[MassHistPres] MassHistPres Digest, Vol 50, Issue 42
Lacy, Jeff (DCR)
Jeff.Lacy at state.ma.us
Thu Apr 29 07:31:32 EDT 2010
Some of this sounds bananas (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything).
Jeff Lacy
-----Original Message-----
From: masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu [mailto:masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu] On Behalf Of masshistpres-request at cs.umb.edu
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 8:14 PM
To: masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
Subject: MassHistPres Digest, Vol 50, Issue 42
Send MassHistPres mailing list submissions to
masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
masshistpres-request at cs.umb.edu
You can reach the person managing the list at
masshistpres-owner at cs.umb.edu
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of MassHistPres digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Nantucket Sound Wind Farm (Bjdurk at aol.com)
2. Re: Nantucket Sound Wind Farm (Carol)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 20:02:08 EDT
From: Bjdurk at aol.com
Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] Nantucket Sound Wind Farm
To: twm3 at rcn.com
Cc: forum-l at lists.nationaltrust.org, jworden at swwalaw.com,
masshistpres at cs.umb.edu, roberta_lane at nthp.org
Message-ID: <31f5.9950f0a.390a2680 at aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
The scope is not so narrow as preserving long disappeared lands and Native
American graves according to ACHP. ACHP is the only federal agency with
purview over historic preservation in matters of federal actions.
ACHP Cape Wind Findings are that:
"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 2
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."
"Adverse effects on historic properties will be direct and indirect, cannot
be avoided, and cannot be satisfactorily mitigated."
"Nantucket Sound has been found eligible for listing in the National
Register not only as a TCP but as a historic and archaeological property."
_http://www.achp.gov/docs/CapeWindComments.pdf_
(http://www.achp.gov/docs/CapeWindComments.pdf)
In response to assertions that preservation, in this instance, conflicts
with addressing fossil fuel dependency, these resources are provided by top
notch energy analysts. The second link features articles that address the
preservation of earth's environment from a scientific perspective.
Enjoy :)
_http://www.masterresource.org/2010/02/energy-myths/_
(http://www.masterresource.org/2010/02/energy-myths/)
_http://www.masterresource.org/_ (http://www.masterresource.org/)
Thank You,
Barbara Durkin
In a message dated 4/28/2010 7:11:57 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
twm3 at rcn.com writes:
The issue of preserving the earth's environment for all of future human
civilization on this planet
vs
preserving long disappeared land since the last ice age with never to be
seen again graves on it is extremely bizarre.
It is also interesting to ponder how we got as far as we have with the
evolution of technology in the face of near consistent opposition to it.
Tris Metcalfe
Northampton, Mass.
isn't going to be resolved here especially if its headed to courts
On Apr 28, 2010, at 6:22 PM, _Bjdurk at aol.com_ (mailto:Bjdurk at aol.com)
wrote:
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_ (mailto: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_ (mailto:Bjdurk at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 18:04:22 -0400
To: _TuckerJ at amherstma.gov_ (mailto:TuckerJ at amherstma.gov) ;
_veronica_mcclure at harvard.edu_ (mailto:veronica_mcclure at harvard.edu) ;
_jworden at swwalaw.com_ (mailto:jworden at swwalaw.com) ; _masshistpres at cs.umb.edu_
(mailto:masshistpres at cs.umb.edu)
CC: _roberta_lane at nthp.org_ (mailto:roberta_lane at nthp.org) ;
_Forum-L at lists.nationaltrust.org_ (mailto: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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20100428/14b4860b/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 00:13:34 +0000 (UTC)
From: Carol <Carolmcarl at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] Nantucket Sound Wind Farm
To: james hadley <jameswhadley at hotmail.com>
Cc: forum-l at lists.nationaltrust.org, jworden at swwalaw.com,
bjdurk at aol.com, masshistpres at cs.umb.edu, roberta lane
<roberta_lane at nthp.org>
Message-ID:
<991988412.15383781272500014711.JavaMail.root at sz0042a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
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.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/20100429/66ac959d/attachment.htm>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
MassHistPres mailing list
MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres
End of MassHistPres Digest, Vol 50, Issue 42
********************************************
More information about the MassHistPres
mailing list