The wind farm proposed by Cape Wind Associates LLC for Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts would have mostly “negligible” or “minor” adverse impacts on the environment, recreation, tourism and property values, according to a major report released yesterday by the federal agency in charge of the project’s permitting process.

The Minerals Management Service, part of the U.S. Department of the Interior, released its findings yesterday in a 718-page Draft Environmental Impact Statement that was two years in the making.

The agency considered dozens of potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts, such as air quality, recreation and tourism, property values, noise and airport traffic and visual resources. In almost all cases, the report concluded that the impacts would be negligible or minor.

The report found that the project will have a positive impact by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to global warming; and by decreasing the need to build traditional fossil-fuel power-generating plants. The construction and assembly phase of the project could provide about $50 million in wages and salaries to workers in the region, with the majority going to residents of Rhode Island, if Cape Wind uses the Quonset Business Park as a staging area, the report said, adding that total wages and salaries paid to Rhode Island residents hired during the manufacture, assembly, construction and installation phase would be about $32.4 million over a 27-month period.

The report is a major step in moving forward the permitting process, which began in November 2001. The agency will accept public comments at several hearings, and then issue a final Environmental Impact Statement. The hearings will be held in Massachusetts in Hyannis/Yarmouth, Nantucket, Martha’s Vineyard and Boston in March.

The comments will be incorporated into a final environmental statement, to be issued by the Minerals Management Service.

“This has been a long hard road, and we are extremely pleased today,” Jim Gordon, president of Cape Wind Associates, said at a news conference in Boston after the report’s release. “We feel a great sense of accomplishment.”

Gordon said he anticipates that the permitting process will be concluded this year and that construction could begin next year. He said the earliest the wind farm could be online and generating electricity is 2011.

“I am confident that this project is going to move forward and provide significant benefits to the citizens in this region,” Gordon said.

The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, a nonprofit group formed to oppose the Cape Wind project, said it would issue a statement after it had reviewed the report.

The proposed wind farm would consist of about 130 turbines arranged in a grid pattern that would produce up to 468 megawatts of electricity. The average output would be 182.6 megawatts. Cape Wind has said the power generated would be enough to supply three-quarters of the needs of Cape Cod and islands.

The permitting process began when Cape Wind Associates filed an application with the Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps held numerous public hearings and collected data, and subsequently issued its own Draft Environmental Impact Statement in November 2004. But a new federal law, enacted in 2005, moved jurisdiction over offshore wind farms to the Minerals Management Service. The report issued yesterday incorporates the new findings of that agency, as well as some of the conclusions and data already presented by the earlier environmental impact statement.

The project still faces some uncertainties. In October, the Cape Cod Commission rejected Cape Wind’s application to bury transmission cables underground and under water. The commission said that Cape Wind failed to provide enough information, a claim the developer has denied. The company has asked the Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Board to overturn the commission’s rejection. The board will hold a hearing on the request April 22.

The area in which the project was deemed to have a “moderate” impact was how the wind farm would affect the view of Nantucket Sound from shore — which has been perhaps the most contentious issue.

The project, the report said, “represents a large, manmade feature in the natural landscape of Nantucket Sound that would be viewed by many people in numerous shoreline areas used for recreation.”

“Conclusions as to the significance of visual impact on the people using recreation areas are difficult, as the interpretation of visual impacts is subjective.”

The agency said it received letters from people who said the project would “cause an unacceptable visual impact” and from people who said the wind turbines “would be beautiful to look at.”

But the impact of changing the view of the sound is unlikely to affect the viability of the recreational areas, the report said. “The general public is not expected to stop using the recreational areas around Nantucket Sound for summer enjoyment, including sitting on the beach, viewing the expanse of Nantucket sound, swimming, fishing, sailing and other recreational activities.”

The report also found no evidence that property values would be hurt by the project, as some opponents have suggested. Currently available information does not support a firm conclusion as to whether the Cape Wind project would affect the values of properties that had a view of the site, the report said. The impacts are likely to vary, it said, depending on the particular proposal and on a potential buyer’s interpretation of whether they like or dislike the wind farm. It did cite two separate studies that looked at real-estate transactions near wind farms in the United States. Both studies found no adverse effects when the wind farm could be seen from the properties.

The Kennedy family compound in Hyannis Port was one of three historic properties singled out as having its view of Nantucket Sound affected by the project. Sen. Edward Kennedy has been a vocal opponent of the Cape Wind project.

The compound, located on six acres of waterfront property on Nantucket Sound, was listed as a National Historic Landmark in 1972. “The visual alteration … from nearly any vantage point within the properties would diminish the integrity of these properties’ significant historic features,” the report issued yesterday said.

tbarmann@projo.com