[ exact phrase in "" • ~10 sec • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


Go to multi-category search »

LOCATION/TYPE

News Home
Archive
RSS

Subscribe to RSS feed

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Sign up for daily updates

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate $10

Donate $5

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links

Alerts

Press Releases

FAQs

Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics

Videos

Allied Groups

Edgartown, Vineyard Wind settle cable dispute  

Credit:  By Rich Saltzberg | The Martha's Vineyard Times | October 1, 2019 | www.mvtimes.com ~~

Vineyard Wind and the Town of Edgartown have reached a settlement in an appeal to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) over cables planned off Chappaquiddick in the Muskeget Channel. The Edgartown conservation commission had rejected cables in a 5-1 vote, but the settlement allows the project to move forward with concessions made to Edgartown.

Vineyard Wind must inform Edgartown of any cable protection used, such as concrete mattresses. It must report to Edgartown particulars of boulder relocation to make way for the cables. It also must provide certain environmental surveys in a timely manner – “generated and submitted” no later than one year and three years after cable laying is done. Once it has drafted one, it must provide a decommissioning plan to Edgartown for review. Vineyard Wind must also alert Edgartown of emergency repairs and describe what those repairs will entail and what triggered them.

The additional special conditions come after the July 10 commission vote left Vineyard Wind representatives looking stunned in the Ted Morgan meeting room of Edgartown Town Hall. After the vote, the wind energy company quickly sought and found relief from MassDEP, which issued a superseding order of conditions that effectively overruled the Edgartown vote. Edgartown appealed the ruling to MassDEP’s Office of Appeals and Dispute Resolution. On Tuesday, Oct. 1, MassDEP Commissioner Martin Suuberg issued a final decision stipulating that the case was dismissed and both parties waived their rights to further administrative review.

Fishermen and commercial fishing advocates expressed concerns about the cable project at several hearings, citing fears about the unknown consequences of electromagnetic fields emanating from cables, should the cables become exposed and citing fears about the effects of disturbed sediment. In a statement released after their vote, the Edgartown Conservation Commission cited insufficient information from Vineyard Wind as motivation for the denial.

“The commission found that the applicant, Vineyard Wind, did not submit sufficient information to protect against long term and short term adverse effects on the resource area, land under the ocean,” the commission stated in part. “This area is critical for the protection of marine fisheries, land containing shellfish, storm damage prevention, flood control and protection of wildlife habitat. The commission determined that the predictions offered by Vineyard Wind were not sufficient to allow the alteration of the resources of Muskeget Channel at this time.”

In a statement emailed to The Times by spokesman Brendan Moss, Vineyard Wind vowed to keep working with Edgartown. “Vineyard Wind places a priority on ensuring responsible environmental protections and local community engagement for every aspect of this project, and we have worked hard in that spirit since the project’s earliest inception,” Moss wrote. “The company greatly values the positive working relationships we have developed with communities around the region, and we look forward to continuing to work with the Edgartown Conservation Commission, Vineyard fishermen, and all stakeholders going forward.”

There is no new timetable for the cables to be installed, though the project still faces significant hurdles. Also in July, the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) pushed the pause button on its environmental review of the project to consider some of the issues raised about 84-turbine wind farm 15 miles south of Martha’s Vineyard.

Vineyard Wind has won key approvals from the Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB), the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act office, and the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities, among others.

This is a developing story

Source:  By Rich Saltzberg | The Martha's Vineyard Times | October 1, 2019 | www.mvtimes.com

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments to query/wind-watch.org.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding
Donate $5 PayPal Donate

Share:


News Watch Home

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook

Share

CONTACT DONATE PRIVACY ABOUT SEARCH
© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.
Share

 Follow: