Testimony of Regina Asmutis                                                               

Cape Wind DEIS Hearing

International Wildlife Coalition                                                  

 

December 7, 2004

 

On behalf of the International Wildlife Coalition I thank you for the opportunity to provide comments regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Biological Assessment for the Cape Wind Project.  First of all, the IWC appreciates the efforts by Cape Wind Associates to pursue non-fossil fuel generated electricity.  However, we are troubled that, while the Cape Wind Associates appear to have the best intentions in mind, impacts on marine mammals continue to be inadequately considered and misrepresented.  This is especially true with regard to the critically endangered North Atlantic Right Whale.  The IWC intends to submit more extensive comments in writing but, at this time, we want to raise a few points of particular concern.

 

The Marine Biological Assessment cites outdated data, much of which was obtained in the 1970’s, to state that there are few historic sightings of right whales in Nantucket Sound.  Use of this data does not account for inter-annual variability or improvements in technology which may provide more reliable right whale distribution data.  More recent data indicates that, just in the past three years, there have been a number of sightings of right whales in Nantucket Sound including a sighting published by the National Marine Fisheries Service on October 10, 2004.   Additionally, recent satellite telemetry data, published by Mark Baumgartner, has indicated that Nantucket Shoals may be an area of frequent use, with whales repeatedly crossing through the Sound.

The Marine Biological Assessment also states that, because large whales can hear in the frequency range of boat engines, they “are likely to detect and respond” to vessels, and that right whales are “likely to move away from vessels.” And it concludes “listed whales…will likely be able to avoid Project-related vessel traffic easily.” This is shockingly incorrect. In fact, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has published data, which indicating that vessel strikes are one of the leading causes of decline in the population of North Atlantic right whales. Right whales do not move out of the path of oncoming vessels. This problem is so significant that the NMFS has recently published a proposal for slowing and re-routing vessels to reduce risk. While the Biological Assessment indicates that construction vessels are slow (<14kts), they incorrectly assume that whales are more likely to avoid slow moving vessels.  In fact, the data cited in the BA actually indicates that the strike rate does not decrease because of whale avoidance but rather,  the mortality rate declines if the striking vessel is moving at < 14kts.  The types of speeds of vessels typically used to maintain marine wind turbines are not discussed in the BA or DEIS.  These vessels, however, are capable of speeds far greater than the 14 knots therefore increasing the risk of mortality.  Furthermore, maintenance vessels are said to be departing from Quonset, RI and no dedicated surveys have been conducted to indicate the right whale occurrence and likelihood of interaction during transit from the port to the site and back.  Additionally, while the DEIS projects approximately 250 days of vessel transits through the Project site, the Horns Rev wind project reported two regular maintenance trips per turbine per year and three unscheduled maintenance trips per turbine per year. For a project with 130 turbines this would translate to approximately 650 trips per year, which poses a much larger risk of disturbance or collision than is considered in the DEIS.

 

The DEIS does not discuss the issue of habitat exclusion that may be caused by the placement of the turbines resulting either from physical exclusion or acoustic harassment. Most baleen whales, including critically endangered right whale have a peak hearing range within the operational frequency.  If low frequency noise emitted during operation of the turbines is aversive to marine mammals in the area, they may choose to avoid passing within the range of this sound. The DEIS states that the sound level will fall off to near baseline levels at 110 meters. However, when drawing zones of  exclusion that encompass elevated noise levels around each turbine the travel lane with baseline noise levels may be reduced to only 400 meters between turbines, necessitating that animals choose a path that may require course changes to navigate. They may prefer, instead, to avoid this area. This could exclude them from an area that may be productive in food resources (Baumgartner in press).  Furthermore, there are at least three places in the DEIS where the sound emission data are conflicting. 

 

We have additional concerns regarding the pinniped assessment in the BA which addresses harbor seals and grey seals simultaneously since both species are considered to be “similar”.  However, it is important to consider that, while the species may be biologically similar, gray seals reside in the area year round and therefore, molt, and pup there.  These behaviors are sensitive and require tremendous amounts of haul-out time where disturbances disrupt mating, reduce pup survivorship, and impact molting.

 

A 2001 study by Sundberg and Soderman specifically looked at the impacts of grey seals from wind power.  They concluded that major work should be avoided during molting and extraordinary activity should be avoided during breeding times.  Another study by Koschinski et al (2003) proposes that low frequency mating calls made by male harbor seals may have be masked during wind turbine construction which could negatively impact reproduction.  They also suggest that construction activities be scheduled to minimize impacts, particularly avoiding work during calving and reproductive periods.  Since the DEIS indicates that winter construction will be conducted, and molting and calving for gray seals occurs from December through May.  Given the predicted sound propogation from pile driving, we do not feel that potential impacts on this population during these times are adequately being addressed. 

 

It is also important to note that almost all pinniped impact studies only consider changes in haul out locations and densities and do not directly consider foraging impacts.  We do not believe the DEIS or BA adequately address this issue either.

 

Furthermore, the DEIS is misleading when it says that white-sided dolphins, striped dolphins, common dolphins, long-finned pilot whales, harp seals and hooded seals have the potential, or it is possible for them to occur in Nantucket Sound.  In fact, evidence exits indicating that harp (Phoca groenlandica) and hooded (Cystophora cristata), seals occur regularly from Falmouth to Monomoy and are, therefore, likely transiting the area on a regular basis (Patchett, pers.comm.).    

 

There are no surveys to monitor cetacean populations in this area.  However, data regarding occurrence can be obtained synoptically by looking at stranding patterns.  In addition to seal strandings, the Cape Cod Stranding Network (CCSN) has also responded to strandings of risso’s dolphins (Grampus griseus), striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba), common dolphin (Delphinus delphis),  pilot whales (Globicephala melas), Kogia spp., harbor porpoise (Phoceona phoceona), spotted dolphins, minke whales and humpback whales in this area.  Recent stranding sites range from Woods Hole to Chatham including Falmouth, Yarmouth and West Dennis.  (Patchett, pers. Comm.).

 

As mentioned previously, while we support the need to explore alternative fuel resources, we also support the protection of marine mammals and essential habitat for their survival.  At this time, we do not believe that the DEIS or the BA’s adequately address these issues. We believe that the Army Corps should require the applicant to conduct a more rigorous examination of the available data before it considers issuing a permit for construction and operation.  Again, we will be submitting written comments in greater depth. 

 

We appreciate the opportunity to comment and thank you for your time and consideration.

 

Jan Sundberg & Malin Soderman.  2001. Windpower and Grey Seals:

An impact assessment of potential effects by sea-based windpower plants on a local seal population. Anceps EkoIogidata Department of Animal Ecology Uppsala University.

 

Koschinksi, S; Culik, B; Henriksen, O; Tregenza, N; Ellis, G; Jansen, C; Kathe, G. 2003.

Behavioural reactions of free-ranging porpoises and seals to the noise of a stimulated 2MW wind

power generator. Marine Ecology Progress Series Vol 265: 263-273.

Patchett, Kristen.  Stranding Coordinator. Cape Cod Stranding Network,  P.O. Box 287 Buzzards Bay, MA 02532 P: 508.743.9805 • Fax: 508.759.5477

Site Designed & Maintain