NEWS/2230308/-1/NEWS01

Tagged as: Cape Cod, Cape Cod National Seashore, Conflict of Interest, Danger, Nature, wind industry, wind turbines No Comments

23Feb/100

Office Hours with Rep. Sarah Peake

State Rep. Sarah K. Peake (4^th Barnstable District) will hold office hours at Harwich Town Hall on Friday, Feb. 26. No appointment is necessary.

Please let her know how you feel about wind turbines closer than 1 miles to houses?

Tagged as: Conflict of Interest, Danger, States, too close, Wellfleet, wind turbines No Comments

Save Our SeaShore Alliance to Protect Cape Cod National SeaShore from Wind Turbines!

SaveOurSeaShore’s Response to the National Parks Conservation Association’s Letter

National Parks Conservation Association Letter of Support!!!

Open Letter to the Citizens & Voters of the Town of Wellfleet from Selectman Beebe

Cape Wind rejection recommended

Preserve and protect our Seashore

Blow dealt to Cape Wind project

Will Lessons be Learned about National Parks and Wind Turbines? OP-ED SaveOurSeaShore

WE STOPPED THE WIND TURBINES IN WELLFLEET, MA

WE STOPPED THE WIND TURBINE!!!! March 30, 2010

The Wellfleet Board of Selectmen wisely voted 5-0 to spend no more money to develop a wind farm.

Long time Resident Makes Statement on Wellfleet Wind Turbine to Cape Cod Advisory Commission

Cape Wind: State official says it would harm the area

RECORD ACTIVITY FOR SAVEOURSEASHORE.ORG

Winds of opposition build against Harwich turbines

DID YOU KNOW?

Wind farms’ effect on radar a clear concern

NATIONAL SEASHORE MUST BE PRESERVED

Camp Edwards Get a 389 Ft Wind Turbine

Harwich Resident Learns about Wind Turbine and Doesn’t Like IT

Cape college fails to clear wind turbine hurdle

URGENT Cape Cod Commission Planning Meeting to determine rules for near shore waters

Wind energy planning district hearings

Full range of views

Office Hours with Rep. Sarah Peake

Login

Posts

Pages

Recent Comments

History

Quick Link

Things to Know

Turbine Failure

Categories

Archives

Total Petition Signatures