[MassHistPres] ACHP Comments on the Cape Wind Project

[Lee Wright]

Thanks for the update.  This is certainly an interesting conclusion given
that the towers are planned for than five miles off shore.
 
Given the basis for the recommendation, is there any place in the United
States that would not be objectionable on one or more of the grounds listed
in the report?
 
Having read the report (via the link in Barbara's message), I ask this
question in all seriousness and look forward to learning from others on this
list.
 
Thanks, too, to the ACHP for making their report available online at the
same time it was released.  By contrast, in early November the MHC issued a
decision on Cape Wind that was mentioned on this list and quickly picked up
in online newspaper sites.  It was not, however, available on the MHC
website.  I contacted them and asked when and where it might be available.
Shortly thereafter I got a copy from a journalist who had received it via
fax--who knew that some still use faxes for distributing documents?--and I
posted it on Scribd (here: http://is.gd/bbTEt) so that others could read it,
too.  Since that time, more than 800 people have read this document and more
than 900 have read the companion document.
 
I never heard back from anyone at MHC, and I still can't find it on their
site.  
 
Best--
 
Lee
............................................
 
Lee Wright | Marlborough, MA

  _____  

From: masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu
[mailto:masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu] On Behalf Of Bjdurk at aol.com
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 6:26 PM
To: masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
Cc: Forum-L at lists.nationaltrust.org
Subject: [MassHistPres] ACHP Comments on the Cape Wind Project


To All:  
 
RE:  Breaking News> ACHP Comments on the Cape Wind Project  


The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) provided final comments
on historic preservation issues relating to the proposed Cape Wind project
to Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar and the Minerals Management Service
(MMS) on April 2, 2010. The ACHP recommended that the Secretary not approve
the project. It also provided a number of recommendations to improve the
planning process for alternative energy projects. 

The submission of these comments concludes the ACHP's commenting process.
Secretary Salazar must now take into account the ACHP's comments in reaching
a final decision on the undertaking in accordance with 36 CFR 800.7 of the
Section 106 regulations and Section 110(l) of the National Historic
Preservation Act. The ACHP will share the Secretary's response with the
public via its Web site, www.achp.gov <http://www.achp.gov/> , when it
becomes available. 

Reid Nelson, Director
Office of Federal Agency Programs
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
 
Findings: 
 
"The historic properties affected by the Project are significant, extensive,
and closely interrelated.
The Project will adversely affect 34 historic properties including 16
historic districts and 12 individually
significant historic properties on Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard, and
Nantucket Island, and six properties of religious and cultural significance
to tribes, including Nantucket Sound itself. These districts and standing
structures reflect the broad array of properties that represent the rich and
unique architectural, social, and cultural history of Cape Cod and the
Islands.."
 
Continue reading ACHP/Nantucket Sound/Cape Wind/Salazar Related Documents: 
 
http://www.achp.gov/
 
Thank You, 
 
Barbara Durkin 
Northboro, MA  01532
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20100402/c052ea3d/attachment-0001.htm>