Second Meeting Summary
Thursday, October 31, 2002
Convenor: Massachusetts Technology Collaborative
Facilitators: Dr. Jonathan Raab, Suzanne Orenstein
71 people attended the meeting, which began at 10:00 am and concluded at 4:30 pm. See the attached attendance list.
Documents Distributed
Agenda
Introduction / Agenda Review
Dr. Raab welcomed everyone to the meeting and reviewed the day’s agenda. He noted the purpose of the meeting was to begin exploring detailed information about the key issues identified at the first stakeholder meeting. Greg Watson, Vice President of Sustainable Development & Renewable Energy for the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative (MTC), also welcomed the attendees and reminded the stakeholders that the purpose of the process is to improve stakeholders’ understanding of the wide range of potential benefits and adverse impacts and to prepare for the release of the Corps’ draft EIS. He further noted that resolving the debate over off-shore wind is not a goal or expected outcome from the stakeholder meetings, so using the time to explore the range of views on benefits and impacts would be the most productive use of everyone’s time.
Dr. Raab then reviewed the list of edits made to the meeting summary from meeting #1 and asked if anyone had any additions. There were none. One stakeholder did observe, however, that it was unfortunate that the one article in the press about the first meeting had chosen to present the observation contrasting local impacts and societal benefits as a consensus sentiment from the meeting. The stakeholder felt that this sentiment was not shared by all the attendees at the meeting, and though the discussion was accurately reflected in the meeting summary, he wanted to state publicly that in his opinion the article had mischaracterized that component of the first meeting.
I. Panel 1: Electricity Supply, Reliability, Pricing, and Air Impacts
Dr. Raab then introduced the three speakers on the day’s first panel.
The first to present was David O’Connor, Commissioner of the Massachusetts Division of Energy Resources. Commissioner O’Connor reviewed the way energy is regulated in MA, as well as how energy prices affect fuels used to produce energy. He also discussed fuel diversity issues, locational marginal cost pricing, and the Renewable Portfolio Standard. His presentation is here.
At the conclusion of the presentation, several stakeholders asked clarifying questions. These questions and the responses offered are presented below.
Could someone in Canada purchase the electricity generated by the Cape Wind project?
Commissioner O’Connor explained that the New England energy system is something like a large bucket into which electrons are put. Regardless of where the electricity comes from, it all mixes together and it becomes impossible to tell where it originated. Consumers of electricity are like pipes coming out of the bucket – they can’t tell where the energy they’re using is originating because all of the electrons are identical. While this metaphor is simplistic, it accurately describes the physics behind the electric grid.
To more accurately account for electric supply and demand those who put electrons in and take them out of the grid create a fiction – that the electrons that a consumer takes out of the system come from a particular supplier.
As to geographic reach, Commissioner O’Connor observed that trading of electricity is essentially free within the six New England states. In contrast, there are some difficulties when trading electricity between New England, New York, and Canada. Though it is getting easier, it is still more complex to trade electricity across those boundaries due to transmission limitations.
Spot energy pricing is trending down over the long term. What about energy futures pricing? How is that trending?
Commissioner O’Connor observed that futures pricing is trending downward as well. When the questioner followed up by asking about what differential is being maintained between spot and futures pricing, the Commissioner explained that contract prices usually track spot prices over the long term, and while they are converging at the moment, if we experience another run up in gas prices they might diverge again
If 80% of energy trading is done on a long term contract basis and only 20% is done on the spot market, how does wind fit into the picture? You can’t forecast output on an hourly basis with a wind project. How can (for example) Cape Wind say it will deliver 100MW in the next hour when they don’t know how hard the wind is going to blow?
While the specific details of how wind power will participate in the market have not yet been determined, the Commissioner explained that any energy supplier must buy power from others if they can’t deliver the power they promised to deliver. If a supplier like Cape Wind cannot generate enough power to meet their commitments in a given hour then they will need to pay the market clearing price to make up their shortfall if their bid is accepted by the ISO.
With regard to the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), is a pie chart available indicating the contributions from the different renewable energy sources? Which of the categories are major contributors and which are minor? How many megawatts of electricity are projected to come from wind power in 2006?
Commissioner O’Connor explained that predicting any type of energy mix into the future with precision is a complex business. Massachusetts could end up receiving electricity to meet the RPS from a large region, including sources in New York and Canada. The best way to determine which sources will be the larger slices of the pie is to determine which sources are cheapest. The three the Commissioner identified as having the most promising economics are landfill methane, biomass (wood & related facilities), and wind power. In his estimation those three sources will provide the vast majority of RPS-compliant electricity in 2006, with the split roughly equal between the three. Smaller amounts will come from solar, ocean thermal, and wave energy.
What is the current energy source spectrum for Southeastern Massachusetts?
Southeastern Massachusetts is more heavily dependent on coal than the rest of the region. Though consumers can purchase their energy from a wide variety of suppliers, if you look at the physics, more Southeastern Massachusetts electrons are generated from coal than in any other part of Massachusetts or New England.
If 80% of power is purchased under long term contracts, do long term buyers also compete in the hourly market?
Yes, long term purchasers do still compete in the hourly market, as they need to cover their obligations for every hour and usually they don’t account for all of their energy needs when purchasing long range contracts. Because there is no way to effectively store electricity, buyers usually need to adjust their power purchases on the spot market even if they hold long-term contracts. Also, if they purchase more power than they need, then they become a seller and can put that excess power back into the grid and get paid the market rate for it.
Does power from the Pilgrim nuclear plant come to the Cape and Islands?
It would probably be unlikely to do so, as the transmission lines connecting the Pilgrim plant more easily take the power generated there north and west.
Could other states meet their RPS standard by purchasing power through Cape Wind?
Yes – generators throughout New England could meet their RPS obligations by purchasing power from Cape Wind, and Massachusetts companies could meet their RPS obligation by purchasing from other states as well.
How will the new Locational Marginal Pricing (LMP) structure going into effect this Spring affect local prices?
Once the new LMP system comes into effect clearing prices will be different in each region. The Cape and Southeastern Massachusetts will likely see lower prices relative to other regions, though it is impossible to predict with 100% certainty.
Dr. Raab then explained that due to the shortage of time stakeholders and resource/advisors should feel free to write any questions they have on cards, and the facilitators will ensure that the questions and answers will be posted on the website.
The next presentation came from Charlie Salamone, Director of System Planning at NSTAR. Mr. Salamone spoke about the NSTAR transmission system and how an off-shore wind project might connect to the existing network. His full presentation is available here. The clarifying questions asked of Mr. Salamone follow.
Please clarify how the Islands connect to the electricity grid. Will the Islands interconnect with any new infrastructure put in to support Cape Wind, and could existing lines support offshore facilities, such as those proposed off Nantucket by Winergy, that might tie into the grid through the Islands? And how are NSTAR’s costs covered to install this new infrastructure?
There are several lines from the mainland to Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket. These lines are connected back to the Cape’s overall system. So if the Islands were to generate more electricity than they consumed at any given point, electricity could be transmitted back to the mainland from the Islands. There are no plans for direct lines to the Islands from the Cape Wind project.
As to NSTAR’s costs, any system upgrade cost associated must be borne by the developers who necessitate the upgrade. There is no cost consequence to NSTAR. There is some negotiation with ISO-NE regarding what costs will be supported, but NSTAR is obligated by federal regulation to do this work. Costs for any required studies must be paid for solely by the developer, and no costs are borne by NSTAR customers. Cape Wind has already paid for the work NSTAR has done so far on the project. NSTAR and Cape Wind have already begun the permitting process for right of ways that will likely be necessary to support the project.
Since Southeastern Massachusetts is a power exporter, if Cape Wind is built, what effect will it have on transmission in other parts of Southeastern Massachusetts?
The ISO monitors total power generation and consumption in the New England area. There are constraints on how much power can be sent out of New England at any given time, so the ISO manages overall generation so that the power system won’t violate export constraints and overwhelm the capabilities of transmission facilities.
If the system is at capacity and a new generating unit comes on then power from the most expensive unit will not be purchased by the ISO-NE. There is no suggestion that the Canal Plant will be shut down if Cape Wind is built. The Canal Plant’s electrons simply will go somewhere else, and the additional power will result in the most expensive generator currently in operation being stepped down. Every entrant of new supply leads to exactly the same process.
There has been some confusion about whether or not power generated by the Cape Wind project will be consumed on the Cape. As an example, assuming the overall load on the Cape is 300MW, and assuming all operations are normal, if Cape Wind generates power (i.e. 100MW, 300MW, or 400MW) – where is it consumed?
From a physics perspective, electrons flow along the path of least resistance, so if Cape Wind is the closest source of electrons physics indicates that the electrons will flow to the closest load, which will likely be on the Cape and Islands.
In this example, if you presume the Canal plant is running, the electricity coming through the Bourne substation and into the Cape & Islands grid would be decreased by the amount of power being generated by Cape Wind. So if Cape Wind generates 100MW and the Cape load is 300MW, then the electricity coming through the Bourne station would be 200MW. If Cape Wind generated 300MW and the Cape load is 300MW then flows out of Bourne onto the Cape would go to zero. If Cape Wind generates 400MW and the Cape load is 300MW, then 100MW would flow back into the Bourne substation and into the New England system.
Are penalties different in different states for companies not meeting the RPS?
No. There are different incentives for a generator to claim renewable output between different states, but the interstate commerce clause makes it illegal to discriminate against power sellers outside of Massachusetts. Any generator will make the same amount of money selling into the Massachusetts’ market regardless of whether they are located in Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine or Massachusetts.
The final presentation on the first panel came from Bill Lamkin, from the Bureau of Waste Prevention at the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. Mr. Lamkin spoke about air quality impacts from electricity production and use. His presentation is available here.
At the conclusion of the presentation, several stakeholders asked clarifying questions. These questions and the responses offered are presented below.
In the presentation there is an estimate of what emissions a 420mw plant would replace. A wind project like Cape Wind would more likely have an output of maybe 120mw which is significantly less. Can the replaced emissions be calculated based on a similar fraction?
In the presentation the power output of the plant is already scaled down based on hours that the 420MW plant was expected to run (1500 hours out of the year, approximately 1/6th of the year). So the calculation of replaced emissions would have to take this into account. A wind plant provides power at an average capacity factor of 27% on an annual basis. There may be hours when it’s not running at all and hours when it’s running at capacity. During Spring and Fall it will likely be near capacity, as those are the windiest periods.
One stakeholder conducted some back-of-the-envelope estimates on likely power output, presuming a yearly output of 630,000 megawatt-hours from the Cape Wind project, which would more than double the estimated emission reductions in Mr. Lamkin’s presentation.
Because so much of New England’s power is generated by natural gas, isn’t it fair to say that a wind plant would be competing against a modern gas fired plant?
As there are no oil or coal plants contemplated for development in New England, in a practical sense this project could be competing with a modern gas-fired plant. However, ISO-NE calculates emissions on an annual basis. Emission rates used in the presentation are for actual marginal units in year 2000. Every hour it will be a different unit that is the marginal unit. That’s the unit that this project would displace. Is it true that in one hour that marginal unit could be a clean plant? Yes. But the numbers in this presentation were based on annual average numbers for the marginal unit, not on any one actual power generation facility.
How much do environmental compliance burdens contribute to the economics of the dirtiest plants?
Tighter environmental regulations might increase plant operating costs, but there’s no formula that identifies the overall costs from environmental regulations. New more stringent environmental regulations have been proposed for MA’s dirtiest power plants, and they could be expected to add environmental costs at those plants, though the plants could still be competitive.
Are there any plans to convert to environmental dispatch of generating units?
As far as Mr. Lamkin is aware there are no plans to convert to strict environmental dispatch, though such a plan has been suggested by regulators in the past. Purely economic dispatch is not absolutely accurate. For instance, if there are transmission constraints, sometimes the ISO will run a more expensive unit if it’s needed, even if it’s above the clearing price. Generators bid in the amount of power they’re going to put out, and they will inform ISO if their output will need to be constrained to comply with pollution limits.
If Cape Wind were to feed power into the grid, would more polluting units in our region be used less to produce electricity?
Which plant is backed down has to do with the prices they charge to produce electricity?
In general, dirtier plants are more expensive to operate, so their power would be less likely to be in the mix purchased by ISO-NE if cleaner energy sources are available.
Is demand for renewable energy coming from other regions, and is the Cape being asked to host renewable energy for other states?
Demand is coming from Massachusetts and Connecticut for renewable energy. Renewable sources are also being developed up in the mountains in Vermont and Maine. These impacts are not confined to state boundaries, either -- pollution from coal plants in Massachusetts is traveling up to Maine, for instance.
It’s important to put this in a regional perspective. Maine may get pollution from Massachusetts fossil fuel plants, as transport of pollution is generally from the south to the north, but Massachusetts deals with pollution from the Midwest. One Stakeholder cited a study by the Harvard School of Public Health that showed that some health impacts may be more severe in the immediate proximity of power plants, particularly within five miles, and as a result transport effects should be closely analyzed.
II. Panel 2: Avian Information Baseline, Methodologies, and Concerns
After lunch, Suzanne Orenstein introduced the day’s second panel, which focused on avian issues.
The first presenter was Vernon Lang of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Mr. Lang spoke about data the FWS has regarding bird impacts from offshore wind, and about the FWS’ overall perspective.
Why has the Fish and Wildlife Service called for a three year study? It appears the Corps of Engineers hasn’t backed that timeframe.
When FWS first examined this proposal it became clear that the areas in question were offshore areas – shoal areas. These areas have traditionally been the purview of the Mining and Minerals Service (MMS) as they have previously been mined for sand. FWS and MMS had done some survey work in the Chesapeake Bay, and initially the avian study period for those projects was one year. What researchers found, however, was that they had to cut the study short in the first year because of warm weather, which led to the birds leaving early. The data from that one year was not enough. So the lesson FWS drew from that experience was that natural variability on a yearly basis can lead to unrepresentative survey results, and multiple year studies can better account for that variability.
As a result of this past experience and the need to account for natural year-to-year variability, FWS concluded that three years was the minimum survey period that would provide data adequate to address these questions.
Even though you can define species, flight patterns, etc., how can any study evaluate the cognitive ability of the birds with regard to blades, poles, and the like before the turbines are actually built?
It’s undoubtedly difficult to do, but there is some information about what is likely to happen when the turbines are put in place. It’s largely drawn from European investigations. However, when you mix in bad weather conditions, lights, and other variables, we don’t know how the birds will react.
The Europeans actually built windmills and platforms to observe how birds and windmills interacted, and they monitored the interactions using radar and remote sensing. Such data should prove useful to us in estimating avian effects.
Has FWS applied the three year standard to other wind turbine projects, such as those in Vermont and Pennsylvania?
There have been no other U.S.-based projects on the scale of this project, nor have any projects of this size been sited offshore. In addition, this is one of the first windfarms subject to NEPA and the resulting EIS process. We don’t know the degree to which studies in land installations are applicable to water based installations. For instance, the Searsburg, VT project uses smaller windmills – relatively short towers with small rotors and forest cover. One land-based project has had documented problems with bird mortality, and that was with raptors and other predators. When we talk about towers that are 350-400 feet high, with lights, then this is new territory – we increase the risk of collisions with birds, particularly with nocturnal migrants forced down from higher altitudes.
Have any studies been conducted that weigh the potential avian impacts against potential societal benefits from removing polluting energy plants from the electricity generating mix?
There are no studies known to the FWS at this time.
The second presenter was Jeffrey Burm of Environmental Science Services, the firm conducting the avian surveys for Cape Wind. His presentation is available here.
At the conclusion of the presentation, several stakeholders asked clarifying questions. These questions and the responses offered are presented below.
When will the radar results from Cape Wind’s surveys be available?
Cape Wind hasn’t gotten the data yet – the data acquisition company is still going through what has been collected and is cleaning it up with different algorithms intended to reduce noise and increase accuracy (such as ground truthing). The data and resulting analysis will be reported in the draft EIS.
When did Cape Wind’s avian studies start?
The studies began before the ENF was filed – in July, 2001 with Jeremy, Mr. Burm’s precursor. They conducted 26 aerial surveys throughout the year – one in July, 2001 and
three in September, 2001. In those early stages the timing of the surveys was irregular, but since March, 2002 there have been at least two a month.
Has your firm ever been involved in a 3 year avian study?
The last project Mr. Burm worked on was a 2 year project, which was the longest he had ever been involved with.
Has Cape Wind discussed performing avian studies and surveys outside of Nantucket sound?
No – it hasn’t been discussed.
Would the Fish and Wildlife Service accept the data acquired as a result of this study, or would they consider it biased?
Mr. Lang clarified that the service did not criticize the surveys that Cape Wind proposed. They only noted that, in the opinion of the FWS, the surveys don’t go far enough, and that they are not as comprehensive as is required to get an accurate picture of potential avian impacts.
The ENF filed by Cape Wind with Secretary of Environmental Affairs concludes that bird risk is small because “Bird use of Horseshoe Shoal is low.” Would you agree with that statement?
Mr. Burm observed that there are plenty of birds in Horseshoe Shoal.
The third presenter was Carolyn Mostello, of the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program. Ms. Mostello spoke about historic data regarding endangered and threatened species in Nantucket Sound. Her presentation is available here.
At the conclusion of the presentation, several stakeholders asked clarifying questions. These questions and the responses offered are presented below.
Regarding the definition of endangered species, are there differences between Massachusetts’ list and the federal endangered species list?
All species on the federal list also appear on the state list, but the reverse is not true. However, all species are treated the same as long as they’re listed on one of the lists.
Are there recommendations for impact mitigation studies?
No recommendations have been advanced up until now for impact mitigation studies. It is likely that we will do so after we get to the draft EIS stage.
There is a relative degree of risk associated with any large scale new project. How do you ensure that you fully and adequately evaluate the impacts of this proposal through the NEPA process?
Mr. Lang explained that this is a risk each applicant bears. If the assessment is inadequate and it gets challenged in court the applicant might be forced to come back in two years to conduct supplemental studies.
There was a brief discussion about research estimating avian impacts from towers, particularly comparative data looking at avian mortality from other hazards. Mr. Lang pointed attendees toward the FWS Tower Kill site while a stakeholder suggested that Currykerlinger might have comparative data of interest to the stakeholders.
III. Panel 3: Marine Species and Habitat Information Baseline
The attendees took a short five minute break before Ms. Orenstein introduced the third panel, which focused on marine species issues.
The first two presentations were from Jack Terrill and Kimberly Damon-Randall, both of the National Marine Fisheries Service / NOAA Fisheries. Mr. Terrill spoke about how NOAA Fisheries assesses impacts on essential fish habitat, and Ms. Damon-Randall spoke about threatened and endangered marine species and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Mr. Terrill’s presentation is available here and Ms. Damon-Randall’s presentation is available here. Ms. Orenstein asked that clarifying questions be held until the end of the two presentations. These questions and the responses offered are presented below.
The most recent construction project that seem similar in its effect to the Cape Wind project was the Hub Line Pipeline Project. What recommendations regarding essential fish habitat were made in that case?
While Mr. Terrill did not have specific information available regarding the pipeline project, he did recall that it dealt with directional drilling and what would happen with resulting spoil. He also recalled that certain mitigation measures were requested and approved, but beyond that he did not have much detail.
Do the Essential Fish Habitat rules apply equally to structures and fishing activities?
Fishing vessel permits are not subject to Essential Fish Habitat assessment, but fishery management plans are, with fishing permits are issued under these management plans.
What is meant by decommissioning?
Decommissioning refers to how the towers would be taken down. That kind of information is required in a draft EIS.
How is NMFS going to measure the cumulative effect of these towers along the shoal? How will that information be gathered?
As part of the development of the proposal the applicant will need to conduct certain studies. NMFS doesn’t do any studies itself, it simply evaluates information presented through the EIS.
The last presentation came from Vern Malkoski of the MA Division of Marine Fisheries who spoke about commercial fishing data collected by his agency. His presentation is available here. At the conclusion of his presentation, several stakeholders asked clarifying questions. These questions and the responses offered are presented below.
Do the catch statistics in the presentation refer to catches harvested or catches landed in a particular region?
Year 2000 catch reports are landings at harbors around Nantucket Sound, though some of the fish may have come from outside Nantucket sound. There are limitations on where you can fish and with what gear. These numbers are from the catch reports, so it is safe to assume that the fish were harvested and landed within that area. However, catches may also be landed in Bedford, so it’s difficult to pin down exactly where everything came from. But Mr. Malkoski is confident that a major portion did come from the specified area.
What kind of fish are coming out of this area and how many?
The numbers in the presentation are not from a specific area within the sound – the numbers are from the sound overall. NMFS has more detail about catch totals (which is presented a little later in the summary). One stakeholder wanted to know if there is a way to know what’s actually caught as opposed to what’s landed. Mr. Malkoski explained that that type of information is much harder to pin down.
What about jurisdiction? Who has jurisdiction over these waters? I thought Massachusetts only had authority 3 miles out from Cape Cod and the Islands.
It is true that Massachusetts has no jurisdiction beyond 3 miles off of the coast. However, the Magnuson-Stevens Act specifically cedes authority to the Commonwealth to manage the fisheries and related habitat in the Federal waters of Nantucket Sound. The Division of Marine Fisheries is the State agency charged with managing the marine fisheries resources of the Commonwealth.
Does that extension of state jurisdiction give Massachusetts permitting authority?
No, the Division of Marine Fisheries does not issue permits for anything other than fishing. Currently the state DMF is not involved in permitting for projects like Cape Wind. The MA fishing permit is based on the landing location, not the fishing location.
One of the concerns raised in the presentation was the effect of underwater electromagnetic cables. Does this mean that existing power lines will also come under scrutiny?
That is one of the questions that has been asked, and the answer has not yet been determined.
One stakeholder, Ron Borjeson, Vice President of the MA Commercial Fishing Association and an active fisherman, provided his perspective on fish stocks and the fishing business in and around Horseshoe Shoal.
As to specific information on what fish are in the shoal, detailed catch data is collected, as NMFS requires fishermen to fill out a daily log report that lists every species caught (squid, fluke, herring, etc.) as well as every by-catch (such as skates).
Nantucket sound is broken down in 3 distinct areas, and Horseshoe shoal is very well defined. It is a productive area for squid fishery, with 40-60 boats common in the Shoal during squid season, from RI, ME, NH, and MA, all with NMFS licenses and coastal access permits from Massachusetts. After the squid season it becomes a popular fluke fishing area, and cod fishing goes on in the areas through both seasons. Small boats fish there as well, including fishermen looking for lobster and bluefish. Generation after generation has fished in that particular spot.
The Cape Wind proposal will change the dynamics of Horsehoe Shoal dramatically. Fishermen see how one new pile at a pier can dramatically affect shoaling. The effect of these towers will be many times greater.
The project will affect marine species as well – for example, there is a newly discovered eel population that migrates into Horseshoe Shoal. There’s also lots of lolligo, black sea bass, and summer flounder. It is a big breeding ground, and this project will undoubtedly affect the fish that go there.
Is there more specific catch data for the Horseshoe Shoal area?
Mr. Terrill explained that there is more specific data available from NMFS, but that it’s not for Horseshoal Shoal per se, as NMFS tracks data in 10 minute square areas. The by-catch information is also available.
Susan Hertz of Environmental Science Services, a contractor for Cape Wind, then briefly explained what Cape Wind is doing in this area.
ESS is working with Battelle to conduct an essential fish habitat assessment. Several species and life stages are being identified, and an existing conditions description will be included. Both direct and indirect effects are being considered.
Cape Wind and its consultants are also conducting literature research through state and NMFS data, primarily focusing on commercial data available for the statistical area that covers Nantucket Sound. This data will be obtained and analyzed by species, value per species, and gear type. DMF has their own statistical area that covers all of Nantucket Sound. This data is evaluated by season, species, gear type, pounds/species, and value by species.
Battelle is also looking at recreational fishing information as well, such as hours fished, gear type used, and catch reported. A telephone intercept survey focusing on charter and partyboat captains is also aimed at getting more anecdotal information about the marine resources in the Sound. This assessment will be included as an appendix to the EIS.
Cape Wind is conducting a series of research trawls to gather abundance data. These trawls are conducted in May and September.
Under the EIS, marine protected species (e.g. humpback whale, turtles, right whale) impacts will be detailed. Battelle will be using existing information in the literature to compile this information. Additional information will be provided by aerial surveys. The observers note any observations of marine mammals, turtles, and seals.
How are non-commercial species being addressed?
For species not classified under commercial/recreational categories impact estimates are mainly relying on existing literature. Some of the results of the assessments conducted will be included in the EIS. Smaller species, like phyloplankton, are not currently slated for analysis, but perhaps information about trophic interaction effects would appear.
One stakeholder observed that anecdotal information from individuals might be useful, and Cape Wind’s representative did note that they have interviewed fishermen on the docks.
IV. Next Steps / Future Meetings
Dr. Raab then asked the members to react to the day and to offer their feedback. One stakeholder observed that the day was very informative, but it was also rushed and cramped for time. He observed that the group could almost go through the night and into tomorrow because there were so many important issues to discuss. He indicated the conversation begun on avian and marine impacts needed to continue.
While stakeholders were interested in the other topics that need to be addressed (such as economics) they were frustrated at the lack of interaction during the day, making clear that the trunctuated question sessions (frequently resorting to simple yes/no answers) were not adequate for the stakeholders.
As a basis for discussions, Dr. Raab then went through the draft plans for the next two meetings, drawn from the first meeting’s discussions.
After viewing the facilitators’ proposals for the structure of the next two meetings there were a variety of comments and feedback points offered by the stakeholders and resources/advisors:
One stakeholder observed that way too much information had been presented during the day, and that data gaps existed. The process needs to identify these gaps and then direct those observations back to the Corps.
The Stakeholders don’t want to not learn about any of these things, but we can’t learn from an agenda packed with presentations unless there is an opportunity to re-visit the topics and process them as a group.
Written meeting summaries and access to PowerPoint slides on the process website in advance of meetings should make reviewing these discussions a little easier.
Proponents should share their Scopes of Work, maybe even providing them on the process website in advance of the meetings, so that stakeholders will have a better opportunity to formulate questions.
We know endangered species are there. The question is, how do you do an ecological risk assessment to determine whether or not they are at risk? How do we determine risk?
The tight timeline, though frustrating, is driven by the Corps timeframe. Do we have to stick to it?
This meeting was extremely informative – almost to the point of exhaustion.
Value comes from people talking and asking questions, so future presentation time should be limited and more handouts provided.
The facilitators should look at the upcoming topics and determine what we want to revisit.
Avoid the song and dance – bring in an unbiased expert instead of going through all the old info everyone has already seen.
Dwell more on perspective, tradeoffs, risks, and benefits.
Dr. Raab explained that another alternative is to hold more sessions to give us a little more time to process information. The suggestion was made to spend a portion of the next session discussing topics that arose during this meeting particularly on avian and marine species.
The potential for breakout sessions was mentioned, potentially consisting of a breakout on fisheries and a breakout on marine mammal impacts. One shortcoming of the breakout plan is that several stakeholders expressed reservations about not being able to participate in all of the discussions that were taking place.
One stakeholder expressed his frustration with the big picture process design, explaining his sense that all of this discussion is just academic. He suggested that the information people on Cape Cod want, and the info that the consulting agencies want, will require more rigorous study than even the Army Corps is devoting. Another stakeholder observed that we’re all operating in the realm of speculation, as now there is no project in the world currently operating at the size proposed.
Greg Watson from the MTC then explained that the reason for the quick timeframe is that the train is moving – there is a permitting process happening now and if it stays on track, on schedule, it seems we need to be prepared. The key question is whether or not we can prepare folks so that they can comment if that schedule stays on track. His process suggestions included:
At least cover all the issues in the event the schedule is met. Then perhaps we can leave ourselves open to going back and going deeper.
Do the breadth first, in case they’re on schedule. Then, if there is time, we have the luxury to go back and reexamine several issues in more depth.
It’s not capricious that we’re trying to cram a lot of information into a short process – it’s a function of the EIS process schedule.
There was some discussion about the jurisdiction issue. One stakeholder felt it could be adequately addressed at the Corps of Engineers Open House on November 21 (see below). Another suggested that the jurisdiction information be put into a handout and handled that way, as the jurisdiction issue is not too complex. Finally a resource/advisor from a government agency expressed his belief that jurisdiction could turn out to be a hot issue, as there is controversy over who should have the final say. He suggested that perhaps a scholarly debate (“is there a policy gap?”) might be of value to the group, framed and started by some well thought out memoranda prepared in advance. He observed that the jurisdiction issue is garnering a lot of attention and there are issues worth talking about.
Dr. Raab then summarized the suggestions into several big lessons from the day:
There’s not a lot of support for dropping any of the six issues – the desire instead is to streamline them.
The Stakeholders want more time to process, identify gaps in what we know, and to discuss. Discussions have the best chance of influencing your thinking.
Maybe topics should be spread over more meetings
The next meeting should begin with an opportunity to process what everyone heard in Meeting #2.
Dr. Raab also asked for speaker suggestions for future meetings, as the agendas for meetings #3 and #4 will be massaged and refined over the next week or so.
Several participants noted that the EIS scope is there to be influenced – it’s just an outline. We should identify gaps in the scope and formally notify the Corps of those gaps. If the process is being driven toward a public forum at the end then we need to identify the issues to be addressed in both the forum and in the EIS. We should keep one eye on what the Corps is doing and the other eye on the bigger picture
Karen Adams from the Army Corps of Engineers announced to participants that the Corps of Engineers is having a public open house specific to the EIS 11/21 from 4-7pm at the Upper Cape Cod Technical school in Bourne. This will follow immediately after the next Cape & Islands Offshore Wind Process meeting. At this gathering attendees will be able to hold 1-on-1 discussions with technical experts. It is structured as an open house, so visitors can stop in whenever they want, and no formal presentations will be made.
The meeting concluded with Dr. Raab proposing to circulate the meeting summary within one week and the draft agenda at least one week before the next meeting. The next meeting is scheduled for November 21, 2002.
Appendix A -- Attendance List
Stakeholders
Greg Watson, MTC
Isaac Rosen, Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound
Margaret Geist, Association to Preserve Cape Cod
Jaci Barton, Barnstable Land Trust
Gary Blazis, Barnstable Town Council
Chris Powicki, Cape & Islands Renewable Energy Collaborative
Megan Amsler, Cape & Islands Self Reliance Corp
Charles Kleekamp, Cape Clean Air
John O’Brien, Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce
Spyro Mitrokostas, Cape Cod Technology Council
Fred Fenlon, Cape Light Compact
Mark Rodgers, Cape Wind
Steve Burrington, Conservation Law Foundation
Rhonda Tewes, League of Women Voters
Bill Veno, Martha’s Vineyard Commission
Jack Clarke, MA Audubon Society
Ron Borjeson, MA Commercial Fishing Association
Frank Gorke, MASSPIRG
Jack McCormack, Town of Yarmouth
Resources
Margo Fenn, Cape Cod Commission
Judith Laster, MA Attorney General’s Office
Bill Lamkin, MA Dept of Environmental Protection
David O’Connor, MA Division of Energy Resources
Stephanie Cunningham, MA Division of Marine Fisheries
Vin Malkowski, MA Division of Marine Fisheries
Truman Henson, MA Office of Coastal Zone Management
Kim Damon-Randall, National Marine Fisheries Service, NE Regional Office
Karen Adams, US Army Corp of Engineers
Richard Michaud, US Dept of Energy
Tim Timmerman, US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1: NE
Vern Lang, US Fish & Wildlife Service, New England Field Office
Charlie Salimone, NStar
Anthony Rogers, U Mass, Renewable Energy Research Laboratory
Mary Schumacker, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute
Alternates
Tara Nye, Association to Preserve Cape Cod
Tom Wineman, Cape & Islands Renewable Energy Collaborative
Simon Perkins, MA Audubon Society
Jeanne Cummisky, MA Division of Energy Resources
Mary Grover, NStar
Christine Godfrey, US Army Corp of Engineers
John Maskal, US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1: NE
Observers
Richard Elrick, Town Councilor, Barnstable
Ernest Duquet, Cape Cod Center for Sustainability
Craig Olmstead, Cape Wind
Matt Wormser, Cape Wind intern
Senator Rob O’Leary, State Senator, Cape & Islands
Susan Rohrbach, Aide to Senator O’Leary
Glenn Ritt, Publisher and Editor, Community Newspapers
John Leaning, journalist from the Cape Cod Times
Ole Tangen, documentary filmmaker Fjordlight Productions, Cambridge, MA
Benjamin Bell, GE Wind Energy
Sharon Young, Humane Society of the US
Ellen & Bob Falkin, League of Women Voters
Brian Braginton-Smith, UPC and Conservation Consortium
Private Citizens
James Reed
Donald Burgess
Wayne Peterson
Pat Seida
Carolyn Mosello
Farley Lewis
Milton Hirshberg
Facilitators
Jonathan Raab, Raab Associates
Colin Rule, Raab Associates
Suzanne Orenstein, Facilitator
Massachusetts Technology Collaborative
Fara Courtney
Kristen Burke
Barbara Hill