DOCSLIB.ORG

Vineyard Wind Connector 2: Analysis to Support Petition Before the Energy Facilities Siting Board

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Vineyard Wind Connector 2: Analysis to Support Petition Before the Energy Facilities Siting Board Docket #EFSB 20-01 Volume I: Text May 28, 2020 Submitted to Prepared by Energy Facilities Siting Board Epsilon Associates, Inc. One South Station 3 Mill & Main Place, Suite 250 Boston, Massachusetts 02114 Maynard, Massachusetts 01754 Submitted by In Association with Vineyard Wind LLC Foley Hoag LLP 700 Pleasant Street, Suite 510 Stantec, Inc. New Bedford, Massachusetts 02740 Gradient Geo SubSea LLC ANALYSIS TO SUPPORT PETITION BEFORE THE ENERGY FACILITIES SITING BOARD DOCKET #EFSB 20-01 Vineyard Wind Connector 2 VOLUME I: TEXT Submitted to: ENERGY FACILITIES SITING BOARD One South Station Boston, MA 02114 Submitted by: VINEYARD WIND LLC 700 Pleasant Street, Suite 510 New Bedford, MA 02740 Prepared by: EPSILON ASSOCIATES, INC. In Association with: 3 Mill & Main Place, Suite 250 Maynard, MA 01754 Foley Hoag LLP Stantec, Inc. Gradient Geo SubSea LLC May 28, 2020 Table of Contents Table of Contents VOLUME I 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW AND DESCRIPTION 1-1 1.1 Introduction/Siting Board Jurisdiction 1-2 1.2 Offshore Wind, Background 1-4 1.2.1 Background on Offshore Wind Lease Areas 1-7 1.2.2 Connecticut Energy Legislation (An Act Concerning the Procurement of Energy Derived from Offshore Wind) 1-8 1.2.3 Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan 1-9 1.3 Project Overview 1-10 1.3.1 Offshore Wind Array (Federal Waters, for background) 1-10 1.3.2 Offshore Transmission Cables 1-12 1.3.3 Onshore Export Cables 1-14 1.3.4 Substation 1-16 1.3.4.1 Containment System 1-18 1.3.4.2 Stormwater Management 1-19 1.3.4.3 Lighting 1-20 1.3.5 Expansion of West Barnstable Substation 1-20 1.4 Existing Infrastructure in Routing Area 1-21 1.4.1 Transmission Infrastructure 1-21 1.4.2 Marine Infrastructure 1-22 1.5 Summary of Routing 1-22 1.5.1 Onshore Transmission Routes (Landfall Site to Proposed Substation) 1-22 1.5.1.1 Preferred Route (Shootflying Hill Road) 1-22 1.5.1.1.1 Variant 1 – Covell’s Beach Landfall Site 1-23 1.5.1.1.2 Variant 2 – South Main Street 1-24 1.5.1.1.3 Variant 3 – Northern Substation Access 1-24 1.5.1.2 Noticed Alternative (Oak Street Route) 1-25 1.5.1.2.1 Variant 1 – Covell’s Beach Landfall Site 1-25 1.5.1.2.2 Variant 2 – ROW #345 1-26 1.5.1.3 Intersection of Preferred Route and Noticed Alternative 1-26 1.5.1.4 Centerville River Crossing 1-27 1.5.1.4.1 Bridge Superstructure Replacement 1-28 1.5.1.4.2 Microtunnel 1-29 1.5.1.4.3 Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) 1-30 1.5.1.4.4 Direct Pipe 1-31 1.5.1.4.5 Adjacent Utility Bridge 1-31 5526/Vineyard Wind Connector 2 i Table of Contents EFSB Petition Epsilon Associates, Inc. Table of Contents (Continued) 1.5.2 Onshore Grid Interconnection Routes (Proposed Substation Site to Interconnection Location) 1-32 1.5.2.1 Preferred Route (ROW #343 to ROW #381) 1-32 1.5.2.1.1 Variant 1 – Service Road to ROW #381 1-33 1.5.2.1.2 Variant 2 – ROW #343 to ROW #342 1-34 1.5.2.1.3 Variant 3 – Service Road to ROW #342 1-35 1.5.2.1.4 Route 6 Trenchless Crossing 1-35 1.5.2.2 Noticed Alternative (In-Roadway layout) 1-37 1.5.3 Offshore Routing 1-37 1.6 Project Benefits 1-38 1.6.1 Energy Reliability Benefits 1-40 1.6.2 Economic Benefits 1-41 1.6.3 Environmental Benefits 1-45 1.7 Port Facilities 1-46 1.8 Construction Overview 1-47 1.9 Schedule 1-48 1.10 Agency and Community Outreach 1-49 1.10.1 Agency Meetings and Consultations 1-49 1.10.1.1 Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Board Staff 1-51 1.10.1.2 Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act Office 1-51 1.10.1.3 Massachusetts Ocean Team 1-51 1.10.1.4 Massachusetts Department of Transportation 1-52 1.10.1.5 Municipalities and Tribes 1-52 1.10.2 Stakeholder Coordination 1-52 1.10.3 Abutter Outreach 1-56 1.11 Project Team 1-57 1.11.1 Vineyard Wind 1-57 1.11.2 Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners (CIP) and Copenhagen Offshore Partners (COP) 1-58 1.11.3 Avangrid Renewables 1-58 1.11.4 Vineyard Power 1-59 1.11.5 Epsilon Associates, Inc. (Lead Environmental Consultant) 1-59 1.11.6 Foley Hoag LLP, Counsel 1-60 1.11.7 Stantec, Engineering Design support 1-60 1.11.8 Gradient Corporation 1-61 1.11.9 Geo SubSea 1-61 1.12 Conclusion 1-61 5526/Vineyard Wind Connector 2 ii Table of Contents EFSB Petition Epsilon Associates, Inc. Table of Contents (Continued) 2.0 PROJECT NEED 2-1 2.1 Overview of Connecticut Offshore Wind Legislation 2-2 2.2 Need for Vineyard Wind Connector 2 2-3 2.2.1 Inadequacy of the Existing Transmission System 2-3 2.2.2 Likelihood that new or expanded generation source will be available to contribute to regional energy supply 2-4 2.3 Conclusion 2-7 3.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 3-1 3.1 Project Alternatives 3-1 3.1.1 No-Build and Related Alternatives 3-2 3.1.2 Proposed Vineyard Wind Connector 2 3-2 3.1.3 Transmission Alternatives 3-3 3.1.3.1 Cable Technology Alternatives 3-4 3.1.3.2 Interconnection Locations 3-5 3.1.3.3 Generator Lead Line Approach Compared to Shared or Independent Transmission 3-6 3.2 Conclusion 3-12 4.0 ROUTE SELECTION 4-1 4.1 Overview of Route Selection Process 4-1 4.2 Project Study Area 4-2 4.3 Initial Route Concepts 4-3 4.3.1 Route Concepts Eliminated for Excessive Length 4-3 4.3.2 Potential Interconnection Points 4-4 4.3.2.1 Falmouth Substation 4-4 4.3.2.2 Mashpee Substation 4-4 4.3.2.3 Hatchville Substation 4-5 4.3.2.4 Barnstable Switching Station 4-5 4.3.2.5 West Barnstable Substation 4-5 4.3.2.6 Pine Street Substation 4-6 4.3.2.7 Brayton Point 4-6 4.3.2.8 Conclusion/Summary (Interconnection Points) 4-7 4.3.3 Landfall Sites 4-7 4.3.3.1 Covell’s Beach 4-11 4.3.3.2 Craigville Public Beach 4-11 4.3.3.3 East Bay Boat Ramp 4-12 4.3.3.4 McCarthy’s Landing 4-12 4.3.3.5 Centerville River Bridge 4-12 4.3.3.6 Conclusion on Landfall Sites 4-13 5526/Vineyard Wind Connector 2 iii Table of Contents EFSB Petition Epsilon Associates, Inc. Table of Contents (Continued) 4.3.4 Sites for the Proposed Substation 4-13 4.3.4.1 Clay Hill Parcels, off Oak Street 4-13 4.3.4.2 Eversource Parcel, 661 Oak Street 4-14 4.3.4.3 Previously Developed Commercial Property, 8 Shootflying Hill Road 4-14 4.3.4.4 MassDOT Parcel, 15 Shootflying Hill Road 4-14 4.3.4.5 Conclusion 4-15 4.3.5 Onshore Routing 4-15 4.3.5.1 Routes Evaluated and Eliminated 4-16 4.3.5.2 Onshore Transmission Cable Routes Evaluated and Advanced to Scoring 4-17 4.3.5.2.1 T1: Shootflying Hill Road Route from Landfall to Substation Site 4-17 4.3.5.2.2 T2: Oak Street Route from Landfall to Substation Site 4-18 4.3.5.2.3 Conclusion 4-19 4.3.5.3 Potential Grid Interconnection Routes Advanced to Scoring 4-19 4.3.5.3.1 G1: ROW #343 to ROW #381 4-19 4.3.5.3.2 G2: All In-Road 4-20 4.3.5.3.3 Conclusion 4-21 4.4 Analysis of Candidate Routes for the Onshore Export Cables 4-21 4.4.1 Criteria and Weight Assessment 4-21 4.4.2 Criteria Evaluation Methods 4-26 4.4.3 Description of Scoring Criteria 4-27 4.4.3.1 Developed Environment Criteria 4-27 4.4.3.2 Natural Environment Criteria 4-31 4.5 Comparison of Routes and Selection of Preferred Route and Noticed Alternative 4-33 4.5.1 Transmission Routes (Landfall Site to Proposed Substation Site) 4-34 4.5.2 Grid Interconnection Routes (Substation Site to Interconnection Location) 4-38 4.6 Analysis of Offshore Export Cable Corridor 4-41 4.6.1 Marine Surveys to Identify OECC 4-42 4.6.2 Description of OECC 4-47 4.6.3 Environmental Considerations along OECC 4-50 4.6.3.1 Wetlands 4-50 4.6.3.1.1 Cable Installation Tool 4-53 4.6.3.1.2 Anchoring 4-54 4.6.3.1.3 Cable Protection 4-55 4.6.3.1.4 Sand Wave Dredging 4-57 5526/Vineyard Wind Connector 2 iv Table of Contents EFSB Petition Epsilon Associates, Inc. Table of Contents (Continued) 4.6.3.1.5 Compliance with Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act Regulations 4-58 4.6.3.2 Water Quality and Sediment Dispersion Modeling 4-65 4.6.3.2.1 Sediment Dispersion Modeling 4-66 4.6.3.2.2 Offshore Vessel Refueling and Spill Prevention 4-66 4.6.3.3 Rare Species 4-67 4.6.3.4 SSU Areas 4-67 4.6.3.5 Marine Archaeology 4-68 4.6.3.6 Avian Resources 4-69 4.6.3.7 Fish and Fisheries Resources 4-69 4.6.3.8 Marine Mammals 4-70 4.6.3.9 Conclusion 4-71 4.7 Cost Analysis 4-73 4.8 Reliability Analysis 4-75 4.9 Summary and Conclusion 4-75 5.0 COMPARISON OF ROUTES AND CONSTRUCTION 5-1 5.1 Introduction, Design, Construction Plans 5-1 5.2 Environmental Considerations 5-2 5.2.1 Wetland Resources 5-2 5.2.1.1 Preferred Route (Shootflying Hill Road) 5-2 5.2.1.1.1 Variant 1 – Covell’s Beach Landfall Site 5-5 5.2.1.1.2 Variant 2 – South Main Street 5-5 5.2.1.1.3 Variant 3 – Northern Substation Access 5-6 5.2.1.2 Noticed Alternative Route (Oak Street) 5-6 5.2.1.2.1 Variant 1 – Covell’s Beach Landfall Site 5-6 5.2.1.2.2 Variant 2 – ROW #345 5-7 5.2.1.3 Grid Interconnection Routes (Substation Site to Interconnection Location) 5-7 5.2.1.4 Comparison of Impacts/Mitigation Measures 5-7 5.2.1.5 Compliance with Performance Standards under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (WPA) 5-9 5.2.1.5.1 Barrier Beach 5-11 5.2.1.5.2 Coastal Dune 5-12 5.2.1.5.3 Coastal Beach 5-14 5.2.1.5.4 Riverfront Area 5-14 5.2.1.5.5 Land Under Water/Bordering Vegetated Wetlands 5-18 5.2.1.6 Interests Protected under Barnstable Wetlands Protection Bylaw 5-19 5.2.1.7 Offshore Comparison with Respect to Wetlands 5-21 5526/Vineyard Wind Connector 2 v Table of Contents EFSB Petition Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Recommended publications
  • Energy from the Wind Student Guide

    Energy from the Wind Student Guide

    2019-2020 Energy From the Wind Student Guide INTERMEDIATE Introduction to Wind Wind Average Wind Speed at 80 Meters Altitude Wind is moving air. You cannot see air, but it is all around you. You cannot see the wind, but you know it is there. Faster than 9.5 m/s (faster than 21.3 mph) 7.6 to 9.4 m/s (17 to 21.2 mph) You hear leaves rustling in the trees. You see clouds moving 5.6 to 7.5 m/s (12.5 to 16.9 mph) across the sky. You feel cool breezes on your skin. You witness 0 to 5.5 m/s (0 to 12.4 mph) the destruction caused by strong winds such as tornadoes and hurricanes. Wind has energy. Wind resources can be found across the country. Science and technology are providing more tools to accurately predict when and where the wind will blow. This information is allowing people to use wind on small and large scales. Wind is an increasingly important part of the United States’ energy portfolio. Data: National Renewable Energy Laboratory The Beaufort Scale BEAUFORT SCALE OF WIND SPEED BEAUFORT At the age of 12, Francis Beaufort joined the NUMBER NAME OF WIND LAND CONDITIONS WIND SPEED (MPH) British Royal Navy. For more than twenty years 0 Calm Smoke rises vertically Less than 1 he sailed the oceans and studied the wind, Direction of wind shown by smoke drift which was the main power source for the 1 Light air 1 - 3 Navy’s fleet. In 1805, he created a scale to rate but not by wind vanes Wind felt on face, leaves rustle, ordinary the power of the wind based on observations 2 Light breeze 4 - 7 of common things around him rather than wind vane moved by wind Leaves and small twigs in constant instruments.
  • Jeffrey Grybowski

    Jeffrey Grybowski

    JEFFREY GRYBOWSKI PROFILE Mr. Grybowski is the Chief Executive Officer of Deepwater Wind, where he manages the company’s portfolio of offshore wind and transmission projects. He has been intimately involved in the development of Deepwater Wind’s path-breaking Block Island Wind Farm since its inception in 2008. Mr. Grybowski has been at the forefront of shaping the commercial structures and government policies necessary to support offshore wind in the U.S. He plays a key role in the development of federal and state policies governing the leasing, permitting, and commercialization of offshore wind and transmission projects. Through the advancement of the Block Island Wind Farm, Mr. Grybowski has been a leader in establishing the commercial framework for standing up a new renewable energy industry in the United States. EXPERIENCE Deepwater Wind, LLC, Providence, RI Chief Executive Officer Hinckley, Allen & Snyder, LLP, Providence, RI • Partner, Corporate and Business Law Group • Chair of the Green Law Group Office of the Governor of the State of Rhode Island Chief of Staff, Deputy Chief of Staff, and Policy Director (2003 - 2007) Sullivan & Cromwell, New York, NY Associate, Complex corporate and business law Chambers of Chief Judge Ronald Lagueux, U.S. District Court for the District of RI Judicial Clerk (1998 – 1999) EDUCATION University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Law Juris Doctor with High Honors, 1998 Order of the Coif North Carolina Law Review, Publication Editor Brown University A.B. with Honors in Public Policy, 1993 CHRIS VAN BEEK PROFILE Chris serves as President, where he is responsible for Technology, Operations, Project Management, Construction and Permitting.
  • Position of Respondent Annual Investment Level in the U.S. Renewable Energy Sector

    Position of Respondent Annual Investment Level in the U.S. Renewable Energy Sector

    Position of Respondent Annual Investment Level in the U.S. Renewable Energy Sector Expectations for Renewable Energy Finance in 2021-2024 Energy Expectations for Renewable 33 Financing Vehicles Used for Renewable Energy Developer Survey Position of Respondent Expectations for Renewable Energy Finance in 2021-2024 Energy Expectations for Renewable 34 Total Revenue of U.S. Renewable Energy Business Total Capacity of Company’s Renewable Energy Installations over the Past Three Years Expectations for Renewable Energy Finance in 2021-2024 Energy Expectations for Renewable 35 Renewable Energy Technologies Developed by Each Company Over the Past Three Years Expectations for Renewable Energy Finance in 2021-2024 Energy Expectations for Renewable 36 Authors Maheen Ahmad, Program Manager Lesley Hunter, Vice President of Programs About ACORE The American Council on Renewable Energy is a national nonprofit organization that unites finance, policy and technology to accelerate the transition to a renewable energy economy. For more information, please visit www.acore.org. $1T 2030: The American Renewable Investment Goal On June 19, 2018, ACORE and a coalition of its financial institution members announced the launch of a new campaign that aims to reach $1 trillion in U.S. private sector investment in renewable energy and enabling grid technologies by 2030. Through $1T 2030: The American Renewable Investment Goal, leading energy financiers have now come together in a coordinated effort to accelerate the investment and deployment of renewable power. The campaign leverages the network of ACORE members and supporters, highlighting a combined set of commonsense policy reforms and distinct market drivers that are necessary to reach this ambitious goal.
  • Vineyard Wind Connector: Final Environmental Impact Report

    Vineyard Wind Connector: Final Environmental Impact Report

    Vineyard Wind Connector: Final Environmental Impact Report EEA #15787 December 17, 2018 Submitted to Prepared by Executive Office of Energy and Epsilon Associates, Inc. Environmental Affairs 3 Mill & Main Place, Suite 250 MEPA Office Maynard, Massachusetts 01754 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, Massachusetts 02114 Submitted by In Association with Vineyard Wind LLC Foley Hoag LLP 700 Pleasant Street, Suite 510 Stantec, Inc. New Bedford, Massachusetts 02740 Geo SubSea LLC December 17, 2018 Secretary Matthew A. Beaton Attn: MEPA Office Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 Subject: Vineyard Wind Connector (EEA #15787) Final Environmental Impact Report Dear Secretary Beaton: On behalf of Vineyard Wind LLC (the Company, or Proponent), I am pleased to submit this Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Vineyard Wind Connector1. A year ago, we submitted the Environmental Notification Form (ENF) for this groundbreaking project. We are most appreciative of the concerted effort made by the entire EEA team to provide a constructive review, and to do so on an ambitious schedule. As we enter the final step of the MEPA review process, Vineyard Wind is pleased with the refinements that have been made to Project, many of which reflect input from your resource agencies as well as the Town of Barnstable. We look forward to continuing to work with the EEA team to bring the MEPA process to a productive conclusion, thus completing a central component of the public review of the Project. The balance of this letter provides an update on Project milestones, an overview of the refinements and improvements made since the submittal of the SDEIR in late August, and an update on the BOEM review process.
  • U.S. Offshore Wind Power Economic Impact Assessment

    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 ........................................................................................................................................................................................................
  • Field Observations During Wind Turbine Foundation Installation at the Block Island Wind Farm, Rhode Island

    Field Observations During Wind Turbine Foundation Installation at the Block Island Wind Farm, Rhode Island

    OCS Study BOEM 2018-029 Field Observations During Wind Turbine Foundation Installation at the Block Island Wind Farm, Rhode Island Appendix A: Field Plan US Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Office of Renewable Energy Programs OCS Study BOEM 2018-029 Field Observations During Wind Turbine Foundation Installation at the Block Island Wind Farm, Rhode Island Appendix A: Field Plan May 2018 Authors (in alphabetical order): Jennifer L. Amaral, Robin Beard, R.J. Barham, A.G. Collett, James Elliot, Adam S. Frankel, Dennis Gallien, Carl Hager, Anwar A. Khan, Ying-Tsong Lin, Timothy Mason, James H. Miller, Arthur E. Newhall, Gopu R. Potty, Kevin Smith, and Kathleen J. Vigness-Raposa Prepared under BOEM Award Contract No. M15PC00002, Task Order No. M16PD00031 By HDR 9781 S Meridian Boulevard, Suite 400 Englewood, CO 80112 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Office of Renewable Energy Programs Deepwater Block Island Wind Farm Project Field Data Collection Plan Contract No. M15PC00002, Task Order No. M15PD00016 Prepared for: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Office of Renewable Energy Programs Sterling, VA 20166 Prepared by: HDR Environmental, Operations, and Construction, Inc. 2600 Park Tower Drive, Suite 100 Vienna, VA 22180 June 2015 This page is intentionally blank Deepwater Block Island Wind Farm Project Field Data Collection Plan Contract No. M15PC00002, Task Order No. M15PD00016 Prepared for: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Office of Renewable Energy Programs Sterling, VA 20166 Prepared by: HDR Environmental, Operations, and Construction, Inc. 2600 Park Tower Drive, Suite 100 Vienna, VA 22180 June 2015 This page is intentionally blank Contract No.
  • Effects of the Block Island Wind Farm on Coastal Resources LESSONS LEARNED

    Effects of the Block Island Wind Farm on Coastal Resources LESSONS LEARNED

    SPECIAL ISSUE ON UNDERSTANDING THE EFFECTS OF OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON FISHERIES Effects of the Block Island Wind Farm on Coastal Resources LESSONS LEARNED By Drew A. Carey, Dara H. Wilber, Lorraine B. Read, Marisa L. Guarinello, Matthew Griffin, and Steven Sabo 70 Oceanography | Vol.33, No.4 ABSTRACT. The Block Island Wind Farm, the first offshore wind farm in the United ational users, adaptive monitoring based States, attracted intense interest and speculation about the effects of construction and on data and stakeholder feedback, and operation on valuable coastal resources. Four studies designed to address the ques- cooperative research with commercial tions raised were conducted over seven years as a requirement of the lease agreement fishermen. Sampling was based on meth- between the State of Rhode Island and the developer, Deepwater Wind Block Island. ods consistent with regional surveys The objectives of the studies were to separate the effects of construction and operation (e.g., ASMFC, 2015; Bonzek et al., 2017) on hard bottom habitats, demersal fish, lobster and crabs, and recreational boating from and included data on multiple metrics regional changes in conditions. Study elements included: early engagement with stake- to evaluate fish and fisheries resources. holders (fishermen and boaters), adaptive monitoring based on data and stakeholder Statistical considerations included strat- feedback, cooperative research with commercial fishermen, use of methods consistent ified random sampling within a before- with regional surveys, stratified random sampling within a before-after-control-impact after- control- impact (BACI) design, (BACI) design, power analysis (when possible) to determine sample size, and multiple using customized linear contrasts metrics to evaluate fish and fisheries resources.
  • DRI # 688 Vineyard Wind Transmission Cable MVC Staff Report – 2019‐02‐21 1

    DRI # 688 Vineyard Wind Transmission Cable MVC Staff Report – 2019‐02‐21 1

    BOX 1447, OAK BLUFFS, MASSACHUSETTS, 02557, 508‐693‐3453, FAX 508‐693‐7894 [email protected] WWW.MVCOMMISSION.ORG Martha's Vineyard Commission DRI # 688 Vineyard Wind Transmission Cable MVC Staff Report – 2019‐02‐21 1. DESCRIPTION 1.1 Applicant: Vineyard Wind, LLC; Richard Andrade, Eric Peckar (Vineyard Power Cooperative); Kate McEneaney (Epsilon Associates); Rachel Pachter and Nate Mayo (Vineyard Wind). 1.2 Project Location: The proposed cables would run more or less north‐south for 12.4 or 13.7 miles below Edgartown waters approximately 1.2 miles offshore. 1.3 Proposal: The proposal is to install two 220‐kW export cables underneath the sea floor in two trenches that will pass approximately 1.2 miles offshore of Edgartown for either 12.4 or 13.7 miles (through the Edgartown waters stretch) using hydro‐plow or mechanical plow installation methods. Plans show two possible routes but only one is proposed to be installed. 1.4 Zoning: The project is offshore where there is no zoning. The area where the Wind Farm is proposed was designated a Wind Lease Area by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). 1.5 Local Permits: The project will be reviewed locally by the Edg. Conservation Commission and the MVC. The Applicant has said they will conduct conversations with the Wampanoag Tribe. Other permits and reviews: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is being conducted by the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was released on December 7, 2018, triggering a 45‐day public and agency review period (https://www.boem.gov/Vineyard‐Wind/) and is also at the Edgartown and Chilmark Public Libraries.
  • Appendix H Public Comments and Responses to DEIS

    Appendix H Public Comments and Responses to DEIS

    APPENDIX H PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT According to NEPA, federal agencies are required to identify and formally respond to all substantive public comments. A standardized content analysis process was conducted to analyze the public comments on the Draft EIS. Each comment letter and email message received was read, analyzed and considered by BLM, Reclamation, and Western to ensure that all substantive comments were identified. In performing this analysis, the BLM, Reclamation, and Western relied on the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations to determine what constituted a substantive comment. A substantive comment does one or more of the following: Questions, with a reasonable basis, the accuracy of the information and/or analysis in the EIS. Questions, with a reasonable basis, the adequacy of the information and/or analysis in the EIS. Presents reasonable alternatives other than those presented in the Draft EIS that meet the purpose and need of the proposed action and addresses significant issues. Questions, with a reasonable basis, the merits of an alternative or alternatives. Causes changes in or revisions to the proposed action. Questions, with a reasonable basis, the adequacy of the planning process itself. Thirty-seven individual comment letters and/or emails were submitted to the BLM during the 45-day comment period. Within the 37 comment letters, 322 comments were identified and addressed. Comments on the Draft EIS that failed to meet the above description were considered non-substantive because they expressed personal opinions or preferences that were not relevant to the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft EIS, or represented commentary regarding resource management unrelated to the Draft EIS.
  • U.S. Offshore Wind Market Report & Insights 2020

    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.
  • Area Wide Plan

    Area Wide Plan

    nye County esmeralda County WhIte PIne County Area Wide Plan Inyo County lInColn County Coalition Assessment Grant funded through the US Environmental Protection Agency [This page intentionally left blank.] Table of Contents Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................................... i Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... 1 Acronyms ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 1 Coalition ............................................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Description/Overview ................................................................................................................... 5 1.1.1 History ................................................................................................................................... 5 1.1.2 Demographics ....................................................................................................................... 6 1.2 Renewable Energy Factors ............................................................................................................ 8 1.2.1 Clean Energy Resources and Technologies .......................................................................... 9 1.2.2 Energy
  • Vineyard Wind Connector 2

    Vineyard Wind Connector 2

    The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 Charles D. Baker GOVERNOR Karyn E. Polito LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR Tel: (617) 626-1000 Kathleen A. Theoharides Fax: (617) 626-1181 SECRETARY http://www.mass.gov/eea June 25, 2021 CERTIFICATE OF THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PROJECT NAME : Vineyard Wind Connector 2 PROJECT MUNICIPALITY : Barnstable, Edgartown, Mashpee and Nantucket PROJECT WATERSHED : Cape and Islands EEA NUMBER : 16231 PROJECT PROPONENT : Vineyard Wind LLC DATE NOTICED IN MONITOR : April 7, 2021 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 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and hereby determine that it adequately and properly complies with MEPA and its implementing regulations. The Proponent may prepare and submit for review a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). The project is a component of an 800-megawatt (MW) wind energy generating facility known as Park City Wind (PCW) to be constructed approximately 19 miles south of Martha’s Vineyard. The generating facility will occupy a section of the Proponent’s 261-square mile (166,866 acres) Lease Area designated as OCS-A 0501 that was awarded to the Proponent through a competitive lease sale conducted by the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). The Proponent plans to construct three wind generating facilities in the OCS-A 0501 lease area. The first, known as Vineyard Wind, is located in the northern part of the lease area; components of the transmission infrastructure associated with the Vineyard Wind project, known as the Vineyard Wind Connector 1 (VWC1) completed MEPA review in 2019 (EEA #15787).