Renewable Energy Revolution

Valid criticism - from the opposition

Last week brought a letdown for Cape Wind supporters  after a string of victories and positive news -- word that Minerals Management Service is delaying release of its draft environmental impact report on the project for three to four months.

The inevitable question followed -- was the delay triggered by unseen Machiavellian maneuvering of Cape Wind opponents, or was it based on good-faith efforts by conscientious regulators? More likely the latter, and for good reason.

Back on March 19, the Cape Cod Commission held a public hearing on the project in Yarmouth. The first public official to speak, Mark Weissman, identified himself as a board member of the Massachusetts Marine Fisheries Commission.

As described in a March 22 letter to the editor of the Cape Cod Times written by Cape Wind spokesman Mark Rodgers, "Mr. Weissman stated that Cape Wind's final environmental impact report neglected to mention dredging Horseshoe Shoal, which Mr. Weissman incorrectly claimed would be needed to create access for a construction barge used in installing the wind turbines. Mr. Weissman went on to speculate about damage such dredging would cause.

"The reason Cape Wind's final environmental impact report makes no mention of dredging Horseshoe Shoal is that no dredging is needed for a construction barge to access the wind turbine locations," Rodgers further wrote, ending his letter by pointing out that when Weissman "introduced himself at this event as a public official, he neglected to also mention that he is a paid consultant to the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound."

My interest piqued by Weissman's failure to mention his connection to the Alliance, one that's been known for years by those following the wind farm saga, I called him about it (for the sake of full disclosure, I am a former paid media consultant to the pro-wind farm non-profit Clean Power Now and have written about the project as a proponent for two years).  Weissman acknowledged the omission and said he regretted it. "I should have mentioned that I did consulting for the Alliance, but I was not speaking on their behalf," he said. "I was a little flustered and pressed for time. I'm embarrassed by it."

After seeing Rodgers' letter in the Times, with its veiled suggestion of a conflict of interest, Weissman spoke with the chairman of the fisheries commission. "He doesn't see anything wrong," Weissman said. Weissman had contacted the state Ethics Commission about his consulting work for the Alliance a few years ago and was never informed he was in violation of the state ethics law.

Whether Cape Wind or Clean Power Now wishes to file a complaint with the state Ethics Commission alleging that Weissman cannot serve on the commission while working as an Alliance consultant is their perogative. Such action would probably be a waste of time, based on my understanding of the law. Weissman is an unpaid commission member, not a state employee, a critical distinction. Of greater interest to me is what Weissmann said at the hearing, which he described further when I called him. Weissman also sent me copies of the Alliance response to the FEIR (Final Environmental Impact Report) as it pertains to dredging, or, more accurately, how Cape Wind steers clear of it in the report.

Problem is, Cape Wind's own numbers in the FEIR provide amply reason for skepticism about its no-dredging assertion. The document states that "a minimum water depth of 12 feet (3.6 meters) MLLW (Mean Low Low Water) ... was established as a design criteria necessary to properly address construction techniques." Figure 2.2 in the FEIR (partially shown at right), a map depicting turbine locations and MLLW water depths around them, shows at least a dozen turbines in waters less than 12 feet deep at mean low low water (blogger's note: the red arrows  on the map were added by the Alliance to point out sites where turbines would be built in water less than 12 feet deep at MLLW; a second chart in the Alliance response to the FEIR cites four more such locations. MLLW, also known as Mean Lower Low Water, is the average of the two low water heights of each tidal day, according to the American Meteorological Society).

Again, this is based on Cape Wind's own filing with Minerals Management Service, not Alliance conjecture or spin. If Cape Wind says at least 12 feet of water is needed to build the turbines, and at least a dozen turbines would be constructed in water less than 12 feet deep at mean low low water, how can the work be done without dredging? The math and engineering here is not that complicated.

Two Cape Wind supporters I spoke with about this were both dismissive. I am of a different opinion -- whether dredging of Horseshoe Shoal is needed is hugely significant, and I suspect it's the main reason MMS extended its regulatory review. It's not just areas directly adjacent to the turbines that may need to be dredged -- the same may be true of water less than 12 feet deep for hundreds of feet in all directions around these specific turbines, to allow tugboats and huge construction barges room to maneuver.

Not only that, but ask yourself this -- if you are navigating across Horseshoe Shoal in a boat that draws more than 12 feet, and using a navigational chart more than few years old, how confident are you in the depths cited on the chart? Enough to risk running aground and spending the night on a chilly sandbar, along with your perturbed passengers?

Maps of shoals are like computer manuals -- it doesn't take long for rapid change to render them obsolete. Cape Wind wants to build its turbines in one of the most ecologically dynamic settings on the East Coast, a shoal that's continally buffeted by currents, wind and waves. The depths around the turbines cited in the FEIR are almost certainly different now than when they were determined, if only marginally. They will have changed that much more by the time construction could begin in 18 months to two years at the earlier, after factoring in the new delay and inevitable litigation to follow MMS's eventual decision.

Not only is Horseshoe Shoal a topographically fluid locale, it is likely to become only more so due to a major reason cited by Cape Wind supporters for the wind farm -- global warming, with its ominous threat of more destructive storms and their immense power to reshape coastlines and shoals.

Remember the old parking lot at Coast Guard Beach in Eastham? Destroyed by the Blizzard of '78, along with the setting for author Henry Beston's  "The Outermost House." More recent storms have carved openings in barrier beaches around the Cape.  If global warming is as bad as we keep hearing, it won't take long for Horseshoe Shoal to bear little resemblance to its current dimensions.

But after spending roughly $30 million before generating a single kilowatt-hour, why would Cape Wind risk jeopardizing the project with a questionable omission in its documentation to MMS? I can only conclude the omission is not accidental. If the amount of dredging needed is even half as much as critics like Weissman allege, it would still involve an immense amount of material removed from the seabed. Material that has to be dredged from Horseshoe Shoal -- and placed elsewhere. The eyes glaze at the thought of the additional red tape involved. By not addressing this in the FEIR, Cape Wind may have crossed its fingers and hoped for the best. Who knows, maybe it'll pass muster. Then again, maybe not.

Cape Wind has dodged more than its share of bullets -- lawsuits, well-funded lobbying in Washington, overheated rhetoric about avian carnage and navigational mayhem. But when it comes to dredging, that string of good fortune may come to an end. This issue, and proponents' dismissal of its importance, is an Achilles heel that Cape Wind ignores at its peril.