The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 Charles D. Baker GOVERNOR Tel: (617) 626-1000 Karyn E. Polito Fax: (617) 626-1181 LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR http://www.mass.gov/eea Matthew A. Beaton SECRETARY

October 30, 2020

CERTIFICATE OF THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ON THE SINGLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

PROJECT NAME : Amitié Submarine Cable System PROJECT MUNICIPALITY : Beverly, Gloucester, Lynn, Manchester, Marblehead, Nahant, Rockport, Salem and Swampscott PROJECT WATERSHED : Atlantic Ocean EEA NUMBER : 16056 PROJECT PROPONENT : Edge Cable Holdings USA, LLC DATE NOTICED IN MONITOR : September 23, 2020

Pursuant to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA; M.G.L. c. 30, ss. 61-62I) and Section 11.08 of the MEPA regulations (301 CMR 11.00), I have reviewed the Single Environmental Impact Report (Single EIR) and hereby determine that it adequately and properly complies with MEPA and its implementing regulations.

Project Description

As described in the Single EIR, the project consists of the installation of a1.5-inch diameter fiber optic cable originating in France and the United Kingdom. The western end of the cable will extend through waters off the coast of Massachusetts for a distance of 33.6 miles in the municipalities of Rockport, Gloucester, Manchester, Beverly, Salem, Swampscott, Nahant and Lynn. The cable will terminate in Lynn.

EEA# 16056 Single EIR Certificate October 30, 2020

In Massachusetts coastal waters, the cable will be buried in a 0.7-ft wide trench to a depth of 4 to 6 feet (ft) using a plow towed by an installation vessel. The plow will be pulled along the seafloor on a set of 5.7-ft wide skids on either side of the plow. The cable will be simultaneously laid and buried along a route primarily through soft sediments as determined through pre-construction surveys of seafloor conditions. The proposed cable route crosses an active telecommunication cable and three gas pipelines; in these areas, the plow will be lifted and the cable laid over the existing infrastructure and on the seafloor for a distance of 1,640 ft on both sides of the crossing (a total of 3,280 ft). At the crossing of the existing telecommunications cable, the proposed cable would be buried by a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) equipped with jetting tools. At the three pipeline crossings, a 328-ft long section of the cable would be enclosed in a protective shell and buried by a ROV with jetting tools; if requested by the pipeline owners, the crossing could be armored with rock to protect the pipeline and cable. If armoring is necessary, asphalt mattresses or rocks would be placed over the pipeline and the cable laid on top of the armoring, or the cable could be placed on a layer of armoring over the pipeline with both the cable and the pipeline covered by a rock berm. The armoring would cover an area of seafloor ranging from approximately 775 square feet (sf), or 0.02 acres, to approximately 7,144 sf (0.2 acres) per crossing, depending on the method and material used. Offshore construction activities will be completed in 16 days. Over a four to five day period preceding cable installation, the Proponent will conduct route clearance (RC) activities and/or a pre-lay grapnel run (PLGR) to remove out-of-service cables and other obstructions along the cable route. Cable installation activities will be completed over a five-day period; if necessary, rock armoring would be applied over two days at each pipeline crossing (up to six additional days total).

The plow will begin cable laying operations approximately 1.6 miles from shore where the water depth is approximately 30 ft. The connection of the marine cable to land-based facilities will be made through a conduit to be installed using Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD). A drill rig positioned within a traffic island in Lynn will drill a hole under the shoreline to a point approximately 0.8 miles offshore. An approximately 0.13-inch diameter magnetic guidewire will be placed on the ground surface along the drill path; magnetic sensors on the drill head will precisely follow the path of the guidewire to avoid damaging an existing conduit that carries the GTT telecommunications cable.1 A four-inch diameter steel conduit will be installed in the drilled hole. Cable will be drawn from the installation vessel, inserted into the conduit and pulled onto land. The cable will be laid directly on the seafloor for a distance of approximately 0.9 miles between the drill hole and the installation vessel, then buried by divers using hand jetting tools.

The landside HDD construction zone will occupy approximately 1.1 acres within the Lynnway Rotary, which is located within the Department of Conservation and Recreation’s (DCR) Lynn Shore and Nahant Beach Reservation. The seaward end of the cable will be pulled through the HDD conduit by a winch positioned in the traffic island and placed in a new 45-ft long conduit to a new manhole to be installed within the traffic island. From the manhole, the cable will be pulled through existing conduits for a distance of 1.8 miles to the terminal station on Commercial Street in Lynn. A subsurface anode grounding system occupying an area 540 sf to 1,615 sf will be installed on land within the Lynnway Rotary, at a condominium complex near the rotary or at the terminal station. Construction activities on land will take five days. Onshore activities, including HDD, will be completed in approximately six to eight weeks.

1 The GTT cable was formerly known as the Hibernia cable. It completed MEPA review in 2000 (EEA# 12026).

2 EEA# 16056 Single EIR Certificate October 30, 2020

Project Site

From the east, the cable route passes the northern boundary of the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (SBNMS) before it enters State waters northeast of Rockport. The route then continues in a southwesterly direction parallel to the coastline through Gloucester, Manchester, Beverly, Salem and Marblehead. Off the coast of Swampscott, the route turns to the west and passes through Nahant before ending in Lynn. The cable route passes through the North Shore and South Essex Ocean Sanctuaries and the Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan (OMP) planning area.2 The OMP, completed in 2015, has identified the presence of core habitat for Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeanglia) on the cable route. According to the Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF), the cable route will extend through areas of commercial fishing and habitat for a variety of invertebrate and finfish species, including American lobster (Homarus americanus), Jonah crab (Cancer borealis), Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua), sea scallop (Placopecten magellanicus), ocean quahog (Arctica islandica), blue mussel (Mytilus edulis) and razor clam (Ensis directus). The cable route extends through important cod spawning areas identified by DMF, including the Spring Cod Conservation Zone (SCCZ) and Fall Cod Conservation Zone (FCCZ), where it is illegal to harvest cod during spawning periods.

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) (Nos. 25009C0529G and 25009C0533G, effective July 16, 2014), the proposed location of the landfall conduit is in a coastal flood zone with a velocity hazard (VE zone) and a base flood elevation (BFE) of 21 ft NAVD 88 and a floodplain Zone AO with a flood depth of three feet.

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation

Potential environmental impacts associated with the project include alteration of approximately 45 acres of Land Under Ocean (LUO) and dredging of 29,000 cubic yards (cy) of sediment associated with the North Shore and South Essex Ocean Sanctuaries. A 4.3-mile long section of the cable route passes through Humpback whale core habitat identified in the OMP. Land-based construction activities will impact 2.67 acres (116,462 sf) of Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage (LSCSF) and up to 0.04 acres (1,578 sf ) of filled tidelands. The onshore cable will require an easement on DCR parkland subject to protection under Article 97 of the Amendments of the Constitution of the Commonwealth (Article 97).

The project has been designed to comply with management standards in the OMP to minimize and mitigate damage to critical offshore resources. Measures to avoid, minimize and mitigate environmental impacts include using HDD to avoid direct impacts to wetland resource areas at the landfall location, use of a plow to simultaneously dig a trench and lay the cable, use of a construction

2 Pursuant to the Oceans Act (Chapter 114 of the Acts of 2009), Massachusetts established a process for the planning and management of its offshore resources through an OMP. The OMP was completed in 2009 and updated in 2015. The OMP identifies and maps important ecological resources that are key components of the state’s estuarine and marine ecosystems. These resources are defined as “special, sensitive or unique resources” (SSU) and areas containing concentrations of water-dependent uses including commercial and recreational fishing and navigation. The OMP established management standards applicable to specific development activities to protect SSU resources. For cable projects, the applicable SSUs are core habitat areas for the North Atlantic Right Whale, Fin Whale and Humpback Whale, intertidal flats, eelgrass and areas of hard/complex seafloor. The 2015 OMP can be downloaded from https://www.mass.gov/service-details/massachusetts-ocean-management-plan.

3 EEA# 16056 Single EIR Certificate October 30, 2020

vessel with dynamic positioning rather than anchors, implementation of a communications plan to notify fishermen and boaters of project activities, and payment of an Ocean Development Mitigation Fee as determined below.

Jurisdiction and Permitting

The project is subject to the preparation of a Mandatory EIR pursuant to the 301 CMR 11.03(3)(a)(1)(b) because it requires Agency Actions and will alter ten or more acres of wetlands (LUO). It also meets or exceeds ENF thresholds at 301 CMR 11.03(1)(b)(3), conversion of land held for natural resources purposes in accordance with Article 97 of the Amendments of the Constitution of the Commonwealth to any purpose not in accordance with Article 97, and 301 CMR 11.03(3)(b)(3), dredging of 10,000 or more cy of material. The project requires a Section 401 Water Quality Certificate (WQC) and a Chapter 91 (c. 91) License from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP), a Section 8(m) Permit from the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA),a Construction and Access Permit and easement from DCR and requires review by the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP). The project is subject to the Ocean Management Plan and Ocean Sanctuaries Act and requires a Public Benefit Determination (PBD) from the Secretary of EEA. It requires a Federal Consistency determination by the Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management (CZM).

The project requires Orders of Conditions (OOC) from the Beverly, Gloucester, Lynn, Manchester, Marblehead, Nahant, Rockport, Salem and Swampscott Conservation Commissions (and, if an OOC is appealed, a Superseding Order of Conditions (SOC) from MassDEP). It will be reviewed by the Massachusetts Historic Commission (MHC) pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. The project requires an Individual Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.

Because the Proponent is not seeking Financial Assistance, MEPA jurisdiction extends to those aspects of the project that are within the subject matter of required or potentially required Permits or within the area subject to a Land Transfer that are likely, directly or indirectly, to cause Damage to the Environment. The subject matter of the OMP review, c. 91 License and Land Transfer are sufficiently broad such that jurisdiction is functionally equivalent to full scope jurisdiction and extends to all aspects of the project that are likely, directly or indirectly, to cause Damage to the Environment.

Changes Since the Filing of the EENF

The Single EIR identified changes to the project since the Expanded Environmental Notification Form (EENF) was reviewed. The changes include the following:

• The route through State waters has been refined to minimize impacts and impediments to cable installation; • The length of the cable route through State waters has increased from 29.4 miles to 33.6 miles due to the route refinements noted above; • An approximately 16.5 ft long repeater device with a 10-inch diameter will be installed on the cable to strengthen its signal;

4 EEA# 16056 Single EIR Certificate October 30, 2020

• A new conduit will be installed using HDD to make landfall rather than the use of an existing conduit that was previously proposed; and, • A new manhole and conduits will be installed at the landfall site to transfer the cable to an existing land-based conduit.

Review of the Single EIR

The Single EIR was generally responsive to the Scope included in the Certificate on the EENF. It provided the results of seafloor surveys documenting benthic and subsurface conditions along the proposed cable route, detailed construction methods for the offshore and onshore components of the project, described the methods to be used to confirm burial depth of the cable and to rectify any instances where adequate burial has not been achieved, provided a conceptual post-construction monitoring plan and described measures that will be implemented to minimize and mitigate impacts to commercial fishing activity. The Single EIR included an updated analysis of the project’s compliance with the EEA Article 97 Land Disposition Policy (Article 97 Policy), provided responses to comments received on the EENF and presented updated draft Section 61 Findings.

Ocean Management Plan

The OMP identifies and maps important ecological resources, known as Special, Sensitive and Unique resources (SSUs), and areas containing concentrations of water-dependent uses that are key components of the state’s estuarine and marine ecosystems and maritime economy. The OMP establishes management standards applicable to specific development activities to protect SSUs and minimize disruption of water-dependent uses such as commercial and recreational fishing and navigation. The OMP also establishes an Ocean Development Mitigation Fee based on the type and scale of a project and its impacts.

Special Sensitive and Unique Resources

For cable projects in general, the OMP identifies the applicable SSUs are core habitat areas for the North Atlantic Right whale, Fin whale and Humpback whale, intertidal flats, eelgrass and areas of hard/complex seafloor.3 However, in the 2015 OMP, only Humpback whale core habitat and hard/complex benthic conditions are mapped within the project area for the proposed cable. In the EENF, the Proponent had provided a preliminary project route and assessment of impacts on SSUs based on OMP data prepared by CZM. The Single EIR included the results of marine surveys conducted by the Proponent along the proposed cable route in 2019 and 2020. Survey methods included sediment grab sampling, multi-beam bathymetry, side-scan sonar, sub-bottom profiling and towed magnetometer; these methods provided detailed information about sediment, species composition, water depth, bathymetry, seabed hazards, geology and other oceanographic and anthropogenic properties within a 1,640-ft wide corridor along the proposed cable route. According to the Single EIR, benthic conditions within the survey corridor include sediment generally comprised of a mix of clay, sand and/or gravel, with boulders and exposed bedrock in some areas.

3 Hard/complex benthic conditions include: exposed bedrock or concentrations of boulder, cobble or similar hard bottom; morphologically rugged seafloor conditions characterized by high variability in bathymetric aspect and gradient; or artificial reefs, wrecks or functionally equivalent structures that provide a substrate for hard bottom biological communities.

5 EEA# 16056 Single EIR Certificate October 30, 2020

Based on this site-specific data, the route has been refined in several areas to avoid impacts to hard/complex benthic conditions and avoid impediments to cable installation plow operations, such as boulders. The cable route has also been revised to minimize the crossing distance over existing offshore infrastructure, including one cable and three gas pipelines. According to the Single EIR, the proposed route will avoid areas containing SSUs except for a 4.3-mile long section which passes through Humpback whale core habitat northeast of Rockport identified in the current OMP.

The Single EIR provided an analysis documenting the project’s compliance with the OMP management standards, which prohibit routing of cables through SSUs unless the Proponent can:

• Provide a more accurate map of the SSUs based on marine surveys that demonstrate that the project can be designed to avoid these resources; or,

Maps included in the OMP document the presence the hard/complex bottom SSU along 0.6 miles of the proposed route; however, the Proponent’s surveys of benthic conditions within the cable corridor indicate that the cable can be routed to avoid directly impacting areas hard/complex bottom habitat. According to the Proponent, areas with Humpback whale core habitat cannot be avoided.

• Provide a comprehensive alternatives analysis to demonstrate that no less environmentally damaging practicable alternatives (LEDPA) exists; and

The EENF and Single EIR reviewed alterative cable routes. One alternative would travel a shorter distance in State waters than the Preferred Alternative by taking an easterly route from coastline that would pass through the SBNMS; however, this alternative would have greater permanent impacts on hard/complex seafloor and the section through the SBNMS is unlikely to be permitted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). A northern route alternative would minimize the length of the cable in State waters and avoid whale core habitat by making landfall in Rockport and following a 23.7-mile long route on land to the terminal station in Lynn. This route would have greater impacts on hard/complex seafloor than the Preferred Alternative, and would have significant impacts on onshore wetlands, including two river crossings; rare species habitat; infrastructure and utilities, including crossings of highways, commuter rail tracks and gas and electric facilities; and open space.

• Demonstrate that the project has undertaken all practicable measures to avoid damage to SSUs; and,

Because the cable will not impact Humpback whale core habitat under normal operating conditions, project activities may impact this SSU only during installation and, if necessary, repair of the cable. The Single EIR identified mitigation measures that will be implemented to avoid damage to Humpback whale core habitat, including maintaining a vessel speed of 0.5 knots through the area, which is well below the 10-knot speed recommended by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and using Protected Species Officers (PSO) on

6 EEA# 16056 Single EIR Certificate October 30, 2020

the installation vessels to monitor the area for the presence of whales and other marine mammals.

• Demonstrate that the public benefits of the project outweigh the public detriments to the SSU resource.

According to the Proponent, the project will provide a public benefit by meeting the increased demand for data transmission capacity, speed and reliability between the United States and Europe.

According to the Single EIR, a draft OMP update has identified additional areas of whale core habitat in Massachusetts Bay. Based on the preliminary maps prepared for the draft OMP update, the cable will pass through 8.1 miles of Humpback whale core habitat, 16.3 miles of North Atlantic right whale core habitat and 5.5 miles of Fin whale core habitat. The Single EIR includes a commitment to implement whale core habitat mitigation measures for the entire cable route.

Concentrations of Water-dependent Uses

The project is also located in mapped areas with concentrations of water-dependent uses, including areas of High Commercial Fishing Effort and Value, Concentrated Recreational Fishing, Concentrated Commerce Traffic, Concentrated Commercial Fishing Traffic and Concentrated Recreational Boating. The OMP does not include specific management standards for areas with concentrations of water-dependent uses, but requires projects to avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts to these uses. Project activities, including route clearing and cable installation, are anticipated to last for up to 16 days. Mitigation measures include the development and implementation of a communications plan for fishermen and boaters; designation of a Fisheries Liaison to coordinate project activities with fixed gear fisheries; delineation of the work corridor with flagged buoys (“high fliers”); navigation lighting; and, daily radio communications with fishermen and boaters. Areas where cable protection is used will be noted on U.S. Coast Guard nautical charts.

Monitoring Plan

As required by the OMP regulations at 301 CMR 28.04(6), the Single EIR included a proposed monitoring plan to confirm that impacts to SSUs, including Humpback whale core habitat and hard/complex benthic conditions, were avoided during installation of the cable; document the location and burial depth of the cable; map the location and extent of armoring; and describe inspection and maintenance practices that will be implemented to ensure the cable will remain buried over the long term. As-built conditions of the cable and armoring will be provided by real-time cable installation monitoring equipment used during construction and by any post-lay ROV inspections; as requested by CZM and DMF, this data should be supplemented by post-construction sidescan and multi-beam bathymetry surveys. The Proponent will provide a post-construction report prepared by PSOs that document any whale sightings and whale avoidance measures implemented during the construction period. Future inspections of the cable will be undertaken in the event of a major geologic event, such as an earthquake, which could expose the cable or cause it to change location; a report by another vessel of an interaction with the cable; or evidence of faulty operation of the cable by a continuous monitoring

7 EEA# 16056 Single EIR Certificate October 30, 2020

system. Any necessary cable repairs or reburial will be conducted based on the results of future inspections.

Ocean Development Mitigation Fee

The OMP describes an Ocean Development Mitigation Fee to be assessed for offshore development projects. The purpose of the fee is to compensate the Commonwealth for impacts to ocean resources and the broad public interests and rights in the lands, waters and resources of the OMP areas. The OMP identifies ranges of fees for three Activity Classes depending on the scale, size and footprint of the project and the nature and duration of its impacts. According to CZM, the project’s impacts are consistent with those anticipated for a Class 1 project because it will avoid direct impacts to nearshore wetland resource areas by using HDD to install the landfall conduit; will implement mitigation measures to avoid damage to Humpback whale core habitat; has selected a cable route that the Proponent believes will avoid hard/complex seafloor; will use installation vessels equipped with dynamic positioning capability to avoid impacts associated with anchors; and does not anticipate the need to apply armoring over the cable due to insufficient burial depth, which would permanently impact benthic habitat. The project will exceed the six-acre footprint envisioned by the OMP for Class 1 projects, but it appears that the project will have negligible effects on habitat, natural resources, and water-dependent uses (i.e., effects are at the lowest levels of detection, barely measurable, with no perceptible adverse consequences to the resources) and that any effects will be limited in duration. Fees for activities in the Class 1 category range from $10,000 to $45,000.

The Proponent has committed to avoiding the use of armoring at pipeline crossings unless required to do so by the owners of the pipelines. The Single EIR estimated that a combined area of up to 0.5 acres of armoring would be necessary if all three pipelines required protection. Preconstruction surveys identified two additional locations where the cable may not be buried to the target depth of four to six feet due to subsurface conditions; however, no armoring was proposed in these locations. For these reasons, and in consideration of the overall size and scale of the project and the nature and duration of impacts, the base Ocean Development Mitigation fee for the project is hereby set at $25,000. If armoring is required, an additional $6,000 for every 0.1 acre of hard cover will be assessed. If the need for armoring is identified prior to or during the permitting process, the base fee and any additional assessment for armoring will be deposited in the Ocean Resources and Waterways Trust prior to the completion of State permitting and prior to construction. Any unforeseen armoring placed during the construction period, as measured by post-construction surveys, will be assessed at the same rate and any additional fees deposited in the Ocean Resources and Waterways Trust within six months of the post- construction surveys.

Wetlands, Waterways and Water Quality

Installation of the cable will require dredging of 29,000 cy of sediment and will alter 45 acres of LUO. Construction activities impacting LUO include dredging of a trench by a plow or by jets used by divers at the HDD location or ROVs at utility crossings and potentially other locations; repositioning of dredged sediment by the plow or jets to backfill the trench; direct contact between the plow skids and the seafloor; and conversion of benthic conditions if armoring is placed on the seafloor.

8 EEA# 16056 Single EIR Certificate October 30, 2020

Permanent Habitat Conversion

According to the Single EIR, the cable route has been selected to maximize the extent of soft sediments in which the cable will be buried to the target depth of four to six feet; this will avoid the need for armoring where adequate burial is not possible. Equipment on board the construction vessel will record the location and burial depth of the cable as it is placed. Except for areas where armoring is needed, impacts are anticipated to be temporary due to the narrow width of the trench and reestablishment of preconstruction benthic conditions as the trench is backfilled by the plow. Permanent impacts to LUO will occur where armoring may be necessary to protect the cable where it crosses over existing pipelines. Marine surveys also identified two locations where seafloor conditions consist of unconsolidated hard material that may not be trenched by the plow. If the cables are not buried to the target depth in these areas, a post-lay inspection will be conducted with an ROV to determine whether armoring over the cable is required. According to the Single EIR, the use of asphalt mattresses is the preferred method of armoring where adequate burial depth is not achieved because their smaller footprint would minimize impacts to LUO; however, as recommended by CZM, the Proponent should commit to armoring with natural material that matches the surrounding benthic conditions. The Single EIR estimated a permanent impact of up to a total of approximately 0.5 acres of LUO if rock is used for armoring at the three pipeline crossings; the use of mattresses would impact considerably less area (a total of approximately 0.06 acres). The Single EIR did not estimate the area of armoring that may be required in areas where the project may not achieve adequate burial depth.

Water Quality

The Single EIR reviewed sediment characteristics based on analysis of 23 samples collected along the pipeline route. Sediments from nearshore areas at the western end of the cable route were comprised primarily of sand with minimal fine-grained material such as silt and clay. Samples collected in deeper water included coarse material such as gravel and sand with fine silt and clay generally comprising 30 to 60 percent of the sediment. Dredging activities, particularly in fine-grained sediments, will cause turbidity that may impact water quality. According to the Single EIR, plowing will cause minimal turbidity but jetting in fine-grained sediments may cause localized turbidity for a few hours. A review of existing information on releases of hazardous materials did not identify potential sources of contamination. A composite chemical analysis of the nineteen sediment samples containing more than 10 percent fine-grained material will be provided to MassDEP in the WQC application to determine if contaminants are present in sediments along the cable route.

The use of HDD to transition the cable from offshore to onshore will avoid direct impacts to coastal wetland resource areas, including Coastal Beach and Coastal Bank, that would be necessary if the cable were installed in a trench. Potential impacts associated with HDD include the inadvertent release of a bentonite slurry used in the drilling process, known as a “frac-out.” The Single EIR included a draft Frac-Out plan that identified measures that will be implemented during the construction period to minimize and mitigate potential releases of bentonite. During HDD operations, drilling pressures will be monitored for significant changes that could indicate that slurry is being released into the environment and inspectors will visually monitor the drill path for signs of a release. If a frac-out occurs, drilling will stop, fluid pressures will be reduced and containment measures will be employed to minimize the area impacted by slurry. Clean up activities will depend on the area impacted by the release and whether wetland resource areas or rare species or marine habitat have been impacted. The final Frac-Out plan

9 EEA# 16056 Single EIR Certificate October 30, 2020 should include notification to the appropriate state agencies for assistance in developing clean up and remediation responses.

Waterways

In its comments on the EENF, MassDEP noted that the project meets the definition of an infrastructure crossing facility per the Waterways Regulations at 310 CMR 9.02 because, in part, it “connects new or existing infrastructure facilities located on the opposite banks of the waterway.” Furthermore, the regulations indicate at 301 CMR 9.12(2)(d) that:

In the case of an infrastructure crossing facility, or any ancillary facility thereto, for which an EIR is submitted, the Department shall find such facility to be water- dependent only if the Secretary has determined that such facility cannot reasonably be located or operated away from tidal or inland waters, based on a comprehensive analysis of alternatives and other information analyzing measures that can be taken to avoid or minimize adverse impacts on the environment, in accordance with M.G.L. c. 30, §§ 61 through 62H. If an EIR is not submitted, such finding may be made by the Department based on information presented in the application and during the public comment period thereon.

The purpose of the project is to link telecommunications infrastructure between the United States and Europe. The EENF and Single EIR included comprehensive alternative analyses demonstrating that the selected route will minimize adverse impacts on the environment. Therefore, I find that the project cannot reasonably be located away from tidal or inland waters.

Marine Fisheries and Rare Species

The project will be constructed in areas rich in marine resources, including habitat for commercially-important fish and shellfish species such as lobster, cod, flounder, sea scallops, quahog and blue mussel. According to the Single EIR, the project will have minimal impacts on fisheries because of the limited impacts and proposed mitigation measures described above. The cable route will pass through SCCZ and FCCZ designated by DMF. To protect seasonal cod spawning grounds, fishing is prohibited in the SCCZ from April 16 through July 21 and in the FCCZ from November 15 to January 31. According to DMF, the proposed cable route passes through and adjacent to important spawning grounds that attract aggregations of spawning cod; a disturbance lasting only several hours can significantly impact spawning behavior and habitat. The Proponent should evaluate adjustments to the cable route in order to avoid the “gravel bar” referred to in DMF’s comment letter and I expect that MassDEP, during subsequent permitting, will require an analysis of alternatives that include a route that avoids this feature. The Proponent must take all measures to ensure that route clearance, pre-lay grapnel runs, cable lay, cable burial, and/or placement of armoring occur outside of the time-of-year (TOY) restrictions identified for the SCCZ and FCCZ. TOY restrictions on construction activities will be addressed during WQC permitting.

According to NHESP, installation of the landfall conduit using HDD will occur in Priority and Estimated Habitat of the Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus), a Threatened species. The guidewire to be used to direct the drilling head will be temporarily buried across Piping Plover habitat on Lynn Beach.

10 EEA# 16056 Single EIR Certificate October 30, 2020

The Proponent should avoid impacts to Piping Plover habitat during the breeding season from March 31 to September 1. If any activity must take place on the beach during the breeding season, the Proponent will be required to implement a monitoring and protection plan approved by NHESP in order to avoid a take of Piping Plover.

Cultural Resources

Offshore and onshore components of the project are located in areas with significant cultural resources associated with ancient and historic period Native American activities and historical period occupation and land use in Lynn. According to the Board of Underwater Archaeological Resources (BUAR) and MHC, the cable route is located in an archaeologically sensitive area that may include shipwrecks and paleosols. Nahant Beach Boulevard (MHC #LYN.Z/NAH.L) is listed in the State and National Registers of Historic Places.

The Single EIR summarized the results of a terrestrial cultural resources reconnaissance survey and a marine archaeological survey, both of which were conducted in 2020. No evidence of archaeological sites was observed during the terrestrial survey; however, the Proponent will conduct additional archaeological surveys in the project area as requested by MHC. If additional cultural resources are discovered, the Proponent will develop a plan for avoiding, minimizing and mitigating impacts to these resources and submit it to MHC for its approval. The Proponent will also prepare a historic properties avoidance and protection plan to ensure that the project does not impact monuments and other historic resources in the Nahant Beach Historic District.

According to the Single EIR, marine surveys detected five geomorphic features of potential archaeological interest in the vicinity of the cable route and the route was adjusted to avoid these features. A more detailed analysis of the marine surveys was provided in a Technical Report to BUAR during the review period. Comments from BUAR indicate that it concurs with the findings and recommendations of the Technical Report, including the conclusion that the cable route will avoid the potential archaeological features.

Article 97

The project is subject to the EEA Article 97 Policy and must obtain Article 97 legislation prior to installing the cable in new conduit. According to DCR, a bill (S.2875) is pending before the General Court that would authorize an easement for the operation and maintenance of the project on DCR lands, including a portion of Lynn Beach, a concrete sidewalk, an existing roadway rotary, and a portion of two public roadways, Lynn Shore Drive and Lynnway. The legislation requires that the Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance (DCAMM) consult with DCR to conduct an appraisal of the easement or its value in use as proposed, and requires that compensation be set at the greater of these two values.

The EENF included an Article 97 analysis related to the proposed reuse of the existing GTT conduit. A revised analysis reflecting the need for an easement associated with construction of a new conduit was provided in the Single EIR. As detailed below, the analysis reviewed the six criteria for determining when “exceptional circumstances” exist such that a disposition of Article 97 land may be appropriate.

11 EEA# 16056 Single EIR Certificate October 30, 2020

• The Proponent of the disposition must conduct an analysis of alternatives, commensurate with the type and size of the proposed disposition, that achieve the purpose of the disposition without the use of Article 97 land, such as the use of other land available within the appropriate market area;

The submarine cable route was selected to provide a landfall location that is close to the telecommunications building where the cable will terminate. Reuse of the conduit as planned in the EENF is not feasible because the conduit has corroded and has internal blockages that would prevent its use by the new cable. According to the EENF, the only privately-owned waterfront site that could accommodate the HDD operations and onshore infrastructure is not a feasible option because it is targeted for development by the City of Lynn. The Proponent will use HDD to install the cable within a new underground easement that will avoid permanent impacts to surface-level activities in the Lynn Shore Reservation and associated roadways.

• The disposition of the subject parcel and its proposed use may not destroy or threaten a unique or significant resource (e.g., significant habitat, rare or unusual terrain, or areas of significant public recreation);

Permanent structures will be located underground and will not affect transportation or recreational uses of the Lynn Shore Reservation or DCR roadways. The underground landfall connection using HDD will avoid permanent impacts to rare species habitat along the Lynn and Nahant shorelines. The Proponent will conduct preconstruction surveys to avoid cultural resources in the project area.

• Real estate of equal or greater value, and of significantly greater resource value is granted to the disposing agency;

The project will not impact the value, use or area of the Lynn Shore Reservation available for recreation and transportation uses. As noted, pending legislation requires DCAMM to assess the fair market value of the easement or its value in use as proposed. It also requires the Proponent, in addition to any compensation to be paid as consideration for the easement, to transfer to DCR land or an interest therein or funding for the acquisition of land or an interest therein equal to or greater than the appraised value of the easement as determined pursuant to the legislation. The fair market value of any land or interest in land proposed to be conveyed to the department will be included within the appraised value.

• The minimum necessary area of Article 97 land should be included in the disposition and the existing resources continue to be protected to the maximum extent possible;

The project will not require new permanent structures above ground and will use existing conduits under the traffic island and beneath streets on the route to the terminal building.

• The disposition serves an Article 97 purpose or another public purpose without detracting from the mission, plans, policies and mandates of EEA and its appropriate department or division;

12 EEA# 16056 Single EIR Certificate October 30, 2020

and

The cable will support demand for transatlantic telecommunications and will have minimal impact on recreational or transportation uses of DCR property.

• The disposition is not contrary to the express wishes of the person(s) who donated or sold the parcel or interests to the Commonwealth.

According to the Single EIR, the original Order of taking obtained by the Metropolitan District Commission (MDC), the predecessor to DCR, did not include specific references to the prior landowners or any limits on the disposition.

According to DCR, a Construction and Access Permit would typically be issued after Article 97 legislation authorizing the conveyance of the easement has been enacted and the land disposition finalized; however, DCR may consider issuing a Permit after the legislation is enacted but before the transfer of the easement is finalized and recorded.

Climate Change

The Single EIR evaluated the vulnerability of proposed onshore infrastructure to sea level rise and storm surge conditions in 2050, which corresponds to the anticipated 25-year life of the project. According to projections developed by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) available through the Massachusetts Climate Change Clearinghouse website (www.resilientma.org), sea level in the project area will rise by 3.4 feet by 2050. Under those conditions, part of the proposed grounding system would be inundated. Storm surge associated with a Category 4 hurricane under 2050 sea level conditions would inundate all onshore infrastructure associated with the project, including the terminal station. According to the Sigle EIR, operation of the cable and associated structures will not be affected under future conditions. The cable will be installed by HDD more than 40 feet below the seabed and will not be subject to storm-induced erosion. The manhole and underground conduits will be lined with concrete and will be sealed to minimize intrusion of floodwaters. The operation of the grounding system and terminal station will not be adversely affected by anticipated levels of flooding under future conditions.

Public Benefits Determination

The project site is comprised of tidelands subject to the provisions of An Act Relative to Licensing Requirements for Certain Tidelands (2007 Mass. Acts ch. 168) and the Public Benefit Determination regulations (301 CMR 13.00). Consistent with Section 8 of the legislation, I must conduct a Public Benefits Review as part of the EIR review of projects located on tidelands that entail new use or modification of an existing use. As a water-dependent use, the project is presumed to provide adequate public benefit pursuant to 301 CMR 13.04(1). No unique circumstances appear to apply to rebut this presumption for this project.

Under 301 CMR 13.03(1), “the public shall have the opportunity during the MEPA public comment period(s) to comment on whether the project provides a public benefit, and the proponent shall

13 EEA# 16056 Single EIR Certificate October 30, 2020

have the opportunity to submit additional information during the MEPA process.” I did not receive comments specifically addressing the public benefits outlined in the Single EIR.

Construction

The Single EIR described all land-based construction activities, identified potential construction period impacts, including traffic management, materials management, air quality and noise impacts, and proposed mitigation measures to eliminate or minimize these impacts. Mitigation measures are listed in the draft Section 61 Findings below.

Mitigation and Draft Section 61 Findings

The Single EIR provided draft Section 61 Findings for use by State Agencies. The Section 61 Findings should be provided to State Agencies to assist in the permitting process and issuance of final Section 61 Findings. The Single EIR identified permitting requirements and measures that will be employed to avoid, minimize and mitigate environmental impacts. These include:

Ocean Management Plan

• The base fee of $25,000 plus $6,000 per 0.1 acre of anticipated armoring will be deposited in the Ocean Resources and Waterways Trust upon completion of permitting and prior to construction; • Additional armoring will be assessed at $6,000 per 0.1 acre, as measured by post- construction surveys, and the amount deposited in the Ocean Resources and Waterways Trust within six months of the post-construction surveys; • The results of marine surveys will be provided to State agencies to further ocean planning and protection efforts; and, • A post-construction monitoring plan will be implemented to confirm that impacts to SSUs were avoided during installation of the cable; document the location and burial depth of the cable; map the location and extent of armoring; and describe inspection and maintenance practices that will be implemented to ensure the cable will remain buried over the long term. As requested by CZM and DMF, post-construction conditions should be described using sidescan and multi-beam bathymetry surveys.

Special, Sensitive and Unique (SSU) Resources

• The project will avoid installing the cable in areas of hard/complex bottom; • The installation vessel will travel at a speed of approximately 0.5 knots to minimize the potential for marine mammal strikes by construction vessels; • Protected Species Officers (PSO) will be on board construction vessels to identify marine mammals in the vicinity of the vessel and will have the authority to stop construction activities; and, • The installation vessel will use dynamic positioning instead of anchors to avoid entanglement with anchor lines.

14 EEA# 16056 Single EIR Certificate October 30, 2020

Concentrations of Water-Dependent Uses

• Implement a Communications Plan to provide notice to boaters, fishermen and other stakeholder of project activities; • Designate a Fishery Liaison to coordinate stakeholder notifications and public meetings; • Use navigation lighting on offshore vessels; • Delineate cable installation corridor with high fliers in advance of project activities; and, • Make daily announcements via VHF radio to boaters and fishermen.

Wetlands

• Minimize permanent conversion of benthic habitat by installing the cable in areas with soft sediments where the cable can be buried without the need for armoring; • Use armoring at pipeline crossings only if required by owners of the pipelines; • Install the cable using a plow that will backfill the trench, restore preconstruction benthic conditions and minimize turbidity; • Avoid benthic impacts from cables by using an installation vessel with dynamic positioning capability; • Avoid impacts to onshore and nearshore wetland resource areas, including Coastal Beach and Coastal Bank, by using HDD to transition the cable from offshore to land; • Avoid impacts to LSCSF by installing all land-based facilities below grade and maintaining preconstruction grades; and, • Minimize impacts to wetland resources areas associated with a potential release of HDD drilling fluid by implementing a Frac-out Plan.

Marine Fisheries

• Comply with TOY restrictions of April 16 through July 21 in the SCCZ and November 15 to January 31 in the FCCZ.

Onshore Rare Species Habitat

• Avoid permanent impacts to Piping Plover habitat by using HDD to transition the cable from offshore to land; and, • Avoid construction activities within Piping Plover habitat during the breeding season from March 31 to September 1 or implement a monitoring and protection plan if construction activity during the breeding season is unavoidable.

Historical and Archaeological Resources

• Select a cable route that avoids offshore historical and archaeological resources; and, • Complete archaeological investigations as directed by MHC and avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts to subsurface cultural resources.

15 EEA# 16056 Single EIR Certificate October 30, 2020

Article 97

• Provide compensation to be paid as consideration for the easement and transfer to DCR land or an interest therein or funding for the acquisition of land or an interest therein equal to or greater than the appraised value of the easement as determined pursuant to the legislation. Provide replacement land or interest in land or funding to acquire land or an interest in land as appropriate, based on the appraisal conducted in consultation with DCR and DCAMM.

Construction

• Provide a safety perimeter around the work zone in the Lynn Rotary with signage to alert vehicles of the construction zone; • Control dust by using wetting agents, implementing street sweeping, covering trucks carrying construction waste and minimizing stockpiles of materials; • Minimize air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions by using vessels that comply with marine engine emission standards, requiring contractors to use ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) in off-road vehicles and emissions control devices on construction equipment and limiting vehicle idling time to five minutes; • Minimize noise impacts by using mufflers on construction equipment and implementing a noise control plan and using noise curtains and enclosures during for HDD operations; and, • Maintain spill containment equipment on-site.

Conclusion

Based on a review of the Single EIR, comments letters, and consultation with State Agencies, I find that the Single EIR adequately and properly complies with MEPA and its implementing regulations. Outstanding issues can be addressed during State, federal and local permitting and review. No further MEPA review is required. The Proponent and State Agencies should forward copies of the final Section 61 Findings to the MEPA Office for publication in accordance with 301 CMR 11.12.

October 30, 2020 ______Date Kathleen A. Theoharides

Comments received:

10/23/2020 Board of Underwater Archaeological Resources (BUAR) 10/23/2020 Office of Coastal Zone Management (CZM) 10/23/2020 Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) 10/23/2020 Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) 10/23/2020 Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF)

KAT/AJS/ajs

16 The COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF UNDERWATER ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS 251 Causeway Street, Suite 800, Boston, MA 02114-2199 Tel. (617) 626-1014 Fax (617) 626-1240 Web Site: www.mass.gov/czm/buar/index.htm

October 23, 2020

Secretary Kathleen A. Theoharides ATTN: Alexander Strysky, MEPA Unit 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 0211453

RE: Amitié Submarine Cable System, Lynn, Nahant, Swampscott, Marblehead, Salem, Beverly, Manchester, Gloucester, Rockport, MA (EEA# 16056)

Dear Secretary Theoharides,

The staff of the Massachusetts Board of Underwater Archaeological Resources has reviewed the above-referenced project’s SEIR and the Technical Report, Submerged Cultural Resources Assessment for the Amitié Submarine Cable System, Massachusetts (dated September 2020) (and its revised Appendix B - Part 2), prepared by SEARCH, Inc. under Special Use Permit (19-004), in compliance with the Board’s Regulations (312 CMR 2.00) and Policy Guidance on Archaeological Investigations and Related Survey Standards for the Discovery of Underwater Archaeological Resources and Policy Guidance for Establishing Shipwreck and Underwater Resource Avoidance Protection Plans. We offer the following comments.

BUAR concurs with the findings and recommendations of the Technical Report. The Board notes that while marine archaeological assessment of the horizontal and vertical limits of the project’s area of potential effect identified no post-contact period underwater archaeological deposits (i.e., shipwrecks), five buried geomorphic features with potential archaeological sensitivity for containing pre-contact period underwater archaeological deposits were identified and recommended for avoidance during the project’s construction.

Consequently, the Board requests that if a certificate is issued for the project, that it be conditioned that all work be conducted in accordance with the Board’s directives and standards, and in compliance with the Board’s Regulations (312 CMR 2.00), and Policy Guidance for Establishing Shipwreck and Underwater Resource Avoidance Protection Plans, and Policy Guidance for the Discovery of Unanticipated Archaeological Resources. In the event that heretofore-unknown submerged cultural resources are encountered during the course of the project, the Board expects that the project’s sponsor will take steps to limit adverse effects and notify the Board and the Massachusetts Historical Commission, as well as other appropriate agencies, immediately, in accordance with the Board’s Policy Guidance for the Discovery of Unanticipated Archaeological Resources.

The Board appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments as part of the MEPA review process. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me at the address above, by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,

David S. Robinson Director /dsr Cc: Brona Simon, MHC Lisa B. Engler, Robert Boeri, Todd Callaghan, and Kathryn Glenn, MCZM (via email attachment) Bettina Washington, WTGH/A (via email attachment) David Weeden, MWT (via email attachment) Christina Hoffman and William Stanyard, ERM (via email attachment) Barry Bleichner, SEARCH (via email attachment)

Printed on Recycled Paper

MEMORANDUM

TO: Kathleen Theoharides, Secretary, EEA ATTN: Alex Strysky, MEPA Office FROM: Lisa Berry Engler, Director, CZM DATE: October 23, 2020 RE: EEA-16056, Amitié Submarine Cable System ______

The Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management (CZM) has completed its review of the above-referenced Single Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), noticed in the Environmental Monitor dated September 23, 2020 and offers the following comments. Project Description Amitié proposes to install a Submarine Cable System linking the United States, France, and the United Kingdom. The proposed length of cable in United States waters is approximately 200 miles, of which approximately 29.4 miles will be placed in Massachusetts waters. The proposed project would cross the municipalities of Rockport, Gloucester, Manchester-By-The-Sea, Beverly, Salem, Marblehead, Swampscott, and Lynn with a cable 1-1.5 inches in diameter at a target burial depth of four to six feet below the seafloor. The preferred landfall is at Lynn via a new 0.8-mile Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) conduit that connects to a manhole in the median of the Lynnway/Nahant Road/Lynn Shore Drive traffic circle. Amitié expects that the cable laying operations in state jurisdiction will take four to five days (15.5 miles per day) in the marine portion and another five days on land. Two alternatives to the preferred route were evaluated in the EENF: a shorter (roughly 19 miles) straight route from federal waters to Lynn and a northern connection route with a landing in either Rockport or Gloucester. The shorter straight alternative was not selected because it would cross Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary, managed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and according to the proponent, NOAA has indicated that obtaining a permit to cross the sanctuary seabed may not be feasible. In addition, the proponent suggests that the shorter route would intersect more hard bottom and humpback whale core habitat, two Special Sensitive, or Unique (SSU) areas under the Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan (OMP). The northern connection alternative was not selected because it would require installing a new horizontal directional drilling conduit with its associated temporary and permanent impacts. In addition, while the northern connection alternative would reduce the length of cable in the marine environment relative to the preferred route by more than 20 miles, it would increase the landward impact substantially, requiring significant trenching across several densely populated communities. Since the filing of the EENF, the existing conduit that was to be used to support the new fiber optic cable was determined to be unsuitable, and so a new conduit is proposed to be installed using HDD for cable installation from the rotary in Lynn and extending approximately 0.8 miles offshore.

In addition, the route of the cable within Massachusetts waters has been refined based on evaluation of additional data relating to the seafloor within the surveyed corridor. Route changes were driven by bottom topography and material to achieve the goal of burying the cable in soft sediments and avoiding hard bottom. The route was further refined to avoid boulders on the seafloor and consideration of existing and potential future utilities in the same waters. According to the SEIR, the route was also refined to avoid submerged geomorphic features of archeological interest. Project Comments Cable Installation According to the SEIR the plow system will include four 5.7-foot-wide plow skis and a 0.7- foot-wide plowshare. According to exhibit 2-8 on page 22, the entire plow system has a 19.6-foot- wide footprint, but Table 4-1 on page 49 states that the width of the plow and skis is 12.1 feet. The width of the plow footprint should be clarified in permitting documents. The SEIR states that there will be temporary track marks from the cable lay process that will “shortly disappear.” While an exact timeline for recovery to pre-construction seabed conditions may be difficult to predict, permitting documents should use the best available information to determine a likely time range for this. For maximum accuracy, remotely operated vehicle (ROV) inspection should be included in post cable lay evaluations, and a post-construction report and an as-built cable location plan should be provided to permitting agencies as part of the project monitoring.

The SEIR includes an approach to ensure that any inadequate cable burial issues are addressed for the 25-year design life of the project that is responsive to CZM comments on the ENF. According to the document, acoustic survey and sediment information indicate that only two locations might not achieve adequate burial in state waters, but the proponent believes that there is enough unconsolidated sediment even in these locations to address the issue. The SEIR indicates that the ship is in constant communication with the plow at all times, providing continuous information about the depth of cable burial, and that hand jetting, sand bags, or another pass by the plow could be used to ensure adequate burial. A post-lay survey to verify burial will occur, and during the lifetime of the project, after a qualifying event such as a gear snag, earthquake, or break in the line that indicates that the cable may have become unburied, an additional follow-up survey will be required. Should such an event occur, permitting agencies would be notified of the details of the event and the survey results within 10 days. In the absence of a qualifying event, a written statement will be sent to agencies annually verifying that there has not been a qualifying event in the last year and that no conditions have occurred that would have changed the burial status of the cable. Reburial or repairs would occur using divers or ROV with jetting tools. Following the post-lay survey, if the proponent and the permitting agencies find that the cable is not adequately buried (i.e., that there is <4 feet of cover), CZM recommends that Alcatel import and place cover that mimics the surrounding seafloor to ensure that the cable will not be exposed during the lifetime of the project.

Based on the information provided in the SEIR, the first section of cable will be installed using HDD to depths of approximately 40-60 feet under the beach. A short segment about 20 feet in length

will then be hand jetted directly beyond the HDD segment. The remainder of the cable will be plowed in using a plow as described above towed behind a dynamically-positioned ship moving at approximately 0.5 knots, which is well below the 10 knots recommended for ships to avoid whale strikes. Only three pipeline crossings are expected to use rock and mattress cover to protect the cable, with a maximum of 0.49 acres of rock and 0.06 acres of mattress, and these are to be used only when required by pipeline owners.

Monitoring Plan Cable depth software in the plow is proposed to provide the monitoring documentation described in the SEIR. To provide a better understanding of the residual impacts to the seafloor from this type of plowing activity, multibeam bathymetry should be taken post-plowing.

Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan The preferred route described in the SEIR is slightly longer in state waters than the route described in the EENF and it has more length in mapped humpback whale core habitat, but it also has less impact on mapped hard/complex seafloor. According to the SEIR, humpback avoidance will occur by using low vessel speeds and the presence of a Protected Species Officer aboard the cable lay ship. Although the preferred layout has more length in mapped High Commercial Fishing Effort and Value, Concentrated Recreational Fishing, and Concentrated Recreational Boating Area Water- Dependent Uses versus the alternative provided in the EENF, the SEIR states that the route change was made to avoid an area of heavy fishing effort immediately adjacent to Stellwagen Bank, and that changes were also driven by bottom topography and seafloor sediments to achieve the goal of burying the cable in soft sediments, avoiding hard bottom, rock outcrops, and boulders, and to optimize pipeline crossing angles. According to the SEIR, while the Ocean Management Plan mapping suggests that would cross about 0.6 mile of hard/complex seafloor SSU, results of the 2019 and 2020 marine surveys indicate that the preferred route could be refined to avoid hard bottom habitat and the cable can be buried along the entire route within Massachusetts waters with the possible exception of utility crossings, which are still being designed. Every effort should be made to refine the route to avoid hard bottom and ensure proper cable burial within Massachusetts waters.

Importantly, the proposed preferred cable route will traverse both the Massachusetts Bay winter spring Cod Conservation zones. The proponent should comply with MA DMF time of year restrictions between November 15 to January 31 for the Massachusetts Bay winter zone and April 1 to July 30 for the Cape Cod spring zone to avoid any impacts to these spawning areas. Ocean Development Mitigation Fee As stated in comments on the EENF, pursuant to the OMP and 301 CMR 28.06, the Amitié Submarine Cable System is subject to an ocean development mitigation fee. The purpose of the fee is to compensate the Commonwealth for unavoidable impacts of ocean development on the broad public interests and rights in the ocean planning area and to support the planning, management,

restoration, or enhancement of marine habitat, resources, or uses. Based upon the proponent’s description of the preferred alternative described in the SEIR, including: the use of the existing HDD conduit under nearshore resources, the avoidance of hard/complex seafloor, the use of dynamic positioning instead of anchoring, and lack of hard cover proposed over the cable, it appears that the project will have negligible effects on habitat, natural resources, and water-dependent uses (i.e., effects are at the lowest levels of detection, barely measurable, with no perceptible adverse consequences to the resources) and that any effects will be limited in duration. A project of this scope is categorized as a Class I activity for ocean development mitigation purposes, with an associated fee of $10,000- $45,000 at the discretion of the Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs. The SEIR proposes and CZM agrees that if up to one acre is required to be placed on the seafloor to protect the cable, the project may need to be redefined as a Tier II project, with commensurate financial mitigation.

Federal Consistency The proposed project is subject to CZM federal consistency review. For further information on this process, please contact, Robert Boeri, Project Review Coordinator, at [email protected] or visit the CZM web site at www.state.ma.us/czm/fcr.htm. LE/rlb/tc/kg cc: Christopher Boelke, Sue Tuxbury, Mike Johnson, Jason Kahn, Cathy Tortorici, & Alison Verkade, NMFS Timothy Timmerman EPA David Wong, Derek Standish, Christine Hopps, Rachel Freed, DEP Kathryn Ford, Tay Evans, DMF Christine Jacek, USACE

October 23, 2020 Secretary Kathleen A. Theoharides Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Attn: Alex Strysky, MEPA Office 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, Massachusetts 02114 Re: EOEEA #16056 Amitie Fiber Optic Submarine Cable System SEIR

Dear Secretary Theoharides: The Department of Conservation and Recreation (“DCR” or “Department”) is pleased to submit the following comments in response to the Single Environmental Impact Report (“SEIR”) submitted by Environmental Resources Management on behalf of Edge Cable Holdings USA, LLC (the “Proponent”) for its Amitie Fiber Optic Submarine Cable System Project (the “Project”). As described in the SEIR, the Proponent is seeking to construct a new submarine cable to extend across the Atlantic Ocean between Europe and the United States. The route of the cable travels through Massachusetts waters and would enter the mainland near the Lynn/Nahant Massachusetts border. The Proponent is seeking to use an existing conduit that was constructed during a separate undersea cable project, completed in 1999 (#12026 Hibernia Fiber-Optic Telecommunication System). A portion of the Project, where it connects to the mainland, crosses DCR parkland at Lynn Shore Reservation and within the rotary at the intersection of Nahant Road and Lynn Shore Drive. Chapter 91 and Wetlands Protection Act permits will be required for work activities along the shoreline within the Lynn Shore Reservation. Permit applications for work on DCR property, which will be prepared by the Proponent, must be reviewed and signed by DCR as ‘Owner.’ A DCR Construction and Access Permit will also be required for the Project, in order to authorize staging on DCR land in the Lynnway/Nahant rotary. Article 97 Land Disposition Construction of the conduit that the Proponent seeks to access was authorized in 1999 by a permit issued by the Metropolitan District Commission (“MDC”), a predecessor agency of DCR. The permit authorized temporary rights for construction, but did not grant any permanent land rights across DCR property, as such grant or authorization would have been beyond MDC’s statutory authority and would have required, pursuant to Article 97 of the Amendments to the State Constitution, authorization by the General Court. Accordingly, the Proponent must obtain authorization from the General Court allowing the Commonwealth to grant a permanent easement within lands DCR holds for Article 97 purposes. Transfers of interests in state conservation property, including the granting of permanent easements, must meet the requirements set forth in the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (“EEA”) Article 97 Land Disposition Policy (the “Policy”). The Policy has the stated goal of ensuring no net loss of Article 97 lands under the ownership and control of the Commonwealth, and states as a general premise that EEA and its agencies shall not sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of any right or interest in Article 97 lands. Transfer of ownership or interests therein only may occur under exceptional circumstances, as

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS · EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS Department of Conservation and Recreation Charles D. Baker Kathleen A. Theoharides, Secretary, Executive 251 Causeway Street, Suite 600 Governor Office of Energy & Environmental Affairs Boston MA 02114-2119 617-626-1250 617-626-1351 Fax Karyn E. Polito Jim Montgomery, Commissioner www.mass.gov/orgs/department-of-conservation-recreation Lt. Governor Department of Conservation & Recreation EEA #16056 Page 2 of 2

defined in the Policy, including the determination that no feasible alternative is available, and a minimum amount of land or an interest therein is being disposed for the proposed use. Transfer also requires authorization by the Massachusetts Legislature through a two-thirds supermajority roll call vote. A bill (S.2875) is pending before the General Court that would authorize an easement in Lynn for the operation and maintenance of the infrastructure and cable proposed on lands under the control of DCR. Those lands include open space and consist of a portion of Lynn Beach, a concrete sidewalk, an existing roadway rotary, and a portion of two public roadways, Lynn Shore Drive and Lynnway. Should the Article 97 legislation be enacted, DCAMM, in consultation with DCR, would subsequently conduct an appraisal of the authorized easements to determine a fair market price. DCR is confident that an easement interest may be released in full compliance with the EEA Land Disposition Policy, because Lynn Shore Reservation and the DCR Parkway will not be diminished in land area and will continue to be maintained as open space. DCR will work with the Proponent to ensure that the necessary easement interests are released and mitigated in a policy compliant manner, while being protective of present and future subsurface utility needs in the area. DCR will not issue a Construction and Access Permit that allows any work or installation in the proposed easement area until Article 97 legislation is enacted. However, in order to bridge the time between the passage of Article 97 legislation and final disposition of the easement interest by DCAMM, DCR could, in this instance, consider granting a Construction and Access Permit earlier in the process to allow for that interim use and occupation. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the SEIR. Questions regarding our comments can be directed to Andy Backman, DCR’s MEPA Review Coordinator at [email protected]. Questions regarding the Article 97 process can be directed to DCR Land Protection Specialist, Christine Berry at [email protected]. Please contact the Director of Construction & Access Permitting, Sean Casey at [email protected] regarding the required DCR Construction and Access Permit.

Sincerely,

Jim Montgomery Commissioner

cc: Christine Berry, Jennifer Howard, Sean Casey, Tom LaRosa, Priscilla Geigis, Patrice Kish

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries 251 Causeway Street, Suite 400, Boston, MA 02114 p: (617) 626-1520 | f: (617) 626-1509 www.mass.gov/marinefisheries

CHARLES D. BAKER KARYN E. POLITO KATHLEEN A. THEOHARIDES RONALD S. AMIDON DANIEL J. MCKIERNAN Governor Lt. Governor Secretary Commissioner Director

Kathleen Theoharides, Secretary Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Attn: MEPA Office, Alex Strysky 100 Cambridge Street, suite 900 Boston, Ma 02114

October 23, 2020

RE: EEA# 16056 Amitié Submarine Cable System

Dear Secretary Theoharides:

The Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (MA DMF) has reviewed the Single Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Amitié Submarine Cable project. Overall, the document was comprehensive and addressed our previous comments on the Expanded Environmental Notification Form (EENF). Questions remain, however, on the timeline of the project and adequate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures.

The EENF indicated a fall timing for cable installation. In our comment letter on the EENF, MA DMF underscored the potential for detrimental impacts to fisheries resources should work occur in the fall. Impacts to cod, lobster and shellfish would be more likely with a fall timed installation. The SEIR states that the timing would be the second half of 2021 and/or early 2022 (i.e. fall or winter), but they indicate that the actual timing is not known yet. A project timing of January - February would avoid the spring and fall Cod spawning activity, the winter flounder spawning time of year, and impacts to the lobster fishery. Lobsters are active in the fall and regularly utilize soft bottom corridors during this time.

The offshore installation would take ten (10) calendar days for route clearing and installation, according to the SEIR. Disturbance in the Spring and Winter Cod Conservation Zones (SCCZ and WCCZ) should be avoided. Even a relatively short duration disturbance (several hours locally) could critically impact cod spawning behavior and habitat. The project is currently planned through five mapped cod spawning areas including the CCZs. We are particularly concerned with a portion of the proposed route southwest of Saturday Night Ledge (Figure 1). The planned route goes right through the middle of the focal point of the SCCZ cod spawning aggregations that MA DMF identified and documented via acoustic telemetry from 2009-2012, i.e. the “gravel bar” identified in Dean et al. (2012) and Dean et al.(2014) (Figure 1-3). The SCCZ was established due to the presence of persistent cod spawning aggregations in the area from 2004-2008. During that time, the aggregation focal point was approximately 500 m to the north of the gravel bar. In 2010 and 2011 the aggregation was highly concentrated on the gravel bar (Figure 2, 3). Work should be planned to avoid April through July in the vicinity of cod spawning habitat. Further, we request a small route change to physically avoid the gravel bar and the 2004-2008 spawning focal point to prevent any permanent topography impacts.

The SEIR provided a good overview of the surveys that have been conducted for project planning. Side-scan and bathymetry was done in 2019, and we recommend a follow-up survey post-construction with both side-scan and bathymetry to facilitate pre and post-impact comparisons.

Finally, the permanent habitat conversion due to armoring expected for the area in Swampscott will impact mapped shellfish habitat. The SEIR indicates that mitigation for this loss will be covered under the payment to the MA Ocean Plan Trust. We recommend that mitigation paid as part of the Ocean Development Fee into the MA Ocean Pan Trust for this impact be specifically marked for shellfish enhancement, mapping, or research projects.

Thank you for considering our comments and concerns in the project planning and permitting going forward. If you have any questions about our review, please contact Tay Evans at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Daniel J. McKiernan Director DM/te/sd

References:

Dean, M.J, W.S. Hoffman, and M.P. Armstrong. 2012. Disruption of an Atlantic cod spawning aggregation resulting from the opening of a directed gillnet fishery. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 32: 124-134.

Dean, M. J., W. S. Hoffman, D. R. Zemeckis, and M. P. Armstrong. 2014. Fine-scale diel and gender-based patterns in behaviour of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) on a spawning ground in the Western Gulf of Maine. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 71:1474-1489.

cc.

B. Vucson, DFG K. Ford, DMF M. Dean, DMF T. Pugh, DMF J. Kennedy, DMF D. Wong, DEP K. Glenn, CZM C. Jacek, ACOE

Saturday Night Ledge

Focal point of cod spawning aggregations 2004-2008 Figure 1. DMF notes added “Gravel Bar” from to Amitie route map Dean et al. 2012; showing cod habitat Dean et al. 2014 “Gravel Bar” from Dean et al., 2012, Dean et al., 2014

Figure 2. DMF notes added on Amitie route map showing acoustic mapping of cod habitat a b

Figure 3. Figures from Dean et al 2014, (a) map of acoustic receiver array overlayed onto bathymetry indicating the gravel bar, and (b) probability contours and average position of acoustically tagged cod showing focus on the gravel bar area.

October 23, 2020

Kathleen A. Theohardies, Secretary Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Attention: MEPA Office Alex Strysky, EEA No. 16056 100 Cambridge St. Boston, Massachusetts 02114

Project Name: Amitié Fiber Optic Submarine Cable System Proponent: Edge Cable Holdings USA, LLC Location: 91 Commercial Street, Lynnway Roundabout, MA State Waters & Atlantic Ocean Project Description: Subsea fiber optic cable installation from the United Kingdom and France to Lynn, Massachusetts Document Reviewed: Single Environmental Impact Report EEA File Number: 16056 NHESP Tracking No.: 19-38451

Dear Secretary Theoharides,

The Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program of the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife (the Division) reviewed the Single Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the for the proposed Amitié Fiber Optic Submarine Cable installation from the U.K. and France with onshore landing in Lynn, MA (the Project) and would like to offer the following comments.

As indicated in the Massachusetts Natural Heritage Atlas (14th Edition), portions of the proposed Project will occur within Priority and Estimated Habitat for state-listed species. The proposed Amitié Fiber Optic Submarine Cable onshore landing located in Lynn, MA will occur within habitat for the state Threatened, Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus). This species and its habitats are protected pursuant to the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (M.G.L c. 131A) and its implementing regulations (MESA, 321 CMR 10.00) as well as the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act and its implementing regulations (WPA, 310 CMR 10.37, 10.58(4)(b) and 10.59).

This Project will require a direct filing with the Division for compliance with the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA 321 CMR 10.00). As noted in the SEIR, the Proponent intends to submit a streamlined Notice of Intent and MESA application for this Project which will then be reviewed by the Division pursuant to the rare species provisions of the WPA and for compliance with the MESA.

The Preferred Alternative identified within the SEIR details the onshore landing for the subsea cable will utilize Horizontal Directional Drill (HDD) to install a new conduit from offshore, under Lynn Beach and Lynn Shore Drive, to Lynn Rotary. The SEIR details the installation of new HDD conduit and cable necessities the use of a guywire buried underneath Lynn Beach. Provided all aspects of the HDD and cable installation are conducted prior March 31 or after September 1, then the project will avoid any potential

direct or indirect impacts to state-listed species and their habitats during the breeding season (April 1 – August 31). The Proponent identifies in the SEIR that any activity associated with the HDD, guywire and cable installation anticipated to occur during the breeding season (April 1 – August 31) would require a Division-approved monitoring and protection plan to prevent a prohibited Take of state-listed species and their habitats.

Based on the information contained within the SEIR and in advance of a formal filing pursuant to the MESA, the Division anticipates that state-listed species concerns can be addressed during the MESA review process and will likely include measures to prevent disturbance to state-listed listed species and their habitat during the breeding period (April 1 – August 31).

As our MESA review is not complete, no alteration to the soil, surface, or vegetation and no work associated with the proposed project shall occur on the property until the Division has made a final determination.

If you have any questions about this letter, please contact Amy Hoenig, Endangered Species Review Biologist, at (508) 389-6364 or [email protected]. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project.

Sincerely,

Everose Schlüter, Ph.D. Assistant Director cc: Christina Hoffman, ERM Lynn Board of Selectmen Lynn Conservation Commission Lynn Planning Department DEP Northeast Regional Office, MEPA