[MassHistPres] Nantucket Sound Wind Farm

[Tony Willoughby]

When you consider what is happening right now in the Gulf of Mexico and 
what happened recently in West Virginia, I think you have to start 
considering options like this.



Bjdurk at aol.com wrote:
> *Coalition of Stakeholder Groups Announce Cape Wind Lawsuits*
> 
>  /Native American Tribes, Commercial Fishermen, Environmental Groups, 
> Towns and Others Will File Suit to Bar Industrial Wind Project from 
> Nantucket Sound/
> 
> *Hyannis, MA – *A wide ranging coalition of stakeholder groups will 
> immediately file suit in response to Secretary Salazar’s ruling to 
> approve the Cape Wind project.
> 
> “While the Obama Administration today dealt a blow to all of us who care 
> deeply about preserving our most precious natural treasures – this fight 
> is not over,” said Audra Parker, president and CEO of the Alliance to 
> Protect Nantucket Sound. “Litigation remains the option of last resort. 
> However, when the federal government is intent on trampling the rights 
> of Native Americans and the people of Cape Cod, we must act. We will not 
> stand by and allow our treasured public lands to be marred forever by a 
> corporate giveaway to private industrial energy developers.”
> 
> Lawsuits will be filed on behalf of a coalition of environmental groups 
> – including the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, Three Bays 
> Preservation, Animal Welfare Institute, Industrial Wind Action Group, 
> Californians for Renewable Energy, Oceans Public Trust Initiative (a 
> project of the International Marine Mammal Project of the Earth Land 
> Institute), Lower Laguna Madre Foundation – against the federal Fish and 
> Wildlife Service and Minerals Management Service for violations of the 
> Endangered Species Act. 
> 
> The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, along with the Duke’s 
> County/Martha’s Vineyard Fishermen Association, will also file suit 
> against the federal Minerals Management Service for violations under the 
> Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. The Town of Barnstable has filed a 
> notice of intent to file a lawsuit on the same grounds. And the 
> Wampanoag tribe is preparing to mount a legal challenge to the project 
> for violations of tribal rights. Additional legal issues include 
> violation of the National Environmental Policy Act, the Migratory Bird 
> Treaty Act, the Rivers and Harbors Act, the Clean Water Act, and the 
> Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.  
> 
> Secretary Salazar’s decision ignores the recent positions taken against 
> the project by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the 
> National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Massachusetts Historical 
> Commission and the National Park Service, which ruled recently that 
> Nantucket Sound was eligible for listing on the National Register of 
> Historic Places which, like our national parklands, would provide it a 
> higher level of protection from industrial development.
> 
> The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) recommended that 
> Secretary Salazar deny or relocate the proposed Cape Wind project 
> because its effects would be “pervasive, destructive, and, in the 
> instance of seabed construction, permanent.” The ACHP called on 
> Secretary Salazar to either deny the project or relocate it to a nearby 
> alternative such as the compromise location outside of Nantucket Sound 
> approximately ten miles south of the proposed site. The compromise 
> location, South of Tuckernuck Island, has gained the support of every 
> stakeholder involved, including Native American tribal leaders, state 
> and federal historic preservation agencies, environmental groups, cities 
> and towns, elected officials, airpots, ferry lines, chambers of commerce 
> and many others.
> 
> “It is a shame that the Obama Administration chose political expediency 
> over developing a project in an environmentally responsible place that 
> can actually be built,” said Parker. “The compromise location would have 
> avoided years of litigation and allowed this project to move forward.”
> 
> Secretary Salazar left unaddressed the growing concerns in Massachusetts 
> over the project’s energy costs to ratepayers and its overall cost to 
> taxpayers.
> 
> Earlier this month Rhode Island rejected a deal between National Grid 
> and an offshore wind project that would have set a rate that was nearly 
> triple the current cost for electricity. The electric utility tapped to 
> buy power from Cape Wind, National Grid, has failed to reach a similar 
> agreement on the cost to ratepayers of Cape Wind’s energy.
> 
> Most estimates have put the cost of Cape Wind energy at two to three 
> times the current rate for conventional power. This comes on top of the 
> $10 billion ISO New England recently announced would be necessary to 
> upgrade the region’s electrical grid and transmission facilities as a 
> result of Cape Wind and other wind projects.
> 
> Massachusetts Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs Ian Bowles 
> recently expressed concern over the project’s energy costs as did the 
> state’s largest business group, the Associated Industries of Massachusetts.
> 
> Consumer anger is also palpable. In a recent survey conducted by the 
> University of Massachusetts, a majority of consumers said they would not 
> pay more for electricity produced by wind turbines. Much of the support 
> for wind energy was based on the false assumption that offshore wind 
> will lower electric bills. At the projected Cape Wind power rate, nearly 
> 80 percent of respondents registered opposition to the project.
> 
>  
> In a message dated 4/28/2010 5:35:15 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
> TuckerJ at amherstma.gov writes:
> 
>     While there is variation, in most marine environments the addition
>     of almost any kind of structure will substantially increase habitat
>     for a wide range of organisms.  In ecology, this is referred to as
>     the “edge effect.”
> 
>      
> 
>     Studies in of off-shore wind turbines in Denmark seem to support the
>     notion that such structures will have this effect:
> 
>      
> 
>     *http://greenenergyreporter.com/2010/01/boosting-offshore-winds-eco-image-one-fish-at-a-time/**.**
>     *
> 
>      
> 
>     Oil rig platforms in the Gulf of Mexico that have outlived their
>     usefulness for resource extraction are frequently left in place
>     rather than being dismantled, because they produce such useful
>     habitat for marine life, including for species that are otherwise
>     declining in the area.  California is considering the same
>     practice.  Decommissioned ships and other larger structures (such as
>     “tire reefs”—numerous old tires lashed together) have been
>     deliberately sunk to serve this purpose for decades.
> 
>      
> 
>     Combined with new regulations, the wind turbine structures might
>     actually protect the sea floor, interrupting the patterns of net
>     trawlers.  In their effort to gather every last fish they can, net
>     trawlers currently scour the sea floor, damaging its ecological
>     function, and injuring or destroying any surface archeological
>     features that might be present.  Their ‘clear-cutting’ approach to
>     fishing has resulted in the serious depletion of many species. 
>     Interrupting this practice could allowed these species the
>     opportunity to recover.
> 
>      
> 
>     So maybe not all change is bad. 
> 
>      
> 
>     */Jonathan Tucker/*
> 
>     Planning Director
> 
>     Amherst Planning Department
> 
>     4 Boltwood Avenue, Town Hall
> 
>     Amherst, MA  01002
> 
>     (413) 259-3040
> 
>     tuckerj at amherstma.gov <mailto:tuckerj at amherstma.gov>    
> 
>      
> 
>      
> 
>      
> 
>     *From:* masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu
>     [mailto:masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu] *On Behalf Of *McClure,
>     Veronica
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, April 28, 2010 5:06 PM
>     *To:* Bjdurk at aol.com; jworden at swwalaw.com; masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
>     *Cc:* roberta_lane at nthp.org; Forum-L at lists.nationaltrust.org
>     *Subject:* Re: [MassHistPres] Nantucket Sound Wind Farm
> 
>      
> 
>     Do we really know how the underwater construction of these turbines
>     will affect the seabed and the creatures in it, the water, and the air?
> 
>      
> 
>     I understand that there are offshore turbines in other locations and
>     have heard them used to justify this installation, but seems to me
>     that the features of each seabed, the methods of construction (will
>     there be blasting?), and the differences in organisms from place to
>     place should caution against automatically assuming that if it works
>     in one location, it will work in any other.
> 
>      
> 
>     I’m not an expert in these things, but that doesn’t mean I can’t
>     wonder about them.
> 
>      
> 
>     Veronica McClure
> 
>      
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ******************************
> For administrative questions regarding this list, please contact Christopher.Skelly at state.ma.us directly.  PLEASE DO NOT "REPLY" TO THE WHOLE LIST.
> MassHistPres mailing list
> MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
> http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres
> ********************************

-- 
Tony Willoughby tonyw at pobox.com
"Balls of yarn are round."
  - My wife, describing balls of yarn.