Cape Wind and the Sacred Sunrise of the Wampanoag:
A Victory for Whom?1
By Kathleen M. Saul
Abstract
Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar has given the approval for the construction
of the Cape Wind wind farm in Nantucket Sound, off the coast of Cape Cod,
Massachusetts. Supporters of the wind farm argue that this form of non-fossil fuel, nonpolluting energy will supply almost all of the peak energy demand for Cape Cod—about
420 MW. However, the local Wamponoag hold sacred the views of the sunrise over the
area. Environmentally oriented opponents claim the wind turbines will negatively impact
the local marine ecosystem. This case explores the use of turbines to harness the power
of the wind and generate electricity, and outlines some of the key factors for wind farm
location. The case then examines some of the environmental, cultural, and policy issues
specific to the construction of Cape Wind. Despite tribal resistance to the development,
can the outcome of the events surrounding this project be considered a victory for Native
American rights?
Salazar Approves Cape Wind
Barbara sat at the kitchen table, scanning Indian Country Today for an article or
two of interest. Finally, one headline caught her eye: “Salazar Approves Cape Wind”
(Toensing, 2010).
“Oh no!” she cried. “The U.S. government has given the go ahead to the wind
farm off of Cape Cod! Listen to this! He finds ‘the public benefits weigh in favor of
approving the Cape Wind project’ (Toensing, 2010). He thinks this will point us in ‘a
new direction in our nation’s energy future’ and, while he “understood and respected the
views of the tribes and the ACHP [Advisory Council on Historic Preservation] . . . [t]he
need to preserve the environmental resources and rich cultural heritage of the Nantucket
Sound must be weighed in the balance with the importance of developing renewable
energy sources and strengthening our nation’s energy security while battling climate
change and creating jobs’ (Toensing, 2010). I have heard that all before. What a bunch
of baloney! And what a blow to Indian rights.”
Linda looked up from her weaving project. “Not at all,” she said matter-of-factly.
“The project is a victory for Native Americans. The government actually listened to the
Wampanoag and forced the company reconsider the impact their plans would have on the
1
Copyright (2010) held by The Evergreen State College. Please use appropriate attribution when using
and quoting this case. Cases are available at the Native Cases website at
www.evergreen.edu/tribal/cases/home.htm. This material is based upon work supported by the National
Science Foundation under Grant No. 0817624. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or
recommendations expressed in this case are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of
the National Science Foundation. Thank you to Dr. Linda Moon Stumpff for the inspiration and to Jovanna
Brown, Barbara Smith, and Robert Cole for their input on earlier drafts of this case.
1
tribes.”
Rob paused in his reading of the latest sports news and looked at his sisters,
anxious to hear the lively debate that was about to unfold. How could it be that one wind
energy project might be both a disappointment and a triumph for the tribes? Did one of
the girls have her facts mixed up? And, who were the Wampanoag? He could have a lot
of fun if that were the case. But first, he needed to know the basics.
“Hey Linda, who are the Wampanoag? I’ve never heard of them.”
“The Wampanoag have lived on Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket in
Massachusetts for at least 10,000 years (“Wampanoag Tribe”; Sultzman). As the
European settlers moved in, the natives were dislocated and many succumbed to disease,
and by the 1800s there were only three Wampanoag communities left on Martha’s
Vineyard. The Wampanoag of Aquinnah maintained control over their land and remained
a sovereign tribe despite pressures to force them out.
In the early 1970s, the Wampanoag began seeking federal recognition for the
tribe, the return of tribal lands, and self-determination. That recognition was granted in
1987 through the Bureau of Indian Affairs. As part of the settlement, the Wampanoag
were accorded trust lands in the southwest portion of Martha’s Vineyard in the town of
Gay Head (now Aquinnah).
Wampanoag, in English, means “People of the First Light” (Cope, 2006). These
people were the first to see the rising sun each day for millennia, and that unobstructed
view of the dawn remains an important part of their culture.”
Robert squirmed in his seat. “Okay. But what is ‘wind farm’ anyway? How can
you farm the wind?” he asked innocently.
A Giant Whirligig
Linda sighed and put down her work. “A wind farm isn’t a traditional farm at all.
It’s an area of land, or in the case of Cape Wind, an area off the coast, on which a number
of large wind turbines will be or have been erected to harness the power of the wind.
“Wind results from differences in heating and cooling of the surfaces of the earth,
the rising of warm air and the sinking of colder air masses (American Wind Energy
Association [AWEA]). The sun heats up the earth’s atmosphere at different rates
depending on the angle with which its rays hit the earth and how much the surface of the
earth (land or water) reflects or absorbs the sun’s heat (AWEA). As a result, the
temperature of the air varies with factors like elevation, proximity to the equator, and
whether the air flows over the desert or the ocean.
“The rising and sinking air--the wind--possesses kinetic energy, the energy of
motion. When the wind comes into contact with the blades of a wind turbine, the kinetic
2
energy is transformed into rotational energy which causes the blades to turn. A generator
inside the wind turbine then transforms the energy from that spinning motion into
electricity (plus some heat, which gets lost to the atmosphere).
“You aren’t really farming the wind, but you are capturing the energy of the wind
to generate electricity.”
“What does a wind turbine look like?” asked Rob.
“It’s pretty simple actually,” chimed in Barbara. “Like a giant whirligig or
pinwheel. It has a tall central shaft and three blades attached to the top to catch the
wind.” She drew a quick sketch in the margin of the newspaper and held it up for Rob to
see.
“But why three blades? Why not six? Or sixteen?” asked Rob.
“Lots of reasons,” Barbara responded. “First of all, the companies that make the
wind turbines have found that turbines with three blades are the most stable (they don’t
flop over in strong winds!). And, if the wind changes direction, the horizontal axis (the
one parallel to the ground) also changes direction, rotating the top of the tower to keep it
properly aligned with the wind, and maximizing power output. This movement is smooth
for the three-bladed turbine but can be very jerky with only two blades, depending on the
position of those blades. While the two-bladed version can be cheaper, it requires a
higher wind speed to achieve the same energy output as the three-bladed design. And
you would get less electricity from the two-bladed design in areas where wind speeds
aren’t so high (Berg, 2009).
“Increasing the number of blades adds a lot of strain to the turbine and increases
its weight: Each blade weighs about seven tons! (Puget Sound Energy [PSE], “Hopkins
Ridge”). The more blades on the turbine, the stronger the stronger the construction
materials would need to be, and that would be more costly. After a lot of financial and
engineering analyses, turbine manufacturers have deemed three blades are optimal.
“Material strength and cost also play into the length of the blades and how tall the
companies make the main shafts. The larger the area swept by the blades, the more
energy the turbines can capture and transform into electricity. (See Appendix I.) Taller
3
towers can tap the energy of the higher, faster winds. Each company needs to find the
ideal combination for them.”
“If you want to catch the higher, faster winds, why not put all the wind turbines
on the top of mountains?”
Linda replied this time. “Good question. For one thing, it would be terribly hard
to haul all the building materials to the top of a mountain, especially where there are no
roads. You also need to be able to connect the wind farm to power lines so the electricity
generated can be transmitted to the places where it is needed. There aren’t many power
lines atop mountains. And, since there aren’t many cities or towns there either,
companies would have to string up miles and miles of power lines to get the electricity to
those areas. That would get very expensive and it would ruin the natural beauty of
mountain areas.
“Trees, hills, and cliffs in rural areas or even man-made structures can interrupt
the flow of the wind, creating turbulence and making the wind speed erratic. Canyons
and gullies can also affect the speed and direction of the wind. Since the wind and
electric companies want a steady, predictable, reliable flow, they take all those factors
into account when they locate their wind turbines. That is why you often see wind farms
on flat, treeless expanses, where the wind blows all the time.”
“The Rosebud Sioux Tribe in South Dakota took advantage of their wind (which
blows at an average of 17 mph or more! (50 meters above sea level)) and installed a wind
turbine that generates 750 kilowatts of electricity—enough to power about 200 – 300
homes for an entire year (“Owl Feather War Bonnet;” “Rosebud Wind,” 2003; “PSE,
“Wild Horse Wind and Solar’). When dedicated on May 1, 2003, that wind turbine
became the first utility scale commercial wind development in the continental U.S. on
tribal land, and wholly owned and operated by a tribe (“Rosebud Sioux,” 2003). The
project has led to plans for other wind turbines on the reservation as a means of
generating revenue for the tribe (“Owl Feather War Bonnet”).
Barbara piped in, “There also are projects in development for the Pine Ridge
reservation and at the Flandreau Santee Sioux casino, for tribes in Montana, and even in
Alaska!” (“Native Wind;” National Renewable Energy Laboratory [NREL], “Wind
Power,” 2005).
Rob looked puzzled. “I thought you said Cape Wind was off the coast. Aren’t
those all land-based projects?”
Horseshoe Shoal
“You’re right,” said Linda. “Any rough, irregular surface can slow down the
wind and add to its turbulence. Wind glides over the smooth surface of water and creates
more electricity than would the same wind over land. That makes an offshore wind farm
preferable to one on land. At the Cape Wind site in Nantucket Sound, the wind can blow
4
at about 20 mph (at 20 meters above sea level) (Current Conditions, 2010). Ideally, you
would want wind speeds of about 31 mph (PSE, “Wild Horse, Facts”).
“Two other factors are critical in siting an offshore wind farm. You need the
water to be relatively shallow and you don’t want really high waves during storms)
(“Why is Cape Wind Proposing”). You need to be able to erect the turbines, service
them, keep them standing throughout the year, and be able to connect them to the local
power grid. According to the Environmental Impact Statement for the Cape Wind
project, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers evaluated 17 different sites and found the
Horseshoe Shoal area to be the best of those sites. It had the appropriately high wind
speeds, proximity to lines with surplus transmission capacity, and an area that would
accommodate a 200 – 1500 MW wind project (Draft Environmental Impact Study [EIS],
2007, p.1-2).
“Here’s a map that shows you where in Massachusetts the Nantucket Sound is
located.
5
Cape Wind wind park site
Figure 1: Road Map of Eastern Massachusetts, Cape Cod
From: http://www.aaccessmaps.com/show/map/us/ma/mass_capecod_e
6
“And here’s a closer view of the specific location of the wind farm and the
existing power transmission lines. You can see that the current shipping and ferry routes
skirt the chosen site.”
Cape Cod
Martha’s
Vineyard
Nantucket
Island
Figure 2: Location of the Proposed Cape Wind Wind Park
From: http://news.cnet.com/i/bto/20100105/map.JPG
Rob studied the maps for a minute, then looked up. “You mentioned an
Environmental Impact Statement. What’s that?” Rob asked.
“The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was signed into law way back
in 1970, after concerns about pesticide use, water pollution, smog, and other issues had
gained a foothold in American consciousness (Environmental Protection Agency [EPA],
“National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)”, 2010). NEPA requires that all levels of
the government “create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in
productive harmony” (“National Environmental Policy Act of 1969”). Those responsible
for any project that may impact the natural environment or which is environmentally
controversial must prepare an environmental analysis and complete an Environmental
Impact Statement. In general, the Environmental Impact Statement (or EIS) outlines the
scope of, purpose of, and need for a specific project (EPA, “Frequently Asked
Questions”). It examines the natural environment that might be affected by the project
7
and the consequences the project could have on that environment. It also needs to outline
alternatives to the proposed project.
“The Army Corps of Engineers prepared the EIS on behalf of Cape Wind. It
stated that the purpose of the project was to address the need for additional power in the
region, particularly from renewable energy sources, and reduce the dependency on nonlocal sources (“Draft EIS,” 2007, p. 1-2). Originally they did not rule out on-shore
locations, and actually compared one on-shore site, the Horseshoe Shoal site, a deeper
water location, and a combination of smaller installation at Horseshoe Shoal and another
offshore site (“Draft EIS,” 2007, p. 1-3). In the end, they proposed using the Horseshoe
Shoal site, with 130 wind turbines positioned in a grid, a minimum of about 4/10 of a
mile apart (“Draft EIS,” 2007, p. 1-3). That spacing was chosen to “not preclude or
prohibit traditional uses” of the area, including fishing, boating, or other commercial or
recreational activities.”
Rob thought a bit, and looked back at the maps. “That many wind turbines
probably would have some impact on the environment there.”
“I would think so, but the Army Corps thinks otherwise,” inserted Barbara. “In
the EIS they say that the disturbance of the sea floor will generate some impact, but it
will be only temporary. Since most of the creatures in the area a mobile (like fish, turtles,
seals), they expect them to move away from the site during the construction phase, but
return after the disruptions are over. Some of the work may impact eggs and larvae,
however.
On land, bats and birds have been greatly impacted by wind projects, especially
the early ones that failed to account for bird migratory patterns (Cryan, 2008; DeLucas et
al., 2005; Everaert and Stienen, 2006; Smallwood and Thelander, 2008). The Army
Corps insists that the majority of birds in the Cape Wind area fly much lower than the
rotors (which will not come within about 75 feet of the surface of the water) (“Draft
EIS,” 2007, p. 1-13). They also claim that the wide spacing of the turbines, the tubular
construction, and the slow speed of the blades will help prevent bird and bat deaths.
“In addition, the turbines also will be equipped with fog horns to prevent ships
and boats from colliding with them in heavy fog. However, those fog horns have a ½
mile audible range so that people on land won’t be able to hear them.
“The EIS does indicate that any construction noise will be well below the levels
that would cause permanent damage to fish. During operations, the wind farm will
produce very little noise.
“Still, this is the first off-shore wind farm in the U.S. and there are a lot of
unknowns (Conservation Law Foundation, “Environmental Organizations Applaud,”
2010). The Army Corps of Engineers based their conclusions on simulation models, the
input of the Minerals Management Service, the Department of Fish and Wildlife and
others, and on offshore wind farm experience in Europe, but until a turbine is erected in
8
these particular waters, those conclusions are suppositional (Venkataraman and Ebbert,
2009). Just listen to the language used in the EIS: “. . .finfish. . .are likely to be able to
find suitable benthic habitat adjacent to the Project area. . .” (“Draft EIS,” 2007, p. 1-9),
“. . . sea turtles should be able to easily avoid vessels. . .” (“Draft EIS,” 2007, p. 1-10),
and increases in the sediments in the water “. . .could have minor indirect effects on birds
by temporarily affecting their prey and food availability (emphasis added)” (“Draft EIS,”
2007, p. 1-12).
Linda countered her sister. “Even though some environmental groups and local
fishermen (through the Massachusetts Marine Fisheries Commission) have voiced
concern about the project, others (like Clean Power Now and the Natural Resources
Defense Council) applaud the move to a renewable, non-carbon fuel source in the
Northeast (“A Big Win,” 2010; Doggett, 2009; “Wind Farm Debate,” 2002). This project
will provide almost all of the peak energy demand for Cape Cod—about 420 MW (Wind
Farm Debate, 2002). According to the American Lung Association, Cape Cod has some
of the worst air quality in the state of Massachusetts, so the reduction in the use of fossil
fuels to produce that electricity, and the associated pollution, would be a step in the right
direction” (“Barnstable County,” 2003).
“So where do the tribes fit into all of this?” wondered Rob.
“Not in Our Backyard”
“From the beginning, there has been opposition to a wind farm off the shores of
Cape Cod, Nantucket, and Martha’s Vineyard,” said Barbara, in a matter-of-fact tone.
“Many residents, including the late Ted Kennedy, disliked the thought of 440 foot tall
wind turbines obscuring their views (Linday, 2009). Those areas also house 34
properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places, 16 historic districts, and 12
significant historic properties (“Cape Wind Rejection Recommended,” 2010). According
to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, any federal department or
independent agency which has the authority to license a project such as this one, must
“take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or
object that is included in or is eligible for inclusion in the National Register” (Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation, “National Historic Preservation Act”). The local
Mashpee and Aquinnah Wampanoag tribes claim the Nantucket Sound is eligible for
such a listing as a traditional cultural property (Daley, 2009).
“The religious and ceremonial rites of the tribes, also known as “People of the
First Light,” require an unobstructed view of the rising sun. According to Bettina
Washington, tribal historic preservation officer, “The Nantucket Sound viewscape is
essential to our spiritual well-being” (Lehmann, 2009). In addition, tribal oral history
indicates the Horseshoe Shoal is a place where their ancestors hunted, lived, and were
buried (Cassidy, 2009). Western scientists have shown that during the last ice age, the
New England coast extended 75 miles farther out than it does today (Daley, 2009). Still,
Cape Wind officials counter that no evidence of any human activity (remains or artifacts)
9
has been found in any of the sediment samples taken from the proposed site. It’s a
conflict of oral history against western science.”
“There is more to it than that,” Linda insisted. “Although some people claim that
the tribal concerns arose very late in the project, almost as a last minute attempt to stall
the installations, the Wampanoag have been trying to assert their claims for quite some
time. As early as 2004, the tribes were in communication with federal officials, telling
them that the Nantucket Sound was critical to their spiritual well-being (Daley, 2009;
Lehmann, 2009). Unfortunately, they weren’t taken very seriously by the agency in
charge, the U.S. Minerals Management Service (the MMS) (Cassidy, 2009). In early
2009, the MMS did issue a report that outlined adverse impacts of the wind farm on 28
historic properties and the “traditional religious and ceremonial practices” of the
Wampanoag (Daley, 2009). But nothing came of it and in the middle of the summer, the
Aquinnah Wampanoag wrote the MMS a letter expressing concern about their lack of
engagement with the tribes. Other tribal members complained that keeping on schedule
and reaping the profits of the wind farm took precedence over Native American cultural
issues” (Lehmann, 2009).
“Why is the Minerals Management Service involved in wind farming?” asked
Rob.
Linda replied, “Minerals Management Service is actually an outdated title for the
agency. As of June 2010, they became known as the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management, Regulation and Enforcement (Minerals Management Service [MMS],
“Salazar Swears In,” 2010). It is the agency responsible for offshore energy sources,
including oil, natural gas, and now, wind. And it reports up through the Department of
the Interior, charged with protecting the country’s natural resources and heritage,
supplying energy for the future, and, supposedly, honoring cultures and tribal
communities (U.S. Department of the Interior, “Our Mission”).
“Returning to the Cape Wind case . . .
“The real breakthrough occurred in February when the Secretary of the Interior,
Ken Salazar, journeyed north and participated in a sunrise meeting with the tribes on
Cape Cod and Martha’s Vineyard (Daley, 2010). Salazar was quoted as saying the
meetings were “very meaningful” (Daley, 2010). And tribal representative indicated that
for the first time, the concerns of the Wampanoag were actually being heard.”
Barbara spoke up. “The concerns may have been heard, but they didn’t seem to
affect the final decision. Even though the National Park Service did determine that the
site did qualify for status as a traditional cultural property, and even though the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation recommended that Salazar not approve the project, he
did so any way” (“Cape Wind Rejection Recommended,” 2010).
“Perhaps. But Cape Wind has been required to reduce the number of wind
turbines from 170 to 130, to change the design and configuration of the wind farm to
10
lessen the impacts of the project on the viewscape, and to conduct additional surveys of
the seabed in the area to ensure they locate any archeological remains before the
construction actually begins (Sigelman, April 2010). If they find any cultural resources,
operations will cease and the Tribes will participate in reviewing and analyzing the finds
(Barkoff and Bullin, 2010).”
Barbara shrugged.
Linda continued, a bit perturbed. “Think of what has happened at other Indian
sacred sites. Think of the San Francisco Peaks. Those peaks are sacred to the Apache,
Navajo, Hope, Hualapai, and Havasupai tribes, and others. To them those peaks are as a
living being (Fischer, 2009). Yet the owners of the Arizona Snowbowl ski resort want to
expand their offerings by using treated wastewater to make artificial snow (“Tribes
Hopeful,” 2006). The U.S. Forest Service claimed to have conducted outreach among the
tribes, but didn’t bother to translate the documents into the Tribal languages (for those
who don’t speak English), to explain their content, to provide any forums or meetings to
ensure public understanding of the project and participation in the process (George, 2004,
p. 22). Nor were there any notices on Indian radio or in Indian newspapers (George,
2004, p. 24).
And, the former Secretary of the Interior (Bruce Babbitt) even joined the Arizona
Snowbowl legal defense team (Cole, 2005)! With Cape Wind, the Tribes have been
actively involved and the current Secretary of the Interior has listened to and taken into
account their concerns. Although we may not like his decision in favor of the project, his
engagement with the Tribes sets an important precedent.”
Linda turned to her brother. “So Rob, what do you think? Is the Cape Wind case
a victory for Native Americans, or another example of Native rights and traditions being
ignored, or something in between?”
11
Appendix I: The Area Swept by the Rotor Blades (m) and Turbine Energy Output
(kW)
From: www.windpower.org
12
Appendix II: Wind Resource Potential in the United States
From: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/ilands/fig13.html
13
Appendix III: The Law of Wind
Adapted from: The Law of Wind: A Guide to Business and Legal Issues, 5th Edition. (2009).
Stoel Rives Attorneys at Law, Portland, OR. Chapter 5: Tribal Laws and Land Issues.
“Federal and tribal laws govern leases, easements, and other agreements for use of
tribal land within Indian reservations. In addition, as governments, Indian tribes exercise
significant regulatory control over use of tribal land and Indian reservation land
generally. Federal laws of general application, such as federal environmental, energy,
and tax laws, and some state laws also apply to wind energy project developers on tribal
land.
In general, even with tribal consent, tribal land can be sold, leased, encumbered
by an easement, or used as security for financing only as authorized by federal Indian law
and applicable tribal law . . . [A]n Indian tribe, as lessor, can lease tribal land for 25 years
and may agree to an option extending the lease for an additional 25 years.” However,
under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Secretary of the Interior issued regulations for
Tribal Energy Resource Agreements (TERAs). “Once an Indian tribe and the BIA enter
a TERA covering wind energy development, the tribe can enter into wind energy leases
and other business agreements and issue rights-of way easements for projects on tribal
lands for 30 years, renewable for another 30 years by the tribe, all without BIA approval.
To protect project wind flow from being disturbed by other development on tribal
lands, “it may be appropriate to combine a section lease of tribal land with an
“encumbrance” on other tribal land.” Such an encumbrance may include right-of-way
agreements or easements which prevent development of that specific land to permit the
establishment of project-related transmission lines, roads, or other project activities.
Key federal environmental laws that apply to projects on tribal land include the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA), and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). “Under NEPA, the BIA must prepare
an environmental impact statement before approving the lease of tribal land or taking
other action . . . The BIA must take into account the impact of its actions on any property,
including traditional cultural properties, listed on or eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places and must consult with tribes and other interested parties on
measure to avoid, minimize, and mitigate any adverse impacts of its action on such
properties.” The BIA must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the
National Marine Fisheries Service “if its action may affect species or designated critical
habitat of species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. Other federal laws
apply if human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or archaeological resources are
encountered before or during project development on tribal land.”
“A tribe does not waive its governmental regulatory authority by entering into
contracts for development of tribal land and resources.” Developers need to be aware of
and understand the impact of tribal laws and regulations on a wind energy project. In
addition, “[n]ontribal project developers may be subject to applicable state and tribal
taxes. Careful review should be conducted to determine whether a Wind Energy Land
14
Agreement . . . can be designed to avoid or minimize the risk of double taxation. In some
cases, Indian tribes are willing to abate tribal taxes to the extent necessary to avoid or
minimize the economic impact. . .”
Federal law also allows for accelerated depreciation of certain investments on
tribal land.
“As governments, Indian tribes have sovereign immunity. This means an Indian
tribe cannot be sued in any court without the express consent of Congress or the tribe
itself by appropriate tribal government action. Most tribes are willing to waive tribal
sovereign immunity on a limited basis to promote significant tribal economic
development projects.
A dispute resolution clause in an agreement with an Indian tribe typically includes
a clause designating the court or courts authorized to exercise jurisdiction over a dispute
with the tribe . . . Developers are often reluctant to agree to have such disputes heard in a
tribes’ tribal court. To address this dilemma, many Indian tribes will agree to a dispute
resolution clause designating binding arbitration as the exclusive means of resolving
disputes.”
15
Appendix IV: Cape Wind Project Regulatory Requirements
Adapted from: Draft Environmental Impact Study. (2007, February). Section 1.0, Executive
Summary, pp. 1-24 to 1-26. Retrieved June 29, 2010 from http://www.capewind.org/FAQCategory10-Permitting+Process+and+Cape+Wind-Parent0-myfaq-yes.htm
Agency
Responsible
Permit/Action
Date
Applied
U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers
Permit for work in
navigable waters
11/22/01
U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers
Review for compliance
with National Historic
Preservation Act
To be filed
Council on Environmental
Quality, NEPA
Draft Environmental
Impact Statement
11/2004
Council on Environmental
Quality, NEPA
Final Environmental
Impact Statement
To be filed
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA)
Stormwater Permit
To be filed
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Notice of Proposed
Construction for structures
exceeding 200 ft in
navigable airspace
10/25/02
U.S. Coast Guard
Permit to establish and
To be filed
operate private aid-to-navigation
on a fixed structure
Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA)
Environmental Notification 11/15/01
MEPA
Draft Environmental
Impact Report
11/15/04
MEPA
Final Environmental
Impact Report
To be filed
Massachusetts Energy
Facility Siting Board
Petition to Construct
Jurisdictional Facility
9/17/02
Date
Approved
4/9/03
4/22/02
7/2/04
(tentative)
16
Agency
Responsible
Permit/Action
Date
Applied
Massachusetts Energy
Facility Siting Board
Certificate of Impact
and Public Need
Pending
Massachusetts Dept. of
Waterways License
Environmental Protection—
Wetlands and Waterways
Regulation Program
To be filed
Massachusetts Dept. of
Water Quality
Environmental Protection— Certification
Wetlands and Waterways
Regulation Program
To be filed
Massachusetts Coastal
Zone Management
11/21/01
Concurrence with
Federal Consistency
Certification Statement
Date
Approved
Massachusetts Ocean
Regulatory Review
Sanctuaries Act, Dept. of
Environmental Management
Ongoing
Massachusetts Highway
Dept.
Permit to Access State
Highway
To be filed
State Historic Preservation
Office
Regulatory Review
To be filed
Massachusetts Historical
Commission: State
Archeaologist
Permit for Upland
Reconnaissance
Archaeological Survey
3/12/03
3/28/03
Massachusetts Historical
Commission: State
Archeaologist
Permit for Upland
Intensive
Archaeological Survey
9/18/03
9/23/03
Massachusetts Board of
Underwater Archaeology
Reconnaissance and
Excavation Permits
To be filed if required
Cape Cod Commission
Development of Regional
Impact Review
11/15/01
Pending
17
Agency
Responsible
Permit/Action
Date
Applied
Yarmouth Conservation
Commission
Notice of Intent/
Issuance of Order of
Conditions
To be filed
Barnstable Conservation
Commission
Notice of Intent/
Issuance of Order of
Conditions
To be filed
Yarmouth Dept. of
Public Works (DPW)
Street Opening Permit
To be filed
Barnstable (DPW)
Street Opening Permit
To be filed
Date
Approved
18
References:
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. (Undated). National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, As Amended through 2006, p. 19. Retrieved June 30, 2010
from http://www.achp.gov/docs/nhpa%202008-final.pdf
American Wind Energy Association. (Undated). Wind Energy Basics. Retrieved
June 26, 2010 from http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_basics.html
The Area Swept by the Rotor Blades (m) and Turbine Energy Output (kW) [Map].
(1998). Retrieved October 22, 2009 from www.windpower.org
Barkoff, K. and L. Bullin. (2010, April 28). Secretary Salazar Announces Approval
of Cape Wind Energy Project on Outer Continental Shelf of Massachusetts.
Retrieved October 18, 2010 from http://www.doi.gov/news/doinews/SecretarySalazar-Announces-Approval-of-Cape-Wind-Energy-Project-on-Outer-ContinentalShelf-off-Massachusetts.cfm
Barnstable County has Worst Air Quality in Massachusetts. (2003, May 01).
Retrieved June 30, 2010 from http://www.capewind.org/news76.htm
Berg, D. E. (2009, January 26). Why Do Wind Turbines Have Three Narrow Blades,
but Ceiling Fans have Five Wide Blades? Scientific American. Retrieved October
21, 2009 from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=wind-tubine-fanblades
A Big Win or Massachusetts Jobs, Cape Wind Success Seen as Triumph of People
Speaking Out through Grassroots Organization. (2010, April 28). Retrieved June 24,
2010 from http://cleanpowernow.org/pr_salazar_cape_wind.html
Cape Wind Rejection Recommended. (2010, April 9). Indian Country Today.
Retrieved June 26, 2010 from
http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/internal?st=print&id=90350259&path=/archive
Cassidy, P. (2009, November 16). Historic Designation Could Change Sound.
Retrieved June 24, 2010 from
http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091116/NEWS/911160
310
Cole, C. (2005, July 1). Bruce Babbitt Added to Snowbowl Legal Team. Arizona
Daily Sun. Retrieved October 28, 2010 from
http://www.savethepeaks.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=72&
Itemid=13
Conservation Law Foundation. (2010, April 28). Environmental Organizations
Applaud Obama Decision to Approve Cape Wind, First Offshore Wind Facility in
19
United States. Retrieved June 24, 2010 from
http://www.clf.org/press/pressreleases/pressreleasearchive/2010/2010-4-28.html
Cope, Amy. (2006). People of the First Light. WordClay, www.wordclay.com
Cryan, P. M. (2008, April). Mating Behavior as a Possible Cause of Bat Fatalities at
Wind Turbines. Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 72, No. 3, pp. 845 – 849.
Current Conditions for June 28, 2010. Derived from http://capewind.whgrp.com
Daley, B. (2009, October 26). Two Tribes Object to Cape Wind Turbines. The
Boston Globe. Retrieved June 24, 2010 from
www.boston.com/lifestyle/green/articles/2009/10/26/2_tribes_object_to_cape_wind_t
urbines/
Daley, B. (2010, February 3). Tribes Get a Hearing on Wind Farm Opposition. The
Boston Globe. Retrieved June 24, 2010 from
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/02/03/tribes_get_a_h
earing_on_wind_farm_opposition/
DeLucas, M. et al. (2005). A Bird and Small Mammal BACI and IG Design Studies
in a Wind Farm in Malpica (Spain). Biodiversity and Conservation, Vol. 14, No. 13,
pp. 3289 – 3303.
Doggett, T. (2009, January 16). Cape Wind Project Gets Favorable U.S.
Government Review. Retrieved June 24, 2010 from
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUKN1629514220090116
Draft Environmental Impact Study. (2007, February). Section 1.0, Executive
Summary, p. 1-2. Retrieved June 29, 2010 from http://www.capewind.org/FAQCategory10-Permitting+Process+and+Cape+Wind-Parent0-myfaq-yes.htm
Environmental Protection Agency. (Undated). Frequently Asked Questions:
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Retrieved June 29, 2010 from
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/faqs/nepa/index.html#a5
Environmental Protection Agency. (2010, March 18). National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA): Basic Information, Retrieved August 26, 2010, from
http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/basics/nepa.html
Everaert, J., and E. Stienen. (2006, November). Impact of Wind Turbines on Birds
in Zeebrugge (Belgium): Significant Effect on Breeding Tern Colony Due to
Collisions. Biodiversity and Conservation, Vol. 16, No. 12, pp. 3345 – 3359.
Fischer, H. (2009, June 9). Snowmaking Wins Legal OK. Retrieved October 18,
2010 from
20
http://www.savethepeaks.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=104
&Itemid=13
George, R. et al. (2004, April 12). Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for Arizona Snowbowl Facilities Improvements. Retrieved October 18,
2010 from
http://www.savethepeaks.org/images/stories/documents/deis_comments.pdf
The Law of Wind: A Guide to Business and Legal Issues, 5th Edition. (2009). Stoel
Rives Attorneys at Law, Portland, OR. Chapter 5: Tribal Laws and Land Issues.
Lehmann, E. (2009, October 5). Pioneering Wind Farm Faces Another Delay, This
Time Over Indian Sites. The New York Times. Retrieved June 24, 2010 from
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/10/05/05climatewire-pioneering-wind-farmfaces-another-delay-thi-73053.html
Lindsay, Jay. (2009, November 6). Tribes Seek Halt to Proposed Cape Cod Wind
Farm. Indian Country Today. Retrieved June 26, 2010 from
http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/internal?st=print&id=6937922&path=/archive
Location of Proposed Cape Wind Wind Park [Map]. (2010). Retrieved September
11, 2010 from http://news.cnet.com/i/bto/20100105/map.JPG
Minerals Management Service. (2010, June 21). Salazar Swears In Michael R.
Bromwich to Lead Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and
Enforcement. Retrieved July 1, 2010 from
http://www.mms.gov/ooc/press/2010/press0621
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Portions, As Amended. (Undated).
Retrieved August 26, 2010 from http://www.nps.gov/history/locallaw/fhpl_ntlenvirnpolcy.pdf
National Renewable Energy Laboratory. (2005, April 30). Wind Power on Native
American Lands: Process and Progress. Retrieved June 29, 2010 from
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/38125.pdf
Native Wind Projects. (Undated). Retrieved June 29, 2010 from
http://www.nativewind.org/html/projects.html
Owl Feather War Bonnet Wind Farm. Rosebud Sioux Tribe. (Undated). Retrieved
June 26, 2010 from
http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/tribalenergy/pdfs/0510review_05haukaas.pdf
Puget Sound Energy. (2009, June). Hopkins Ridge, Facts at a Glance. Retrieved
June 28, 2010 from
http://www.pse.com/energyEnvironment/energysupply/pages/EnergySupply_Electrici
tyWind.aspx?tab=2&chapter=5
21
Puget Sound Energy. (Undated). Wild Horse, Facts at a Glance. Retrieved June 28,
2010 from
http://www.pse.com/energyEnvironment/energysupply/pages/EnergySupply_Electrici
tyWind.aspx?tab=3&chapter=5
Puget Sound Energy. (Undated). Wild Horse Wind and Solar Facility. Retrieved
June 28, 2010 from
http://www.pse.com/energyEnvironment/energysupply/pages/EnergySupply_Electrici
tyWind.aspx?tab=3&chapter=1
Road Map of Eastern Massachusetts, Cape Cod. (2000). Retrieved September 11,
2010 from http://www.aaccessmaps.com/show/map/us/ma/mass_capecod_e
Rosebud Sioux Wind Turbine Dedicated. (2003, June). Native Energy. Retrieved
June 26 2010 from http://www.nativeenergy.com
Rosebud Wind Turbine, a Showcase for the Northern Plains. (2003, April 1). Indian
Country Today. Retrieved June 26, 2010 from
http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/archive/28182434.html
Sigelman, N. (2010, February 25). Wampanoag Cultural Claims False, Some Say.
The Martha’s Vineyard Times. Retrieved June 24, 2010 from
http://www.mvtimes.com
Sigelman, N. (2010, April 29). Secretary Salazar Approves Cape Wind Project in
Sound. The Martha’s Vineyard Times. Retrieved October 18, 2010 from
www.mvtimes.com/marthas-vineyard/article.php?id=555
Smallwood, K. S., and C. Thelander. (2008, January). Bird Mortality in the
Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Journal of Wildlife Management,
Vol. 72, No. 1, pp. 215 – 223.
Sultzman, L. (Undated). Wampanoag History. Retrieved October 11, 2010 from
http://www.tolatsga.org/wampa.html
Toensing, G. C. (2010, March 29). Salazar Approves Cape Wind. Indian Country
Today. Retrieved June 26, 2010 from
http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/archive/92318759.html
Tribes Hopeful After Court Hears Sacred Site Case. (2006, September 19).
Indianz.com. Retrieved October 18, 2010 from
http://www.savethepeaks.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=86&
Itemid=13
22
U.S. Department of the Interior. (Undated). Our Mission: Protecting America’s
Great Outdoors and Powering Our Future. Retrieved July 1, 2010 from
http://www.doi.gov/
Venkataraman, B., and S. Ebbert. (2009, January 16). Cape Wind Receives
Favorable Federal Environmental Review. Retrieved June 24, 2010 from
http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/green/greenblog/2009/01/cape_wind_receives_favor
able_f.html
Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head: History and Culture. (Undated). Retrieved June
24, 2010 from
http://www.wampanoagtribe.net/Pages/Wampanoag_WebDocs/history_culture
Where Does Wind Energy Come From? (Undated). Retrieved June 28, 2010 from
http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/wres/index.htm
Why is Cape Wind Proposing its Wind Farm to be located on Horseshoe Shoal in
Nantucket? Retrieved June 24, 2010 from http://www.capewind.org/FAQCategory6-Offshore+Wind-Parent0-myfaq-yes.htm#34
Wind Energy Basics. (Undated). Retrieved June 28, 2010 from
http://windeis.anl.gov/guide/basics/index.cfm
Wind Farm Debate: A Close Look at the Claims. (2002, September 29). Retrieved
June 24, 2010 from
http://www.archive.capecodonline.com/special/windfarm/windfarm0929.htm
Wind Resource Potential [Map]. (2003). Retrieved October 22, 2009 from
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/ilands/fig13.html
23