continued…local officials visit m.m.s. in dc to discuss the wind project proposed for nantucket sound

December 17, 2007 at 3:26 pm | In Department of the Interior, Horseshoe Shoals, Minerals Management Service, Nantucket Sound, Wind Farm, barnstable town council, cape wind, windmills |
Tags: , ,

for a message regarding Wendy Williams link to this post see the end of this post…….

THIS post is continued from (or rather part 2 of) this previous post……

We reported to the Department of the Interior on Friday Dec. 14, 2007 to meet with:

  • Randall Luthie Secretary of Minerals Management for the Department of the Interior:
  • Walter D. Cruickshank Deputy Director
  • Jon A. Hrobsky Deputy Director
  • Michael Olsen Deputy assistant secretary Land and Minerals Management
  • Chief of staff MMS Holly Hopkins

This group from Mineral Management is now in the process of assembling a report on the proposed Cape Wind project.

As an introduction, we made it clear that we were very unhappy that throughout the information gathering of the draft Environmental Impact Report and possible permitting of this process, no one has asked for input from the surrounding communities that would be directly affected by this project.

Right up front we explained that the characterization of the surrounding communities as wealthy ocean front homeowners who are concerned about their views is great PR for Cape Wind, but unfair and untrue when you consider the individual constituencies of the group in attendance.  Our towns have median household incomes below the average in our Commonwealth.  We discussed our concern that MMS is developing a permitting process for off-shore wind projects that will be complete AFTER the Cape Wind report and permitting process is complete.

The draft environmental impact report by MMS will be released in January, with a 60-90 day comment period to follow.  The draft permitting process for all offshore wind projects will be released in April with 60-90 days comment period to follow.

We told them that we are unhappy that our only opportunity for input is the comment period following the release of the report, and not during the information gathering that precedes the report.

During the meeting the group from the group shared the following concerns:

1. Financing of this project:

We have asked continuously throughout the years of various permitting processes, development of Environmental Impact Reports etc. for information about the overall financial viability of this project. We have had no access to any detailed financial information about this project.  We have asked and have not received information that would address concerns about who is funding the project, what it will cost , who will profit, what will the profits be, and if there are residual costs to communities who will pay for this.

Rumors are that this project is now approaching numbers into the billions.  Are Federal Grants planned?

The energy industry and its investors are currently looking at alternative energy sources that are proven or at least more likely be profitable. Generally, investor confidence in wind energy is not making this type of project as attractive as smaller projects, or projects on land, or projects that are more acceptable to local communities.  How are we, as stewards of Nantucket Sound, assured that this project will be seen through to the end, and actual provide a power source that can compete in today’s market?

2. Disaster planning:

Are there plans in place to address possible disasters? The towns surrounding Horseshoe Shoals do not have equipment that will handle the potential disasters a project of this magnitude can present.  If the 100 by 200 foot staging platform, which will hold 40,000 gallons of fuel, were to be damaged in any way and spill fuel, we do not have ability to contain such a spill. 

If there is a fire or collision with a boat or plane, we do not have the fire boats needed to attend to such a catastrophe. 

Will our taxpayers be expected to fund the cost of equipment and training needed to prepare for such disasters?

3. Bonding and insurance

Here on Cape Cod we have lost many home-owner insurance companies who have determined based on scientific models that we are due for a major hurricane.  In that case, are there insurances in place for damage and destruction from such a storm? Is there a specific type of insurance policy? Is there an insurance policy for damage beyond the project? Who will underwrite these policies?

IF the project proves to not be financially viable, will there be bonds sufficient to dismantle and remove the 400 foot towers from Nantucket Sound?  Specifically, will the bonds be sufficient to cover the actual costs, be it 2 years or 20 years, if the project needs to be dismantled?

4. Indian and historic archeology

As a sovereign nation the MMS are required to bring the Wampanoag Tribe to the table.  There are records in their oral history that the area of horseshoe shoals was once a fertile forest that was used by their ancestors and as the science of under water archeology is becoming more and more sophisticated, the possibility that pieces of history would be lost creates a new concern. Core samples show that there was once a forest on that land, and that in itself lends proof that the historic accounts given by the Tribe.

5. Other options and a flawed process overall:

We are consistently painted as a wealthy community who is concerned about our views and our real estate values. The Cape Wind PR machine has done a great job of making this appear to be a NIMBY issue thus giving our concerns little credibility and virtually leaving us out of the process.

In the mean time, each town is working on many different alternative energy projects, like developing zoning and permitting processes for private land-based wind turbines, constructing our own, switching to biodeisel and so on.

The key is small projects to test the viability and adapting permitting and zoning to changes in the industry.

Several different studies have identified other areas farther from shore that would be prime locations for “wind farms.”  But Cape Wind has made it clear that these locations are less profitable for a private developer.

Would this be different if the project was not profit driven?

Most of us agreed that we would support an alternative location and be willing to make sacrifices if the project were to benefit the communities that are most affected.

We were not approached about this project; we approached the developer when we learned what his plans were.  The attitude was, “this is what I am doing, and you can’t stop me.” There was no regard to how it might affect the community, not just in character.  We are asked to bear the burden of an industrial project with oil spill concerns, navigational hazards for boat and plane, and the overall loss of an important resource.

This type of project can be successful if the process is inclusive.

 Overall- the message was that the towns surrounding the proposed project will be impacted in ways that are not being discussed at the federal level — the process that leaves us out, is flawed. According to Cheryl Andrews-Malais who represented the Wampanoag tribe, she has had several  ”consultation” meetings with regard to this project with the Federal Agencies under Section 106 (Consultation) of the National Historic Preservation Act (as Amended) 36 CFR Part 800.  She explained, ”… I will continue to have our government-to-government consultation meetings with them and others.  Because we are a Federally Recognized Indian Tribe, the feds have a “trust responsibility” to the Tribes and we have a “special status” under Federal Law; and my job for the last 3.5 years has been making sure the feds are compliant with this obligation.” 

The group that traveled to Boston believes that the surrounding communities that are impacted by this project deserve similar consideration.  When we are permitting or exploring any type of development on land, abutters are given notice and opportunity to give input.  This system is flawed in that it leaves the most important “abutters” out.

addendum - Just found  a link to this post from Wendy Williams site in the logs. The link comes from the blog site she has set up to promote her book.

 I have never read the book, but it appears she takes the position that” power, money and politics” are fighting this project.  

May I suggest to Wendy, that power, money and politics are PUSHING this project, and that she has made quite a bit of money from the book and speaking engagements related to that book – yet like all others she has never actually talked to any of the towns or communities that would be impacted by this project. 

Who would insure this project, Wendy?

Who pays for it, who profits from it and who will provide training and equipment to first responders who would have to attend to accidents or disasters in the Sound? 

Thanks to Wendy for linking to this site — I hope we will hear from people who visit her site and find their way here. Would be nice to have a dialogue…..for a change!

29 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. Addressing product and support is the issue. That’s the only scare I have. We don’t want a “take the money and run” situation. You address this in parts 1,2,3.

    When you start talking about alternate locations, that when you lose serious credibility. Parts 4,5.

    Most people I have met personally, that are against the windfarm, are not afraid to admit they are NIMBY. I see these people as honest and respect their point of view.

    Keep in mind that “this is what I am doing, and you can’t stop me” is your quote. The developer is doing his job. So you make a good point “Would this be different if the project was not profit driven?” The answer is of course YES.

    We fret over the limited amount of oil that is out there, but there is still much left. Oil prices are driven from this fear, and feel good project like wind farms produce only a portion of our energy needs. However this state is liberal, and green friendly. So the wind farm is coming.

    Why not do this, and at the same time, open the Alaskan oil reserves on the Federal level?

    Comment by Bradley G Ouimette — December 17, 2007 #

  2. Why not look at alternative locations?

    And, the majority of people in the towns represented, including myself, are NOT living with the Sound in our backyards.

    Who pays for the disaster preparation?
    Who pays for the needed equipment?
    Who is paying for the project?

    And, why is it so awful to want to directly benefit from an industrial development that would have a major impact on our lives?

    If I were to tell you that we are looking at a nuclear plant to be developed on the Barnstable Land Fill - that it would be developed by a private company who will make a profit — that there will be no mitigation, and, that the actual power will not benefit the surrounding community -further we won’t tell you how it will be paid for, we won’t provide you with the tools to handle a disaster if there is an accident, and the developer will not be paying anyone to use the property - how would you feel?

    Finally, reliance on foreign or domestic oil will change when we change our driving habits - more than 70% of oil is used for tranportation, brad.

    Comment by JSJ — December 17, 2007 #

  3. Won’t the problems with Cape Wind also exist in other locations? Community benefit (or rather, compensation) is a decent argument, but proposing alternative sites just seems to advocate putting the burden onto other communities/ecosystems. If an alternative site is OK, then people there would be justified in arguing that the Nantucket Sound site is OK, wouldn’t they?

    Comment by purslane — December 18, 2007 #

  4. “other sites have been identified” refers to other sites in this area that would impact the same communities but would be furhter out and the impact would be less.
    Of course the issues of financials and disaster planning still need to be addressed, and any impact is softened when the communities are the benefactors both in reduced electric bills and the knowlege that we are using “alternative” energy.

    Comment by JSJ — December 18, 2007 #

  5. If you are so concerned about oil spills, what about the 50 million gallons of product that is being transported in single hull barges through Nantucket Sound on a regular basis? Also, do marinas have spill prevention/response equipment?

    Comment by M. Calouro — December 19, 2007 #

  6. M. Calouro - we are just as concerned about those barges. The layout of the 400-ft plus turbines are too close to that channel for comfort. One of the concerns our first responders discussed - at the Cape Cod Commission hearings which was the FIRST time they actually had the chance to give input during the process - was that if any one of those barges were to collide with a turbine, we would have the kind of disaster we have not seen.

    As a town councilor, I am worried about the platform and its oil because of its CLOSE proximity to our shore.

    The oil barges are running oil so that we can drive our cars. The idea that wind power will reduce oil is misleading. 75%+ of our oil production is used for vehicle travel - then home heating oil and at the bottom of the list of usages are the oil-fired electric plants.

    The Cape Wind PR machines have been spinning like a windmill in a storm. But the truth is out there. Look at all of the information.

    The towns around the sound don’t have the kind of money that is backing cape wind. But we have been left out of this process long enough. We will not allow this project to go forward without having our LEGITIMATE concerns addressed.

    Comment by JSJ — December 19, 2007 #

  7. Don’t these folks have more important things to do on the taxpayers’ dime? How about fixing the cape public transporation issue?

    Comment by M. Calouro — December 19, 2007 #

  8. M. Calouro –
    What would you have us do with the cape transportation issues?
    That is not something we have a hand in. This is a county/state agency. The flaws are there.

    If we could make that system more user-friendly and efficient, we would reduce our use of oil or “dependence on foreign oil…”

    Have you lent your voice to the transportation issue?

    Comment by JSJ — December 19, 2007 #

  9. Your group seems to want a hand in influencing projects in federal waters. Why stop at wind turbines, why not get involved in public transportation? Isn’t that an issue of regional impact/concern? When is the last time a group like yours made a trip to washington to talk to a federal agency about anything?

    Comment by M. Calouro — December 19, 2007 #

  10. First of all what “group” are you referring to as my “group”?

    We are not determined to prevent these developements from using federal waters. We would welcome a developement that would work with and benefit the local community. That was a primary message when we sat with MMS. We WANT to use alternative energy!! We want in on the exciting possibilities this industry has to offer. But to start with a private developer in on Horse shoe Shoals that has not been done anywhere else… the Eurpoean sites are different in so many ways, including their work with the the impacted communities….. Gordon has spend so much money and time on PR when that effort could have been used to work with the local affected communities.

    This is the first time a federal agency has ignored us in the review of a private project that would have a huge impact on our resources.

    This is NOT the first time I have had meetings with people at the federal level about local issues. Over the years I have met with officials about issues including our education funding and the joke that is the no child left behind law that have left us with huge unfunded mandates….

    We HAVE given our input on public transportation. But it is not an issue we have control over.

    Comment by JSJ — December 19, 2007 #

  11. Ms Joakim,

    I’m not sure if you’ve looked at a nautical chart or checked with these barge operators but they don’t come very close to the shoal (for good reason). If you are concerned about tug barges operating within close proximity to shore, you might want to talk to these operators about their avoiding vineyard sound when delivering fuel to Nantucket. Our maritime industry publication did a few stories on this and spoke with the Great Gull crew and they don’t share your concern. They are very well used to working in restricted waterways, which Nantucket Sound is not. Regarding first responders, MA DEP is providing each waterfront town with spill trailers consisting of 1000ft+ booms and training. Yarmouth/Barnstable should have theirs already? If you are interested in understanding shipping traffic, we are the only company providing real-time tracking. Unfortunately, most of the tug/barge operators in nantucket sound and the steamship authority and hy-line ferries do not carry the equipment. This is a MAJOR concern as this is a collission avoidance tool which costs very little and works very well in low visibility (FOG) situations. Why aren’t the ferries carrying this up-to-date equipment??? They carry millions of passengers each year!!! If you are worried about 40,000 gallons of baby oil (or whatever it is) what about the bunker fuel from the cruise ships entering/exiting Nantucket Sound? One wing tank on the QM2 has over 1 million gallons…

    Comment by M. Calouro — December 19, 2007 #

  12. M. Calouro -
    This will be my last response to you because it is clear that you have not read the testimony from first responders and to refer to 40,000 of deisel oil as “baby oil” shows the kind of attitude that places me living in some mansion along the shore worried about my view…
    Fact is, we are in a small house 5 miles from the ocean. We struggle to pay our bills each month, my husband drives to boston every day to work for a labor union and there are too many people in my precinct who are struggling to stay in their homes for me to continue to be considered a “wealthy Cape Codder.”

    We don’t own a boat. We don’t drive an suv… we don’t own golf clubs and don’t belong to yacht clubs. We are typical year-round cape codders.

    Do I tell the people I represent that we are to equip our first responders to be ready for this project with their tax money?

    Yes we were given a trailer with oil containment booms - but if you put each town’s supply from these trailers together, they would still NOT be enough to contain a spill like this, let alone the practical application of the one trailer we have to protect the miles of beaches on both the north and south shores of our towns. According to Cape Wind’s own reports, there would be at the most, 5 hours before 40,000 gallons of fuel would reach the Craigville beach area, which would put oil into the delicate marshes along the centerville river and further into a very delicate estuary.

    I have become intmiatly familiar with the map of this project. From the original plan that had well over 200 windmills back in 2000-2001 to the current proposal.

    The fact is, this current project has several turbines within 500 feet of primary channels. If a barge loses power now, it risks running aground on a shoal. If a barge loses power around a giant turbine, it risks hitting a turbine and serious damage would ensue.

    These are risks we are not willing to allow without some sort of secure bonding, the purchase of equipment by Cape Wind, and the training of responders in the use of this equipment.

    The people I represent are worried about shell fishing, bait fishing, and the resources that keep us living here. We have every right to expect answers to these concerns and in the past 6-7 years we have had nothing but “we don’t have to answer you.”

    Finally - if you are a Cape Cod resident, do you still have commercial home insurance?
    We don’t.
    We live 5 miles from the beach and are on the highest ground in the area, outside of any flood planes - yet, our insurance company has dropped us because of the risks of hurricanes. The “models” show that should be getting “the big one” and so we have gone from a policy that cost us $400 a year to a fair plan policy that will cost us over $1500 for a home on the lower end of local values.

    So. Who is going to insure these turbines? Who will underwrite those policies?

    No one wants to give me an answer to that question. Would you like to help with that?

    Comment by JSJ — December 19, 2007 #

  13. How much fuel is pumped on the marina/yacht club docks? Do they have spill boom and spill cleanup equipment & training. Do first responders in Barnstable/Yarmouth have the training yet??

    Comment by M. Calouro — December 19, 2007 #

  14. The containment booms given to us as mediation for the buzzards bay oil spills will easily contain such spills.
    These are on shore issues that can also be handled currently by local fire departments, harbor masters etc..

    LEts face it, its apples and oranges. A local marina isn’t a 400 foot tower or 100 b 200 foot platform off-shore with 40,000 of DEISEL fuel, not “baby oil.”

    We have legitimate concerns that can’t be wiped away with a “oh those wealthy home-owners don’t want those things in their back yard…”

    Comment by JSJ — December 19, 2007 #

  15. Why are you using your political priviledge to delay the permitting process?

    Comment by M. Calouro — December 19, 2007 #

  16. Thanks for making this trip to DC, I realize you are busy.
    I used to be a proponent of this project.
    I spent a lot of time and energy being angry at the Osterville residents.
    Then I started reading the material. I watched the way Deval Patrick used the Cape Wind public relations campaign in his own campaign and for the first time in my 50 years of voting, I voted for a Republican!
    You’re right about the way the money has been spend on public relations and how that has influenced the way the whole situation is portrayed.

    Keep up the fight. This is the right idea but the wrong place and the wrong people are behind it.

    Someone needs to come up with a NON-PROFIT alternative to Jim Gordon’s alternative energy. Too many people are making money making us all look like spoiled rich people!!!

    Comment by Anonymous — December 19, 2007 #

  17. The buzzards bay trailers do not have diesel fuel absorbant…

    Comment by M. Calouro — December 19, 2007 #

  18. M Colaruo - do you live in one of the towns that surround this project?
    Ms. Joakim is our Town Council President and is not USING HER POLITCAL PRIVILEGE - she is doing what she was ELECTED to do!!!
    She is ASKING the questions NO ONE WILL ANSWER!!

    This is not abusing power– and being an elected official is a reponsiblity not a privilege.

    If she asks these questions and this makes the project take longer than that OBVIOULSY it SHOULD take longer!!!

    Comment by Anonymous — December 19, 2007 #

  19. What is the capacity of Hyannis Marina’s Fuel tanks????

    Comment by M. Calouro — December 19, 2007 #

  20. Janet,

    Thank you for attending the meeting with MMS in Washington. And, I appreciate your recap on the events.

    I also appreciate your challenge of statements about the ESP oil, 40,000 gallons, described as harmless, “baby oil”. This refrain is not so tired as “NIMBY”, but none-the-less insulting as any oil spill in a marine environment is toxic to marine and bird life according to the EPA.

    Three offshore plans for wind projects in the US have been stalled or cancelled due to bad economics this year.

    Due to special interest language slipped into the Energy Policy Act of 2005, there is no competitive bid for Cape Wind proposed for Nantucket Sound. Of course there are no alternative locations! Cape Wind enjoys no competition for Nantucket Sound, (where a data tower exists).

    What would possibly motivate Cape Wind to look beyond Nantucket Sound, especially under these developer favorable terms?

    As there is no bidding process, the developer’s financial model of Cape Wind is top secret information. I strongly suspect that this economic information is also being kept from the public because it demonstrates that the true financial advantages would go to the developer and industry interests, with little or no measurable return to the public.

    Thank you for looking out for the public interest by asking the important questions, and demanding answers.

    The main purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act NEPA, under which Cape Wind is being reviewed, is to provide citizens a voice in matters that effect us.

    Thank you to all in this delegation who took the time to voice concerns about this project in Washington.

    I’m all for renewable energy except when the cure is worse than the disease.

    The siting of Cape Wind in Nantucket Sound conflicts with the DOI/USFWS interim wind tower siting guidelines; Sierra, Greenpeace, MA Audubon, and others’ siting guidelines. All state to avoid sensitive bird areas and areas where endangered species are present.

    As the evidence that Cape Wind presents a public safety hazard is compelling, (SSA, Hy-Line, all three airports are opposed on this basis), Cape Wind should be denied by MMS under NEPA.

    At the very least, Cape Wind should be taken offline so that this project can be reviewed against a set of standards and rules that will apply to alternative offshore industries when these become available.

    Thank you, Ms. Joakim, for representing the interest of the public, and for protecting citizen rights, like commercial fishing and recreational use of Nantucket Sound, that we should never take for granted.

    Barbara Durkin
    Northboro, MA

    Comment by Barbara Durkin — December 19, 2007 #

  21. Thank you Janet for looking out for the people you have been elected to represent. I fell like you do. Rather than meet with the residents of the area to try to come up with a win/win situation we have had this project shoved down our throats.

    M. Calouro is not a resident of the Cape. He lives in Rhode Island. This is a complicated issue and our concerns are many. However Mr. Calouro, like his friends Barb HIll and Wendy Williams, continue to insist that if you are opposed to this project then you much be opposed to renewal energy. Not true.

    Comment by Anonymous CAPE resident — December 19, 2007 #

  22. I spent the afternoon and evening off-cape in a meeting and then did some Christmas shopping.
    As I was browsing for a book on raptors in the Barnes and Noble in Braintree, I stumbled on Wendy Williams book.
    I have never been interested in reading it — since the first time I saw it when it was being shoved in my face by a member of my own family who was accusing me of being part of some politcal conspiracy funded by the wealthy — because I have objected to the way this project has been steamrolled over us, and into the federal halls…..

    I picked up Williams book tonight and perused the jacket and flipped throught the publishing info on the first few pages looking for a place where she explains where the proceedes for this book will go…. a trust to give grants for homeowners who want to utilize alternative energy in their homes but can’t afford solar panels or a windmill?

    No.

    Nothing ….

    It seems that the proceeds benefit Ms Williams and her co-writer….and according to the site where she provides a link to this post, (where she describes this blog a blog written to oppose Cape Wind with a post by me … this blog actually my blog, and it discusses many different subjects that relate to the Town of Barnstable, Wendy) she has speaking engagements related to this book.

    Is she paid for those as well?

    What a shame .
    - I’d love to chat, but I need to work.
    The electric bill is due, and we need more oil to heat the house. I would love to put one of those small, state of the art windmills on my roof and set solar panels next to it.
    But, I can’t afford those luxuries.
    Those are only available to wealthy……

    No grants, no discounts, just a small tax rebate if I can find a way to finance those solar panels….

    Something is really wrong with this picture.
    I think I should write a book.

    Comment by JSJ — December 20, 2007 #

  23. Wow. So 23 people can contribute 80% of the cash needed to “assist” politicians in ‘demanding’ that their (23 rich folks) voices are heard?

    Comment by M. Calouro — December 20, 2007 #

  24. M. Calouro -
    I have NO idea what you are talking about - I can’t keep moderating comments that make no sense.

    Do you live on Cape Cod?

    Comment by JSJ — December 21, 2007 #

  25. http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071220/NEWS11/71220021

    MMS Report will be delayed

    Comment by JSJ — December 21, 2007 #

  26. Ms. Joakim - did you pay for your trip? If not, how was it paid for?

    Comment by M. Calouro — December 21, 2007 #

  27. Barnstable is having a tough time keeping it’s public transit station open on Sundays and you are trying to hit up the town for a flight/hotel in Washington to lobby against a clean renewable energy project?

    Comment by M. Calouro — December 21, 2007 #

  28. 1. I paid for this trip and have requested reimbursement from the Council. The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound didn’t pay for the trip.
    This is written in my report.

    2. The Alliance has provided a counter to the incredible money and power that is pushing this project through washington.
    The amount of influence and the negative PR generated by the millions Gordon and his supporters is nothing short of shocking.

    It has been clear as we have tried to find a voice.

    The majority of the people who are represented by the alliance are like my husband and me. The Cape is one of the lower income areas.

    3. I was told you live in Rhode Island Mr. Coloruso.

    4. Finally, if you read any of the responses, I had written previously that the transportation center and its funding issues are completely out of the hands of the town council and other municipal governements!! The decisions and management regarding that entity are in control of the county and state!!!!

    Maybe if our governor was more focused on our needs rather than the needs of his future political aspirations he would turn his attention to the transportation issues that effect us locally and not “using his political privlege” to push this project though.

    You seem to have a lot of time on your hands, something I don’t share.

    I cannot moderate your comments any longer. You obviously aren’t reading responses and choose to continue to make accusations that are unfounded.

    The report you sent me shows your address is not Cape Cod and your business interest are clearly the kind that will benefit from this industrial project in our sound.

    Therefor I won’t be moderating your comments any more.

    Merry Christmas.

    Comment by JSJ — December 21, 2007 #

  29. damn

    Comment by lol — December 24, 2007 #

Leave a comment

XHTML: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.