DOCSLIB.ORG

Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact Empire Offshore Wind LLC Empire Wind 1 Project Article VII Application Exhibit 4 Environmental Impact June 2021 Empire Wind 1 Project Article VII Application Exhibit 4: Environmental Impact TABLE OF CONTENTS EXHIBIT 4: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ..........................................................................................................4-1 4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................4-1 4.1.1 Impact Assessment Methodology ....................................................................................4-4 4.1.2 Impact-Producing Factors - Construction ......................................................................4-6 4.1.3 Impact-Producing Factors – Operations ..................................................................... 4-17 4.1.4 Proposed Avoidance, Minimization and Mitigation Measures ................................. 4-20 4.2 Marine Physical and Chemical Conditions ................................................................................. 4-27 4.2.1 Marine Physical and Chemical Studies and Analysis .................................................. 4-27 4.2.2 Existing Marine Physical Characteristics ...................................................................... 4-28 4.2.3 Existing Marine Chemical Characteristics.................................................................... 4-35 4.2.4 Potential Marine Chemical and Physical Impacts and Proposed Mitigation.......... 4-41 4.3 Topography, Geology, Soils, and Groundwater ........................................................................ 4-47 4.3.1 Topography, Geology, Soils and Groundwater Studies and Analysis ..................... 4-47 4.3.2 Existing Topography, Geology, Soils, and Groundwater.......................................... 4-47 4.3.3 Potential Topography, Geology, Soils, and Groundwater Impacts and Proposed Mitigation .......................................................................................................................... 4-50 4.4 Wetlands and Waterbodies ............................................................................................................ 4-55 4.4.1 Wetland and Waterbody Studies and Analysis ............................................................ 4-56 4.4.2 Existing Wetlands and Waterbodies ............................................................................. 4-57 4.4.3 Potential Wetland and Waterbody Impacts and Proposed Mitigation .................... 4-61 4.5 Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife .............................................................................................. 4-65 4.5.1 Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife Studies and Analysis .......................................... 4-65 4.5.2 Existing Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife................................................................ 4-65 4.5.3 Potential Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife Impacts and Proposed Mitigation .. 4-66 4.6 Fisheries and Benthic Resources .................................................................................................. 4-69 4.6.1 Existing Fisheries and Benthic Studies and Analysis ................................................. 4-69 4.6.2 Existing Fisheries and Benthic Resources.................................................................... 4-71 4.6.3 Managed and Exploited Species .................................................................................... 4-82 4.6.4 Potential Impacts and Proposed Mitigation: Fisheries and Benthic Resources..... 4-86 4.7 Important Habitats and Protected Species ................................................................................. 4-95 4.7.1 Important Habitats and Protected Species Studies and Analysis ............................. 4-95 4.7.2 Existing Important Habitats and Protected Species................................................... 4-97 4.7.3 Potential Important Habitats and Protected Species Impacts and Proposed Mitigation ........................................................................................................................................... 4-111 4.8 Cultural and Historic Resources ................................................................................................. 4-120 4.8.1 Cultural and Historic Studies and Analysis ................................................................ 4-120 4.8.2 Existing Cultural and Historic Resources .................................................................. 4-126 4.8.3 Potential Cultural and Historic Resources Impacts and Proposed Mitigation..... 4-130 4.9 Visual and Aesthetic Resources .................................................................................................. 4-134 4.9.1 Visual and Aesthetic Resources Studies and Analysis .............................................. 4-134 4.9.2 Potential Visual and Aesthetic Resources Impacts and Proposed Mitigation...... 4-146 4.10 Land Use......................................................................................................................................... 4-149 4.10.1 Land Use Studies and Analysis .................................................................................... 4-149 4.10.2 Existing Land Use.......................................................................................................... 4-150 4.10.3 Potential Land Use Impacts and Proposed Mitigation ............................................ 4-155 4.11 Noise ............................................................................................................................................... 4-160 4.11.1 Noise Studies and Analysis ........................................................................................... 4-160 4.11.2 Existing Noise Conditions............................................................................................ 4-166 4.11.3 Potential Noise Impacts and Proposed Mitigation................................................... 4-170 4.12 Air Quality ...................................................................................................................................... 4-176 i Empire Wind 1 Project Article VII Application Exhibit 4: Environmental Impact 4.12.1 Federal Regulations........................................................................................................ 4-176 4.12.2 New York State Regulations ........................................................................................ 4-178 4.12.3 New York City Regulations.......................................................................................... 4-179 4.12.4 Air Quality Studies and Analysis.................................................................................. 4-180 4.12.5 Existing Air Quality Conditions .................................................................................. 4-180 4.12.6 Potential Air Quality Impacts and Proposed Mitigation ......................................... 4-181 4.13 Electromagnetic Fields ................................................................................................................. 4-183 4.13.1 Electric and Magnetic Field Studies and Analysis..................................................... 4-183 4.13.2 Existing Electric and Magnetic Field Conditions ..................................................... 4-184 4.13.3 Potential Electric and Magnetic Fields Impacts and Proposed Mitigation........... 4-184 4.14 Summary of Impacts .................................................................................................................... 4-188 4.15 Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................................................... 4-189 4.15.1 Cumulative Impacts Data Sources .............................................................................. 4-189 4.15.2 Existing Facilities Proximal to the Project ................................................................. 4-189 4.15.3 Planned Projects Proximal to Empire Wind ............................................................. 4-191 4.16 References ...................................................................................................................................... 4-194 ii Empire Wind 1 Project Article VII Application Exhibit 4: Environmental Impact TABLES Table 4.1-1 Location of 16 NYCRR § 86.5 Requirements.............................................................................. 4-2 Table 4.1-2 Summary of the Article VII Project Area ..................................................................................... 4-6 Table 4.2-1 Maximum Flood and Ebb Current Velocity from the ESPreSSO Model ............................. 4-31 Table 4.2-2 Summary of Marine Waterbody Classes Potentially Crossed by the Submarine Cable Route ... ............................................................................................................................................................ 4-40 Table 4.4-1 FEMA-Mapped Zone AE and Zone X (Shaded) within the Project Area ........................... 4-59 Table 4.5-1 2016 NLCD Land Use for the Onshore Project Area.............................................................. 4-66 Table 4.6-1 Benthic Characterization Data ...................................................................................................... 4-74 Table 4.6-2 Fish Species Occurring in New York Harbor and Nearshore New York Bight .................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2014 and 2015 Q1 EIA-923 Monthly Time Series File
    SPREADSHEET PREPARED BY WINDACTION.ORG Based on U.S. Department of Energy - Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2014 and 2015 Q1 EIA-923 Monthly Time Series File Q1'2015 Q1'2014 State MW CF CF Arizona 227 15.8% 21.0% California 5,182 13.2% 19.8% Colorado 2,299 36.4% 40.9% Hawaii 171 21.0% 18.3% Iowa 4,977 40.8% 44.4% Idaho 532 28.3% 42.0% Illinois 3,524 38.0% 42.3% Indiana 1,537 32.6% 29.8% Kansas 2,898 41.0% 46.5% Massachusetts 29 41.7% 52.4% Maryland 120 38.6% 37.6% Maine 401 40.1% 36.3% Michigan 1,374 37.9% 36.7% Minnesota 2,440 42.4% 45.5% Missouri 454 29.3% 35.5% Montana 605 46.4% 43.5% North Dakota 1,767 42.8% 49.8% Nebraska 518 49.4% 53.2% New Hampshire 147 36.7% 34.6% New Mexico 773 23.1% 40.8% Nevada 152 22.1% 22.0% New York 1,712 33.5% 32.8% Ohio 403 37.6% 41.7% Oklahoma 3,158 36.2% 45.1% Oregon 3,044 15.3% 23.7% Pennsylvania 1,278 39.2% 40.0% South Dakota 779 47.4% 50.4% Tennessee 29 22.2% 26.4% Texas 12,308 27.5% 37.7% Utah 306 16.5% 24.2% Vermont 109 39.1% 33.1% Washington 2,724 20.6% 29.5% Wisconsin 608 33.4% 38.7% West Virginia 583 37.8% 38.0% Wyoming 1,340 39.3% 52.2% Total 58,507 31.6% 37.7% SPREADSHEET PREPARED BY WINDACTION.ORG Based on U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Offshore Wind Power Economic Impact Assessment
    U.S. Offshore Wind Power Economic Impact Assessment Issue Date | March 2020 Prepared By American Wind Energy Association Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Current Status of U.S. Offshore Wind .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Lessons from Land-based Wind ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Announced Investments in Domestic Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................ 5 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Input Assumptions ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Modeling Tool ........................................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • NEW YORK CITY 2019 Progress Report NEW YORK CITY REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL MEMBERS
    State of the Region: NEW YORK CITY 2019 Progress Report NEW YORK CITY REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL MEMBERS Regional Co-Chairs Winston Fisher Partner, Fisher Brothers Cheryl A. Moore President & COO, New York Genome Center Appointed Members Stuart Appelbaum Marcel Van Ooyen President, RWDSU Executive Director, Grow NYC Wellington Chen Jessica Walker Executive Director, Chinatown Partnership President and CEO, Manhattan Chamber of Commerce Cesar J. Claro Sheena Wright President & CEO, Staten Island Economic President & CEO, United Way of New York City Development Corporation Kathryn Wylde Carol Conslato President & CEO, Partnership for New York City Co-chair Queens Chamber of Commerce Foundation Kinda Younes Faith C. Corbett Executive Director, ITAC Assistant Vice President, Public Affairs and Partnerships, City Tech, CUNY Ex-Officio Members Lisa Futterman Vicki Been Regional Director New York City, Workforce Deputy Mayor of New York City Development Institute Ruben Diaz Jr. David Garza Bronx Borough President Executive Director, Henry Street Settlement Eric Adams Steve Hindy Brooklyn Borough President Co-founder and Chairman, Brooklyn Brewery Gale A. Brewer Dr. Marcia V. Keizs Manhattan Borough President President, York College Melinda Katz Andrew Kimball Queens Borough President CEO, Industry City James Oddo Kenneth Knuckles Staten Island Borough President Vice Chair, New York City Planning Commission Gary LaBarbera President, Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater New York Nick Lugo President, New York City Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Carlo Scissura, Esq. President & CEO, New York Building Congress Douglas C. Steiner Chairman, Steiner Studios Cover: Boyce Technologies in Long Island City, Queens Table of Contents MESSAGE FROM THE CO-CHAIRS..................................................... 3 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Empire Offshore Wind LLC Empire Wind 1 Project Article VII
    Empire Offshore Wind LLC Empire Wind 1 Project Article VII Application Pre-Filed Direct Testimony June 2021 PRE-FILED DIRECT TESTIMONY Pre-filed direct testimony in support of the Article VII Application for the Empire Wind 1 Project is presented by witnesses by subject area, as follows: Witness Exhibit(s) Sponsored Laura Morales Exhibit 1: General Information Regarding Application Laura Morales, Nathalie Schils Exhibit 2: Location of Facilities Laura Morales, Joel Stadell, Exhibit 3: Alternatives Sabrina Hepburn Laura Morales, Joel Stadell, Exhibit 4: Environmental Impact Sabrina Hepburn, Robert Jacoby, Katherine Miller, June Mire, Ryan Earley Joel Stadell Exhibit 5: Design Drawings Julia Bovey, Geir Miskov, Joel Exhibit 6: Economic Effects of Proposed Facility Stadell Laura Morales, Joel Stadell, Exhibit 7: Local Ordinances Sabrina Hepburn Laura Morales, Nathalie Schils Exhibit 8: Other Pending Filings Geir Miskov, Joel Stadell Exhibit 9: Cost of Proposed Facility Joel Stadell Exhibit E-1: Description of Proposed Transmission Facility Joel Stadell Exhibit E-2: Other Facilities Joel Stadell Exhibit E-3: Underground Construction Georges Charles, Joel Stadell Exhibit E-4: Engineering Justification Laura Morales, Sabrina Hepburn Exhibit E-5: Effect on Communications Laura Morales, Sabrina Hepburn, Exhibit E-6: Effect on Transportation Joel Stadell, Ryan Earley Laura Morales, Erin Lincoln Appendix B: Sediment Transport Analysis Empire Wind 1 Project Pre-Filed Direct Testimony Article VII Application Witness Exhibit(s) Sponsored Laura Morales, Katherine Miller Appendix C: Coastal Zone Management Consistency Statement Julia Bovey Appendix D: Public Involvement Plan Laura Morales, June Mire Appendix E: Benthic Resource Characterization Reports Benjamin R.T. Cotts and William Appendix F: Electric- and Magnetic-Field Assessment H.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Offshore Wind Market Report & Insights 2020
    RAMPION OFFSHORE WIND FARM — COURTESY OF ATKINS THE BUSINESS NETWORK FOR OFFSHORE WIND U.S. OFFSHORE WIND MARKET REPORT & INSIGHTS 2020 MEMBERS ONLY The Business Network for Offshore Wind’s2020 U.S. Offshore Wind Market and Insights offers an analysis of federal and state government activity to better understand how it may affect your business planning and the industry holistically. The federal government has turned its attention to the burgeoning industry to offer more regulation. Congress and federal agencies beyond the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management and U.S. Department of Energy are now affecting how the offshore wind industry will operate into the future. This report also discusses how some of the challenges facing offshore wind are being addressed. The health and safety of workers – whether onshore or offshore – are a paramount tenet within the industry. Particular- ly at this time, the offshore industry remains proactive in its response to the coronavirus epidemic, having put in place telework directives, eliminating unnecessary travel, and following government guidelines. As a result of these protocols, Europe has reported minimal disruptions to the supply chains and the 15 offshore wind projects in the U.S., remain in the planning and development stages. It is too soon to know exactly how the global COVID-19 epidemic disruption will affect the U.S. offshore wind in- dustry. Our main concern centers around the economic hardship a long-term shutdown and recession would place on secondary and tertiary U.S. suppliers. It is important to point out, however, that there is almost 10GWs of U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Desert Exposure
    Wind power Co-op at 40 Surprising creosote exposure page 22 page 26 plant, page 30 Biggest Little Paper in the Southwest FREE Our 19th Year! • July 2014 2 JULY 2014 www.desertexposure.com www.SmithRealEstate.com Call or Click Today! (575) 538-5373 or 1-800-234-0307 505 W. College Avenue • PO Box 1290 • Silver City, NM 88062 Quality People, Quality Service for over 40 years! LIFE IN THE REDUCED GREAT INVESTMENT PROP- FOREST – HIGHLY VISIBLE COMMERCIAL COUNTRY LIVING - NO ERTY! 4-plex with 4 spacious 2BR Surrounded SPACE WITH LIVING QUAR- RESTRICTIONS! 4BR/2BA home apartments on 1ac in Indian Hills. by Mother TERS! Almost 5000 sf on close to on nearly 5ac with good well, Strong income, easy to keep Nature & pines, this 5.4ac one of a an acre with fenced yard and areas for gardens & horses, above rented. $279,000. MLS #30556. Call Becky kind place borders nat’l forest on 1 side. garden. Currently leased $262,000. MLS ground pool, deck w/ super views & much, Smith ext. 11. Shown by appt. Main house, guest house & garage + round #31008. Call Becky Smith ext. 11. much more. $155,000. MLS #31086. Call studio. $59,500. MLS #31305 . Call Becky Becky Smith ext 11. Smith ext. 11. Great views and privacy from this Great get-a-way or fulltime living Log cabin awaiting finishing Spacious 4bdrm, 2-story w/ spacious 4b/2.5 ba on almost 3ac near Lake Roberts. Nice open touches. Nice views, privacy and spectacular views! New carpet, in Indian Hills. All this at a great floor plan, arctic insulation plenty of trees on a little over 3ac, paint, refinished hardwood floors, price! $305,000.
    [Show full text]
  • Thorium : Energy Cheaper Than Coal
    Thorium : Energy Cheaper than Coal Thorium : Energy Cheaper than Coal ( 2012) page 1 of 430 Robert Hargraves Thorium : Energy Cheaper than Coal Thorium : Energy Cheaper than Coal ( 2012) page 2 of 430 Robert Hargraves Thorium : Energy Cheaper than Coal THORIUM: Energy Cheaper than Coal Robert Hargraves Copyright 2012 by Robert Hargraves Thorium : Energy Cheaper than Coal ( 2012) page 3 of 430 Robert Hargraves Thorium : Energy Cheaper than Coal Robert Hargraves has written articles and made presentations about the liquid fluoride thorium reactor and energy cheaper than coal - the only realistic way to dissuade nations from burning fossil fuels. His presentation "Aim High" about the technology and social benefits of the liquid fluoride thorium reactor has been presented to audiences at Dartmouth ILEAD, Thayer School of Engineering, Brown University, Columbia Earth Institute, Williams College, Royal Institution, the Thorium Energy Alliance, the International Thorium Energy Association, Google, the American Nuclear Society, and the Presidents Blue Ribbon Commission of America's Nuclear Future. With coauthor Ralph Moir he has written articles for the American Physical Society Forum on Physics and Society: Liquid Fuel Nuclear Reactors (Jan 2011) and American Scientist: Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (July 2010). Robert Hargraves is a study leader for energy policy at Dartmouth ILEAD. He was chief information officer at Boston Scientific Corporation and previously a senior consultant with Arthur D. Little. He founded a computer software firm, DTSS Incorporated while at Dartmouth College where he was assistant professor of mathematics and associate director of the computation center. Robert Hargraves graduated from Brown University (PhD Physics 1967) and Dartmouth College (AB Mathematics and Physics 1961).
    [Show full text]
  • Equinor Backing Port of Albany to Host Nation's First Offshore Wind
    PRESS RELEASE Equinor Backing Port of Albany to Host Nation’s First Offshore Wind Tower and Transition Piece Manufacturing Facility New York, 11/12/2020 – Today, Equinor announced its proposal to locate America’s first offshore wind tower manufacturing facility at the Port of Albany, in upstate New York. Developed jointly with leading wind industry manufacturers Marmen and Welcon, Equinor stands ready to transform the port for manufacturing offshore wind towers and transition pieces (TPs), creating up to 350 direct jobs in the region. The Port of Albany extension initiative is part of the bid Equinor submitted in response to the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority’s (NYSERDA) latest offshore wind energy solicitation, which seeks up to 2.5 gigawatts of offshore wind and multi-port infrastructure investment plans (PIIPs). Development of a tower manufacturing facility at the Port of Albany is contingent upon NYSERDA selecting Equinor’s bid and PIIP. “With this latest solicitation, New York solidifies its commitment to renewable energy and its desire to make the offshore wind industry an important component of the state’s economy,” said Siri Espedal Kindem, President of Equinor Wind U.S. “Equinor is excited about the possibility of expanding its business within New York, and this plan would create the first facility for offshore wind tower and transition piece manufacturing in the U.S. Our proposal helps secure New York and the Port of Albany as a regional leader in this exciting new industry.” The construction of an offshore wind tower/TP manufacturing facility at the Port of Albany could provide an immediate economic boost to the area as it recovers from the challenges caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, creating new employment opportunities as early as the second half of 2021.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Renewable Energy Data Book
    2018 Renewable Energy Data Book Acknowledgments This data book was produced by Sam Koebrich, Thomas Bowen, and Austen Sharpe; edited by Mike Meshek and Gian Porro; and designed by Al Hicks and Besiki Kazaishvili of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). We greatly appreciate the input, review, and support of Jenny Heeter (NREL); Yan (Joann) Zhou (Argonne National Laboratory); and Paul Spitsen (U.S. Department of Energy). Notes Capacity data are reported in watts (typically megawatts and gigawatts) of alternating current (AC) unless indicated otherwise. The primary data represented and synthesized in the 2018 Renewable Energy Data Book come from the publicly available data sources identified on page 142. Solar photovoltaic generation data include all grid-connected utility-scale and distributed photovoltaics. Total U.S. power generation numbers in this data book may difer from those reported by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) in the Electric Power Monthly and Monthly Energy Review. Reported U.S. wind capacity and generation data do not include smaller, customer-sited wind turbines (i.e., distributed wind). Front page photo: iStock 880915412; inset photos (left to right): iStock 754519; iStock 4393369; iStock 354309; iStock 2101722; iStock 2574180; iStock 5080552; iStock 964450922, Leslie Eudy, NREL 17854; iStock 627013054 Page 2: iStock 721000; page 8: iStock 5751076; page 19: photo from Invenergy LLC, NREL 14369; page 43: iStock 750178; page 54: iStock 754519; page 63: iStock 4393369; page 71: iStock 354309; page 76: iStock 2101722; page 81: iStock 2574180; page 85: iStock 5080552; page 88: iStock 964450922; page 98: photo by Leslie Eudy, NREL 17854; page 103: iStock 955015444; page 108: iStock 11265066; page 118: iStock 330791; page 128: iStock 183287196; and page 136, iStock 501095406.
    [Show full text]
  • Meeting Summary
    Fisheries Technical Working Group (F-TWG) Meeting Summary Thursday, February 18th, 2021 from 2:30pm to 5:30pm ET Virtual Meeting Background This meeting summary describes key discussion points and action items from the Fisheries Technical Working Group (F-TWG) virtual meeting, which was held on Thursday, February 18th through a virtual meeting platform. Goals for the meeting included: • Update the Fisheries Technical Working Group (F-TWG) on various ongoing and upcoming activities. • Solicit input from F-TWG on key issues and ideas. • Adhere to our ground rules for an effective meeting (stay on track, let others speak, be respectful, focus on the substance not the people) There were 47 F-TWG members and other stakeholders in attendance through the Teams meeting/conference line. Staff from the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), Tetra Tech, the Consensus Building Institute (CBI), and The Cadmus Group, were also present to provide technical, facilitation, and logistics support. This summary is organized to align with the structure of the meeting agenda (Appendix A). Opinions are generally not attributed to specific F-TWG members. F-TWG members are referred to interchangeably in the summary as stakeholders and F-TWG members. This summary identifies areas of agreement as well as the different perspectives offered during meeting presentations and discussions. Action Items The following key next steps resulted from the meeting: • Discussion on the release of the Offshore Wind Job Opportunities for Mariners Report and RCG Press Release • Developers provide more information on project updates to the F-TWG in the next meeting • More detailed discussion of the Fisheries Compensation Document in the next meeting following F-TWG review period • F-TWG members should share additional topics they would like to discussion with the F-TWG or any concerns about proposed topics with Morgan Brunbauer, [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Offshore Wind Energy Challenges and Opportunities
    Offshore Wind Energy Challenges and Opportunities Fishery Management Council Coordinating Committee May 18, 2021 Brian Hooker | Office of Renewable Energy Programs Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Energy OCS Lands Act: "… vital national resource … expeditious and orderly development … environmental safeguards" Energy Policy Act of 2005: "… energy from sources other than oil and gas …" Alaska OCS Pacific OCS Gulf of Mexico OCS Atlantic OCS 2 Biden Administration Offshore Wind Energy Goals o March 29, 2021 the White House issued a “whole-of-government approach” to offshore wind energy development including: o Establishing a Target of Employing Tens of Thousands of Workers to Deploy 30 Gigawatts (30,000 megawatts) of Offshore Wind by 2030 (BOEM). o Partnering with Industry on Data- Sharing (NOAA). o Studying Offshore Wind Impacts. (NOAA). 3 Renewable Energy Program by the Numbers Competitive Lease Sales Completed: 8 Active Commercial Offshore Leases: 17 Site Assessment Plans (SAPs) Approved: 11 General Activities & Research Plans Approved: 2 Construction and Operations Plans (COPs): • Under Review 14 • Anticipated within next 12 months 2 Regulatory Guidance: 11 Leasing Under Consideration: 7 Steel in the Water: 2020 4 Atlantic OCS Renewable Energy: “Projects in the Pipeline” Project Company 2020 Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind Pilot South Fork Vineyard Wind I Revolution Wind Skipjack Windfarm Empire Wind Bay State Wind U.S. Wind Sunrise Wind Ocean Wind Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind Commercial Park City Wind Mayflower Wind Atlantic Shores Kitty Hawk 2030 OCS-A 0522 5 Pacific OCS Renewable Energy State Project Nominations California Humboldt Call Area 10 California Morro Bay Call Area 11 California Diablo Canyon Call Area 11 Hawaii Oahu North Call Area 2 Hawaii Oahu South Call Area 3 6 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • MAGAZINE ‹‹Ii ›› the Arch: Swpringinter 2012/Spring 2013 Aaron Brashear
    WINTER / SPRING 2013 GREEN-WOOD—EST. 1838: A NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK MAGAZINE ‹‹ii ›› The Arch: SWpringinTer 2012/Spring 2013 Aaron Brashear cal, cultural and architectural significance; to advance ABOUT GREEN-WOOD public knowledge and appreciation of Green-Wood; and to preserve the natural beauty of one of New York City’s first Established in 1838 as one of America’s first rural cemeter- green spaces. As a nonprofit membership organization, ies, Green-Wood Cemetery soon developed an international the Historic Fund offers a diverse series of public events reputation for serenity and beauty. By 1860, Green-Wood throughout the year, including themed walking and trolley was attracting 500,000 visitors a year, rivaling Niagara tours, book talks and special seasonal events. Falls as the country’s greatest tourist attraction. Now a National Historic Landmark, Green-Wood, with 478 spec- tacular acres of hills, valleys, glacial ponds and paths, is home to one of the country’s largest outdoor collections THE GREEN-WOOD HISTORIC FUND BOARD OF DIRECTORS of 19th- and 20th-century statuary. Its natural beauty C. Payson Coleman, Jr., Esq., Chairman offers a peaceful oasis to visitors, as well as to its 560,000 Michael C. Brooks, Vice Chairman permanent residents, including DeWitt Clinton, Leonard John R.H. Blum, Esq. Scot Medbury Bernstein, Boss Tweed, Charles Ebbets, Jean-Michel Denise Crimmins Clayton Otis Pratt Pearsall, Esq. Peter Davidson Thomas C. Pryor Basquiat, Louis Comfort Tiffany, Horace Greeley, Civil War Donald M. Elliman John R. Reese generals, baseball legends, statesmen, artists, entertain- Michael deV. Flinn Carla P. Shen ers and inventors.
    [Show full text]