Nantucket Land &
Water Council
Nantucket Land &
Water Council
NLWC News
Vineyard Wind – NLWC Position
Anna Day • September 3, 2024
The Nantucket Land & Water Council supports alternative energy and recognizes the potential benefits of offshore wind projects to mitigate our carbon footprint as well as the effects of climate change. However, it is our role as an environmental advocate and member of the Waterkeeper Alliance, to ensure that this industry is held accountable, specifically as it relates to the health of the environment. While this industry brings many opportunities, it still has impacts, like any industry, that must be avoided, minimized, or mitigated.
It is clear that none of the patchwork of local, state, and federal Vineyard Wind permits, which govern a great variety of environmental interests, contemplated the potential for the catastrophic collapse of a turbine blade on July 13th and the massive debris field that resulted in the surrounding waters and along our coastline. Our community was unprepared to deal with an event of this magnitude, and the delayed communications of Vineyard Wind and GE Vernova made matters much worse. The Town and community have been advocating for an appropriate response ever since.
Following the Bureau for Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE)’s revised suspension order allowing for continued construction of towers and nacelles, and confirmation last week of a 3rd GE Vernova Haliade-X turbine blade failure (including the one that washed up on our shores and two from the Dogger Bank installation off of the United Kingdom) in about 3 months’ time,
we are very concerned about appropriate resolution and remediation prior to power generation or the resumption of any further activity at the Vineyard Wind 1 site.
The NLWC will continue advocating for, among other items, the following:
- The turbines in the Vineyard Wind leased area should remain inactive until all existing blades have been fully tested to ensure the manufacturing defect that caused the blade failure on AW- 38 last month cannot happen again.
- Future blade installations should be required to be tested at a facility on land, not over the open waters of the Atlantic Ocean, as occurred in this case.
- Debris that has been collected should be tested for toxic and hazardous substances and a water quality sampling and monitoring program should be implemented, to ensure Nantucket’s waters remain clean, fishable and swimmable.
- The Arcadis CSM mapping of the debris field should be used to develop a protocol for future debris incidents involving Vineyard Wind’s offshore wind projects. This protocol must be scalable in the event of multiple or large-scale failures.
- The Initial Environmental Analysis report prepared by Arcadis must be validated by a third party to ensure concurrence with its conclusions.
- Existing permits and state and federal approvals, as appropriate, should be amended to incorporate best practice contingencies for future marine debris incidents associated with offshore wind development.
- Existing permits should also be amended to include communications plans requiring immediate public notification of future incidents to allow coastal communities to prepare for the various environmental impacts of such an event.
We will continue to speak with our congressional leaders and state representatives and petition the appropriate agencies to ensure the above matters are addressed. It is essential that project partners and the industry are held accountable for these missteps and major problems immediately before they risk being repeated here or elsewhere.
Location: Nantucket Island Hours: 25-35 hours per week Compensation: $22 per hour
The remand hearing for Surfside Crossing’s 156 unit 40B development is ongoing before Nantucket’s ZBA, and the deadline for the public hearing has been extended to February 21st . Last fall when the remand hearing began, the NLWC hired two professionals to assist us with reviewing the current plans for the 18 condo buildings and onsite development . One of our consultants, Sean Reardon, is a professional engineer who has worked with a number of ZBAs across the state assisting as their peer review engineer on 40B projects. The second, Scott Horsley, is a renowned water quality specialist who has helped us take a closer look at the implications of the proposed development on the island’s groundwater and public drinking water supply. They discovered some critical issues with the project’s design that have raised major concerns with the ZBA . What Reardon and Horsley’s reviews have brought to light about the proposal is a lack of compliance with the state’s Stormwater Management Standards as well as the MA Drinking Water Regulations and an important provision in Nantucket’s Zoning Bylaw governing development within our Wellhead Protection District. Almost the entire 13.5 acre Surfside site lies within this environmentally sensitive area . The Wellhead Protection District was established to protect the region of our aquifer that contributes to the public water supply wells (this region is also called a Zone II region). The bylaw provision sets a standard that only up to 15% of a property within the Zone II can be developed as impervious surfaces unless it can be demonstrated that at least 95% of the stormwater is properly recharged into the aquifer AND there will be no degradation to groundwater quality. I mpervious surfaces typically include things like parking lots, roadways, and buildings, where precipitation is impeded from naturally infiltrating into the ground . Instead it runs off the surface carrying pollutants or contaminants with it. The aggregate amount of impervious surfaces proposed by project developers is three-and-a-half times (3.5x) the limit imposed by the Drinking Water regulations and the Nantucket bylaw. Modern stormwater infrastructure can do a great job of managing flooding by infiltrating run off into the ground, but without proper pre-treatment many of these contaminants are carried directly into our groundwater as the natural filtration provided by vegetation and organic soils have been eliminated. To date, the developers have made no attempt to address these critical issues and have only responded with attempts to justify their lack of compliance with this standard based on a lack of proper enforcement at other sites within our Zone II on the island. The scale of this project and magnitude of disturbance, clearing 13 acres of natural vegetation and converting 6.48 acres (52% of the site) to impervious surfaces, warrants more effort than simply relying on what others have gotten away with elsewhere. As Nantucket continues to develop throughout the mid-island area, much of which is within our Zone II, it is critical that we take better care to ensure that these developments do not cumulatively degrade our public drinking water supply, and implement the state and local standards for managing impervious surfaces and stormwater properly. We will continue to advocate against the proposed project, which fails to meet state standards for stormwater management and does not adequately prevent the pollution of our public water supply. We encourage all community members to participate in the public hearing and raise any concerns you have about the project with the Zoning Board of Appeals. The ZBA is scheduled to hear this matter on Feb 3, from 1pm - 4 pm, on Feb 4, from 11 am - 2 pm, and on February 19, from 1 pm - 4 pm. Our submission to the ZBA on these issues can be found here. The ZBA’s entire Surfside Crossing packet as of 01/24/25 can be found here: https://www.nantucket-ma.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_01242025-14728?html=true .
The Conservation Commission recently signaled their likely approval of a positive permit for the geotube expansion project proposed jointly by SBPF and the Town of Nantucket. As data collected by project consultants indicates, the geotubes are detrimental to the environment, increasing the erosion on surrounding beaches. The NLWC takes the strong position that there are much more appropriate and less harmful alternatives, especially given that the Town’s engineers have determined the relocation of Baxter Road can be completed by 2027. The fact is that the existing stretch of geotubes remain out of compliance with the current permit issued by the Conservation Commission due to SBPF’s failure to provide the required mitigation sand. It has been demonstrated by two independent coastal engineering experts that the failure to contribute the required mitigation (a sand deficit now well over 100,000 cubic yards) has already resulted in significant damage to the Town-owned coastal beach as well as privately owned properties to the north. This includes existing and increased future risk to the Lighthouse property. This violation of SBPF’s permit resulted in a removal order which was upheld by Superior Court, and is still outstanding. The Draft Order Of Conditions, which the Commission is currently deliberating, includes a finding (#17) that states this new permit will replace the removal order. However, the Draft OOC does not contain any specific information on how SBPF and the Town, as co-applicants, will be required to account for the immense and growing deficit of sand. We have asked the Commission to specifically discuss this matter at their next public hearing (scheduled for January 15th). If a positive OOC is issued, and a requirement to contribute the missing volume of sand is not clarified, SBPF will be rewarded with an expansion of the geotubes that they have failed to maintain in compliance with their current permit. Environmental permitting that considers negative impacts to natural resources always follows the premise of first avoiding adverse impacts, if those impacts cannot be avoided they must be minimized, and if adverse impacts cannot be avoided or minimized they must be mitigated. The entire permitting process is broken if an applicant is allowed to negatively impact multiple resource areas in such a significant way without mitigating those impacts. The mitigation conditioned in the previous permit was determined with SBPF’s own data, supported by MA DEP, and agreed to by SBPF. In the meantime SBPF and the Town are proposing to quadruple the size of this project. If the Conservation Commission does not condition this permit to require the addition of adequate mitigation sand to account for the full deficit, it will be the most egregious violation of a wetlands permit I have ever seen in my two decades of reviewing hundreds of projects. The Commission should not be complicit in its lack of enforcement. This would set a precedent that is simply unconscionable for a regulatory entity. We are looking to the Conservation Commission to ensure that this does not happen. As a co-applicant, the Town will ultimately also be responsible for the implementation and enforcement of this permit. As owners of the coastal beach and bank that has already been damaged by the existing installation, they should also be insisting that the full deficit of sand be provided by SBPF prior to new construction. The Town should also ensure that they are not ultimately left with the liability for providing this sand which was the prior responsibility of SBPF. Town Administration and the Select Board (as co-applicants), and the Conservation Commission as our regulatory authority must set the right example and precedent and follow through on appropriate enforcement of the geotubes that already exist before allowing any more to be constructed. Should they fail to do so, the damage to our coastal environment and resources will be irreparable. Emily Molden Executive Director, Nantucket Land & Water Council The next Conservation Commission Public Hearing on the proposed geotube expansion is Wednesday, January 15th 10:00am-12:00pm in the Trailer at 131 Pleasant Street.
