[MassHistPres] Nantucket Sound Wind Farm
Jon Wilhelmsen
plymptonhouse at mac.com
Wed Apr 28 22:08:38 EDT 2010
Good evening all,
After following this issue for a number of years and reviewing the
posts here, I do not believe it is not possible to remove the politics
from this particular issue.
This is not a clear cut preservation issue - say like replacement
windows or demolition of historic buildings which I believe this forum
has expressed distinct and clear positions. There are
environmentalists and preservationists lined up on both sides of the
project and various facts and studies are used to support both sides,
and there is clearly significant disagreement on how they are
interpreted. I believe the previous series of well written posts on
this issue highlighted the concerns of a number of members regarding
the ACHP findings - whether the preservation concerns here ware pure
or perhaps were influenced by politics or at least were not thought
through to their logical conclusion. The logic articulated suggests
it would be nearly impossible to live with modern conveniences such as
utility poles in and around historic districts - don't get me wrong -
I would love to see them all done away with in favor of underground
lines, but realistically, that is not possible.
The purpose of this forum is to exchange ideas and provide information
regarding historic preservation in the state and beyond. I think we
need to be careful not to let the politics creep in. I do understand
how strong folks feel about this issue and applaud the passion that
people advocate for their position and the amount of research they
have done to arrive at it.
Regards,
Jon Wilhelmsen, Chair
Plympton Historical Commission
On Apr 28, 2010, at 8:13 PM, Carol wrote:
Jim and all:
I just don't see it that way, Jim. I hate politics, but know it's
part of it of course. But basically I see it as both preservation of
history AND the love of what we view today and hopefully tomorrow, and
will leave for generations to enjoy. A clear view of our oceans is
emotional and heart warming, and loving the fishing and ferry boats is
part of the Cape experience. I don't want it all ruined by a hundred
sky scraper height pieces of metal whirling around night and day in
our lovely ocean waters. I may not live at the Cape, but I cross the
big bridge often, and a sense of piece enters me when I do. I hope
never to see one of those ugly, scary, worthless pieces of metal
sticking out of our sea. Pity our ocean life even more.
Carol M Carlson
Bedford, MA
----- Original Message -----
From: "james hadley" <jameswhadley at hotmail.com>
To: bjdurk at aol.com, tuckerj at amherstma.gov, "veronica mcclure" <veronica_mcclure at harvard.edu
>,jworden at swwalaw.com, masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
Cc: "roberta lane" <roberta_lane at nthp.org>, forum-l at lists.nationaltrust.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 6:08:53 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] Nantucket Sound Wind Farm
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 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
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.usdirectly.
PLEASE DO NOT "REPLY" TO THE WHOLE LIST. MassHistPres mailing list MassHistPres at cs.umb.eduhttp
://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres
********************************
******************************
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/20100428/96ae167a/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the MassHistPres
mailing list