Clarifying the Record

Editors, Vineyard Gazette:

The following is a copy of a letter sent to state historic preservation officers in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey and New York from the chairman of the National Advisory Council on Historic Preservation:

Questions have been raised regarding the characterization of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s comments on the Cape Wind project in Massachusetts conveyed in the April 23, 2010 letter from six governors to Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar. We believe the conclusions contained in that letter as to the precedent the comments might set are incorrect. While the Secretary has made his decision on the Cape Wind project, we believe it is essential to clarify the ACHP’s position on how historic preservation issues may intersect with future offshore wind energy projects.

There is a basic flaw in the letter’s analysis: failure to recognize that the Cape Wind project would be built in an historic environment that is quite possibly unique. At the outset, the geography and legal status of the area are highly unusual. Nantucket Sound, which embraces the portion of Outer Continental Shelf lands containing the project site, is bounded on three sides by land. The federal tract is barely connected to the rest of the OCS, an anomaly created by the overlay of the three-mile limit of state waters on the unique geography of Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard, and Nantucket Island. There is no similar configuration of OCS lands on the Atlantic Coast.

This feature is critical to the impact on historic resources. The 34 properties that have been listed on or determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places surround the federal tract and the project site. This affects both the nature and intensity of the project impacts on historic properties and presents circumstances that are unlikely to be duplicated in any other Atlantic OCS tract.

The most important dimension of the Cape Wind case that limits its value as an indicator of future ACHP positions is the nature of the impacted historic environment. Surrounding the project area on all three land masses are 16 recognized historic districts and 12 individually listed historic properties. Such a concentrated level of historic properties alone is unlikely to be found in the vicinity of any future wind projects along the Atlantic coast. Given that collection includes two National Historic Landmarks, the chances of duplication diminish even more.

However, it is the traditional cultural property aspects that make the Nantucket Sound area one without parallel. Six of the 34 properties are eligible for the National Register, including Nantucket Sound itself and its seabed, as traditional cultural properties. Nantucket Sound is recognized for both its integral relation to the contemporary practice of traditional ceremonies that are a central part of a living Native American culture and the potential existence of important prehistoric archaeological resources related to Native Americans. As an area of the OCS that has become submerged only in recent human history, it has the potential to contain archaeological resources that are unparalleled within the Atlantic coast OCS lands.

Taken together, these properties present a historic environment that is probably unique on the OCS, as are the nature and intensity of the project’s effects on that environment and its components.

The seabed archaeological issue requires comment. The letter implies the ACHP believes that the potential loss of archaeological resources in and of itself is grounds for disapproving a project. This is incorrect. Archaeological resources are one component of the greater historic environment that gives the Nantucket Sound area its special significance. The comments clearly state that it is the combined effects on this collection of properties that warrant not approving the Cape Wind project as proposed. As we all know, the Section 106 process has dealt with archaeological properties for decades on land and projects move ahead regularly while accommodating archaeological considerations.

The letter asserts that the ACHP is applying a stricter standard to offshore wind projects. This is not true. The ACHP used the same analytical process and standards for Cape Wind it uses for all Section 106 projects throughout the nation. It applied them through the same transparent public process that guides over 100,000 federally-supported projects through the mandated Section 106 review annually. The basis for the outcome in the Cape Wind case lies in the specific historic properties and the nature of the impacts.

Alternative energy and historic preservation are not incompatible. The ACHP’s experience with all kinds of energy development on land throughout the nation demonstrates that to be true. With proper planning, historic preservation values are accommodated with energy production and transmission projects on a daily basis. We expect the same will be true on OCS lands.

The ACHP’s general comments to the Secretary recommend a cooperative approach to planning wind energy projects on the OCS. The ACHP will be working with the Department of the Interior to ensure that the historic preservation review process is fully integrated into the planning and development of future wind projects on the OCS. We welcome your suggestions on how to make offshore wind energy development move ahead smoothly and expeditiously in your state.

John L. Nau 3rd

Washington, D.C.

•

Sad Day

Editors, Vineyard Gazette:

It’s a sad day when major industrial development is placed in a sensitive, scenic environment under the veil of a green orthodoxy that will permanently scar our beautiful patch of the world. Turn-of-the-century power plants were placed in prime in-town locations with the same misplaced pride in a new energy technology that many eastern seaboard cities have come to regret. Unfortunately, like power plants, wind towers will be virtually impossible to remove.

Kelsey Biggers

Oak Bluffs

•

Not a Quitter

Editors, Vineyard Gazette:

Congratulations to Jim Gordon of Cape Wind. With all the red herrings tossed at him in the last nine years, a lesser man would have made fish chowder and called it quits.

Ken Rusczyk

Oak Bluffs

In the Wrong Place

Editors, Vineyard Gazette:

The unfortunate aspect of the Cape Wind project is that it is a good project but in the wrong place. To put the project in perspective, there are only three buildings in Boston that are taller than the 130 proposed wind towers. Cape Wind’s link to the grid will encourage even more wind power developers to hook on and build additional towers. I am a retired CEO of a large international electrical engineering company and was a leader in green power in Europe, Asia and Africa. I learned that being green also means being careful of the appearance of the places that are treasured by the community. Many of the comments that I have read seem to be hateful and aimed at a privileged few who live on Cape Cod and the Islands. Those comments are not valid! Nantucket Sound has only been a body of water for 20,000 or 30,000 years, or since the end of the last ice age. The Cape Wind project is the first time that man has proposed a major intrusion in this beautiful body of water since it was created. The Cape Wind project will occasionally generate the same power as a moderate gas-fired power plant. The environmental impact of the Cape Wind project is massive compared to a conventional power plant. This nation needs bulk power in order to compete in the world market. Success as a nation is all about power. Wind and solar power have a place, but only nuclear and carbon-based power can meet our national need for cheap and readily available power. Conservation may be the most productive green power alternative. We as a nation need a rational energy policy, clearly understood and endorsed by the people, coupled with suitable protection for our national treasures.

It is ironic that the federal government announced approval at the same time that a very large group of 95 rare right whales arrived in Nantucket Sound. These creatures deserve the preservation of their habitat.

I fear that the equipment manufacturers and power developers have successfully intimidated the Obama administration to approve the Cape Wind project. Once those towers are built, they will be in Nantucket Sound for a century. During that period, other environmentally-friendly power generation systems will be developed that will be far more efficient than wind power. It took the city of Boston many years to get rid of the ugly Interstate 93 viaducts in downtown Boston and reunite the city with the construction of the Big Dig. Nantucket Sound will not be that lucky.

Charles Carlson

Edgartown and Newtonville, N.Y.

Good Night, Windmills

Editors, Vineyard Gazette:

Good morning‚ mom, dad and brother Ian. Dress quickly now, we have a long day ahead.

Ah, neat. Help mother make snacks, pack the bottled water. Find the beach towels, the lotion, pack it all in the green tote for a fun day at the beach.

Hello‚ the ticket agent is nice, and the waves today are good. Dad gets a great spot on the Vineyard ferry.

Good morning‚ sea gulls, loose dogs, day trippers, weekenders and Islanders. All aboard for the Vineyard and a fun time on the beach.

Look‚ wow, in the distance! What is that? Mom says windmills, on the wind farm. Someone the next row back says something nasty.

I say no, they’re pretty and functional; listen, and hear that rhythmic, swish, swish, swish. I say it’s adults working with nature for a change.

Here on the beach with mom, dad and brother Ian, the water is clear, the waves constant. And there in the distance small white objects, assuring me and others, that tonight we can sleep soundly, as power flows from each windmill.

Clean power now‚ free of pollutants, clean, bountiful, free power. Just from a swish, swish, swish.

Good night, windmills.

Good night.

James Cage

Oak Bluffs

•

Wind Versus Oil

Editors, Vineyard Gazette:

I am an Islander living in Florida. We are awaiting word when to report to the beaches to start a massive cleanup caused by Louisiana’s oil rig. (Louisiana had only 400 miles of coastline to risk.)

The powerful Gulf Stream will carry the oil to all of Florida’s 1,350 miles of shore, beaches, inlets, islands and keys. Then it races on up the Atlantic coast to — yes, Martha’s Vineyard. Look up the Gulf Stream and see how vulnerable you are to our nightmare.

Enjoy your wind farm, enjoy the view, the wildlife and lobsters. Our view and seashore is sickening and getting worse. Next they plan to burn it, causing irreparable, volcanic damage to our once beautiful family vacation paradise.

Anne Goodwin Draper

Chattahoochee, Fla.