Cape Wind Associates, LLC

Cape Wind Energy Project

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

File Size

Number

of Pages

Appendices are listed at the bottom of this web page

• 1.1 - Introduction and Coordinated Review

• 1.2 - Project Applicant, Name and USACE/EOEA/DRI Number

• 1.3 - Summary of Project Purpose and Need

• 1.4 - Summary of Alternatives Analysis

• 1.5 - Summary of Proposed Alternative

• 1.6 - Summary of Environmental Effects, Benefits and Mitigation

• 1.7 - List of Required Permits and Approvals – Proposed Alternative

Section 1.0 - Figures

• Figure 1-1: Cape Wind Project Locus

• 2.1 - Introduction

• 2.2 - Project Purpose and Need

• 2.3 - Purpose and Scope of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Environmental Impact Report (EIR)

Section 3.0 - Alternatives Analysis

• 3.1 - Geographic Scope and Primary Project Criteria

• 3.2. - Assessment of Energy Generating Technologies

• 3.3 - No Action Alternative/Permit Denial

• 3.4 - Wind Park Alternative Site Analysis

• 3.5 - Submarine and Upland Cable Routes for the Applicants Proposed Site

• 3.6 - References

Section 3.0 - Tables

• Table 3-1: Natural Gas Fired Power Plant Emissions Estimated Emissions for a 454 MW Facility

• Table 3-2: Summary of The State Of Photovoltaics Research

• Table 3-3: Summary of Renewable Technologies

• Table 3-4: Summary of Upland Alternatives Analysis

• Table 3-5: Summary of Offshore Alternatives Analysis

• Table 3-6: State and Federally Protected Vertebrate Species

• Table 3-7: Common Bird Species of Camp Edwards, Massachusetts Military Reservation

• Table 3-8: Bird Species Observed in Nantucket Sound During 2002-2003

• Table 3-9: Species Observed South of Tuckernuck Island April 14, 2003

• Table 3-10: Birds of Buzzards Bay

• Table 3-11: Summary of Soil, Surficial and Bedrock Geologic Conditions at The Four Alternative Sites

• Table 3-12: Extremal Analysis for Horseshoe Shoal

• Table 3-13: Extremal Analysis for Site Alternative South of Tuckernuck Island

• Table3-14: Extremal Analysis for New Bedford/Horseshoe Shoal Site Alternative

• Table 3-15a: Finfish and Shellfish Resources within the Offshore Alternatives
• Table 3-15b: Summary of specific life stage EFH designations for species in the NMFS designated 10 x 10 minute squares encompassing the Offshore Alternatives

• Table 3-16: Dominant Benthic Invertebrate Taxonomic Groups of Nantucket Sound

• Table 3-17: Dominant Benthic Invertebrate Taxonomic Groups of the Area South of Tuckernuck Island

• Table 3-18: Dominant Benthic Invertebrate Taxonomic Groups of New Bedford Harbor/Buzzards Bay

• Table 3-19: Reptile and Amphibian Species Observed at MMR

• Table 3-20: Rare, Threatened and Endangered Moths and Dragonflies

• Table 3-21: List of Properties Listed, Determined Eligible, or Evaluated Eligible for the National Register of Historic Places within the viewshed of the Massachusetts Military Reservation Alternative Site. (Includes properties that are within 300 feet of the project boundary and upland areas within view of the project area). Locations are shown on Figure 3-30
• Table 3-22: List of  Properties Listed, Determined Eligible, or Evaluated Eligible for the National Register of Historic Places within the proposed Cape Wind—Nantucket Sound Alternatives Project Area. Includes properties that are within 300 feet of the shoreline and within view of the four Nantucket Sound project alternatives. Locations are shown on Figure 3-32
• Table 3-23: List of  Properties Listed, Determined Eligible, or Evaluated Eligible for the National Register of Historic Places within the proposed Cape Wind—South of Tuckernuck Island Project Area.  Includes properties that are within 300 feet of the shoreline and within view of the project alternative. Locations are shown on Figure 3-33
• Table 3-24: List of  Properties Listed, Determined Eligible, or Evaluated Eligible for the National Register of Historic Places within the proposed Cape Wind—New Bedford Alternative Project Area. Including properties within 300 feet of the shoreline and within view of the proposed wind park alternative. Locations are shown in Figure 3-34. (See Table 3-22 for properties within the reduced Horseshoe Shoal Combo area)
• Table 3-25:  Recreational Resources Within Viewshed of the MMR Alternative Site
• Table 3-26: Recreational Resources Within Viewshed of Horseshoe Shoal Offshore Alternative Site
• Table 3-27: Recreational Resources Within Viewshed of Monomoy and Handkerchief Shoals Offshore Alternative Site

• Table 3-28: Recreational Resources Within Viewshed of Tuckernuck Shoal, Offshore Nantucket Sound

• Table 3-29: Recreational Resources Within Viewshed of the Alternative Site South of Tuckernuck Island

• Table 3-30: Recreational Resources Within Viewshed of the New Bedford/Buzzards Bay Offshore Alternative

• Table 3-31: Existing Sound Levels At Three Representative Coastal Sites (dBA)

• Table 3-32: Summary of Palustrine Wetland Types at MMR

• Table 3-33: Representative Temperature Data

• Table 3-34: Air Quality Monitor Information

• Table 3-35: Mean Wind Speeds within the Nantucket Sound Area

• Table 3-36: Barnstable County Baseline Conditions

• Table 3-37: Representative Property Tax Revenues

• Table 3-38: Housing Occupancy in Barnstable and Yarmouth

• Table 3-39: Housing Occupancy in Bourne and Sandwich

• Table 3-40: Bristol County Baseline Conditions

• Table 3-41: Property Tax Revenues for New Bedford

• Table 3-42: Housing Occupancy in New Bedford

• Table 3-43: Environmental Justice Statistics

• Table 3-44: Comparison of Existing Conditions in 2001

• Table 3-45: Summary of Onshore and Offshore Costs per Installed KW

• Table 3-46: Decommissioning Cost Estimate

• Table 3-47: Installed Cost

• Table 3-48: Economic Comparison of Alternatives

• Table 3-49: Estimated Operation and Maintenance Costs

• Table 3-50: Plant Community/Cover Type Distributions within Potential Project Area of Disturbance (400-foot/122 m Diameter Buffer from Towers and 20-foot/6 m Offset Buffer from Cables)
• Table 3-51: Area of Temporary and Permanent Impact (in Acres) Associated with Alternatives located in Nantucket Sound, South of Tuckernuck Island and New Bedford Harbor/Horseshoe Shoal

• Table 3-52: Land/Vegetation Disturbance Impacts (see Figures 3-44 and 3-51)

• Table 3-53:Historic Properties Selected for Offshore Photo Renderings
• Table 3-54: Comparison of the Maximum Onshore Sound Level from Wind Park Operation at the Horseshoe Shoal Site and Other Alternative Locations
• Table 3-55: Potential Hazards and Applicable Regulations During Construction and Decommissioning
• Table 3-56:  Potential Hazards and Applicable Regulations During Operation and Maintenance
• Table 3-57: Summary of Characteristics of the Wind Park Alternatives
• Table 3-58: Summary of Nantucket Sound Alternatives Analysis
• Table 3-59:Summary of Alternative Routes
• Table 3-60: Individual Ranking Score Criterion Value
• Table 3-61: Summary of Individual Scores and Weighted Scores of Alternative Transmission Line Routes
• Table 3-62: Costs for Alternative Routes

Section 3.0 - Figures

• Figure 3-1:  New England Wind Resource Mapping
• Figure 3-2:  Wind Energy Resource and Coastal bathymetry Map of Nantucket Sound and Horseshoe Shoal
• Figure 3-3:  Upland Alternative: Massachusetts Military Reservation/Otis Air Force Base Sandwich, Massachusetts
• Figure 3-4:  Upland Alternative: Searsburg, Vermont Existing Facility
• Figure 3-5:  Upland Alternative: Princeton, Massachusetts
• Figure 3-6:  Upland Alternative: Skinner/Kibby Township, Maine
• Figure 3-7:  Upland Alternative: Redington Pond/Black Nubble Mountain, Maine
• Figure 3-8:  Upland Alternative: Connecticut Department of Transportation Site Brownfield
• Figure 3-9:  Upland Alternative: City of Greenfield, Massachusetts Landfill Site
• Figure 3-10: Upland Alternative: Florida, Massachusetts Hoosac Site
• Figure 3-11: Offshore Alternative: Block Island, Rhode Island
• Figure 3-12: Offshore Alternative: Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts
• Figure 3-13:  Offshore Alternative: Cape Ann, Massachusetts
• Figure 3-14:  Offshore Alternative: Vinalhaven Island, Maine
• Figure 3-15:  Offshore Alternative: Nantucket Shoals, Massachusetts
• Figure 3-16:  Offshore Alternative: Nantucket Sound, Massachusetts
• Figure 3-17:  Offshore Alternative: Boston Harbor, Massachusetts
• Figure 3-18:  Offshore Alternative: New Bedford, Massachusetts
• Figure 3-19:  Offshore Alternative: Portland, Maine
• Figure 3-20:  Overview of Representative Alternative Sites
• Figure 3-21:  Terrestrial Alternative: Massachusetts Military Reservation Proposed Site Boundary
• Figure 3-22:  Nantucket Sound Alternative Proposed Site Boundaries
• Figure 3-23:  South of Tuckernuck Alternative Proposed Site Boundaries
• Figure 3-24:  Combination Alternative: New Bedford/Buzzard’s Bay and Reduced Horseshoe Shoal Proposed Site Boundaries
• Figure 3-25:  Depth to Top of Bedrock
• Figure 3-26:  New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site
• Figure 3-27:  Buzzard’s Bay Vicinity Map
• Figure 3-28:  New Bedford Harbor – Commercial and Recreational Fishing Closure Areas
• Figure 3-29:  FAA – Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) Routes
• Figure 3-30:  Location of Properties Listed, Determined Eligible, or Evaluated Eligible for the National Register of Historic Places within the Viewshed of the Massachusetts Military Reservation Alternative Site
• Figure 3-31:  Massachusetts Military Reserve Terrestrial Alternative Site Boundary
• Figure 3-32:  Location of Properties Listed, Determined Eligible, or Evaluated Eligible for the National Register of Historic Places within the proposed Cape Wind-Nantucket Sound Alternatives Project Area
•  Figure 3-33: Location of Properties Listed, Determined Eligible, or Evaluated Eligible for the National Register of Historic Places within the proposed Cape Wind-South of Tuckernuck Island Project Area
• Figure 3-34:  Location of Properties Listed, Determined Eligible, or Evaluated Eligible for the National Register of Historic Places within the proposed Cape Wind-New Bedford Alternative Site
• Figure 3-35:  Generic Seascape to Represent Existing Water Views At Shoreline Locations
• Figure 3-36:  Existing View of MMR Alternative Site From Sagamore Bridge, Cape Cod Canal - Southbound
• Figure 3-37:  Recreational Resources within Viewshed of the MMR Alternative
• Figure 3-38:  Recreational Resources within Viewshed of the Nantucket Sound Offshore Alternative
• Figure 3-39:  Recreational Resources within Viewshed of the South of Tuckernuck Offshore Alternative
• Figure 3-40:  Recreational Resources within Viewshed of the New Bedford/Buzzards Bay Offshore Alternative
• Figure 3-41:  Noise Receptors and Sound Monitoring Locations Surrounding the Alternative Sites
• Figure 3-42:  Community Wind Collaborative Wind Resources MMR Alternative Site
• Figure 3-43:  Wind Energy Resource and Coastal bathymetry Map of Nantucket Sound and Horseshoe Shoal
• Figure 3-44:  Terrestrial Alternative: Massachusetts Military Reservation Proposed Site Layout
• Figure 3-45:  Proposed Wind Turbine Generator Foundation Types
• Figure 3-46:  Nantucket Sound Alternatives Proposed Site Layouts
• Figure 3-47:  South of Tuckernuck Alternative Proposed Site Layout
• Figure 3-48:  Combination Alternative: New Bedford/Buzzard’s bay and Reduced Horseshoe Shoal Proposed Site Layouts
• Figure 3-49:  Maintenance Accessibility Wave Frequency At Martha’s Vineyard Coastal Observatory
• Figure 3-50:  Maintenance Accessibility Wave Frequency At Cape Wind Tower
• Figure 3-51:  Anticipated Area of Project Impact by Cover Type
• Figure 3-52:  Indicator Map of Magnetic Material in Soil at the Massachusetts Military Reservation Alternative Site
• Figure 3-53:  Potential View From Sagamore Bridge, MA
• Figure 3-54:  Potential View From Wianno, Barnstable, Cape Cod – Horseshoe Shoal Alternative Daytime View
• Figure 3-55:  Potential View From Wianno, Barnstable, Cape Cod – Horseshoe Shoal Alternative Nighttime View
• Figure 3-56:  Potential View From Monomoy Shore, Chatham, Cape Cod – Handkerchief Shoal Alternative Daytime View
• Figure 3-57:  Potential View From Monomoy Shore, Chatham, Cape Cod – Handkerchief Shoal Alternative Nighttime View
• Figure 3-58:  Potential View From Cape Poge, Martha’s Vineyard – Tuckernuck Shoal Alternative Daytime View
• Figure 3-59:  Potential View From Cape Poge, Martha’s Vineyard – Tuckernuck Shoal Alternative Nighttime View
• Figure 3-60:  Potential View From Madaket Shoreline, Nantucket – Tuckernuck Island Alternative Daytime View
• Figure 3-61:  Potential View From Madaket Shoreline, Nantucket – Tuckernuck Island Alternative Nighttime View
• Figure 3-62:  Potential View From Wianno, Barnstable, Cape Cod – Horseshoe Shoal Reduced Size Alternative Daytime View
• Figure 3-63:  Potential View From Wianno, Barnstable, Cape Cod – Horseshoe Shoal Reduced Size Alternative Nighttime View
• Figure 3-64:  Potential View From South Dartmouth, MA – New Bedford Alternative Daytime View
• Figure 3-65: Potential View From South Dartmouth, MA – New Bedford Alternative Nighttime View
• Figure 3-66:  Nantucket Sound Alternatives Nantucket Sound, Massachusetts
• Figure 3-67:  Alternative Transmission Line Routes And Landfall Locations Nantucket Sound
• Figure 3-68:  Submarine and Upland Transmission Line Routes Alternative Routes #1, 5, and 6
• Figure 3-69:      Submarine and Upland Transmission Line Routes Alternative Routes #2, 3, and 4
• Figure 3-69a: Submarine and Upland Transmission Line Routes Eastern Portion of Alternative Routes #2, 3, and 4

Section 4.0   - Project Description of Applicant's Proposed Action

• 4.1 - Description of the Wind Park

• 4.2 - Description of the Proposed Transmission Facilities

• 4.3 - Construction

• 4.4 - Operations and Maintenance Plan

• 4.5 - Decommissioning

• 4.6 - Solid and Hazardous Materials

• 4.7 - Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan

• 4.8 - Security

• 4.9 - Safety

Section 4.0 - Figures

• Figure 4-1:  Cape Wind Project Locus
• Figure 4-2:  Preliminary Turbine Array
• Figure 4-3:  Proposed Wind Turbine Generator
• Figure 4-4:  Typical Offshore Wind Turbine Generator
• Figure 4-5:  Typical 3.6 MW WTG Nacelle
• Figure 4-6:  Typical Foundation Types
• Figure 4-7:  Proposed Electric Service Platform Elevation & Plan View
• Figure 4-8:  Preliminary Inner-Array Layout
• Figure 4-9:  Typical Profile: 33 kV Solid Dielectric Submarine Cable
• Figure 4-10 Typical Profile: 115 kV Solid Dielectric Submarine Cable
• Figure 4-11:Typical Profile: 115 kV Solid Dielectric Upland Cable
• Figure 4-12: Yarmouth Preferred Interconnection with Barnstable Switching Station
• Figure 4-13:  Typical “8 over 8” Ductbank Cross Section
• Figure 4-14:  Typical “4 over 4” Ductbank Cross Section
• Figure 4-15:  115 kV Landfall Transition Vault
• Figure 4-16:  115 kV Upland Transition Vault
• Figure 4-17:  115 kV Upland Splice Vault
• Figure 4-18:  Typical Installation Vessel
• Figure 4-19:  Preliminary Scour Analysis
• Figure 4-20:  Typical Cross Section of Submarine Cable Trench Using Jet Plow Embedment
• Figure 4-21:  Landfall Transition: Conceptual Design Plan

• 5.1 - Geology and Sediment Conditions

• 5.2 - Physical Oceanic Conditions

• 5.3 - Benthic and Shellfish Resources

• 5.4 - Finfish Resources and Commercial/Recreational Fisheries

• 5.5 - Protected Marine Species

• 5.6 - Terrestrial Ecology, Wildlife, and Protected Species

• 5.7 - Avian Resources

• 5.8 - Coastal and Freshwater Wetland Resources

• 5.9 - Water Quality

• 5.10 - Cultural and Recreational Resources and Visual Studies

• 5.11 - Noise

• 5.12 - Transportation and Navigation

• 5.13 - Electrical and Magnetic Fields

• 5.14 - Telecommunications Systems

• 5.15 - Air and Climate

• 5.16 - Socioeconomics

• 5.17 - Summary of Cumulative Impacts

• 5.18 - References

Section 5.0 - Tables

• Table 5.1-1: Equipment Used for Cape Wind Project Geophysical/Hydrographic Survey
• Table 5.1-2: Summary of Marine Vibracore Information
• Table 5.1-3: Bulk Physical Analysis Results and Sediment Classification of Marine Vibracore Samples
• Table 5.1-4: Summary of Sediment Chemical Analytical Results (Metals, Total Organic Carbon, Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons)
• Table 5.1-5: Summary of Sediment Chemical Analytical Results (PCB Congeners and Pesticides)
• Table 5.1-6: Summary of Sediment Chemical Analytical Results (Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons)
• Table 5.3-1: Summary statistics for invertebrate data collected from within and outside the three mile limit, August, 2001
• Table 5.3-2: Total landings of shellfish species from Nantucket Sound, from 1990 through 2000
• Table 5.3-3: Summary of Maximum Anticipated Temporary and Permanent Impacts to Benthic Habitat
• Table 5.4-1: Likelihood of occurrence for species collected during MDMF spring research trawl surveys at the Proposed Wind Park site (HSS) in Nantucket Sound
• Table 5.4-2: Likelihood of occurrence for species collected during MDMF fall research trawl surveys at the Proposed Wind Park site (HSS) in Nantucket Sound
• Table 5.4-3:  Number of surveys conducted in Dukes, Barnstable and Nantucket counties
• Table 5.4-4:  Summary of specific life stage EFH designations for species in the NMFS designated 10 x 10 minute squares encompassing the Proposed Site in Nantucket Sound
• Table 5.4-5: Summary of studies on acoustic impacts to fish
• Table 5.7-1: Aerial Survey Coverage and Percentage of Each Alternative Site Flown During all Systematic Surveys
• Table 5.7-2: Summary of Dates, Times, Weather and Water Conditions during the 28 Aerial Surveys in Nantucket Sound, 2002-2003
• Table 5.7-3: Bird Species Observed in the Study Area from March 2002 through June 2003
• Table 5.7-4: Species Totals: Individuals Recorded within the Study Area during Twenty-Eight Aerial Surveys
• Table 5.7-5: Species Totals: Individuals Recorded within the Study Area during the Boat Surveys
• Table 5.7-6: Species Totals: Individuals Recorded within the Study Area during the Groundtruthing Surveys
• Table 5.7-7: Percentage of Seaducks Observed in Each Shoal Area during March 2002 through June 2, 2003 Aerial Surveys
• Table 5.7-8: Percentage of Terns Observed in Each Shoal Area during March 2002 through June 2, 2003 Aerial Surveys
• Table 5.8-1: Coastal Wetland Resources
• Table 5.8-2: Freshwater Wetland Resources
• Table 5.8-3: Impacts from Onshore Transmission Line
• Table 5.10-1:  Historic Properties and Districts Assessed for Potential Wind Park Visibility
• Table 5.10-2: Visual Simulation Locations
• Table 5.10-3: Viewpoint Data
• Table 5.10-4: Compilation of Recreational Resources Within Viewshed of Wind Park
• Table 5.10-5  Recommended Section 106 Findings of Effect for Aboveground Historic Properties Within the Cape Wind Project Visual APE
• Table 5.11-1: Threshold of Human Hearing
• Table 5.11-2:  Various Indoor and Outdoor Sound Levels
• Table 5.11-3: Existing Sound Levels at Three Representative Coastal Sites
• Table 5.11-4: Locations Selected for Modeling Sound Effects of the Project
• Table 5.11-5: Maximum Continuous Sound Levels from Project Operation Compared to Baseline Sound Levels (Leq) at Buoys G5 and R20
• Table 5.11-6: Maximum Continuous Sound Levels from Project Operation Compared to Baseline Sound Levels (Leq) at Lewis Bay Upland Locations for the Cut-In Wind Speed Condition
• Table 5.11-7: Maximum Continuous Sound Levels from Project Operation Compared to Baseline Sound Levels (Leq) at Lewis Bay Upland Locations for the Design Wind Speed Condition
• Table 5.11-8: MADEP Noise Policy Compliance Demonstration for All Modeling Locations (dBA)
• Table 5.11-9: Predicted Above Water Maximum Sound Levels (Lmax) at Two Seaward Locations Near the Wind Park from Pile Driving for the Wind Park Foundations (dBA)
• Table 5.11-10:Predicted Above Water Maximum Sound Levels (Lmax) at Upland Locations from Pile Driving for the Wind Park Foundations (dBA)
• Table 5.11-11: Predicted Underwater Continuous Sound Levels from Project Operation for the Design Wind Condition
• Table 5.13-1: Peak Magnetic Field Levels Above 115 kV Circuits
• Table 5.13-2: Most Lightly Loaded 33 kV Cable
• Table 5.13-3:Most Heavily Loaded 33 kV Homerun Cable
• Table 5.13-4: ESP Peak Magnetic Field Levels Over the 33kV Cables
• Table 5.13-5: Range of EMF Exposure Levels
• Table 5.13-6: Maximum Magnetic Flux Density (mG)
• Table 5.13-7: Maximum Magnetic Flux Density (mG)
• Table 5.13-8:  Maximum Net Magnetic Fields
• Table 5.13-9: Biological Process Strength Compared to EMF interaction Strength
• Table 5.13-10: State Transmission Line Standards and Guidelines
• Table 5.16-1:  Estimated Annual Health Impacts for Actual Emissions from the Salem Harbor and Brayton Point Power Plants from the Harvard Study (Levy et al., 2000)1
• Table 5.16-2: Housing Occupancy in Barnstable and Yarmouth
• Table 5.16-3: Calculation of Wind Park Offset Ratios
• Table 5.16-4:  Pollutant Emission Reductions using Wind Park Average Contribution (Tons/Year)
• Table 5.16-5: Calculated Yearly Emission Reductions from the Cape Wind Project

• Table 5.16-6: Estimated Health Effes Offsets from Proposed Wind Park Extrapolated from Levy (2000) and Levy and Spengler (2002) (Events per Year)

Section 5.0 - Figures

• Figure 5.1-1: Geophysical and Geological Marine Field Program
• Figure 5.1-2: Depth to Top of Bedrock
• Figure 5.1-3: Profile of 2001 Geophysical Trackline G-13 and Boring GZA-SB-02
• Figure 5.1-4: Representative Side Scan Sonar Images--Horseshoe Shoal
• Figure 5.1-5: Surface Sediment Types
• Figure 5.1-6: 2003 Hydrographic and Sand Wave Data
• Figure 5.3-1: Total annual shellfish landings in Nantucket Sound from 1994 – 2001
• Figure 5.3-2: Total annual conch landings from fish pots in Nantucket Sound from 1992 to 2000
• Figure 5.3-3: Total annual shellfish landings in Nantucket Sound from 1990 – 2000
• Figure 5.3-4: Total annual lobster landings from Nantucket Sound from 1990 – 2000
• Figure 5.3-5:  Mean monthly lobster landings from Nantucket Sound from 1990 – 2000
• Figure 5.3-6: Town of Yarmouth Recreational Shellfish Area (Colonial Acres to Englewood Breakwater)
• Figure 5.3-7: Town of Yarmouth Recreational Shellfish Area (Mill Creek)
• Figure 5.3-8:  Town of Yarmouth Aquaculture Lease Sites
• Figure 5.3-9:  Designated Shellfish Growing Area Classifications in Lewis Bay
• Figure 5.4-1:  Mean CPUE across years for Horseshoe Shoal, Monomoy-Handkerchief Shoal and Tuckernuck Shoal for the fall and spring trawl surveys
• Figure 5.4-2:  Commercial landings of finfish and squid from 1994 through 2001 as reported from NMFS vessel trip reports for statistical sub-area 075
• Figure 5.4-3:  Top 10 species of finfish and squid landed in Nantucket Sound from 1994 through 2001 as reported from NMFS vessel trip reports for statistical sub-area 075
• Figure 5.4-4:  Total landings from fish weirs in Nantucket Sound from 1990 through 2000
• Figure 5.4-5: Total landings from gill nets in Nantucket Sound for years gill nets were fished within the Sound
• Figure 5.4-6: Total sea bass and scup landings from fish pots in Nantucket Sound
• Figure 5.4-7:  Mean monthly striped bass landings from Nantucket Sound from 1990 - 2000
• Figure 5.4-8:Total annual striped bass landings from Nantucket Sound from 1990 - 2000
• Figure 5.4-9: Mean number of hours fished by wave as reported by recreational anglers in Dukes, Barnstable and Nantucket counties from 1990 through 2001
• Figure 5.4-10:Mean number of hours fished by individual anglers calculated from all surveys conducted in Dukes, Barnstable and Nantucket counties
• Figure 5.4-11: Percent of anglers reporting mode of fishing as shore, party/charter boat, or private/rental boat from surveys conducted from 1990 through 2001 in Dukes, Barnstable and Nantucket counties
• Figure 5.4-12: Total number of fish reported by anglers and observed by interviewers by fishing mode in Dukes, Barnstable and Nantucket counties from 1990 through 2001
• Figure 5.6-1: Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program Classification
• Figure 5.7-1: Study Area, Alternatives, and Important Features for the Cape Wind Project.
• Figure 5.7-2: Individual Loons per km2 for Aerial Surveys March 2002 –June 2003
• Figure 5.7-3: Individual Grebes per km2 for Aerial Surveys March 2002 –June 2003
• Figure 5.7-4: Individual Wilson’s Storm-Petrels per km2 for Aerial Surveys March 2002 –June 2003
• Figure 5.7-5: Individual Gannetts per km2 for Aerial Surveys March 2002 –June 2003
• Figure 5.7-6: Individual Cormorants per km2 for Aerial Surveys March 2002 –June 2003
• Figure 5.7-7: Individual Eiders per km2 for Aerial Surveys March 2002 –June 2003
• Figure 5.7-8: Individual Long-tailed Ducks per km2 for Aerial Surveys March 2002 –June 2003
• Figure 5.7-9: Individual Scoters per km2 for Aerial Surveys March 2002 –June 2003
• Figure 5.7-10:Individual Goldeneyes per km2 for Aerial Surveys March 2002 –June 2003
• Figure 5.7-11: Individual Mergansers per km2 for Aerial Surveys March 2002 –June 2003
• Figure 5.7-12: Individual Gulls per km2 for Aerial Surveys March 2002 –June 2003
• Figure 5.7-13:Individual Terns per km2 for Aerial Surveys March 2002 –June 2003
• Figure 5.7-14:Individual Razorbills per km2 for Aerial Surveys March 2002 –June 2003
• Figure 5.8-1: Wetlands on Onshore transmission line Route, Yarmouth, Massachusetts
• Figure 5.8-2: Wetlands Resource Maps
• Figure 5.8-3: Lake and Pond Recharge Areas
• Figure 5.8-4: Coastal Watershed Areas
• Figure 5.9-1:  Water Protection Areas
• Figure 5.9-2:  Zone I Areas for Preferred Route
• Figure 5.9-3:  DEP Approved Zone IIs Along the Preferred Route
• Figure 5.9-4:  Groundwater Contours Along the Preferred Route
• Figure 5.10-1: Viewshed Reconnaissance for Designated Historic Properties
• Figure 5.10-2: Character Photographs (Sheets 1-64)
• Figure 5.10-3: Simulated Day time Views (Sheets 1-12)
• Figure 5.10-4: Simulated Night time Views (Sheets 1-11)
• Figure 5.10-5: GIS-Listed Recreational Resources With Potential Views of the Wind Park
• Figure 5.12-1: Channels and Navigational Features – Nantucket Sound
• Figure 5.12-2: Aeronautical Navigation Features
• Figure 5.12-3: Proposed US Coast Guard Aid to Navigation Lighting
• Figure 5.12-4: Proposed FAA Aviation Lighting

Section 6.0 - Comprehensive Environmental Monitoring Program

• 6.1 - Preconstruction Monitoring

• 6.2 - Construction Monitoring

• 6.3 - Post Construction Monitoring

• 7.1 - Coordinated Review

• 7.2 - Federal Regulatory Jurisdictions and Reviews

• 7.3 - State Regulatory Jurisdictions and Reviews

• 7.4 - Regional Regulatory Jurisdictions and Reviews

• 7.5 - Local Regulatory Jurisdictions and Reviews

• 7.6 - Consistency with Other Relevant Regulations and Reviews

Section 7.0 - Table

• Table 7-1: Summary of Regulatory Review and Jurisdiction

Section 7.0 - Figure

• Figure 7.1:  Regulatory Jurisdiction

Section 8.0 - Cape Cod Commission Development of Regional Impact

• 8.1 - Regional Policy PlanConsistency Statement

• 8.2 - Response to Development of Regional Impact Scope

Section 8.0 - Figure

• Figure 8-1:  Preliminary Alignment Sheets - Preferred Route

• 9.1 - Mitigation for Potential Geology and Sediment Impacts

• 9.2 - Benthic and Shellfish Impacts

• 9.3 - Mitigation for Potential Fisheries Impacts     

• 9.4 - Mitigation for Potential Impacts to Protected Marine Species     

• 9.5 - Mitigation for Potential Impacts to Terrestrial Ecology, Wildlife, and Protected Species     

• 9.6 - Mitigation for Potential Avian Impacts     

• 9.7 - Mitigation for Potential Impacts to Freshwater and Coastal Resources 

• 9.8 - Mitigation for Potential Impacts to Water Quality

• 9.9 - Mitigation for Potential Impacts to Visual, Cultural and Archaeological Resources 

• 9.10 - Mitigation for Potential Impacts from Noise

• 9.11 - Mitigation for Potential Transportation Impacts

• 9.12 - Mitigation for Potential EMF

• 9.13 - Telecommunications Impacts     

• 9.14 - Mitigation for Potential Air and Climate Impacts     

• 9.15 - Mitigation for Potential Socio-Economic Impacts

Appendix 5.10-C: Marine Cultural Resource Reports by PAL:

•                       C-1: Marine Archaeological Sensitivity Assessment

•                       C-2: Marine Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey