NRDC reached this conclusion back in January of 2009 after reviewing the two draft environmental impact statements and the final EIS and my colleagues Frances, Kit and Brandi are also writing about significance of today’s announcement. It’s great that finally Salazar has, as he put it, reached “the final decision of the United States of America.”
The other good news is that the Secretary acknowledged the next big challenge to the Department of the Interior on offshore wind: streamlining the permitting process so that it is much faster while being at least as protective of the environment. As the Secretary said today “there’s no reason that getting an offshore wind permit should take a decade.”
Unfortunately, the new permitting regulations adopted last year could take exactly that long, and that’s unacceptable. One of the keys is going to be collecting and mapping a lot more data on the wildlife and ecological regions of our federal waters. NRDC has done some of this type of work on land for the western part of the US. Our maps help developers identify places NOT to go. Identifying the no-go places doesn’t mean the rest of the country or ocean is suitable for development, but the mapping does provide a much better baseline of information about the potential ecological concerns and the more comprehensive and robust the initial review is the more consolidated and expedited the later stage reviews can be. That means that we can create a faster and smarter process.
Salazar said that he was working with the different parts of the Department of Interior and the Governors from coastal states to streamline the process. And NRDC will follow these efforts closely. Getting to yes on the Cape Wind permit is a huge step forward for our clean energy future. Getting to yes on the next offshore wind project a lot faster, well, that would be really transformative.
]]>The scientists tell me that when you look at the wind energy potential off the Atlantic it may be greater than we have onshore. But what we don't have in place at this point is the rules to move forward with energy offshore.
That's because the Bush administration sat on draft rules for ages. So finalizing the "Alternative Energy-Related Use" (AERU) rules quickly is another think the Secretary has to do.
NRDC, the Conservation Law Foundation and the Union of Concern Scientists made these points in this letter delivered to the Secretary yesterday.
Here's a key paragraph on the Cape Wind project:
Although we believe that the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for Cape Wind, released by Minerals Management Service (MMS) on January 16, 2009,understates the considerable clean energy and climate benefits of the Project, it nonetheless reasonably reflects that the environmental benefits of the Cape Wind project will far outweigh the impacts. The FEIS provides a solid foundation on which MMS should move forward to issue a favorable Record of Decision (ROD) and grant Cape Wind a lease to construct and operate a 130-turbine wind energy facility on the OCS. We strongly urge that the Record of Decision also include reasonable monitoring, mitigation and adaptive management protocols (including those recommended in the FEIS), in order that the Project achieves clean energy benefits while ensuring the necessary ocean protection.
Here's a key paragraph on the AERU rules:
]]>While the Bush Administration finally, and belatedly, released draft AERU regulations in 2008, those draft rules contained some fundamental flaws that should be corrected before the final rules are released. We recommend that the controversial alternative uses section of the regulations be put on hold while the renewable energy development section proceeds ahead swiftly. We further recommend the renewable energy regulations address key concerns reflected in the public record, including: (1) the inequitable proposed requirement for renewable energy projects to fund their environmental reviews, in a departure from longstanding practice with respect to oil and gas projects on the OCS; (2) the need to more meaningfully address adaptive management, including by establishing best practices for handling any unanticipated project impacts; and (3) the need to ensure adequate environmental review at all project stages.
While NRDC has long been a strong supporter of increased use of wind energy, we have moved cautiously when it came to the Cape Wind project. This has been out of respect for the environmental review process—a corner stone of modern environmental policy—and wanting to make sure that the first offshore wind project in the US gets it right. The results of the DEIS and the other studies we have reviewed make it clear to us that the Cape Wind project will be a big win for the environment and is urgently needed. However, no energy project is without its potential environmental impacts and, to address these, NRDC strongly recommends that the Final Environmental Impact Statement (“FEIS”) and any lease, easement, and right-of-way for the Project include specific monitoring and mitigation conditions to protect the coastal and marine environments.
The technology for producing electricity from wind energy has improved greatly over the past twenty years, and wind—on and offshore—now represents one of the most promising sources of emissions free electricity. Indeed, offshore wind power is probably the New England’s largest untapped renewable energy resource and a vital resource for the entire country.
The potential benefits of the project are undeniable. The project would produce a maximum electric output of 468 MW and an average daily output of 182.6 MW free of air and water pollution. In addition to the local and regional air pollutants, such as NOx and SOx that the project would avoid, the project would reduce emissions of carbon dioxide—the pollutant most responsible for global warming by 0.88 million tons per year. As UCS calculated as part of their comments, this means that Cape Wind will reduce expected growth in CO2 emissions from the power sector in 2014 by about 9%.
This would be an important contribution to fighting global warming for two reasons: 1) it would do more than any other renewable energy source of electricity in New England to avoid global warming pollution and 2) it is by far the largest single contribution that Cape and Islands—a region that is exceptionally vulnerable to global warming—can make to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
To address the environmental impacts of the project, NRDC recommends that the FEIS and lease, right-of way or easement for the project include the following: 1) a requirement for a comprehensive underwater acoustic monitoring system that not only measures the levels of underwater noise but that detects the approach of marine species into the safety zone around the turbines, 2) a requirement that construction activity be scheduled so as to avoid periods of peak abundance of threatened or endangered species, 3) a requirement that additional surveys be conducted to reduce remaining uncertainty regarding the threat of impacts to the federally endangered Roseate Tern, and 4) a requirement—detailed below—for a comprehensive Environmental Management, or adaptive management, system.
Given the relative lack of experience with offshore wind projects in this country, there is the possibility that the scale of certain impacts will only become clear overtime. It is important to the future not only of this project but to offshore wind generally, that there be an effective system be in place to monitor and adjust operations to avoid such impacts.
To that end, we call on MMS to include in the FEIS and as a condition of any lease, easement or right-of-way, a detailed and comprehensive Environmental Management System for monitoring and mitigating potential impacts associated with project construction and operation. MMS’s interim policies and Best Management Practices, issued as part of its Alternative Energy and Alternate Use (AEAU) Program, require MMS and lessees and grantees to adopt adaptive management that will include monitoring of activities to ensure that potential adverse impacts of OCS alternative energy development are avoided (if possible), minimized, or mitigated.
The Environmental Management System should achieve the following goals:
The urgency of stopping global warming increases regularly as the drumbeat of scientific studies about the quickening pace of climate change continues. Cape Wind will make an important contribution to the fight against global warming both through its immediate displacement of fossil fuels and by paving the way for greater use of offshore wind.
MMS should adopt our recommendations, finalize the EIS, and expeditiously permit the project with the recommended monitoring and mitigation measures.
]]>Our legislative director, Karen Wayland, got her PhD working on ag and watershed issues and she informs me that travel times for chemicals can reach into decades from some parts of even small watersheds. So the current corn surge and ethanol demand probably isn't causing the current growth in the hypoxic zone--that growth is caused by ag practices from previous years and decades.
While the connection to ethanol is misleading, the bottom line is actually scarier. If there is a lag time between our ag practices and their impact on the hypoxic zone, then the corn surge isn't causing the current growth in the hypoxic zone, but it will condemn us to future growth. However, I just did a quick look at corn production and total nitrogen flux and yield to the Gulf and can't say I saw any obvious connection between the data at all.
USGS updated it's web page on hypoxia and nutrient flows this week too, so I plan to spend some time looking into the data.
The article notes:
A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency task force of scientists, state agencies and federal agencies set a goal in 2001 of reducing the Dead Zone to 2,000 square miles. Little has been done with the group's recommendations, [Matt] Rota [from the Gulf Restoration Network] said. Steps should include giving farmers more incentives to cut fertilizer runoff and reducing pollution from wastewater treatment plants, he said.
I'd also point folks to an earlier post in which I wrote about some great recommendations for the Farm Bill from WRI, many of which would help reduce nutrient runoff.
]]>