By Jessica Almy
Cape Cod is blessed with a rich literary tradition, whether the lyrical writings of naturalist Henry Beston or the spine-tingling mystery thrillers of Mary Higgins Clark. So it should come as no surprise that when the nation's first offshore wind farm was proposed for this corner of the country, reactions contained literary symbolism thick as the fog over the Sagamore Bridge at dawn.
Some writers have referenced Don Quixote, who saw monstrous giants where only benign windmills stood. The New York Times Magazine published an article in June titled "A Mighty Wind"—a nod to Christopher Guest's recent parody film about folk music, an appropriate reference given that Cape Codders have been told that the answers to their questions about the wind farm are "blowing in the wind." The weekly magazine went on to frame the project's unfolding controversy as a struggle between the common man's need for cheap electricity versus the elite's need for scenic beauty near their seaside mansions. A thoughtful reader couldn't help but imagine the lights of vast estates twinkling over the water à la F. Scott Fitzgerald.
These great images aside, the reality is that when it comes to offshore wind energy development, you'd be hard pressed to find the kinds of heroes and villains usually contained within the covers of a good book. Like so much in life, there's more gray in this debate than black and white. There are more nuances here than a simple class war or even an environmental stalemate about what's more important: creating clean, renewable energy or protecting a natural resource (and its attendant bird and marine species) from a potentially lethal development.
The debate focuses on a $700 million proposal by Cape Wind Associates to construct 130 wind turbines in Nantucket Sound, an ideally windswept area 4.7 miles off the Cape Cod shore and less than nine miles from Martha's Vineyard, that upscale summer vacation destination. These turbines, spaced about one-third of a mile apart, would tower more than 40 stories above sea level and their giant blades would sweep across an area estimated to be two acres.
If built, the project would be one of the largest in the world and could set a precedent for the 24 other U.S. wind farm proposals that have popped up recently, the result of shifting governmental standards, lowered production costs, and the need for cheaper, renewable energy.
Because of its scale and potential impact (and because it is the furthest along in the review process), the Cape Wind project has generated a perfect storm of concerns, complaints and legal questions. This, despite the fact that at maximum capacity the wind farm could produce nearly 75 percent of the electricity for Cape Cod residents—without any of the noxious emissions associated with standard energy sources.
The concerns of residents, environmentalists, fishermen, politicians, even the Massachusetts attorney general are as sweeping as the blades that inspired them. Among their concerns: land rights, scenic blight, a lack of federal standards on selecting wind-farm sites, decreased property values, ecosystem disruptions, and the effects these farms would have on migratory and nesting birds.
The Humane Society of the United States, of course, is mostly concerned about the potential impact this project would have on birds and marine mammals, whether native to the area or just passing through it. Specifically, The HSUS is concerned that wildlife issues could be brushed aside in the rush to build what's clearly needed: clean, renewable energy.
What's At Stake?
Nantucket Sound is an important area for migrating songbirds and overwintering water birds, as well as for nesting by endangered birds. According to state and federal biologists, tens of millions of birds fly through the sound every year, many migrating at night.
Because the Cape Wind proposal has the potential to lead the way for offshore wind energy development in the United States, it's critical that the federal agency in charge of permitting this plan (in this case, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) conduct a through environmental review. Corps officials need to evaluate, using independent research and not data supplied by the developer, how much harm this project could cause to birds, how to minimize that harm, and how to evaluate the project to make sure it is in the public interest.
If you look at land-based wind farms for evidence, turbines do kill birds, though the exact numbers and species vary significantly from site to site. Direct collisions with monopoles or turbine blade occur at an average of 2.19 birds per turbine per year at land-based wind farms, according to the National Wind Coordinating Committee. But wind farms can also have unseen effects on bird populations: The turbines can fragment bird habitat and interfere with migratory pathways.
The problem with using land-based data, however, is that the information does not apply to marine-based sites. What's more, there are only a handful of marine-based wind farms worldwide—and none as large as this proposal—from which to extract usable data. As a result, we know very little about how marine-based turbines affect migrating and resident birds. That's why it's vital to collect information about bird activity in the Cape Cod area prior to deciding whether the wind farm is appropriate in the sound. By using established research protocols, officials can determine what birds use the area and reasonably predict the wind farm's potential effect.
The Nantucket Sound project presents an additional challenge: It will be required to have lights for pilot safety. Unfortunately, there is not a similar array of lighted structures anywhere in United States coastal waters, so we know very little about the effects of lighting at these altitudes on night migrating songbirds and other species, especially during adverse weather.
What research has been conducted on land suggests that lights paired with dense fog or low clouds may disorient night migrating songbirds and some other birds. Migrating birds function on a limited energy supply, and it is well documented that birds pushed off course (in storms, for example) may never recoup lost calories. Therefore, the alteration of migratory pathways may cause death in some birds who are migrating on stored fat and simply run out of energy sufficient to power their long trip.
Environmental Review
In November 2001, Cape Wind's consultants conducted a preliminary risk assessment to birds, and concluded that "relatively few birds use the site" and that "virtually no birds use the site on a year-round basis."
The Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife criticized this assessment, stating that the proposed array of turbines could have "devastating impacts on globally significant populations of migratory birds." The division expressed particular concern about threatened and endangered species such as roseate terns and piping plovers, wintering sea ducks (including the longtailed duck), and migratory birds such as shorebirds and songbirds. Also, division officials disputed the preliminary conclusion that avian risks were small.
Likewise, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressed concern about the potential avian impacts of the project and outlined its recommended research protocol, which included identifying how many birds and which species use the site at various times of year.
USFWS officials recommended that this analysis take place in "all seasons of the year, [in] all usable airspace, all climatic conditions and all daily temporal periods in order to capture all life cycle activities" of the bird species in the project area. USFWS also emphasized the importance of identifying the local fish and other marine animals that birds feed on. All together, this protocol would require three years of acoustic and radar monitoring.
In April 2002, Cape Wind's consultants proposed a two-year protocol that was deemed insufficient by USFWS, which countered with specific recommendations that, to date, have not been undertaken by Cape Wind.
Along with The HSUS, the Ornithological Council, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, and the Massachusetts Audubon Society have all endorsed the federal and state research recommendations, which should be applied to all individual marine-based wind farm proposals. What's more, given the many wind-energy proposals already on the table (including two others in the Cape area), The HSUS is calling on state and federal regulators to review the environmental impacts of offshore wind farms collectively, to ensure that the potential cumulative impacts of marine structures and underwater cables are not overlooked or underestimated.
The HSUS is also a vocal advocate for using the information garnered through this process to choose sites carefully to minimize harm to wildlife. This proactive approach would have minimized the controversy over Cape Wind's proposal, and it can still ensure that future sites are selected with an eye toward gaining the most energy with the smallest cost possible to wild animals and their habitats.
We want wind energy—and we owe it to our wild neighbors to make sure it's done right.
Jessica Almy is Wildlife Advocate for The HSUS Cape Wildlife Center in West Barnstable, Massachusetts.
