[MassHistPres] Nantucket Sound Wind Farm

Wed Apr 28 18:22:52 EDT 2010

With all due respect, Mr. Hadley, this historic precedent is  completely 
relevant to preservation.  

The SHPO, THPOs, ACHP, National Trust, National Parks and the Keeper are  
the Nations' front line of defense.  And, they have all taken actions  to 
assist in the preservation of Nantucket Sound deemed eligible for listing to  
the National Register of Historic Places.    

I will confine my comments to that which is relevant to historic  
preservation on this topic.  I invite any other inquires to be directed to  me 
personally should any individual wish to discuss non-preservation Cape Wind  
related issues.  

Sincerely, 

Barbara Durkin 
_bjdurk at aol.com_ (mailto:bjdurk at aol.com) 

In a message dated 4/28/2010 6:09:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
jameswhadley at hotmail.com writes:

Please.  This is not a ligitimate forum for this topic, and I don't want to 
have to  keep cleaning it out of my inbox. Will Mass HisCom please say 
something about  this. It is politics, not preservation, on both  sides.
Jim Hadley
Chair, Orleans Historical  Commission

____________________________________
From: Bjdurk at aol.com
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 18:04:22 -0400
To:  TuckerJ at amherstma.gov; veronica_mcclure at harvard.edu; 
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

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 
SoundHyannis, 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-on
e-fish-at-a-time/_ 
(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
********************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20100428/4a791bd3/attachment.htm>