TIME SENSITIVE: 

 

PLEASE COPY AND PASTE THE COMMENTS BELOW TO

                    box labeled "COMMENT" section in the LINK BELOW ON US WIND PROJECT:

                     **click box for confirm

           https://www.regulations.gov/search?filter=docket%20no.%20boem-2022-0025

                                                  

  1. US Wind’s proposed Maryland wind energy facility should be designed, constructed and operated in a manner that does not impact Delaware lands, resources and residents. BOEM states that it will benefit Maryland’s residents, renewable energy goals, job opportunities and air quality without any direct or tangible benefit to Delaware lands, resources or residents. Accordingly, I/We: 

  • oppose US Wind’s plan to construct and operate offshore wind turbine generators, transformers and meteorological tower within viewing distance from coastline of Delaware;

  • Oppose US Wind’s plan to install offshore export cables off the coast of Delaware; 

  • Oppose US Wind’s plan to install onshore export cables that make landfall in Delaware;

  • Oppose US Wind’s plan to install onshore export cables beneath Indian River Bay and Indian River.

  1. There are other landfall locations in Maryland that are much closer to US Wind’s proposed offshore wind farm and that could access new or existing Delmarva Power substations that are not presented or evaluated in US Wind’s Construction and Operations Plan (COP). These other alternatives should be evaluated in the EIS. 

  2. Lower export voltage levels (less than 230 KV) could be interconnected to closer electrical substations in Maryland have not been presented or evaluated in the COP. This design approach, including stepping down the 230 KV export voltage, should be evaluated in the EIS and alternative export routes where lower voltage substations and transmission lines assessed. 

  3. The potential impacts on marine life from electromagnetic fields produced by submarine cables in the Atlantic Ocean and Indian River Bay and River need to be fully assessed. For example, the potential impacts of the project on diamondback terrapins, horseshoe crabs and migratory shorebirds, such as the threatened red knot, that forage on horseshoe crabs should be evaluated in the EIS and alternatives that do not include such negative impacts should be developed and assessed in the EIS. 

  4. The potential impacts of US Wind’s proposed project on socioeconomic and cultural resources, including recreation and tourism, need to fully assessed in the EIS using appropriate data and surveys.  

  5. The frequency and magnitude of noise emissions resulting from the construction of the offshore and onshore export cables should be assessed in the EIS, including the impact of the noise on residential homes, tourism and recreation.

  6. Given the voluminous size (thousands of pages) of the COP and its appendices, allowing the public only 30 days to review and comment on the COP is unrealistic. A comment period of at least 90 days should be provided.