HomeMy WebLinkAboutWinergy Power Executive Summary offshore Wind Park
1
tf/JIeP
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
WINERGY POWER REQUEST FOR A PERMIT
FOR A DEMONSTRATION OFFSHORE WIND PARK
The world is casting about for new sources of energy. Prices for carbon-based fuels are rising and
our dwindling domestic oil and gas supplies are subject to disruption, as demonstrated by recent
hurricane activity in the Gulf of Mexico.
Our civilization runs on energy, particularly electricity and liquid fuels. This proposed project is
about electricity, from an abundant, ancient resource that is renewed daily as sure as the sun sets
and rises. This is about converting the energy in the wind into bulk electricity.
While new methods of melting, cracking, and drilling through rocks and dirt and burning the
yield are furiously pursued worldwide, another industry has emerged that has a development
potential that, after tens of millennia, people have only begun to tap. It is as large as any known
resource and will never be depleted. The handwriting is on the wall for the fossil-fuel era, but no
words will ever end the wind.
An estimated 85% of all human population lives close to water. The great population centers of
the coasts, particularly in the Northeastern United States, are the country's largest consumers of
electric power. A high tension, thinly-drawn network of transmission and distribution wires
delivers electricity from power plants sited both far and near. Always, it is never enough. The
margins are more difficult to maintain. Fuel costs rise, the need for tighter restrictions on
emissions increases, plants must be built farther and farther away, and power is lost in the
transmitting.
Just offshore, on either coast, resides an ocean over which the winds have blown since the waters
formed billions of years ago. Modem wind turbine generators have been developed to ever-higher
electricity producing capacities, to operate in an increasingly wider range of environments and
climates. Over the past decade and a half, they have been built to function while standing in the
water, transmitting their output to land.
This has happened none too soon. As fuel supplies dwindle, become more expensive, as power
plants become harder to site and more expensive because of the required emissions controls, as
the problem of nuclear waste continues to be insoluble, machinery has been developed to tap an
enormous resource that is located close to most human urban agglomerations. Offshore wind
power is that resource or, considering the enormous energy available from sunshine alone and all
the waves, tides and currents in the ocean, it is the largest, most affordable resource close at hand.
It must be done in the water, where the resource is, where land values are not an issue, where
housing, commerce, civil services and industry do not impinge on every open area. Full
development of the wind resource is a coastal, water-dependent activity.
The resource is enormous, that is known. Large wind turbines have been developed that can
function for decades in a marine environment. Experiences in Europe have shown that fish
populations increase when vertical structures are put in place below the ocean's surface.
i of4
There is no experience with this technology in the United States. Various projects have been
proposed, but no permits have yet been granted for large wind farms. Several European nations
have chosen to "get their feet wet" with the technology by first allowing the construction of small
demonstration projects. Such projects give regulatory agencies, utilities, various relevant
scientific communities, marine engineering and construction firms, and the general public a
chance to familiarize themselves with offshore wind energy conversion and its impacts on the
utility, natural, civil, economic and social environments.
This proposal by Winergy Power offers an appropriate opportunity for the United States to have
its own offshore demonstration project. The project site is already removed from the Public Trust
and has undergone a full environmental review. This site has already been used and will be used
in the future for commercial fish farming activities. Electricity generated by the wind turbines
will enter a grid segment that is among the weakest on Long Island, and operated by a utility that
has proposed its own offshore wind park.
The site is in many ways ideal for a demonstration project, one that can provide the United States
with the experience it needs to safely, effectively, and quickly begin development of the
enormous energy resource of offshore wind which, by several estimates, far exceeds the energy
requirements of the entire country for all uses. This demonstration project can be an important
step in the process of developing a resource that will contribute the energy independence for the
United States.
The Site
The site was selected on the basis of the assets associated within the site:
. The site has the benefit of a completed FEIS
. Wind data associated with the site was available and shows a Class 4-5 wind regime
. The area is not used by local fishermen
. The site has been removed from the Public Trust and has the benefit of a lease from the state
of New York that runs through 2037
. Water depth is shallow (less than 10 fathoms) and insurance is available
. Accessibility for use as a demonstration project
In our studies, we were unable to locate a similar site anywhere within state waters that has this
combination of attributes. As a result, we propose no alternatives to this site. This is in
compliance with NEPA and SEQRA if the site is unique, or one ofa kind.
The Project
The proposed RD&D (research, development and demonstration) project, involving the
placement of three utility-scale wind turbines at an offshore site, will run for a period of 10 years.
When the RD&D interval is complete, the project will be decommissioned and the site will
continue in its function of an already permitted offshore fish farm for the balance of the lease.
This project offers to the country an alternative to similar but larger proposals of offshore wind
farms. This project offers an opportunity to evaluate the impacts associated with offshore wind
farms in a much more manageable scale, i.e., three wind turbines in a 200 acre area, operating
ii of4
within an established timeframe, rather than scores of turbines permitted and placed within Public
Trust waters of the United States without the benefit of assessing the impacts on a smaller scale.
Access to the project will be made available to institutions of higher learning for studies that they
wish to conduct, the regulatory community, scientific organizations and, of course, K-12. Within
our offices, we will conduct seminars for all of the above and arrange field trips for interested
parties.
Our model was created by following the example of the Blyth offshore project in England, where
two turbines were constructed offshore in an R&D project to assess the impacts prior to granting
tracts of ocean bottom from the Crown Estates for larger developments. England is now on its
way to achieving energy independence and has seen an improvement (although slight) in its local
air quality.
Coastal Zone Management Plan
The National Coastal Zone Management (CZMP) is a unique federal-state partnership for
protecting, restoring, and responsibly developing the nation's important and diverse coastal
communities and resources. This is the mission of the National CZM Program and its 33 state and
territory-based Coastal Management Programs. Through NOAA's responsibilities under the
CZMA, the OCRM works with the coastal and Great Lakes states and U.S. island territories to
develop and implement these Coastal Management Programs. Under these Programs, states and
territories agree to work toward balancing the conservation and development of coastal resources
using state and territorial management authorities, thereby providing for the sustainable
development of the nation's coasts.
Winergy Power believes that, in addressing the coastal zone issues, included as Appendix V of
this request for a permit, our activity is coastal dependent and thereby water dependent. This is in
keeping with the mission of the national CZM program to which New York State is a signatory.
Essential Fish Habitat
The proposed site has the benefit of 10 years worth of data as it relates to essential fish habitat, as
documented in Appendix VI of this request for a permit. There will temporary disturbances of
this habitat that will occur during construction and decommission but, as has been shown, the
placement of pilings within the water column usually increases the bio-diversity within the area.
Endangered Species Act
The proposed site already has the benefit of a completed Section 7 review for fish farming
activities (included as Appendix VII). During operation of the fish farm, and as documented in
the reports that were submitted to both the DEC and NMFS, no entanglements or incidents were
reported for a period of 3 years.
The placement of pilings and the presence of jackup barge legs within the area will create a
three-dimensional environment that will serve as an artificial reef in attracting additional marine
activity to the area. Winergy Power concludes, based on this and the body of knowledge already
iiiof4
available about the site, that this project will pose no threat to the endangered species within the
area.
Based upon this data, Winergy Power concludes that the essential fish habitat will only be
enhanced by the placement of these structures and the impacts associated with the placements
will be of a positive nature.
Fishermen
The proposed site (200 acres) has the benefit of an FEIS and was permitted as a fish farm. The
site was chosen with the cooperation of fishermen, both commercial and recreational. It was
located so as to have little impact on their fishing activities. The proposed site for the wind farm
occupies the space allotted for the fish farm, which was chosen with input from all the local
fishermen over the course of a 2 year period.
Based upon the diligence that was conducted in site selection for the fish farm, and the agreement
with fishermen, this site will pose no further infringement on the fishing activities off the North
Fork.
CONCLUSION
The proposed Winergy Power offshore wind demonstration project would provide U.S. public
agencies, institutions and the general public an opportunity to become familiar with a large
renewable energy conversion machinery that is being exploited in numerous other countries. As
of August 2005, 22 offshore wind projects featuring nearly 400 hundred wind turbines are now in
operation in waters offshore of Europe and Asia, and the industry is set to expand dramatically.
Although the Winergy Power project is small, it introduces an innovative base technology, a
jackup barge, and by itself will displace the need to burn 75,000 barrels of oil per year.
The project location is an already-permitted, leased area that has undergone a complete EIS for
commercial fish farming activities. The area is removed from the Public Trust through 2037, and
far enough from any population centers so that viewshed controversies will be avoided in
advance. No commercial fishing activities occur in the project area, which has few sport or
commercially interesting fish in residence. Site surveys performed for the fish farm revealed an
austere seabed that is constantly scoured by currents. The site is not one favored for essential life
functions by fish or marine mammals. Although many fish species do pass through the area, they
do not congregate there, so the site is not one that is attractive to avian predators.
The presence of a three-turbine offshore wind demonstration project is likely to enhance the small
Eco-tourism industry in the area, which is now confined to farm stands and wineries. The project
will also serve as a desirable destination for K-12 educational visits, which will be supplemented
by formal presentations at Winergy Power's offices.
Winergy Power is committed to providing access to the site for in-kind scientific studies and for
utility personnel to gain experience with this exciting clean bulk power renewable energy
technology. This project will demonstrate the operations, benefits and visual experience of utility-
scale offshore wind farming, and possibly encourage further development of this concept
elsewhere in U.S. coastal waters.
ivof4
APPENDIX XIII
HAZARDS TO AVIAN PO PULA nONS
l'___nnn__
THE POTENTIAL FOR COLLISIONS WITH WIND TURBINES BY BIRDS
The evaluation of the potential for collisions with the wind turbines by birds actually considers two bird
populations that face the same hazard:
LMigratory
LIndigenous to the area
Wind turbines are not new to the earth. While windmills have been constructed by people for over 8,000
years, modem electricity-generating wind turbines installed in clusters have only been aroWld for about 25
years. The first wind turbines installed in numbers large enough to be called a wind farm generated around 50
kW per unit. They stood about 50 feet tall. That is about the height above water of the tip of an offshore wind
turbine blade when it is at its lowest point.
Nearly all bird kills that occur each year still occur in the Altamont Pass, CA, the region where the wind
industry first appeared.
When the wind industry was new, these relatively small machines were installed in places where the winds
were monodirectional, usually flowing from west to east, from being cooled over the Pacific Ocean through
mountain passes leading to the desert, where it filled in beneath rising heated air. Since the wind came from
one direction, the wind turbines were installed in rows, with the length of the row facing perpendicular to the
dominant wind direction. They were placed less than three rotor diameters apart, i.e., about 50 feet.
Offshore wind turbines, having much larger rotor diameters, over 300 feet, are placed no closer than about 5
diameters, about 1,500 feet if the dominant winds are mostly monodirectional. Usually, the dominant wind
direction changes with the season. At Plum Island, the dominant winds are from the Northwest in the autumn
into spring and from the southwest during the warmer months. Because of this dual nature of the wind
direction at the site, the wind turbines will be no closer than 2, I 00 feet apart.
The wind turbines in the AItamont Pass are sited on rolling hills, with some rows of the machines on the
slopes of the hills. It is among those wind turbines that most of the bird (raptors) deaths occur, i.e., halfway up
the hill.
A paper (4Pennycuick 2005) presented at the "Wind Fire & Water: Renewable Energy & Birds" Conference
in April 2005 noted that migratory birds collide with wind turbines when the machines are located in natural
"choke points." Such is the case with mountain passes. Migrating bird flocks become more concentrated in
such regions, and this raises the probability that some of the birds will strike some of the wind turbines. The
Gardiner's Bay proposed project site is in open water, with the island to the north and land in any other
direction several miles away. There is no choke Doint at the orODOSed Winefllv Power site.
In 2002, the Bonneville Power Administration eBPA 2002) carried out a review of 20 years of bird kill
studies. A total of 11 dealt with wind turbines in California (488 wind turbines) and nine focused on wind
farms of at least 20 machines outside of California (3,900 wind turbines). The study covered bird kills in
':
fD~j"~: ~
:'i The world depends on self-sustaining
" I biological systems that include many
, kinds of organisms. This requires the
preservation of the varietyoflife, i.e.,
i biological diversity, or biodiversity. Such
'I efforts require inventory knowledge and
an understanding of natural and artificial
I changes in biodiversity. Our knowledge
I of biological diversity is still very poor.
, with no more than a tenth of the world's
, species presently known (li_m:J9~$).
Similarly, we are only now beginning to
detect and quantifY changes to understand
the nature, extent and ecological
implications of changes in biodiversity.
This is why the baseline data presented
here is important. It provides us with a
base for on which to build and model
fromforfuturegenerations.~
,
Benthic monitoring is a relatively
sensitive,effectiveandreliabletechnique
that can detect subtle changes that serve
as an early indicator before more drastic
environmental changes occur. Most other
monitoring methods (e.g., video I
monitoring for bacterial mats and !
sediment parameters) generally detect the i
!later,mOredrasticChanges.ItiStheintent!
ofWinergy to establish with the various !
agencies a strict monitoring protocol that I
I is built upon the baseline that has been
I established.'11
I ,
It is Winergy's intent that within the R&D I
project we are proposing we can work in
conjunction with all the agencies
involved to produce recommendations or
guidelines for sampling, sample
processing and data analysis of marine
benthos and to establish a degree of
uniformilyintheproceduresthatwill
make data from different investigations
more readily comparable. At the same
time, it is recognized that decisions on the
methodology, equipment and analysis
will depend on the particular aims of the
agencies. This is a major advantage ofan
R&Dproject.~
I
Species are recognized as the essential
baseline for understanding diversity. Thus
the sampling and identification methods
and procedures required to obtain reliable
measuresofspeciesrichnessand
diversity are emphasized here below.~
I
I
<It>ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
: , SURVEY' !
'II I
: The pennitted Mariculture site underwent I
~ I an extensive series of above water and
:! underwater studies in order to establish
:: the environmental status of the site and to
\1 establish a database of baseline I
~I information.~ I
\1 ,
<#>Oaseline Field Surve)1 ~
i Formatted: Bullets and Numbering E
l.__________m__"______."_~._____________________________________m____________.I
"
California over an average of 1.68 years and outside of California over an average of 1.72 years. The total
number of bird deaths per year that was observed was 619 birds, i.e., an unweighted average of 0.18 deaths
per year per wind turbine. When the study was reconsidered, an average death rate of 1.4 birds per year per
wind turbine was computed to have a conservative view.
The BP A study therefore indicated that a total of 17,000 avian deaths per year are caused by the presence of
the 12,000 wind turbines then operating in the U.S. (2002). This figure, the authors noted, should be
compared to "the ranlle of estimates for all birds killed annually in the USA bv cars. tall buildimzs.
communication towers. Dower lines. pesticides. aircraft and domestic cats is from 300 million. to well over a
billion. Even when we get to a hundred times more turbines than now, their bird kill will be in the order of a
fraction of 1% of the low end estimate for all other causes."
The same study went on to note that 35% of the bird kills in the Altamont Pass were associated with the
oldest machines, while the newest, largest machines accounted for only 2.35% of the bird kills, indicated that
there is significantly reduced hazards to avian populations with large wind turbines. Following this logic, the
wind turbines that will be installed at the Gardiner's Bay site will be three times as large as the largest wind
turbine considered in the BPA study review, and a commensurate reduction in the potential for bird kill can
be assumed.
The study concludes that the number of bird kills by wind turbines "will never be more than noise level
compared to other causes of bird kill," meaning that the number of birds killed by wind turbines is
insignificant when compared to the millions killed by other human causes of bird mortality.
Another study (Winegrad 2004) has indicated that, for wind turbines outside of California, the bird fatalities
average 1.825 per turbine per year for wind turbines on land. The same study notes that a 29-year study at a
single TV tower in Tallahassee, Florida yielded 44,007 birds (representing 186 species) killed. Many of the
birds identified in this study were USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern. Another example comes from Eau
Claire, Wisconsin where a 38-year study at a single l,OOO-foot TV tower documented 121,560 birds killed
(representing 123 species), primarily long-distance migrants. Significant numbers such as these led the
Director ofUSFWS to issue a letter to the Chairman of the FCC in 1999, recommending that the FCC prepare
a programmatic EIS under NEP A to delineate the extent of bird mortality due to communication towers and
to develop mitigation measures. The USFWS Director referenced data that suggest the annual death toll of
migratory birds due to communication towers could be from 4 to 40 million. There is no realistic way to
envision the wind industry every growing to pose even a fraction of the potential damage to avian populations
as communication towers already cause.
Curry & Kerlinger, a consultancy on birds and wind farms, has compiled a list of causes of bird fatalities and
their causes when attributable to man-made structures (Table XIIl~ 1). They conclude: "To date, impacts on
bird populations have not been demonstrated at wind power sites.
Table XIII-I. Causes and Annual Bird Deaths from Man Made Obstacles
Cause Annual deaths
Arnculture 67 million
Automobiles/trucks 50 to 100 million
Communication towers 4 to 10 million
Electric transmission line collisions UD to 174 million
Glass windows 100 to 900+ million
House cats 100 million
Hunting 100+ million
Wind turbines IU.S.) 28,000
XIII-20f4
I Annual bird deaths (U.S. - all causes)
15 billion
Osprey
Ospreys (Pandion haliaetus) are widely distributed throughout the world. What was once the largest known
breeding colony of ospreys existed on Plum Island (Bent, 1961). Charles Slover Allen (1892) first visited the
island in 1879. The owners at that time claimed that over 2000 ospreys roosted nightly on the island and that
over 500 nests had been built there. Subsequently, Mr. Allen reduced those number by one half and, in 1885,
the island was sold to a syndicate who planned to develop the island. In the late 1800's, most of the ospreys
from Plum Island are believed to have moved to nearby Gardiner's Island, which in 1961 held the largest
breeding colony known (Bent, 1961). Since the 1970's, numerous nesting platfonns have been constructed on
Plum Island. Currently there are 16 osprey pairs that nest every year on the island (Ed Hasseldine-Personal
communication). The osprey have been observed feeding on herring in the shallow water along the south
shore of the island.
From the 1950's to the 1970's, populations crashed primarily due to the widespread use of DDT, which was
implicated as the causative agent for egg thinning, resulting in high mortality among osprey hatchlings
(Ehrlich, et. aI., 1988). The osprey was placed on the American Birds Blue List from 1972 to 1981. It was
upgraded to Special Concern in 1982, and to Local Concern in 1986. Thereafter, the osprey was listed as a
threatened species by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Today, coastal
populations of the osprey have largely recovered aided by the DDT ban and conservation programs, including
the placement of nesting platforms near the shoreline.
Ospreys prefer to inhabit areas near the shorelines of freshwater lakes and rivers as well as coastal estuaries
such as those on Long Island. Ospreys are seasonal visitors to Long Island, migrating from wintering grounds
in Chile and Argentina each spring to nest and raise their young. Often, their nests can be seen on top of poles
along the shoreline particularly on the eastern end of Long Island. Ospreys build their nests out of sticks,
seaweed, sod and occasionally rubbish.
The osprey is monogamous and mates for life. Upon returning to Long Island in the spring, osprey pairs
rebuild their old nest from the previous year and engage in and elaborate courtship flight behavior before
mating. Females are fed entirely by the male from pair fonnahon to egg laying. Three eggs are usually laid
which subsequently hatch asynchronously about 32 to 43 days later (Ehrlich, et. aI., 1988). The male
continues to deliver food to the nest where the female feeds the young. Fledging occurs 48 to 59 days after
hatching.
LConclusions
+______.{ Fonnatted: Bullets and Numbering
The existing database on wildlife, both under, on and above water, at the site of the proposed demonstration
wind project provides a thorough library of base data with which to assess the long-tenn impact of the
presence of offshore wind turbines on wildlife and water quality. Since there are no emissions from wind
turbines, air quality can only be improved, not worsened.
Based upon the history of the offshore experience in Europe the placement of turbines should have little or no
effect upon the water quality. There will be incidental impacts during construction and decommissioning but
the site will return to its previous state in a short period of time based upon the flow rates of this particular
site.
Benthic Fauna
XIII-3 of 4
The site is notably lacking in stable sea floor material because of the presence of strong currents, which were
a prerequisite for the mariculture facility for which the original permit and lease were granted. A wide variety
of benthic organisms do populate the uncompacted seafloor material, but none occur in great numbers. The
loose aggregation of seabed materials is flushed by swift currents often enough to inhibit its suitability as a
site whose dirt teems with life.
Winergy Power will provide in-kind services to marine biology researchers that request access to the site for
the purposes of monitoring benthic and pelagic species and to develop databases on any impacts that the
presence of wind turbines in the water have on marine life and ecology. Underwater cameras will be mounted
at the site to facilitate monitoring of underwater biological activity.
Tracking Avian Populations and Monitoring Bird Kills
Studies of avian behavior at offshore wind farms have revealed that there are few collision. Bird flocks fly
around the wind farms (much as they would any natural obstacle).
Winergy Power will consult with the local Audubon Society, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serves, and New
York state wildlife agencies to define procedures for monitoring bird kills (searching for carcasses) at the site.
Winergy Power will make available an in-kind service by designating locations on the wind turbines, in
consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for instrumentation such as thermal imaging cameras
and radar for monitoring bird flights. Ornithologists and other researchers will be able to document the
behavior of birds in flight around the wind turbines and to determine if an wind turbines at this location pose
a particular threat to birds that is not being observed anywhere else. The effort will also serve to identify the
need, if it exists, for finding ways to mitigate bird collisions, and techniques to accomplish that.
b..REFERENCES
+.-."". - l Formatted: Bullets and Numbering J
I. Wind Farms As Obstacles To Migrating Birds, Colin Pennycuick, Senior Research Fellow, University of
Bristol, Leicester, UK, 2005.
2. Avian and Bat Study, BPA, 12-2002; Mike Madders Natural Research Ltd.
www.bpa.gov/Power/pgc/wind/Avian_and_Bat_Study-J2-2002.pdf
3. Proceedings of the Wind Energy and Birds/Bats Workshop, 2004; Gerald Winegrad, American Bird
Conservancy
XIII-4of4
Page 1: [1] Deleted
Mik1
8/29/200512:13:00 AM
The world depends on self-sustaining biological systems that include many kinds of
organisms. This requires the preservation of the variety oflife, i.e., biological diversity,
or biodiversity. Such efforts require inventory knowledge and an understanding of natural
and artificial changes in biodiversity. Our knowledge of biological diversit)'i~stillverx
poor, with no more than a tenth of the world's species presently known (~!U1l.g!'Iiltl1>'l!)!).5).
Similarly, we are only now beginning to detect and quantify changes to understand the
nature, extent and ecological implications of changes in biodiversity. This is why the
baseline data presented here is important. It provides us with a base for on which to build
and model from for future generations.
Benthic monitoring is a relatively sensitive, effective and reliable technique that can
detect subtle changes that serve as an early indicator before more drastic environmental
changes occur. Most other monitoring methods (e.g., video monitoring for bacterial mats
and sediment parameters) generally detect the later, more drastic changes. It is the intent
of Winergy to establish with the various agencies a strict monitoring protocol that is built
upon the baseline that has been established.
It is Winergy's intent that within the R&D project we are proposing we can work in
conjunction with all the agencies involved to produce recommendations or guidelines for
sampling, sample processing and data analysis of marine benthos and to establish a
degree of uniformity in the procedures that will make data from different investigations
more readily comparable. At the same time, it is recognized that decisions on the
methodology, equipment and analysis will depend on the particular aims of the agencies.
This is a major advantage of an R&D project.
Species are recognized as the essential baseline for understanding diversity. Thus the
sampling and identification methods and procedures required to obtain reliable measures
of species richness and diversity are emphasized here below.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SURVEY
The permitted Mariculture site underwent an extensive series of above water and
underwater studies in order to establish the environmental status ofthe site and to
establish a database of baseline information.
Baseline Field Survey
DIVER SURVEY
A dive study was conducted on September 7th, 8th and 9'\ 1994 within and beyond the
area designated for the proposed net pen system. Atmospheric conditions during the
survey period were uniformly sunny days with a southwesterly wind at 10-15 mph. Sea
conditions ranged from flat calm seas to seas with maximum wave heights of 2 feet.
Diving activities began at approximately 0800 hours each morning and were terminated
at approximately 1600 hours each afternoon. Dive time did not include dock side
preparation and breakdown.
The location of the transect ran from (720 II' 08" Longitude, 41009' 56" Latitude) to a
position of (720 09' 54" Longitude, and 410 II' 10" Latitude). The water depth averaged
approximately 35 feet. The total length of this transect (repeated several times) was 1.8
miles. The transect was located using a Magellan ™ Differential GPS System located
aboard EEA's 25 foot research vessel. The divers were equipped with a Sony ™ Model,
101 Video Camera enclosed in a Amphibico™ water tight housing unit. Videos were
taken both with and without a halogen light. To aid in the movement of divers along the
transect, each diver was equipped with an underwater scuba scooter powered by an
underwater battery.
Dives were conducted at all tidal stages. Unfortunately, visibility was poor during all
times of the dive and at all stages of the tidal cycle. In fact, visibility ranged from a
minimum of 6 inches to a maximum of 3 feet. The best visibility was encountered during
high slack water. The poor visibility was attributed to a cloud of suspended sediments
and other flocculants. Attempts to photograph the bottom proved unsuccessful.
Nevertheless, direct observation revealed the bottom to be uniformly flat and sandy with
a fine sediment layer of approximately 2-10 centimeters thick suspended above the ocean
floor. Approximately 8-10 erratic boulders 3 to 6 feet in diameter were encountered in the
three days of diving activity. Additionally, areas of sand waves were encountered along
the transect. Attempts to collect core samples for the expressed purposes of determining
the discontinuity layer proved unsuccessful due the to highly unstable and uncompacted
sand stratum observed throughout the transect. That is, the highly liquefied sediments
could not be contained within the coring apparatus.
The biota observed was minimal. The most prevalent organisms observed were the flat-
clawed hermit crab (Pagurus pollicaris) for which 20 to 30 individuals were positively
identified along this 1.8 mile transect. The most common finfish observed was the sea
robin (Prionotus sp.). All observed sea robins were identified to be juveniles ranging
from 3 to 4 inches TL. Due to their small size and the limited visibility of the site, the
observed sea robins could not be identified to the species level. In addition, the following
species were observed in numbers not exceeding two (total throughout the transect):
Channel Whelk
Knobbed Whelk
Little Skate
Winter Flounder
Windowpane Flounder
Busycon canaliculatum
Busycon carica
Raja erinacea
Pleuronectes american us
Scophthalmus aguosus
The erratic boulders were covered with encrusting organisms including barnacles,
hydroids and sponges. Additionally, the marine algae, Irish Moss (Chondrus crispus) and
common kelp (Laminaria agardhii) were observed attached to the erratic boulders. Due
to the limited visibility throughout the site, efforts to photograph the ocean bottom by
video proved to be unsuccessful.
HYDROGRAPHY
The current was measured at three depths: surface, net pen bottom and one meter (3 feet)
offthe ocean floor. A 15 minute sample was collected at each of the three depths every
hour for a continuous period of 12 hours. This represents one tidal cycle. An average tide
was selected; spring and neap tides were avoided.
The current meter data consisting of the sampling of surface, midwater and bottom
velocities and direction was originally collected on July 5th and 6th, 1994. Due to
problems experienced in the original sampling efforts, current data at surface, midwater
and bottom velocity and direction were again collected on October 4, 1994. The October
4, 1994 sampling event included direct measurement of current velocity and direction at
depths of2, 5 and 10 meters below the surface.
The original current meter study conducted on July 5, and 6, 1994, consisted ofthe
deployment of three Aanderra RCM-5 recording current meters positioned at the
following coordinates: 410 10' 19" Lat. x 720 10' 39" Long. Maximum depth was 37 feet
at this location. The current speed at 14 feet ranged from 5.1 cm/sec (0.10 knots) to 56.9
cm/sec (1.10 knots). The current flowed in basically two directions: easterly (200-600)
during a ebb tide; and westerly (2500-3000) during a flood tide.
Direct measurements at the remaining two current meter depths did not generate viable
data for reasons previously described herein.
The entire sampling regime for current velocity and direction was repeated on October 4,
1994. This sampling event utilized a SACM-3 smart acoustic current meter manufactured
by EG&G Marine Instruments instead of the previously employed Aanderra RCM-5
recording current meters. The SACM-3 Smart Acoustic Current Meter recorded current
direction using magnetic north as its reference for all measurements. Meter accuracy and
precision for all parameters in the SACM-3 Smart Acoustic Current Meter are shown in
Table 1 .
Table 1.
SACM-3 Current Meter Accuracy and Precision
Parameter Accuracy Resolution Range Response
Speed H.O cm/s 0.1 cm/s 0-350 cm/s 0.2 sec
Direction ",2.0 degrees 0.1 degrees 0-360 deg. 0.2 sec
T!!C ",0.05OC O.OIOC -2OC-35OC 1.0 min
Sampling was conducted for a period of 12 hours in order to obtain data over one
complete tidal cycle. As previously stated, the project site experienced average tides
during the sampling period.
Consistent with the initial current readings, the current exhibited an east/west directional
flow. Variations in current direction and speed indicate that some eddying occurs due to
the large volumes of water having to pass through the constrictions at Plum Gut to the
west and the Sluiceway to the east, in addition to the large variations in depth in these
areas. Average current velocities ranged from 7.2 crn/sec (0.14 knots) to 69.6 crn/sec
(1.35 knots) at 2 meters on a flood tide. The average current velocity at 5 and 10 meters
was 32.5 crn/sec (0.63 knots) and 30.1 crn/sec (0.58 knots), respectively, for a flood tide
and 37.4 crn/sec (0.73 knots) and 16.4 crn/sec (0.32 knots) respectively, for an ebb tide.
Tidal Current Charts have been developed by the U.S. Department of Commerce,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). These charts depict the
horizontal flow and direction of the current. There are also hourly recorded current flows
from a previously placed current meter Southeast of the proposed offshore wind park.
These charts are identified as SFB (Slack Flood Begins) plus the hours, SEB (Slack Ebb
Begins) plus the hours using The Race as the time and reference.
In evaluating the effect of current velocity with respect to the fate of unconsumed feed
and fecal material, consideration was given to the horizontal component as depicted by
the NOAA current charts as well as to site current velocity and direction measurements.
Using the combined data from the site current measurements and the NOAA current
charts, a projected direction for the movement ofthe organic matter has been graphically
presented from 0800 Hours, hourly, to 1800 Hours for a typical day. For comparisons and
explanation, each of the projected current flows are coupled with the NOAA current chart
for that particular time of day.
A comparison between the current flows of the proj ect site as determined in the field and
those depicted in the NOAA current charts is summarized below:
Table 2. Comparisons Between Project Site Current Flows and
Those of The Tidal Current Chart from NOAA
Current Chart Current
Time Reference K/HR K/HR Degrees Direction
0800 SFB +3 0.8 1.3 290 SAME
0900 SFB +4 0.5 1.0 291 SAME
1000 SFB +5 0.1 0.4 280 SIMILAR
1100 SEB 0.6 0.4 80 SAME
1200 SEB + 1 0.5 1.0 80 SIMILAR
1300 SEB +2 0.4 1.9 80 OPPOSITE
1400 SEB +3 0.3 2.1 80 OPPOSITE
1500 SEB +4 0.4 1.9 80 OPPOSITE
1600 SEB +5 0.8 1.4 80 OPPOSITE
1700 SEB +6 1.2 0.6 70 OPPOSITE
1800 SFB 1.0 0.2 280 SIMILAR
1900 SFB + 1 1.02 0.9 290 SIMILAR
NOTE: The opposite site currents from 1300 hours to 1700 hours are probably the result
of an eddy caused by high velocity currents flowing through "Plum Gut" and "The
Sluiceway" between Plum Island and Orient Point and between Plum Island and Fishers
Island, respectively. During these same periods the chart current recording direction is
approximately 90 degrees to that of these two high velocity channel currents.
Current velocity influences the sediment structure of a particular area (Day et. aI., 1989).
In areas with high current velocity, sedimentation rates are low as fine materials are
carried away and do not accumulate on the bottom. The sediments are well sorted and
have high percentages of sand. High current velocity also facilitates higher oxygen levels
in sediments and in the water column, which is important for fish habitat. In contrast, low
current velocity promotes high sedimentation rates causing higher percentages of silt and
lower oxygen levels in the sediments. Low sedimentation rates have also been
responsible for creating sparse benthic communities due to the lack of food available to
infaunal organisms (Hoffman et. aI., 1981).
During the periods of slack tide settling rates are maximized. Previous diver inspections
ofthe bottom of Plum Gut indicates that all fine materials have been removed from these
high current areas, leaving only large stones and boulders.
The base line site field survey bears out the expected sparse benthic communities.
WATER QUALITY
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (1986) has set forth
regulations regarding the quality of the surface and ground waters of New York State.
These regulations detail the water quality classifications and standards for every water
body within the state.
The water quality regulations delineate several parameters which apply to all New York
saline surface waters. These parameters and standards for which are as follows:
PARAMETER AND SPECIFICATION
1. Garbage, cinders, ashes - None in any waters ofthe oils, sludge, or other refuse.
Marine district as defined by Environmental Conservation Law 17-0105
2. pH - The normal range shall not be extended by more than one-tenth (0.1) pH
unit.
3. Turbidity - No increase except from natural sources that will cause a substantial
visible contrast to natural conditions. In cases of naturally turbid waters, the
contrast will be due to increased turbidity.
4. Color - None from man-made sources that will be detrimental to anticipated best
usage of waters.
5. Suspended Solids - None from sewage, industrial settleable solids, wastes or
other wastes which will cause deposition or be deleterious for any best usage
determined for specific waters which are assigned to each class.
6. Oil and floating substances - No residue attributable to sewage, industrial wastes
or \other wastes, nor visible oil film nor globules of grease.
7. Thermal discharges - All discharges shall assure the protection and propagation
of a balanced, indigenous population of fish, shellfish, and wildlife in and on the
body of water.
The waters of the proposed Wind Farm Site are classified as "SA" waters. This
classification represents water quality conditions of oceanic sea water. In addition to the
above standards, additional requirements upon this class of waters is as follows:
PARAMETER AND SPECIFICATION
1. Coliform - The median MPN value in any series of samples representative of
waters in the shellfish-growing area shall not be in excess of 70 per 100 m!.
2. Dissolved Oxygen - Shall not be less than 5.0 mg/L at any time.
3. Toxic Waste - None in amounts that will substances interfere with use for
primary contact recreation or that will be injurious to edible fish or shellfish or the
culture or propagation there of, or which in any manner adversely affect the
flavor, color, odor, or sanitary condition thereof, or impair the waters for any
other best usage as determined for their specific waters which are assigned to this
class.
Samples for nitrogen analysis were collected on August 8, 1994 at the following
coordinates of the site: 410 10.19' Lat., 720 10.39' Long.(Station 1) and 410 17.22' Lat.,
720 11.61' Long. (Station 2). Sea conditions were as follows: wave height less than 1
foot, winds out of the northeast at 0-5 knots and skies were sunny. The samples at Station
#1 were collected between 6:15 AM and 7:30 AM. during a low tide. Samples for
nitrogen were collected simultaneously with the previously discussed oxygen and salinity
samples. The samples at Station # 2 were collected between 8:05 AM and 9:15 AM.
Samples for total kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N), nitrite nitrogen
(NOz-N), and nitrate nitrogen (N03-N) were collected at depths of 1 meter below the
surface and 1 meter above the bottom. These samples were subsequently placed in 250
ml plastic bottles, stored in the dark and on ice and transported to the laboratory where
they were immediately analyzed.
All nitrogen analyses were performed using EPA approved methods by EcoTest
Laboratories, Inc, a licensed New York State laboratory situate North Babylon, NY.
The methods used for the analyses were as follows: TKN-digestion method, EP A Code #
351.2; NH3-N -ammonia selective electrode method, EPA Code # 351.3; NOz-N-
spectrophotometric method, EPA Code # 354.1; and NOrN- cadmium reduction method,
EPA Code # 353.2. Nitrogen results for Station # 1 are presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Nitrogen analyses for station # 1 collected on August 8, 1994
with respect to depth.
TKN
NH3-N
Total N
0.6
0.4
<0.05
<0.05
<0.002
<0.002
<0.05
<0.05
0.6
0.4
Nitrogen concentrations for Station # 2 are presented in Table 4.
Table 4. Nitrogen concentrations for Station # 2 collected on August 8, 1994
with respect to depth.
Depth TKN NH3-N Total N
feet mIL m
3 0.4 <0.05 <0.002 <0.05 0.4
18 0.8 <0.05 <0.05 0.8 <0.002
Analysis of nitrogen with respect to the sample locations and depth revealed generally
low ambient nitrogen concentrations in the water column.
Two detailed water quality assessments were performed at three sites in order to
determine dissolved oxygen concentrations, temperature, and salinity with respect to
depth, nutrient availability as reflected in ambient nitrogen concentrations, as well as
light penetration as determined by sechii depth measurements. Site #1 was chosen to
correspond with the location in which hydrographic data was collected. Ten sample
locations with respect to depth were determined by dividing the total depth by ten thereby
establishing equidistant sample locations throughout the water column. The coordinates
for Sample Location #1 is located in accordance with the following Loran Coordinates:
410 10' 19" Latitude, 720 10' 39" minutes Longitude. The initial water quality
assessment for Sample Location #1 was performed on August 8, 1994 between the hours
of6:15 A.M. through 7:30 A.M. during which the tides were at slack low. At that time,
skies were sunny, winds as measured were 0 to 5 knots out of the northeast and seas were
less than 1 foot.
Determination of depth was performed using a standard depthometer as verified by a
weighted line lowered to the sea floor and measured by means of standard tape
measurement. Maximum depth at Sample Location #1 was 35 feet and therefore,
temperature and dissolved oxygen concentrations were determined at 3.5 foot intervals.
Temperature and dissolved oxygen were determined using a YSI Temperature/Oxygen
Meter ™ calibrated for altitude and salinity. The YSI Temperature/Oxygen Meter ™ is
standard equipment used in evaluating dissolved oxygen with respect to temperature in a
wide variety of commercial aquaculture operations. Salinity was determined at each of
the ten sample locations using a standard hand held refractometer. Also, a standard 1 foot
diameter sechii disk was lowered into the water column in order to determine light
penetration. Sechii disk measurements at the various sampling locations during the
August 8,1994 sampling event were 12 feet below the surface. In addition to oxygen
determination by YSI Temperature/Oxygen Meter TM, approximately one liter of seawater
was collected at each of the respective depths using a Van Dom Bottle constructed out of
plexiglas. Samples collected by this means were carefully drained with a minimum of
agitation into 250 ml glass sample bottles, allowing for at least a three-fold overflow.
Upon collection of the samples by Van Dom Bottle, samples were immediately fixed in
accordance with methods set forth in Standard Methods for the Winkler Titration (Azide
Modification). Samples were held on ice and in darkness and transported to a licensed
laboratory for dissolved oxygen concentration by the Winkler Method. The laboratory
results for dissolved oxygen are attached herewith as Appendix~. The summary results
for temperature and dissolved oxygen are set forth in Table 5.
Table S. Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen, Salinity with respect to Depth determined
at Sample Location #1 on August 8,1994.
Temperature
oc
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.0
19.0
19.0
Salinity
t
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
28 19.0 30 9.0 7.5
31.5 19.0 30 9.0 8.1
35 19.0 30 8.8 7.9
TEMPERATURE
Temperature analysis taken on August 8,1994 and August 31,1994 revealed no
stratification in the water column as is common in other areas during that time of the
year. The current velocities prevalent throughout the area thoroughly mixes the water
column, preventing temperature stratification. On August 8,1994, surface temperature
was found to be 19.5oe, and bottom temperature was 19.0oe at Station 1. Station 2 had a
water temperature of 20.0oe throughout the water column. On August 31, Station I had a
surface and bottom temperature of 19.5 and 19.0oe respectively. Station 2a had surface
and bottom temperatures of22 and 20oe, respectively. The differences between surface
and bottom temperatures are not considered significant and can be attributed to slight
warming ofthe surface waters as the light intensity increased throughout the morning.
Figures 1 and 2 show the temperature profiles for all locations on August 8 and August
31 1994.
Station 1 Station 2
Temperature (C) Temperature (C)
19 20 21 22 19 20 21 22
0 0
Depth 10 Depth 5
I (feet) 10 I
(feet) 20 15
30 20
40 25
Figure 1. Temperature profiles for Stations 1 and 2 on August 8, 1994.
Station 1 Station 2a
Temperature (C) Temperature (C)
19 20 21 22 19 20 21 22
0 0
5 5 . .
10 10 I
Depth 15 Depth 15
(feet) 20 (feet) 20
25 25
30 30 .
35 35
Figure 2. Temperature profiles of Station 1 and 2 on August 31,1994.
Data collected from Sample Location #1 reveal relatively uniform temperature
throughout the water column. The difference in temperature between surface and bottom
samples was 0.50C. Additionally, dissolved oxygen concentrations were relatively
uniform throughout the water column. These data reveal a complete mixing of the water
column. Additionally, dissolved oxygen was found in saturated concentrations
throughout the water column. Finally, salinity was determined at 30 ppt throughout the
water column. These analyses reveal excellent water quality at Sample Location #1.
In order to gain approval of the proposed project, monitoring of dissolved oxygen was a
standard operating procedure. Therefore, it was critical to Winergy LLC's predecessor,
Mariculture, to obtain reliable information with respect to dissolved oxygen to assure that
the fish farm represented no impact. Accordingly, Sample Location #1 was re-evaluated
with respect to dissolved oxygen and temperature on August 31, 1994. All sampling
activities occurred between 9:30 A.M. and 10:30 A.M. during slack low tide. Cloud cover
ranged from partly cloudy to overcast. Winds were from the southwest at 0 to 5 knots and
seas were less than one foot. The sample location for the August 31, 1994 sampling event
was the same location for the August 8, 1994 sampling event as reflected in identical .
Loran Coordinates. The summary results for temperature and dissolved oxygen for the
August 31,1994 sampling event are set forth below in Table 6.
Table 6.
Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen with Respect to Depth
determined at Sample Location #1 on August 31,1994
Depth Temperature Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved Oxygen
(feet) oc ml!!l- bv probe) (ml!ll- bv Lab)
3.5 20 9.6 8.2
7.0 20 9.6 8.0
10.5 20 9.6 7.6
14 20 9.6 7.5
17.5 20 9.6 7.8
21 20 9.4 7.8
24.5 20 9.4 7.6
28 20 9.4 7.5
31.5 20 9.4 7.6
35 20 9.2 7.5
Both data sets in Table 6 disclose essentially uniform temperature throughout the water
column. Accordingly, this particular area of Gardiner's Bay does not undergo seasonal
stratification. The principle explanation accounting for uniform temperatures are
attributed to complete mixing ofthe water colunm achieved by high current velocity and
wind acti
The slightly elevated water temperatures occurring on the surface at Sample Location #1
during the August 8, 1994 sampling event were attributed to increased warming from sun
exposure. This slight elevation in temperature was not detected during the August 31,
1994 sampling event due to partly cloudy and overcast conditions occurring earlier in the
morning which prevented surface warming from the sun.
In comparing detection methods between the Winkler Method and Direct Method by
probe, it is clear that dissolved oxygen as measured by oxygen probe was significantly
higher than dissolved oxygen as measured by the Winkler Method. On the average,
dissolved oxygen measurements were 1.56 mg/I higher as measured by oxygen probe
than as measured by the Winkler Method. Even so, dissolved oxygen concentrations
reflected saturated conditions throughout the water column as evidenced by both the
Winkler Method and direct measurement by probe. Saturated surface waters at Sample
Location #1 are attributed to complete mixing of the water colunm as well as algal
production which adds oxygen to the water column.
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
Oxygen profiles were taken simultaneously with temperature measurements on August 8
and 31,1994. Oxygen concentrations also indicated that the water colunm was
unstratified. Oxygen concentrations measured via Winkler Titration ranged from 7.3
mg/L to 8.5 mg/L and represent saturated oxygen concentrations. These uniform oxygen
concentrations with respect to depth are attributed to the complete mixing of the water
colunm. Slightly elevated oxygen concentrations at the surface at three of the sampling
locations are attributed to surface layer exchange with the atmosphere. The slightly
depressed surface oxygen concentrations at Station 1 on August 8, 1994 are normal for
the time at which the samples were taken (6:15 A.M.). These low levels in oxygen
concentration are the result of respiration and uptake of oxygen by phytoplankton during
the evening hours (Day et. aI., 1989). Figures 4 and 5 show the oxygen profiles for all
locations on August 8 and 31, 1994.
Station 1
Station 2
Oxygen (mg/L) Oxygen (mg/L)
7 B 7 B
0 0 ..
5 .
. 5 I.
10 ..
Depth 15 Depth 10
(feet) 20 . (feet)
. . 15
25 .'
30 . 20
.
35 . 25
Station 1 Station 2
Oxygen (mg/L) Oxygen (mg/L)
7 B 7 8
0 0
5 .. 5 1
10 .+ 10 .
Depth 15 Depth 15 ..
(feet) 20 : (feet) 20 .1
25 +: 25 .
30 30 .
35 + 35
Figure 3. Oxygen profiles for Stations 1 and 2 on August 8, 1994.
Dissolved oxygen, Temperature and Salinity were determined at an alternate sight
("Sample Location #2) on August 8, 1994 approximately miles southeast from Sample
Location #1 at the following Loran Coordinates: 410 IT 22" Latitude, 720 II' 61".
Sample collection and analyses of dissolved oxygen and temperature took place between
8:05 am and 9:15 am. The summary results are set forth below in Table 7.
Table 7.
Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen with respect to Depth
at Sample Location #2 on August 8, 1994.
Depth Temperature Salinity Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved Oxygen
(feet) (0C) (nnt) . (ml!!l- bv probe) (mwl- by Lab)
2.1 19.5 30 9.4 8.2
4.2 19.5 30 9.2 8.4
6.3 19.5 30 9.0 7.8
8.4 19.5 31 8.8 7.8
10.5 19.0 32 8.8 7.8
12.6 19.0 32 8.8 7.8
14.7 19.0 32 8.4 7.9
16.8 19.0 33 8.6 8.0
18.9 19.0 32 8.6 8.0
21.0 19.0 32 8.6 7.9
Data as disclosed in Table 7 reveals a slight warming of the water column brought about
by increased sun exposure occurring later in the morning. Also, salinities in the lower
portion ofthe water column were slightly elevated over samples obtained at Sample
Location #1 on August 8, 1994. These slightly elevated salinities are attributed to the
onset of flood tide, during which there is an influx of oceanic bottom waters greater in
salinity and density. Furthermore, these higher salinity waters, because of their greater
density, will tend to flow along the bottom (Mann and Lazier, 1991).
Dissolved oxygen concentration detected in at. Sample Location #2 during the August 8,
1994 sampling event were slightly elevated as compared to dissolved oxygen collected at
Sample Location #1 on August 8, 1994. These differences however were not regarded as
significant, being attributed to increased algal production occurring later that same
morning. Increased algal production was attributed to greater sunlight intensity also
occurring later in the morning. Again, these data reveal saturated oxygen concentrations
throughout the water column.
Temperature and dissolved oxygen with respect to depth was analyzed at a alternate site
(Sample Location #2a) on August 31,1994, proximate to Sample Location #2. The Loran
Coordinates for Sample Location #2a are as follows: 410 17' 6" Latitude, 720 11' 42"
Longitude. Sample collection and analyses of temperature and dissolved oxygen took
place between 10:45 am and 11 :30 am. The summary results are set forth below in Table
8.
Table 8.
Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen with respect to Depth at Sample
Location #2a on August 31, 1994.
Depth Temperature Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved Oxygen
(feet) oc (m2l1- by probe) (m2l1- by Lab)
3.2 22 8.6 8.5
6.4 21 8.8 8.5
9.6 20 8.8 7.9
12.8 20 8.8 8.4
14.0 20 8.8 8.5
17.2 20 8.8 8.2
20.4 20 8.8 8.2
23.6 20 8.8 8.1
26.8 20 8.8 8.0
32 20 8.4 7.8
Consistent with the data obtained for Sample Location #2 during the August 8, 1994
sampling event, the later time in which these samples were collected and analyzed
resulted in a slight warming of the upper portion of the water column attributed to greater
sunlight intensity. As with all other sample analyses conducted during the various
sampling events and locations, the data reveals dissolved oxygen concentrations at
saturation levels throughout the water column. The slightly depressed dissolved oxygen
concentrations detected at the bottom sample is not regarded as significant and may be
attributed to minor biological/chemical oxygen demand brought about by suspended
sediments. However, the slight depression of dissolved oxygen on the bottom is not a
cause for concern either to Winergy LLC. Nor, presumably, government agencies having
jurisdiction over this proposed project.
In summary, as reflected in all ofthe temperature measurements made in the various
sample locations, this particular area of Gardiner's Bay does not undergo seasonal
stratification. Furthermore, dissolved oxygen was detected in saturated concentrations
throughout the water column during each sampling event. Therefore, it is concluded that
water quality, as reflected in these databases, is excellent.
SALINITY
Salinity measurements were collected at Station 1 and 2 on August 8, 1994. Salinity at
the first location was consistently 30 ppt throughout the water column. The second site
had a slightly elevated bottom salinity of 32 ppt as the tide began to flood. The
consistency ofthe salinity regime is attributed to complete mixing of the water column
and the relative distance of the site to large freshwater sources. This is particularly
relevant during August when rainfall events and amounts are considerably less that at
other times of the year. Figure 4. shows the salinity profiles for both locations on August
8, 1994.
Station 1
Station 2
Salinity (ppt)
25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
Salinity (ppt)
25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
o
I
..
I
o
5
10
Depth 15
(feet) 20
25
30
35
5
Depth 10
(feet) 15
20
25
Figure 4. Salinity profiles for Stations 1 and 2 on August 8, 1994.
NITROGEN
Samples for nitrogen analysis were collected on August 8, 1994 at two stations
previously described herein. Samples were collected I meter below the surface and I
meter above the bottom. Analyses were performed to determine total kjeldahl nitrogen,
ammonia nitrogen, nitrite nitrogen, and nitrate nitrogen. Total kjeldahl nitrogen ranged
from 0.4 mg/L to 0.8 mg/L; ammonia and nitrate nitrogen concentrations were less than
0.05 mg/L; and, nitrite nitrogen concentrations were less than 0.002 mg/L. Nitrite
nitrogen and nitrate nitrogen concentrations are comparable to concentrations found in
sampling performed in August 1971 by the New York Ocean Science Laboratory
(NYOSL, 1976). Generally, the NYOSL (1976) data set reveals nitrogen
concentrations to be at a maximum during the colder months of the year. In contrast,
nitrogen levels are at a minimum during the warmer months. The observed fluctuations in
nitrogen concentration are attributed to the following:
(I.) Greater precipitation during the cold months of the year subsequently cause
higher nitrogen outputs from the Thames River and Counecticut River, the largest source
of freshwater to Long Island Sound, thereby increasing nitrogen concentrations near the
Winergy site (LISS, 1994).
(2.) Extended periods of high velocity wind events occurring during the winter
months result in resuspension of sediments and related nutrients into the water column,
thereby increasing nitrogen concentrations near the Winergy site (Day et. a!., 1989).
(3.) Lower nitrogen utilization by phytoplankton during colder months of the year
(Valiela, 1984) results in an increase in nitrogen concentration in the water column. The
lowered utilization capability of the phytoplankton is attributed to the lack of sufficient
light for optimum growth (Day, et. a!., 1989) and cooler water temperatures. As light
intensity increases in the spring months, phytoplankton begin utilizing the available
nutrients and nitrogen levels decrease. At some point in the spring or early summer, the
algae deplete the nitrogen and their rate of growth slows down (Valiela, 1984). The low
levels of nitrogen found in June and August of 1971 correspond with the previously
mentioned nitrogen depletion and are consistent with nitrogen data collected as part of
this FEIS.
a. SEASONAL VARIATIONS IN NITROGEN
In an effort to compare nitrogen levels currently existing at the project site with historical
nitrogen levels and seasonal variations, an analysis was performed on the data set
compiled by the New York Ocean Science Laboratory ("NYOSL") situated in Montauk,
New York. NYOSL conducted a comprehensive study on the physical and chemical
quality ofthe waters of Long Island Sound and Block Island Sound from 1970 to 1973.
In order to establish baseline historical nitrogen conditions, data collected by NYOSL at
the sample location closest to the proposed net pen area was used in this analysis. This
sample location is referred to as N3, situated in The Race at coordinates 410 13.24' Lat,
720 05.30' Long (NYOSL, 1976). The NYOSL data collected for one year from October
20, 1970 to October 6, 1971 is summarized by month in Table 9.
Table 9.
Average nitrite nitrogen (NOz-N) and nitrate (N03-N) concentrations
with corresponding range from samples collected at 41'! 13,24' Lat and 72'! 05.30'
Long
(New York Ocean Science Laboratory, 1976).
N02 - mgIL NO, - mgIL
mean mean
MonthlYear (range) (range)
0.019 0.04
Oct 1970 (0-0.03) (0.01-0.05)
0.001 0.08
Peb 1971 (0-0.002) (O.QJ -0.11)
0.001 0.03
Mar 1971 (0-0.002) (0-0.06)
<0.001 0.01
lUll 1971 (0-0.0001) (0-0.06)
0.001 0.01
Aug 1971 (0.0006-0.002) (0.001-0.02)
0.002 0.03
Oct 1971 (0-0.01) (0-0.05)
As previously stated, this data was collected in August 1994. The 20 year consistency in
nitrogen values indicates that the nitrogen regime of the proposed site is stable and not
likely to change.
TOPOGRAPHY
The topography of the bottom in the vicinity of the proposed net pen site is gradual. The
net pen site itself is flat with an average depth of 35 feet. The placement of wind turbines
and jackup barge will not effect the bottom in such a way so as to promote erosion.
Discernible navigation channels are not present in the vicinity ofthe proposed project
site. Most of the waters surrounding the site have depths greater than 20 feet and are
navigable by most vessels frequenting the area. In addition, the gradual changes in depth
throughout the area would make cave-ins a nonviable concern.
CURRENT PATTERN, VELOCITY AND TURBIDITY
As previously stated herein, the proposed site experiences an east/west current flow with
velocities ranging from 7.2 em/see to 69.6 em/see (0.14 knots to 1.35 knots).
Considerable current eddying occurs at the net pen site due to the larlleyolulIlesof\\'~ter
pa.1isiIlgthroullethe~?l1~tJ-icti?n a~ Plum Gut during an ebb tide. !i8mrel),ttl!)~J1f;lttf:~UlU'~
~~~:m:~~i~],J,~~~;jl'l~~~j\ll),18l1!, Despite large current flows, turbidity in the area is
minimal. Secchi depth measurements taken at various locations on August 8,1994 were
12 feet below the surface.
BENTHIC ANALYSIS
Objective: To establish substrate reference data by which future detection of impacts to
the existing benthos can be measured.
Methods: The applicant must prepare a sediment sampling plan which includes the
number and location of sediment samples to be collected for grain size, chemical and
biological analysis. Single sediment cores must be collected in an array of samples
representative of bottom characteristics ofthe site. The precise design, number and
location are not specified here because of the variety of pen configurations and sizes for
which the original survey was performed. However, a systematic sampling design
(samples at equidistant intervals) which covers the entire area plus 60 meters in each tidal
direction (ebb and flow) is required.
Grain size analyses should be performed using the Wet Sieving methods described in the
Buchenan (1984) pp. 47-48Z) or similar procedure. The standard sieve sizes for gravel,
sand, silt and clay shall be used. Full analyses ofthe silt clay fractions may be calculated
as the difference in dry weight between the original sample and the sum ofthe sieve
fractions down to the 0.062 mm sieve (very fine sand). The fraction in each sieve shall be
reported in grams (dry weight) including the total dry weight of the initial sample. The
unconsolidated material and the top 2 em of inorganic sediments shall be collected for the
analysis ofTOC. The applicant must insure that a minimum of30 grams are collected for
analysis. Multiple cores (which include the top 2 em of inorganic material) if warranted,
will be required.
Total organic carbon shall be analyzed using the methods described in the Puget Sound
Estuary Program (1986), Hedges and Stern (1984) or Verado et. al. (1990).
Samples for sediment analyses and macrobenthic infauna were collected on July 5,1994
using a 0.1 m2 Smith-MacIntyre benthic grab. Grabs were collected at each of twenty
stations at the project site. Sub samples of each grab which constituted less than one
quarter of the total grab sample were collected for sediment grain and total organic
carbon (TOC) analyses, placed in glass jars and maintained at 40C until analyzed.
Analyses for TOe were performed according to methods outlined in the EP A manual
(1988) for sediment testing and were conducted by H2M Labs Inc. of Melville, N.Y.
Samples were collected placed in glass jars with teflon or aluminum foil and cooled to
40C until analysis. Each test sample was treated with acid and heated to 750C to remove
inorganic carbon. The sample was then pyrolyzed in the presence of oxygen to remove
organic carbon, which was analyzed using gas chromatography, infrared detection, or
thermal conductivity detection.
TOC averaged between 388 mglkg at Station 2 to 2,230 mglkg at Station 10. Currently,
there are no established limits for TOC samples (Matthew Billerman, EEA- personal
communication).
Nevertheless, TOC is regarded as reflective of other estuarine enviromnents on eastern
Long Island.
Sediment grain size analyses were performed in accordance with methods set forth by the
American Society for Testing and Materials (1993), and conducted by Soil Mechanics
Drilling Corp. of Seaford, N.Y.. ']'l+er;~\'!1iia~i:~ii$i~tt~\:)hegllej.;eti:Jl!$~PPl::Ii~iii. Test
samples from each aggregate were dried in the laboratory to a constant mass at a
temperature oqX;Q,~~C. After mass determination, the each sample was washed through a
series of nested sieves of progressively smaller openings to determine particle size
distribution. After sufficient sieving, the mass of each increment was determined. The
masses of all increments were then added and compared to the mass of the original dry
sample. Ifthe values differed more than 0.3% based on the original dry sample weight,
the results were discarded and the test repeated.
The sediments are dominantly characterized as very fine to medium sand with traces of
silt. Stations ranged between 88.4% sand at station 10 to 98.8 % sand at stations 8 and 20.
The remainder of the percentage was comprised of gray silt. These small percentages of
silt indicate that there is little sedimentation due to the occurrence of high velocity current
at the proposed site.
Infauna
Objective: To establish reference data of existing benthic infauna. In this way future
changes to the infauna can be compared.
Methods: Infauna samples shall be sieved through a 0.5 mm sieve (collection techniques
are presented with metric measurements) and organisms identified as to species or to the
lowest practical taxonomic level. Single cores collected according to the proposed
sampling plan along the axis of the current. Cores must be inserted to resistance or 15 cm,
whichever is less. Depth of the core shall be r!::ported. Individual benthic infauna cores
collected by a diver shall have an area of at least 81cm2 ( (a four-inch diameter PVC pipe
will suffice). Alternatively, cores may be collected from a grab or box type corer having
an area of at least 0.1 m2 (1000 cm2) If sub samples are taken from a grab box type corer
for the sediment analysis and the remaining sample used for infauna analysis, no more
than one quarter of each sample may be removed for the sediment analysis.
The remaindel"l~~) of each of the previously mentioned 0.1 M2 Smith-MacIntyre grabs
collected on July 5, 1994 for the sediment and infaunal collection, was washed through a
0.5 mm mesh sieve to remove fine particles. Invertebrates retained by the sieve were
transferred to jars and preserved with buffered 10% formalin. Rose Bengal solution was
added to aid in later sorting ofthe organisms. Invertebrates were then sorted and
identified to the lowest practical taxonomic level.
i!llll~t~t!~~;~tl~Il,~f'p~~$e!ll.$~tel\1;el~~Wtilm.~p
The infauna is primarily dominated by polychaete worms in both number of species and
abundance of individual species. There are over 5300 described species of polychaetes
(Barnes, 1987). Polychaetes are very common in the marine environment, often
comprising as much as 40 to 80 percent of the infauna in a particular area. Therefore, it is
not surprising to find them dominant at the proposed site. Polychaetes primarily are
dioecious and reproduce sexually. Gametes usually develop as projections or swellings
within the body cavity rather than in distinct organs. Developing eggs are either released
into the water column, brooded or laid in masses and attached to various objects. After
gestation, all species develop into a larval form known as a trochophore. These may be
pelagic, feeding on plankton; or bottom dwelling and lecithotrophic (yolky and
nonfeeding). After this stage, the larva metamorphoses into an adult form. It is through
these means that the observed polychaetes are believed to have colonized the project site.
Sediment structure, particularly grain size, is a determining factor in what organisms
choose to live there as many species are restricted to certain types of sediment (Gray,
1974). Deposit feeders are often found dominant in silt/clay areas while suspension
feeders are often found dominant in sandy areas.
Polychaetes fall into one of two classifications: errant (free moving) or sedentary. Of the
species found at the site, nearly one third were errant forms. Most errant polychaetes are
carnivorous. However, some errant forms are omnivorous and use their jaws to feed on
algae and detritus. Some errant polychaetes are active burrowers in sand and mud while
others crawl about on the bottom among rocks and shells. Errant polychaete species
found at the site were as follows:
Arabella irieolor
Dri/onereis longa
Eumida sanguinea
Glyeera amerieana
Glyeera dibranehiata
Harmothoe imbrieata
Lumbrineris fragilis
Nephtys incisa
Nephtys pieta
Notoeirrus spiniferus
Pholoe minuta
Polynoidae sp.
Sigalion arenicola
Nephtys picta was the most dominate errant polychaete found. It was present at all of the
stations, whereas all other errant polychaete worms were found at four or less stations
and in lower numbers among all stations. Ranging from Cape Cod to South Carolina,
Nephtys picta is known to be an active predator of other invertebrates. It is not surprising
to find it at the proposed site, as it is a common burrower in sand or mud.
The remaining two thirds ofthe polychaetes found at the site were sedentary forms.
These sedentary polychaetes generally construct tubes or burrows into the bottom. They
may be deposit feeding or filter feeding. Some sedentary polychaetes are equipped with
special feeding structures with which they collect detritus and plankton from the sediment
or surrounding water. Material adheres to mucus secretions on these feeding structures
and is subsequently carried toward the mouth along ciliated tracts or grooves. The
sedentary polychaetes select digestible organic material from the mixture, discarding
non-preferred materials such as sand. The sedentary polychaete species found at the site
were as follows:
Ampharete arctica
Aricidia catherinae
Caulleriella killariensis
Cirratulus grandis
Clymenella zonalis
Magelona papillicornis
Mediomastus ambiseta
Ophelia denticulata
Orbinia ornata
Owenia fusiformis
Polydora ligni
Polydora socialis
Polydora sp.
Polygordius triestinus
Sabellaria vulgaris
Scolecolepides viridis
Scolelepis squamata
Spiophanes bombyx
Tharyx acutus
Travisia carnea
Mediomastus ambiseta was the most dominant sedentary polychaete, followed by
Aricidea catherinae, Spiophanes bombyx, and Polygordius triestinus. All of these species
were present at fifteen or more stations. All are infaunal burrowers and deposit feeders.
The remaining sedentary polychaetes species present at the site were observed in half of
the sample grabs or less and in lesser numbers.
Besides polychaete worms, other invertebrates common at the site include the bivalve
Tellina agiUs, and the amphipod Haustorius canadensis. Both ofthese species are also
active burrowers.
The fact that all of the dominant species at the proposed site are infaunal burrowers is not
surprising. The current velocities prevalent at the site are such that small surface dwelling
organisms would be easily swept away. The ability to burrow into the sediment allows
these animals to remain out of the current flow. High current velocity also inhibits many
of the tube building species as the sediments tend to be unstable. Therefore, tube building
forms were not found to be prevalent at the proposed site.
Sedimentation Conditions
On July 5, 1994, sediment samples we~e collected using a 0.1 m2 Smith-MacIntyre™
Benthic Grab. Twenty stations within the perimeter of the proposed net pen site were
chosen for sampling. Sediment grain and total organic carbon ("TOe") analyses were
performed with regard to standard methods previously described herein.
Sediment grain analysis revealed that the sediment in the area of the proposed net pens
consisted of high percentages (88.4% to 98.8 %) of very fine to medium grain sand. The
remaining percentage (1.2% to 11.6%) of sediment consisted of gray silt. There was
virtually no gravel or clay present in the sediment. During the diver survey, the bottom
proved to be highly unconsolidated. Attempts to obtain sediment cores were unsuccessful
because the sediment would not remain in the hand corer. This prevented the
determination of the discontinuity layer. The entire length of the 30.5 centimeter hand
corer penetrated the bottom with no resistance, further indicating the unconsolidated
nature of the sediments. Observations during the survey found that the overlying organic
layer to be highly variable and in constant motion. This lack of sediment compaction is
attributable to the high velocity currents prevalent throughout the area.
The sediment characteristics were evenly distributed throughout the proposed project site.
There were no significant differences in the percentages of sand and silt among the
stations. The lowest percentage of sand and consequently the highest percentage of silt
was present at Station 10 (88.4% and 11.6%, respectively).The highest percentage of
sand and lowest percentage of silt was found at Station 8 (98.8% and 1.2%, respectively).
The highly unconsolidated nature ofthe sediment coupled with the high velocity currents
and high oxygen content of the water column previously described herein, indicates that
any disturbances during construction will quickly dissipate, much as has been observed
with fish feed and fish feces at the site during mariculture activities. Furthermore, the site
contains several sporadically placed boulders, which make the area unsuitable for
commercial trawlers. These factors are important contributors to the successful
installation and operation of any offshore wind energy project that the site is ideal for the
placement of wind turbines.
Replenishment rates of sediment are low due to the high current velocities prevalent
throughout the area. Investigations of Plum Gut by divers revealed nothing but large
rocks and boulders on the bottom due to the tremendous volumes of water passing
. through the constriction. South and east of Plum Gut, a large gully cut into the bottom
further indicates the ability of the current to remove material. The unconsolidated nature
of the bottom at the net pen site indicates that these sediments are vulnerable to
movement by the current, resulting in low sediment accumulation.
Aquatic Ecology
VEGETATION - DESCRIBE PRESENCE AND AMOUNT EACH TYPE
The dive survey on September 7'h, 8t\ and 9th revealed two species of marine algae: Irish
Moss (Chondrus crispus) and the Common Kelp (Laminaria agardhii), occurring on and
near the grow out site. These algae were attached to the sparsely distributed boulders.
There were no algal species growing on the bottom sediments due to the scouring effect
of the current.
INVERTEBRATE SPECIES
The diver survey and the field survey indicated that several infaunal invertebrate species
inhabit the proposed demonstration project site. Besides these species, obviously there
are other more mobile species which could be present at any given time. The following is
a list of possible invertebrate species that could inhabit areas within and beyond the
proposed net pen site. Species whose presence were confirmed through the Table 10. For
a descriptive narrative on each of the species, several sources are recommended:
Kenneth L. Gosner's Peterson Field Guides -Atlantic Seashore (1978), E.L. Bousfield's
Shallow Water Gammaridian Amphipoda of New England, and Kristian Fauchald's The
Polychaete Worms. Definitions and Keys to the Orders. Families and Genera. (See
references for publication information.)
Table 10. Invertebrate Species Occurrence at the Gardiner's Bay Site
Known To Be PresenUby Time of Year
Common name Scientific name Occurrence
Long finned squid Loligo vealei April-November
Moon ielly Aurelia aurita spring-summer
Blue Crab Callinectes savidus summer
Lady Crab* Ovalipes ocellatus summer
Common name Scientific name Occurrence
Lion's mane Cyanea capillata summer
Sea nettle Chrysaora quinquecirrha summer
Ampharetid Worms* Ampharete arctica year round
Amphipod * Ampelisca abdita year round
Ampelisca vadorum year round
Ampelisca verrilli year round
Byblis serrata year round
Unciola irrorata year round
Gammarus oceanicus year round
Haustoriidae sp. year round
Acanthohaustorius mil/si year round
Haustorius canadensis year round
Monoculodes edwardsi year round
Leptocheirus pinguis year round
Paraphoxus epistomus year round
Arabellid Worms* Drilonereis longa year round
Arrow worm* Sazitta sp. year round
Bamboo Worm* Clymenella zonalis year round
Bamboo Worm* Owenia fusiformis year round
Bamacles* Balanus amphitrite year round
Blood Worms* Glycera dibranchiata year round
Glycera americana year round
Burrowing Scale Worm* Pholoe minuta year round
Burrowing Scale Worm* Sizalion arenicola year round
Black Clam* Arctica islandica year round
Blue mussel* Mytilus edulis year round
Channeled whelk* Busycon canaliculatum year round
Commensal Crabs* Pinnixa sp. year round
Pinnixa chaetopterana year round
Pinnixa sayana year round
Crescent Mitrella* Mitrella lunata year round
Cumacean* Oxyurostylis smithi year round
Flat Clawed Hermit Crab* Pagurus pollicaris year round
Flat worm* Phylum Rhynchocoela year round
Fringed Worm* Cirratulus grandis year round
Fringed Worms* Tharyx acutu year round
Horse shoe crab Limulus polyphemus year round
Frilled anemone Metridium senile year round
Gastropod* Utriculastra canaliculata year round
Glassy Lyonsia* Lvonsia hvalina year round
Green Crab Carcinus maenas year round
Horse mussel Modiolus modiolus year round
Common name Scientific name Occnrrence
Isopod * Cyathura polita year round
Oralana concharum year round
Chiridotea coeca year round
Edotea montosa year round
Sphaeroma quadridentatum year round
Salamae cocina year round
Knobbed whelk* Busvcon carica year round
Lacy Crust (bryozoa)* Callopora craticula year round
Membranipora tenuis year round
Lobed moonshell Polin ices diplicatus year round
Long Clawed Hermit Crab Paf!Urus lonJ!icarpus year round
Lumbrinerid Worms* Lumbrineris fraJ!i/is year round
Mantis shrimp Squilla empusa year round
Mud Worms* Polydora ligni year round
Mud Worms* Polydora socia lis year round
Mud Worms* Polvdora sp. year round
Mud Worms* Scolecolepides viridis year round
Mud Worms* Spiophanes bombvx year round
Near Nut Shell* Nucula proxima year round
New England Dog Whelk* Nassarius trivittatus year round
Northern lobster Homarus american us year round
Northern moonshell Lunatia heros year round
Odostomes* Odostomia sp. year round
Opal Worm* Arabella iricolor year round
Opal Worm* Notocirrus spiniferus year round
Opheliid Worms* Ophelia denticulata year round
Opheliid Worms* Travisia carnea year round
Orbiniid Worms* Aricidia catherina year round
Orbiniid Worms* Orbinia ornata year round
Ostracoda * Ostracoda sp. year round
Paddle Worm* Eumida sanf!Uinea year round
Rosy Magelonas* MaJ!elona papillicornis year round
Polychaeta* Polynoidae SP. year round
Polychaeta* Mediomastus ambiseta year round
Polychaeta* PolVJ!ordius tries tin us year round
Polychaeta* Scolelepis squamata year round
Polychaeta* Caulleriella killariensis year round
Purple Sea Urchin Arbacia punctulata year round
Pyramid Shell* Turbonilla nivea/stricta year round
QuahOg Mercenaria mercenaria year round
Razor clam* Ensis directus year round
Red Crust (bryozoa)* Schizoporella unicornis year round
Stephanosella sp. year round
Stomachetosell sinuosa year round
Common name Scientific name Occnrrence
Red-Lined Worms* Nephtys pi year round
Nephtys incisa year round
Rock Crab C:ancerirroratus vear round
Round worm* Class Nematoda vear round
Sand Builder Worm* Sabel/aria vulf<aris year round
Sand Dollar* Echinarachnius parma vear round
Scale Worm* Harmothoe imbricata vear round
Sea Star Asterias forbesii year round
Slipper Shell * C:repidula fornicata year round
Crepidula plana year round
Spider Crab Libinia emarf<inata vear round
Springtail* Anurida maritima year round
Surf clam* Spisula solidissima year round
Tellins* Tellina af!,iUs year round
As expected, the vast majority of invertebrate species found at the proposed net pen site
are present year round. A complete listing of invertebrates species found at the net pen
site via infaunal sampling is c()Il~~lill**,pp~d~~i. Polychaete worms (Class
Polychaeta). were the dominant invertebrate form found at the site. Polychaetes often
comprise as much as 40 to 80 percent ofthe infauna found in a particular area (Barnes,
1987). The second most dominant group of invertebrates present at the site were ofthe
Class Crustacea, particularly the Garnmeridian Amphipods (Order Amphipoda). The
Amphipods most prevalent were those species which burrow in the sediment.
The third and fourth most dominant group at the site were of the Phylum Mollusca. Of
this Phylum, members of the Class Bivalvia, particularly the species Tellina agiUs, which
actively burrows in the sediments, were most abundant. Also, several species of the Class
Gastropoda were present at some of the stations. These included the channeled whelk
(Busycon canaliculatum) and knobbed whelk (Busycon carica).
The remaining benthic community consisted of Bryozoans (Phylum Bryozoa), Nemertean
Worms (phylum Rhynchocoela); Round Worms (Phylum Aschelminthes, Class
Nematoda); Hydroids (Phylum Cnidaria, Class Hydrozoa); and Arrow Worms (Phylum
Chaetognatha). Many of these forms were present at only a few stations, and some only
one station. Their occurrences consisted ofless than five individuals at anyone station. In
general; the benthic community was distributed sparsely throughout the site.
BENTHOS
a.
Benthic Infauna
A benthic infaunal analysis was conducted by EEA, Inc., oll}ulr5: 1994 at twenty
stations throughout the proposed wind farm/net pen site ($!ilelFig.:....0. Among the
organisms identified, 74 were identified to the species level; eight were to the genus
level; and three were to some higher taxonomic level. The organisms identified by this
analysis, the number of stations each was present at and the total number of individuals
are listed Table II below:
Table 11.
Benthic Fauna Identified and Counted at the Mariculture/Winergy
Site
Number of Total
Stations Nnmber of
Common Name Scientific Name Present Animals
Flat worm Phylum Rhvnchocoela I I
Round worm Class Nematoda 6 12
Arrow worm Sagitta sp. I I
Red Crust (bryozoa) Schizoporella unicornis 4 7
Stephanosella sp. 2 3
Stomachetosell sinuosa 2 3
Lacy Crust (bryozoa) Callopora craticula I I
Membranipora tenuis 4 15
Slipper Shell Crepidula fornicata 4 14
Crepidula plana 4 20
Crepidula sp. 2 17
Crescent Mitrella Mitrella lunata 3 4
New England Dog Whelk Nassarius trivittatus 9 21
Odostomes Odostomia sv. I I
Pyramid Shell Turbonilla nivea/stricta 2 2
Gastropod Utriculastra canaliculata I I
Channeled whelk Busvcon canaliculatum 2 2
~obbed whelk Busvcon carica 2 2
Glassy Lyonsia Lvonsia hvalina I I
Black Clam Arctica islandica I I
Near Nut Shell Nucula proxima I 2
Tellins Tellina af!ilis 18 104
Surf clam Svisula solidissima 5 6
Blue mussel Mvtilus edulis I I
Razor clam Ensis directus 2
Red-Lined Worms Nephtys picta 20 150
Nephtys incisa 4 6
Number of Total
Stations Number of
Common Name Scientific Name Preseut Animals
Polychaeta Polynoidae sp. 1 5
Mediomastus ambiseta 19 242
Polygordius triestinus 19 66
Caulleriella killariensis 8 8
Scolelepis squamata 4 8
Opal Worms Arabella iricolo 1 3
Notocirrus spiniferus I 1
Arabellid Worms Dri/onereis IOnJm 3 3
Scale Worm Harmothoe imbricata I I
Burrowing Scale Worm Pholoe minuta 1 3
Sigalion arenicola 2 2
Lumbrinerid Worms Lumbrineris fraf!ilis 1 I
Blood Worms Glycera dibranchiata 1 1
Glycera americana I 1
Paddle Worm Eumida sanf!Uinea I 1
Orbiniid Worms Aricidia catherinae 17 120
Orbinia ornata 4 4
Sand Builder Worm Sabellaria vulf!aris 3 18
Mud Worms Spiophanes bombyx 15 77
Scolecolepides viridis 5 24
Polydora socialis 3 16
Polydora ligni 1 I
Polydora sp. 1 2
Fringed Worms Tharyx acutus 10 22
Cirratulus grandis I 1
Opheliid Worms Travisia carnea 10 19
Ophelia denticulata I I
Amoharetid Worms Amvharete arctica 4 8
Rosy Maf!elonas Maf!elona vavillicornis 6 8
Bamboo Worm Owenia fusiformis 4 4
Clymenella zonalis 2 2
Springtail Anurida maritima 2 3
Ostracoda Ostracoda sp. 14 36
Barnacles Balanus amvhitrite 5 78
Cumacean Oxyurostylis smithi I 1
Isopod Cyathura polita 2 2
Cirolana concharum 1 I
Chiridotea coeca 9 18
Edotea montosa 1 I
Sphaeroma quadridentatum I 1
Salamae cocina 2 4
Number of Total
Stations Number of
Common Name Scientific Name Present Animals
Amphipod Ampelisca abdita 4 10
Ampelisca vadorum 10 53
Ampelisca verrilli 3 90
Byblis serrata I I
Unciola irrorata 7 20
Gammarus oceanicus 2 2
Haustoriidae sp. 3 14
Acanthohaustorius millsi 2 3
Haustorius canadensis 14 152
Monoculodes edwardsi I 2
Leptocheirus pinguis I 2
Paraphoxus epistomus 16 49
Flat Clawed Hermit Crab PaKl/rus pollicaris 20 20-30
Commensal Crabs Pinnixa sp. 3 5
Pinnixa chaetopterana I I
Pinnow sayana 4 9
Lady Crab Ovalipes ocel/atus 4 4
Sand Dollar Echinarachnius parma 3 6
As previously discussed herein, the benthic community is dominated by polychaete
worms. Of the polychaetes, the species Mediomastus ambiseta and Nephtys picta were
the most prevalent followed by Aricidia catherinae, Spiophanes bombyx, and
Polygordius triestinus. Other species found to be common include the bivalve Tellina
agilis and the amphipod Haustorius canadensis. All of these species were present at
fifteen or more stations.
As indicated above, all species were represented by less than 250 individuals with 20
stations. Only five species were represented by more than 100 individuals within twenty
stations. This demonstrates the sparseness of the community structure. Station # 5 had the
highest density of 250 individuals present. Research of benthic fauna have revealed
densities greater than 1000 individuals per m3 in marine sublittoral communities (Day et.
aI., 1989). A complete list of all species including their distiibution and abundance for all
statlqua at the pr~posed Site in contained in Appendix .
All of the species found to be dominant at the wind farm site are infaunal burrowers. This
is not surprising as the current velocities prevalent throughout the area makes the area
unsuitable for other forms. None ofthe benthic infaunal species identified are listed as
protected or rare and endangered.
Predator - prey relationships are important in understanding the interactions between
different aspects of a community.
The relationships between the plankton, benthos and nekton (fishes) can be described in
terms of trophic levels through an analysis ofthe food web. An investigation of the food
web existing in the area of the wind farm site was performed. The results of this analysis
is depicted in Fig 5.
Seals
~
Ospray.
Primar:y~
Predators
Summer Flounder
Striped Bass
Bluefish
Weakfish
Sea Robin
Secondary~ ..
SQ.u.id
Predators
Winter Flounder
Blackfish
Silverbacks
Anchovy
~
.EB!
QQgfish
Skates
Turtles
Crustacea
L
SmaU.
Invertebrates
L
Zooplankton
Eb,yjQplankton
FIG 5. REPRESENTATIVE FOOD WEB IN GARDINER'S BAY.
The main linear food chain runs from the plankton to the small benthic macro
invertebrates which are eaten by the secondary fish predators, which in turn are eaten by
the major predatory fishes. The major predatory fish and secondary fish are subsequently
preyed upon by seals, osprey and gulls. This food web represents a model food web for
the geographic area around Gardiner's Bay.
FINFISH SPECIES
Finfish are more difficult to enumerate because of their greater mobility. In addition,
many species are seasonal, migrating from one geographical area to another. Table 12 is a
list of species expected to be present in the area of the proposed net pen site as well as the
time of the year which they would occur. Species that were confirmed as present at the
site during the diver survey are marked with an asterisk (*). Detailed descriptions of each
species are located in Peterson Field Guides Atlantic Coast Fishes (1986) by C. Richard
Robins, G. Carlton Ray and John Douglass. (See references for complete publication
information. )
Table 12.
Common name
Atlantic Mackerel
Bluefish
Shee shead
Stri ed Bass
Alewife
American Shad
Atlantic Herrin
Atlantic Menhaden
Blueback Herrin
Cleamose Skate
Weakfish
Window ane
Kin Mackerel
Atlantic Bonito
Atlantic Needlefish
Ball hoo
Butterfish
Gra Tri erfish
Halfbeak
Little Skate*
Little TullO
Northern Puffer
Northern Star azer
Finfish Species Occurrence at the Gardiner's Bay Site
Occurrence
summer
summer
summer
summer
summer
summer
summer
summer
summer
Common name Suecies name Occurrence
Sharksucker Echeneis naucrates summer
Striped Mullet MUf!.il cenhalus summer
Summer Flounder Paralichthvs dentata summer
African Pompano Alectis ciliaris summer (young)
Atlantic Moonfish Selene setavinnis summer (young)
Atlantic Tomcod Microgadus tomcod summer (young)
Banded Rudderfish Seriola zonata summer (younJ1;)
BiJ1;eve Priacanthus arenatus summer (younJ1;)
Bluespotted Cornetfish Fistularia tabacaria summer (younJ1;)
Cobia Rachycentron canadum summer (younJ1;)
Crevalle Jack Caranx hinnos summer (younJ1;)
Florida Pompano Trachinotus carolinus summer (younJ1;)
Flying Gurnard Dactylovterus volitans summer (young)
Foureve Butterflyfish Chaetodon cavistratus summer (young)
Greater Amberiack Seriola dumerili summer (younJ1;)
Grev Snapper Lutianus fTriseus summer (younJ1;)
Leather Jacket Oligovlites saurus summer (younJ1;)
Lookdown Selene vomer summer (younJ1;)
Northern Sennet Sphraena borealis summer (young)
OranJ1;e Filefish Aluterus schoevfi summer (younJ1;)
Permit Trachinotus falcatus summer (younJ1;)
Planehead Filefish Monacanthus hisvidus summer (younJ1;)
Pollock Pol/achius virens summer (young)
Red Hake Urovhvcis chuss summer (young)
Short Bigeye Pristif!.envs alta summer (vounJ1;)
Silver Hake Merluccius bilinearis summer (young)
Silver Jenny Eucinostomus f!.Ula summer (younJ1;)
Snowy Grouper Evinevhelus niveatus summer (younJ1;)
Spotfin Butterflvfish Chaetodon ocel/atus summer (younJ1;)
Spotted Hake Urovhysis regia summer (young)
Yellow Jack Caranx bartholomaei summer (younJ1;)
Smooth Dogfish Mustelis canis summer-fall
Bamdoor Skate Raia laevis winter
Winter Skate Raja ocel/ata winter
American Eel Anquilla rostrata year round (young)
summer (adults)
American Sand Lance Ammodytes americanus year round
Atlantic Silverside Menidia menidia year round
Bay Anchovy Anchoa mitchilli year round
Black Sea Bass Centrovristis striata year round
Blackfish Tautorza onitis year round
Conger Eel Conrzer oceanicus year round
Cunner Tautorzolabrus adspersus year round
Fourspot Flounder Paralichthvs oblonrzus year round
Common name
Goosefish
Grubb Sculpin
Ho Choker
Inshore Lizardfish
Lumpfish
Northern Searobin
Oster Toadfish
Scu
Sea Raven
Sine Do fish
Stri ed Blenny
Stri ed Searobin*
White Perch
Winter Flounder
Atlantic Stur eon
Shortnose Stur eon
S ecies name
Lophius americanus
M oxoce halus aenaeus
Trinectes maculatus
Synodus oetens
Cyclo terus lumpus
* Prionotus carolinus
o sanus tau
Stenotomus ch so s
Hemitri terus americanus
S ualus acanthias
Chasm odes bos uianus
Prionotus evolans
Morone americana
Pleuronectes american us
Aci enser 0 rh nchus
Aci enser brevirostrum
Occurrence
ear round
ear round
ear round
ear round
ear round
year round
ear round
ear round
year round
year round
year round
year round
year round
year round
year round (rare)
year round (rare)
Many of the species listed are seasonal residents of the proposed wind farm site, staying
only a few months out of the year. Several will only pass through the area on their way to
and from their spawning grounds in the Peconic Estuary or in areas around Long Island
Sound. Many ofthe summer residents are juveniles of species normally found far to the
South. These juveniles are often carried by the northerly flow of the Gulf Steam, and
subsequently swept into the Gardiner's Bay on the incoming tide. If these organisms do
not become prey to larger fish, such as Fluke and Bluefish, they perish when water
temperatures drop below their tolerance during the colder months.
HABITAT
The habitat at the wind farm site consists of flat bottom with a few sporadically-placed
boulders. The sediments consist oflarge percentages of unconsolidated, fine, gray sand.
High currents throughout the area promote high oxygen concentrations in the sediment
and in the water column. The high current velocities restrict benthic populations to those
that have the ability to burrow into the sediments and avoid being swept away. In
addition, little sedimentation occurs because most particles are carried away with the
current. Consequently, the benthic community is sparse due to the lack of food and
unconsolidated nature of the sediments. Furthermore, aquatic vegetation is sparsely
distributed over the site.
The presence of wind turbine bases and moorings, there will be more surface area for
animals to colonize. Block anchors would have more exposed surface area than would
screw type anchors. None of the proposed bases will have a deleterious effect upon the
bottom, which will essentially remain in the same condition as currently exists.
Upon completion ofthe wind project, the environment will be transformed from
primarily a two-dimensional bottom to a three-dimensional habitat, much like an artificial
reef. The addition of three-dimensional structures introduces surfaces for encrusting and
adhering organisms to colonize. This in turn attracts small fishes to the area for food and
shelter from predators. In addition, the presence of these small fish attract predators in
hopes of finding food themselves. As with the placement of artificial reefs, it is expected
that the placement wind turbine bases will increase the amount of habitat available to
various organisms. This was the case when the net pens were present within the area.
At the Middelgrunden wind farm in Copenhagen harbor, fishing boats set up nets not
more than a few hundred yards off the concrete bases of the turbines, finding that the fish
are actually drawn to the structure that the foundations provide.
WILDLIFE
Sea Turtles
The most common sea turtles that strand in Long Island waters are the loggerhead
(Caretta caretta) and Kemp's Ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) turtles (Gaftney, 1993). The
distribution of the loggerhead includes the subtropical waters, continental shelves and
estuaries along the coasts of the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans.
In the western Atlantic, the loggerhead ranges from as far north as Newfoundland to as
far south as Argentina and Chile (NRC.,1990). In 1978, the Loggerhead was listed as
threatened throughout its range by the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973.
Adult and sub adult loggerheads are primarily predators of benthic mollusks and
crustaceans. Coelenterates and cephalopod mollusks are a large part of the diet of turtles
in their pelagic stage. Additionally, posthatchling loggerheads ingest macroplankton
found along weed lines in the sargassum raft community. Finally, loggerheads have been
known to occasionally scavenge fish and fish parts.
The loggerhead's primary nesting sites are located on the Atlantic coast beaches of
Florida. Nesting also occurs in Georgia, the Carolinas and along the gulf coast of Florida.
Mating takes place in late March to early June before the nesting season which occurs
from May to July along the Southeastern U.S. coast. Females usually select steeply
sloped, high energy barrier beaches with a gradually sloped offshore approach. Nesting
occurs at night. Clutch size averages between 100-126 eggs. Females may nest one to
seven times per season. Incubation ranges from 54 to 63 days depending on temperature.
After hatching, the juveniles enter the sea and engage in a swimming frenzy which takes
them 22-28 km offshore, where they become associated with sargassum rafts. In this
pelagic stage, they may spend 3 to 5 years circumnavigating the Atlantic before they
migrate to near shore and estuarine habitats along the eastern U.S. and begin their sub
adult stage. It is during this latter stage that loggerhead turtles may enter the Peconic -
Gardiner's Bay Estuary system. There are no nesting sites for the loggerhead in New
York waters.
In the western Atlantic, Kemp's Ridley turtles are present as far north as Long Island,
New York and Vineyard Sound, Massachusetts. However, most are found in the Gulf of
Mexico (NRC, 1990). The northern extent of this range seems to be a result of hatchlings
becoming caught in the Gulf Stream current and taken northward. It is uncertain that
these turtles have the migratory capability of returning to the Gulf of Mexico. Even so,
adults are almost entirely found in the Gulf of Mexico. The Kemp's Ridley is listed as an
endangered species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
Adult, sub adult and juvenile Kemp's Ridley turtles feed on crabs and other invertebrates.
Hatchling feeding behavior has not been observed in the wild, but it is presumed that they
feed on a variety of organisms found in the pelagic region ofthe Gulf of Mexico.
The beach at Rancho Nuevo in the Gulf of Mexico is the primary nesting area for Kemp's
Ridley turtles. Males and females congregate near the nesting site to mate several weeks
before the nesting season in April- June. The females emerge to lay the first clutch four
weeks after mating. Many females gather offshore of the beach and then come ashore
together to lay their eggs in a synchronized fashion over a period of several hours.
Nesting occurs during the day with females laying an average of 105 eggs per clutch.
Incubation time of Kemp's Ridley turtles averages 50-55 days. The growth rates of wild
hatchlings are unknown, but studies indicate that it may take 6 to 7 years for a turtle to
reach adult size. There are no breeding and nesting areas for the Kemp's Ridley turtle in
New York waters.
In Long Island waters, Sea turtles face various threats to their survival in Long Island
waters, including entanglement in lobster-pot lines or other floating lines and entrapment
in pound nets (NRC, 1990). Furthermore, necropsies on sea turtles have indicated that
ingestion of plastics and floatable debris is the cause of considerable mortality. Cold
stunning, particularly for Kemp's Ridleys, causes mortality as the ambient water
temperature drops during the fall months. The phenomenon of cold stunning may account
for the greatest degree of mortality in New York waters.
The potential impact to sea turtle populations resulting from this proj ect as proposed is
regarded as insignificant as plastic or other floatable debris will not be released into the
water column, thereby eliminating this potential impact to the Kemp's Ridley.
Harbor Seals
A small colony of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) were observed utilizing the rocky
shoreline of eastern Plum Island. The harbor seal is a circumpolar species associated with
in the northern cold and temperate waters (B;oll!let,ii19~~. In the western North
Atlantic, the harbor seal ranges from the southern coasts of Greenland to the eastern
shores of Baffin Island and Hudson Bay to the New York Byte ~g,i1983). Occasional
stragglers are reported from Virginia and North Carolina. Unlike other species, harbor
seals are not found on ice flows, preferring to remain in areas that are kept ice free by
currents. Harbor seals, known to follow rivers to fresh water, are usually found in fairly
concentrated colonies on sand and mud banks in river estuaries or as more dispersed
populations along rocky shoreline.
Pups are born between mid-May and mid-June in Nova Scotia and late June to early July
in the more Arctic regions ofthe seal's range. Three or four weeks after birth, the pups
are weaned and begin to feed on small invertebrates until they learn to catch live fish,
which constitutes the preferred prey of the harbor seal. Mating commences after the pups
are weaned.
As with other species, harbor seals feed on whatever fish species that are most readily
found in the vicinity. Harbor seals will feed on both pelagic or bottom fishes, having no
preference for either, and will also feed upon invertebrates.
In New York waters, there are various threats to seal populations. Commercial fisherman
regard the seal as an important competitor for fish resources. Because of damage to the
fisheries, a bounty was place upon the seals from 1927 to 1976 ~~gi!~:~~~}; Dwindling
fishery stocks also threaten seals as their food source disappears. Seals have been known
to be caught in gill and trammel nets in near shore waters off the California coast, but
there is little evidence of entrapment in New York waters. In Long Island waters, most
seal strandings are probably due to disease and ingestion of floatable debris.
There is evidence to support the notion that harbor seals have the ability to readily adapt
to human presence. For example, reportsofharbor seals becoming accustomed to boat
traffic is well documented (l:IQ)'tller,1!~90). Additionally, harbor seals have been known
to frequent coastal areas utilized for mariculture activities without consequence. Even if
harbor seals were to become entangled in the predator control nets at the project site,
their immediate rescue would be achieved as part of the monitoring operations conducted
by on site divers.
Osprey
Ospreys (Pandion haliaetus) are widely distributed throughout the world. What was once
the largest known breeding colony of ospreys existed on Plum Island (~~!'!t;i~~~1).
Charles Slover Allen (~!!9g) first visited the island in 1879. The owners at that time
claimed that over 2000 ospreys roosted nightly on the island and that over 500 nests had
been built there. Subsequently, Mr. Allen reduced those number by one half and, in 1885,
the island was sold to a syndicate who planned to develop the island. In the late 1800's,
most of the ospreys from Plum Island are believed to have moved to nearby Gardiner's
Island, which in 1961 held the largest breeding colony known ~l:ll1it;1119f$1). Since the
1970's, numerous nesting platforms have been constructed on Plum Island. Currently
there are 16 osprey pairs that nest every year on the island (Ed Hasseldine- Personal
communication). The osprey have been observed feeding on herring in the shallow water
along the south shore of the island.
From the 1950's to the 1970's, populations crashed primarily due to the widespread use
ofDDT, which was implicated as thec~lls~tiyea$entforegg thinning, resulting in high
mortality among osprey hatchlings ~llt'I~!:l~~~t'l!I;;<I~iliili). The osprey was placed on the
American Birds Blue List from 1972 to 1981. It was upgraded to Special Concern in
1982, and to Local Concern in 1986. Thereafter, the osprey was listed as a threatened
species by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Today,
coastal populations of the osprey have largely recovered aided by the DDT ban and
conservation programs, including the placement of nesting platforms near the shoreline.
Ospreys prefer to inhabit areas near the shorelines of freshwater lakes and rivers as well
as coastal estuaries such as those on Long Island. Ospreys are seasonal visitors to Long
Island, migrating from wintering grounds in Chile and Argentina each spring to nest and
raise their young. Often, their nests can be seen on top of poles along the shoreline
particularly on the eastern end of Long Island. Ospreys build their nests out of sticks,sseaweed, sod and occasionally rubbish.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
WINERGY POWER REQUEST FOR A PERMIT
FOR A DEMONSTRATION OFFSHORE WIND PARK
The world is casting about for new sources of energy. Prices for carbon-based fuels are rising and
our dwindling domestic oil and gas supplies are subject to disruption, as demonstrated by recent
hurricane activity in the Gulf of Mexico.
Our civilization runs on energy, particularly electricity and liquid fuels. This proposed project is
about electricity, from an abundant, ancient resource that is renewed daily as sure as the sun sets
and rises. This is about converting the energy in the wind into bulk electricity.
While new methods of melting, cracking, and drilling through rocks and dirt and burning the
yield are furiously pursued worldwide, another industry has emerged that has a development
potential that, after tens of millennia, people have only begun to tap. It is as large as any known
resource and will never be depleted. The handwriting is on the wall for the fossil-fuel era, but no
words will ever end the wind.
An estimated 85% of all human population lives close to water. The great population centers of
the coasts, particularly in the Northeastern United States, are the country's largest consumers of
electric power. A high tension, thinly-drawn network of transmission and distribution wires
delivers electricity from power plants sited both far and near. Always, it is never enough. The
margins are more difficult to maintain. Fuel costs rise, the need for tighter restrictions on
emissions increases, plants must be built farther and farther away, and power is lost in the
transmitting.
Just offshore, on either coast, resides an ocean over which the winds have blown since the waters
formed billions of years ago. Modern wind turbine generators have been developed to ever-higher
electricity producing capacities, to operate in an increasingly wider range of environments and
climates. Over the past decade and a half, they have been built to function while standing in the
water, transmitting their output to land.
This has happened none too soon. As fuel supplies dwindle, become more expensive, as power
plants become harder to site and more expensive because of the required emissions controls, as
the problem of nuclear waste continues to be insoluble, machinery has been developed to tap an
enormous resource that is located close to most human urban agglomerations. Offshore wind
power is that resource or, considering the enormous energy available from sunshine alone and all
the waves, tides and currents in the ocean, it is the largest, most affordable resource close at hand.
It must be done in the water, where the resource is, where land values are not an issue, where
housing, commerce, civil services and industry do not impinge on every open area. Full
development of the wind resource is a coastal, water-dependent activity.
The resource is enormous, that is known. Large wind turbines have been developed that can
function for decades in a marine environment. Experiences in Europe have shown that fish
populations increase when vertical structures are put in place below the ocean's surface.
i of4
There is no experience with this technology in the United States. Various projects have been
proposed, but no permits have yet been granted for large wind farms. Several European nations
have chosen to "get their feet wet" with the technology by first allowing the construction of small
demonstration projects. Such projects give regulatory agencies, utilities, various relevant
scientific communities, marine engineering and construction firms, and the general public a
chance to familiarize themselves with offshore wind energy conversion and its impacts on the
utility, natural, civil, economic and social environments.
This proposal by Winergy Power offers an appropriate opportunity for the United States to have
its own offshore demonstration project. The project site is already removed from the Public Trust
and has undergone a full environmental review. This site has already been used and will be used
in the future for commercial fish farming activities. Electricity generated by the wind turbines
will enter a grid segment that is among the weakest on Long Island, and operated by a utility that
has proposed its own offshore wind park.
The site is in many ways ideal for a demonstration project, one that can provide the United States
with the experience it needs to safely, effectively, and quickly begin development of the
enormous energy resource of offshore wind which, by several estimates, far exceeds the energy
requirements of the entire country for all uses. This demonstration project can be an important
step in the process of developing a resource that will contribute the energy independence for the
United States.
The Site
The site was selected on the basis of the assets associated within the site:
. The site has the benefit of a completed FEIS
. Wind data associated with the site was available and shows a Class 4-5 wind regime
. The area is not used by local fishermen
. The site has been removed from the Public Trust and has the benefit of a lease from the state
of New York that runs through 2037
. Water depth is shallow (less than 10 fathoms) and insurance is available
. Accessibility for use as a demonstration project
In our studies, we were unable to locate a similar site anywhere within state waters that has this
combination of attributes. As a result, we propose no alternatives to this site. This is in
compliance with NEPA and SEQRA if the site is unique, or one of a kind.
The Project
The proposed RD&D (research, development and demonstration) project, involving the
placement of three utility-scale wind turbines at an offshore site, will run for a period of 10 years.
When the RD&D interval is complete, the project will be decommissioned and the site will
continue in its function of an already permitted offshore fish farm for the balance of the lease.
This project offers to the country an alternative to similar but larger proposals of offshore wind
farms. This project offers an opportunity to evaluate the impacts associated with offshore wind
farms in a much more manageable scale, i.e., three wind turbines in a 200 acre area, operating
iiof4
within an established time frame, rather than scores of turbines permitted and placed within Public
Trust waters of the United States without the benefit of assessing the impacts on a smaller scale.
Access to the project will be made available to institutions of higher learning for studies that they
wish to conduct, the regulatory community, scientific organizations and, of course, K-12. Within
our offices, we will conduct seminars for all of the above and arrange field trips for interested
parties.
Our model was created by following the example of the Blyth offshore project in England, where
two turbines were constructed offshore in an R&D project to assess the impacts prior to granting
tracts of ocean bottom from the Crown Estates for larger developments. England is now on its
way to achieving energy independence and has seen an improvement (although slight) in its local
air quality.
Coastal Zone Management Plan
The National Coastal Zone Management (CZMP) is a unique federal-state partnership for
protecting, restoring, and responsibly developing the nation's important and diverse coastal
communities and resources. This is the mission of the National CZM Program and its 33 state and
territory-based Coastal Management Programs. Through NOAA's responsibilities under the
. CZMA, the OCRM works with the coastal and Great Lakes states and U.S. island territories to
develop and implement these Coastal Management Programs. Under these Programs, states and
territories agree to work toward balancing the conservation and development of coastal resources
using state and territorial management authorities, thereby providing for the sustainable
development of the nation's coasts.
Winergy Power believes that, in addressing the coastal zone issues, included as Appendix V of
this request for a permit, our activity is coastal dependent and thereby water dependent. This is in
keeping with the mission of the national CZM program to which New York State is a signatory.
Essential Fish Habitat
The proposed site has the benefit of 10 years worth of data as it relates to essential fish habitat, as
documented in Appendix VI of this request for a permit. There will temporary disturbances of
this habitat that will occur during construction and decommission but, as has been shown, the
placement of pilings within the water column usually increases the bio-diversity within the area.
Endangered Species Act
The proposed site already has the benefit of a completed Section 7 review for fish farming
activities (included as Appendix VII). During operation of the fish farm, and as documented in
the reports that were submitted to both the DEC and NMFS, no entanglements or incidents were
reported for a period of 3 years.
The placement of pilings and the presence of jackup barge legs within the area will create a
three-dimensional environment that will serve as an artificial reef in attracting additional marine
activity to the area. Winergy Power concludes, based on this and the body of knowledge already
iii of4
available about the site, that this project will pose no threat to the endangered species within the
area.
Based upon this data, Winergy Power concludes that the essential fish habitat will only be
enhanced by the placement of these structures and the impacts associated with the placements
will be of a positive nature.
Fishermen
The proposed site (200 acres) has the benefit of an FEIS and was permitted as a fish farm. The
site was chosen with the cooperation of fishermen, both commercial and recreational. It was
located so as to have little impact on their fishing activities. The proposed site for the wind farm
occupies the space allotted for the fish farm, which was chosen with input from all the local
fishermen over the course of a 2 year period.
Based upon the diligence that was conducted in site selection for the fish farm, and the agreement
with fishermen, this site will pose no further infringement on the fishing activities off the North
Fork.
CONCLUSION
The proposed Winergy Power offshore wind demonstration project would provide U.S. public
agencies, institutions and the general public an opportunity to become familiar with a large
renewable energy conversion machinery that is being exploited in numerous other countries. As
of August 2005, 22 offshore wind projects featuring nearly 400 hundred wind turbines are now in
operation in waters offshore of Europe and Asia, and the industry is set to expand dramatically.
Although the Winergy Power project is small, it introduces an innovative base technology, a
jackup barge, and by itse1fwill displace the need to bum 75,000 barrels of oil per year.
The project location is an already-permitted, leased area that has undergone a complete EIS for
commercial fish farming activities. The area is removed from the Public Trust through 2037, and
far enough from any population centers so that viewshed controversies will be avoided in
advance. No commercial fishing activities occur in the project area, which has few sport or
commercially interesting fish in residence. Site surveys performed for the fish farm revealed an
austere seabed that is constantly scoured by currents. The site is not one favored for essential life
functions by fish or marine mammals. Although many fish species do pass through the area, they
do not congregate there, so the site is not one that is attractive to avian predators.
The presence of a three-turbine offshore wind demonstration project is likely to enhance the small
Eco-tourism industry in the area, which is now confined to farm stands and wineries. The project
will also serve as a desirable destination for K-12 educational visits, which will be supplemented
by formal presentations at Winergy Power's offices.
Winergy Power is committed to providing access to the site for in-kind scientific studies and for
utility personnel to gain experience with this exciting clean bulk power renewable energy
technology. This project will demonstrate the operations, benefits and visual experience of utility-
scale offshore wind farming, and possibly encourage further development of this concept
elsewhere in U.S. coastal waters.
ivof4
Land Management Overview
I Land Managementl Planning
Departmental Directory
Land Management>> Planning>> Overview
Contact:
Jefferson Murphree, Division of Planning and Development
Administrator
116 Hampton Road
Southampton, NY 11968
Telephone: (631) 287-5707
Fax: (631) 287-0262
8:30 am - 4:00 pm
M-F/Excluding Holidays
The Department of Land Management was created by resolution of
the Town Board. The professional, techinical and administrative
staff and functions of the Department of Land Management are
organized by five divisions: Planning, Building and Zoning,
Environment, Community Preservation and Administration. The
Department of Land Management also provides staff support to the
independent but allied office of the Town Business Development
Center providing a wide range of business related services through a
unique partnership with the State University of New York and the
Suffolk County Department of Economic Development. Under the
direction of the Town Planning and Development Administrator, the
Department of Land Management is responsible for interpretation,
coordination and enforcement of the following chapters of the Code
of the Town of Southampton, New York:
. Chapter 123
. Chapter 13 8
. Chapter 157
. Chapter 169
. Chapter 231
. Chapter 243
. Chapter 247
. Chapter 292
. Chapter 325
. Chapter 330
Building Construction
Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas
Environmental Quality Review
Flood Damage Prevention
Nature Preserve
Old Filed Maps
Open Space
Subdivision of Land
Freshwater Wetlands
Zoning
http://www.town.southampton.ny.us/listing.ihtml ?cat= Land Management&id=40
Page 1 of2
EAF Part
F.O.I.L.R.
Guideline~
Lighting F
Long Ran
Overview
Planning J
Site Plan,
Subdivisic
Wetland F
10/28/2005
Land Management Overview
Page 20f2
. Town Bd Res. Community Preservation Project Plan
#569-5/19/00
DEPARTMENTAL MISSION AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The Departmental of Land Management's mission is focused on
providing the highest level of service to the citizens of Southampton.
The overall mission statement of the Department is as follows:
. Administer, coordinate, develop and enforce all land
development and environmental programs, procedures and
regulations.
. Process all land development applications in a timely and
efficient manner.
. Undertake and implement short and long range plans to guide
land development and conservation of the natural
environment.
. Promote and support business retention and attraction.
. Provide professional and technical support services to the
Planning, Zoning, Conservation, Architectual Review and
Licensing Review Boards and citizen and related advisory
committees appointed by the Town Board.
. Manage and participate in the planning of capital
improvements, environmental conservation and related
projects and programs.
The responsibility for the Department of Land Management are
organized by division and office. They are structured to achieve the
mission of the Department of Land Management and to support the
mission of it's allied and other Town Departments.
http://www.town.southampton.ny.us/listing.ihtml?cat=Land Management&id=40
10/28/2005
'"
What are the
different types
of big-boxes?
There are four major subgroups used to categorize big-box retail
formats: discount department stores, category killers, outlet stores
and warehouse clubs,
Discount
Department
Stores
Discount department stores, ranging from 80,000 square feet to
130,000 square feet, offer a wide variety of merchandise including
automotive parts and services, housewares, home furnishings,
apparel and beauty aids, This group includes retailers such as
Target, Wal-Mart and Kmart.'
Category
Killers
Category killers, ranging from 20,000 square feet to 120,000 square
feet, offer a large selection of merchandise and low prices in a par-
ticular type of product category, This group includes retailers such
as Circuit City, Office Depot, Sports Authority, Lowe s, Home Depot
and Toys 'R "Us.
Outlet
Stores
Outlet stores, ranging from 20,000 square feet to 80,000 square
feet, are typically the discount arms of major department stores
such as Nordstrom Rack and J.C. Penny Outlet. In addition, manu-
facturers such as Nike, Bass Shoes and Burlington Coat Factory
have retail outlet stores.
Warehouse
Clubs
Warehouse clubs, ranging from 104,000 square feet to 170,000
square feet, offer a variety of goods, in bulk, at wholesale prices.
However, warehouse clubs provide a limited number of product
items (5,000 or less). This group includes retailers such as
Costco Wholesale, Pace, Sam s Club and B] s Wholesale Club.
2A new generation of 'supercenters "in this retail category range from 100,000 square feet
to 210,000 square feet.
4