New Community Wind Collaborative – Nantucket · 2011. 2. 6. · Black & Veatch Holding Company. Massachusetts Technology Collaborative Community Wind Collaborative – Nantucket

Massachusetts Technology Collaborative

Community Wind Collaborative – Nantucket

WIND FEASIBILITY STUDY B&V Project Number 165127.0200 B&V File Number 41.0000

January 2010

Black & Veatch 200 Wheeler Road

Burlington, MA 01803 Tel: (781) 565-5800 www.bv.com

http://www.bv.com/�

Principal Investigators: Ryan Jacobson, Project Manager Steve Block, Engineering Manager Justin Ray, Wind Energy Specialist Jason Fields, Wind Energy Specialist

© Copyright, Black & Veatch Corporation, 2010. All rights reserved. The Black & Veatch name and logo are registered trademarks of Black & Veatch Holding Company

Massachusetts Technology Collaborative Community Wind Collaborative – Nantucket Table of Contents

07 January 2010 TC-1 Black & Veatch

Table of Contents

1.0 Executive Summary ................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Study Introduction ............................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Study Results ....................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 List of Recommendations .................................................................................... 1-4

2.0 Potential Project Sites ................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1 General Description ............................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Site and Vicinity Usage ....................................................................................... 2-2 2.3 Site Infrastructure................................................................................................. 2-2 2.4 Potential Turbine Locations................................................................................. 2-3

2.4.1 DPW Landfill.............................................................................................. 2-4 2.4.2 Nantucket Municipal Land ......................................................................... 2-6 2.4.3 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Land ........................................... 2-7

2.5 Turbine Separation and Setback .......................................................................... 2-9 2.5.1 Town of Nantucket Zoning Bylaws............................................................ 2-9 2.5.2 Turbine Siting and Spacing Requirements ............................................... 2-10 2.5.3 Public Safety Setbacks.............................................................................. 2-11

2.6 Visual and Noise Impact.................................................................................... 2-11 2.7 Airspace Impact ................................................................................................. 2-13 2.8 Communications Impact .................................................................................... 2-14 2.9 Community Acceptance..................................................................................... 2-17

3.0 Turbine Transportation .............................................................................................. 3-1 3.1.1 Turbine Delivery to Nantucket Island......................................................... 3-1 3.1.2 Turbine Delivery to the Project Site ........................................................... 3-2

4.0 Potential Environmental Concerns and Permitting.................................................... 4-1 4.1 Environmental Concerns...................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program................................... 4-1 4.1.2 Avian and Bat Impacts................................................................................ 4-7 4.1.3 Wetlands ..................................................................................................... 4-7 4.1.4 Nearby Residences...................................................................................... 4-8 4.1.5 Airports ....................................................................................................... 4-9 4.1.6 Potential Environmental Impact ................................................................. 4-9

4.2 Permitting........................................................................................................... 4-10



5.0 Site Electrical Infrastructure ...................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Interconnection Studies and Process.................................................................... 5-3 5.2 Potential Interconnection Points .......................................................................... 5-4

5.2.1 Interconnection at the DPW Landfill .......................................................... 5-4 5.2.2 Interconnection at the Municipal and FAA Sites........................................ 5-7 5.2.3 Considerations for Interconnection........................................................... 5-10

5.3 Load Profile ....................................................................................................... 5-10

6.0 Wind Resource........................................................................................................... 6-1 6.1 Wind Data Reviewed ........................................................................................... 6-1

6.1.1 Nantucket Radio Tower Data and RERL Reports ...................................... 6-1 6.1.2 Nantucket Memorial Airport ASOS Station ............................................... 6-5

6.2 Site Wind Resource Estimate............................................................................... 6-8 6.3 Resource Estimate Accuracy ............................................................................. 6-12

7.0 Conceptual Design ..................................................................................................... 7-1 7.1 Wind Turbine Models .......................................................................................... 7-1

7.1.1 GE 1.5sle..................................................................................................... 7-1 7.1.2 Vestas RRB PS-600 .................................................................................... 7-2 7.1.3 WES30 ........................................................................................................ 7-3

7.2 Potential Configurations ...................................................................................... 7-4 7.2.1 Potential Plant Configuration 1-WES30’s at the Municipal Site................ 7-5 7.2.2 Potential Plant Configuration 2-PS600’s at the Municipal Site.................. 7-5 7.2.3 Potential Plant Configuration 3-PS600’s at the FAA Site .......................... 7-6 7.2.4 Potential Plant Configuration 4-GE1.5MW’s at the Municipal Site .......... 7-7 7.2.5 Potential Plant Configuration 5-PS600’s at the Municipal and FAA Sites 7-8

7.3 Distance From Key Locations ............................................................................. 7-9 7.4 Appropriateness and Community Impact .......................................................... 7-10

8.0 Estimated Energy Production .................................................................................... 8-1 8.1 Annual Energy Production................................................................................... 8-1

8.1.1 Wind Turbine Power Curves ...................................................................... 8-1 8.1.2 Estimated Losses......................................................................................... 8-2 8.1.3 Production Estimates and Comparisons...................................................... 8-5

8.2 On-Site Energy Use ............................................................................................. 8-6 8.3 Performance Degradation .................................................................................... 8-7

9.0 Preliminary Cost Estimate ......................................................................................... 9-1



10.0 Preliminary Financial Analysis.............................................................................. 10-1 10.1 Financial Model Overview .............................................................................. 10-1 10.2 Major Assumptions.......................................................................................... 10-1

10.2.1 Assumed Value of Energy ...................................................................... 10-1 10.2.2 Renewable Energy Credits...................................................................... 10-3 10.2.3 Financing Assumptions........................................................................... 10-4

10.3 Estimated Financial Results............................................................................. 10-6 10.4 Financial Viability ........................................................................................... 10-6

11.0 Project Development Considerations..................................................................... 11-1 11.1 Development and Ownership Options ............................................................. 11-1

11.1.1 Municipal Ownership.............................................................................. 11-1 11.1.2 Private Ownership................................................................................... 11-1

11.2 Project Financing ............................................................................................. 11-2 11.3 Development Considerations ........................................................................... 11-2 11.4 Operations and Management ........................................................................... 11-3

Appendices

Appendix A. Wind Resource Map of Massachusetts

Appendix B. Project Cash Flows

Appendix C. List of Potential Permits

Appendix D. Nantucket Core Habitats/NHESP Data

Appendix E. Massachusetts Model Wind Facility Bylaws

Appendix F. Town of Nantucket WECS Bylaws

Appendix G. Overview of Wind Energy Technology



List of Tables

Table 1-1. Study Results Comparison ............................................................................ 1-3 Table 2-1. Town of Nantucket Noise Requirements .................................................... 2-13 Table 4-1. Nantucket Core Habitat BM1505.................................................................. 4-5 Table 6-1. Monthly Average Wind Speeds for Nantucket. ............................................ 6-3 Table 6-2. Monthly Average Wind Speeds for Nantucket Airport................................. 6-7 Table 6-3. Estimated Nantucket Long-Term Wind Average Wind Speeds.................. 6-10 Table 7-1. Potential Plant Configurations....................................................................... 7-4 Table 8-1. Wind Turbine Power Curves ......................................................................... 8-2 Table 8-2. Project Production Loss Factors.................................................................... 8-3 Table 8-3. Potential Plant Annual Production Estimates................................................ 8-6 Table 9-1. Preliminary Project Cost Estimate................................................................. 9-3 Table 10-1. Class III Net Metering Credit for Nantucket. ............................................ 10-3 Table 10-2. Average Annual LMP Price. ..................................................................... 10-3 Table 10-3. Economic Analysis Assumptions. ............................................................. 10-5 Table 10-4. Estimated Net Present Value and Payback Time (Years). ........................ 10-6 Table 11-1. Public vs. Private Ownership. ................................................................... 11-2 Table C-2 List of Permits.................................................................................................C-1

List of Figures

Figure 2-1. Location of Nantucket.................................................................................. 2-1 Figure 2-2. Island and Community of Nantucket ........................................................... 2-2 Figure 2-3. Sites Identified by the Town of Nantucket .................................................. 2-3 Figure 2-4. Radio/TV Tower at Landfill......................................................................... 2-5 Figure 2-5. Municipal Site Detail. .................................................................................. 2-6 Figure 2-6. Vegetation at the Municipal Site.................................................................. 2-7 Figure 2-7. FAA Site Detail............................................................................................ 2-8 Figure 2-8. Vegetation at the FAA Site. ......................................................................... 2-9 Figure 2-9. Typical Wind Turbine Spacing .................................................................. 2-11 Figure 2-10. Airports on Nantucket Island ................................................................... 2-14 Figure 2-11. Communication Towers near the Proposed Project Sites ........................ 2-15 Figure 2-12. Communication Antennas near the Proposed Project Sites ..................... 2-16 Figure 2-13. Existing WES30 at the Bartlett Farm....................................................... 2-17 Figure 3-1. Component Ships used for Crane Offloading .............................................. 3-1 Figure 3-2. Wind Turbine Nacelle Roll-Off in Maui, Hawaii ........................................ 3-2 Figure 3-3. Potential RORO Location for Turbine Component Delivery ...................... 3-4 Figure 3-4. Massasoit Road near the Municipal Site...................................................... 3-5



Figure 4-1. Protected and Recreational Open Space. ..................................................... 4-3 Figure 4-2. BioMap and Core Habitats and Supporting Landscape. .............................. 4-4 Figure 4-3. NHESP Natural Communities...................................................................... 4-6 Figure 4-4. NHESP Priority and Estimated Habitats...................................................... 4-7 Figure 4-5. DEP Wetlands .............................................................................................. 4-8 Figure 5-1. Submarine Cable Routing to Nantucket....................................................... 5-1 Figure 5-2. Submarine Cable Approach to Candle Street Substation............................. 5-2 Figure 5-3. DPW Interconnection at Recycling Facility ................................................ 5-5 Figure 5-4. Conceptual Interconnection Diagram at the DPW Landfill ......................... 5-6 Figure 5-5. Overhead Lines near the Municipal and FAA Sites..................................... 5-7 Figure 5-6. Conceptual Interconnection Diagram at the Municipal and FAA Sites....... 5-8 Figure 5-7. Example Overhead Distribution Line Interconnection ................................ 5-9 Figure 6-1. Nantucket Met Tower Location. .................................................................. 6-2 Figure 6-2. Nantucket Seasonal Wind Speed Averages. ................................................ 6-4 Figure 6-3. Nantucket Power Density by Direction........................................................ 6-5 Figure 6-4. Example ASOS Weather Station at Barnstable (from NOAA web site). .... 6-6 Figure 6-5. Monthly Average Wind Speeds at Nantucket Airport. ................................ 6-7 Figure 6-6. Nantucket Long-Term Monthly Average Wind Speeds. ........................... 6-10 Figure 6-7. Nantucket 80 Meter Power Density Wind Rose. ....................................... 6-11 Figure 6-8. Nantucket DPW Turbulence Intensity. ...................................................... 6-12 Figure 7-1. GE 1.5MW Turbines at the Glenrock Wind Project .................................... 7-2 Figure 7-2. Vestas RRB V47 at Deer Island in Boston Harbor. ..................................... 7-3 Figure 7-3. Conceptual Layout: (2) WES30’s at the Municipal Site.............................. 7-5 Figure 7-4. Conceptual Layout: (1) PS-600 at the Municipal Site ................................. 7-6 Figure 7-5. Conceptual Layout: (3) PS-600’s at the FAA Site....................................... 7-7 Figure 7-6. Conceptual Layout: (1) GE 1.5sle at the FAA Site..................................... 7-8 Figure 7-7. Conceptual Layout: (4) PS-600’s at the Municipal and FAA Sites ............. 7-9 Figure 10-1. National Grid Basic Service Costs over Time. ........................................ 10-2 Figure A-1. Massachusetts Wind Resource Map................................................................1 Figure G-1. Wind Turbine Components (from US Dept. of Energy)............................ G-2

Massachusetts Technology Collaborative Community Wind Collaborative – Nantucket Notice

07 January 2010 i Black & Veatch

Notice This report was prepared by Black & Veatch in the course of performing work

sponsored by the Renewable Energy Trust (RET), as administered by the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative (MTC), pursuant to work order number 09-3. The opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect those of MTC or the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and reference to any specific product, service, process, or method does not constitute an implied or expressed recommendation of endorsement of it.

This report is based on information not within the control of Black & Veatch. Black & Veatch has not made an analysis, verified, or rendered an independent judgment of the validity of the information provided by others. While it is believed that the information contained herein will be reliable under the conditions and subject to the limitations set forth herein, Black & Veatch does not guarantee the accuracy thereof.

Massachusetts Technology Collaborative Community Wind Collaborative – Nantucket Abstract

07 January 2010 ii Black & Veatch

Abstract

Black & Veatch reviewed the feasibility of developing a community wind energy project in Nantucket, Massachusetts. The wind resource was estimated using wind data collected by a radio tower located at the town landfill facility, as well as from nearby sources and the state wind resource map. Land use and operational issues were reviewed, specifically the proximity of the sites to homes and its location with respect to the existing infrastructure. The known electric infrastructure and loads in Nantucket were reviewed to understand the feasibility of interconnecting a wind project. Likely permitting requirements are also provided. Three wind turbine types and two development options were estimated, and the cash flows of the projects were reviewed. Black & Veatch identifies the major challenging aspects of wind development on Nantucket, while keeping in mind the community has successfully implemented a small wind turbine with encouraging results.

Keywords

Renewable Energy Trust Massachusetts Technology Collaborative Town of Nantucket Town of Nantucket Renewable Energy Committee National Grid Wind Energy Wind Power Black & Veatch Feasibility Study

Massachusetts Technology Collaborative Community Wind Collaborative – Nantucket 1.0 Executive Summary

07 January 2010 1-1 Black & Veatch

1.0 Executive Summary

The Massachusetts Technology Collaborative (MTC) has entered into a Work Order (WO09-3) with Black & Veatch to perform a wind project feasibility study for the Town of Nantucket. This report provides the results from this study, and provides recommendations regarding further review of this project.

1.1 Study Introduction The Massachusetts Technology Collaborative and the Town of Nantucket have

initiated the review of a wind turbine development on Nantucket. The Renewable Energy Research Lab (RERL) at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst recorded wind data from equipment installed on an abandoned radio tower located on the DPW Landfill property. The project locations identified by the Town of Nantucket fall within a mile of this tower. The tower recorded wind data on Nantucket from July 2005 to October 2006.

Black & Veatch traveled to Nantucket in June of 2009, and met with members of the Nantucket Energy Study Committee to discuss the work to date, this study, and how it would be performed. Black & Veatch visited the sites identified by the Committee and met with personnel at the landfill. Sites that were easily identified as nearby areas that may be sensitive to visual impacts were also visited.

Based on the information obtained from MTC, RERL, the Town of Nantucket, the site visit, and other public data sources, Black & Veatch produced this feasibility study, which attempts to capture the various aspects of a community wind project in Nantucket.

1.2 Study Results The results of this feasibility study show many aspects of a potential project that

are favorable to wind development in Nantucket. However there are a number of challenges that will need to be addressed. Those challenges will require further discussion, coordination, and evaluation by the Nantucket Energy Study Committee, National Grid, and the community. It also is advisable to engage consultants and/or contractors.

The Town of Nantucket and the RERL have identified the DPW Facility as a point of focus for the development of a community wind project. In order to move forward with development at the DPW facility, significant challenges must be overcome, including transportation of turbines, available land, existing land use and future site plans.

Due to the physical size of large wind turbines, transportation to the DPW facility must be carefully planned. Transport through the Steamship Wharf would be extremely



restrictive for this type of turbine because of the width and configuration of Town roads. The preferred option, the roll-on roll-off (RORO) method, will necessitate road modifications in the area in order to get from Red Barn Road to Massassoit Road and up to the DPW facility. Since only general transport options were considered in this report, Black & Veatch recommends engaging a company with the ability to provide a detailed transportation plan, including required road modifications, based on the exact transportation requirements of a given turbine size. This evaluation will help to identify the road modifications and associated costs necessary to transport a large turbine (or any size turbine) to the DPW site.

Other major challenges that need to be addressed in order to pursue development at the DPW facility are competition for available space and the restrictive nature of the future plans. Currently, Black & Veatch has identified one site that could potentially be used for development by situating a single wind turbine at the location of the abandoned radio tower. This is the only part of the parcel that is not currently being used and is not located in wetlands. However, it was noted to Black & Veatch that there are significant future plans for the entire waste site. In order to develop this site, the Town needs to work closely with the DPW personnel to coordinate the future expansion and modification of the site to accommodate a wind turbine project, along with careful planning around Navy ordnance on the property.

In general, the estimated energy production and financial numbers shown in Sections 8.1.3 and 10.3 suggest that while the wind resource is rather consistent across the three investigated sites, a larger turbine such as the GE 1.5sle provides better performance and financial results for all sites. Due to this, Black & Veatch believes that the overall feasibility of developing a wind project at the DPW site is not governed by wind resource; rather it is most strongly impacted by site-related issues such as site access and available land. A project utilizing up to 3 WES30 machines poses less significant transportation issues but may never achieve full payback. Alternatively, a project utilizing a single GE 1.5sle could have a simple payback of less than 5 years even though it would be much more difficult to implement. Ultimately, it will be necessary to address the logistics for implementing larger turbines and to acknowledge the estimated financial results, which show that anything smaller than a GE 1.5sle and in some cases a PS-600 are not financially viable. Development of any site will require the balancing of the implementation logistics and financial viability.



Table 1-1. Study Results Comparison

DPW Landfill Municipal Land FAA Site Maximum # of Turbine Sites 1* 2 3

Maximum Buildable kW 1500* 1200 1800

Transportation Most Restrictive Restrictive Least RestrictiveConstructability Most Restrictive Non Restrictive Non Restrictive Electrical Limitation Existing Equip System System * Actual number of turbines and the size will depend on further analysis and planning.

Based on the results of the study, the following list represents the different aspects

of wind development at the three sites. Aspects Favorable to Development: • Based on data collected at instrumented radio tower at the DPW Site as well

as at the ASOS station at Nantucket Memorial Airport, the estimated long-term wind resource in the potential project areas is about 8.90 m/s (19.9 mph) at 80 meters above ground level, about 7.64 m/s (17.1 mph) at 50 meters above ground, and 6.50 m/s (14.5 mph) at 30 meters above ground. The wind shear component, α, was estimated to be about 0.3.

• The abandoned FAA site is in a low-density residential area. If the Town can ever gain ownership of this site, its location along Red Barn Road and access to the beaches would make it the most attractive option for larger turbines using the RORO method for transporting wind turbine components to the site. There also exists an overhead distribution line on the north end of the project site which is ideal for project interconnection.

• A single GE 1.5sle installed at the FAA site yields an estimated capacity factor of nearly 47%, which would be considered to be “extremely good”.

• Preliminary financial analysis indicates that a wind project in Nantucket is highly sensitive to the turbine type and size of project. A single GE 1.5sle located at the FAA site yielded a simple payback period of 4.5 years with virtual net metering.

• “Virtual net metering” allows for the Town and community to benefit directly from wind generation anywhere on the island.



Aspects Unfavorable to Development • Turbine delivery through the downtown area is likely not possible for the

Vestas RRB PS-600 and GE 1.5 MW turbines. Transport alternatives such as RORO will have to be investigated in detail, and plans will need to be implemented in accordance with the Town’s strict requirements regarding any type or residential or commercial development, including road modifications.

• Nantucket is a seasonal community prized for its scenic view and recreational opportunities. There may be significant opposition to large wind turbines because of real or perceived threats to these aspects of the Town.

• All project sites are located within biologically sensitive areas, which will limit the ease of development and may make third party ownership or commercial operation impossible.

• Capital costs for the various project options range from about $3,300 per kW for a single GE 1.5sle project to about $6,300 per kW for a single PS-600 turbine. The cost per kW is lowered when installing multiple turbines of the same size and manufacturer.

1.3 List of Recommendations • Were the Town to gain ownership of the FAA site, Black & Veatch’s

preliminary analysis of all aspects of this study indicates that a single large-turbine project at the FAA site would be the most feasible option for wind project development on Nantucket. Although the Town indicates that this site not an option for near-term development, this site should be regarded as an opportunity for long-term future consideration. The FAA site is located within close proximity to the shoreline and allows fairly straightforward access from RORO delivery, and also is located near overhead lines and a potential point of interconnection. Although this site is currently not owned by the Town, it is recommended that options for using this land be further investigated.

• The Town-owned sites encompassing the DPW facility and adjacent Massasoit sites appear to offer the only likely options for immediate wind project development on Nantucket, but also appear to be very challenging to develop. If development is to move forward, Black & Veatch recommends working closely with DPW personnel to develop a plan that would integrate wind turbine development into the future plans of the waste facility.

• The Town should engage a transportation logistics company to conduct a detailed Transport study for the chosen site(s). A transport study will identify



the exact routing and necessary road modifications based on the exact turbine transport requirements, and will also provide estimated costs for transport.

• The Town of Nantucket should keep open communication of project plans with the community, and provide the community with important information such as visual simulations and analyses of noise, shadow flicker, environmental, and other impacts.

• The addresses, ownership, and type of use of the houses affected by shadow flicker should be compiled so a better analysis of actual shadow flicker impacts can be performed.

• A more detailed noise study should be performed, including ambient noise measurement on-site.

• A more complete environmental review should be performed, preferably a formal review with on-site observations by a biologist.

• The project site should be mapped for wetlands at an early stage if project development moves forward.

• At least six months for permitting should be included in any project schedule, with the possibility that more time may be required to work through the requirements and regulations of the Town.

• Coordination with National Grid will be critical in determining the exact impacts of a project on the Nantucket grid. It is recommended that detailed discussions occur during the development of a project to fully understand the limitation and feasible options of interconnecting a wind project. Electrical studies may take upwards of 8 months to a year.

Massachusetts Technology Collaborative Community Wind Collaborative – Nantucket 2.0 Potential Project Sites


2.0 Potential Project Sites

This section identifies potential wind project sites on Nantucket, and evaluates the characteristics of each, including topography, land cover, current and future land use, and ease of access for transportation. This section also discusses the characteristics of the site vicinity.

2.1 General Description All sites described in this report are located within the town and county of

Nantucket. A small island located approximately 30 miles south of Cape Cod, Massachusetts, Nantucket is relatively flat with elevations ranging from sea level to 109 feet. The terrain is mostly characterized by shrubbery and bushes, with some areas showing thicker brush and trees. Nantucket Island proper has a land area of 47.8 square miles, though Nantucket County has a total area of approximately 300 square miles. Figure 2-1 shows the island relative to the Cape Cod and the Massachusetts mainland. Figure 2-2 is an aerial view of the island.

Figure 2-1. Location of Nantucket.



Figure 2-2. Island and Community of Nantucket

2.2 Site and Vicinity Usage The island of Nantucket is considered to be a summer colony and tourist

destination, with the population swelling from approximately 10,000-15,000 to 50,000 during the summer months. Residents and tourists engage in many outdoor recreational activities including running, biking, and spending time at the local beaches.

2.3 Site Infrastructure Due to the historic nature of Nantucket, new construction on the island is tightly

regulated for virtually any type of infrastructure. Some parts of the downtown area still have the original cobblestone roads, and buildings are limited in physical appearance and dimension. The roads in the town of Nantucket are generally narrow and congested, with roads branching out in both directions to the east and west ends of the island. Two-track and narrow dirt roads provide access to some of the beaches and remote parts of the island.



Nantucket’s electricity needs are currently met through two submarine cable runs from the main land, which terminate at Candle St. Substation near the heart of downtown Nantucket. National Grid owns and operates all major electrical infrastructure on the island.

2.4 Potential Turbine Locations Prior to this study, the Town of Nantucket developed preliminary potential wind

turbine locations on the island. These locations were provide to Black & Veatch and were based on the available land and the preferences of the town. In addition, preliminary screenings were performed on other areas of the island in order to identify additional feasible development locations on the island. In general, Black & Veatch’s preliminary screening of available land considered the major requirements and parameters necessary for building a wind project such as the land use, existing environmental conditions, and the surrounding conditions. The results of the high level screening showed that the sites recommended by the Town of Nantucket Renewable Energy Committee were good candidates for potential development. These sites were chosen to be studied further in this report. The locations considered for this feasibility study are shown Figure 2-3, along with some potential turbine locations initially identified by the Town.

Figure 2-3. Sites Identified by the Town of Nantucket



One of the other areas that showed initial promise for potential wind project development was some of the undeveloped lands located to the east of Nantucket Memorial Airport. Review of the available information showed that much this land belongs to conservation agencies or is otherwise protected, and remaining land was immediately adjacent to the airport, removing these areas from further consideration. The proximity of these available lands to the airport in addition to protected environmental areas eliminated these locations as candidates for potential sites for this study. In addition, the northwestern parts of Nantucket Island including Esther Island and Tuckernuck Island were considered and did not pass the initial screening due to their close proximity to the changing shorelines and other environmental concerns.

Black & Veatch visited Nantucket on June 18, 2009 to discuss the project and its goals with the Town. During this visit, Black & Veatch was able to observe each of the identified potential project areas with members of the Nantucket Energy Committee and a representative of the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative.

2.4.1 DPW Landfill One site recommended for study by the Town of Nantucket Renewable Energy

Committee was the DPW Landfill site. This facility handles the solid waste and recycling needs of the island and currently houses the largest single municipal electrical load. The Nantucket Renewable Energy Committee initially identified this site as having potential for on-site net metering where the generation from a wind turbine would be directly connected behind the utility meter to offset the facility demand.

The landfill started undergoing major changes starting in 1996 in response to the facility reaching capacity and anticipated future needs. Surrounded by protected wetlands and no room for further expansion, the landfill underwent major changes in their disposal methodology, and is still carrying out plans today.

Black & Veatch met with George Erinson of the DPW facility to discuss the current layout and future plans associated with the site. Much of the site is undergoing major earthwork and will continue to do so for the next few years as they incorporate their new method for waste management. According to Mr. Erinson, the future plans of the site greatly restrict areas that would likely be considered for a wind turbine installation. However, Mr. Erinson pointed out a potential location for a wind turbine could at an abandoned radio tower on the northwestern portion of the site. The 467 ft. tower (shown in Figure 2-4) is located adjacent to the DPW offices and was once used for cable television communications. It is believed this tower will continue to be unused and taken down in the near future with no plans for replacement. In addition, it is understood that DPW does not have current plans to expand any of their infrastructure into this area.



Figure 2-4. Radio/TV Tower at Landfill

More recently, the tower was fitted meteorological equipment; data collected by

the tower is used for analysis in this report. Please refer to Section 6 of this report for more information.

Although the radio tower location was identified as a potential wind turbine location, further discussions with the DPW personnel revealed that this site would pose many hazards inherent to a landfill site. Unexploded ordinance (UXO) is known to exist in and around the north end of the landfill from previous US Navy operations, and pose as a major safety hazard for the construction and maintenance of a wind turbine. Any development of a project on this site would require the UXO be located is removed by qualified specialists. Additionally, the radio tower is currently positioned between the wetland areas and the existing landfill pit, which can be described as a large hill over 50 feet tall and approximately 900 feet across.



Based on Black & Veatch’s conversation with Mr. Erinson, the review of the landfill development plans, the limited amount of available land on-site, proximity of wetland areas, and potential safety hazards, Black & Veatch did not consider the installation of a large wind turbine within the boundaries of the DPW Landfill area to be a feasible project option. With the virtual net metering possibilities offered by the Green Communities Act of 2008, direct-use offset at the facility is not expected to be a requirement for obtaining net metering credits, and construction at a more conducive location would be preferable.

2.4.2 Nantucket Municipal Land Immediately to the west of the DPW Site is a parcel of land that, according to

information obtained from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, is currently owned by the Town of Nantucket. This parcel of land is approximately 106 acres and is bordered by Long Pond to the northwest, the DPW Site to the northeast, and Massasoit Road to the southeast. The area is mostly covered by thick bushes and vegetation. Figure 2-5 shows the Municipal Site in more detail.

Figure 2-5. Municipal Site Detail.

A private residence exists near the center of the property and is accessed by

Massasoit Road. Vegetation is very dense in this area, which overgrows onto the already



narrow roads and is appears to be mostly between six and ten feet tall. Figure 2-6 shows an example.

Figure 2-6. Vegetation at the Municipal Site

2.4.3 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Land Further southwest from the DPW and Municipal sites is a square parcel of

federally-owned land currently under the jurisdiction of the FAA The land is not currently being used, and conversations with the Renewable Energy Committee indicated that this land may become available to the Town of Nantucket in the near future. The property is approximately 70 acres and is located adjacent to Massasoit Road and Red Barn Road. Figure 2-7 shows the FAA Site in more detail.



Figure 2-7. FAA Site Detail.

There are no houses within the area, but this part of Nantucket Island includes

homes on all sides of the FAA Site . There are also many roads running through the area giving access to the different residential areas. All roads are dirt, with some representing a two track road capable of passing one vehicle at a time. This area has multiple access points from Madaket Road. Access from the north requires crossing two bridges spanning over Long Pond.

Vegetation in this area is sparser than at the Municipal Site, consisting of grassland and small areas of brush. Much of this site is indicated by NHESP as being covered by sandplain grass- and heathland. Figure 2-8 shows vegetation typical of the FAA Site.



Figure 2-8. Vegetation at the FAA Site.

2.5 Turbine Separation and Setback This section discusses the spatial separation of the turbine sites from surrounding

structures and known property lines.

2.5.1 Town of Nantucket Zoning Bylaws The Town of Nantucket has restrictions and requirements in their Town Bylaws

regarding Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS). The bylaws have the requirements divided into two categories: Residential WECS and Commercial WECS. For the purposes of this study, Black & Veatch is considers a wind project developed by the Town of Nantucket to be a Commercial WECS. The current Commercial WECS zoning regulations and requirements regarding turbine separation and setback are as follows (taken from § 139-21 B):

• Maximum number of turbines in a given area limited by special permit. • Maximum tower height limited by special permit.



• All turbines must be a minimum of tip height (base of turbine to blade tip in vertical position) from the nearest property line.

It should be noted that the setback requirement in the bylaws is smaller than recommendations set forth in the State’s Model Wind Bylaw. A copy of this document is included in Appendix E. The recommendation is for a setback distance of 1.5 times the height of the turbine tower from the base to the blade tip. For this study, Black & Veatch is assuming a conservative approach and will take the stricter of the requirements between the Nantucket zoning bylaws and the State Model Wind Bylaws.

2.5.2 Turbine Siting and Spacing Requirements Black & Veatch typically uses three general guidelines for locating wind turbines

on a specified parcel of land: • Minimum spacing between the wind turbines so they do not interfere with

each others operation. • Setbacks recommended for public safety. • Setbacks required per zoning laws as mentioned above.

Wind turbines generate electricity by transferring energy from the wind to the turbine’s drive-train. Because they take energy from the wind, and because they are large structures, wind turbines create an area around them in which the wind flow is disturbed. Placing wind turbines too close together would result in one turbine being within the disturbed area of another, causing turbines to “steal” the wind energy from each other. To avoid this, there are two general rules about placement of wind turbines. The first is to place turbine towers at least three times the turbine rotor diameter (3D) from each other in the direction perpendicular of prevailing winds. The second is to place turbines at least 8D from each other in the direction parallel to prevailing winds. The reason for the different spacing is that the wake effects of turbines are much greater downwind than they are cross-wind. Figure 2-9 shows a diagram of this concept.



Pre

vailin

g W

ind

Dire

ctio

n

1D

3D

8D

Figure 2-9. Typical Wind Turbine Spacing

The prevailing wind direction for Nantucket site is observed to be primarily from the southwest (225°). It should be noted that these guidelines are not absolute requirements. Spacing may be tighter when specific land use conditions require it. If closer spacing is required, an increase in the corresponding turbine’s losses would also be included in the performance projection to account for the lost energy.

2.5.3 Public Safety Setbacks When Black & Veatch evaluates the general public safety issue for a wind

turbine, usually the most catastrophic (and highly unlikely) scenario of complete turbine collapse is considered. Black & Veatch defines a safety zone around the turbine base equal to the maximum height of the turbine, and locates the turbine such that no public areas fall within this zone. Because the project site is undeveloped, Black & Veatch expects that the safety setbacks should be easily met.

2.6 Visual and Noise Impact Any wind turbine installed in an urban area is likely to have some adverse impacts

on residential or commercial areas, though careful siting can often minimize these



impacts. Some of the most common concerns are the potential noise impacts, the potential shadow flicker impacts, and the potential effects on scenic viewpoints.

Most homes in the area are generally spread out and there exists a relatively low density of house. However, some residences fall within a quarter-mile from the FAA Site. These homes are set along the shoreline however and their primary view is toward the ocean. Black & Veatch expects these homes to be minimally affected by turbines on the FAA Site.

Aside from a single residence in the middle of the Municipal site, there are few residences inside a quarter-mile from the property boundary. The next closest neighbor is the DPW Landfill site. Turbines on this site will be in view of the residential development located on the west side of Long Pond. Most of these homes are beyond a half-mile of the potential turbine locations.

Since the topography is relatively flat throughout this small island, a wind turbine will be taller than nearly every other feature. They will be visible from most places, similar to the demonstration WES 30 that is currently operating at the Bartlett Farm. Should the town move forward with a larger turbine such as the GE 1.5, visual impact of the turbine will be comparable to that of the existing radio tower at the DPW Landfill site, though the white painted structure and large rotor will generally be more visible from a distance.

Shadow flicker is a term describing the moving shadows that can be produced by rotating turbine blades. These moving shadows can produce a distracting strobe-like flickering effect. This generally occurs in the early morning and late evening, when shadows are long due to the angle of the sun. It is much more likely to be a concern for residents in the surrounding area than for those using the area recreationally. .

Potential noise impacts include the aerodynamic noise of the turbine blades as well as noise produced by the generation equipment mounted in the turbine nacelle. Manufacturers typically provide noise data for wind turbines, which can be used along with measurements of ambient noise levels to model the likely noise impacts of a wind turbine. Typically, noise created by a turbine in operation is most noticeable directly under the turbine.

Section 139-21 of the Nantucket Bylaws outlines the requirements for noise levels measured at the nearest property line to the turbine. These requirements are given below in Table 2-1.



Table 2-1. Town of Nantucket Noise Requirements

Ambient* (dB) Max During Operation** (dB) 45 55.4 50 56.2 55 61.0 60 61.2 65 65.4

Source: Town of Nantucket Bylaws, § 139-21. Notes:

* Ambient reading without wind turbine operation. ** Ambient reading plus turbine operating reading.

The town requires that the noise levels be measured from the nearest property

line. The numbers in Table 2-1 appear reasonable and Black & Veatch does not anticipate any major problems regarding noise disturbance. The requirements differ from the State’s Model Bylaws (which simply specify a maximum of 10 dB (A) of ambient noise levels at the nearest occupied building or property line) and The Town of Nantucket appears to have put significant thought into the noise levels of wind turbine projects. Therefore, it is recommended that a detailed acoustic impact study be performed once the turbine type, layout, and location is chosen. This type of study will likely involve a few weeks of data collection and require detailed noise criteria from the chosen turbine manufacturer.

2.7 Airspace Impact The primary airport serving Nantucket is Nantucket Memorial Airport. The

airport is located on the southern part of the island, as shown below in Figure 2-10.



Figure 2-10. Airports on Nantucket Island

Nantucket Memorial Airport is approximately 6 miles from the project sites and is the second busiest airport in the state of Massachusetts. Other small landing strips are in the area on Tuckernuck Island and Muskoget Island, located approximately four miles and 7.5 miles from the potential project areas, respectively. According to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Advisory Circular 70/7460-2J, a Notice of Proposed Construction must be filed with the FAA for the construction of any structure over 200 feet (61 meters) tall or within a certain distance-height zone from commercial or military airports. All commercial-scale wind turbines are more than 200 feet tall, so a notice will be required to be filed with the FAA and will require markings and lighting.

2.8 Communications Impact The figures below (Source: Antennasearch.com) show the known communication

towers and antennas within four miles of the proposed turbine sites. Currently, the nearest communications equipment, which is known to be an abandoned radio and TV tower is located adjacent to the Municipal Project site (shown in blue below). As mentioned before, it is understood that this tower may be permanently removed in the near future.



Figure 2-11. Communication Towers near the Proposed Project Sites

It should be noted that there is currently a future registered tower located at the FAA Site (shown in red above). The available license information states that the tower is registered to the United States Department of Transportation-Federal Aviation Administration located at Barnstable Airport. It is registered to be a 404 foot tall tower, but it is unclear at this time whether this tower is still planned to be installed (the tower was initially registered in 2002 and it is currently believed that the Town of Nantucket can obtain this piece of land). Black & Veatch recommends further investigation of this future tower location prior to further project development since it would have a significant impact on turbine locations in close proximity. Figure 2-12 below shows the communications antennas located near the proposed project sites.



Figure 2-12. Communication Antennas near the Proposed Project Sites

The antennas listed near the project site appear to be located on the tower at the DPW Landfill site. As mentioned before, it is believed that these antennas may no longer be active.

Aside from the items discussed above, it is anticipated that wind turbines at the proposed project sites will not interference with television, radio, and communications though there is a possibility of slight telephone and radio reception issues. Wind turbines at either of the sites should not interfere with cable or satellite communications. In order to ensure there will be no significant impact to communications, Black & Veatch recommends that a full communications impact study be performed should the Town of Nantucket decide to move forward with one of these project sites.



2.9 Community Acceptance Black & Veatch understands that the Town of Nantucket Renewable Energy

Committee has been working on this project for some time, and the Town appears to be relatively enthusiastic about the project. Nantucket community is a relatively small community and Black & Veatch expects the permanent residents to be receptive to a project such as those mentioned in this study. Perhaps the most encouraging fact is that there is currently a 250 kW WES 30 wind turbine installed on the island at the Bartlett Farm. This wind turbine is iconic and it’s presence on the island suggests that the community is open to wind energy projects. A picture of the Bartlett wind turbine is shown below.

Figure 2-13. Existing WES30 at the Bartlett Farm

However, Nantucket is a seasonal community appreciated for its scenery and recreational activities, and the presence of large structures may be viewed as intrusive. As discussed previously, the majority of the homes in the direct area of the project site are designed to optimize the view of the ocean rather than the view inland and thus the residential area south of the development will have a minimized view of the wind project.



Residents usually express concern about the noise and effects on views, which are concerns common to wind projects of this size. Black & Veatch recommends open communication of project plans with the community, and providing the community with visual simulations of the project as well as noise and flicker analysis.

Massachusetts Technology Collaborative Community Wind Collaborative – Nantucket 3.0 Turbine Transportation


3.0 Turbine Transportation

Black & Veatch was involved with a generalized transport study that was submitted to MTC in August 2009. This transport study looked at the transportation of major turbine components from the mainland to the islands of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket. The results and recommendations of this study are discussed in the context of the identified potential wind project areas on Nantucket.

The transport study looked at four different turbine sizes as defined by MTC: • Small-Scale: 100 kW • Commercial-Scale: 600 to 660 kW • Small Utility-Scale: 900 to 1,000 kW • Large Utility-Scale: 1,500 to 2,000 kW

For purposes of this feasibility study, the small-scale, commercial-scale, and large utility-scale turbines will be discussed.

3.1.1 Turbine Delivery to Nantucket Island Turbine delivery will ultimately require water transportation from the mainland

(likely the Port of Boston). The two methods of water transportation delivery that are considered the most viable for Nantucket are conventional crane offloading and the roll-on roll-off method. Conventional crane offloading consists of transporting components into a harbor, using cranes to offload the components to trucks, and then trucking the components over-road to the turbine site. Figure 3-1 shows typical wind turbine component transport ships requiring crane offloading.

Figure 3-1. Component Ships used for Crane Offloading



Roll-on roll-off (RORO) allows turbine delivery trucks to drive directly off the ship and onto the shore (see Figure 3-2). In certain instances, RORO delivery does not need a harbor or dock to deliver cargo, but rather allows trucks to drive off the ship directly onto the shore. RORO is often the safest and most inexpensive method of handling and transporting oversized or special project cargo. This type of delivery reduces the physical handling of the components and allows components to be barged near the final turbine site, thus reducing the need for over-road transportation and costly road upgrades. However, RORO requires special ships, which in the case of Nantucket would need to have shallow drafts to allow them to land components on the shore. Such shore landings could have environmental impacts which should be investigated should MTC and the Town of Nantucket choose to move forward with a project.

Figure 3-2. Wind Turbine Nacelle Roll-Off in Maui, Hawaii

Based on the results of the transport study, it is assumed that delivery of small-scale turbines such as the WES 30 can be delivered and offloaded by crane onto delivery trucks at Steamship Wharf. For utility-scale turbines such as the Vestas V47 or GE 1.5, it is assumed that the RORO method would be used. Further information on turbine delivery to Nantucket Island can be found in the transport study.

3.1.2 Turbine Delivery to the Project Site Once on Nantucket, the turbine components and equipment will need to navigate

to the project site. As mentioned earlier, roads on Nantucket present many challenges for transporting large equipment. Aside from the heavy loads such as the tower sections and nacelles, certain turbine components such as blades require large turning radii and wide roads for passage.

Small-scale turbine deliveries would arrive at the Steamship Wharf and be offloaded to trucks for delivery to the site. The most difficult part is navigating through



the downtown area, particularly with turbine blades. The trucks will travel on Madaket Road towards the DPW Landfill. Currently, it appears the best route would be to continue towards Warren Landing. Here the trucks would need to turn onto South Cambridge Street and travel through a small residential area and cross over Long Pond to Massasoit Rd. This route crosses at least three bridges, and the roads turn to dirt and become very narrow once entering the residential area near Warren Landing. Once on Massasoit Road, the passage becomes even narrower. The major areas of concern for this route besides the downtown navigation begin at the turn off of Madaket Road onto South Cambridge Street.

A more direct route which is currently not passable would be to take the turn off of Madaket Road Directly onto Massasoit Road (approximately three-quarters of a mile east of the landfill entrance). Though this route is currently not passable due to the narrow roads and overgrown vegetation, there are fewer sharp turns such as the turn onto South Cambridge Street from Madaket.

Black & Veatch understands that Nantucket has strict road improvement regulations, which provides a major challenge since both routes have their challenges and would likely require significant road improvements. The cost and ability to perform road improvements will be crucial in determining a feasible transport route from Steamship Wharf. Black & Veatch recommends that a detailed transport study be performed once a project site and turbine type has been determined. It is also recommended to engage an engineering firm during the development of the project to work with the Town of Nantucket to determine the costs and alternatives for road improvement. Should this option of crane offloading at the Steamship Wharf become not feasible, it would be possible to ship the smaller turbine components using the RORO method as recommended for the larger turbines.

Utility scale turbine components are recommended to be shipped to Nantucket using the RORO method mentioned above. Based on the locations and information available in the transport study, the most direct and feasible RORO location is shown below in Figure 3-3.



Figure 3-3. Potential RORO Location for Turbine Component Delivery

Turbine components would be driven straight onto Red Barn Road to get to the main project areas. The FAA Site is located directly on Red Barn Road approximately three-quarters of a mile from the RORO location shown above. Red Barn Road appears to be the widest road in the area and does not present any major turns to get to the FAA Site.

Access to the Municipal site presents some difficulties. Even though Red Barn Road will likely need just minor road improvements to meet the turbine transportation specifications, the turn onto Massasoit Road from Red Barn Road and the remaining distance up to the Municipal Site becomes very narrow.



Figure 3-4. Massasoit Road near the Municipal Site

It is likely Massasoit Road will require some major widening and straightening out of some of the curves to meet the turn radius and width requirements of the delivery trucks. The roads will also require a road base, essentially turning it into a gravel road. One option would be add a turn that “shortcuts” through the FAA land and takes a wider turn onto Massasoit Road. Figure 3-4 above shows a picture of Massasoit Road taken near the Municipal Site during Black & Veatch’s visit.

Massachusetts Technology Collaborative Community Wind Collaborative – Nantucket

4.0 Potential EnvironmentalConcerns and Permitting


4.0 Potential Environmental Concerns and Permitting

Historical, environmental, and related concerns are likely to be significant in development of any wind energy project due to the island’s unique history and culture. Addressing these concerns is expected to influence project feasibility, available land for development, required studies and permits, and overall development time and cost. Black & Veatch has prepared a preliminary list of potential environmental issues on Nantucket, and recommends formal environmental, historical, and cultural studies be initiated early in the wind project development process. Black & Veatch recommends a more complete environmental and cultural review be performed prior to committing to a wind energy project.

4.1 Environmental Concerns

4.1.1 Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program Nantucket plays host to a large number of threatened and endangered plant and

animal species, as well as unique natural communities. Black & Veatch reviewed available information from the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) on plant and animal species that reside in or near the identified project areas on Nantucket. This section reviews this biodiversity information and identifies habitats and species that could be impacted by a wind energy project, and may require further exploration as part of a full environmental review.

The Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife’s Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) maintains a web site (www.nhesp.org) that identifies vulnerable and protected plant and animal species, as well as sensitive core habitats for towns and cities in the Commonwealth. This information is a good resource for identifying potential concerns during the feasibility study phase, but Black & Veatch would not consider the information identified below to be a substitute for formal environmental studies.

The following information was obtained from the NHESP website: • Protected and Recreational Open Space: These are areas that

have been designated at the state or community level as areas for limited or no development. The Massachusetts Geographic Information System (MassGIS), the service from where the data was obtained, indicated the accuracy of the identified open space locations was limited.

http://www.nhesp.org/�




• BioMap Core Habitats: The BioMap program was completed in 2001 by NHESP, and identified areas considered to represent “habitats for the state’s most viable rare plant and animal populations”. BioMap Core Habitats and Living Water Core Habitats encompass almost 1.4 million acres, or about 28 percent of the land area of Massachusetts.

• Living Waters Core Habitats: Similar to the BioMap Core Habitats, the Living Waters Core Habitats are those rivers, streams, lakes, and ponds critical to the biological diversity of Massachusetts.

• Living Waters Critical Supporting Watersheds: These watersheds are identified as being critical for supporting Living Waters Core Habitats. They were identified in the Living Waters project completed in 2003 by NHESP.

• Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC): These are areas in Massachusetts that are considered special and highly significant due to their natural and cultural resources. Nominations for areas to receive ACEC designation are made by communities to the state Secretary of Environmental Affairs. The ACEC program is administered by the Department of Conservation and Recreation.

• Priority Habitat for Rare Species: These areas are NHESP estimates of habitats for rare species. The boundaries of these habitats are considered approximate.

• Certified Vernal Pools: NHESP define vernal pools as “small, shallow ponds characterized by lack of fish and by periods of dryness.” These pools are deemed critical to some wildlife, and are protected under a variety of state programs including the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act.

Protected and Recreational Open Space The initially identified potential wind turbine locations are shown in Figure 4-1,

along with known protected open spaces in the area. The potential locations are located within two areas identified by this data. The first is federal land belonging to the FAA for a radio tower that Black & Veatch understands is no longer in use. The second is municipal land identified as belonging to the Nantucket landfill. The majority of the land surrounding these areas is identified as protected conservation land held by various agencies. Open land to the south of the initially identified locations is not identified as




protected, and is likely to be privately held. Conservation land in the area is expected to limit the available land and wind project size on Nantucket.

Figure 4-1. Protected and Recreational Open Space.

BioMap and Living Waters Core Habitats The NHESP BioMap and Living Waters report Core Habitats of Nantucket,

published in 2004, includes a listing of those natural communities, plants, invertebrates, and vertebrates that have special designation under the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA) and an unofficial NHESP watch list. Nantucket plays host to a number of identified habitats; with the exception of the DPW landfill itself, all of the project areas considered in this study fall within the boundaries of Core Habitat BM1505, and several portions of the DPW land are designated by NHESP as Supporting Natural Landscape. These habitats and supporting landscapes are shown Figure 4-2.




Figure 4-2. BioMap and Core Habitats and Supporting Landscape.

The Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA) includes three levels of

classification for rare species: Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern. As defined in the BioMap report, the definitions of these classifications are:

• Endangered: Species in danger of extinction, or of no longer being found in Massachusetts.

• Threatened: Species deemed likely to become endangered in Massachusetts in the foreseeable future.

• Special Concern: Species that have suffered a decline that could threaten their existence or that are very rare in Massachusetts.

Core Habitat BM1505 includes a number of plant and animal species meeting

these definitions. Table 1-1 is a summary of the number of species in each in this core habitat in each category. In addition to protected plant and animal species, the report identifies two Natural Communities within the habitat which are designated as being critically imperiled: the Sandplain Grassland and Sandplain Heathland.




Table 4-1. Nantucket Core Habitat BM1505.

Species Type Endangered Threatened Special Concern Plants 3 3 7 Invertebrates 0 2 0 Vertebrates 2 2 2 Source: NHESP, Core Habitats of Nantucket

Detailed information from NHESP regarding the Core Habitat BM1505 and

known species from the NHESP is included in the BioMap report and species data sheets in Appendix D.

NHESP Natural Communities As discussed in the Core Habitats section, the NHESP has identified two Natural

Communities near the potential wind project areas: Sandplain Grassland and Sandplain Heathland. Together, these identified areas include most of the land in the FAA Site, as well as much of the adjacent land to the south and east of the site.

According to the NHESP, the areas shown in Figure 4-3 were classified and delineated by analyzing “on-the-ground” field data and available information about the landscape, including topographic maps and aerial photographs. These sites have been visited by NHESP biologists or by other biologists who have submitted reports on community occurrences that NHESP biologists have reviewed and accepted. Natural Communities are not protected under MESA, but rare species that occur within them are.




Figure 4-3. NHESP Natural Communities.

NHESP Priority and Estimated Habitats NHESP maintains information on the geographic extent of rare species habitats in

Massachusetts in the Priority Habitats of Rare Species data set. These habitat areas represent a trigger for requiring project review by the NHESP form compliance with MESA regulations.

The related layer Estimated Habitats of Rare Wildlife, is for use with the Wetlands Protection Act and represents a subset of the Priority Habitats. These areas represent a trigger for requiring filing of a Notice of Intent to the NHESP under the Wetlands Protection Act.

Most of the undeveloped areas of Nantucket falls within mapped Priority and Estimated habitats and would require NHESP review to develop. This includes the identified potential project areas, as shown in Figure 4-4.




Figure 4-4. NHESP Priority and Estimated Habitats.

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern There are no identified areas of critical environmental concern near the identified

potential project areas in this study.

4.1.2 Avian and Bat Impacts Another biological concern for this project’s development may be potential or

perceived risk to avian and bat species. Considering the potential wind turbine locations and the presence of identified endangered and threatened species in or near the project areas, commencing studies such as a Phase I Avian Risk Assessment early in the project development process is advisable. Although modern wind turbines include slow rotating blades, and tower and hub designs that provide almost no perching or nesting points for birds, it is important to determine if species known to be susceptible to wind turbine strikes can be found at the site.

4.1.3 Wetlands The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) maintains a data layer

showing known wetlands as mapped using color infrared photos by the University of




Massachusetts at Amherst and field checked by the DEP. Wetlands near the identified project areas are shown in Figure 4-5.

Figure 4-5. DEP Wetlands

This wetlands data is meant for planning purposes, and wetlands boundary determination for the construction of a wind energy project would need to be conducted as required by state and local regulations.

4.1.4 Nearby Residences Some public concern is likely going to be generated regarding the visual and

noise impacts of the project, and concerns for public safety. Visual impacts include both the physical appearance of wind turbines, as well as moving shadows caused by the rotating turbine blades (shadow flicker). Noise impacts are primarily based on aerodynamic and mechanical noise from operating turbines.

Black & Veatch recommends that visual simulations of project options be presented to the public early in project development, including animations showing the rotational speed of the turbine. Additionally, on-site noise readings should be taken and reviewed by acoustical experts so that an accurate noise impact assessment can be performed. If Town bylaws do not address noise emission limits, updating or revising bylaws should be updated to address noise emission limits, and the project should be confirmed to be within those limits.




Shadow flicker is a sunlight strobe effect caused by the rotating turbine blades. Trees and other obstructions between the residences and the tower can mitigate this concern by preventing the interrupted light from reaching the structure. However, it is possible for shadow flicker to become a source of irritation if the structure is close to the wind turbine or not sheltered from the flicker effect by trees or other obstructions. Once the number of turbines and locations of the desired sites are finalized, Black & Veatch recommends creating full shadow flicker maps to establish which local structures will be impacted the most severely by the installation of a wind turbine in that area. Experience shows that sharing this information with the public early in the process can avoid unnecessary concerns regarding what the project might look and sound like.

4.1.5 Airports The nearest major airport to the identified project areas is Nantucket Memorial

Airport, about 6 miles to the east of the site. According to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Advisory Circular 70/7460-2J, a Notice of Proposed Construction must be filed with the FAA for the construction of any structure over 200 feet (61 meters) tall or within a certain distance-height zone from commercial or military airports. All commercial-scale wind turbines are more than 200 feet tall; the only turbine that might fit under this height limit would be the WES30 on a shorter tower. For all other turbines, notice must be filed with the FAA Obstruction Evaluation / Airport Airspace Analysis (OEAAA) system, and the turbines will require marking and lighting. Daytime marking is generally white paint, while nighttime marking generally a flashing red light operating only at night. Dual flashing lights (white in the day and red at night) are sometimes used, but night lighting only is the current FAA recommendation for wind turbines, as the white paint is considered sufficient daytime marking.

4.1.6 Potential Environmental Impact Based on the information reviewed here, Black & Veatch believes that the

potential environmental impacts from the development of a wind energy project on Nantucket may be significant. Development in the identified potential project areas may be restricted because of the presence of endangered species habitat, established natural communities, and wetlands. The DPW Site appears to have the lowest potential for adverse environmental impact, but is already heavily developed with a restricted amount of available land. The Municipal site contains a large amount of mapped wetlands which may significantly reduce the available land for construction. The FAA Site is largely covered by sandplain grassland and heathland. All of the identified areas are in Priority Habitats of Rare Species as identified by the NHESP. Identifying and mitigating




environmental concerns is likely to be a critical component of wind project development on Nantucket.

4.2 Permitting Black & Veatch has examined the general permitting requirements for energy

projects in Massachusetts, as well as major projects on Cape Cod and Nantucket, and has prepared an initial list with our expectations regarding which permits would apply to a wind energy project on Nantucket Island (see Appendix C). During this process, Black & Veatch did not contact any local, state, or federal agencies to explore the permit requirements for this project (to avoid causing any premature concerns). Such consultations will be required before the final permitting requirements can be completely understood. At present, the permit requirements that seem very likely to apply to a community wind energy project on Nantucket Island are (abbreviations defined in Appendix C):

• Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Notice of Proposed Construction and Alteration

• Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission (MAC) Request for Airspace Review

• Federal Energy Reliability Commission (FERC) Exempt Wholesale Generator (EWG) and Qualifying Facility (QF) Status

• United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Stormwater Discharge Permit

• Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation – Division of Energy Resources (DOER) Statement of Qualification for Massachusetts Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS)

• Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) Archeological and Historical Review

• Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) Massachusetts Endangered Species Act/Wetlands Protection Act joint review.

• Town of Nantucket Building Permit • Town of Nantucket Special Permit

To prepare for these permits, it may be advisable to have informal meetings with

each agency to discuss the project and that agency’s study expectations. The majority of the permits listed above are expected to require approximately 3 to 4 months to obtain, following completion of appropriate study work. Black & Veatch recommends that




scheduling for the project include a minimum of 6 – 9 months for permitting to allow for delays or some level of unexpected difficulty. Black & Veatch understands the political nature of permitting may add more time to the process, but by meeting with each agency in advance it is believed some of this delay can be avoided.

Massachusetts Technology Collaborative Community Wind Collaborative – Nantucket 5.0 Site Electrical Infrastructure


5.0 Site Electrical Infrastructure

Nantucket’s distance from the mainland creates a unique and challenging environment for the interconnection of wind turbines. Their electric needs are currently met by National Grid, who owns and operates major electrical transmission and distribution in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Rhode Island.

Nantucket gets their electricity via two submarine cables originating from Barnstable and Harwich. Figure 5-1 below shows the route of these submarine cables (Source: National Grid).

Figure 5-1. Submarine Cable Routing to Nantucket

Originally, a single 26-mile, 46 kV submarine cable was put into service in 1996 (shown in black above). The cable originates at a 115 kV/46 kV substation in Harwich on Cape Cod. The second cable was added ten years later and provides a higher reliability service to the island. Both submarine cables terminate at the Candle Street Substation near the downtown Nantucket area. Figure 5-2 shows the detailed approach of the 46 kV cables to the substation (Source: National Grid).



Figure 5-2. Submarine Cable Approach to Candle Street Substation

Black & Veatch contacted Mike Peterson and Dave Larson from National Grid concerning the Candle Street Substation and distribution throughout the island. Mr. Larson indicated that Candle Street Substation is the single source of power for the entire island. Essentially, electricity provided to Nantucket is fully redundant. The 13.2 kV distribution feeders are split between the two transformers, meaning that half of the feeders are directly fed from one submarine cable and transformer originating in Barnstable while the customers connected on the other half of the feeders are fed from Harwich. In the event that one of the submarine cables fails (perhaps damage from a ship anchor dragging along the ocean floor) all power is routed through the other cable. This



allows for very reliable electric service on Nantucket. Consequently, each submarine cable and transformer bank is sized to handle the entire load of the island. The transformers at the substation step the voltage down from 46 kV to 13.2 kV and distribute power to customers via underground and overhead distribution feeders.

Any upgrades that are needed at the substation for generation on the island would likely require the same type of redundancy.

5.1 Interconnection Studies and Process When interconnecting any type of generation to a utility, certain processes and

studies must be performed by the utility to ensure that they can continue to keep their grid stable and reliable. Depending on the size of the project, the requirements can range from simple protection schemes allowing the utility to remotely operate the units to full control of the voltage and reactive power of the unity. In general, smaller projects have more lenient requirements.

National Grid provided Black & Veatch with the interconnection procedures and forms. This document and other information can be found on National Grid’s Website at www.nationalgridus.com/nantucket/business/rates/4_other.asp. A summary of the interconnection procures is as follows:

• Notice of Intent: Interconnecting Customer submits a Notice of Intent to Interconnect

• Initial Site Inspection: Within 45 days of verification of the Notice of Intent, and initial site inspection is performed by the utility to determine if a Distribution Facilities Impact Study is required.

• Impact Study: If an Impact Study is not required and the facility meets the requirements for immediate interconnection, and Interconnection Service Agreement may be executed. A fee shall then be paid to the utility upon execution. If an Impact Study is required, the utility will prepare a cost estimate to perform the study and submit the estimate to the Interconnecting customer. The estimate is provided within 45 days of the Notice of Intent. If electing to proceed with the study, and Impact Study agreement will be executed and the Impact study will be completed within 90 days of the executed Impact Study Agreement.

• Detailed Study: If required, a cost estimate to perform a detailed study is submitted at the conclusion of the Impact Study. A Detailed Study agreement will then be executed. The Detailed Study will be completed within 90 days of receipt of the full payment.

http://www.nationalgridus.com/nantucket/business/rates/4_other.asp�



• Interconnection Service Agreement: A Service Agreement is then executed, and once the payment specified in the Service Agreement is paid, the utility will construct the required facilities.

According to the Interconnection Procedures, the entire process can take approximately 8 months if no complications are discovered. In Black & Veatch’s experience, this process usually takes a minimum of 9 months to a year.

5.2 Potential Interconnection Points The electrical grid on Nantucket is primarily set up to disperse electricity out

through underground and overhead feeders operated at 13.2 kV from Candle Street Substation located near downtown Nantucket. Since all project sites considered in this study are between 3.5 and 4.5 miles from Candle Street Substation, interconnection possibilities are limited to direct interconnection onto a nearby feeder or directly to an existing service point. It should be noted that interconnecting wind generators requires access to three-phase power, which may not necessarily be readily available even in areas that currently have electricity. Most homes and small businesses only require single-phase service, so three phase service is usually on available in certain locations. All interconnection points discussed in this section refer to three-phase interconnection and knowledge of such facilities in and around the project sites.

It should be noted that all ratings and values reported in this section are based on discussions of preliminary information provided to Black & Veatch by National Grid. For the purposes of simplicity, kVA and kW are assumed to be equal units in this section.

5.2.1 Interconnection at the DPW Landfill The Renewable Energy Committee indicated an interest in interconnecting a

project at the DPW Landfill site “behind the meter”, where electricity generated by the wind turbine would directly offset the electrical needs of the facility equipment. Main site transformer and switching is located in the recycling facility.



Figure 5-3. DPW Interconnection at Recycling Facility

The main transformer in the recycling facility is rated at 1500 kVA and according to DPW personnel, steps National Grid’s 13.2 kV line down to 2.2 kV, where it is distributed locally. According to National Grid, the transformer is not very heavily loaded and averages approximately 300 kVA.

Generally, the power generated at 400 V (WES 30) or 690 V (V47 and GE1.5MW) would be stepped up to 2.2 kV by a generator step-up transformer located at its base. Underground cable would then connect between the 2.2 kV side of the turbine transformer(s) and the 2.2 kV side of the DPW main transformer. National Grid will likely want to install a breaker-type device at or near the point of interconnection so they can remotely disconnect the turbine during an event. Depending on the turbine operator, National Grid may simply be able to control the turbines directly. Discussions and studies with National Grid will identify the exact operational method. A conceptual diagram showing the basic interconnection approach is illustrated below.



Figure 5-4. Conceptual Interconnection Diagram at the DPW Landfill

The major driving factors for interconnection at the DPW facility are the turbine type and facility load. If the installed generation is less than the facility load (i.e. a single WES 30 at 250 kW), then it is likely that no major upgrades to electrical equipment will be needed involving National Grid. If the installed generation is greater than the facility load (i.e. greater than 300 kVA), but less than the rating of the main service transformer (1500 kVA), then upgrades may be required within the facility while no major upgrades will likely be necessary on National Grid’s system. Lastly, if the installed generation is significantly greater than the installed capacity of the main transformer (i.e. more than a single GE 1.5 MW), the DPW transformer would need to be upgraded along with other facility electrical infrastructure. In other words, if more than 1.5 MW of generation are to be installed at the DPW facility, major upgrades will be necessary to the DPW electrical equipment and potentially on National Grid’s system. Otherwise, an alternative interconnection option such as directly connecting to National Grid’s 13.2 kV feeder would be necessary.

Considering the electrical impacts mentioned above, Black & Veatch believes that the most feasible interconnection option if the Town of Nantucket should decide to move forward with a wind project at the DPW landfill would be to interconnect a small or medium size turbine “behind the meter” and interconnect to DPW’s main transformer. This option will minimize the impact and costs associated with system upgrades, and directly offset the plant load with wind energy.



5.2.2 Interconnection at the Municipal and FAA Sites Located directly adjacent to the DPW Landfill is the Municipal Site. Because of

its location, interconnection at this site is limited to direct connecting to the National Grid 13.2 kV system. Even though the Municipal and FAA Sites are fairly close to the DPW Site, interconnection “behind the meter” at the main DPW transformer would not be practical due to the interconnection voltage of 2.2 kV. Running 2.2 kV for distances beyond the site immediately surrounding the DPW facility would present significant electrical losses. Also, the main DPW facility buildings and infrastructure (buildings, foundation, underground utilities and hazards, etc.) lay between both projects and the transformer, making construction logistics very complex.

During Black & Veatch’s visit to Nantucket, access was limited to this area due to narrow roads, however an overhead, three-phase line was noted approximately three-quarters of a mile west of the Municipal Site on Massasoit Road, which is also at the north end of the FAA Site.

Figure 5-5. Overhead Lines near the Municipal and FAA Sites

Though this appeared to be the nearest location for three-phase power, other houses in the area suggest that there are also underground cables running nearby both



sites. Therefore, it may be possible to identify closer locations for three-phase interconnection. Black & Veatch was unable to locate closer three-phase lines, and therefore assume the overhead connection point above to be a feasible interconnection point for both projects. If a project moves forward at either or both of these sites, detailed discussions and studies coordinated by National Grid will identify the best location for interconnection.

The basic concept of interconnecting turbines at the Municipal site and FAA Site is illustrated below.

Figure 5-6. Conceptual Interconnection Diagram at the Municipal and FAA Sites

Operational requirement are not known at this time and will likely include a breaker-like device at the point of interconnection. As mentioned earlier, National Grid studies will identify these requirements.

At the Municipal and FAA Sites, there are no major loads that can be directly offset “behind the meter” as on the DPW Site. Therefore, these sites would be set up to generate directly into Nation Grid’s system and feeding Nantucket loads along the feeder. This arrangement would require the wind turbine transformers to step the voltage from generating voltage (400 or 690 V) up to 13.2 kV, allowing for the minimum amount of transformation for interconnecting to an existing 13.2 kV line. This can be simpler to implement locally compared to DPW facility, but it will likely meet more strict requirements since it will be directly affecting National Grid’s system.

At both of these locations, the major factor for feasible interconnection will be the current capacity and loading of the National Grid feeder. The power rating of the lines will generally be less at the end of the feeder lines. Even though the overall feeder rating may be 8 MW (as indicated by National Grid), the section of line at the interconnection



point may be substantially less. In this case, everything downstream and upstream of the interconnection point may need to be upgraded to account for additional power that would otherwise not be seen. Mr. Larson mentioned that limiting the amount of generation added to any single feeder to 2-3 MW would not likely require a major overhaul of existing infrastructure and protection.

One protection upgrade that will most likely be necessary in any case is a remote operated breaker-type device located at the point of interconnection. Figure 5-7 below illustrates an example of this type of installation, where an overhead auto-recloser was programmed for remote operation of a wind turbine at the point of interconnection.

Figure 5-7. Example Overhead Distribution Line Interconnection

This would be operated by National Grid and allow them to remotely disconnect the wind turbine(s) from the grid at any time. This may be necessary during fault events or if other system stability issues are present. This piece of equipment would be specified by National Grid upon completion of system impact and facilities studies. Another option, depending on the specifics regarding operation, would be for National Grid to have remote operation of the turbines themselves.



5.2.3 Considerations for Interconnection Not unlike most community wind projects, the electrical impact of a project is

sensitive to the size and number of wind generators planned for interconnection. Nantucket is essentially isolated from the robust grid that exists on the mainland, and with the total peak demand of the island being under 40 MW, even a small wind project can require major upgrades to implement. It is encouraging, however, that a wind turbine size discussed in this report has already been successfully implemented on the island. Ultimately, National Grid will be able to identify a threshold of a project size that will require few upgrades upon completion of detailed interconnection studies. In general, Black & Veatch believes National Grid is supportive of further wind development on the island. They have indicated that small projects such as the turbine at the Bartlett Farm can be integrated without any major costly upgrades. On the other hand, upgrades required at the substation may be further costly due to the redundant scheme currently in place to provide reliable electric service to Nantucket.

5.3 Load Profile The maximum demand that the island experiences happens during the summer

months when the population swells from seasonal residents. The demand can be as high as 35-40 MW. Off season peak demand is typically around 15-20 MW, and sometimes falls below 10 MW.

Massachusetts Technology Collaborative Community Wind Collaborative – Nantucket 6.0 Wind Resource


6.0 Wind Resource

The wind energy resource of a project site is the most critical single aspect to understand, and is one of the few that cannot be overcome with technical solutions. This section discusses the various sources of wind resource information available for the region, and combines them into an estimate of the wind resource for Nantucket.

6.1 Wind Data Reviewed For Nantucket, Black & Veatch reviewed several wind data sources, most of

which were generated by the University of Massachusetts Renewable Energy Research Lab (RERL). These sources were:

• Wind data collected by RERL from an instrumented radio tower at the DPW Landfill location (August 2005 – October 2006)

• Wind Data Collected by the Nantucket Memorial Airport ASOS station (1995 – 2007)

• Wind Data Report: Nantucket, MA, RERL, Summer 2005 Quarterly Report

• Wind Data Report: Nantucket, MA, RERL, Fall 2005 Quarterly Report • Wind Data Report: Nantucket, MA, RERL, Winter 2005-2006 Quarterly

Report • Wind Data Report: Nantucket, MA, RERL, Spring 2006 Quarterly Report • Wind Data Report: Nantucket, MA, RERL, Summer 2006 Quarterly

Report • Wind Data Report: Nantucket, MA, RERL, Final Report

The information available from each above resource is discussed in this section,

and the resources are combined into a complete wind resource estimate for Nantucket in Section 6.2.

6.1.1 Nantucket Radio Tower Data and RERL Reports RERL instrumented an existing radio tower near the DPW Site in Nantucket for

wind resource measurement. Wind speed and direction sensors were installed at 98 meters (325 feet), 68 meters (223 feet), and 58 meters (190 feet) above ground level. The radio tower is located at approximately 41° 16’ 51.6” N, 70° 10’ 8.4” W (WGS84) at an elevation of about 3 meters (10 feet) above sea level.



The tower is located adjacent to the DPW landfill, and is surrounded by buildings and hills created by landfill cells, which have the potential to impact wind speed readings from the tower. Other than the landfill itself, terrain in the area is relatively flat. The location of the Nantucket tower is shown in Figure 6-1.

Because there was over a year of data available from this tower, which was equipped with meteorological equipment intended for wind resource measurement, Black & Veatch concluded this to be the best source of data for wind resource and production predictions.

Figure 6-1. Nantucket Met Tower Location.

Black & Veatch reviewed each of the five Wind Data Report: Nantucket RERL reports prepared quarterly on the met tower’s data collection, as well as raw (or unfiltered) 10 minute data for July 22, 2005 through October 3, 2006. This information was obtained from the RERL web site and directly from RERL. The monthly average wind speeds are listed in Table 6-1 and shown in Figure 6-2. The data was screened for tower shadowing effects. However Black & Veatch was required to estimate the boom orientations due to insufficient information provided in the RERL reports. The values of wind shear were determined between the anemometers mounted at 98, 68 and 58 meters above ground level. A cumulative power density wind rose based on the 98 meter level wind speed and direction sensors is shown in Figure 6-3.



Table 6-1. Monthly Average Wind Speeds for Nantucket.

Measured Wind Speed (m/s) Month/Year 98 meters 68 meters 58 meters Wind Shear 2005

August 7.97 7.02 6.69 0.343 September 7.74 6.98 6.73 0.273 October 10.06 9.12 8.87 0249 November 10.79 9.43 9.08 0.336 December 10.06 9.17 8.92 0.235

2006 January 10.99 9.73 9.39 0.307 February 10.90 9.90 9.60 0.247 March 9.26 8.42 8.07 0.265 April 9.99 8.75 8.57 0.305 May 9.84 8.39 8.25 0.361 June 9.86 8.52 8.03 0.397 July 9.17 7.84 7.40 0.416 August 7.40 6.56 6.38 0.296 September 7.65 6.83 6.80 0.246

Average 9.90 8.76 8.47 0.304 Source: RERL. Notes: Wind shear values determined between anemometers at 98, 68 and 58 meters above ground level.



Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec0

3

6

9

12M

ean

Win

d S

peed

(m/s

)

Seasonal Wind Speed ProfileSpeed 98 m ASpeed 98 m BSpeed 68 m ASpeed 68 m BSpeed 58 m ASpeed 58 m B

Figure 6-2. Nantucket Seasonal Wind Speed Averages.

Total Wind Energy (98 m)0°

22.5°

45°

67.5°

90°

112.5°

135°

157.5°180°

202.5°

225°

247.5°

270°

292.5°

315°

337.5°

6%

12%

18%



Figure 6-3. Nantucket Power Density by Direction.

6.1.2 Nantucket Memorial Airport ASOS Station While a year of data collection at or near a project site is usually deemed

necessary for a wind energy project, a long-term data source is also needed to put the collected data into a historical perspective. Since the wind conditions at a site can change considerably between individual years, comparing the year over which data was collected to a long-term average becomes important to understand a site’s average long term wind resource. Therefore Black & Veatch used the wind data collected at the Nantucket Memorial Airport as a long-term data source for preliminary wind resource estimates.

The Nantucket Memorial Airport weather station is located at approximately 41º 15’ North, 70º04’ West (WGS84). This location is approximately 6 miles east of the identified potential wind sites at an elevation of 14 meters above sea level. The Nantucket Memorial Airport weather station is a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Automated Surface Observation Station (ASOS), identified by call sign “ACK” and WBAN Identification number 14756. Although there were no available photographs of the Nantucket ASOS station, Figure 6-4 shows an example of this type of weather station at the Barnstable Municipal Airport.



Figure 6-4. Example ASOS Weather Station at Barnstable (from NOAA web site).

NOAA publishes hourly data collected at this station, and Black & Veatch reviewed the data collected from January 1995 through December 2007. Based on this review, Black & Veatch chose to use only the data from after the transition to ASOS recording in June 1997. Monthly averages from these years are presented in Table 6-2, and shown in Figure 6-5.



Table 6-2. Monthly Average Wind Speeds for Nantucket Airport.

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec1997 4.3 5.0 4.2 4.7 5.1 5.9 6.0 1998 6.5 6.2 6.2 5.7 5.6 5.3 3.9 3.8 4.5 6.0 5.4 5.6 1999 6.2 6.5 7.2 6.0 4.9 4.9 4.7 4.6 4.9 5.6 5.7 5.9 2000 6.7 5.8 6.0 6.7 5.4 4.9 4.3 3.6 5.0 5.2 6.2 6.3 2001 5.1 6.1 6.3 5.4 5.6 4.4 4.7 4.4 4.8 5.7 5.6 5.5 2002 5.8 6.1 6.4 5.6 5.7 5.0 4.7 3.9 4.7 5.6 6.3 6.5 2003 6.6 6.4 5.5 6.2 5.0 4.3 4.2 4.5 4.4 5.5 6.0 7.0 2004 6.7 5.7 6.5 6.0 5.1 4.8 4.4 4.7 5.1 5.7 5.9 6.3 2005 6.6 6.0 6.2 6.0 6.0 4.8 4.4 4.0 4.6 6.1 5.8 5.9 2006 6.3 6.6 5.5 6.0 5.6 5.1 4.6 4.3 4.6 6.1 5.0 6.0 2007 6.3 6.8 6.6 6.4 5.4 6.0 4.4 4.3 4.9 5.3 5.9 5.9

Average 6.3 6.2 6.2 6.0 5.4 4.9 4.5 4.2 4.7 5.6 5.8 6.1 Note: All values in meters per second.

Nantucket Municipal AirportMonthly Average Wind Speeds -10m

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Win

d Sp

eed

(m/s

) YEAR 1997

YEAR 1998

YEAR 1999

YEAR 2000

YEAR 2001

YEAR 2002

YEAR 2003

YEAR 2004

YEAR 2005

YEAR 2006

YEAR 2007

YEAR Average

Figure 6-5. Monthly Average Wind Speeds at Nantucket Airport.



Wind data collected at airports is not intended for wind energy resource measurement since it is commonly collected with instruments fairly low to the ground. At Nantucket Memorial Airport, the data was collected at 10 meters (33 feet) above ground level, far lower than the 80 meter hub height of interest in this report. Since scaling this low-level data upward to the proposed turbine hub heights is not preferable when a better data source is available, Black & Veatch did not attempt to use this data directly for wind resource estimation. Instead, Black & Veatch used the Nantucket Memorial Airport data to review how data collected at the ASOS station over the time period when the Nantucket met tower was in operation compares with the long-term average from the Provincetown tower. This comparison, and the subsequent impact to the Nantucket tower data, is presented in Section 6.2.

6.2 Site Wind Resource Estimate As discussed in the previous section, Black & Veatch had several sources of wind

resource information available for the Town of Nantucket. To produce the most accurate estimate of the resource, Black & Veatch used some information from each source. The procedure used to create this estimate is described in this section.

As the closest site to the perspective development areas with over a year of wind data at a height near typical wind turbine hub heights, the dataset from the instrumented radio tower at the Nantucket DPW Site tower became the primary data source. Other data sources mentioned in previous sections were used to validate wind resource characteristics such as seasonal wind speed patterns and shear. A detailed tower shadowing analysis was also performed to establish any wind speed measurements that may have been skewed or affected by influence from the wind passing over the lattice tower or the mounting apparatus.

The next step in the wind resource estimate was to put the Town of Nantucket’s wind speeds into a historical perspective. Black & Veatch compared the hourly average wind speeds for the data collected at the long-term reference station (Nantucket Memorial Airport) over a representative one year period the Nantucket data was collected (September 2005 through August 2006). B&V prepared this estimate of the wind resource within the project area using the Linear Regression Measure-Correlate-Predict (MCP) method. A long-term dataset for the Nantucket DPW tower was created based upon a linear regression analysis with the concurrent Nantucket reference time series data. This comparison was done by separating both onsite and reference data into direction bins in thirty degree intervals and then performing a principal components regression analysis between the onsite met tower and the reference station. For each corresponding direction sector, the ratios from the least squares regression were then



applied to the reference data sets to adjust the recorded wind speeds and create an estimate of the long-term expected wind speeds at the met tower site. The WAsP wind flow uses the Ruggedness Index (RIX) which is an indicator of the complexity of site terrain and validity of horizontal extrapolation from met mast to turbine site. As the RIX for the Nantucket project sites were approximately zero percent for most combinations of turbine locations that indicates simple terrain which is adequately characterized using the Nantucket DPW tower. Based on these adjustment factors, the long term average wind speed for Nantucket at 99 meters is estimated to be 9.55 m/s. This average applies to the other prospective sites for development given their close proximity.

Finally, Black & Veatch adjusted the 98 meter long-term Nantucket wind speed data to get the estimates for the long-term averages at the wind turbine hub heights of interest 80, 50, and 30 meters. To make this height adjustment, Black & Veatch utilized the wind shear power law approximation, which defines the relationship between wind speed and height above ground as:

α

⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛⋅=

rr z

zzVZV )()(

where: V(z) = wind speed at height of interest V(zr) = wind speed at reference height z = height of interest zr = reference height α = wind shear component Black & Veatch utilized the Nantucket data collected at 58, 68 and 98 meters to

estimate the wind shear component, alpha “α”, to be about 0.304, a value lower than most other wind energy sites in the U.S., most likely due to the laminar wind flow coming off the ocean. The resulting long-term averages for Nantucket at various heights above ground are given in Table 6-3, and shown in Figure 6-6. The resulting power density wind rose for the 80 meter data is shown in Figure 6-7.



Table 6-3. Estimated Nantucket Long-Term Wind Average Wind Speeds.

Average Wind Speed (m/s) Month 30 meters 50 meters 80 meters January 7.50 8.68 9.95 February 7.42 8.53 9.74 March 7.40 8.65 10.03 April 6.97 8.19 9.53 May 6.28 7.44 8.74 June 5.80 7.01 8.37 July 5.23 6.37 7.66

August 5.03 6.04 7.19 September 5.59 6.57 7.65

October 6.69 7.80 9.02 November 6.87 8.01 9.27 December 7.28 8.44 9.71 Annual 6.50 7.64 8.90

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec0

3

6

9

12

Mea

n W

ind

Spe

ed (m

/s)

Seasonal Wind Speed ProfileSynthesized 80 mSynthesized 50 mSynthesized 30 m

Figure 6-6. Nantucket Long-Term Monthly Average Wind Speeds.



80m LT Power Density0°

22.5°

45°

67.5°

90°

112.5°

135°

157.5°180°

202.5°

225°

247.5°

270°

292.5°

315°

337.5°

6%

12%

18%

Figure 6-7. Nantucket 80 Meter Power Density Wind Rose.

As part of the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 61400 series of standards governing the design of wind turbines, a series of designation are given to the wind resource of a site. These designations are used to match the appropriate turbine designs and models for a site’s wind conditions. Based on the 3rd edition of the IEC standard 61400-12, the wind resource in the Nantucket site area appears to have a Class IB to IIB designation depending upon turbine hub height. Figure 6-8 shows the mean characteristic turbulence intensity graph of the 98 meter data. This graph also includes the IEC turbulence categories for comparison. Ultimately, the designation of the site as it applies to the design of a specific wind turbine will be evaluated by the wind turbine manufacturer, to ensure the proper wind turbine model is provided.



0 5 10 15 20 25 30 350.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Turb

ulen

ce In

tens

ity

Turbulence Intensity at 68 m, All Sectors

Wind Speed (m/s)

Representative TIIEC Category AIEC Category BIEC Category C

Figure 6-8. Nantucket DPW Turbulence Intensity.

6.3 Resource Estimate Accuracy Generally a full year of on-site wind data collection is considered the minimum

requirement for development of a wind energy project. This site has about 15 months of on-site data, however only twelve months of data was used in the analysis due to uncertainty regarding equipment changes during the first few months of the wind resource campaign. Additionally, Cape Cod is well studied from a wind resource perspective. Wind data from nearby sites was available for correlation, as was over 10 years of historical reference. The accuracy of the wind resource estimate for Nantucket would generally be considered to be good however; B&V recommends a thorough review of the RERL tower installation records to ensure that the data being reported is accurate.

Massachusetts Technology Collaborative Community Wind Collaborative – Nantucket 7.0 Conceptual Design


7.0 Conceptual Design

This section reviews the conceptual wind plant configurations as well as the proposed wind turbine types for the project sites.

7.1 Wind Turbine Models Based on initial wind resource screening, analysis and project specifics, and the

Town’s preferences, Black & Veatch chose to look at three different turbine types for Nantucket. The turbines being reviewed for this report are:

• General Electric 1.5sle-1500 kW, 80 meter tower, 77 meter rotor diameter. • Vestas RRB PS-600 kW, 50 meter tower, 47 meter rotor diameter • WES30-250 kW, 30 meter tower, 30 meter rotor diameter

7.1.1 GE 1.5sle General Electric (GE) purchased Enron Wind Energy in 2002, and has integrated

the company into GE’s Power Systems company. Since this acquisition, GE has applied their efforts to improving the design and production of their only commercial on-shore wind turbine, the GE 1.5MW, shown in Figure 7-1. This turbine is a 1,500 kW machine with a rotor diameter of 70.5, 77, or 82 meters. The turbine is commonly placed on either 65 or 80 meter towers. Because of its variable-speed ability, the GE 1.5MW has a rotational speed range between 10 and 20 RPM (or one revolution every three to six seconds).

The GE 1.5MW turbine is one of the most popular designs for U.S. wind farms. Projects with this design turbine include the Somerset, Mill Run, and Waymart projects in Pennsylvania and Fenner in New York. GE turbines are assembled in the U.S. from components from all over the world. The most popular of the GE 1.5MW models is the 1.5sle, which has a 77 meter rotor. This is the model that is considered in this report.



Figure 7-1. GE 1.5MW Turbines at the Glenrock Wind Project

7.1.2 Vestas RRB PS-600 The Vestas RRB V47 turbine (also referred to as the PS-600), shown in Figure

7-2, was originally developed by Danish manufacturer Vestas. Currently, V47s are being manufactured by Vestas RRB, an Indian firm which has obtained the necessary rights to manufacture this model of wind turbine from the original Vestas designs. Unlike the older V47 from Vestas Denmark, which had a capacity of 660 kW, the RRB PS-600 is missing some proprietary technology and is rated for maximum generation of 600 kW output.

The V47 is a pitch-controlled fixed-speed wind turbine, and was one of the most popular wind turbines in the United States before the introduction of megawatt class and larger machines. There are several V47 wind turbines installed in New England, including models from both Vestas Denmark and Vestas RRB. These include the turbine at Hull, two PS-600s at Deer Island in Boston Harbor, one at the Massachusetts Maritime Academy, and a turbine in Worcester.



Figure 7-2. Vestas RRB V47 at Deer Island in Boston Harbor.

7.1.3 WES30 The WES30 is a smaller turbine primarily marketed to on-site generation at

businesses, farms, hotels, and similar locations with large on-site energy needs. This two-bladed teetering machine has a capacity of 250 kW and a 30 meter rotor. Wind Energy Solutions (WES) offers the machine both as a standalone turbine and as part of a hybrid wind/diesel system. The WES30 currently installed on Nantucket is shown in Section 2, in Figure 2-13.

The WES30 appears to be somewhat of a niche wind turbine design aimed at filling a market need not met by larger manufacturers. Black & Veatch is not aware of this machine being used in a commercial-scale wind project.



A recent development for this turbine is an external IGBT controller cabinet that allows the turbine to operate at variable speeds and meet all grid requirements using full power conversion.

7.2 Potential Configurations Before Black & Veatch began this feasibility study, the Town of Nantucket did

some preliminary work on available land and potential turbine locations. They identified several potential turbine locations in the three main project sites: The DPW Landfill Site, the Municipal Site, and the FAA Site. After reviewing all aspects at each project site including turbine delivery, environmental conditions, electrical interconnection, etc., Black & Veatch developed five potential plant configurations for further analysis. These five configurations are shown below in Table 7-1.

Table 7-1. Potential Plant Configurations

Site # of Turbines Turbine Type

Project Size (kW)

Configuration 1 Municipal 2 WES30 500 Configuration 2 Municipal 1 PS-600 600 Configuration 3 FAA 3 PS-600 1,800 Configuration 4 FAA 1 GE 1.5sle 1,500 Configuration 5 Municipal, FAA 4 PS-600 2,400

The DPW Landfill site was not chosen for the conceptual configuration and

analysis due to the complexities mentioned in earlier sections. Black & Veatch believes the site contains too many unknowns regarding future development, as well as safety hazards with the presence of ordinates onsite to be a feasible option when compared the Municipal and FAA Sites.

Spacing between turbines varies depending on the turbine size, but is generally 3 rotor diameters perpendicular to the prevailing wind direction and 8 rotor-diameters parallel to the prevailing wind direction. Based on the prevailing wind direction, this spacing should be sufficient to avoid significant wake effects. Though there is some margin of play in which the individual sites can be moved, the basic general layout will not be able to change much due to land ownership boundaries.



7.2.1 Potential Plant Configuration 1-WES30’s at the Municipal Site Figure 7-3 shows the conceptual layout of Configuration 1. A conceptual layout

for the collection system and potential interconnection location is shown as well.

Figure 7-3. Conceptual Layout: (2) WES30’s at the Municipal Site

The turbines locations above were located in available areas outside of wetlands and meeting the setback criteria mentioned in Section 2.5. The 13.2 kV collection system requires routing through parts of the designated wetland area, however underground utilities are often considered a temporary impact by regulating agencies and may not require special permitting. The point of interconnection shown is the closest known overhead three-phase location. Detailed studies from National Grid would identify an optimal interconnection point.

7.2.2 Potential Plant Configuration 2-PS600’s at the Municipal Site Figure 7-4 shows the conceptual layout of Configuration 2. A conceptual layout

for the collection system potential interconnection location is shown.



Figure 7-4. Conceptual Layout: (1) PS-600 at the Municipal Site

Due to the size of the turbine and assuming the turbine needs to be located outside of designated wetland areas, only one PS-600 turbine meets the setback criteria at the Municipal Site. The collection system will be operated at 13.2 kV and follow a similar routing as the WES30 layout to the nearest point of interconnection.

7.2.3 Potential Plant Configuration 3-PS600’s at the FAA Site Figure 7-5 shows the conceptual layout of Configuration 3. A conceptual layout

for the collection system potential interconnection location is shown as well.



Figure 7-5. Conceptual Layout: (3) PS-600’s at the FAA Site

The FAA site can handle up to three PS-600 turbines while meeting all setback criteria. The FAA site is also located very close to the identified point of interconnection, making the underground cable runs shorter compared to a project at the Municipal site. However, National Grid may determine or appoint another point of interconnection up the completion of their impact and facilities studies. The collection system for the above layout would be operated at 13.2 kV.

7.2.4 Potential Plant Configuration 4-GE1.5MW’s at the Municipal Site Figure 7-6 shows the conceptual layout of Configuration 4. A conceptual layout

for the collection system potential interconnection location is shown as well.



Figure 7-6. Conceptual Layout: (1) GE 1.5sle at the FAA Site

Due to the size of the GE 1.5sle, only one turbine can be located at the FAA site while meeting all setback criteria. The collection system routing shown above would be operated at 13.2 kV and be routed directly to the point of interconnection.

7.2.5 Potential Plant Configuration 5-PS600’s at the Municipal and FAA Sites

Figure 7-7 shows the conceptual layout of Configuration 5. A conceptual layout for the collection system potential interconnection location is shown as well.



Figure 7-7. Conceptual Layout: (4) PS-600’s at the Municipal and FAA Sites

This layout conceptualizes the full build out of both sites using the PS-600. This option is essentially a combination of Configurations 2 and 3 above, and would likely require addition equipment at the point of interconnection to joint the two branch circuits together. This is typically done with a junction box or isolating switch cabinet. The collection system would be operated at 13.2 kV.

7.3 Distance From Key Locations The nearest residence to any of the five possible turbine locations is estimated to

be about 1300 feet. The WES30 #1 turbine at the Municipal Site falls within a quarter-mile of a residence, while the nearest residential to any turbine location on the FAA site is approximately a quarter-mile. The farthest turbine location from the identified point of interconnection is the site near the DPW facility, which is approximately a mile away. The turbine farthest from the point of interconnection at the FAA site is approximately a half-mile away. The setback criteria used in locating the turbines for all configurations above allow for a safe distance from key locations near the wind turbines in the unlikely event that a turbine was to collapse.



7.4 Appropriateness and Community Impact Based on the available land, current land use, proximity of roads, and proximity

of electrical infrastructure, the project areas seem suitable for development of a small wind project. They layouts exceed all known required and recommended setbacks from roads, homes, and property lines. It should not directly interfere with recreation use of the area, but may be in the primary view of some homes in the area. Noise impacts are also not expected to be significant.

Massachusetts Technology Collaborative Community Wind Collaborative – Nantucket 8.0 Estimated Energy Production


8.0 Estimated Energy Production

This section is an estimate of annual energy production for the five project scenarios considered in this report. The production estimate is based on data collected from the instrumented Nantucket radio tower, adjusted to better represent the expected long-term wind resource at the site. The methods and assumptions for this estimate are discussed below.

8.1 Annual Energy Production

8.1.1 Wind Turbine Power Curves A wind turbine power curve is curve representing the amount of energy a wind

turbine model will generate at a given wind speed and air density. Typically, these power curves are supplied as a table of wind speeds versus air densities. At lower air densities, the power generated by a wind turbine at wind speeds below the turbine’s rated speed is less than at higher densities. Based on the near-sea-level elevations across Nantucket and climatic information from the Nantucket Memorial Airport ASOS weather station, Black & Veatch chose to use the sea level air density (1.225 kg/m3) power curves when estimating energy production from the considered wind turbine models. These power curves are shown in Table 8-1.



Table 8-1. Wind Turbine Power Curves

Power Output, kW Hub Height Wind Speed (m/s) GE 1.5sle PS-600 WES30

0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 4 43 21 4 5 131 42 15 6 250 80 29 7 416 142 56 8 640 218 77 9 924 303 116 10 1,181 401 145 11 1,359 473 179 12 1,436 532 222 13 1,481 564 250 14 1,494 582 250 15 1,500 597 250 16 1,500 600 250 17 1,500 602 250 18 1,500 600 250 19 1,500 600 250 20 1,500 600 250 21 1,500 600 250 22 1,500 600 250 23 1,500 600 250 24 1,500 600 250 25 1,500 600 250

8.1.2 Estimated Losses Black & Veatch has examined the option of a large turbine for one of the sites

previously discussed to estimate the potential production losses that might impact wind turbines. Additionally, production losses are shown for a three turbine installation. Each loss factor is discussed below, and summarized in Table 8-2.



Table 8-2. Project Production Loss Factors.

Loss Type Loss Percentage Loss Factor Topographic Effect Varies Varies Wake Effect Varies Varies Turbine Availability 5% 0.95 Turbine Power Curve 3% 0.97 Grid Availability 1% 0.99 Electrical Losses 2% 0.98 Columnar Losses 0% 1.00 Blade Contamination 1% 0.99 Icing 1% 0.99 High/Low Temperature Shutdown

1% 0.99

High Wind Hysteresis 1% 0.99 Product of Loss Factors, not including Topographic and Wake Losses

15.8% 0.842

• Topographic Effect: This is the loss or gain due to wind speed

reductions or increases between the met tower and turbine caused by the site’s topography. The topographic effect varies by project scenario.

• Wake Effect: This is the energy loss due to the effect one turbine will have on another, or the wake caused by any structure on the wind turbines. By definition, this is zero for a single turbine project. Wake loss effects vary by project scenario.

• Turbine Availability: Wind turbine manufacturers will specify an availability level to be covered in a warranty (this may be difficult to obtain for smaller projects). This value assumes the turbine’s availability is only at that warranty value.

• Turbine Power Curve: The wind turbine manufacturer will warranty a performance level from the turbine at a percentage of the power curve values (this may also be difficult to obtain for a single turbine installation.) Typical warranty levels are 95 to 97 percent of published power curve. It is not uncommon for turbines to perform slightly less than published power curves. Black & Veatch has assumed a net loss of 3 percent for power curve underperformance.



• Grid Availability: An estimate is made as to the amount of time the utility (or in this case, the electrical system of the plant) will be available to receive power from the project. All grid systems are off-line periodically for maintenance, and projects in more remote locations will be connected to weaker grid systems that are more prone to failure. Losses for grid availability vary between 0.1 percent for very strong grid system to as high as 5 percent for weak systems (and even larger for systems outside the US). Although Black & Veatch has no specific information on grid reliability in the project area, an estimated loss of 1 percent was assumed for the grid, and another 1 percent for interconnection maintenance.

• Electrical Losses: Losses in the lines and electrical equipment prior to the plant’s revenue meters are covered by this factor. Points of significant electrical losses in a wind energy project usually include the underground and overhead distribution lines connecting the turbines to a substation, and the substation’s primary transformer. Typical electrical loss values range from as low as 1 percent to 10 percent or more, depending on the layout and equipment used. Since the overall project area is small with few turbines, electrical losses were assumed to be low, at 2 percent.

• Columnar Losses: If a project of many wind turbines is arranged in rows, turbine manufacturers may require the shutdown of some turbines when the winds are coming from directions parallel to the rows. These losses will not apply to the options defined in this report.

• Blade Contamination: Wind turbine performance is sensitive to the cleanliness of the turbine’s blades. In areas of high dust or insects, contamination can build on the wind turbine blades that will limit the turbine’s performance (causing losses up to 5 percent or more). Often the blades are cleaned by occasional rainfall, but in some areas periodic blade washing is required. For a lack of more specific information, a general loss of 1 percent due to contamination was assumed in this report.

• Icing: During winter storms, snow and ice will build up on the wind turbine blades causing a similar degradation in performance to that caused by dust and insects. While this contamination will build much faster than summer contamination, it is often cleared after a few hours of direct sunlight (even at continued subzero temperatures). Given the anticipated likelihood of several significant storms per winter, a loss of 1 percent was assumed for the lost energy due to icing.



• High/Low Temperature Shutdown: When temperatures at the site exceed maximum or minimum safe operating temperatures of a wind turbine, the turbine shuts down to protect itself. Based on the known climate data for the area, Black & Veatch assumed that a wind turbine at the site would have occasional need to shut down for extreme temperatures, and has assumed a 1 percent loss.

• High Wind Hysteresis: When wind speeds exceed the operational range of a wind turbine, the turbine shuts down to protect itself. Such shut-downs normally require the turbine to remain offline for several minutes, regardless if the wind speed returns to the operational range. Sites with a significant number of these high wind events suffer lost energy due to this hysteresis effect, which is additional to the amount of time the average wind speeds remain above the cut-out wind speed. Based on high wind events observed on Nantucket, a loss of 1 percent was assumed.

8.1.3 Production Estimates and Comparisons Black & Veatch estimated production for each of the five considered project

scenarios based on the wind resource analysis performed in Section 6. For the production estimate, Black & Veatch built a wind resource model of the sites using WAsP, an industry standard computational wind flow modeling software developed by Risø National Laboratory in Denmark, was used to calculated the wind resource on the project site based on data from the on site met towers. The adjusted long-term average wind data was input into WAsP along with terrain data from the USGS Seamless National Elevation Dataset and surface roughness characterization. WAsP then generated a wind resource grid, which provides a model for the varying wind resources across the areas of interest in the project.

The wind resource data generated by this model was then imported into OpenWind, an open-source wind farm modeling software developed by AWS Truewind. This model calculates wind turbine energy production based on the WAsP data, wind turbine power curves, and the interactions between turbines in a project (wake losses). The model also includes the loss assumptions developed in this section. The output from the model includes gross and net energy production and net capacity factor. These energy production estimates include the impacts of terrain and the wake effects of other turbines into the estimate of each turbine’s performance. Net capacity factor represents the net annual generation compared to maximum possible generation from the wind turbine (a value of 100% would mean the turbine would operate at rated power every hour of the year; a typical capacity factor for a project in the Northeast U.S. is about 30 percent).



The resulting energy and capacity factor estimates are shown in the following set of tables, each representing one of the project types. Table 8-3 shows the overall production results for the 5 potential plant configurations.

Table 8-3. Potential Plant Annual Production Estimates

Turbine Type Project Size

(kW)

Energy Production

(MWh)

Net C.F. (%)

Configuration 1: Municipal Site WES30 500 9574 21.8

Configuration 2: Municipal Site PS-600 600 1697 32.3

Configuration 3: FAA Site PS-600 1,800 5,503 34.9

Configuration 4: FAA Site GE 1.5sle 1,500 6,174 47.0

Configuration 5: Combined PS-600 2,400 7,196 34.2

8.2 On-Site Energy Use Most electrical loads on Nantucket are residential or small commercial loads. The

DPW Landfill site represents one of the largest loads on the island with their recycling and composting facility. For a project at the DPW Site, most of the wind energy would directly offset the facility loads. Depending on the size of the project, some may be distributed onto the grid and used by other customers on the same feeder.

There is as potential on-site load at the DPW Site, but it would likely only support generation offset of one medium sized turbine, and would still require a net metering arrangement to do so. However, the recently passed Green Communities Act of 2008 outlines net metering for large renewable energy projects up to 2 MW. Under the new law, a municipally-owned small wind project could classify as a several turbines comprising a Class II or Class III net metering facility.

• Class II Net Metering Facility: an agricultural net metering facility, solar net metering facility, or wind net metering facility with a generating capacity of more than 60 kilowatts but less than or equal to 1 megawatt; provided, however, that a Class II net metering facility owned or operated by a customer which is a municipality or other governmental entity may



have a generating capacity of more than 60 kilowatts but less than or equal to 1 megawatt per unit.

• Class III Net Metering Facility: an agricultural net metering facility, solar net metering facility, or wind-net-metering facility with a generating capacity of more than 1 megawatt but less than or equal to 2 megawatts; provided, however, that a Class III net metering facility owned or operated by a customer which is a municipality or other governmental entity may have a generating capacity of more than 1 megawatt but less than or equal to 2 megawatts per solar net metering or wind net metering unit.

For a municipal entity, the net metering credits obtained from excess generation at

such a facility defined as being equal to the sum of the default service charge, transmission charge, transition charge, and distribution charge. Because the net metering credits may be applied to other accounts, it was assumed that a project would be able to garner retail value for all production. The assumed value of the credits and by association the value of generated energy from wind turbine projects are defined in Section 10.

8.3 Performance Degradation Generally in a study such as this performance degradation over time is not

considered in the production estimates. It is assumed that over the 20 year projected operating life of a wind project, operations and maintenance are sufficient to keep the turbines operating nominally at the warranted availability.

What is expected to change over time is the cost of maintaining the turbines. This is accounted for in the financial analysis by increasing the operations and maintenance costs over time.

Massachusetts Technology Collaborative Community Wind Collaborative – Nantucket 9.0 Preliminary Cost Estimate


9.0 Preliminary Cost Estimate

Black & Veatch has prepared preliminary cost estimates for budgetary purposes. Estimates were prepared for each of the five developed project scenarios based on assumed base and per-turbine cost components. The cost estimates shown in Table 9-1 are based on general pricing data from wind turbine vendors and cost breakdowns from recent small and large wind turbine projects. A detailed cost estimate has not been generated for this study, nor has Black & Veatch requested cost proposals from local construction contractors. This estimate is not an offer from Black & Veatch to install this project for this price, but rather intended to be used for study purposes only. These estimates also do not attempt to capture any internal Town costs for necessary project oversight, approvals, bylaw changes, or other internal costs.

Black & Veatch estimates that the per installed kW costs range from about $3,300 to $8,500 depending on the turbine model and project size. The costs are much higher that a similar project on the mainland due to the complexities that the remote location of Nantucket present regarding the delivery and construction of any project. The cost per kW is expectedly higher for a small, single turbine project than for a larger single turbine, or multiple turbine projects, since all of the study, engineering, mobilization, and permitting work are amortized over fewer turbines. These prices also reflect the current exchange rate between the United States Dollar and the Euro, as well as general increases in the prices of steel, copper, and other materials. The current high demand for wind turbines in the U.S. affects costs as well.

Black & Veatch assumed that the first two years of operations and maintenance would be performed by the turbine manufacturer as part of the warranty and service contracts in the initial turbine supply agreement, and are included in the capital cost. As mentioned earlier, the construction and delivery costs are high compared to mainland project doe to transport constraints and construction mobility.

Anticipated project development costs reported are largely subjective and can vary depending on the results of developmental studies regarding environmental impacts, and other items concerning permitting. In the estimate, the costs are assumed to be similar for both sites when developed individually, but are expected to increase slightly if both sites are developed together. Interconnection and upgrade costs capture the anticipated engineering, procurement and construction of the interconnection facilities. These numbers were very high level estimates given by National Grid, but are largely dependent on the results of interconnection and facility studies as mentioned in Section 5.1. However, based on preliminary information from National Grid, Black & Veatch



does not believe that the project sizes discussed in this study will require major system upgrades.

Construction contingency reported only includes the wind turbine erection and balance-of-plant installation, and interconnection costs and assumed to be approximately five-percent



Table 9-1. Preliminary Project Cost Estimate

Municipal Site FAA Site Municipal and FAA Sites WES30 PS-600 PS-600 GE 1.5sle PS-600

Turbine Rating (kW) 250 600 600 1,500 600 Number of Turbines 2 1 3 1 4 Project Rating (kW) 500 600 1,800 1,500 2,400

Development and Project Management Costs Project Development $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 $400,000 Project Management $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $200,000

Subtotal $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $600,000 Cost per kW $333 $333 $278 $333 $250

Wind Turbine Costs Wind Turbine Procurement $1,600,000 $1,345,000 $3,995,000 $2,275,000 $5,320,000

Wind Turbine Transport $300,000 $400,000 $650,000 $450,000 $900,000 Subtotal $1,900,000 $1,745,000 $4,645,000 $2,725,000 $6,220,000

Cost per kW $3,800 $2,908 $2,581 $1,817 $2,592 Balance of Plant (BOP) Costs

Engineering (BOP Only) $220,000 $180,000 $300,000 $200,000 $360,000 Procurement (BOP Only) $120,000 $90,000 $150,000 $100,000 $200,000

Construction $1,350,000 $1,125,000 $1,905,000 $1,275,000 $2,400,000 Subtotal $1,690,000 $1,395,000 $2,355,000 $1,575,000 $2,960,000

Cost per kW $3,380 $2,325 $1,308 $1,050 $1,233 Interconnection Costs

Facility Interconnection $40,000 $40,000 $60,000 $50,000 $80,000



Table 9-1. Preliminary Project Cost Estimate

Municipal Site FAA Site Municipal and FAA Sites WES30 PS-600 PS-600 GE 1.5sle PS-600

System Upgrades $15,000 $15,000 $30,000 $25,000 $100,000 Subtotal $55,000 $55,000 $90,000 $75,000 $180,000

Cost per kW $92 $92 $50 $50 $75 Other Costs

Construction Contingency $70,000 $60,000 $100,000 $70,000 $130,000 Subtotal $70,000 $60,000 $100,000 $70,000 $130,000

Cost per kW $140 $100 $56 $47 $54 Total Project Costs

Total Project Cost $4,215,000 $3,755,000 $7,690,000 $4,945,000 $10,090,000 Project Cost per kW $8,430 $6,258 $4,272 $3,297 $4,204

Massachusetts Technology Collaborative Community Wind Collaborative – Nantucket 10.0 Preliminary Financial Analysis


10.0 Preliminary Financial Analysis

This section contains a preliminary analysis of the financial viability of a wind project on Nantucket. The analysis is based on the project scenarios and production estimates developed in Sections 7 and 8, and the factored cost estimate Developed in Section 9.

10.1 Financial Model Overview The financial model consists of a spreadsheet-based, 20-year annual cash flow

(pro forma) model. The model takes into account the project’s capital and operating costs, performance characteristics (e.g., capacity factor), REC sales, net metering credits, and energy sales.

The project options discussed in Section 7 were evaluated using the financial model for a 100 percent debt to finance the project. For the 100 percent debt assumption, since there is no equity investment, only net present value (NPV) is calculated. The payback is the amount of time in years it takes for the revenues to pay for the initial investment. Discounted payback takes into account the time value of money, and discounts the future savings. Simple payback takes into account the non-discounted 20 year cash flows. Both incorporate interest on debt. In general, projects that result in a lower payback time periods are preferred to those with a higher payback times. For all project options, a profitability index (cost/benefit ratio) is also calculated.

The results are driven by many assumptions made regarding project capital costs, operating costs, retail cost of energy, net-metering credits, REC values, and escalation of costs and revenues. Although this is a relatively simple economic model, in general, the results of the analysis should be sufficient to indicate general project viability, to differentiate between the various possible scenarios. If the project proceeds, it is recommended that a more detailed financial model be constructed to more accurately reflect the details of the project.

10.2 Major Assumptions

10.2.1 Assumed Value of Energy Energy from a wind project in Nantucket would be sold in one of two ways. The

first would be through a virtual net metering arrangement, which would allow the project offset Town energy use and to obtain nearly retail value for excess generated energy. The second would be through wholesale energy sales to the grid, which would return a lower value of energy to the Town.



Black & Veatch looked at two main sources of data to determine the values of energy offset (in the first case) or sold (in the second) by a wind turbine project in Nantucket. The first was the electrical service rates for Nantucket, which were obtained from the National Grid website. The energy charge for small commercial customers has varied over the past 6 years from about $70 to over $120 per MWh. The most recent service rates (May to October 2009) are just under $100 per MWh. Figure 10-1 shows the G-1 fixed basic service rates over the last 6 years.

Basic Service Cost over Time

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

9/1/2002 1/14/2004 5/28/2005 10/10/2006 2/22/2008 7/6/2009

Bas

ic S

ervi

ce R

ate,

$/M

Wh

Figure 10-1. National Grid Basic Service Costs over Time.

Based on this data, Black & Veatch has assumed a first-year price for fixed basic

service of $100 per MWh. The Class III net metering credit also includes charges for transmission, distribution, and transition if the project is municipally owned. If the project were not municipally owned, the distribution charge would not be included. Prices for the remaining components of the net metering credit were obtained from National Grid. Table 10-1 summarizes the assumed energy offset value of the net metering credit.



Table 10-1. Class III Net Metering Credit for Nantucket.

Charge Value ($/MWh) Basic service $100.0 Distribution $40.9

Transmission $14.5 Transition $11.6

Total $167 Source: National Grid schedule of rates

Black & Veatch used this as the assumption for the value of energy use offset

either directly or through a net metering arrangement. The actual value of the net metering credits for a wind project on Nantucket would vary with service rates based on the requirements of the Green Communities Act.

To estimate the value of energy sold on the wholesale market, Black & Veatch investigated the historical average energy prices in the Southeastern Massachusetts Localized Marginal Price (LMP) zone. The annual average prices in this zone are shown in Table 10-2. Based on the historical data, Black & Veatch assumed a wholesale price for energy of $70 per MWh, escalating with inflation.

Table 10-2. Average Annual LMP Price.

Year Average Price 2003 $47.54 2004 $50.72 2005 $74.44 2006 $58.18 2007 $66.19 2008 $81.35

2009 (to date) $41.25 Source: Ventyx Velocity Suite

10.2.2 Renewable Energy Credits In the past, MTC has made a Standard Financial Offer (SFO) to purchase the

RECs from a community project such as this at a price of $40 per MWh, and the town could choose to start taking the SFO at any point during the project’s lifespan. Black & Veatch understands that this system is being reworked, but that there will still be



renewable energy credit markets and contracts available. Based on known market data, Black & Veatch assumed that the town would be able to sign a 10 year REC sales agreement with a third party at a rate of $40 per MWh. After that, the value of RECs was reduced to $30. Black & Veatch believes these to be realistic target values, but cautions that the market may change and that forward predictions of REC value are uncertain.

10.2.3 Financing Assumptions Black & Veatch made several major assumptions in order to perform this

financial analysis. They include debt and equity sources and amounts, debt interest rate, debt service coverage ratios, hurdle rates for return on equity, and the applicability of tax credits. The assumptions used for Town ownership of projects are shown in Table 10-3. It was assumed that the Town would develop and own the project, and would be able to finance a project over a 20-year term.



Table 10-3. Economic Analysis Assumptions.

Assumption Value Source Project Assumptions Turbine Operations and Maintenance Cost, years 1 and 2

$0 Included in capital cost estimate

Large Turbine Operations and Maintenance Cost, years 3 and on

$60,000 B&V estimate, per turbine per year

Medium Turbine Operations and Maintenance Cost, years 3 and on


Small Turbine Operations and Maintenance Cost, years 3 and on


Operations and Maintenance Escalation Rate

2.5% B&V estimate, based on project experience

Virtual Net Metering Credit $167/MWh National Grid rate schedule September 2009, Green Communities Act

Wholesale Energy Price $70/MWh B&V estimate based on LMP prices for SEMASS zone

Town of Nantucket Financial/Economic Assumptions Debt Percentage 100% Black & Veatch assumes 100 percent

debt financing Debt Interest Rate 3.0 Black & Veatch estimate for municipal

bonds Debt Term 20 years Black & Veatch estimate assuming Town

is able to issue 20-year bonds Annual Escalation Rate 2.5% Black & Veatch estimate for energy price

escalation and inflation Nominal Discount Rate 4% Black & Veatch estimate Corporate Income Tax Rate 0.0% Town not taxable entity Tax Credits $0 Town not taxable entity Utility Insurance $8.75/kW/yr MTC estimate REC Price Assumptions REC Sales, Years 1-10 $40/MWh B&V estimate based on MTC SFO and

current New England Trends REC Sales, After Contract $30/MWh B&V assumption



10.3 Estimated Financial Results Table 10-4 is a summary of the estimated net present value and payback in years

for each energy price scenario (virtual net metering and wholesale energy sales), including REC sales.

Table 10-4. Estimated Net Present Value and Payback Time (Years).

Virtual Net Metering Wholesale Energy Prices

Project Type NPV

($1000s) Simple

Payback Discounted

Payback NPV

($1000s) Simple

Payback Discounted

Payback FAA Site, GE 1.5sle 13,820 4.55 6.88 4,430 14.31 21.47 FAA Site, PS-600 9,050 10.75 16.34 421 230.23 350.46 Municipal Site, PS-600 1,535 30.23 47.05 -1,126 N/A N/A Municipal Site, WES30 -1,351 N/A N/A -2,852 N/A N/A Both Sites, PS-600 11,762 10.86 16.50 480 266.01 404.46

10.4 Financial Viability The estimated financial results in Section 10.3 indicate that a Town-owned wind

project in Nantucket is financially viable, but very sensitive to the turbine type and project size. The projects with the highest return from a Town perspective appear to be the single turbine projects with virtual net metering at the FAA Site, assuming that all generated energy can garner retail value. Projects utilizing the PS-600, both at the FAA Site and the full build-out of both sites yield less attractive values compared to the GE, while a project using the WES30 do not appear viable.

This analysis was prepared using a simplified cash flow spreadsheet, and does not capture all the costs associated with the ownership and operation of a wind turbine. A detailed financial analysis can be completed as part of the Business Planning phase of project development, after completion of this feasibility study.


11.0 Project DevelopmentConsiderations


11.0 Project Development Considerations

The following section discusses the project development considerations for a wind project in the Town of Nantucket.

11.1 Development and Ownership Options There are typically two ownership options explored for Massachusetts

communities looking to host community scale wind projects on municipal lands: municipal ownership and third party (commercial) ownership. For this project it is quite possible that the only available ownership option will be municipal, due to the requirements of Nantucket. Possibilities for shared-ownership of the project are unknown, though Black & Veatch recommends this option be further investigated. Third party ownership was still modeled in the financial analysis, but is unlikely to be a viable option.

11.1.1 Municipal Ownership Town ownership should have greater economic gains for the Town, but it would

also bear the risks associated with the ownership of an income earning enterprise. Assistance from MTC is available, however, and if the Town develops the project it has the potential for higher returns than would be earned from the developer option.

11.1.2 Private Ownership Private developers have experience with developing wind projects and could

allow for more easily development of these sites. Private owners are also eligible for federal tax incentives, such as the Production Tax Credit (PTC) and accelerated depreciation, which may make the project more viable financially. The Town’s primary benefits from private ownership are likely to be either property tax or payment in lieu of tax (PILOT), as well as lease payments for the use of municipal land.

A potential drawback with using a private developer is that it may be difficult for the Town to interest a private developer in such a small project with complicated regulations and requirements. There is significant risk that a project could be slowed by local opposition or permitting problems, delays that could prove fatal to a private developer.

Table 11-1 summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of each ownership option.




Table 11-1. Public vs. Private Ownership.

Ownership Option Advantages Disadvantages Private Developer Eligible for Production Tax

Credit Higher cost of debt

(uncertain) Takes on risk of project,

experience in developing wind projects

May be difficult to attract developer interest for such a

small project

Municipal Lower cost of debt (uncertain)

No access to the Production Tax Credit

Potential for greater economic benefit

Business risk, little experience developing wind

projects

11.2 Project Financing Black & Veatch has assumed that the Town of Nantucket would finance a wind

energy project with 100 percent debt in the form of 20-year municipal bonds. This would allow a lower interest rate than financing from other sources, resulting in a lower overall cost of debt and higher return. The Town may require special legislation to be able to issue bonds for this length of time.

Private development would have a higher cost of debt, as financing would be through a private institution. For simplicity, it was assumed that a private developer would finance a project using 100 percent equity.

11.3 Development Considerations A wind energy project in Nantucket will generate Renewable Energy Credits

(RECs) equivalent to the number of megawatt-hours (MWh) of energy it produces. These RECs are an attempt to capture the “green” aspects of renewable energy. Massachusetts has an operating REC market where these credits can be bought and sold. Purchasing these credits may help a utility meet the requirements of the state Renewable Portfolio Standard without purchasing a project or its energy directly. Black & Veatch has assumed that the Town would sell all RECs generated by the project.

Project management and procurement would likely be handled by a third party contractor who will actually do the project engineering and install the turbines. Alternatively, the Town could buy the turbines themselves and hire a contractor to




perform the remaining engineering, construction, and installation. Often with large projects the project owner procures the turbines directly because the long lead time to obtain turbines means they are often bought before a construction contractor is selected, though there are several aggregators in Massachusetts that are able to provide a full service installation including turbine procurement for small projects such as this.

11.4 Operations and Management The projects investigated in this report will not likely be large enough for a

turbine manufacturer to have dedicated service personnel in the area. There are nearby operating wind projects on the mainland, and since the manufacturer would likely perform routine maintenance and repair on the turbines for the first five years of operations, it is likely that personnel from these other wind projects in New England would be dispatched to Nantucket as necessary. A project on Nantucket would most likely be operated and monitored from an existing project facility elsewhere as well. This may introduce delays in servicing faults that require on-site repair, though many faults could be reset remotely. It also provides a few challenges regarding transportation to the island from the mainland.

After the turbine warranty period ends, the Town would have the option of hiring a third party operations and maintenance company that would operate and maintain the turbines similarly to the manufacturer, or could have local residents trained in the operation and maintenance of the turbines.


Appendix A. Wind Resource Map ofMassachusetts

07 January 2010 A-1 Black & Veatch

Appendix A. Wind Resource Map of Massachusetts

A wind resource map of Massachusetts was downloaded from the New England Wind Map web site (http://truewind.teamcamelot.com/ne/).

Figure A-1. Massachusetts Wind Resource Map.

Massachusetts Technology Collaborative Community Wind Collaborative – Nantucket Appendix B. Project Cash Flows

07 January 2010 B-1 Black & Veatch

Appendix B. Project Cash Flows

MTC Community Wind CollaborativeLife-Cycle Economic EvaluationTown of Nantucket

Configuration Information Value Financial Variables Defaults Revenue Stream Variables Value ResultsCommunity Nantucket Debt Interest Rate 5.00% On-Site Energy Use (MWh) 0 Net Present Value 13,819,772Site FAA Site Financing Term (years) 10 On-Site Energy Value ($/MWh) $167 Internal Rate of Return #DIV/0!Wind Turbine Type GE 1.5xle Debt to Equity Ratio 100% 0% WTG Energy Avail for On-Site Offset 100% Debt Service Coverage Ratio 3.3WTG Rating (MW) 1.50 Present Worth Disc. Rate 5.0% Energy Used On-Site (MWh) 0Number of Turbines 1 Composite Income Tax 39.6% On-Site Energy Savings $0Project Rating (MW) 1.50 General Escalation 2.5% Energy Sales Rate ($/MWh) $167Annual Energy (MWh) 5,989 Other Project Variables REC Sales Rate Year 1-10 ($/MWh) $40Project Capacity Factor 45.58% Year 3 Sched O&M REC Sales Rate Years 10+ $30Project Capital Cost $4,945,000 Year 3 Unsched O&M Utility Insurance Rate $8.75MTC Credit $0Total Town Outlay $4,945,000

All input alues are in 2009$Project Cost per kW $3,297

Cash Flow AnalysisFAA Site Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 Year 19 Year 20

Units Escalation 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026OPERATING REVENUES

Energy Savings $/yr 2.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Energy Sales $/yr 2.5% 1,000,163 1,025,167 1,050,796 1,077,066 1,103,993 1,131,593 1,159,882 1,188,880 1,218,601 1,249,067 1,280,293 1,312,301 1,345,108 1,378,736 1,413,204 1,448,534 1,484,748 1,521,866 1,559,913 1,598,911REC Sales - Years 1-10 $/yr 0.0% 239,560 239,560 239,560 239,560 239,560 239,560 239,560 239,560 239,560 239,560 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0REC Sales - Years 11-20 $/yr 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 179,670 179,670 179,670 179,670 179,670 179,670 179,670 179,670 179,670 179,670REC Sales - Spot Market $/yr 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$/yr 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$/yr 2.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$/yr 2.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$/yr 2.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$/yr 2.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total $/yr N/A 1,239,723 1,264,727 1,290,356 1,316,626 1,343,553 1,371,153 1,399,442 1,428,440 1,458,161 1,488,627 1,459,963 1,491,971 1,524,778 1,558,406 1,592,874 1,628,204 1,664,418 1,701,536 1,739,583 1,778,581$/yr 2.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Operating Revenues $/yr N/A 1,239,723 1,264,727 1,290,356 1,316,626 1,343,553 1,371,153 1,399,442 1,428,440 1,458,161 1,488,627 1,459,963 1,491,971 1,524,778 1,558,406 1,592,874 1,628,204 1,664,418 1,701,536 1,739,583 1,778,581

OPERATING EXPENSESUtility Insurance $/yr 2.5% 13,125 13,453 13,789 14,134 14,488 14,850 15,221 15,602 15,992 16,391 16,801 17,221 17,652 18,093 18,545 19,009 19,484 19,971 20,471 20,982Scheduled O&M $/yr 2.5% 0 0 50,000 51,250 52,531 53,845 55,191 56,570 57,985 59,434 60,920 62,443 64,004 65,604 67,244 68,926 70,649 72,415 74,225 76,081Unscheduled O&M $/yr 2.5% 0 0 10,000 10,250 10,506 10,769 11,038 11,314 11,597 11,887 12,184 12,489 12,801 13,121 13,449 13,785 14,130 14,483 14,845 15,216

Total Operating Expenses $/yr N/A 0 0 60,000 61,500 63,038 64,613 66,229 67,884 69,582 71,321 73,104 74,932 76,805 78,725 80,693 82,711 84,778 86,898 89,070 91,297

CASH AVAILABLE FOR FINANCING $/yr N/A 1,239,723 1,264,727 1,230,356 1,255,126 1,280,515 1,306,539 1,333,214 1,360,555 1,388,580 1,417,305 1,386,859 1,417,039 1,447,973 1,479,681 1,512,181 1,545,494 1,579,639 1,614,638 1,650,513 1,687,284

DEBT SERVICEBeginning Balance $ N/A 4,945,000 4,760,968 4,571,416 4,376,176 4,175,080 3,967,951 3,754,608 3,534,864 3,308,529 3,075,403 2,835,283 2,587,960 2,333,217 2,070,832 1,800,575 1,522,211 1,235,495 940,179 636,002 322,701Debt Principal $/yr N/A 184,032 189,553 195,239 201,096 207,129 213,343 219,743 226,336 233,126 240,120 247,323 254,743 262,385 270,257 278,364 286,715 295,317 304,176 313,302 322,701Debt Interest $/yr N/A 148,350 142,829 137,142 131,285 125,252 119,039 112,638 106,046 99,256 92,262 85,058 77,639 69,997 62,125 54,017 45,666 37,065 28,205 19,080 9,681

Ending Balance $ N/A 4,760,968 4,571,416 4,376,176 4,175,080 3,967,951 3,754,608 3,534,864 3,308,529 3,075,403 2,835,283 2,587,960 2,333,217 2,070,832 1,800,575 1,522,211 1,235,495 940,179 636,002 322,701 0

Total Finance Expenses $/yr N/A 332,382 332,382 332,382 332,382 332,382 332,382 332,382 332,382 332,382 332,382 332,382 332,382 332,382 332,382 332,382 332,382 332,382 332,382 332,382 332,382

BEFORE TAX CASH FLOWTotal Income $/yr N/A 1,239,723 1,264,727 1,290,356 1,316,626 1,343,553 1,371,153 1,399,442 1,428,440 1,458,161 1,488,627 1,459,963 1,491,971 1,524,778 1,558,406 1,592,874 1,628,204 1,664,418 1,701,536 1,739,583 1,778,581Total Expenses (Incl. Debt Service) $/yr N/A 332,382 332,382 392,382 393,882 395,419 396,995 398,610 400,266 401,963 403,703 405,486 407,313 409,187 411,107 413,075 415,092 417,160 419,280 421,452 423,679

TOTAL BEFORE TAX CASH FLOW $/yr N/A 907,341 932,345 897,975 922,744 948,134 974,158 1,000,832 1,028,173 1,056,198 1,084,924 1,054,477 1,084,657 1,115,591 1,147,299 1,179,799 1,213,112 1,247,257 1,282,257 1,318,131 1,354,902

AFTER TAX CASH FLOWDepreciation Expense (7yr DDB) $/yr N/A 1,412,857 1,009,184 720,845 514,890 367,778 262,699 187,642Taxable Income $/yr N/A -321,484 112,714 372,368 608,951 787,485 924,802 1,032,933 1,254,509 1,289,324 1,325,043 1,301,801 1,339,400 1,377,976 1,417,556 1,458,164 1,499,827 1,542,574 1,586,433 1,631,433 1,677,603

Tax (Credit) $/yr N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL AFTER TAX CASH FLOW $/yr 0 907,341 932,345 897,975 922,744 948,134 974,158 1,000,832 1,028,173 1,056,198 1,084,924 1,054,477 1,084,657 1,115,591 1,147,299 1,179,799 1,213,112 1,247,257 1,282,257 1,318,131 1,354,902

Value3.00%

20

4.0%

$10,000 $10,000

0.0%2.50%

$50,000 $20,000


Configuration Information Value Financial Variables Defaults Revenue Stream Variables Value ResultsCommunity Nantucket Debt Interest Rate 5.00% On-Site Energy Use (MWh) 0 Net Present Value 4,429,629Site FAA Site Financing Term (years) 10 On-Site Energy Value ($/MWh) $167 Internal Rate of Return #DIV/0!Wind Turbine Type GE 1.5xle Debt to Equity Ratio 100% 0% WTG Energy Avail for On-Site Offset 100% Debt Service Coverage Ratio 1.0WTG Rating (MW) 1.50 Present Worth Disc. Rate 5.0% Energy Used On-Site (MWh) 0Number of Turbines 1 Composite Income Tax 39.6% On-Site Energy Savings $0Project Rating (MW) 1.50 General Escalation 2.5% Energy Sales Rate ($/MWh) $70Annual Energy (MWh) 5,989 Other Project Variables REC Sales Rate Year 1-10 ($/MWh) $40Project Capacity Factor 45.58% Year 3 Sched O&M REC Sales Rate Years 10+ $30Project Capital Cost $4,945,000 Year 3 Unsched O&M Utility Insurance Rate $8.75MTC Credit $0Total Town Outlay $4,945,000




Energy Savings $/yr 2.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Energy Sales $/yr 2.5% 419,230 429,711 440,454 451,465 462,751 474,320 486,178 498,333 510,791 523,561 536,650 550,066 563,818 577,913 592,361 607,170 622,349 637,908 653,856 670,202REC Sales - Years 1-10 $/yr 0.0% 239,560 239,560 239,560 239,560 239,560 239,560 239,560 239,560 239,560 239,560 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0REC Sales - Years 11-20 $/yr 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 179,670 179,670 179,670 179,670 179,670 179,670 179,670 179,670 179,670 179,670REC Sales - Spot Market $/yr 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$/yr 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$/yr 2.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$/yr 2.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$/yr 2.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$/yr 2.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total $/yr N/A 658,790 669,271 680,014 691,025 702,311 713,880 725,738 737,893 750,351 763,121 716,320 729,736 743,488 757,583 772,031 786,840 802,019 817,578 833,526 849,872$/yr 2.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Operating Revenues $/yr N/A 658,790 669,271 680,014 691,025 702,311 713,880 725,738 737,893 750,351 763,121 716,320 729,736 743,488 757,583 772,031 786,840 802,019 817,578 833,526 849,872



CASH AVAILABLE FOR FINANCING $/yr N/A 658,790 669,271 620,014 629,525 639,274 649,267 659,509 670,008 680,769 691,800 643,216 654,804 666,683 678,858 691,338 704,129 717,241 730,680 744,455 758,575




BEFORE TAX CASH FLOWTotal Income $/yr N/A 658,790 669,271 680,014 691,025 702,311 713,880 725,738 737,893 750,351 763,121 716,320 729,736 743,488 757,583 772,031 786,840 802,019 817,578 833,526 849,872Total Expenses (Incl. Debt Service) $/yr N/A 332,382 332,382 392,382 393,882 395,419 396,995 398,610 400,266 401,963 403,703 405,486 407,313 409,187 411,107 413,075 415,092 417,160 419,280 421,452 423,679

TOTAL BEFORE TAX CASH FLOW $/yr N/A 326,408 336,889 287,632 297,143 306,892 316,885 327,128 337,627 348,388 359,418 310,834 322,423 334,301 346,476 358,956 371,748 384,859 398,298 412,074 426,193

AFTER TAX CASH FLOWDepreciation Expense (7yr DDB) $/yr N/A 1,412,857 1,009,184 720,845 514,890 367,778 262,699 187,642Taxable Income $/yr N/A -902,417 -482,742 -237,974 -16,650 146,243 267,530 359,229 563,962 581,514 599,538 558,157 577,166 596,686 616,733 637,320 658,463 680,176 702,475 725,375 748,894

Tax (Credit) $/yr N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL AFTER TAX CASH FLOW $/yr 0 326,408 336,889 287,632 297,143 306,892 316,885 327,128 337,627 348,388 359,418 310,834 322,423 334,301 346,476 358,956 371,748 384,859 398,298 412,074 426,193

$10,000 $10,000

0.0%2.50%

$50,000 $20,000

Value3.00%

20

4.0%


Configuration Information Value Financial Variables Defaults Revenue Stream Variables Value ResultsCommunity Nantucket Debt Interest Rate 5.00% On-Site Energy Use (MWh) 0 Net Present Value 9,050,117Site FAA Site Financing Term (years) 10 On-Site Energy Value ($/MWh) $167 Internal Rate of Return #DIV/0!Wind Turbine Type RRB V47 (PS-600) Debt to Equity Ratio 100% 0% WTG Energy Avail for On-Site Offset 100% Debt Service Coverage Ratio 1.4WTG Rating (MW) 0.60 Present Worth Disc. Rate 5.0% Energy Used On-Site (MWh) 0Number of Turbines 3 Composite Income Tax 39.6% On-Site Energy Savings $0Project Rating (MW) 1.80 General Escalation 2.5% Energy Sales Rate ($/MWh) $167Annual Energy (MWh) 5,503 Other Project Variables REC Sales Rate Year 1-10 ($/MWh) $40Project Capacity Factor 34.90% Year 3 Sched O&M REC Sales Rate Years 10+ $30Project Capital Cost $7,690,000 Year 3 Unsched O&M Utility Insurance Rate $8.75MTC Credit $0Total Town Outlay $7,690,000




Energy Savings $/yr 2.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Energy Sales $/yr 2.5% 919,001 941,976 965,525 989,664 1,014,405 1,039,765 1,065,759 1,092,403 1,119,713 1,147,706 1,176,399 1,205,809 1,235,954 1,266,853 1,298,524 1,330,987 1,364,262 1,398,369 1,433,328 1,469,161REC Sales - Years 1-10 $/yr 0.0% 220,120 220,120 220,120 220,120 220,120 220,120 220,120 220,120 220,120 220,120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0REC Sales - Years 11-20 $/yr 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 165,090 165,090 165,090 165,090 165,090 165,090 165,090 165,090 165,090 165,090REC Sales - Spot Market $/yr 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$/yr 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$/yr 2.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$/yr 2.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$/yr 2.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$/yr 2.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total $/yr N/A 1,139,121 1,162,096 1,185,645 1,209,784 1,234,525 1,259,885 1,285,879 1,312,523 1,339,833 1,367,826 1,341,489 1,370,899 1,401,044 1,431,943 1,463,614 1,496,077 1,529,352 1,563,459 1,598,418 1,634,251$/yr 2.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0





DEBT SERVICEBeginning Balance $ N/A 7,690,000 7,403,811 7,109,037 6,805,419 6,492,693 6,170,585 5,838,814 5,497,089 5,145,113 4,782,578 4,409,166 4,024,552 3,628,400 3,220,363 2,800,086 2,367,199 1,921,327 1,462,078 989,051 501,834Debt Principal $/yr N/A 286,189 294,774 303,618 312,726 322,108 331,771 341,724 351,976 362,535 373,411 384,614 396,152 408,037 420,278 432,886 445,873 459,249 473,026 487,217 501,834Debt Interest $/yr N/A 230,700 222,114 213,271 204,163 194,781 185,118 175,164 164,913 154,353 143,477 132,275 120,737 108,852 96,611 84,003 71,016 57,640 43,862 29,672 15,055

Ending Balance $ N/A 7,403,811 7,109,037 6,805,419 6,492,693 6,170,585 5,838,814 5,497,089 5,145,113 4,782,578 4,409,166 4,024,552 3,628,400 3,220,363 2,800,086 2,367,199 1,921,327 1,462,078 989,051 501,834 0




AFTER TAX CASH FLOWDepreciation Expense (7yr DDB) $/yr N/A 2,197,143 1,569,388 1,120,991 800,708 571,934 408,525 291,803Taxable Income $/yr N/A -1,288,722 -629,406 -268,617 81,913 341,735 537,016 686,454 1,011,842 1,046,317 1,081,707 1,063,006 1,100,299 1,138,582 1,177,882 1,218,225 1,259,640 1,302,155 1,345,801 1,390,606 1,436,602

Tax (Credit) $/yr N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


$30,000 $10,000

0.0%2.50%

$90,000 $20,000

Value3.00%

20

4.0%


Configuration Information Value Financial Variables Defaults Revenue Stream Variables Value ResultsCommunity Nantucket Debt Interest Rate 5.00% On-Site Energy Use (MWh) 0 Net Present Value 421,973Site FAA Site Financing Term (years) 10 On-Site Energy Value ($/MWh) $167 Internal Rate of Return #DIV/0!Wind Turbine Type RRB V47 (PS-600) Debt to Equity Ratio 100% 0% WTG Energy Avail for On-Site Offset 100% Debt Service Coverage Ratio 0.1WTG Rating (MW) 0.60 Present Worth Disc. Rate 5.0% Energy Used On-Site (MWh) 0Number of Turbines 3 Composite Income Tax 39.6% On-Site Energy Savings $0Project Rating (MW) 1.80 General Escalation 2.5% Energy Sales Rate ($/MWh) $70Annual Energy (MWh) 5,503 Other Project Variables REC Sales Rate Year 1-10 ($/MWh) $40Project Capacity Factor 34.90% Year 3 Sched O&M REC Sales Rate Years 10+ $30Project Capital Cost $7,690,000 Year 3 Unsched O&M Utility Insurance Rate $8.75MTC Credit $0Total Town Outlay $7,690,000





$/yr 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$/yr 2.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$/yr 2.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$/yr 2.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$/yr 2.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total $/yr N/A 605,330 614,960 624,831 634,949 645,320 655,950 666,846 678,014 689,461 701,195 658,191 670,519 683,155 696,106 709,382 722,989 736,936 751,233 765,886 780,906$/yr 2.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0





DEBT SERVICEBeginning Balance $ N/A 7,690,000 7,403,811 7,109,037 6,805,419 6,492,693 6,170,585 5,838,814 5,497,089 5,145,113 4,782,578 4,409,166 4,024,552 3,628,400 3,220,363 2,800,086 2,367,199 1,921,327 1,462,078 989,051 501,834Debt Principal $/yr N/A 286,189 294,774 303,618 312,726 322,108 331,771 341,724 351,976 362,535 373,411 384,614 396,152 408,037 420,278 432,886 445,873 459,249 473,026 487,217 501,834Debt Interest $/yr N/A 230,700 222,114 213,271 204,163 194,781 185,118 175,164 164,913 154,353 143,477 132,275 120,737 108,852 96,611 84,003 71,016 57,640 43,862 29,672 15,055

Ending Balance $ N/A 7,403,811 7,109,037 6,805,419 6,492,693 6,170,585 5,838,814 5,497,089 5,145,113 4,782,578 4,409,166 4,024,552 3,628,400 3,220,363 2,800,086 2,367,199 1,921,327 1,462,078 989,051 501,834 0



TOTAL BEFORE TAX CASH FLOW $/yr N/A 88,441 98,071 -12,058 -4,940 2,356 9,834 17,499 25,356 33,409 41,663 -4,906 3,767 12,656 21,767 31,106 40,679 50,491 60,548 70,857 81,423

AFTER TAX CASH FLOWDepreciation Expense (7yr DDB) $/yr N/A 2,197,143 1,569,388 1,120,991 800,708 571,934 408,525 291,803Taxable Income $/yr N/A -1,822,513 -1,176,542 -829,431 -492,922 -247,470 -66,919 67,420 377,332 395,944 415,075 379,708 399,919 420,692 442,045 463,992 486,552 509,740 533,574 558,074 583,257

Tax (Credit) $/yr N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL AFTER TAX CASH FLOW $/yr 0 88,441 98,071 -12,058 -4,940 2,356 9,834 17,499 25,356 33,409 41,663 -4,906 3,767 12,656 21,767 31,106 40,679 50,491 60,548 70,857 81,423

Value3.00%

20

4.0%

$30,000 $10,000

0.0%2.50%

$90,000 $20,000


Configuration Information Value Financial Variables Defaults Revenue Stream Variables Value ResultsCommunity Nantucket Debt Interest Rate 5.00% On-Site Energy Use (MWh) 0 Net Present Value 1,534,743Site Municipal Site Financing Term (years) 10 On-Site Energy Value ($/MWh) $167 Internal Rate of Return #DIV/0!Wind Turbine Type RRB V47 (PS-600) Debt to Equity Ratio 100% 0% WTG Energy Avail for On-Site Offset 100% Debt Service Coverage Ratio 0.5WTG Rating (MW) 0.60 Present Worth Disc. Rate 5.0% Energy Used On-Site (MWh) 0Number of Turbines 1 Composite Income Tax 39.6% On-Site Energy Savings $0Project Rating (MW) 0.60 General Escalation 2.5% Energy Sales Rate ($/MWh) $167Annual Energy (MWh) 1,697 Other Project Variables REC Sales Rate Year 1-10 ($/MWh) $40Project Capacity Factor 32.29% Year 3 Sched O&M REC Sales Rate Years 10+ $30Project Capital Cost $3,755,000 Year 3 Unsched O&M Utility Insurance Rate $8.75MTC Credit $0Total Town Outlay $3,755,000


Cash Flow AnalysisMunicipal Site Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 Year 19 Year 20



$/yr 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$/yr 2.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$/yr 2.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$/yr 2.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$/yr 2.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total $/yr N/A 351,279 358,364 365,626 373,070 380,699 388,520 396,536 404,752 413,174 421,807 413,685 422,754 432,050 441,579 451,345 461,356 471,617 482,135 492,916 503,966$/yr 2.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0





DEBT SERVICEBeginning Balance $ N/A 3,755,000 3,615,255 3,471,318 3,323,062 3,170,359 3,013,075 2,851,072 2,684,209 2,512,341 2,335,316 2,152,980 1,965,175 1,771,735 1,572,492 1,367,272 1,155,895 938,177 713,927 482,950 245,044Debt Principal $/yr N/A 139,745 143,937 148,255 152,703 157,284 162,003 166,863 171,869 177,025 182,336 187,806 193,440 199,243 205,220 211,377 217,718 224,250 230,977 237,906 245,044Debt Interest $/yr N/A 112,650 108,458 104,140 99,692 95,111 90,392 85,532 80,526 75,370 70,059 64,589 58,955 53,152 47,175 41,018 34,677 28,145 21,418 14,489 7,351

Ending Balance $ N/A 3,615,255 3,471,318 3,323,062 3,170,359 3,013,075 2,851,072 2,684,209 2,512,341 2,335,316 2,152,980 1,965,175 1,771,735 1,572,492 1,367,272 1,155,895 938,177 713,927 482,950 245,044 0




AFTER TAX CASH FLOWDepreciation Expense (7yr DDB) $/yr N/A 1,072,857 766,327 547,376 390,983 279,274 199,481 142,486Taxable Income $/yr N/A -834,228 -516,420 -325,890 -158,605 -35,710 55,571 124,365 278,970 291,416 304,200 300,359 313,844 327,695 341,920 356,532 371,539 386,953 402,785 419,047 435,750

Tax (Credit) $/yr N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


$10,000 $10,000

0.0%2.50%

$30,000 $20,000

Value3.00%

20

4.0%


Configuration Information Value Financial Variables Defaults Revenue Stream Variables Value ResultsCommunity Nantucket Debt Interest Rate 5.00% On-Site Energy Use (MWh) 0 Net Present Value (1,125,980)Site Municipal Site Financing Term (years) 10 On-Site Energy Value ($/MWh) $167 Internal Rate of Return #DIV/0!Wind Turbine Type RRB V47 (PS-600) Debt to Equity Ratio 100% 0% WTG Energy Avail for On-Site Offset 100% Debt Service Coverage Ratio -0.3WTG Rating (MW) 0.60 Present Worth Disc. Rate 5.0% Energy Used On-Site (MWh) 0Number of Turbines 1 Composite Income Tax 39.6% On-Site Energy Savings $0Project Rating (MW) 0.60 General Escalation 2.5% Energy Sales Rate ($/MWh) $70Annual Energy (MWh) 1,697 Other Project Variables REC Sales Rate Year 1-10 ($/MWh) $40Project Capacity Factor 32.29% Year 3 Sched O&M REC Sales Rate Years 10+ $30Project Capital Cost $3,755,000 Year 3 Unsched O&M Utility Insurance Rate $8.75MTC Credit $0Total Town Outlay $3,755,000





$/yr 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$/yr 2.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$/yr 2.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$/yr 2.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$/yr 2.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total $/yr N/A 186,670 189,640 192,684 195,804 199,002 202,280 205,640 209,084 212,614 216,232 202,971 206,773 210,669 214,663 218,757 222,953 227,254 231,663 236,182 240,814$/yr 2.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0





DEBT SERVICEBeginning Balance $ N/A 3,755,000 3,615,255 3,471,318 3,323,062 3,170,359 3,013,075 2,851,072 2,684,209 2,512,341 2,335,316 2,152,980 1,965,175 1,771,735 1,572,492 1,367,272 1,155,895 938,177 713,927 482,950 245,044Debt Principal $/yr N/A 139,745 143,937 148,255 152,703 157,284 162,003 166,863 171,869 177,025 182,336 187,806 193,440 199,243 205,220 211,377 217,718 224,250 230,977 237,906 245,044Debt Interest $/yr N/A 112,650 108,458 104,140 99,692 95,111 90,392 85,532 80,526 75,370 70,059 64,589 58,955 53,152 47,175 41,018 34,677 28,145 21,418 14,489 7,351

Ending Balance $ N/A 3,615,255 3,471,318 3,323,062 3,170,359 3,013,075 2,851,072 2,684,209 2,512,341 2,335,316 2,152,980 1,965,175 1,771,735 1,572,492 1,367,272 1,155,895 938,177 713,927 482,950 245,044 0



TOTAL BEFORE TAX CASH FLOW $/yr N/A -65,725 -62,755 -99,711 -97,591 -95,418 -93,191 -90,908 -88,567 -86,169 -83,710 -98,160 -95,577 -92,929 -90,215 -87,433 -84,582 -81,660 -78,664 -75,593 -72,446

AFTER TAX CASH FLOWDepreciation Expense (7yr DDB) $/yr N/A 1,072,857 766,327 547,376 390,983 279,274 199,481 142,486Taxable Income $/yr N/A -998,837 -685,144 -498,832 -335,871 -217,407 -130,669 -66,531 83,301 90,856 98,626 89,646 97,863 106,314 115,005 123,943 133,136 142,590 152,313 162,313 172,598

Tax (Credit) $/yr N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL AFTER TAX CASH FLOW $/yr 0 -65,725 -62,755 -99,711 -97,591 -95,418 -93,191 -90,908 -88,567 -86,169 -83,710 -98,160 -95,577 -92,929 -90,215 -87,433 -84,582 -81,660 -78,664 -75,593 -72,446

Value3.00%

20

4.0%

$10,000 $10,000

0.0%2.50%

$30,000 $20,000


Configuration Information Value Financial Variables Defaults Revenue Stream Variables Value ResultsCommunity Nantucket Debt Interest Rate 5.00% On-Site Energy Use (MWh) 0 Net Present Value (1,351,023)Site Municipal Site Financing Term (years) 10 On-Site Energy Value ($/MWh) $167 Internal Rate of Return #DIV/0!Wind Turbine Type WES30 Debt to Equity Ratio 100% 0% WTG Energy Avail for On-Site Offset 100% Debt Service Coverage Ratio -0.4WTG Rating (MW) 0.25 Present Worth Disc. Rate 5.0% Energy Used On-Site (MWh) 0Number of Turbines 2 Composite Income Tax 39.6% On-Site Energy Savings $0Project Rating (MW) 0.50 General Escalation 2.5% Energy Sales Rate ($/MWh) $167Annual Energy (MWh) 957 Other Project Variables REC Sales Rate Year 1-10 ($/MWh) $40Project Capacity Factor 21.85% Year 3 Sched O&M REC Sales Rate Years 10+ $30Project Capital Cost $4,215,000 Year 3 Unsched O&M Utility Insurance Rate $8.75MTC Credit $0Total Town Outlay $4,215,000





$/yr 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$/yr 2.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$/yr 2.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$/yr 2.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$/yr 2.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total $/yr N/A 198,099 202,094 206,190 210,388 214,690 219,101 223,621 228,255 233,004 237,872 233,292 238,406 243,649 249,022 254,530 260,176 265,962 271,894 277,973 284,205$/yr 2.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0










AFTER TAX CASH FLOWDepreciation Expense (7yr DDB) $/yr N/A 1,204,286 860,204 614,431 438,880 313,485 223,918 159,942Taxable Income $/yr N/A -1,132,637 -779,854 -575,139 -391,647 -258,089 -160,128 -87,521 81,293 90,416 99,796 99,870 109,786 119,981 130,464 141,243 152,325 163,720 175,437 187,484 199,872

Tax (Credit) $/yr N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Value3.00%

20

4.0%

$20,000 $10,000

0.0%2.50%

$30,000 $20,000


Configuration Information Value Financial Variables Defaults Revenue Stream Variables Value ResultsCommunity Nantucket Debt Interest Rate 5.00% On-Site Energy Use (MWh) 0 Net Present Value (2,851,502)Site Municipal Site Financing Term (years) 10 On-Site Energy Value ($/MWh) $167 Internal Rate of Return #DIV/0!Wind Turbine Type WES30 Debt to Equity Ratio 100% 0% WTG Energy Avail for On-Site Offset 100% Debt Service Coverage Ratio -0.8WTG Rating (MW) 0.25 Present Worth Disc. Rate 5.0% Energy Used On-Site (MWh) 0Number of Turbines 2 Composite Income Tax 39.6% On-Site Energy Savings $0Project Rating (MW) 0.50 General Escalation 2.5% Energy Sales Rate ($/MWh) $70Annual Energy (MWh) 957 Other Project Variables REC Sales Rate Year 1-10 ($/MWh) $40Project Capacity Factor 21.85% Year 3 Sched O&M REC Sales Rate Years 10+ $30Project Capital Cost $4,215,000 Year 3 Unsched O&M Utility Insurance Rate $8.75MTC Credit $0Total Town Outlay $4,215,000





$/yr 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$/yr 2.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$/yr 2.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$/yr 2.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$/yr 2.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total $/yr N/A 105,270 106,945 108,661 110,421 112,224 114,073 115,968 117,910 119,901 121,941 114,463 116,607 118,804 121,056 123,365 125,731 128,157 130,643 133,192 135,804$/yr 2.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0










AFTER TAX CASH FLOWDepreciation Expense (7yr DDB) $/yr N/A 1,204,286 860,204 614,431 438,880 313,485 223,918 159,942Taxable Income $/yr N/A -1,225,466 -875,003 -672,667 -491,613 -360,554 -265,155 -195,174 -29,051 -22,687 -16,135 -18,959 -12,014 -4,863 2,498 10,078 17,881 25,915 34,187 42,703 51,471

Tax (Credit) $/yr N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


$20,000 $10,000

0.0%2.50%

$30,000 $20,000

Value3.00%

20

4.0%


Configuration Information Value Financial Variables Defaults Revenue Stream Variables Value ResultsCommunity Nantucket Debt Interest Rate 5.00% On-Site Energy Use (MWh) 0 Net Present Value 11,762,346Site Combined Financing Term (years) 10 On-Site Energy Value ($/MWh) $167 Internal Rate of Return #DIV/0!Wind Turbine Type RRB V47 (PS-600) Debt to Equity Ratio 100% 0% WTG Energy Avail for On-Site Offset 100% Debt Service Coverage Ratio 1.4WTG Rating (MW) 0.60 Present Worth Disc. Rate 5.0% Energy Used On-Site (MWh) 0Number of Turbines 4 Composite Income Tax 39.6% On-Site Energy Savings $0Project Rating (MW) 2.40 General Escalation 2.5% Energy Sales Rate ($/MWh) $167Annual Energy (MWh) 7,196 Other Project Variables REC Sales Rate Year 1-10 ($/MWh) $40Project Capacity Factor 34.23% Year 3 Sched O&M REC Sales Rate Years 10+ $30Project Capital Cost $10,090,000 Year 3 Unsched O&M Utility Insurance Rate $8.75MTC Credit $0Total Town Outlay $10,090,000


Cash Flow AnalysisCombined Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 Year 19 Year 20


Energy Savings $/yr 2.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Energy Sales $/yr 2.5% 1,201,732 1,231,775 1,262,570 1,294,134 1,326,487 1,359,649 1,393,641 1,428,482 1,464,194 1,500,799 1,538,319 1,576,777 1,616,196 1,656,601 1,698,016 1,740,466 1,783,978 1,828,577 1,874,292 1,921,149REC Sales - Years 1-10 $/yr 0.0% 287,840 287,840 287,840 287,840 287,840 287,840 287,840 287,840 287,840 287,840 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0REC Sales - Years 11-20 $/yr 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 215,880 215,880 215,880 215,880 215,880 215,880 215,880 215,880 215,880 215,880REC Sales - Spot Market $/yr 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$/yr 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$/yr 2.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$/yr 2.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$/yr 2.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$/yr 2.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total $/yr N/A 1,489,572 1,519,615 1,550,410 1,581,974 1,614,327 1,647,489 1,681,481 1,716,322 1,752,034 1,788,639 1,754,199 1,792,657 1,832,076 1,872,481 1,913,896 1,956,346 1,999,858 2,044,457 2,090,172 2,137,029$/yr 2.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0





DEBT SERVICEBeginning Balance $ N/A 10,090,000 9,714,494 9,327,722 8,929,347 8,519,021 8,096,385 7,661,070 7,212,696 6,750,870 6,275,190 5,785,239 5,280,590 4,760,801 4,225,418 3,673,974 3,105,987 2,520,960 1,918,383 1,297,728 658,453Debt Principal $/yr N/A 375,506 386,772 398,375 410,326 422,636 435,315 448,374 461,826 475,680 489,951 504,649 519,789 535,382 551,444 567,987 585,027 602,578 620,655 639,275 658,453Debt Interest $/yr N/A 302,700 291,435 279,832 267,880 255,571 242,892 229,832 216,381 202,526 188,256 173,557 158,418 142,824 126,763 110,219 93,180 75,629 57,551 38,932 19,754

Ending Balance $ N/A 9,714,494 9,327,722 8,929,347 8,519,021 8,096,385 7,661,070 7,212,696 6,750,870 6,275,190 5,785,239 5,280,590 4,760,801 4,225,418 3,673,974 3,105,987 2,520,960 1,918,383 1,297,728 658,453 0



TOTAL BEFORE TAX CASH FLOW $/yr N/A 811,366 841,409 712,203 739,767 768,021 796,980 826,664 857,090 888,276 920,242 881,048 914,632 949,056 984,340 1,020,507 1,057,578 1,095,576 1,134,523 1,174,444 1,215,364

AFTER TAX CASH FLOWDepreciation Expense (7yr DDB) $/yr N/A 2,882,857 2,059,184 1,470,845 1,050,604 750,431 536,022 382,873Taxable Income $/yr N/A -1,695,985 -831,003 -360,267 99,490 440,225 696,273 892,165 1,318,916 1,363,957 1,410,193 1,385,697 1,434,421 1,484,438 1,535,784 1,588,494 1,642,605 1,698,153 1,755,178 1,813,719 1,873,817

Tax (Credit) $/yr N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL AFTER TAX CASH FLOW $/yr 0 811,366 841,409 712,203 739,767 768,021 796,980 826,664 857,090 888,276 920,242 881,048 914,632 949,056 984,340 1,020,507 1,057,578 1,095,576 1,134,523 1,174,444 1,215,364

Value3.00%

20

4.0%

$40,000 $10,000

0.0%2.50%

$120,000 $20,000


Configuration Information Value Financial Variables Defaults Revenue Stream Variables Value ResultsCommunity Nantucket Debt Interest Rate 5.00% On-Site Energy Use (MWh) 0 Net Present Value 479,750Site Combined Financing Term (years) 10 On-Site Energy Value ($/MWh) $167 Internal Rate of Return #DIV/0!Wind Turbine Type RRB V47 (PS-600) Debt to Equity Ratio 100% 0% WTG Energy Avail for On-Site Offset 100% Debt Service Coverage Ratio 0.1WTG Rating (MW) 0.60 Present Worth Disc. Rate 5.0% Energy Used On-Site (MWh) 0Number of Turbines 4 Composite Income Tax 39.6% On-Site Energy Savings $0Project Rating (MW) 2.40 General Escalation 2.5% Energy Sales Rate ($/MWh) $70Annual Energy (MWh) 7,196 Other Project Variables REC Sales Rate Year 1-10 ($/MWh) $40Project Capacity Factor 34.23% Year 3 Sched O&M REC Sales Rate Years 10+ $30Project Capital Cost $10,090,000 Year 3 Unsched O&M Utility Insurance Rate $8.75MTC Credit $0Total Town Outlay $10,090,000


Cash Flow AnalysisCombined Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 Year 19 Year 20



$/yr 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$/yr 2.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$/yr 2.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$/yr 2.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$/yr 2.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total $/yr N/A 791,560 804,153 817,061 830,291 843,853 857,753 872,001 886,605 901,574 916,917 860,684 876,804 893,327 910,264 927,623 945,417 963,655 982,350 1,001,511 1,021,152$/yr 2.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Operating Revenues $/yr N/A 791,560 804,153 817,061 830,291 843,853 857,753 872,001 886,605 901,574 916,917 860,684 876,804 893,327 910,264 927,623 945,417 963,655 982,350 1,001,511 1,021,152




DEBT SERVICEBeginning Balance $ N/A 10,090,000 9,714,494 9,327,722 8,929,347 8,519,021 8,096,385 7,661,070 7,212,696 6,750,870 6,275,190 5,785,239 5,280,590 4,760,801 4,225,418 3,673,974 3,105,987 2,520,960 1,918,383 1,297,728 658,453Debt Principal $/yr N/A 375,506 386,772 398,375 410,326 422,636 435,315 448,374 461,826 475,680 489,951 504,649 519,789 535,382 551,444 567,987 585,027 602,578 620,655 639,275 658,453Debt Interest $/yr N/A 302,700 291,435 279,832 267,880 255,571 242,892 229,832 216,381 202,526 188,256 173,557 158,418 142,824 126,763 110,219 93,180 75,629 57,551 38,932 19,754

Ending Balance $ N/A 9,714,494 9,327,722 8,929,347 8,519,021 8,096,385 7,661,070 7,212,696 6,750,870 6,275,190 5,785,239 5,280,590 4,760,801 4,225,418 3,673,974 3,105,987 2,520,960 1,918,383 1,297,728 658,453 0


BEFORE TAX CASH FLOWTotal Income $/yr N/A 791,560 804,153 817,061 830,291 843,853 857,753 872,001 886,605 901,574 916,917 860,684 876,804 893,327 910,264 927,623 945,417 963,655 982,350 1,001,511 1,021,152Total Expenses (Incl. Debt Service) $/yr N/A 678,206 678,206 838,206 842,206 846,306 850,509 854,817 859,232 863,757 868,396 873,151 878,025 883,020 888,140 893,389 898,768 904,282 909,934 915,727 921,665

TOTAL BEFORE TAX CASH FLOW $/yr N/A 113,354 125,947 -21,146 -11,915 -2,454 7,244 17,184 27,373 37,816 48,521 -12,467 -1,220 10,307 22,123 34,234 46,648 59,373 72,415 85,784 99,487

AFTER TAX CASH FLOWDepreciation Expense (7yr DDB) $/yr N/A 2,882,857 2,059,184 1,470,845 1,050,604 750,431 536,022 382,873Taxable Income $/yr N/A -2,393,997 -1,546,465 -1,093,616 -652,193 -330,249 -93,464 82,685 489,199 513,497 538,472 492,183 518,569 545,690 573,567 602,222 631,675 661,951 693,070 725,059 757,940

Tax (Credit) $/yr N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL AFTER TAX CASH FLOW $/yr 0 113,354 125,947 -21,146 -11,915 -2,454 7,244 17,184 27,373 37,816 48,521 -12,467 -1,220 10,307 22,123 34,234 46,648 59,373 72,415 85,784 99,487

$40,000 $10,000

0.0%2.50%

$120,000 $20,000

Value3.00%

20

4.0%

Massachusetts Technology Collaborative Community Wind Collaborative – Nantucket Appendix C. List of Potential Permits

07 January 2010 C-1 Black & Veatch

Appendix C. List of Potential Permits

Table C-2 List of Permits

Agency Permit Regulated Activity

Required Project Phase

Applicable to

Project

Expected Review Time Comments/Issues

FEDERAL

COE Section 10 Nationwide Permit

Construction activities in

navigable waters of the US.

Construction Unlikely 3 - 4 months

Required for construction in navigable waters of the US. Assume nationwide permit, if COE approval required.

COE Section 404 Nationwide Permit

Discharge of dredge or fill

material into US waters, including

jurisdictional wetlands.

Construction Maybe 3 - 4 months

Required only if wetlands will be filled on site or along off-site utility right-of-way. Assume nationwide permit, if COE approval required.

EPA SPCC Plan On site storage of

oil > 1,320 gallons.

Construction Maybe 3 months

Threshold may be exceeded due to construction

equipment at site. Exceeding threshold not expected for

operational activities.






Applicable to

Project


FAA Notice of Proposed

Construction or Alteration

Construction of an object which has the potential to affect navigable

airspace (height in excess of 200' or within 20,000' of

an airport).

Construction Yes 3 - 4 months

New Bedford Regional Airport is approximately 12 miles from the site. FAA

will require lighting or marking of turbines or temporary construction

crane. The tallest estimated turbine blade height is about 410 feet above ground level.

Refer also to MAC/MPA review.

FERC Exempt Wholesale Generator (EWG)

Status

Selling electric energy at

wholesale to a utility or other

generator.

Construction Maybe 3 - 4 months Project will connect directly to grid, even if no wholesale

power sales.

FERC Qualifying Facility Certification

Qualification for PURPA benefits for small power

production facility using renewable resources < 80

MW.

Construction Maybe

Formal certification, 3 - 5

months. Self-certification, upon filing.

Electricity will likely be sold to the grid. This certification

is for facilities producing less than 80 megawatts of

power.






Applicable to

Project


EPA NPDES Stormwater

Construction General Permit

Discharge of stormwater from construction sites

disturbing > 1 acre.


Requires joint approval with MDEP. Project is likely

more than 1 acre because of access road construction.

USFWS Migratory Bird

Treaty Act Compliance

Activity with potential to harm

migratory bird species


Design turbines to avoid avian impacts. ESA

compliance review may also incorporate this Migratory

Bird Treaty Act review.

USFWS Endangered Species Act Compliance

Confirmation of no impacts to threatened and

endangered species.

Construction Likely 1 - 2 months

Consultation may be required if species and/or

habitat onsite or along offsite utility interconnection right-

of-way may be impacted.

FEDERAL NEPA Major federal

action affecting the environment

Construction Not likely NA Fatal flaw for schedule if triggered.

STATE

MDPU/EFSB Site Certification Construction of an energy generating

facility. Construction Maybe 10 - 12 months Project size expected to be

below review threshold






Applicable to

Project


DOER

Application for Statement of Qualification pursuant to

Massachusetts Renewable

Portfolio Standard

Construction and operation of a new renewable energy facility proposing to sell energy to

the grid

Construction Yes 2 -3 Months

Project would be considered a Small Power Production Qualifying Facility with

respect to selling power to utilities that are required

under Massachusetts law to purchase electricity from

certain classes of renewable energy and distributed generation facilities.

EOEA

MEPA Determination: Environmental

Notification Form (or expanded form)

Alteration of more than 25 acres of

land Construction Maybe 2 - 3 months

Must be filed if more than 25 acres of land will be directly

altered or certain other criteria met.

EOEA MEPA Review: Environmental Impact Report

Alteration of more than 50 acres of

land Construction Not likely 6 - 9 months

Based on review of the Environmental Notification

Form by the Secretary of Environmental Affairs.

Required if more than 50 acres of land will be altered or other criteria met. Project

not likely to meet review threshold.






Applicable to

Project


EOEA Protected Land

Regulation Compliance

Activities on protected land Construction Maybe 1 - 2 months

EOEA Article 97 Policy and Massachusetts General Law Chapter 61 govern the use of protected land. Compliance with these laws is necessary for a successful EIR or ENF

process. These laws may apply if the project requires

access or easements on protected parkland or

agricultural land. Land on great hill is agricultural land.

MDEP Notice of Intent Wetland alteration Construction Likely 3 - 4 months

Wetland impacts from wind turbine construction are possible if development occurs in Municipal area

from construction of turbine access and collection

systems






Applicable to

Project


MDEP Noise Control Policy Compliance

Noise from wind turbine Operation Maybe 1 - 2 months

Policy discourages a broadband noise level greater

than 10 dB(A) above ambient, or pure tone noise. Noise is not expected to be

an issue as long as the project is properly evaluated and any necessary mitigation

requirements are implemented.

MDEP

NPDES Individual Wastewater/Storm Water Discharge

Permit

Wastewater discharge and

storm water runoff during facility

operation. NOTE: This program is

jointly administered by EPA and MDEP.

Operation No 9 - 12 months

Operation of a wind farm is not considered an industrial

activity under the stormwater program.






Applicable to

Project


MDEP

Massachusetts Clean Waters Act, Section 401 Water

Quality Certification

Required for federal activities affecting state

land.

Construction Maybe 3 months

If less than 5,000 square feet of wetlands are altered, the OOC can be used for this. Necessary if Section 404

permit is required.

MDF&G Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program

Notice of Intent Wetland alteration Construction Yes 1-3 months

Same as form submitted to MDEP. Required if project is in "estimated habitat" of

rare wildlife.

MDF&G Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program

Conservation and Management

Permit

Activities that could potentially affect threatened

or endangered species.

Construction Yes 1-3 months

Conservation and Management Permit required

for any take of a state endangered species.

MDOH General Access Permit

Alteration of state roads Construction Maybe 2 - 3 months

May be needed if project involves alterations to state

roads.






Applicable to

Project


MDOH Wide Load Permit Movement of

oversize project equipment.


May be necessary for transport of oversized equipment like turbine components or certain

construction equipment. ISO New

England (and transmission line

owner at interconnection

point)

NEPOOL Interconnection System Impact

Study and Facility Study

Transmission interconnection Construction Maybe 9 - 12 months

Electricity may be sold to the grid. Project owner

determine participation in NEPOOL..

EFSB Transmission line approval

Transmission interconnection Construction Maybe 2 - 3 months Electricity will likely be sold

to the grid. Massachusetts

DPU Section 72

Transmission Line Approval

Transmission interconnection

Construction Maybe 2 – 3 month Electricity will likely be sold to the grid.

MAC Request for

Airspace Review courtesy notice

Structures over 200 feet tall Construction Yes 3 - 4 months

Provide courtesy notification of any projects over 200 feet tall (similar to FAA review,

but not a permit per se).






Applicable to

Project


MPA Request for Airspace Review

Structures over 200 feet tall near

airports Construction Maybe 3 - 4 months

May be concerns about 410 foot turbine blade height. This review may be done concurrent with the FAA

review.

CZM

Massachusetts General Law

Chapter 91 (Public Waterfront Act)

authorization

Structures in tidelands, ponds, certain rivers and

streams

Construction Maybe 1 - 2 months

Chapter 91 authorization is required for structures in

tidelands, Great Ponds (over 10 acres in natural state) and certain rivers and streams. Types of structures include

piers, wharves, floats, retaining walls, revetments, pilings, bridges, dams, and

some waterfront buildings (if on filled lands or over

water). Can file Determination of

Applicability if applicability of Chapter 91 in question.

Site reconnaissance necessary to determine

applicability.






Applicable to

Project


MHC Archeological and Historical Review

Activities that could potentially

affect archeological or

historical resources.


Archaeological and historical review generally required for

construction of wind projects.

LOCAL Town of

Nantucket Zoning Board of

Appeals

Special Permit Construction of Wind Turbine Construction Yes 2 – 3 months

Permit required to construct any structure over 35 feet in

height.

Town of Nantucket Building Permit

New construction activity in Nantucket

Construction Yes 2 – 3 month

Inspectional Services

Department

Certificate of Occupancy

Newly constructed facility addition Operation Yes 1 - 2 months

Fire Marshal Fire Code Approval New development on existing facility Construction No NA

Joint review as part of Inspectional Services

Department. Notes:

Abbreviations: COE - Army Corps of Engineers

MDOH - Massachusetts Department of Highways MDPU - Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities






Applicable to

Project


DOE - Department of Energy dB(A) - A-weighted decibel EFSB - Energy Facility Siting Board EOEA - Executive Office of Environmental Affairs EPA - US Environmental Protection Agency EWG - Exempt Wholesale Generator FAA - Federal Aviation Administration FERC - Federal Energy Regulatory Authority ISO/NEPOOL - Independent System Operator/New England Power Pool MAC - Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission MDEP - Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection MDF&G - Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game

MEPA - Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act MHC - Massachusetts Historical Commission MNHP - Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program MPA - Massachusetts Port Authority NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act NPDES - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPS - National Park Service OOC - Order of Conditions PURPA - Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act SPCC - Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure USFWS - US Fish and Wildlife Service WWTP - Wastewater Treatment Plant


Appendix D. Nantucket CoreHabitats/NHESP Data

07 January 2010 D-1 Black & Veatch

Appendix D. Nantucket Core Habitats/NHESP Data

BioMap and Living Waters

Guiding Land Conservation for Biodiversity in Massachusetts

Core Habitats of Nantucket

This report and associated map provide information about important sites for biodiversity conservation in your area.

This information is intended for conservation planning, and is not intended for use in state regulations.

Produced by:

Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife

Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Produced in 2004

BioMap and Living Waters: Guiding Land Conservation for Biodiversity in Massachusetts

Table of Contents

Introduction

What is a Core Habitat?

Core Habitats and Land Conservation

In Support of Core Habitats

Understanding Core Habitat Species, Community,

and Habitat Lists

What’s in the List?

What does ‘Status’ mean?

Understanding Core Habitat Summaries

Next Steps (Gyrinophilus porphyriticus) Species of Special ConcernProtecting Larger Core Habitats

Additional Information

Local Core Habitat Information*

BioMap: Species and Natural Communities

BioMap: Core Habitat Summaries

Living Waters: Species and Habitats

Living Waters: Core Habitat Summaries

* Depending on the location of Core Habitats, your city or town may not have all of these sections.

Funding for this project was made available by the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, contributions to the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Fund, and through the State Wildlife Grants Program of the US Fish & Wildlife Service.

Natural Heritage Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife North Drive, Westborough, MA 01581 & Endangered Species

Tel: (508) 792-7270, Ext. 200 Fax: (508) 792-7821 Program http://www.nhesp.org

For more information on rare species and natural communities, please see our fact sheets online at www.nhesp.org

Spring Salamander


Introduction

In this report, the Natural Heritage &

Endangered Species Program provides you with

site-specific biodiversity information for your

area. Protecting our biodiversity today will help

ensure the full variety of species and natural

communities that comprise our native flora and

fauna will persist for generatons to come.

The information in this report is the result of

two statewide biodiversity conservation

planning projects, BioMap and Living Waters.

The goal of the BioMap project, completed in

2001, was to identify and delineate the most

important areas for the long-term viability of

terrestrial, wetland, and estuarine elements of

biodiversity in Massachusetts. The goal of the

Living Waters project, completed in 2003, was

to identify and delineate the rivers, streams,

lakes, and ponds that are important for

freshwater biodiversity in the Commonwealth.

These two conservation plans are based on

documented observations of rare species, natural

communities, and exemplary habitats.

What is a Core Habitat? Both BioMap and Living Waters delineate Core

Habitats that identify the most critical sites for

biodiversity conservation across the state. Core

Habitats represent habitat for the state’s most

viable rare plant and animal populations and

include exemplary natural communities and

aquatic habitats. Core Habitats represent a wide

diversity of rare species and natural

communities (see Table 1), and these areas are

also thought to contain virtually all of the other

described species in Massachusetts. Statewide,

BioMap Core Habitats encompass 1,380,000

acres of uplands and wetlands, and Living

Waters identifies 429 Core Habitats in rivers,

streams, lakes, and ponds.

Get your copy of the BioMap and Living Waters reports! Contact Natural Heritage at 508-792-7270, Ext. 200 or email [email protected]. Posters and detailed technical reports are also available.

Core Habitats and Land Conservation One of the most effective ways to protect

biodiversity for future generations is to protect

Core Habitats from adverse human impacts

through land conservation. For Living Waters

Core Habitats, protection efforts should focus

on the riparian areas, the areas of land adjacent

to water bodies. A naturally vegetated buffer

that extends 330 feet (100 meters) from the

water’s edge helps to maintain cooler water

temperature and to maintain the nutrients,

energy, and natural flow of water needed by

freshwater species.

In Support of Core Habitats To further ensure the protection of Core

Habitats and Massachusetts’ biodiversity in the

long-term, the BioMap and Living Waters

projects identify two additional areas that help

support Core Habitats.

In BioMap, areas shown as Supporting Natural

Landscape provide buffers around the Core

Habitats, connectivity between Core Habitats,

sufficient space for ecosystems to function, and

contiguous undeveloped habitat for common

species. Supporting Natural Landscape was




1


generated using a Geographic Information

Systems (GIS) model, and its exact boundaries

are less important than the general areas that it

identifies. Supporting Natural Landscape

represents potential land protection priorities

once Core Habitat protection has been

addressed.

In Living Waters, Critical Supporting

Watersheds highlight the immediate portion of

the watershed that sustains, or possibly

degrades, each freshwater Core Habitat. These

areas were also identified using a GIS model.

Critical Supporting Watersheds represent

developed and undeveloped lands, and can be

quite large. Critical Supporting Watersheds can

be helpful in land-use planning, and while they

are not shown on these maps, they can be

viewed in the Living Waters report or

downloaded from www.mass.gov/mgis.

Understanding Core Habitat Species, Community, and Habitat Lists

What’s in the List? Included in this report is a list of the species,

natural communities, and/or aquatic habitats for

each Core Habitat in your city or town. The lists

are organized by Core Habitat number.

For the larger Core Habitats that span more than

one town, the species and community lists refer

to the entire Core Habitat, not just the portion

that falls within your city or town. For a list of

all the state-listed rare species within your city

or town’s boundary, whether or not they are in

Core Habitat, please see the town rare species

lists available at www.nhesp.org.

The list of species and communities within a

Core Habitat contains only the species and

Table 1. The number of rare species and types of natural communities explicitly included in the BioMap and Living Waters conservation plans, relative to the total number of native species statewide.

BioMap

Species and Verified Natural Community Types

Biodiversity Group

Included in BioMap Total Statewide

Vascular Plants 246 1,538

Birds 21 221 breeding species

Reptiles 11 25

Amphibians 6 21

Mammals 4 85

Moths and Butterflies 52 An estimated 2,500 to 3,000

Damselflies and Dragonflies 25 An estimated 165

Beetles 10 An estimated 2,500 to 4,000

Natural Communities 92 > 105 community types

Living Waters

Species

Biodiversity Included in Group Living Waters Total Statewide

Aquatic Vascular Plants 23 114

Fishes 11 57

Mussels 7 12

Aquatic Invertebrates 23 An estimated > 2500

natural communities that were explicitly

included in a given BioMap or Living Waters

Core Habitat. Other rare species or examples of

other natural communities may fall within the

Core Habitat, but for various reasons are not

included in the list. For instance, there are a few

rare species that are omitted from the list or

summary because of their particular sensitivity

to the threat of collection. Likewise, the content

of many very small Core Habitats are not

described in this report or list, often because

they contain a single location of a rare plant




2


species. Some Core Habitats were created for

suites of common species, such as forest birds,

which are particularly threatened by habitat

fragmentation. In these cases, the individual

common species are not listed.

What does ‘Status’ mean? The Division of Fisheries and Wildlife

determines a status category for each rare

species listed under the Massachusetts

Endangered Species Act, M.G.L. c.131A, and

its implementing regulations, 321 CMR 10.00.

Rare species are categorized as Endangered,

Threatened, or of Special Concern according to

the following:

x Endangered species are in danger of

extinction throughout all or a significant

portion of their range or are in danger of

extirpation from Massachusetts.

x Threatened species are likely to become

Endangered in Massachusetts in the

foreseeable future throughout all or a

significant portion of their range.

x Special Concern species have suffered a

decline that could threaten the species if

allowed to continue unchecked or occur in

such small numbers or with such restricted

distribution or specialized habitat

requirements that they could easily become

Threatened in Massachusetts.

In addition, the Natural Heritage & Endangered

Species Program maintains an unofficial watch

list of plants that are tracked due to potential

conservation interest or concern, but are not

regulated under the Massachusetts Endangered

Species Act or other laws or regulations.

Likewise, described natural communities are not

regulated any laws or regulations, but they can

help to identify ecologically important areas that

are worthy of protection. The status of natural

Legal Protection of Biodiversity

BioMap and Living Waters present a powerful vision of what Massachusetts would look like with full protection of the land that supports most of our biodiversity. To create this vision, some populations of state-listed rare species were deemed more likely to survive over the long-term than others.

Regardless of their potential viability, all sites of state-listed species have full legal protection under the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (M.G.L. c.131A) and its implementing regulations (321 CMR 10.00). Habitat of state-listed wildlife is also protected under the Wetlands Protection Act Regulations (310 CMR 10.37 and 10.59). The Massachusetts Natural Heritage Atlas shows Priority Habitats, which are used for regulation under the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act and Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (M.G.L. c.30) and Estimated Habitats, which are used for regulation of rare wildlife habitat under the Wetlands Protection Act. For more information on rare species regulations, see the Massachusetts Natural Heritage Atlas, available from the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program in book and CD formats.

BioMap and Living Waters are conservation planning tools and do not, in any way, supplant the Estimated and Priority Habitat Maps which have regulatory significance. Unless and until the combined BioMap and Living Waters vision is fully realized, we must continue to protect all populations of our state-listed species and their habitats through environmental regulation.

communities reflects the documented number

and acreages of each community type in the

state:

x Critically Imperiled communities typically

have 5 or fewer documented sites or have

very few remaining acres in the state.

x Imperiled communities typically have 6-20

sites or few remaining acres in the state.

x Vulnerable communities typically have 21

100 sites or limited acreage across the state.

x Secure communities typically have over 100

sites or abundant acreage across the state;

however excellent examples are identified as

Core Habitat to ensure continued protection.




3


Understanding Core Habitat Summaries

Following the BioMap and Living Waters Core

Habitat species and community lists, there is a

descriptive summary of each Core Habitat that

occurs in your city or town. This summary

highlights some of the outstanding

characteristics of each Core Habitat, and will

help you learn more about your city or town’s

biodiversity. You can find out more information

about many of these species and natural

communities by looking at specific fact sheets

at www.nhesp.org.

Next Steps

BioMap and Living Waters were created in part

to help cities and towns prioritize their land

protection efforts. While there are many reasons

to conserve land – drinking water protection,

recreation, agriculture, aesthetics, and others –

BioMap and Living Waters Core Habitats are

especially helpful to municipalities seeking to

protect the rare species, natural communities,

and overall biodiversity within their boundaries.

Please use this report and map along with the

rare species and community fact sheets to

appreciate and understand the biological

treasures in your city or town.

Protecting Larger Core Habitats Core Habitats vary considerably in size. For

example, the average BioMap Core Habitat is

800 acres, but Core Habitats can range from less

than 10 acres to greater than 100,000 acres.

These larger areas reflect the amount of land

needed by some animal species for breeding,

feeding, nesting, overwintering, and long-term

survival. Protecting areas of this size can be

very challenging, and requires developing

partnerships with neighboring towns.

Prioritizing the protection of certain areas within

larger Core Habitats can be accomplished

through further consultation with Natural

Heritage Program biologists, and through

additional field research to identify the most

important areas of the Core Habitat.

Additional Information If you have any questions about this report, or if

you need help protecting land for biodiversity in

your community, the Natural Heritage &

Endangered Species Program staff looks

forward to working with you.

Contact the Natural Heritage & Endangered

Species Program:

by Phone 508-792-7270, Ext. 200

by Fax: 508-792-7821

by Email: [email protected].

by Mail: North Drive

Westborough, MA 01581

The GIS datalayers of BioMap and Living

Waters Core Habitats are available for

download from MassGIS: www.mass.gov/mgis

Check out www.nhesp.org for information on:

x Rare species in your town

x Rare species fact sheets

x BioMap and Living Waters projects

x Natural Heritage publications, including:

Field guides

Natural Heritage Atlas, and more!




4

BioMap: Species and Natural Communities Nantucket

Core Habitat BM1482

Natural Communities

Common Name Scientific Name Status

Maritime Dune Community

Maritime Juniper Woodland/Shrubland

Imperiled

Critically Imperiled

Plants

Common Name

American Sea-Blite

Oysterleaf

Prickly Pear

Sea-Beach Knotweed

Scientific Name

Suaeda calceoliformis

Mertensia maritima

Opuntia humifusa

Polygonum glaucum

Status

Special Concern

Endangered

Endangered

Special Concern

Vertebrates

Common Name

Arctic Tern

Common Tern

Landbird Migration Habitat

Least Tern

Piping Plover

Shorebird Migration Habitat

Scientific Name

Sterna paradisaea

Sterna hirundo

Sterna antillarum

Charadrius melodus

Status

Special Concern

Special Concern

------------------

Special Concern

Threatened

------------------

Core Habitat BM1497

Plants

Common Name

Sea-Beach Knotweed

Scientific Name

Polygonum glaucum

Status

Special Concern

Vertebrates

Common Name

Common Tern

Scientific Name

Sterna hirundo

Status

Special Concern




5


Least Tern Sterna antillarum Special Concern

Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus Threatened

Piping Plover Charadrius melodus Threatened

Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus Endangered

Core Habitat BM1498

Natural Communities


Estuarine Subtidal: Coastal Salt Pond Imperiled

Kettlehole Level Bog Imperiled

Sandplain Grassland Critically Imperiled

Sandplain Heathland Critically Imperiled

Plants


Annual Peanut-Grass Amphicarpum amphicarpon Endangered

Bead Pinweed Lechea pulchella var moniliformis Endangered

Bicknell's Hawthorn Crataegus bicknellii Endangered

Brackish Bulrush Scirpus cylindricus Watch Listed

Broom Crowberry Corema conradii Special Concern

Bushy Rockrose Helianthemum dumosum Special Concern

Canadian Sanicle Sanicula canadensis Threatened

Creeping St. John's-Wort Hypericum adpressum Threatened

Eastern Silvery Aster Symphotrichum concolor Endangered

Foxtail Clubmoss Lycopodiella alopecuroides Endangered

Gypsywort Lycopus rubellus Endangered

Hairy Agrimony Agrimonia pubescens Threatened

Lesser Snakeroot Ageratina aromatica Endangered

Lion's Foot Nabalus serpentarius Endangered




6


Mattamuskeet Panic-Grass Dichanthelium dichotomum ssp. Endangered mattamuskeetense

Nantucket Shadbush Amelanchier nantucketensis Special Concern

New England Blazing Star Liatris scariosa var. novae-angliae Special Concern

Oysterleaf Mertensia maritima Endangered

Purple Cudweed Gamochaeta purpurea Endangered

Purple Milkweed Asclepias purpurascens Endangered

Reticulate Nut-Sedge Scleria reticularis Watch Listed

Saltpond Grass Leptochloa fusca ssp. fascicularis Threatened

Sandplain Blue-Eyed Grass Sisyrinchium fuscatum Special Concern

Sandplain Flax Linum intercursum Special Concern

Sea-Beach Knotweed Polygonum glaucum Special Concern

Slender Marsh Pink Sabatia campanulata Endangered

St. Andrew's Cross Hypericum hypericoides ssp Endangered multicaule

Three-Angled Spike-Sedge Eleocharis tricostata Endangered

Torrey's Beak-Sedge Rhynchospora torreyana Endangered

Two-Flowered Rush Juncus biflorus Watch Listed

Invertebrates


Barrens Buckmoth Hemileuca maia Special Concern

Barrens Daggermoth Acronicta albarufa Threatened

Chain Dot Geometer Cingilia catenaria Special Concern

Coastal Heathland Cutworm Abagrotis nefascia benjamini Special Concern

Coastal Swamp Metarranthis Moth Metarranthis pilosaria Special Concern

Gerhard's Underwing Moth Catocala herodias gerhardi Special Concern

Melsheimer's Sack Bearer Cicinnus melsheimeri Threatened

Pine Barrens Zale Zale sp. 1 near lunifera Special Concern

Pink Sallow Psectraglaea carnosa Special Concern

Purple Tiger Beetle Cicindela purpurea Special Concern




7


Sandplain Euchlaena

Sensitive Rare Invertebrate

Euchlaena madusaria Special Concern

Southern Ptichodis

Spiny Oakworm

Straight-lined Mallow moth

Water-Willow Stem Borer

Ptichodis bistrigata

Anisota stigma

Bagisara rectifascia

Papaipema sulphurata

Threatened

Special Concern

Special Concern

Threatened

Vertebrates


Arctic Tern

Barn Owl

Eastern Spadefoot

Grasshopper Sparrow

Least Tern

Northern Harrier

Piping Plover

Short-eared Owl

Spotted Turtle

Sterna paradisaea

Tyto alba

Scaphiopus holbrookii

Ammodramus savannarum

Sterna antillarum

Circus cyaneus

Charadrius melodus

Asio flammeus

Clemmys guttata

Special Concern

Special Concern

Threatened

Threatened

Special Concern

Threatened

Threatened

Endangered

Special Concern

Core Habitat BM1500

Plants


Small Site for Rare Plant

Core Habitat BM1501

Plants






8


Core Habitat BM1502

Natural Communities


Sandplain Grassland Critically Imperiled

Plants


American Sea-Blite

Nantucket Shadbush

New England Blazing Star

Oysterleaf

Sea-Beach Knotweed


Amelanchier nantucketensis

Liatris scariosa var. novae-angliae

Mertensia maritima

Polygonum glaucum

Special Concern

Special Concern

Special Concern

Endangered

Special Concern

Invertebrates


Chain Dot Geometer

Coastal Heathland Cutworm

Dune Noctuid Moth

Purple Tiger Beetle

Straight-lined Mallow moth

Cingilia catenaria

Abagrotis nefascia benjamini

Oncocnemis riparia

Cicindela purpurea

Bagisara rectifascia

Special Concern

Special Concern

Special Concern

Special Concern

Special Concern

Vertebrates


Grasshopper Sparrow

Least Tern

Northern Harrier

Piping Plover

Short-eared Owl

Spotted Turtle

Ammodramus savannarum

Sterna antillarum

Circus cyaneus

Charadrius melodus

Asio flammeus

Clemmys guttata

Threatened

Special Concern

Threatened

Threatened

Endangered

Special Concern




9


Core Habitat BM1503

Vertebrates


Least Tern

Piping Plover

Sterna antillarum

Charadrius melodus

Special Concern

Threatened

Core Habitat BM1505

Natural Communities


Sandplain Grassland

Sandplain Heathland



Plants


American Sea-Blite

Bristly Foxtail

Bushy Rockrose

Eastern Silvery Aster

Lion's Foot

Nantucket Shadbush

New England Blazing Star

Papillose Nut-Sedge

Purple Needlegrass

Pygmyweed

Saltpond Pennywort

Sandplain Blue-Eyed Grass

Sea-Beach Knotweed


Setaria parviflora

Helianthemum dumosum

Symphotrichum concolor

Nabalus serpentarius


Liatris scariosa var. novae-angliae

Scleria pauciflora var caroliniana

Aristida purpurascens

Crassula aquatica

Hydrocotyle verticillata

Sisyrinchium fuscatum

Polygonum glaucum

Special Concern

Special Concern

Special Concern

Endangered

Endangered

Special Concern

Special Concern

Endangered

Threatened

Threatened

Threatened

Special Concern

Special Concern




10


Invertebrates

Common Name

Chain Fern Borer Moth

Water-Willow Stem Borer

Scientific Name

Papaipema stenocelis

Papaipema sulphurata

Status

Threatened

Threatened

Vertebrates

Common Name

Least Tern

Northern Harrier

Pied-Billed Grebe

Piping Plover

Short-eared Owl

Spotted Turtle

Scientific Name

Sterna antillarum

Circus cyaneus

Podilymbus podiceps

Charadrius melodus

Asio flammeus

Clemmys guttata

Status

Special Concern

Threatened

Endangered

Threatened

Endangered

Special Concern

Core Habitat BM1506

Plants

Common Name


Scientific Name Status

Core Habitat BM1507

Plants

Common Name



Core Habitat BM1508

Plants

Common Name






11


Core Habitat BM1509

Plants

Common Name



Core Habitat BM1510

Plants

Common Name



Core Habitat BM1511

Plants

Common Name



Core Habitat BM1512

Plants

Common Name

Sea-Beach Knotweed

Scientific Name

Polygonum glaucum

Status

Special Concern

Vertebrates

Common Name

Common Tern

Least Tern

Piping Plover

Shorebird Migration Habitat

Scientific Name

Sterna hirundo

Sterna antillarum

Charadrius melodus

Status

Special Concern

Special Concern

Threatened

------------------

Core Habitat BM1513

Plants

Common Name






12


Core Habitat BM1514

Plants

Common Name



Core Habitat BM1515

Plants

Common Name



Core Habitat BM1516

Plants

Common Name



Core Habitat BM1517

Plants

Common Name



Core Habitat BM1518

Plants

Common Name

Nantucket Shadbush

Scientific Name


Status

Special Concern

Vertebrates

Common Name

Long-eared Owl

Scientific Name

Asio otus

Status

Special Concern




13


Core Habitat BM1519

Plants



Core Habitat BM1520

Plants



Core Habitat BM1521

Plants



Core Habitat BM1522

Plants



Core Habitat BM1523

Plants



Core Habitat BM1524

Plants






14


Core Habitat BM1526

Plants



Core Habitat BM1527

Plants



Core Habitat BM1528

Plants



Core Habitat BM1529

Plants






15

BioMap: Core Habitat Summaries Nantucket

Core Habitat BM1482 This Core Habitat, located at the northeastern corner of Nantucket, contains an extensive Maritime Dune Community, whose sand dunes support interesting rare plant species, such as Prickly Pear cactus and globally rare Sea-Beach Knotweed. In addition to sandy beaches and dunes, habitats here include intertidal flats, salt marshes, salt ponds, and extensive coastal shrublands and thickets. Together these areas provide breeding habitat for rare coastal waterbirds, as well as migration habitat for a variety of bird species.

Natural Communities This Core Habitat contains an extensive Maritime Dune community. The Maritime Dune community consists of patches of herbaceous plants interspersed with areas of bare sand and shrubs. It occurs on windswept dunes within the salt spray zone, and often grades into shrubland or woodlands on more sheltered back dunes. Here the dune system is not crowded by development, and so moves and changes as natural processes dictate. It is vegetated with a good representation of native species, and is only minimally affected by human disturbances. It includes a small, high-quality Maritime Juniper Woodland with excellent surrounding natural landscape. The Maritime Juniper Woodland/Shrubland is a predominantly evergreen community within the coastal salt spray zone. The trees tend to be short (less than 15 feet) and scattered, and the tops of trees and shrubs are sculpted by winds and salt spray.

Plants This unique Core Habitat contains all three native populations of the Prickly Pear cactus in Massachusetts. It is the only cactus native to the northeast. Also present is the globally rare Sea-Beach Knotweed, a low plant of shifting sand dunes. Two of the very best populations of American Sea-Blite, another low coastal species of sandy shores, occur here as well.

Vertebrates This Core Habitat contains extensive breeding habitat for Piping Plovers, Least Terns, and American Oystercatchers on sandy beaches and overwash areas. In some years, Common Terns also nest on wide, sparsely vegetated areas of beach south of Great Point or at The Galls. These beach-nesting birds and their habitats require annual protection from human recreational activities, especially off-road vehicles. Feral cats have become a significant factor limiting plover and tern abundance and reproductive success on these beaches, making necessary regular live-trapping and removal. A large nesting colony of Great Black-backed Gulls and Herring Gulls is present in the dunes along the barrier beach at Coatue. Northern Harriers likely nest and forage in dunes and shrublands. Intertidal areas and adjacent beaches provide important migration habitat for several species of arctic-nesting shorebirds. Shrublands and woodlands near The Glades provide coastal migration habitat for a variety of landbirds.




16


Core Habitat BM1497

Vertebrates This Core Habitat encompasses all of Muskeget Island, lying northwest of Tuckernuck Island and Nantucket. Its sandy beaches, brackish lagoon, low rolling dunes, and small interdunal wetlands provide important breeding and foraging habitat for a variety of coastal waterbirds and raptors. The island contains breeding habitat for Piping Plovers, Least Terns, Common Terns, American Oystercatchers, and, in some years, Roseate Terns. This island is the site of an active tern restoration program. Extensive low vegetated dunes support a large nesting colony of Great Black-backed Gulls, Herring Gulls and, formerly, Laughing Gulls. Northern Harriers and Short-eared Owls forage on the island and may occasionally nest here.

Core Habitat BM1498 This large Core Habitat, located on the eastern and southern portions of Nantucket, contains extensive Sandplain Heathlands, Sandplain Grasslands, and other natural communities that together support a wide array of plants and animals. There are more than 30 species of rare plants, and at least 14 rare moth species found within this Core Habitat. The grasslands and heathlands provide some of the most important habitat for Northern Harriers and Short-eared Owls in the northeastern United States. These habitats also support Eastern Spadefoot Toads, and the beaches here are major nesting areas for Piping Plovers and Least Terns. More than half of this Core Habitat is protected, and further protection of the remaining areas will help ensure the long-term viability of the rare species found here.

Natural Communities This large Core Habitat contains many exemplary natural communities, including over 100 acres of Sandplain Heathlands in excellent condition and well-buffered by natural vegetation. Sandplain Heathlands are open, shrub-dominated, coastal communities. They share many species with Sandplain Grasslands, but also have many plants from the Heath family. They often have sparse clumps of plants with bare soil or lichen between them. This Core Habitat also contains a high-quality Kettlehole Level Bog worthy of statewide recognition not only due to its excellent condition and lack of disturbances, but also because it is one of only two moated, floating bogs on Nantucket. Good Sandplain Grasslands and Coastal Salt Pond communities also contribute diversity to the mosaic of natural communities in this Core Habitat.

Plants More than 30 species of rare plants make their home within this large Core Habitat. They inhabit a number of diverse community types and situations. Concentrations of rare plant species are found in areas of sandplain grassland, which support Bushy Rockrose, Sandplain Blue-Eyed Grass, Lion's Foot, Purple Cudweed, and Eastern Silvery Aster. Abundant along small roadsides and other open areas is the otherwise rare Nantucket Shadbush. Shores of small kettleponds support rare plants such as Torrey's Beak-Sedge and Creeping St. John's-Wort.




17


Invertebrates This Core Habitat supports more than a dozen invertebrate species that are listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Species of Special Concern in Massachusetts, including 14 species of moths. These invertebrates represent a unique and threatened biota; for example, the Southern Ptichodis moth is not known to occur anywhere in Massachusetts except the offshore islands of Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard. Besides barrens species such as Melsheimer's Sack Bearer moth, the Barrens Daggermoth, and Gerhard's Underwing moth, this Core Habitat includes various other habitats for rare invertebrates, including heathlands inhabited by species such as the Pink Sallow moth and the Chain Dot Geometer moth; acidic shrub swamps and kettlehole bogs that are habitat for the Coastal Swamp Metarranthis moth and the Water-willow Stem Borer moth; sandplain grasslands that provide habitat for the Southern Ptichodis moth; and marshes inhabited by the Straight-lined Mallow moth.

Vertebrates The extensive grasslands and heathlands within this Core Habitat comprise some of the most important nesting and foraging habitat for Northern Harriers and Short-eared Owls in the northeastern U.S. Low Beach is one of the major nesting areas for Piping Plovers and Least Terns on the island, and beaches at Wauwinet, Squam Pond, Sesachacha Pond, and Tom Nevers also provide habitat for one or both of these species. The beach at Surfside also supported breeding Piping Plovers and a nesting colony of Least Terns as recently as the 1980's. However, these birds have not nested here in recent years, likely due to disturbance and habitat degradation caused by high levels of unmanaged recreational activity, especially off-road vehicles. Installing fencing to protect suitable nesting habitat on the upper beach and imposing seasonal restrictions on off-road vehicles are needed if nesting plovers and terns are to be restored to this site.

Eastern Spadefoot toads inhabit the sandplain grasslands and shallow emergent wetlands in the vicinity of Madequecham Valley. Squam Swamp and scattered wetlands to the south and east of Wauwinet Road and north of Quidnet Road constitute the largest area of habitat for Spotted Turtles on Nantucket.

Core Habitat BM1502 This Core Habitat encompasses Tuckernuck Island, which contains a variety of natural communities, including rare Sandplain Grasslands. These diverse habitats support many coastal species of rare moths, tiger beetles, and plants. Tuckernuck Island is one of the state's most important sites for Northern Harriers and Short-eared Owls, and it provides breeding habitat for rare coastal waterbirds. Conservation of the remaining unprotected land within this Core Habitat would help ensure the long-term viability of the rare species found here.

Natural Communities This Core Habitat contains over 100 acres of high-quality Sandplain Grassland, covering much of the southern portion of Tuckernuck Island. Sandplain Grasslands are found on rolling plains and generally occur on sandy, dry, poor soils. Larger examples of this community type are found near the ocean and within the influence of winds and salt spray. Here the very rare natural community type is well-maintained by prescribed fire, is minimally impacted by invasive species, and is well-buffered by a variety of maritime communities and an ocean bluff.




18


Plants Tuckernuck Island supports several rare plant species adapted to life along the ocean shore. Sea-Beach Knotweed, Oysterleaf, and American Sea-Blite are all low, sprawling plants of sandy shores and dunes.

Invertebrates Tuckernuck Island has a variety of natural communities such as dunes, heathlands and other maritime shrublands, and salt marshes, all of which are important habitat for rare coastal insect species including the Coastal Heathland Cutworm moth, the Straight-lined Mallow moth, the Chain Dot Geometer moth, the Dune Noctuid moth, and the Purple Tiger Beetle. It is likely that Tuckernuck Island is inhabited by other rare coastal moth species such as the Drunk Apamea moth, the Spartina Borer moth, and other species.

Vertebrates Tuckernuck's extensive sandplain grasslands and maritime heathlands provide some of the most important nesting and feeding habitat for Northern Harriers and Short-eared Owls in Massachusetts. Grasshopper Sparrows are also present during the breeding season in some years. Constantly shifting beaches and sand spits along the southern and western shores provide breeding habitat for Piping Plovers, Least Terns, and American Oystercatchers. Vegetated dunes along the western edge of the island support a nesting colony of Great Black-backed Gulls, and Spotted Turtles also occur on the island. Conservation needs here include better protection of coastal waterbirds from off-road vehicles and dogs, and protection of upland habitats from additional loss and fragmentation caused by home building.

Core Habitat BM1503

Vertebrates The sandy beach and low dunes of Quaise Point provide nesting habitat for Piping Plovers and Least Terns.




19


Core Habitat BM1505 This Core Habitat on Nantucket encompasses a large Sandplain Heathland community, a smaller Sandplain Grassland community, and a mosaic of other habitats, including ponds, scattered wetlands, beaches, dunes, salt marshes, and intertidal flats. Together these diverse habitats provide some of the most important areas in the state for Short-eared Owls and Northern Harriers, as well as breeding and migration habitat for a variety of bird species, including rare coastal waterbirds. These habitats also support a wide variety of rare plant and rare moth species that are adapted to Nantucket's unusual environment. Much of this Core Habitat is owned by the Nantucket Conservation Foundation and other conservation organizations. Protecting the remaining areas of the Core Habitat will help ensure the long-term viability of the rare species inhabiting the area.

Natural Communities This Core Habitat contains over 100 acres of Sandplain Heathland that are free of exotic species and are well-buffered within a larger complex of maritime communities. Together these communities provide excellent habitat for many monitored bird populations. Sandplain Heathlands are open, shrub-dominated, coastal communities. They share many species with Sandplain Grasslands, but also have many plants from the Heath family. They often have sparse clumps of plants with bare soil or lichen between them. This Core Habitat also contains a small, although excellent-quality, Sandplain Grassland.

Plants Several rare plants, mostly all adapted to sandplain grasslands, are found within this Core Habitat. Species characteristic of open sandplain grasslands include Bushy Rockrose, Sandplain Blue-Eyed Grass, Lion's Foot, and Eastern Silvery Aster. Coastal species, such as Saltpond Pennywort, Bristly Foxtail and Purple Needlegrass are found here near the ocean shore.

Invertebrates This Core Habitat includes bogs, swamps, and other shallow freshwater wetlands with Chain Fern and Water-willow that are habitat for rare moths such as the Chain Fern Borer and the Water-willow Stem Borer. The Water-willow Stem Borer moth is a Threatened species that is found nowhere in the world outside of Massachusetts; it has been known to inhabit the area within this Core Habitat for over 60 years. The Chain Fern Borer moth has not been observed in this area since 1940, but it is likely that it still persists here.




20


Vertebrates Collectively, the grasslands and shrublands in this Core Habitat provide some of the most important nesting and foraging habitat in the state for Short-eared Owls and Northern Harriers. Extensive diverse shrublands and woodlands north of Ram Pasture and Clark Cove provide breeding habitat for a variety of shrubland-nesting songbirds and migration habitat near the coast for many species of landbirds. Piping Plovers and, in some years, Least Terns nest on beaches at Eel Point and Hummock Pond. Intertidal flats at Eel Point provide valuable migration habitat for arctic-nesting shorebirds.

Grasslands and heathlands along Eel Point Road continue to be fragmented and destroyed by construction of large homes. Construction of homes on even small in-holdings here and at the Head of the Plains can discourage Short-eared Owls and Northern Harriers from nesting. Breeding plovers and terns require annual protection from human-caused mortality and disturbance, especially from off-road vehicles. Feral cats pose an increasing risk to breeding, migrating, and over-wintering birds of many species, including state-listed rare raptors and shorebirds.

Core Habitat BM1512 This Core Habitat encompasses sandy beaches, sandspits, intertidal areas, and small salt marshes at the southwest corner of Nantucket Island. This is one of the most important breeding sites for Piping Plovers and Least Terns in Massachusetts. It also provides breeding, feeding, and migration habitat for a variety of other bird species, and it supports the rare Sea-Beach Knotweed.

Plants A population of the globally rare Sea-Beach Knotweed is growing along the shore of this point.

Vertebrates Smith Point is one of the most important breeding sites for Piping Plovers and Least Terns in Massachusetts. Small numbers of Common Terns and a small colony of Great Black-backed Gulls and Herring Gulls nest here as well. The beaches and intertidal areas of Smith Point and Madaket Harbor provide important migration habitat for a variety of shorebirds and terns from July through September. Northern Harriers forage in the diverse coastal habitats contained within this Core Habitat. The principal conservation need here is continued protection of breeding and migrating waterbirds from human-caused disturbance, especially from off-road vehicles and dogs.

Core Habitat BM1518

Plants A population of the globally rare Nantucket Shadbush is found here along a sandy roadside.

Vertebrates This forested habitat supports Long-eared Owls and provides migration habitat for a variety of landbirds. Without protection, the value of this Core Habitat as bird habitat will decline if it becomes an increasingly isolated patch of forest surrounded by human development.




21

Living Waters: Species and Habitats Nantucket

Core Habitat LW157

Exemplary Habitats

Common Name

Lake/Pond Habitat


------------------

Core Habitat LW158

Exemplary Habitats

Common Name

Lake/Pond Habitat


------------------

Core Habitat LW159

Exemplary Habitats

Common Name

Lake/Pond Habitat


------------------

Core Habitat LW320

Exemplary Habitats

Common Name

Fish Habitat


------------------




22

Living Waters: Core Habitat Summaries Nantucket

Core Habitat LW157 Maxcy Pond is an inland pond on Nantucket with only moderate amounts of development in its adjacent riparian areas and watershed. More than 20 families of invertebrates were found at the site, suggesting this pond's aquatic habitats support a diversity of invertebrate species.

Core Habitat LW158 Head of Hummock Pond is an inland pond on Nantucket with only moderate amounts of development in its adjacent riparian areas and watershed. In an initial search, five families of invertebrates were found at the site, and this particular group of invertebrates suggests that aquatic habitats here have not been adversely impacted by human activities.

Core Habitat LW159 The northern of the two Pout Ponds on Nantucket is a very small inland pond. In a 2002 survey, the pond was found to support 15 families of invertebrates, suggesting this small site supports freshwater habitats for a variety of invertebrate species.

Core Habitat LW320 Sesachacha Pond contains spawning (breeding) habitats for Alewife, an anadromous fish that migrates from coastal waters into fresh waters to spawn. This and other migrating fish species are important components of Massachusetts' aquatic biodiversity.




23

Help Save Endangered Wildlife!

Please contribute on your Massachusetts income tax form or directly to the

Natural Heritage &

Endangered Species Fund

To learn more about the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program

and the Commonwealth’s rare species, visit our web site at: www.nhesp.org.

Naturailieritage & EndaDJ;cr.:-d Spech.-s Program Dil-isionof Fisheries & ".":i:Jlife Route 135 Westborougb, MA 01581 (508)792-7270, crt, 200

MASSACHUSETTS RARE AND ENDANGERED PLANTS

BRISTLY FOXTAIL

(Setaria geniculata (Lam.) Beauv.)

DESCRIPTION

Bristly Foxtail is a perennial grass with culms (stems) 15-31 inches (4-8 dm.) tall. This plant has short, hard, knotty rhizomes which may reach up to 1 3/5 inches (4. cm.) in length and mostly straight leaves that are approximately 1-3 inches (3-7 cm.) wide. The spikelike inflorescence is 1-4 inches (2-:10 cm.) long, appears very soft and has straw- . colored to pale yellow bristles which are each less than one inch (5-13 mm.) in length. Plump, less than ~ of an inch (2-2.5 mm.) long spikelets or seeds have 5-20 bristles at each of their bases.

SIMILAR SPECIES IN MASSACHUSETTS

Species of foxtail grasses, genus Setaria, are difficult to distinguish. Bristly Foxtail can be singled out by the numerous bristles at the base of each spikelet. Pigeon Grass (Setaria glauca) also has many bristles, but it occurs along roadsides and other waste places, and lacks the hard, knotty rhizomes. All other species of foxtail grasses that occur in New England have much longer inflorescences and are annuals, not forming hard rhizomes.

HABITAT IN MASSACHUSETTS

In Massachusetts, this grass is found in scattered colonies, sometimes in linear patches along the upper borders of salt marshes, above the level daily submerged by the tides. Elsewhere in its range, it can also be found in disturbed sandy and peaty areas. Associated species inclUde Panicum virgatum (Switchgrass), Myrica penslyvanica (Bayberry) and Juniperus Virginiana (Eastern· Red Cedar).

Distribution of Bristly Foxtail

.Verified since 1978 o Reported prior to 1978

Distribution in Massachusetts by Town

(continued overleaf) 1985

BRISTLY FOXTAIL (continued)

,RAJ1GE

Bristly Foxtail is distributed throughout the southern regions of the United States. Its occurrence ranges 'from Massachusetts to Tennessee, Illinois, Missouri and Kansas, south to Florida and west to California.

-POPULATION

Bristly Foxtail is considered a species of "Special Concern"-in Massachusetts. There have been five statewide occurrences vouchered from~1978 to the present time and 11 historical ones recorded prior to 1978. Reasons for rarity include talteration of habitat due to increased development and the location of Bristly Foxtail at the ,edge of its range in Massachusetts. This species-may be overlooked and consequently, more common than presently believed.

Natural Heritage &. Endangered Species Program

MA Division of Fisheries & WLldlife Route 135 Westborough, MA 01581-3337 508-792-7270 x 200


BUSHY ROCKROSE

(Relianthemum dumosum (Bickn.) Fern.)

DESCRIPTION

Bushy Rockrose is a perennial herb, loosely branched spreading to reddish stems that form low mounds from 1-10" (2. 5-25cm.) high. Stems are covered with short coarse hairs. Leaves are elliptic to narrowly oblong, usually 1/3-2/3" (8-15mm.) long, green above and pale below; very densely pubescent with simple and stellate (branched in star-like pattern) hairs. Bushy Rockrose has two kinds of flowers, maturing at different "times during the season and at different positions on the plant. In late May to mid-iJune flowers with yellow petals appear singly and terminally on main branches. Along branches produced in July to September grow self-pollinati~g flowers which lack petals and do not open.

the

SIMILAR SPECIES IN MASSACHUSETTS

There are three other look-alike Rockrose species that occur within the habitat and range of Bushy Rockrose and could be easily mistaken for this species. Canadian Rockrose (R. canadense) is always erect, not as branched as Bushy Rockrose and is much less hairy. Low Rockrose (~propinquum), a very uncommon species, has short ascending branches, prolific asexual flowers and only stellate hairs on the leaves and sepals. Hoary Frostweed (H. bicknellii) is usually unbranched, much taller, and covered with white fine stellate hairs.

(continued overleaf)

Distribution of Bushy Rockrose

1985

• Verified since 1978 QReported prior to 1978


BUSHY ROCKROSE (continued)

HABITAT IN MASSACHUSETTS

Bushy Rockrose inhabits dry, open sandp1ains, low-shrubby moors, and grassy ppenings in pine barrens. This plant seems to be intolerant of shade and moisture. Human altered habitats include cemeteries and golf course roughs. Species often found in the same habitat with Bushy Roc'kroae include Myrica pensy1vanica ' (Bayberry), Arctostaphy10suva-ursi (Bearberry); Gay1ussaciabaccata (Black Huckleberry) , ~ and ."Andropogon"" scoparius (Little" B1uestem) •

RANGE

This species is endemic to southern New England and ranges from southeastern Massachusetts to Rhode Island and Long Island, New York.

POPULATION STATUS

Bushy Rockrose is considered a species of "Special Concern" in Massachusetts. Fortynine occurrences have been verified from 1978 to the present; twenty-four other historical occurrences have also been recorded. This species has a very limited range. In addition, succ~ssion of its habitat to shrubs and forests, as well as loss of habitat to development, have contributed to its decline.

. .

Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program

Commonwealth of Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife Route 135 Westborough, MA 01581 (508) 792-7270 ext. 200


EASTERN SILVERY ASTER (Aster concotor L.)

Description Eastern silvery aster is a slender, lilac-flowered perennial in the Aster family (Compositae or Asteraceae). It grows from about 3 to 10 dm (0.75 to 3.5 ft.) in height. Its stems are simple or sparingly branched and rise either singly or in small groups from a frequently thickened root crown. The rather densely arranged leaves are stalkless, smooth-margined, oblong or lanceolate, and slightly clasping at the base. They measure up to 1.5 em (0.6 in.) wide by 5 em (2 in.) long; however, toward the top of the stem, they become gradually smaller. Eastern silvery aster's common name comes from the pale coating of silky hairs on both sides of the leaves. The achenes (dry, one-seeded fruits) are silky, as well. The flower heads occur in narrow racemes (elongate, unbranched inflorescences of stalked flowers) and, occasionally, in panicles (branched racemes). Each head has 8-16 showy lilac rays. Eastern silvery aster blooms from September to early October.

Newcomb, Lawrence. Newcomb's Wildflgwer GUide. Little, Brown and Company, Boston. 1977•

Documented Range of Eastem Silvery Aster

• Verified since 1978 o Reponed priorto 1978

.....~ ~ Massachusetts Distribution by Town

Range The documented range of eastern silvery aster encompasses the coastal states, from Massachusetts south to Florida and Louisiana and west to southwestern Texas. Eastern silvery aster may also grow in the mountains of Kentucky and Tennessee.

Similar Species The showy aster (A. spectabilis) occupies similar habitats (e.g. sites on dry, sandy soil in open woodlands) and is somewhat similar in appearance to the eastern silvery aster. Nevertheless, its basal leaves have long stalks, while the leaves of eastern silvery aster are stalkless. Furthermore, showy aster's flowers are bright violet-purple. Eastern silvery aster's lilac-colored flowers make it unique among the asters in our area.

Habitat in Massachusetts In general, eastern silvery aster occurs on dry, sandy soil in open woods and barrens. In Massachusetts, it is usually found on dry open sandplains or "moors," occasionally among pine trees. (The plant was once common on the moors of Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard.) Associated species include bearberry (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi), New England blazing star (Liatris borealis), little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), Pennsylvania sedge (Carex pensylvanica), bushy aster (Aster dumosum), bayberry (Myrica pensylvanica), black huckleberry (Gaylussacia baccata) and late lowbush blueberry <Vaccinium angustifolium). Rare Massachusetts plants that have been found with silvery eastern aster include sandplain flax (Linum iniercursum), bushy rockrose (Helianthemum dumosum), sandplain blue-eyed Grass (Sisyrinchium arenicola), purple cudweed (Gnaphalium purpureum) and, Nantucket shadbush (Amelanchier nantucketensis).

Population Status Eastern silvery aster is presently listed as ''Endangered'' in Massachusetts. There are ten current stations (verified or relocated since 1978) in one town and seven historical stations (unverified since 1978) in four towns in the Commonwealth. (One town contains both current and historical stations and is represented by a single, solid dot on the town distribution map.) Reasons for the plant's rarity in the state include loss of habitat due to encroachment by scrub oak (Quercus ilicifolia) and by pine-oak forest; in part, this loss is due to excessive fire suppression and lack of disturbance. In addition, Massachusetts is at the northern edge of the plant's range. Eastern silvery aster is also considered rare in New York, New Jersey and Kentucky. It was present historically in Rhode Island, Delaware and Maryland.

1993

Telephone: (508) 389-6360/Fax: (508) 389-7891 www.nhesp.org

Nantucket Shadbush Amelanchier nantucketensis

State Status: Special Concern Federal Status: None

Description: Nantucket Shadbush (Amelanchier nantucketensis) is a globally rare perennial shrub species within the Rose family (Rosaceae). It has a colonial growth habit that results in many closely-clustered and straight stems up to 2 (–3) meters tall. Whitish-cream colored 5-petaled flowers in racemes appear in May to early June followed by small dark-blue berries in late June though early July.

Aids to identification: Nantucket Shadbush is separable from other shadbushes by its small flower petals. They are 3–6 (–7) mm, and are often spatulate (spoon) shaped and inrolled, and are sometimes pollen-bearing (andropetalous) along the margins. The alternately arranged leaves (1.5–2 cm wide) are finely toothed, glabrous (smooth) and shiny above at maturity. Immature leaves have hairy white undersides that give plants a gray-teal cast before they mature; bark is often gray. A taxon described as Amelanchier stolonifera forma micropetala is now considered synonymous with A. nantucketensis.

Similar species: Running Shadbush (Amelanchier spicata; syn. A. stolonifera) is a colonial shrub which can be confused with Nantucket shadbush. However, the petals of A. spicata are longer (6–) 7–22 mm, and the petals are not pollen bearing. In addition, Running Shadbush tends to have bent, branched stems rarely greater than 1.5 m tall.

Distribution in Massachusetts 1982-2007

Based on records in Natural Heritage Database

Dibble, A. 1995. Conservation biology of Shadbush, Amelanchier (Rosaceae): Evidence from systematics, population structure and reproductive ecology. Ph.D.

dissertation, University of Maine, Orono.

Habitat in Massachusetts: Nantucket shadbush is primarily a coastal plain species found in sunny, dry, sandy soils in upland habitats like grasslands, pine barrens, old fields, and roadsides. Populations have also been found on rock ledges at mountain summits. Plants commonly found growing in association with Nantucket Shadbush include Scrub Oak (Quercus ilicifolia) and Pitch Pine (Pinus rigida), Northern Arrow wood (Viburnum dentatum), Bayberry (Morella caroliniensis), Black Huckleberry (Gaylussacia baccata), Virginia rose (Rosa virginiana), and Low-bush blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium). Frequently observed herbaceous associates include Little Bluestem (Schizachrium scoparium) and Pennsylvania Sedge (Carex pensylvanica).

Range: Nantucket shadbush is an endemic of the Atlantic Coast; populations have been located from Nova Scotia south along the coastal plain to Virginia, with predominately larger populations on the Islands of Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts. It is tracked as a rare species in Maine, New York, Maryland and Virginia.

Flowers Present: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Please allow the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program to continue to conserve the biodiversity of Massachusetts with a contribution for ‘endangered wildlife conservation’ on your state income tax form as these donations comprise a significant portion of our operating budget.

Threats: Nantucket Shadbush is threatened by conversion of its dry, upland habitat to developed areas. It is also threatened by succession, and prevention of natural disturbance regimes, such as fire, that results in succession. Several populations occur along roadsides, and while the species is taking advantage of the open habitat provided by the roadsides, individual plants are vulnerable to inadvertent damage by roadside maintenance.

Population status in Massachusetts: Nantucket Shadbush is listed under the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act as a species of Special Concern. All listed species are legally protected from killing, collection, possession, or sale, and from activities that would destroy habitat and thus directly or indirectly cause mortality or disrupt critical behaviors. Nantucket Shadbush is currently known from Dukes, Nantucket, Barnstable, Norfolk, Franklin and Berkshire Counties and is historically known from Hampden County.

Management recommendations: The survival of Nantucket shadbush ultimately depends on the conservation of its early successional habitat. Therefore, management actions should involve vegetation control to impede succession such that an early seral stage is maintained. Disturbance treatments (fire, cutting, grazing) may be useful tools in managing succession and populations have been shown to respond favorably to such practices. To avoid inadvertent harm to rare plants, all active management of rare plant populations should be planned in consultation with the Massachusetts Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program.

Updated June 2007


New England Blazing Star Liatris scariosa var. novae-angliae

State Status: Special Concern Federal Status: None Telephone: (508) 389-6360/Fax: (508) 389-7891

www.nhesp.org

Description: New England Blazing Star (Liatris scariosa var. novae-angliae) is an endemic, globally rare perennial composite (family Asteraceae) of dry, sandy grasslands and clearings. It has showy purple flowers that bloom from late August to October.

Aids to identification: New England Blazing Star grows up to 2.6 feet (80 cm) in height, and has numerous alternate, entire (hairless), and very narrow (0.4–2 inches; 1–2.5 cm) stem leaves. Flowers are purple, and are borne in heads, generally with 3 to 30 heads per plant. The heads are hemispheric in shape, and have stalks that range in length from very short (these heads are subsessile) to about 2 inches (5 cm). Flower heads have 20 to 80 flowers.

Similar species: New England Blazing Star is the only native Liatris in Massachusetts. Two non-native species, Gayfeather (L. pycnostachya) and Dense Blazing Star (L. spicata) resemble the native species somewhat; Gayfeather and Dense Blazing Star, however both have flower heads that are completely sessile, that are more cylindrical than hemispheric in shape, and that have far fewer flowers per head (5–14). Knapweeds (genus Centaurea) can sometimes be confused be Blazing Star as well. Knapweeds often have brownish or black fringed involucral bracts (bracts below the flower head), and lobed or toothed leaves.



H.W. Rickett. 1963. The New Field Book of American Wild Flowers. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York.

Habitat in Massachusetts: In Massachusetts, New England Blazing Star inhabits open, dry, low-nutrient sandy soils of grasslands, heathlands, and barrens. It thrives in fire-influenced natural communities that are periodically disturbed and devoid of dense woody plant cover. Associated species vary, but may include heaths (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi, Gaylussacia spp., Vaccinium spp.), Scrub Oak (Quercus ilicifolia), Bayberry (Morella caroliniensis), Little Bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), Wavy Hair-grass (Deschampsia flexuosa), Pennsylvania Sedge (Carx pensylvanica), and Butterfly Weed (Asclepias tuberosa),

Threats: Threats to New England Blazing Star include development, exclusion of disturbance (or rather, the resulting encroachment of woody species and accumulation of a thick organic soil layer), indiscriminant use of herbicides, mowing during the growing season, deer browse, and trampling.

Flowering time in Massachusetts



Range: This taxon is endemic to the northeastern United States and is only known from Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island; it is rare throughout its range. New England Blazing Star is assumed to be extirpated from New Jersey.

Population status in Massachusetts: New England Blazing Star is listed under the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act as a species of Special Concern. All listed species are legally protected from killing, collection, possession, or sale, and from activities that would destroy habitat and thus directly or indirectly cause mortality or disrupt critical behaviors. New England Blazing Star is currently known from Barnstable, Dukes, Essex, Franklin, Hampden, Hampshire, Middlesex, Nantucket, Plymouth, and Worcester Counties, and is historically known from Bristol, Norfolk, and Suffolk Counties.

Management recommendations: As with many rare species, the exact management needs of New England Blazing Star are not known. Research has shown that populations of New England Blazing Star expand with high frequency fire disturbance; however substitute disturbances such as mowing can maintain suitable habitat as well, provided it is done after the growing season (November through April), and that areas of open exposed soils are retained to aid seed establishment.

Sites should be monitored for over-shading caused by habitat succession to dense shrub or tree cover. Also, population sites should be monitored for exotic plant species invasions because the disturbed nature of high- quality New England Blazing Star habitat can make it susceptible to exotic species establishment. If trampling or erosion are threats in recreational areas, trails can be stabilized or re-routed. To avoid inadvertent harm to rare plants, all active management of rare plant populations (including invasive species removal) should be planned in consultation with the Massachusetts Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program.

Please allow the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program to continue to conserve the biodiversity of Massachusetts with a contribution for ‘endangered wildlife conservation’ on your state income tax form as these donations comprise a significant portion Updated June 2007

Massachusetts Natural Heritage

Program

Notural Heritage & Eudongered Specie. Program Dhision of Fisheries & WildlifeRoute 135 W••tborough, MA 01581 (508)792-7170, ell. 200


PAPILLOSE NUT-RUSH

(Scleria pauciflora Muhl. var , caroliniana (Willd.) Wood.L

DESCRIPTION

A member of the Sedge family, Scleria pauciflora var caroliniana is a grasslike, 8-19~ inch (2::5 _dm.)q!'rb with_~2't_:lJf'._erect,, -.-~ stem that arises from hard, _knotty_..!.hizom~s'':l'he_leavesare,------ -- -.,-' narrow, less than of an inch (1-3 mm.) wide

-

with --~-- -_... ""

~ the lower _ -r.,»

leaves shorter in length than the upper leaves which often extend above the stem. Both the leaves and the stem have straight, spreading hairs. The cyme (a type of inflorescence) is subtended by a bract approximately 4/5 of an inch to 2 inches (2-5 cm.) in size. Flowers are arranged spirally with the spikelets (flower clusters) in a small terminal cluster or occasionally in 1 or 2 short-stalked axillary Ones. Stamens and pistils do -Ilotoccur_ in the same flower and are often found in separate spikes. Staminate spikes are few flowered and the pistillate spjkelets are one flowered. The achene (ssmall fruit that does not open at maturity) is less than one inch (1.5-2 mm.) thick and spherical in shape.

-

-I

,~----

..-.. t.L. no. _cDnl.-•••""a c.tt,,1u u Orchid.. GUo IoUfD -"1Y. tun. 1"7.

HABITAT IN MASSACHUSETTS. ---- _._-- '.-

-The -two·current records of Scleria pauciflora in Massachusetts occur in dry, open, grassy areas' do;'d~~t~d--b~-A;d~;p;g~~sc;parfu;. and s nr'rmmded by scrub oak barrens and/or oak pitch pine woods. Associatec species include Polygala nuttallii and Linum intercursum.

RANGE

Papillose Nut-rush is distributed from southeastern New Hampshire to souther Michigan, south to Florida and west to Mississippi, Arkansas and Missouri.

Distribution of Papillose Nut-rush

o

.Verified since 1978 OReported prior to 1978


1985 (continued overleaf)

PAPILLOSE NUT-RUSH (continued)

POPULATION STATUS

Considered "Endangered" in Massachusetts, Scleria pauciflora has two current records ·(1918 to present) ,arid 'one historical 'record sited within the state. Its rarity in this state is related to the fact that in Massachusetts it is at the northern edge of .!ts range andr..also because of the apparent scarcity of suitable habitat in which the plant grows.

Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program

Commonwealth of Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife Field Headquarters Route 135Westborough, MA 01581 (508) 792-7270, ext. 200

THREATENED PLANTS OF MASSACHUSETTS

Purple Needlegrass (Aristida purpurascens Poir.)

BLOMQillST. H.L.1948. The Grass.. ofNortb Carolina. Duke University Press

DESCRIPTION: Purple Needlegrass is a densely tufted perennial belonging to a distinctive genus of mostly xerophytic (drought adapted) grasses which are easily recognized by their long-awned "bottlebrush" flower spikes. Purple Needlegrass has smooth, upright stems from 1 to 11/2 ft. (30-75 em) high which branch from the lower nodes of

a hard, closely sheathed base. The narrow leaf blades are flat and smooth below, but slightly hairy with rolled in margins above. As the leaves mature they become curled and more slack. The flowers first appear in a dense, narrow, dark purple-brown panicle whose lengthis as much as 1/3 to 1/2 the height of the plant. Each flower of the inflorescence is borne in a single, 7-10 mm long, pointed spikelet which consists of several narrow, overlapping chaffy bracts (modified floral parts) with a . conspicuous three-forked awn projecting from one of the inner bracts. In Purple Needlegrass all three awns are straight, erect, and about equal in length (1.5-3 em). As the inflorescence matures from mid-August on, the awns spread open so that they are widely and equally separated from each other and horizontal to the axis of the flower spike. At this time the maturing inflorescence loses its purple coloration and turns a pale straw color.

Range of Purple Needlegrass

o o

00

• Verified since 1978 o Reported prior to 1978

(Purple Needlegrass continued)

Similar Species In most cases, species of Aristida may be distinguished by differences in the general arrangement or shape of the inflorescence. For them to be positively identified, however, comparison of the relative length and divergence of the fully-developed awns from mature plants is required. Northern Poverty Grass (Aristida longespica) is an annual with smaller and narrower flower spikes having flowers with two erect lateral awns that are shorter than the horizontally positioned middle awn. It also tends to grow in seasonally moist habitats. Prairie Three-awn(A. oliganthaJ is a soft-based perennial and roadside weed with a fewerflowered panicle and spikelets with 3 equal and much longer (3.5-7 em) divergent awns. Beach Needlegrass (A. tuberculosa) is a rare coastal dune annual which can sometimes occur inland on sandy scrapes. The "bottlebrush" flower panicles are shorter, more open, and wider due to long, (3-5 em) widely spreading awns which are also spirally twisted at their base.

Range Purple Needlegrass is found in a variety of open, sandy habitats, including prairies, which attributes to its wide distribution throughout eastern North America from Massachusetts to Florida and Texas, and inland and north to Ohio, Missouri, and eastern Kansas. Disjunct from the main range is a small, northern distribution that includes southern Michigan and Wisconsin.

Habitat in Massachusetts Purple Needlegrass is usually found in the dry, nutrient-poor, sandy habitats known as heathlands and sandplain grasslands. These rare and local plant communities are scattered along the N.E. coastline, persisting where human land use practices and natural stresses from salt spray, fire and storms inhibit the growth of woody shrubs and trees. Purple Needlegrass can also grow in maintained or disturbed areas such as grazed pastures, firelanes, and powerline openings as long as trees are excluded. Sandplain grasslands are dominated by ubiquitous prairie bunch grasses like Little Bluestem, Big Bluestem, Poverty Grass, Redtop and Indian Grass. Also characteristic of and often restricted to grasslands are low, broadleaved herbs such as bush-clovers, asters, Golden Heather and Bushy Rockrose. Grassy Heathlands are highly stressed, xeric, sparsely vegetated low shrub communities found on sandy coastal headlands and in openings in Pitch Pine/scrub oak barrens. Inhospitable to most plants, these areas are successfully vegetated by large patches of Bayberry, Huckleberry, Golden-aster and hardy grass species.

Population Status Purple Needlegrass is listed as Threatened in Massachusetts because of the widespread succession of grasslands and open fields to forests. This species clearly prefers frequent disturbance and shows intolerance of shade or competition from encroaching woody plants. Changes in human land use practices have had a major part in changing the amount of open land. In the past, grazing, agriculture and fire opened up abundant suitable habitat for this species, as shown by 28 known occurrences from the early records to 1978. Since 1978 only 12 populations of Purple Needlegrass remain, occurring mostly in small remnent patches of habitat. Purple Needlegrass is presently restricted to Cape Cod and the Islands. The sole current mainland population is located in a late successional grassland that is threatened by encroaching pine woodland.

General Description: Shore Pygmy-weed (Crassula aquatica) is a tiny, annual, fleshy herbaceous aquatic plant that grows on coastal or freshwater shores. A member of the Stonecrop family (Crassulaceae), these plants have tiny, single white flowers that appear in leaf axils from July through September. These inconspicuous plants grow either in low-spreading, sprawling mats on mud flats or elongated and partially submerged in water.

Aids to identification: Shore Pygmy-weed’s slender stems arise from the plant’s base, then branch and curve upward (to 2-6 mm high in its low form and up to 10 cm in its elongated form). The leaves are fleshy, entire, and linear (2-7 mm long). They are arranged oppositely on the stem, and are not merely sessile, but actually join at the stem to form a boat-shaped cup at the point of attachment. Inconspicuous white or greenish-white flowers (1 mm wide) emerge singly from the leaf axils on short stalks. Each flower has (usually) four narrow petals. Flower stalks elongate as the fruits mature into follicles containing 8 to 10 seeds. Minute, brown, oblong-shaped seeds have pits between striated lines on their surfaces that can be seen under magnification.



Shore Pygmy-weed Crassula aquatica

(synonym Tillaea aquatica)

State Status: Threatened Federal Status: None

Holmgren, Noel H. The Illustrated Companion to Gleason and Cronquist’s Manual. NY Botanical Garden. 1998.

Similar species: Other small, low-growing shore plants with tiny opposite leaves that could be confused with the Shore Pygmy-weed in Massachusetts are the waterworts (Elatine spp.), and the aquatic form of northern dwarf-St. John’s-wort (Hypericum boreale forma callitrichoides). However, the leaves of these other plants are not fleshy, nor are they linear (they are broader in shape). Also, the leaves do not form a boat-shaped cup at the point of attachment along the stem as in the Shore Pygmy-weed.

Habitat: Shore Pygmy-weed occurs along both fresh and tidal brackish water, including such habitats as the margins of freshwater ponds, and rivers and on tidal mud flats or along salt ponds. This species favors sandy and/or muddy wet soil. In freshwater habitats, the Shore Pygmy-weed grows among low herbaceous plants such as mud hedge-hyssop (Gratiola neglecta), water purslane (Ludwigia palustris), low cudweed (Gnaphalium uliginosa), and Pennsylvania smartweed (Persicaria pensylvanica). In brackish habitats, it has been found growing with lilaeopsis (Lilaeopsis chinense), water-pimpernel (Samolus valerandi ssp. parviflorus), and Atlantic mudwort (Limosella australis).

Range: Shore Pygmy-weed is known from 23 states across America, in a sporadic pattern, with many miles between occurrences. In the north, the species is found in all New England states, New York, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. Westward, it is found in Minnesota and in the pacific coastal states of Washington, Oregon, California, and Alaska. Its southern range encompasses Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, and Utah.


Population status in Massachusetts: Shore Pygmy-weed is listed under the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act as Threatened. All listed species are protected from killing, collecting, possessing, or sale and from activities that would destroy habitat and thus directly or indirectly cause mortality or disrupt critical behaviors. There are nine current populations (i.e., those recorded after 1980) in the coastal regions of Plymouth, Bristol, Dukes, and Nantucket counties, in the central part of the state in Hampshire County, and in the north central area of Franklin County.

Management recommendations: As for many rare species, exact needs for management of Shore Pygmy-weed are not known. However, preserving the integrity of its habitat is a logical first step. This may involve restricting recreational shore use to avoid trampling and compaction of shorelines, and maintaining existing hydrology. Field notes suggest that populations may decline with high water levels, and that the natural opening and flushing of salt pond habitats once every year or two may benefit populations. Further research is needed to determine precise ecological requirements of this species.

Flowers Present: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec


Updated November 2004

Natural Heritage &. Commonwealth of Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife

Endangered Species Route 135 Westborough, MA 01581

Program (508) 792-7270 ext. 200

MASSACHUSETTS SPECIAL CONCERN PLANTS

SALTPOND PENNYWORT (Hydrocotyle verticillata Thunberg)

Description-The Saltpond Pennywort, a member of the parsley family, is a small (4-6 in., 10-15 em tall), delicate, aquatic herb with orbicular leaves up to 6 ern (2 1/4 in.) in diameter, commonly with 8-14 shallow lobes. There is no central, erect stem; rather, leafstalks and flowering shoots are produced at intervals along subsurface stems. The inflorescence is a simple spike up to.15 em (6 in.) long, with 3-7 few flowered whorls of 2-7 flowers each. Flowers are sessile, or on short stalks in var. triradiata. Flowers are produced when plants are stranded, JulySeptember.

Similar Species in Massachusetts H. umbellata (Water Pennywort) is very similar to Gleason The New Britton and Brown Illustrated

Flora of the Northeastern U.S. and AdjacentSaltpond Pennywort in size and leaf shape but flowers Canada NY Botanical Garden. 1952.

differ. H. umbellata has only a single whorl of many flowers.

Habitat in Massachusetts Saltpond Pennywort grows along sandy to peaty margins of brackish ponds very near the ocean. Usually these ponds are separated from the ocean by just a narrow sand barrier. Associated species may include Spartina pectinata (Cord-grass), Scirpus amcricanus (Chairmakers Bulrush), Chenopodium glaucum (Oak-leaved Goosefoot), Pluchea purpurascens (Saltmarsh Fleabane), and Ranumculus cymbalaria (Seaside Crowfoot).

(continued overleaf)

Range of Saltpond Pennywort

• Verified since 1978 o Reponed prior to 1978

1990

SALTPOND PENNYWORT (continued)

Ram~e This species ranges on the coastal plain and piedmont from Massachusetts to Florida and Texas. It is also scattered westward to Oklahoma, Missouri, California, Utah, and Nevada. In addition, it is found in tropical America.

Population Status Saltpond Pennywort is listed as a species of "Special Concern" in Massachusetts. Currently there are 11 sites where it occurs; historically there were an additional 6 sites where it occurred. In Massachusetts this species has always been rare, presumably because of climatic limitations northward. The small size of most of the ponds leaves them vulnerable to hurricanes and other coastal processes.

Natunl Heritage & Endangered Species prognm

Massachusetts Dh'ision of Fisheries & Wildlife Route 135 Natural Heritage Westborough, J',lA 01581

Program (508)792.7270. est, 200


SANDPLAIN BLI,JE-EYED GRASS

(§isy~inchium arenicala Bickn.)

DESCRIPTION

Sandplain Blue-eyed Grass is a low, often tufted, light green perennial'herb, 4-20 inches (10-50 cm.) in height with short rootstalks. Leaves are stiff, narrow, and grass-like, less than ~ inch (1-3.5 mm.) wide. Erect stems bear two to eight slender flower stalks, each stalk an inch to 4~ inches in length. Flowers are blue with yellow centers. Flowers typically bloom in June-July yet some individuals may flower through August. The fruits are dark brown capsules.

SIMILAR SPECIES

Two other species ofcBlue-eyed Grass may occur in dry habitats, but seldom in the very dry sandplains inhabited by S. arenicola. St.out Blue-eyed Grass (~. angus_tifolium or ~. bermudiana) has stems and leaves which are 3-5IllIl!'wide. 'Atlantic Blue-eyed Grass (S. 'til' atlanticum) is very ,similar toS. 'Arenicala 'but-arenicola can l '} best ~e told from atlan!~cu~ andother Blue-eyed grasses by the \ ' 'il presence of numerous dark brown bristles at the base of the ~

plant. These bristles represent the remains of dried leaf bases \~:, and may require pulling up a plant to see well, \ J:,\

HABITAT IN MASSACHUSETTS Y"' Sandplain Blue-eyed Grass occurs in loose colonies or as scattered individuals in dry, open, sandy fields near the coast. Associated species include Andropogon scoparius (Little Bluestem), Aster concolor (Eastern Silvery Aster), Helianthemum dumosum (Bushy Rockrose), Linum intercursum (Sandplain Flax) and Amelanchier nantucketensis (Nantucket ,Shadbush).

• Verified since 1978 o Reported prior to 1978

Distribution of Sandplain Blue-eyed Grass Distribution in Massachusetts by Town

(continued overleaf) 1985

SANDPLAlN BLUE-EYED GRASS (continued)

RANGE

~ arenicola ranges along the coast from southeastern Massachusetts to Florida and west to Alabama.

POPULATION STATUS

In Massachusetts, Sandplain Blue-eyed Grass is considered a species of "Special Concern". Twenty-eight current occurrences (1978 to present) and eight.historical occurrences'hav.ebeen recorded. 'Reasons for this spe·Ci.es~·

relative rarity include loss'of-habitat, its location in Massachusetts at the northern edge of its. range, and overgrowth of shrubs in its habitat due to suppression of fire and eessation of grazing.

Route 135, Westborough, MA 01581

tel: (508) 389-6360; fax: (508) 389-7891 www.nhesp.org

Description: The Water-willow Stem Borer is a noctuid moth with forewings that are ochre to straw yellow with purplish-brown shading in the basal and terminal areas; the reniform and orbicular spots are straw yellow, outlined in purplish-brown. The hind wings are pinkish-tan. Wingspan is 32-38 mm. Habitat: The Water-willow Stem Borer inhabits shallow portions of coastal plain wetlands (swamps, edges of streams and ponds, abandoned cranberry bogs, etc.) where water-willow (Decodon verticillatus) grows. Life History: Adult moths fly in late September and early October. Eggs overwinter, hatching in the spring. Larvae bore into and feed internally on stems of water-willow (Decodon verticillatus). Larvae pupate in August. Range: The Water-willow Stem Borer is endemic to southeastern Massachusetts, occurring in Plymouth and Bristol Counties as well as on Cape Cod and the offshore islands.

Water-willow Stem Borer Papaipema sulphurata

State Status: Threatened

Federal Status: None

Adult Flight Period in Massachusetts

Threats

• Habitat loss • Hydrologic alteration • Invasion by exotic plants • Insecticide spraying • Light pollution

Updated June 2007 M.W. Nelson


Photo by M.W. Nelson

Distribution in Massachusetts 1982 - 2007

Based on records in the Natural Heritage Database

http://www.nhesp.org/

Commonwealth of Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife Route 135 Westborough, MA 01581 www.nhesp.org (508) 389-6360 /fax (508)389-7891

LEAST TERN (Sternula antillarum)

State Status: Special Concern

B. Byrne, MDFW

Diminutive yet feisty, the Least Tern is a spring and summer colonial nester on Massachusetts’ sandy beaches. For nesting, it favors for sites with little or no vegetation. This preference coincides with humans’ most desired spots for recreation and development, resulting in conflicts of use and loss of considerable Least Tern habitat in the past century. Presently, the Least Tern is considered a Species of Special Concern in Massachusetts, and continued management of nesting habitat and colonies is necessary to protect the state’s population.

Description. The Least Tern measures 21-23 cm in length and weighs 40-62 g. In breeding plumage, the adult has a black cap and eyestripe, white forehead, pale gray upperparts, white underparts, a black-tipped, yellow-orange bill, and yellow-orange legs. Outside the breeding season, the crown and eyestripe become flecked with white, a dark bar forms on the wing, and the bill and legs darken. Hatchlings are tan or buff speckled black. Juveniles are brown and buff on the back; pale feather edgings give a scaly appearance. Underparts are white, the crown is buff speckled black, and the eyestripe and nape are blackish. The Least Tern’s voice is high and shrill. Its repertoire includes zwreep and kit-kit-kit-kit alarm calls, k’ee-you-hud-dut recognition call, and the male’s ki-dik contact call.

Similar species in Massachusetts. Common (Sterna hirundo), Roseate (Sterna dougallii), and Arctic (Sterna paradisaea) Terns are all much larger, have entirely black foreheads and crowns in breeding plumage, have different colored bills and, proportionately, have much longer tails.

Distribution and Migration. The Least Tern breeds in North, Middle, and South America and the Caribbean. In North America, it breeds on the Atlantic coast from Maine to Florida, along the Gulf coast, on the Pacific coast from California to Mexico, and inland, principally along major tributaries of the Missouri, Ohio, and Mississippi rivers. Massachusetts birds arrive in early-May to nest at coastal locations statewide (Fig. 1). The largest populations occur on Cape Cod and the Islands (see Status below). The Least Tern leaves Massachusetts by early-September (and in some years is gone by early-August) to begin its journey to wintering quarters, which are mainly off the eastern coasts of Central and South America, south to northern Argentina.

Figure 1. Distribution of present and historic Least Tern nesting colonies in Massachusetts.

Breeding and Foraging Habitat. In Massachusetts, the Least Tern nests on sandy or gravelly beaches periodically scoured by storm tides, resulting in sparse or no vegetation; it also takes advantage of dredge spoils. In other areas of the country, it nests on riverine sandbars, mudflats, and gravel roofs. Along coasts, the Least Tern forages in shallow-water habitats, including bays, lagoons, estuaries, river and creek mouths, tidal marshes, and ponds.

Food habits. The Least Tern primarily consumes small fish, but also takes crustaceans and insects. The most common prey items in Massachusetts are sand lance, herring, and hake. This tern hovers 1-10 m over water, then plunges to the surface to capture prey. Insects are captured on the wing and by skimming the water surface. It may forage singly or in small flocks of 5-20 birds. Foraging generally occurs close to the nesting site, and up to 3 km away from colonies in response to an abundance of prey.

Breeding. Phenology. Least Terns arrive in

Massachusetts in early May. Colony formation and courtship quickly ensue. Egg laying commences a couple weeks later than that of Common and Roseate Terns: dates range from 20 May to 23 August. Incubation lasts about 3 wk, as does the nestling period. The terns have mostly departed for winter locales by early-September, and in some years by early-August.

Colony. The Least Tern is gregarious and nests in colonies of just a few to > 2000 pairs, but colonies usually number < 25 pairs. Currently, the largest colony in Massachusetts numbers about 600 pairs, but in some years this number is much higher depending on the degree of dispersion of the birds. In Massachusetts, the Least Tern often nests in association with the Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus), with which it shares similar nesting habitat requirements, but only rarely forms mixed colonies with other tern species.

Pair bond and parental care. The Least Tern is monogamous. In a California study, about half the birds retained the same mate for more than one year. Courtship behavior includes aerial and ground displays. In the aerial display, a fish-carrying male is chased by 1-4 females; the display ends in a stiff-winged glide, during which participants cross each others’ paths and bank towards each other repeatedly. Courtship on the ground includes parading and posturing. Males also feed females during courtship and throughout incubation. Incubating and chick-rearing duties are shared by both parents, but not equally: females typically do about 80% of the incubating, and more of the

brooding/attending; males may do more feeding of chicks.

Nest. The nest, which is often just slightly above the high tide line, is a shallow scrape in the substrate to which vegetation, shell, or pebbles may be added. Considerable nest loss can be attributed to storms, given the low-lying nature of many nests. Mean internest distance at a New Jersey colony was about 9 m by the end of incubation.

Eggs. Eggs are oval or sub-elliptical, and measure about 31 x 23 mm. Color and markings are very variable, but eggs generally have a beige or light olive-brown ground color with dark spots and splotches. Clutch size is 2 or (especially for interior Least Terns) 3; sometimes 1. Incubation, which is inconsistent until the clutch is complete, lasts about 21-23 days in Massachusetts.

Young. Chicks are semi-precocial. At hatching, they are downy and eyes are open. Parents brood chicks for the first 1-2 days, after which time chicks leave the nest and usually wander up to 200 m from nest site (up to 1 km in response to disturbance). Parents carry prey to chicks in their bills at a rate of about 2 fish/h. While adults forage, chicks seek shelter in vegetation or near debris; older chicks may wait at the water’s edge. Fledging occurs after about 3 wk. Young disperse from the natal site within 3 wk of fledging, and are still fed by parents for up to 8 wk after fledging. Family units are thought to migrate together.

Predation. Predators. A wide variety of birds and

mammals, crabs, and fish are predators of Least Tern eggs, chicks, and adults. Avian predators include crows, gulls, Great Blue Heron, Black-crowned Night-Heron, Ruddy Turnstone, Sanderling, Great Horned Owl, Peregrine Falcon, American Kestrel, and Northern Harrier, among others. Mammalian predators include fox, coyote, raccoon, skunk, opossum, feral hog, cat, dog, and rat.

Responses to predators and intruders. Within the colony, nesting is fairly synchronous as compared to that of Massachusetts’ larger terns; this may be a strategy to reduce the amount of time the Least Tern colony is vulnerable to predation. Least Terns eggs and chicks are cryptically colored. Hatched eggshells are removed from the nest site (the white inner shell is obvious). When eggs and chicks are vulnerable (for instance, to most avian and human intruders), adults give alarm calls, dive, defecate on, and attack intruders. When adults are vulnerable (for instance, to canids), they desert the nest or fly high over the predator. Repeated intrusions by nocturnal predators, in particular, may cause the colony to desert the site. Shifts between different nesting sites

1910

s19

20s

1930

s19

40s

1950

s19

60s

1970

s19

80s

1990

s 0

2,500

no data

2,000

Num

ber o

f pai

rs

1,500

1,000

500

within the breeding season in response to disturbance are common for this species. Terns become more defensive as the season progresses. Birds experienced with human intruders are more aggressive than inexperienced birds, and occasionally will even strike humans, earning the Least Tern the nickname, “little striker”.

Life History Parameters. Most Least Terns breed annually starting at 3 yr, some at 2 yr. One brood per season is raised, but Least Terns may renest up to 3 times if eggs or chicks are lost early enough in the season. Annual productivity, which is difficult to estimate because of the high mobility of chicks shortly after hatching, is very variable, but was estimated at about half a chick per pair at several locations in the country. There are no data from Massachusetts, but elsewhere survival from fledging to 2-3 yr was estimated as about 80%, and annual survival of adults was estimated at over 85%. The oldest Least Tern on record was 24 yr – 1 mo. It was banded in Massachusetts and recovered in New Jersey.

Status. The Least Tern suffered the same fate as Massachusetts’ larger terns at the end of the 19th

century – they were slaughtered for use as decorations for hats. By the early 20th century, only about 250 pairs of Least Terns remained in the state. Following legal protection, numbers increased to the 1,500 pair level by the 1950s, but declined again (perhaps as a result of increased recreational use of beaches) to perhaps 900 pairs by the early 1970s (Fig. 2). More aggressive protection of breeding colonies since then has contributed to a fairly steady increase in numbers. In 2001, 3,420 pairs nested in the state, a record high for the past 100 years. Currently nesting at 54 breeding sites, the Least Tern is Massachusetts’ most widely distributed tern. The

beaches (in contrast to offshore islands), disturbance of colonies by humans and predators remains a chronic problem. The principal conservation challenge confronting wildlife managers in protecting Least Terns is to maintain adequate separation between people on the beaches and the nesting colonies to enable the birds to successfully reproduce. Humans (and their dogs) in close proximity to colonies may keep adult birds off their nests, contributing to chick and egg mortality due to temperature extremes; dogs also kill chicks. Off-road vehicles (ORV’s) crush tern eggs and chicks and destroy habitat – ruts created by tires trap chicks, preventing normal movements and further exposing them to interactions with vehicles. Garbage left on the beaches by humans may attract predators to colonies and cause birds to shift to alternate breeding sites. Given the habitat that the Least Tern selects, intensive and ongoing management of colonies will always be necessary if this species is going to be adequately shielded from disturbance. Efforts to limit coastal development are also critical to protecting the viability of the state’s population.

3,000

largest colonies in 2001 occurred at: Dunbar Point (Kalmus Park), Barnstable (599 pairs); Tuckernuck Island, Nantucket (432); Sylvia State Beach, Oak Bluffs (370); and Dead Neck-Sampsons Island, Barnstable (257). Favored breeding sites remain in flux, however, due to the species’ sensitivity to

Figure 2. Least Tern population trends in Massachusetts, 1910s to 1990s (modified from Blodget and Melvin 1996). disturbance, and because of its preference for nesting

on unvegetated beaches. The Least Tern is a Species of Special Concern in Massachusetts.

References. Conservation and Management. Since the 1970s, most sites have been fenced and posted with signs to discourage human intrusion into colonies. At many sites, Piping Plover and Least Tern management is integrated due to the species similar nesting habitat requirements and threats. Because of the Least Tern’s propensity for nesting on mainland and barrier

Blodget, B. G., and S. M. Melvin. 1996. Massachusetts tern and piping plover handbook: a manual for stewards. Mass. Div. of Fisheries and Wildlife. Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program. Westborough, MA.

Thompson, B. C., J. A. Jackson, J. Burger, L. A. Hill, E. M. Kirsch, and J. L. Atwood. 1997. Least Tern (Sterna antillarum). In The Birds of North America, No. 290 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D. C.

Veit, R. R., and W. R. Petersen. 1993. Birds of Massachusetts. Massachusetts Audubon Society. Lincoln, MA.

C. S. Mostello, 2002 Updated August 2008

Partially funded by the New Bedford Harbor Damaged Resource Restoration Trust Fund

Route 135, Westborough, MA 01581 tel: (508) 389-6360; fax: (508) 389-7891

www.nhesp.org

Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus

State Status: ThreatenedFederal Status: None

Description: The Northern Harrier or Marsh Hawk is a slim, long-legged, long-tailed hawk, about 40 to 60 cm (16 to 24 in.) in length, with an owl-like face and long, rounded, narrow wings extending up to 1.2 meters (46 in.) from wing tip to wing tip. Males are pale bluish gray on the head and upper surface, white on the undersurface, and have black wing tips; the tail has a broad subterminal bar with 5 to 7 narrower dark brown bars. Females are dusky brown on the head and upper surface, and light brown with darker vertical streaks on the lower surface; the tail is dark in the center, becoming paler near the outer edges, and has 5 to 7 broad brown bars. Both sexes possess a conspicuous white rump patch, white upper tail coverts, light orange-yellow legs, and black bills. Northern Harriers have large ear openings, but they are usually hidden underneath their feathers. Northern Harriers are known to readily abandon nests when disturbed before the eggs hatch, they vigorously defend their nests once their young have hatched.

Similar species: The male Northern Harrier’s gray coloration makes it distinct from other local birds. However, the female Northern Harrier vaguely resembles the Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus): both occupy the same habitat type, have a brownish upper surface and white breast with vertical brown streaks, long rounded wings and black wingtips. However, the Short-eared Owl is smaller, with short feathered legs, a white facial disk, and lacks the bright white rump patch possessed by Northern Harriers.

Migration: The Northern Harriers, which do not spend the winter in Massachusetts, begin to migrate south in late August or early September. Wintering range extends from New England west to southern British Columbia and south into Central America and the West Indies.

Arthur Singer. From Robbins, C.S., B. Bruun, and H. Zim. 1966. Birds of North America. Golden Press, NY.

Breeding: The breeding season of Northern Harriers extends from March to July in Massachusetts and is initiated by a spectacular courtship ritual called skydancing, which is usually performed only by males and is used to attract mates. A skydancing Northern Harrier performs an aerial acrobatic display of dives, somersaults, loops, and tumbles, often accompanied by shrill screaming calls.

Once the male has found a mate, the female Northern Harrier builds a nest made of grasses, weeds, water plants, and other vegetative material supplied to her by her mate. The nest is usually located in a slight hollowed-out area on the ground, among bushes, grasses, and other low vegetation, and consists of a thick pad of grasses surrounded by dry stalks of plants, weeds, and small twigs. Sometimes the nest is built over shallow water on a raised mound of sticks, hollowed in the center and lined with dry grass, stubble and weed stalks.

The female lays from 2 to 9 bluish-white eggs (3 to 6 on average), about 1 egg every other day. Both parents help incubate the eggs until they hatch 30 to 32 days later. The male Harrier provides all the food to his mate and young until they fledge 30 to 35 days after hatching.


Breeding Activity in Massachusetts


Feeding Habitats: After the young have fledged, they may hunt together with their parents through the remainder of the summer, until they disperse on their own or are driven off. Northern Harriers prey on a variety of small creatures, including rodents, rabbits, and other small mammals, small birds, insects, amphibians, reptiles, and carrion. In Massachusetts, voles constitute a very important component of the Harrier’s diet; there is a direct correlation between the breeding success of Northern Harriers and the number of voles found in their territory. When hunting, the Northern Harrier flies low over the ground, slowly and systematically, usually in early morning and late afternoon or early evening. When it detects prey, it hovers a moment before swooping straight down to the ground. The Harrier uses its talons to capture prey and then kills its catch via repeated stabs with its sharp beak.

Range: The Northern Harrier breeds from Massachusetts north to Newfoundland and Alaska, south to southeastern Virginia, and west to northern Texas and central California. Wintering range extends from New England west to southern British Columbia and south into Central America and the West Indies.

Range of Northern Harrier Summer (breeding) range Year - round range Winter range

Distribution in Massachusetts 1983-current


Habitat: Northern Harriers establish nesting and feeding territories in wet meadows, grasslands, abandoned fields, and coastal and inland marshes, mostly along the coast. Northern Harriers in Massachusetts are uncommon summer residents or migrants, although they once were much more abundant in the state. Most Harriers in the state which do not migrate south spend the winter in coastal marshes on Cape Cod and the offshore islands. Some Northern Harriers that breed in areas north of Massachusetts may also spend the winter on the offshore islands and along the coast. Northern Harriers are known to share habitat and territory with Short-eared Owls.

Threats: The most significant factor in the Northern Harrier’s decline has been destruction of suitable habitat by reforestation of agricultural land and destruction of coastal and freshwater wetlands. In coastal areas, human disturbance may cause some Harriers to abandon their nests. Natural factors such as prey abundance, prolonged periods of rain (which may destroy nests and eggs), and predation on eggs and nestlings all affect the breeding success of Northern Harriers. In order to prevent further decline in the Northern Harrier’s population, it is crucial to protect suitable habitats from development and destruction. Selected References: Clark, W. S., & B.K. Wheeler. 1987. A Field Guide to Hawks.

Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. Johnsgard, P. A. 1990. Hawks, Eagles, & Falcons of North

America. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. Palmer, R. S. 1962. Handbook of North American Birds.

Yale University Press, New Haven & London Serrentino, P. 1992. Northern Harrier, Circus cyaneus. Pp.89-

117 in K.J. Schneider and D.M. Pence, eds. Migratory Nongame Birds of Management Concern in the Northeast. U.S. Dept. Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service, Newton Corner, MA.

Serrentino, P., & M. England. 1989. Northern Harrier, p. 37-46 in Proc. Northeast Raptor Management Symposium and Workshop. Natl. Wild. Fed., Washington, D.C.


Updated August 2008

DESCRIPTION: Pied-billed Grebes are stocky waterbirds, 30 to 38 cm (12 to 15 in.) in length, with short legs far back on the body, short wings, a short tail, flat lobes on the toes, and a stout, thick, chicken- like bill. The plumage of the Pied-billed Grebe changes with the seasons. During the summer, the bird is uniformly brown with a dusky underside, a fluffy white posterior, and a large black patch on the throat; its bill is bluish-white, encircled near the middle by a black band. During the winter, the throat loses its black patch, and the bill becomes yellowish, with no black band. The young are liberally banded with black and white stripes, with a smattering of reddish-brown spots. The call of the Pied-billed Grebe is only given during the breeding season, and resembles a series of "cow cow cow " sounds. They are poor fliers and must run across the water for several yards before becoming airborne; the head is held low during flight.



Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps

State Status: Endangered Federal Status: None

Charles Joslin, from DeGraaf, R., and Rudis, D. New England Wildlife, 1983.

SIMILAR SPECIES: Pied-billed Grebes can be distinguished from all other grebes by the lack of white wing patches in flight, the chicken-like bill, and, in summer, the black band around the bill.

HABITAT IN MASSACHUSETTS: Pied-billed Grebes prefer to nest in marshes, lakes, large ponds, and other wetlands which have an abundant supply of cattails, reeds, and other vegetation which can provide cover and nesting materials. They spend the winter in open lakes and rivers, estuaries, and tidal creeks, usually to the south of Massachusetts.

RANGE: The Pied-billed Grebe is the most widespread species of grebe in North America. Pied-billed Grebes can be found from southern Canada southward through the U.S., Central America, and South America to Argentina. The northern populations (including those in Massachusetts) migrate in autumn to the northern limit of unfrozen fresh water south to Panama. Some of the birds may be found in saltwater marshes if there is no unfrozen fresh water available.


BEHAVIOR/LIFE HISTORY: Pied-billed Grebes arrive in Massachusetts in late March and begin courtship displays, which consist of diving and chasing, bill touching, circling, and calling; this may continue until June, but nesting is usually initiated in late April. The nest is constructed over a period of 3 to 7 days by both the male and female out of decayed reeds, sedges, grasses, and other vegetation. It is normally located in thick vegetation near to or surrounded by open water, which allows the birds to travel to and from the nest underwater and undetected. The territory of the breeding pair usually comprises the area within 46 meters (150 ft.) of the nest; the pair's home range is about twice this area. Grebes are very shy during the breeding and nesting periods. When alarmed or disturbed, they sink slowly beneath the water and surface again a considerable distance away, often in an area of dense vegetation.

Egg-laying occurs from late April to June; 2 to 10 whitish-blue eggs are laid over a period of several days. The eggs are covered with debris whenever both parents leave the nest, so the egg color gradually changes to a dirty brown. Both parents (but usually the female) incubate the eggs for 23 to 24 days. The chicks are precocial and can swim and dive only hours after emerging from their shells, but they tire quickly. They often climb onto their parents' backs regardless of whether they are in the water or on the nest. The chicks follow their parents everywhere, constantly begging for food. They grow rapidly and are capable of flight in less than a month.

Pied-billed Grebes eat a variety of foods, including aquatic vegetation, seeds, frogs, tadpoles, fish, aquatic insects, and especially crayfish. Pied-billed Grebes begin to migrate south from Massachusetts in September (sometimes late August), and most of them are gone by the end of December. Considerable numbers of Pied-billed Grebes from farther north can sometimes be seen in Massachusetts as they migrate south. Pied-billed Grebes are infrequently found in Massachusetts in mid-winter.

POPULATION STATUS: The Pied-billed Grebe is classified as a Threatened Species in Massachusetts due to the limited amount of suitable wetland habitats and the small population size of the birds. Nesting occurs erratically at some of the known breeding sites: a pair may breed at a suitable location one year and then never return again. Despite the small amount of available habitat, many of these areas are left vacant by the Pied-billed Grebes.

Updated August 2008


DESCRIPTION: The Piping Plover is a small, stocky shorebird with pale brownish gray or sandy-colored plumage on its backside, with a white breast, forehead, cheeks, and throat, a black streak on the forecrown extending from eye to eye, and a black breastband which may not always form a complete circle. Its coloration gives it excellent camouflage in sandy areas. The average Piping Plover is 15 to 17 cm (6 to 7 in.) long, with a wingspan of 35 to 40 cm (14 to 16 in.). The tail is white at the base and tip, but dark in the middle. It has yellow-orange legs and its short bill is yellow-orange with a black tip in the summer, but turns completely black during the winter. In general, females have darker bills and lighter plumage than males. The Piping Plover runs in a pattern of brief starts and stops; in flight, it displays a pair of prominent white wing stripes. Its call is a series of piping whistles.

SIMILAR SPECIES IN MASSACHUSETTS: The Piping Plover is similar to the Semipalmated Plover (Charadrius semipalmatus) in size, shape, and coloration. However, the Semipalmated Plover is a darker brown in color, and has much more black on its head than the Piping Plover. The Semipalmated Plover does not breed in Massachusetts but is present on sandy beaches and intertidal flats from late July to early September during its southward migration.

RANGE MAP AND DISTRIBUTION

Piping Plover Charadrius melodus

State Status: Threatened Federal Status: Threatened

Illustration by J. Zickefoose, 1986

RANGE: During spring and summer, the Atlantic Coast population of Piping Plovers nests from the Newfoundland south to North Carolina. In winter they migrate farther south, from North Carolina to Florida, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean. Other populations of Piping Plovers nest along rivers on the Northern Great Plains and along the shores of the Great Lakes, migrating to the Gulf of Mexico in the winter.

HABITAT: Piping Plovers in Massachusetts nest on sandy coastal beaches and dunes, which are relatively flat and free of vegetation. Piping Plovers often build their nests in a narrow area of land between the high tide line and the foot of the coastal dunes; they also nest in Least Tern colonies. Nesting may also occur on vegetated dunes and in eroded areas behind dunes.

LIFE CYCLE / BEHAVIOR: As soon as Piping Plovers return to their breeding grounds in Massachusetts in late March or April, the males begin to set up territories and attract mates. Territorial rivalry between males is very strong; adjacent male Piping Plovers mark off their territories by running side by side down to the waterline. Each bird takes turns, one running forward a few feet, then waiting for the other to do likewise. Nests are usually at least 200 feet apart; the nesting pair will confront any intruding Piping Plover which approaches the nest. Male Piping Plovers also defend feeding territories encompassing beach front adjacent to the nesting territory.


Courtship consists of a ritualized display by the male, who flies in ovals or figure-eights around a female, then displays on the ground by bowing his head, dropping his wings, and walking in circles around the female. The male also scrapes shallow depressions in the sand at potential nest sites. The female then chooses one of these nesting sites, usually in a flat, sandy area. The nest itself is a shallow depression which is often lined with shell fragments and small pebbles, which may aid in camouflaging the eggs. Female Piping Plovers typically lay four eggs per clutch, one egg every other day over a week’s time. The eggs are sandy gray in color with dark brown or black spots, and all hatch within 4 to 8 hours of each other. Both parents take part in incubating the eggs until they hatch 26-28 days later.

The young chicks leave the nest within hours after hatching and may wander hundreds of meters before they become capable of flight. When threatened by predators or human intruders, the young run or lie motionless on the sand while their parents often pretend to have broken wings in an effort to attract the intruder’s attention away from the chicks. Young Piping Plovers are brooded by their parents for 3 to 4 weeks and finally fledge 4 to 5 weeks after hatching, at which time they leave the nesting area.

Piping Plovers feed on marine worms, mollusks, insects, and crustaceans. They forage along the waterline, on mudflats at low tide, and in wrack (seaweed, marsh vegetations and other organic debris deposited by the tides) along the beach. Foraging behavior consists of running a short distance, then staring at the ground with the head tilted to one side, often standing on one foot while vibrating the other foot on the ground, and finally pecking at the food item it has detected in the sand.

Piping Plovers begin to migrate southward between late July and early September, although occasional stragglers remain behind until late October. Adult birds often return to the same nesting area every spring, although they usually change mates from year to year. Young birds may nest anywhere from a few hundred feet to many miles from where they were hatched.

POPULATION STATUS IN MASSACHUSETTS: The Atlantic Coast population of Piping Plovers is listed as Threatened at both the state and federal levels. In 2005, 475 breeding pairs nested at about 100 sites. Massachusetts has the largest breeding population of Piping Plovers along the Atlantic Coast.

Updated August 2008


DESCRIPTION: The Short-eared Owl is a crow-sized bird, approximately 13 - 17 in. (33 - 43 cm) long, with a wingspan of 38 - 44 in. (76 - 91 cm). Its plumage is buffy colored, with a predominantly brownish back and a lighter head and underside with long streaks of brown. The Short-eared Owl has a white facial disk, with a black patch surrounding each yellow eye. The wings and tail are long and rounded (but the wings are longer than the tail). The undersurface of each wing is marked with a dark band near the bend of the wing and on the wingtip as well. The Short-eared Owl has very small ear tufts which are usually very difficult to observe. The legs are feathered to the feet. Females are generally larger than the males, and darker in coloration.

HABITAT IN MASSACHUSETTS: Short-eared Owls in Massachusetts reside in large, undeveloped expanses of coastal sandplain grassland and maritime heathland, habitats which are now almost as endangered as the owl itself. The vegetation of these habitats is comprised of clumped patches of shrubs (bayberry, huckleberry, blueberry, wild rose, dewberry, pitch pine and scrub oak) mixed with herbaceous vegetation consisting of sedges, forbs, and grasses (goldenrod, beachgrass, wild indigo, little bluestem). Short-eared Owl nests on the ground, usually near or within herbaceous vegetation or low shrubs under 1.6 ft. (0.5 m) in height The territory of a single breeding pair may encompass over 100 acres.



Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus

State Status: Endangered Federal Status: None

Robbins, C., B. Bruun, and H. Zim. 1966. Birds of North America. Golden Press.

RANGE: Short-eared Owls are widely distributed all over the world; they can be found in Europe, Asia, North America, and scattered regions of South America. In North America, they breed from New England west to California, north to Alaska, and south to southeastern Pennsylvania. In Massachusetts, breeding pairs are found in the counties of Barnstable, Dukes, and Nantucket.

SIMILAR SPECIES: The only other large raptors occupying the same habitat as the Short-eared Owl in Massachusetts are the Northern Harrier and Barn Owl. The Northern Harrier is a hawk, bluish-gray (brown for females and juveniles) in coloration, with a bright white rump. The Barn Owl has a heart-shaped face and dark eyes; it has a buffy to brown back and a white underside. The Short-eared Owl is the only owl in Massachusetts which nests and roosts on the ground, hovers in flight, and frequently hunts during the day.


BREEDING / BEHAVIOR: In Massachusetts, Short-eared Owls begin territory establishment and courting behavior in March. Courtship displays consist of breathtaking flights in which the male owl climbs to an altitude of 100 feet (31 m) or more, flying in tight circles, and utters a soft call which is repeated 13 to 16 times. It then plummets towards the ground while clapping its wings together under its belly. If the male is successful in attracting a mate, he will start a long dive earthward and rock from side to side with his wings in a V pattern, closely pursued head-to-tail by the female. Copulation then occurs on the ground.

Short-eared Owls nest on the ground. The nest is constructed by the female out of dried grasses and a small amount of downy feathers. In late April, 4 to 10 eggs are laid over a period of several days. They are incubated by the female for 20 to 30 days, while her mate provides her with food. The eggs usually hatch over a period of several days in May or early June. The hatchlings leave the nest after 14 to 17 days and explore the general area on foot for the next two weeks, after which they begin their first flights. The dispersal of the hatchlings from the nest may be a defense against predators, since the nest is in such an open area. The hatchlings are fed by the parents until they learn how to fly, at which point the young return to the nest and roost together with their parents during the day.

MIGRATION: It is uncertain where Short-eared Owls in Massachusetts spend the winter. There are Short-eared Owls present on Nantucket throughout the year, and some of these are most likely permanent residents. Beginning in late August or September, some of the Short-eared Owls in Massachusetts migrate south, but where and how far they travel is not clear. In addition, Short-eared Owls from farther north appear in Massachusetts in the late fall and can be found in small numbers throughout the winter in suitable habitat across the state.

HUNTING / FEEDING: Short-eared Owls frequently hunt during the day, especially in the early morning and late afternoon. When hunting, the Short-eared Owl alternately flaps and glides, from 1 to 10 ft. (0.3 to 3 m) above the ground, and often hovers momentarily before either pouncing on its prey or continuing onward. It uses its keen sense of hearing to detect and locate prey. Meadow voles constitute over 90 percent of the Short-eared Owl's diet. The owl is also known to eat insects, small birds, and other species of small mammals.

POPULATION STATUS: The Short-eared Owl is listed as an "Endangered" species in Massachusetts. There are currently 20 to 25 breeding pairs in the state. Only three other states in the Northeast (New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont) have breeding populations of

Short-eared Owls, but in even lower numbers than are found in Massachusetts. The greatest threat to the Short-eared Owl is the loss of its habitat. The large, open, undisturbed areas where the Short-eared Owls breed are under enormous pressure for construction and development.

Selected References Holt, D.W., & S.M. Leasure. 1993. Short-eared Owl

(Asio flammeus). In The Birds of North America, No. 62 (A. Poole & F. Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.

Melvin, S.M., D.G. Smith, D.V. Holt, and G.R. Tate. 1989. Small owls, p. 88-98 in Proc. northeast raptor management symposium and workshop. Natl. Wild. Fed., Washington, D.C.

Palmer, R. S. 1962. Handbook of North American Birds. Yale University Press, New Haven & London.

Tate, G.R. 1992. Short-eared owl, Asio flammeus Pages 171-189 in K.J. Schneider and D.M. Pence, eds. Migratory Nongame Birds of Management Concern in the Northeast. U.S. Dept. Inter., Fish & Wildl. Serv., Newton Corner, MA.

Terres, J. K. 1991. The Audubon Society Encyclopedia of North American Birds. New York: Wing Books.

Updated August 2008



Appendix E. Massachusetts ModelWind Facility Bylaws

07 January 2010 E-1 Black & Veatch

Appendix E. Massachusetts Model Wind Facility Bylaws

Model Amendment to a Zoning Ordinance or By-law: Allowing Wind Facilities by Special Permit

Prepared by:

Massachusetts Division of Energy Resources Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs

1.0 Purpose The purpose of this by-law is to provide by special permit for the construction and operation of wind facilities and to provide standards for the placement, design, construction, monitoring, modification and removal of wind facilities that address public safety, minimize impacts on scenic, natural and historic resources of the city or town and provide adequate financial assurance for decommissioning.

1.1 Applicability

This section applies to all utility-scale and on-site wind facilities proposed to be constructed after the effective date of this section. It does not apply to single stand-alone turbines under 60 kilowatts of rated nameplate capacity.

Any physical modifications to existing wind facilities that materially alters the type or increases the size of such facilities or other equipment shall require a special permit.

2.0 Definitions

Utility-Scale Wind Facility: A commercial wind facility, where the primary use of the facility is electrical generation to be sold to the wholesale electricity markets.

On-Site Wind Facility: A wind project, which is located at a commercial, industrial, agricultural, institutional, or public facility that will consume more than 50% of the electricity generated by the project on-site. Height: The height of a wind turbine measured from natural grade to the tip of the rotor blade at its highest point, or blade-tip height. Rated Nameplate Capacity: The maximum rated output of electric power production equipment. This output is typically specified by the manufacturer with a “nameplate” on the equipment. Special Permit Granting Authority: The special permit granting authority shall be the board of selectmen, city council, board of appeals, planning board, or zoning administrator as designated by zoning ordinance or by-law for the issuance of special permits, or by this section for the issuance of special permits to construct and operate wind facilities.

Page 2 of 9

Substantial Evidence: Such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Wind Facility: All equipment, machinery and structures utilized in connection with the conversion of wind to electricity. This includes, but is not limited to, transmission, storage, collection and supply equipment, substations, transformers, service and access roads, and one or more wind turbines. Wind Monitoring or Meteorological Tower: A temporary tower equipped with devices to measure wind speeds and direction, used to determine how much wind power a site can be expected to generate. Wind turbine: A device that converts kinetic wind energy into rotational energy that drives an electrical generator. A wind turbine typically consists of a tower, nacelle body, and a rotor with two or more blades.

3.0 General Requirements 3.1 Special Permit Granting Authority

No wind facility over 60 kilowatts of rated nameplate capacity shall be erected, constructed, installed or modified as provided in this section without first obtaining a permit from the special permit granting authority. The construction of a wind facility shall be permitted in any zoning district subject to the issuance of a Special Permit and provided that the use complies with all requirements set forth in sections 3, 4, 5 and 6. All such wind energy facilities shall be constructed and operated in a manner that minimizes any adverse visual, safety, and environmental impacts. No special permit shall be granted unless the special permit granting authority finds in writing that: (a) the specific site is an appropriate location for such use; (b) the use is not expected to adversely affect the neighborhood; (c) there is not expected to be any serious hazard to pedestrians or vehicles from the

use; (d) no nuisance is expected to be created by the use; and (e) adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation of the

use.

Such permits may also impose reasonable conditions, safeguards and limitations on time and use and may require the applicant to implement all reasonable measures to mitigate unforeseen adverse impacts of the wind facility, should they occur.

Wind monitoring or meteorological towers shall be permitted in all zoning districts subject to issuance of a building permit for a temporary structure and subject to reasonable regulations concerning the bulk and height of structures and determining yard-size, lot area, setbacks, open space, parking, and building coverage requirements

3.2 Compliance with Laws, Ordinances and Regulations

2

Page 3 of 9

The construction and operation of all such proposed wind facilities shall be consistent with all applicable local, state and federal requirements, including but not limited to all applicable safety, construction, environmental, electrical, communications and aviation requirements.

3.3 Proof of Liability Insurance

The applicant shall be required to provide evidence of liability insurance in an amount and for a duration sufficient to cover loss or damage to persons and structures occasioned by the failure of the facility.

3.4 Site Control At the time of its application for a special permit, the applicant shall submit documentation of actual or prospective control of the project site sufficient to allow for installation and use of the proposed facility. Documentation shall also include proof of control over setback areas and access roads, if required. Control shall mean the legal authority to prevent the use or construction of any structure for human habitation within the setback areas.

4.0 General Siting Standards

4.1 Height Wind facilities shall be no higher than 400 feet above the current grade of the land, provided that wind facilities may exceed 400 feet if: (a) the applicant demonstrates by substantial evidence that such height reflects

industry standards for a similarly sited wind facility; (b) such excess height is necessary to prevent financial hardship to the applicant, and (c) the facility satisfies all other criteria for the granting of a special permit under the

provisions of this section.

4.2 Setbacks Wind turbines shall be set back a distance equal to 1.5 times the overall blade tip height of the wind turbine from the nearest existing residential or commercial structure and 100 feet from the nearest property line and private or public way. 4.2.1 Setback Waiver The special permit granting authority may reduce the minimum setback distance as appropriate based on site-specific considerations, if the project satisfies all other criteria for the granting of a special permit under the provisions of this section.

5.0 Design Standards

5.1 Color and Finish The special permit granting authority shall have discretion over the turbine color, although a neutral, non-reflective exterior color designed to blend with the surrounding environment is encouraged.

3

Page 4 of 9

5.2 Lighting and Signage

5.2.1 Lighting Wind turbines shall be lighted only if required by the Federal Aviation Administration. Lighting of other parts of the wind facility, such as appurtenant structures, shall be limited to that required for safety and operational purposes, and shall be reasonably shielded from abutting properties.

5.2.2 Signage Signs on the wind facility shall comply with the requirements of the town’s sign regulations, and shall be limited to: (a) Those necessary to identify the owner, provide a 24-hour emergency contact

phone number, and warn of any danger. (b) Educational signs providing information about the facility and the benefits of

renewable energy.

5.2.3 Advertising Wind turbines shall not be used for displaying any advertising except for reasonable identification of the manufacturer or operator of the wind energy facility. 5.2.4 Utility Connections Reasonable efforts shall be made to locate utility connections from the wind facility underground, depending on appropriate soil conditions, shape, and topography of the site and any requirements of the utility provider. Electrical transformers for utility interconnections may be above ground if required by the utility provider.

5.3 Appurtenant Structures

All appurtenant structures to such wind facilities shall be subject to reasonable regulations concerning the bulk and height of structures and determining yard sizes, lot area, setbacks, open space, parking and building coverage requirements. All such appurtenant structures, including but not limited to, equipment shelters, storage facilities, transformers, and substations, shall be architecturally compatible with each other and shall be contained within the turbine tower whenever technically and economically feasible. Structures shall only be used for housing of equipment for this particular site. Whenever reasonable, structures should be shaded from view by vegetation and/or located in an underground vault and joined or clustered to avoid adverse visual impacts.

5.4 Support Towers

Monopole towers are the preferred type of support for the Wind Facilities. 6.0 Safety, Aesthetic and Environmental Standards

6.1 Emergency Services The applicant shall provide a copy of the project summary and site plan to the local emergency services entity, as designated by the special permit granting authority. Upon

4

Page 5 of 9

request the applicant shall cooperate with local emergency services in developing an emergency response plan.

6.1.1 Unauthorized Access Wind turbines or other structures part of a wind facility shall be designed to prevent unauthorized access.

6.2 Shadow/Flicker

Wind facilities shall be sited in a manner that minimizes shadowing or flicker impacts. The applicant has the burden of proving that this effect does not have significant adverse impact on neighboring or adjacent uses through either siting or mitigation.

6.3 Noise

The wind facility and associated equipment shall conform with the provisions of the Department of Environmental Protection’s, Division of Air Quality Noise Regulations (310 CMR 7.10), unless the Department and the Special Permit Granting Authority agree that those provisions shall not be applicable. A source of sound will be considered to be violating these regulations if the source: (a) Increases the broadband sound level by more than 10 dB(A) above ambient, or (b) Produces a “pure tone” condition – when an octave band center frequency sound

pressure level exceeds the two adjacent center frequency sound pressure levels by 3 decibels or more.

These criteria are measured both at the property line and at the nearest inhabited residence. Ambient is defined as the background A-weighted sound level that is exceeded 90% of the time measured during equipment hours. The ambient may also be established by other means with consent from DEP. An analysis prepared by a qualified engineer shall be presented to demonstrate compliance with these noise standards. The special permit granting authority, in consultation with the Department, shall determine whether such violations shall be measured at the property line or at the nearest inhabited residence.

6.4 Land Clearing, Soil Erosion and Habitat Impacts

Clearing of natural vegetation shall be limited to that which is necessary for the construction, operation and maintenance of the wind facility and is otherwise prescribed by applicable laws, regulations, and ordinances.

7.0 Monitoring and Maintenance 7.1 Facility Conditions

The applicant shall maintain the wind facility in good condition. Maintenance shall include, but not be limited to, painting, structural repairs, and integrity of security measures. Site access shall be maintained to a level acceptable to the local Fire Chief and Emergency Medical Services. The project owner shall be responsible for the cost of

5

Page 6 of 9

maintaining the wind facility and any access road, unless accepted as a public way, and the cost of repairing any damage occurring as a result of operation and construction.

7.2 Modifications All material modifications to a wind facility made after issuance of the special permit shall require approval by the special permit granting authority as provided in this section.

8.0 Abandonment or Decommissioning

8.1 Removal Requirements

Any wind facility which has reached the end of its useful life or has been abandoned shall be removed. When the wind facility is scheduled to be decommissioned, the applicant shall notify the town by certified mail of the proposed date of discontinued operations and plans for removal. The owner/operator shall physically remove the wind facility no more than 150 days after the date of discontinued operations. At the time of removal, the wind facility site shall be restored to the state it was in before the facility was constructed or any other legally authorized use. More specifically, decommissioning shall consist of: (a) Physical removal of all wind turbines, structures, equipment, security barriers and

transmission lines from the site. (b) Disposal of all solid and hazardous waste in accordance with local and state waste

disposal regulations. (c) Stabilization or re-vegetation of the site as necessary to minimize erosion. The

special permit granting authority may allow the owner to leave landscaping or designated below-grade foundations in order to minimize erosion and disruption to vegetation.

8.2 Abandonment

Absent notice of a proposed date of decommissioning, the facility shall be considered abandoned when the facility fails to operate for more than one year without the written consent of the special permit granting authority. The special permit granting authority shall determine in its decision what proportion of the facility is inoperable for the facility to be considered abandoned. If the applicant fails to remove the wind facility in accordance with the requirements of this section within 150 days of abandonment or the proposed date of decommissioning, the town shall have the authority to enter the property and physically remove the facility.

8.3 Financial Surety The special permit granting authority may require the applicant for utility scale wind facilities to provide a form of surety, either through escrow account, bond or otherwise, to cover the cost of removal in the event the town must remove the facility, of an amount and form determined to be reasonable by the special permit granting authority, but in no event to exceed more than 125 percent of the cost of removal and compliance with the additional requirements set forth herein, as determined by the applicant. Such surety will not be required for municipally or state-owned facilities. The applicant shall submit a fully inclusive estimate of the costs associated with removal, prepared by a qualified engineer. The amount shall include a mechanism for Cost of Living Adjustment.

6

Page 7 of 9

9.0 Term of Special Permit A special permit issued for a wind facility shall be valid for 25 years, unless extended or renewed. The time period may be extended or the permit renewed by the special permit granting authority upon satisfactory operation of the facility. Request for renewal must be submitted at least 180 days prior to expiration of the special permit. Submitting a renewal request shall allow for continued operation of the facility until the special permit granting authority acts. At the end of that period (including extensions and renewals), the wind facility shall be removed as required by this section.

The applicant or facility owner shall maintain a phone number and identify a responsible person for the public to contact with inquiries and complaints throughout the life of the project.

10.0 Application Process & Requirements 10.1 Application Procedures

10.1.1 General The application for a wind facility shall be filed in accordance with the rules and regulations of the special permit granting authority concerning special permits.

10.1.2 Application Each application for a special permit shall be filed by the applicant with the city or town clerk pursuant to section 9 of chapter 40A of the Massachusetts General Laws.

10.2 Required Documents

10.2.1 General The applicant shall provide the special permit granting authority with ___ copies of the application. All plans and maps shall be prepared, stamped and signed by a professional engineer licensed to practice in Massachusetts. Included in the application shall be:

10.2.2 Name, address, phone number and signature of the applicant, as well as all co-

applicants or property owners, if any. 10.2.3 The name, contact information and signature of any agents representing the applicant.

10.2.4 Documentation of the legal right to use the wind facility site, including the

requirements set forth in 10.3.2(a) of this section

10.3 Siting and Design The applicant shall provide the special permit granting authority with a description of the property which shall include:

10.3.1 Location Map (Modify for On-Site Wind Facilities)

7

Page 8 of 9

Copy of a portion of the most recent USGS Quadrangle Map, at a scale of 1:25,000, showing the proposed facility site, including turbine sites, and the area within at least two miles from the facility. Zoning district designation for the subject parcel should be included; however a copy of a zoning map with the parcel identified is suitable.

10.3.2 Site Plan A one inch equals 200 feet plan of the proposed wind facility site, with contour intervals of no more than 10 feet, showing the following:

(a) Property lines for the site parcel and adjacent parcels within 300 feet. (b) Outline of all existing buildings, including purpose (e.g. residence, garage, etc.)

on site parcel and all adjacent parcels within 500 feet. Include distances from the wind facility to each building shown.

(c) Location of all roads, public and private on the site parcel and adjacent parcels within 300 feet, and proposed roads or driveways, either temporary or permanent.

(d) Existing areas of tree cover, including average height of trees, on the site parcel and adjacent parcels within 300 feet.

(e) Proposed location and design of wind facility, including all turbines, ground equipment, appurtenant structures, transmission infrastructure, access, fencing, exterior lighting, etc.

(f) Location of viewpoints referenced below in 10.3.3 of this section.

10.3.3 Visualizations (Modify for On-Site Wind Facilities) The special permit granting authority shall select between three and six sight lines, including from the nearest building with a view of the wind facility, for pre- and post-construction view representations. Sites for the view representations shall be selected from populated areas or public ways within a 2-mile radius of the wind facility. View representations shall have the following characteristics:

(a) View representations shall be in color and shall include actual pre-construction

photographs and accurate post-construction simulations of the height and breadth of the wind facility (e.g. superimpositions of the wind facility onto photographs of existing views).

(b) All view representations will include existing, or proposed, buildings or tree coverage.

(c) Include description of the technical procedures followed in producing the visualization (distances, angles, lens, etc…).

10.4 Landscape Plan (Utility-Scale Wind Facilities Only)

A plan indicating all proposed changes to the landscape of the site, including temporary or permanent roads or driveways, grading, vegetation clearing and planting, exterior lighting, other than FAA lights, screening vegetation or structures. Lighting shall be designed to minimize glare on abutting properties and except as required by the FAA be directed downward with full cut-off fixtures to reduce light pollution.

10.5 Operation & Maintenance Plan The applicant shall submit a plan for maintenance of access roads and storm water controls, as well as general procedures for operational maintenance of the wind facility.

8

Page 9 of 9

10.6 Compliance Documents

If required under previous sections of this by-law, the applicant will provide with the application: (a) a description of financial surety that satisfies 8.3 of this section, (b) proof of liability insurance that satisfies Section 3.3 of this section, (c) certification of height approval from the FAA, (d) a statement that satisfies Section 6.3, listing existing and maximum projected

noise levels from the wind facility. 10.7 Independent Consultants – (Utility-Scale Wind Facilities Only)

Upon submission of an application for a special permit, the special permit granting authority will be authorized to hire outside consultants, pursuant to section 53G of chapter 44 of the Massachusetts General Laws. As necessary, the applicant may be required to pay not more than 50% of the consultant’s costs.

9


Appendix F. Town of Nantucket WECSBylaws

07 January 2010 F-1 Black & Veatch

Appendix F. Town of Nantucket WECS Bylaws

§ 139-21. Wind energy conversion systems (WECS).

A. Residential WECS.

(1) Permitted in the following districts: LUG-1, LUG-2, LUG-3, R-2, R-10, RC-2.

(2) Maximum number of towers per lot or on contiguous lots held in common ownership: one.

(3) Maximum tower height: 60 feet measured from the mean grade surrounding the support pad(s) to the base of the wind generator measured along the vertical axis of the tower, except that tower height may exceed 60 feet by special permit.

(4) Minimum tower setback distance from nearest property line: a distance measured from the mean grade surrounding the support pad(s) to the tip of a blade in vertical position measured along the vertical axis of the tower.

(5) Minimum distance from guy wire to property line: 15 feet.

(6) Blade color: white or light gray.

(7) Tower access. The tower shall be made inaccessible to unauthorized personnel.

B. Commercial WECS.

(1) Permitted in the following districts by special permit with major site plan review: LUG-1, LUG-2, LUG-3, RC-2.

[Amended 4-14-1997 ATM by Art. 49, AG approval 8-5-1997]

(2) Maximum number of towers per lot: limited by special permit.

(3) Maximum tower height: limited by special permit.

(4) Minimum tower setback distance from nearest property line: a distance measured from the mean grade surrounding the support pad(s) to the tip of the blade in a vertical position measured along the vertical axis of the tower.

(5) Minimum distance from guy wire to property line: 15 feet.

(6) Blade color: white or light gray.

(7) Tower access. The tower shall be made inaccessible to unauthorized personnel.

(8) Public interest and public benefit: The granting of a special permit for a commercial WECS shall be conditional upon a finding by the special permit granting authority that the proposal is in the public interest and provides substantial benefit to the community, the burden of proof which shall rest with the applicant.

http://www.ecode360.com/ecode3-back/getSimple.jsp?custId=NA0948&guid=11472292�




(a) Location. Before it may approve the installation of a commercial WECS, the Planning Board, as the special permit granting authority, shall make a finding of fact that the location of the facilities do not substantially adversely affect the surrounding area.

C. Special permit granting authority. The Planning Board shall be the special permit granting authority for those installations where a special permit is required.

D. Submission requirements. The application for a building permit for WECS shall be accompanied by the following documents in addition to those documents required by § 139-26:

(1) A plot plan prepared and stamped by a registered land surveyor indicating the location of the proposed WECS, existing and proposed structures, aboveground utility lines and any other significant features or appurtenances.

(2) Structural drawings prepared and stamped by a registered professional engineer of the wing tower, including pad design and guy wire design, if applicable.

(3) Drawings and specifications prepared and stamped by a registered professional engineer of the generator, hub and blades, electrical support facilities, including transformers, cables and control devices.

(4) Drawings indicating method of making tower inaccessible to unauthorized personnel.

E. Abandonment. The Building Inspector may cause the owner to remove WECS, including all appurtenances thereto, if the facility fails to generate power for one year or more.

F. Noise control.

(1) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the WECS manufacturer shall provide sufficient data and documentation to establish that the WECS will not produce noise levels in excess of those stipulated in the following table:

Ambient Reading Without Windmill

(decibels)

Maximum Permitted Reading with Windmill

Operating (decibels)

45 55.4

50 56.2

55 61.0

60 61.2

65 65.4 (2) Decibel level readings shall be measured at the closest property line to the WECS.

(3) After the WECS has been approved and installed, sound measurement shall be performed to determine ambient and operating decibel levels. The sound level shall be measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighing network.

http://www.ecode360.com/ecode3-back/getSimple.jsp?guid=11472514#11472514�




(4) Upon the complaint of an abutter, ambient and maximum permitted decibel measurements shall be performed by an agent designated by the Planning Board. The agent shall submit recorded sound measurements to the Planning Board for review and evaluation. A fee for the service shall be established by the Planning Board. The fee shall be paid for by the complainant unless maximum permitted decibel readings have been exceeded, in which case the WECS owner shall pay the fee.

(5) If maximum readings are exceeded, the installation shall be considered a public nuisance in violation of § 139-7E of this chapter. The violation shall be corrected within 90 days from the date of notification, and if the noise violation cannot be remedied, the WECS shall be removed or relocated.

[Amended 4-8-2008 ATM by Art. 65, AG approval 8-18-2008]

G. Electromagnetic interference.

(1) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the manufacturer shall provide sufficient data and documentation to establish that the installation will not cause electromagnetic interference to any abutter.

(2) The WECS installation shall comply with Federal Communications Commission Regulation 47 CFR 15.

(3) Upon the complaint of an abutter, an investigation shall be performed by an agent of the Planning Board. The agent shall submit a report of his findings to the Planning Board for review and evaluation. A fee for the report shall be established by the Planning Board. After review and evaluation of the report, the Planning Board shall determine if the installation causes electromagnetic interference to any abutter. The fee for the report shall be paid by the complainant, unless the Planning Board determines that there is electromagnetic interference to an abutter, in which case the owner shall pay the fee.

(4) If electromagnetic interference is caused by the installation of a WECS, the installation shall be deemed a public nuisance in violation of § 139-7F of this chapter. The violation shall be corrected within 90 days from the date of notification. If the electromagnetic interference cannot be remedied, the WECS shall be removed or relocated.

H. Maintenance. Every two years the owner shall submit a structural report to the Building Inspector attesting to the structural integrity of the wind generator, tower and/or support system




Appendix G. Overview of Wind EnergyTechnology

07 January 2010 G-1 Black & Veatch

Appendix G. Overview of Wind Energy Technology

The design of the typical wind turbine has changed greatly over the past twenty years. Although many types of wind turbine designs were initially developed, the “Danish” design of a three-bladed, up-wind horizontal axis turbine has emerged as the standard of the industry.

Although the size and complexity of wind turbines has increased, their basic operating principles have remained virtually unchanged. Figure G-1 from the U.S. Department of Energy shows the typical layout of equipment in a turbine’s nacelle, which is the “pod” of equipment at the top of the tower to which the turbine’s blades are connected. Wind energy is captured by the wind turbine blades, causing the rotor to rotate the turbine’s low-speed shaft. This shaft will rotate at a speed of about 15 to 20 revolutions per minute (RPM). The low speed shaft is then connected to a gearbox, which transfers the energy to the high-speed shaft connected to the generator. The speed of the high-speed shaft depends on the generator type and electrical frequency of the site, but for the U.S. typical speeds are 1,800 and 3,600 RPM. The electrical output of the generator is then transferred to the base of the wind turbine via electrical droop cables. At the base, these cables connect to a transformer, which increases the voltage of the power from the low voltage of the generator (480 or 600 VAC) to the distribution voltage of the plant (anywhere from 12 kV to 46 kV). The orientation of the wind turbine is kept into the wind by a yaw drive, with the wind direction determined by a wind vane located on top of the nacelle. The turbine’s controller has independent control of the wind turbine’s operation, without requiring commands from a user or central control center. If the controller senses a problem, the wind speed increases beyond the turbine’s operational range, or a shut-down command is given manually, the turbine will come to a stop by means of electrical, mechanical, and aerodynamic brakes (the design of which depend on the turbine).


Appendix G. Overview of Wind EnergyTechnology

07 January 2010 G-2 Black & Veatch

Figure G-1. Wind Turbine Components (from US Dept. of Energy).

Obviously, the output of the wind turbine is dependent upon wind speed. The relationship of a wind turbine’s electrical output as a function of wind speed is given in its power curve. A typical curve will show power production beginning when the wind speed increases beyond the turbine’s minimum (cut-in) wind speed. As wind speed increases, the output power also increases in a roughly linear manner until the turbine’s rated power is reached. The minimum wind speed at which a wind turbine delivers this nameplate output power is called its rated wind speed. For most modern wind turbines, winds higher than the rated wind speed will not produce any additional power, and turbine will continue to output its rated power. If the wind speed increases beyond the safe operating limits of the turbine (cut-out), the turbine will automatically shutdown and wait for the wind speeds to decrease. The wind speeds and power amounts for the above values depend mostly on the size of the wind turbine and the design of the blade airfoils. On average, larger wind turbines have lower cut-in wind speeds, have higher rated power, and reach that power at lower winds.