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. We are working hard to resolve an unexpected issue, specifically a request by Rhode Island commercial fishermen for a 45-degree change to the orientation of the offshore turbine rows. We do, however, remain on track to have all necessary approvals in hand by the summer of 2019. This will allow us to begin critical path onshore construction late in 2019, as planned.
1 The Vineyard Wind Connector includes the Massachusetts-jurisdictional elements of the 800 MW Vineyard Wind Project. The Massachusetts elements include most of the offshore export cables, the onshore underground cables, the proposed onshore substation, and the grid interconnection.
Project Milestones since the SDEIR
Progress on DPU Review of the Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs): As was described in the SDEIR, Executed Power Purchase Agreements2 were filed with the Department of Public Utilities (DPU) on July 31, 2018. On August 1, 2018, the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (DOER) filed a letter with DPU. DOER stated that “the Vineyard Wind offshore generation long term contracts provide a highly cost-effective source of clean energy generation for Massachusetts customers.” The letter continued to state that total net benefits to Massachusetts ratepayers over the term of the contract would be approximately $1.4 billion. Finally, the DOER noted that the 800 MW Vineyard Wind Project provides a “unique opportunity to maximize the value of the federal investment tax credit (“ITC”) as the value of the credit is scheduled to be gradually reduced and will not be available for projects that start construction after December 31, 2019.”
The Power Purchase Agreements negotiated between Vineyard Wind and the Massachusetts electric distribution companies3 are currently under review by DPU. DPU issued the procedural notice and ground rules on September 6, 2018 and the briefing is due to be completed February 13, 2019; the review process is expected to conclude in March 2019.
Host Community Agreement with the Town of Barnstable: On October 3, 2018, the Company and the Town of Barnstable signed a Host Community Agreement (HCA) that reflects a shared belief that the Project can benefit the Town of Barnstable and that potential impacts to the Town of Barnstable can and will be minimized and/or appropriately mitigated. The HCA reflects significant community support for the Project, for the Landfall Site at the Town-owned Covell’s Beach parking lot, and for ongoing cooperation between the Company and the Town of Barnstable. This cooperation was reinforced on October 18, 2018, when the Barnstable Town Council voted unanimously to grant Vineyard Wind an easement across Covell’s Beach and the adjacent parking lot.
Switch to Covell’s/Barnstable route: Based in significant part on the signing of the HCA, the Company now considers the Covell’s Beach route in Barnstable to be the preferred cable routing option. Use of the Covell’s Beach landfall reduces the length of the total offshore cable route by approximately 4.5 miles and eliminates the need to cross the existing Nantucket Cable. Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) staged from the Covell’s Beach parking lot will allow the Project to avoid any impacts to the beach and intertidal zone. The underground duct bank from the Landfall Site to the proposed substation is entirely in roadway layouts and about 0.7 miles shorter than the New Hampshire Avenue route. EFSB, MEPA, and other agencies were advised of this change in the Company’s preference as quickly as possible following the signing of the HCA.
2 Power Purchase Agreements between Vineyard Wind and NSTAR Electric Company, Massachusetts Electric Company and Nantucket Electric Company, and Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company. 3 NSTAR Electric Company (d/b/a Eversource Energy), Massachusetts Electric Company and Nantucket Electric Company (d/b/a National Grid), and Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company (d/b/a Unitil).
Page 2 of 6 Completion of EFSB evidentiary hearings: Following an extensive discovery process, nine days of EFSB evidentiary hearings were held in October, with hearings finishing ahead of schedule on October 26. Legal briefs were submitted on November 28, followed by reply briefs on December 12. The EFSB staff expects to issue its Tentative Decision in March 2019, with a Final Decision anticipated in early April 2019.
New Bedford Marine Commerce Terminal lease signed: On October 22, 2018, Vineyard Wind signed an 18-month, $9 million lease for use of the 26-acre New Bedford Marine Commerce Terminal. Operated by the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (MassCEC), the New Bedford Terminal was purpose-built to support construction of large-scale offshore wind projects. The Company is looking forward to fully utilizing the New Bedford Terminal and to doing business with the broad maritime support infrastructure in New Bedford harbor.
MHI Vestas 9.5 MW Wind Turbine Selected: On November 27, 2018, Vineyard Wind announced that MHI Vestas Offshore Wind had been selected as the preferred supplier for the Project. MHI Vestas will supply the V164 9.5 MW offshore wind turbine for the Project, which is the largest wind turbine generator currently available and is extremely well suited to conditions along the eastern seaboard. Using this 9.5-MW wind turbine also adds important flexibility in the wind array layout and reduces the total area of the turbine array, further minimizing any impacts to commercial fishermen, especially those working out of Massachusetts and Rhode Island ports.
BOEM Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS): For the past year, the entire Vineyard Wind Project, including the offshore wind turbine generators, the inter array cables, the electrical service platforms, and offshore cables in federal waters has been undergoing a comprehensive review by the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Offshore Energy Management (BOEM) with the assistance of a number of federal agencies (e.g., USCG, Army Corps, US EPA, NMFS) as well as cooperating state agencies (e.g., MCZM, RI CRMC, RIDEM). Your office and a number of Massachusetts resource agencies provided detailed scoping comments early in the DEIS process.
The DEIS, prepared by BOEM and independent third-party consultants to BOEM, was released on November 30, 2018. The purpose of the DEIS is to help BOEM determine whether to approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove the Construction and Operations Plan (COP) submitted by Vineyard Wind. Based on our review of the DEIS to date, we are pleased to find the review largely as anticipated, with no significant unexpected findings of project impacts identified. A one-page Company-prepared synopsis of key findings of the DEIS is attached to this letter. BOEM issued a Notice of Availability (NOA) in the Federal Register on December 7, 2018, opening a 45-day public comment period which is expected to close on January 21, 2019. In January 2019, BOEM will conduct public meetings in New Bedford, Barnstable, Nantucket, Martha’s Vineyard, and Rhode Island. Input received at the public meetings, together with written comment letters, will be used to inform preparation of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). The FEIS is expected to be completed in late April 2019 with the Record of Decision (ROD) anticipated in mid-July 2019.
Page 3 of 6 Ongoing Project Refinements
As the environmental review progresses, the Company’s engineering team continues to analyze the 2018 marine survey data and is advancing the design and cable routing process. This work includes discussions with, and receipt of bids from, submarine cable providers and installation contractors. This additional information has been used to refine the cable installation approach and associated impact calculations presented in the FEIR. The specifics include:
More Capable Cable Installation Tool: As discussions with prospective cable installation contractors progress, the Company is able to consider cable installation tools with greater achievable burial depths (i.e., which could be 2.5 m [8 feet] or more), the use of which could further minimize dredging.
Generally Reduced Sand Wave Dredging Volumes: The use of a more capable cable installation tool coupled with additional analysis of the 2018 survey data have allowed the Company to refine its estimates for dredge volume in sand wave areas.
Reduced Area of Temporary Anchoring Impact: As discussions with prospective cable installation contractors progress, the estimated anchoring footprint has been reduced. Given the possibility of using a cable installation tool with a greater achievable burial depth, it is possible that anchoring will be needed along the entire cable route to achieve the necessary pulling force. However, the Company’s engineers have increased the spacing of each anchor set (from 200 m to 400 m) have reduced the number of anchoring points from 8 to 5 (four position anchors, one kedge or pulling anchor). In combination, these changes will reduce the area of temporary anchor impacts from 3.7 acres to approximately 2.1 – 2.3 acres (state waters only).
Reduced Area of Offshore Cable Protection/Armoring: It remains the Company’s clear priority to bury the offshore export cables to sufficient depths for the entire length of the cable, thus reducing or even eliminating the need for cable protection. However, at this point in the design process, the Company is maintaining a conservative assumption that up to 10% of the cables may require protection. At the same time, however, the Company’s engineers have been able to reduce the width of any cable protection from 9 m (~30 feet) to 3 m (~10 feet). This refinement allows the extent of armoring to be reduced from 27 acres to 9 acres (state waters only).
FEIR Approach
The FEIR has been carefully prepared in accordance with your October 12, 2018 Certificate on the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report. During the past two months, Company representatives have had productive meetings with MassDEP, CZM, and NHESP to provide updates on the Project, discuss their comments on the SDEIR, and to review our planned approach for submittal of permit applications. A working meeting with DMF and CZM scientists was held on December 4 for the purpose of conducting a detailed review of 2018 marine survey data. The entire data set will be provided in electronic form to both DMF and CZM. We have also had two recent meetings with CZM and other EEA representatives to discuss and refine our proposal with respect to the Ocean Development Mitigation fee. Lastly, our outreach to the fishing community continues to
Page 4 of 6 be robust. For example, Vineyard Wind recently sponsored a series of workshops held by the UMass Dartmouth School for Marine Science and Technology (SMAST), at which fishermen provided input into the design of the pre- and post-construction fisheries studies that SMAST will be conducting on the project.
Please notice the FEIR in the Environmental Monitor to be published on December 26, 2018. The 30- day Public Comment period will extend through January 25, 2019, and the Secretary’s Certificate will issue on February 1, 2019. As suggested by the MEPA Director, we will provide electronic access to the FEIR immediately upon filing and will expedite delivery of the hard copies; this will essentially add a week to the public review period. Our team is, of course, available to meet with your staff at any time during the FEIR review process.
As I hope this letter coveys, the Vineyard Wind team is working with determination and enthusiasm to ensure that the Project can be fully permitted by the Summer of 2019, thus supporting our planned start of onshore construction in late 2019. This will allow clean offshore wind energy to begin to flow to the grid by mid-2021, with full Project operations by early 2022. Once in full operation, Vineyard Wind will provide 800 MW of clean renewable energy while resulting in an estimated 1,680,000 tons- per-year of CO2 emissions reductions across New England.
We remain committed to continuing to work with Massachusetts, BOEM, and the cooperating agencies, tribal, regional, and local officials, the New Bedford Marine Commerce Terminal, the commercial fishing industry in Massachusetts and neighboring states, and other stakeholders to maximize the benefits of this unique, timely, and important opportunity to establish Massachusetts as the center for the offshore wind industry in the United States.
Sincerely,
Erich Stephens, Chief Development Officer Vineyard Wind, LLC
Enclosures
cc: Circulation List (Attachment B) Rachel Pachter, Vineyard Wind, VP Permitting Affairs Holly Carlson Johnston, Epsilon Associates, Project Manager
Page 5 of 6 Vineyard Wind, Synopsis of Conclusions of the December 10, 2018 BOEM-prepared DEIS
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) recently completed a comprehensive review of the Project and potential impacts in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (available at https://www.boem.gov/Vineyard-Wind/). The DEIS examined the entire Vineyard Wind Project, the elements in federal waters, as well as the Project elements in State waters and on land.
BOEM’s analysis is consistent with Vineyard Wind’s assessment of impacts and indicates that many potential impacts are negligible or minor, with potentially moderate impacts to commercial fisheries. BOEM’s assessment of impacts for relevant resource areas, assuming appropriate mitigation is implemented, is summarized below:
• Air Quality – The Project provides a net benefit over its operating life, with minor temporary impacts from construction vessel and equipment emissions. • Water Quality – Minor temporary impacts to offshore water quality from sediment suspension and vessel discharges, but negligible over the long-term. Potential impacts to onshore water quality (surface and groundwater) should be negligible due to the implementation of BMPs during construction and operations. • Birds – Negligible to minor short-term impacts from onshore construction. Negligible to minor long-term impacts from offshore operations. • Coastal Habitats – Overall negligible impacts on coastal habitats, with minor to moderate short-term impacts from vessel anchoring, dredging and cable installation. • Benthic Resources – Minor short-term and long-term impacts, possible long-term moderate beneficial effect of scour protection and cable protection. • Navigation/Vessel Traffic – Minor to moderate short-term impacts from Project vessel traffic; minor to moderate long-term impacts from changes in navigation routes, delays in ports, and degraded communication and radar signals. • Finfish, Invertebrates, and Essential Fish Habitat - Minor impacts from turbidity, sedimentation, direct mortality, installation noise, operational noise and electromagnetic frequencies; moderate impacts from temporary habitat disturbance and permanent habitat conversion; moderate beneficial long-term reef effect from piles and scour protection. • Commercial Fisheries and For-Hire Recreational Fishing - Minor short-term effects of increased vessel traffic; minor long-term effects on fishing trip distances and routes; moderate short-term effects from areas of temporarily restricted access; moderate long-term impacts on target populations or locations, loss or damage of gear, and the cumulative impact of other offshore developments. Overall, with mitigation, BOEM expects the proposed- Project activities (including construction, installation, and operations) would have a minor to moderate effect on commercial fisheries and for-hire recreational fishing.
Page 6 of 6 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
EEA #15787
Vineyard Wind Connector
Submitted to:
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS MEPA Office 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 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. Geo SubSea LLC
December 17, 2018 Table of Contents
Table of Contents
1.0 GENERAL AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1-1 1.1 Project Refinements 1-3 1.2 Project Benefits 1-7 1.2.1 Energy Reliability Benefits 1-9 1.2.2 Economic Benefits 1-10 1.2.2.1 Offshore Wind Industry Accelerator Fund ($10 million) 1-15 1.2.2.2 Windward Workforce ($2 million) 1-15 1.2.2.3 Wind and Whales Fund ($3 million) 1-17 1.2.3 Environmental Benefits 1-18 1.3 Permitting 1-19 1.4 Article 97 1-23 1.5 Project Schedule and Construction Sequencing 1-26
2.0 WETLANDS AND WATERWAYS 2-1 2.1 Refined Preliminary Cable Alignments within the Offshore Export Cable Corridor 2-1 2.1.1 Hard and Complex Bottom 2-3 2.1.2 Eelgrass 2-6 2.1.3 Consistency with Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan 2-8 2.1.3.1 Special, Sensitive, or Unique Estuarine and Marine Life and Habitats 2-9 2.1.3.2 Marine Water-Dependent Uses (Commercial and Recreational Fishing, Navigation) 2-13 2.1.3.3 Ocean Development Mitigation Fee 2-17 2.2 Revised Impact Calculations 2-24 2.2.1 Dredging 2-29 2.2.2 Anchoring 2-30 2.2.3 Cable Protection 2-31 2.2.4 Onshore Wetland Resources 2-32 2.3 Lewis Bay 2-33 2.3.1 Shellfish 2-33 2.3.2 Sediment Dispersion Modeling 2-35 2.3.3 Boat Ramp 2-39 2.4 Monitoring Programs 2-40 2.4.1 Construction-Period Monitoring 2-40 2.4.2 Post-Installation Surveys 2-40
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector i Table of Contents Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Table of Contents (Continued)
2.5 Minimizing Construction-Period Impacts 2-41 2.5.1 Designated Transit Routes for Construction Vessels 2-44
3.0 FISHERIES RESOURCES 3-1 3.1 Commercial and Recreational Fisheries 3-1 3.1.1 Overview of Impacts to Fisheries 3-1 3.1.2 Affected Fisheries Environment 3-3 3.1.2.1 NOAA – Vessel Trip Reports 3-4 3.1.2.2 Massachusetts Department of Marine Fisheries - Vessel Trip Reports 3-4 3.1.2.3 Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan 3-4 3.1.2.4 Data Visualization Products 3-4 3.1.2.5 Stakeholder Engagement 3-5 3.1.2.6 Third-Party Studies 3-6 3.1.2.7 Shellfish Suitability Habitat 3-6 3.1.3 Fisheries Impacts in State Waters 3-7 3.2 Transit Lanes, Transit Corridors, and Notices to Fishermen 3-9 3.2.1 Notices to and Communications with Fishermen 3-9 3.2.2 Construction-Related Transit Routes 3-9 3.2.3 Operations Phase Transit Lanes in Wind Energy Area and Lease Area 3-9 3.3 Pre- and Post-Construction Fisheries Monitoring Plan 3-10 3.3.1 Fisheries Impacts Assessment Protocol 3-10 3.3.2 Lobster Settlement Study 3-11 3.3.3 Studies Using Existing Data 3-11 3.4 Update on Time-of-Year Restrictions 3-11 3.5 Mitigation 3-13
4.0 RARE SPECIES, WILDLIFE, AND MARINE RESOURCES 4-1 4.1 North Atlantic Right Whale and other Marine Mammals 4-1 4.2 Avian Species 4-3 4.2.1 Potential Impacts from Project-related Vessel Traffic during Construction 4-5 4.2.2 Potential Impacts from Temporary Increases in Suspended Sediment 4-6 4.3 NHESP Consultation 4-7
5.0 PROPOSED SECTION 61 FINDINGS AND MITIGATION SUMMARY 5-1 5.1 Proposed Section 61 Findings 5-1 5.1.1 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 5-2 5.1.2 Massachusetts Department of Transportation 5-3 5.2 Table of Mitigation Commitments 5-4
6.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 6-1
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector ii Table of Contents Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. List of Attachments
ATTACHMENT A FIGURES ATTACHMENT B CIRCULATION LIST ATTACHMENT C BARNSTABLE HOST COMMUNITY AGREEMENT (on CD) ATTACHMENT D UPDATED OFFSHORE CORRIDOR MAP SET ATTACHMENT E LEWIS BAY SEDIMENT DISPERSION MODELING REPORT (on CD) ATTACHMENT F BENTHIC HABITAT MONITORING PLAN (on CD) ATTACHMENT G REVISED COVELL’S BEACH ENGINEERING PLANS ATTACHMENT H COMMENT LETTERS SUBMITTED BY INDIVIDUALS (on CD) ATTACHMENT I MESA CHECKLIST (on CD) ATTACHMENT J SEDIMENT DISPERSION TIME SERIES (on CD) ATTACHMENT K BARNSTABLE VOTES AND COVELL’S BEACH EASEMENT (on CD)
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Project Overview, USGS Locus Figure 1-2 Onshore Routing and Variants Figure 1-3 Offshore Export Cable Corridor Figure 1-4 State-Mapped vs. Vineyard Wind-Surveyed SSU Areas within Installation Corridor Figure 1-5 Approximate HDD Trajectory beneath Covell’s Beach
Figure 2-1 Areas Suitable or Unsuitable for Trailing Suction Hopper Dredge Disposal Activities Figure 2-2 Lewis Bay Shellfish and Recreational Resources Figure 2-3 Boat Ramp & Schematic HDD Layout – New Hampshire Avenue Landfall Site
Figure 4-1 Turbidity >10 mg/L along installation corridor within Avian Hotspot
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector iii Table of Contents Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. List of Tables
Table 1-1 Avoided Air Emissions in New England 1-19 Table 1-2 Environmental Permits, Reviews, and Approvals for the Preferred Project Route 1-20
Table 2-1 Length (miles) of each preliminary cable alignment in hard bottom or complex bottom (as delineated in 2018 marine survey). 2-5 Table 2-2 Offshore Export Cable Corridor Characteristics and Impacts from Installation of 2 Offshore Export Cables (state waters) 2-25 Table 2-3 Offshore Export Cable Corridor Characteristics and Impacts from Installation of 2 Offshore Export Cables (total, state and federal waters) 2-27 Table 2-4 Estimated anchoring impacts. 2-31 Table 2-5 Temporary Wetland Impacts along Onshore Duct Bank Routes. 2-33
Table 3-1 Commercial and Recreational Fisheries Data Sources 3-3
Table 5-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures 5-5
Table 6-1 Secretary’s Certificate and Comment Letters from Agencies, Towns, Interest Groups, and Elected Officials 6-1 Table 6-2 Individuals who commented on the SDEIR and the common issues raised in their letters (see Table 6-3 for list of common issues) 6-2 Table 6-3 Responses to common issues raised in individuals’ comment letters on the SDEIR 6-4
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector iv Table of Contents Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. List of Acronyms
ADLS Aircraft Detection Lighting System BMP Best Management Practice BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management CCC Cape Cod Commission COP Construction and Operations Plan CRMC Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council CSC Cross Sound Cable DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Report DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement DMF Division of Marine Fisheries DOER Department of Energy Resources DPW Department of Public Works DRI Development of Regional Impact EEA Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs EFSB Energy Facilities Siting Board eGRID EPA’s Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database EIS Environmental Impact Statement EMF Electromagnetic field ESA Endangered Species Act FAA Federal Aviation Administration FEIR Final Environmental Impact Report FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement FRD Fishery Revenue Density GWO Global Wind Organization GWSA Global Warming Solutions Act HCA Host Community Agreement HDD Horizontal directional drilling HDPE High density polyethylene HVDC High-voltage direct current ICNIRP International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection IHA Incidental Harassment Authorization MARCO Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on the Ocean MassDEP Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection MassDOT Massachusetts Department of Transportation MATL Massachusetts Trip-Level Reports MBUAR Massachusetts Board of Underwater Archaeological Resources MEPA Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act MESA Massachusetts Endangered Species Act mG Milligauss MHC Massachusetts Historical Commission MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act MRED Marine Renewable Energy Device MRIP Marine Recreational Information Program mT Milli-Tesla MVC Martha’s Vineyard Commission MW Megawatts
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector v Table of Contents Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. List of Acronyms (Continued)
NEFOP Northeast Fisheries Observer Program NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NGO Non-governmental organization NHESP Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program NOA Notice of Availability NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOI Notice of Intent NOx Nitrogen oxides NPC Notice of Project Change NPCC Northeast Power Coordinating Council NRI Natural Resources Inventory NROC Northeast Regional Ocean Council OMP Ocean Management Plan PAM Passive Acoustic Monitoring PSO Protected Species Observer REC Renewable Energy Credit RI-DEM Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management ROW Right-of-Way RPS Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards SDEIR Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report SMAST UMass Dartmouth’s School for Marine Science and Technology SPCC Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan SPI Sediment profile imaging SRA Statistical Reporting Area SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan TMP Traffic Management Plan TOY Time-of-Year TPY Tons per year TSHD Trailing suction hopper dredge TSS Total suspended solids USCG U.S. Coast Guard USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service uT Micro-Tesla VMS Vessel Monitoring System VTR Vessel Trip Report WEA Massachusetts Wind Energy Area WTG Wind turbine generator XLPE Cross-linked polyethylene YDNR Yarmouth Department of Natural Resources
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector vi Table of Contents Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Section 1.0
General and Project Description
1.0 GENERAL AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Vineyard Wind LLC (Vineyard Wind, the Company or Proponent) is in the process of developing and permitting an offshore wind project with a nameplate generating capacity of approximately 800 megawatts (MW). Major elements of the offshore wind project, many of which will be confined to federal waters, will include a wind turbine array, inter-array cabling, offshore electrical service platforms, offshore 220 kV transmission cables to bring the power to shore (also referred to as “export cables”), onshore 220 kV underground transmission cables and associated components, and an onshore substation that will step down transmission voltage for interconnection with the electrical grid at 115 kV. The wind turbine array will be located in federal waters, specifically in the northern portion of Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) Lease Area OCS-A 0501. All proposed elements of the offshore wind project are being reviewed under the BOEM and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) processes. In addition, federal permits will be required for the offshore aspects of the offshore wind project.
As described below, this Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) review (EEA #15787) is for the “Vineyard Wind Connector” (or the “Project”). The Vineyard Wind Connector is comprised of the Massachusetts-jurisdictional elements of the broader Vineyard Wind project (i.e., portions of the offshore transmission that are in Massachusetts waters, onshore transmission, the onshore substation, and the grid interconnection). Massachusetts reviews, including those by the MEPA Office, the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB), and other state, regional, and local entities, will focus on the elements proposed within state boundaries, including just over half of the offshore export cable corridor, all of the onshore export cable (all of which is proposed to be underground in a duct bank), and the proposed onshore substation. Collectively, these elements are referred to as the “Vineyard Wind Connector” (i.e., the “Project” for purposes of state review). Figure 1-1 shows an overview of the Vineyard Wind Connector. Onshore routing is shown on Figure 1-2, and Figure 1-3 shows a larger-scale view of the proposed Offshore Export Cable Corridor.
As explained in Section 1.1, the preferred Landfall Site is now Covell’s Beach in Barnstable, with the preferred onshore underground duct bank route entirely within existing roadway layouts (i.e., beneath pavement, in sidewalks, shoulders, or medians) in the Town of Barnstable. The onshore duct bank route beneath Barnstable roadway layouts is 5.3 miles in length. The change to identify Covell’s Beach as the preferred Landfall Site was made in part due to the signing of a Host Community Agreement (HCA) between the Company and the Town of Barnstable on October 3, 2018 and the subsequent unanimous approval of a related easement by the Barnstable Town Council on October 18, 2018.
The New Hampshire Avenue landfall site and the associated onshore duct bank through portions of Yarmouth and Barnstable remains as an alternative, but is not the Proponent’s preferred or intended route. The underground route from New Hampshire Avenue in Yarmouth to the Project substation site off Independence Drive in Barnstable is 6 miles in length; the route is a combination of segments within roadway layouts and in off-road rights of way.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 1-1 General & Project Description Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. The Project involves installing two offshore export cables within a single 810- to 1,000-meter-wide (2,660- to 3,280-foot-wide) Offshore Export Cable Corridor, where environmental impacts will be avoided, minimized, or mitigated; the Company is retaining two options (a western option and an eastern option) for traversing through the Muskeget Channel area given dynamic currents and seafloor conditions to provide flexibility in design and installation. Both Muskeget options were described in detail in the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report (SDEIR) (see SDEIR Section 1.3.1.3). For each route configuration that is continuing through the review process, environmental impacts are comparable on the whole, and impacts have been avoided, minimized, or mitigated consistent with MEPA and Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan (OMP) standards and guidance.
This Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) responds to the scope of analysis defined in the October 12, 2018 Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) Secretary’s Certificate on the SDEIR, specifically pages 20 through 25. A copy of the Secretary’s Certificate is included in Section 6.0, Response to Comments.
In the context of the Secretary’s goal of streamlining and strengthening subsequent review and approval processes, Vineyard Wind notes that a comprehensive review of the entire offshore Vineyard Wind project, including a NEPA EIS, is being conducted by the Department of the Interior’s BOEM. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), prepared by BOEM and independent third-party consultants to BOEM, was released on November 30, 2018. The purpose of the DEIS is to help BOEM determine whether to approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove the Construction and Operations Plan (COP) submitted by Vineyard Wind. BOEM issued a Notice of Availability (NOA) in the Federal Register on December 7, 2018, opening a 45- day public comment period which is expected to close on January 21, 2019. In January 2019, BOEM will conduct five public meetings and accept comments. The input received via this process will be used to inform preparation of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).
In addition to the MEPA and federal environmental reviews, a comprehensive review of the Vineyard Wind Connector is being conducted by the Massachusetts EFSB. Nine days of EFSB evidentiary hearings were held during October; legal briefs were submitted on November 28, followed by reply briefs on December 12, 2018. The EFSB staff expects to issue its Tentative Decision in March of 2019, with a final decision in early April 2019.
A further update on Project permits, reviews, and approvals is provided in Section 1.3. The Project continues to make good progress across the Federal, Massachusetts, regional and local processes, consistent with the objective of beginning construction on selected Project elements in late 2019 (see Section 1.5 for a discussion of the Project schedule).
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 1-2 General & Project Description Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. 1.1 Project Refinements
The SDEIR for the Vineyard Wind Connector was filed with the MEPA Office on August 31, 2018. Since that time, there have been refinements to the Project reflecting the Project’s ongoing development, engineering, environmental review, and stakeholder outreach efforts. These refinements, which further reduce Project-related impacts and respond to stakeholder concerns, are described below:
♦ Selection of the Covell’s Beach Route as the Preferred Route: Based on recent positive developments, the Company now proposes the Covell’s Beach Route, rather than the New Hampshire Avenue Route, as its preferred Landfall Site and associated cable route for the Project. With an earlier change to use what had previously been described as “Variant 1” of the Covell’s Route,1 the onshore underground duct bank will now be entirely within existing roadway layouts, as opposed to using a 1.6-mile segment of an existing utility transmission right of way (ROW).
The New Hampshire Avenue Route is being maintained as an alternative for purposes of the MEPA review, but is not the Proponent’s preferred or intended route. It is currently listed as the Noticed Alternative route in the ongoing EFSB matter. This change does not affect the variants to each route, which the Company also continues to maintain. As discussed and demonstrated in previous filings, the Company has proposed two viable and comparable routes (one utilizing Covell’s Beach in Barnstable and one utilizing New Hampshire Avenue in Yarmouth) since the inception of the Project that similarly minimize impacts. Environmental factors alone, therefore, have always been an insufficient basis for identifying one option as clearly superior to the other. Overall impacts associated with the use of each route remain generally comparable.
The Company’s decision to advance the Covell’s Beach Route as the Preferred Route for the Project was precipitated by several developments since the filing of the Company’s SDEIR:
1. On October 3, 2018, the Company and the Town of Barnstable signed an HCA that reflects a shared belief that the Project will benefit the Town of Barnstable and that potential impacts to the Town of Barnstable can and will be minimized and/or appropriately mitigated. The HCA is provided as
1 As explained in Section 1.1 of the SDEIR, the Company previously determined that the route originally identified as Variant 1 to the Covell’s Beach Route, which is entirely within roadway layouts, would be advanced as the primary onshore route from Covell’s Beach rather than a variant, and the originally- proposed segment along the utility ROW would become a variant to the Covell’s Beach Route. Accordingly, it is the route originally described as a variant to the Covell’s Beach Route (the route entirely within roadway layouts) that is now the Company’s preferred route for the Project.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 1-3 General & Project Description Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Attachment C. The HCA reflects significant community support for the Project, for the cable landing at the Covell’s Beach parking lot, and for ongoing cooperation between the Company and the Town of Barnstable. The HCA states that “the Town and Vineyard Wind express a mutual preference for, and interest in prioritizing, the route(s) involving Covell’s Beach.” In contrast, while the Company has continued to engage in discussions with the Town of Yarmouth, certain Yarmouth residents and other stakeholders have expressed concerns associated with routing cables through Lewis Bay and with other aspects of the route landing at New Hampshire Avenue. The Company believes that those concerns have been evaluated and appropriately addressed. In particular, the Project incorporates measures that would minimize and/or mitigate any impacts to Lewis Bay, as described throughout the DEIR and SDEIR.
The Company views community acceptance and support as a significant factor in the selection of an appropriate route for the Project, particularly where each routing alternative has generally comparable environmental impacts. Community acceptance is important in its own right, and helps minimize risk that the Project, regardless of its merits, could be delayed via extended reviews, appeals, and other opposition. Schedule delays would forestall the realization of significant Project benefits. Indeed, the sooner the Project can be brought on-line, the sooner it will deliver approximately 140,000 tons per month of CO2-equivalent emission reductions. The Company looks forward to working with the Town of Barnstable to develop, construct, and operate a project that benefits the Town of Barnstable locally while also providing benefits to the Commonwealth and to the broader New England community, in addition to advancing local, national, and global priorities to combat climate change.
2. Additional mapping and design data were developed for the landfall site at Covell’s Beach, leading to a refined horizontal directional drilling (HDD) approach into Covell’s Beach that will avoid all documented eelgrass and mapped hard bottom, eliminating potential nearshore environmental impacts associated with this route while also reducing costs due to the reduced length of HDD that will be required.
3. Third, use of the Covell’s Beach as the Project’s Landfall Site will enable the Project to use the shorter of its offshore route options, thus reducing impacts that are proportional to cable length. The length of the total offshore corridor from the Company’s lease area in federal waters to Covell’s Beach is approximately 4.5 miles (7.2 km) shorter than to New Hampshire Avenue (see Table 1-5 of the SDEIR).
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 1-4 General & Project Description Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. 4. The HCA between the Company and the Town of Barnstable provides increased confidence that the Company will obtain the necessary land use rights for the Company’s proposed landfall at the Covell’s Beach Parking lot. In addition to the supportive language in the HCA, on October 18, 2018 the Barnstable Town Council voted unanimously to grant Vineyard Wind an easement across Covell’s Beach and the associated parking lot and unanimously voted to petition the state legislature to approve the grant of easement to Vineyard Wind (see Attachment K). On December 4, 2018, the Company obtained a unanimous vote of the Barnstable Conservation Commission that the easement is surplus to municipal, conservation, and open space needs (see Section 1.4). The Company and Town have also been able to cultivate a working relationship which will be valuable in facilitating efficient execution of the Project components in the Town of Barnstable while minimizing disruption to residents.
5. Use of the offshore corridor to Covell’s Beach will eliminate the need to cross the existing Nantucket Cable outside of the Hyannis outer harbor, thereby eliminating any need for cable protection measures at that crossing and avoiding any potential associated logistical challenges.
6. The decision, discussed in Section 1.1 of the SDEIR, to make what was originally proposed as a variant to the onshore route from Covell’s Beach (the Attucks Lane/Independence Drive variant) the primary route option from Covell’s Beach results in an improved routing alternative that compares more favorably with the alternative route from New Hampshire Avenue. By using the Attucks Lane/Independence Drive approach, the proposed duct bank has a more straightforward approach to the proposed substation, is 0.1 miles shorter than the originally-proposed route from Covell’s Beach, disturbs less vegetated area (by avoiding utility ROW), and simplifies some potential property rights issues along the right-of-way. At a length of approximately 5.3 miles, the Preferred Route from Covell’s Beach is roughly 0.7 miles shorter than the alternative route from New Hampshire Avenue.
♦ Cable Alignment within the Installation Corridor: Based on the ongoing engineering analysis of results from the 2018 marine surveys, the cable alignment within the approximately 2,660- to 3,280-foot-wide (810- to 1,000-meter-wide) installation corridor has been further defined to avoid and minimize impacts to areas of hard bottom and complex bottom (see Section 2.1). The refined cable alignments within the corridor are shown on Figure 1-4 and in the plan set provided in Attachment D; the direct trenching impact will affect a strip of seafloor approximately 3.3 feet (1 meter) wide along each of the two alignments. Revised impact estimates (summarized below and provided in Section 2.2) reflect this updated alignment. The cable alignment will be further refined based on additional data analyses (e.g.,
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 1-5 General & Project Description Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. marine archaeology), pre-construction surveys, and real-time installation conditions. Wherever possible, the cable alignment will avoid areas of hard bottom and complex bottom that encroach over only a portion of the installation corridor. Avoidance and minimization of impacts to these areas will not only be environmentally beneficial, but will also minimize technical challenges in achieving sufficient burial depth, minimize the need for dredging, and avoid or minimize the need for cable protection.
♦ Revised estimates and assumptions for anchoring, cable protection, and dredging (see Section 2.2 for additional details):
o As described in Section 2.2, the Company’s engineers have refined the anchoring design to reflect a five-point anchor spread (instead of an eight- point anchor spread) and a modified strategy to reposition every 400 m (rather than 200 m). As a result, potential impacts from anchoring have been reduced from approximately 3.7 acres to approximately 2.1 to 2.3 acres in state waters, assuming the route to Covell’s Beach (see Table 2-2);
o The Company’s engineers estimate that up to 10% of the cable alignment may require cable protection, which is the same as prior estimates. However, the width of that cable protection has been reduced from approximately 30 feet (9 m) to 10 feet (3 m), significantly reducing potential associated impacts from approximately 27 acres to approximately 9 acres (assuming the Covell’s Beach landfall site) (see Table 2-2);
o Dredge volumes have been revised based on 2018 survey results and the preliminary cable alignments. In most cases, the dredge volumes presented in Tables 2-2 and 2-3 have been reduced from estimated volumes presented in the SDEIR.
♦ Enhanced noise mitigation at the proposed substation: The Company has enhanced the design of proposed noise barriers at the substation to further reduce potential noise impacts to the nearby Village Green apartment complex. While the exact design of the noise barriers will continue to be refined through modeling as the actual equipment power sound levels become available from manufacturers, the Company has developed an initial approach that includes modifications to the northeast corner barrier walls, geometric revisions to interior barrier walls, and the addition of interior walls. The anticipated noise barriers will also provide complete visual screening of the substation from locations to the east and north.
♦ Additional Data and Analysis Available: Since the SDEIR was submitted on August 31, 2018, data from the 2018 marine surveys have been assessed more comprehensively. An updated map set depicting conditions along the Offshore Export Cable Corridor is provided in Attachment D. In addition, the Company has
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 1-6 General & Project Description Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. performed a sediment dispersion modeling study specific to Lewis Bay using vibracore samples collected from within the bay; this report is provided as Attachment E and is discussed in Section 2.3.2.
1.2 Project Benefits
As described in Section 1.2.2 of the DEIR, the purpose of the Project is to provide the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with 800 MW of clean, renewable wind energy. The Project is being developed in response to the 2016 energy legislation passed by the Massachusetts Legislature and signed by Governor Baker, and in response to evolving demand for offshore wind energy by other New England and northeastern states. Construction of the Project will serve the public interest by increasing the reliability and diversity of the regional and statewide energy supply while reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the regional power generation grid.
The Project is expected to create a range of environmental and economic benefits for southeastern Massachusetts (including New Bedford, the Cape, and the Islands), Massachusetts as a whole, and the entire New England region. Project benefits will extend across the design, environmental review, and permitting phase, the procurement, fabrication, and construction/commissioning phase, the multi-decade operating phase, as well as the future decommissioning effort.
Project benefits include, but are not limited to:
♦ Large reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants: The WTGs for the Project will be among the most efficient currently available for offshore use. It is expected that the WTGs will be capable of operating with an annual capacity factor in excess of 45%. For the 800-MW Project, machines of this efficiency and capability will reduce ISO NE CO2 emissions by approximately 1,630,000 tons per year (tpy). This is the equivalent of removing approximately 325,000 automobiles from the road. In addition, nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions across the New England grid are expected to be reduced by approximately 1,050 tpy with SO2 emissions being reduced by approximately 860 tpy.
♦ Reduced costs for electricity customers in Massachusetts: Filings made at the Department of Public Utilities on July 31, 2018 show that the prices for output from Vineyard Wind’s offshore wind project will provide savings to ratepayers in addition to other benefits, with total net benefits that have been cited by the DOER at approximately $1.4 billion over the life of the contract.2 The Power Purchase
2 Petitions for approval of long-term contracts with Vineyard Wind were filed, with supporting documents, at the Department of Public Utilities and docketed as D.P.U. 18-76, D.P.U. 18-77, and D.P.U. 18-78. DOER filed a letter in each docket, which among other things, summarizes benefits to Massachusetts ratepayers. See https://eeaonline.eea.state.ma.us/EEA/FileService/FileService.Api/file/FileRoom/9676907.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 1-7 General & Project Description Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Agreements negotiated between Vineyard Wind and the Massachusetts electric distribution companies3 are currently under review by DPU. DPU issued the procedural notice and ground rules on September 6, 2018 and the briefing is due to be completed February 13, 2019; the review process is expected to conclude in March 2019.
♦ Clean renewable energy at large scale and with a high capacity factor: The location of the associated wind turbine generators (WTGs) well offshore in a favorable wind regime, coupled with the efficiency of the WTGs, will enable the Project to deliver substantial quantities of power on a reliable basis, including during times of peak grid demand. The site layout in the lease area within federal waters includes up to 106 turbine locations to allow for spare positions (in the event of environmental or engineering challenges); however, the Company has previously stated that only up to 100 positions would be occupied by a WTG. The Company has recently selected the largest commercially-available WTG, and now anticipates that only 84 positions will be occupied.
♦ Reducing winter electricity price spikes: The Project adds high and stable winter capacity factor offshore wind generation to the region, increasing resources available to address electricity demand spikes, and reducing reliance on fossil fuel generation. The Project will be unaffected by the risk of potential fossil fuel shortages and will help to alleviate price volatility.
♦ Improving the reliability of the electric grid in Southeastern Massachusetts: The Project will connect to the bulk power system on Cape Cod, and thus will increase the supply of power to the Cape and southeastern Massachusetts, an area which has experienced significant recent as well as future planned generation unit retirements. Because of its interconnect location and generation type, adding 800 MW of offshore wind generation to the current power generation portfolio in Massachusetts will provide fuel diversification and enhance the overall reliability of power generation and transmission in the region and in particular the SEMA (southeast Massachusetts) area. This will mitigate future costs for ensuring reliable service for Massachusetts customers.
♦ Additional economic benefits for the region: Project construction will generate substantial economic benefits, discussed in greater detail in Section 1.2.2, including opportunities for regional maritime industries, including but not limited to tug charters, other vessel charters, dockage, fueling, inspection/repairs, and provisioning.
3 NSTAR Electric Company (d/b/a Eversource Energy), Massachusetts Electric Company and Nantucket Electric Company (d/b/a National Grid), and Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company (d/b/a Unitil).
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 1-8 General & Project Description Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. ♦ New employment opportunities: The UMass Dartmouth study prepared in support of the Section 83C bid showed that the Project will result in additional employment and economic development in Massachusetts, including supporting approximately 3,600 full-time equivalent jobs in Massachusetts over the life of the Project.
♦ Support for Massachusetts policies: The Project will assist the Commonwealth in meeting its Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA) goals and will reduce the cost of compliance with the Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS) through increased Renewable Energy Credit (REC) supply.
♦ Lease of New Bedford Terminal: On October 22, 2018, Vineyard Wind signed an 18-month lease for use of the New Bedford Marine Commerce Terminal. The lease amount is $6 million a year, for a total of $9 million and includes an option to extend. Vineyard Wind’s commitment to utilize this local port illustrates the Company’s commitment to anchoring the offshore wind industry in New England and growing a local and regional supply chain network.
Project benefits related to energy reliability, economics, and the environment are described in greater detail in Sections 1.2.1 through 1.2.3, respectively.
1.2.1 Energy Reliability Benefits
As described in the DEIR and the SDEIR, the proposed Vineyard Wind Connector would enhance the reliability and diversity of the energy mix on Cape Cod and in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This is particularly important given that several base load/cycling plants have already retired or are slated for retirement, including:
♦ Brayton Point Power Plant (Somerset, MA): 1,600 MW, closed on May 31, 2017;
♦ Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant (Plymouth, MA): 690 MW, to be closed by May 31, 2019;
♦ Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant (Vernon, VT): 620 MW, shut down December 29, 2014;
♦ Montaup Power Plant (Somerset, MA): 174 MW, shut down in 2010; and
♦ Mt. Tom Station (Holyoke, MA): 136 MW, shut down in 2014.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 1-9 General & Project Description Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. In addition, other plants such as Canal Generating Station (1,200 MW, oil/natural gas-fired, two units commissioned in 1968 and 1976), are approaching their normal end of life, making it important for other energy generation alternatives to fill the gap. Along with the plants mentioned above, ISO-NE has identified over 5,000 MW of oil and coal capacity “at risk” for retirement in the coming years.4
Between the decommissioning of nuclear power plants at Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee, and the 1990s closings of Yankee Rowe (185 MW) and Maine Yankee (900 MW), New England has lost or is about to lose a significant portion of its large “zero carbon” base load plants.
Moreover, Cape Cod is at the outer edge of the regional transmission system. The Cape is essentially supplied by one 345 kV and two 115 kV radial feeds. While recent significant investments in transmission reliability have strengthened the electricity supply to Cape Cod, Vineyard Wind would further improve reliability by feeding power into the center of the Cape transmission system. Connecting a substantial electricity supply to Cape Cod will mitigate future costs for ensuring reliable service to Massachusetts customers.
The Vineyard Wind project will be a major source of zero-carbon electric power. The 800 MW Project can supply more than the peak load for all of Cape Cod when running at full capacity. As the offshore wind industry has developed, wind turbines have moved further offshore. When coupled with higher hub heights and longer, more efficient blades, the Vineyard Wind WTGs will take full advantage of a superior wind regime that is found over 14 miles from shore. Accordingly, the Vineyard Wind project is expected to operate at an annual capacity factor in excess of 45%, and Project engineers expect that the Project will be actively producing electricity from the offshore wind turbine array, located entirely in federal waters, more than 95% of the time. Moreover, summer offshore wind patterns will allow the Project to produce substantial power during summer afternoons/early evenings, typical peak power demand periods on the Cape and the Islands.
The Vineyard Wind Connector will also reduce winter electricity price spikes because of its high and consistent winter capacity factor. It will enhance energy supply diversity, and as a wind project will not be affected by possible cold weather gas limitations or supply shortages. As such, it will help to promote price stability, reliability, and energy security.
1.2.2 Economic Benefits
The Project is expected to generate numerous economic benefits across Massachusetts and the entire New England region. Economic benefits from the Project will be realized throughout the preconstruction, construction, operations and maintenance, and decommissioning phases, and including the following:
4 ISO-NE. https://www.iso-ne.com/about/regional-electricity-outlook/grid-in-transition-opportunities-and- challenges/power-plant-retirements
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 1-10 General & Project Description Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. ♦ The Project will provide significant savings and benefits to electricity customers in Massachusetts, which recent filings at the Department of Public Utilities have calculated at approximately $1.4 billion in total net benefits over the life of the contract.5
♦ In 2017, the Project opened and staffed a New Bedford office and occupied additional office space in Boston. The Project has many full-time professionals working on design, permitting, and financing efforts in Massachusetts. In addition, Vineyard Wind’s extensive offshore survey campaigns over the past three years have drawn on support services from across the southeastern Massachusetts region, including services such as vessel maintenance and repair, fuel and provisioning, protected species observers, inspection and HSE consulting, and pilotage.
♦ The construction and installation process will make use of existing port facilities. On October 22, 2018, Vineyard Wind signed an 18-month lease for use of the New Bedford Marine Commerce Terminal. The lease amount is $6 million a year, for a total of $9 million and includes an option to extend.
♦ The UMass Dartmouth study prepared in support of the Section 83C bid estimated that 1,552 direct full-time equivalent job years6 could be created in Massachusetts during the construction of the Vineyard Wind project. Of this total, the UMass study found that 1,326 job years could be located in southeastern Massachusetts, largely based in New Bedford. These jobs will be in areas such as crane and heavy lift operations, steel fabrication, electrical construction, and civil construction, and will be with firms such as engineering and construction management firms, construction firms utilizing building and maritime trades, and vessel and port operations companies. Additional job years associated with Operations and Maintenance are also anticipated.
♦ Project construction will create opportunities for area maritime industries, including but not limited to tug charters, other vessel charters, dockage, fueling, inspection/repairs, and provisioning. To the extent feasible, construction materials and other supplies, including vessel provisioning and servicing, will be sourced from within the Project area. The Project may also perform fabrication work in Massachusetts.
5 Petitions for approval of long-term contracts with Vineyard Wind were filed, with supporting documents, at the Department of Public Utilities and docketed as D.P.U. 18-76, D.P.U. 18-77, and D.P.U. 18-78. DOER filed a letter in each docket, which among other things, summarizes benefits to Massachusetts ratepayers. See https://eeaonline.eea.state.ma.us/EEA/FileService/FileService.Api/file/FileRoom/9676907. 6 One full-time-equivalent job year is the equivalent of one person working full-time for one year.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 1-11 General & Project Description Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. ♦ It is estimated that the Commonwealth and municipalities are anticipated to receive tax payments (including personal income taxes, sales taxes, corporate and payroll taxes, and real and personal property taxes) of between $14.7 and $17 million through the first year of operation alone, and significant tax payments annually thereafter.
♦ As a result of the October 3, 2018 HCA signed with the Town of Barnstable, Vineyard Wind will pay an additional $16 million to the town above property taxes (themselves estimated at more than $1 million/year), plus an additional $60,000 for each year the Project is in operation beyond 25 years, and will provide other material benefits to the Town. A copy of the HCA is provided as Attachment C. Assuming the Covell’s Beach route is used, all onshore Project elements (i.e., Landfall Site, underground duct bank, substation, interconnection to the Barnstable Switching Station) will be located in the Town of Barnstable.
♦ Vineyard Wind has worked with its local partner, Vineyard Power, and the communities of Martha’s Vineyard to base its operations and maintenance on Martha’s Vineyard. Current plans anticipate that operations and maintenance activities would be located in Vineyard Haven using part of an existing industrial marina facility owned and operated by others. This marina already provides a number of services to vessels as large as 275 feet in length and has onshore facilities that house multiple business entities. The owner of the marina has existing plans (irrespective of Vineyard Wind) to upgrade the facilities to accommodate additional marine industrial uses, as well as to increase the existing facility’s protection from storms. Vineyard Wind understands that this work includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the removal and replacement of an existing pier and dredging activities. The design, permitting, and construction of this work will be conducted by the site owner and not by Vineyard Wind. Any work would be subject to local, state, and federal regulations that require avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of environmental impacts, including impacts to land under water and other wetland resources. Vineyard Wind also intends to use port facilities at the New Bedford Terminal and potentially at Brayton Point to support certain operations and maintenance activities, as necessary. Vineyard Wind does not consider improvements to these third-party projects to be part of the Vineyard Wind Connector, but includes this general description for completeness.
The UMass Dartmouth study completed in support of the December 2017 83C bid estimates that Vineyard Wind’s operations and maintenance will create approximately 81 direct full-time equivalent positions. These year-round jobs within an important, emerging industry will exist throughout the life of the Project, and will pay well above the regional median income, helping to diversify and stabilize economies that are highly dependent on seasonal tourism-related employment opportunities. This stable base of well-paying jobs will contribute over
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 1-12 General & Project Description Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. $8.3 million in annual salaries to the local economy, will help maintain the long- standing maritime heritage of the region, and will play a part in preserving the tradition and benefits of working waterfronts and water-dependent uses.
♦ In accordance with the Project’s lease for use of outer continental shelf lands for offshore wind generation, which is with the BOEM, the Project will make substantial annual lease and operating fee payments to the Federal Treasury. Prior to commercial operations, the Project makes annual lease payments of $500,658 to the federal government. Once operations begin, the Project will make annual operating fee payments in accordance with the terms of the lease.
♦ As an element of its Chapter 91 license, the Project will pay a Tidelands Occupation Fee to the Commonwealth. This fee will be calculated based on the area of jurisdictional seafloor occupied by the Project in state waters. It is anticipated that the precise amount of the fee will be determined at the completion of construction based on actual permanent occupation of Commonwealth tidelands, and that the fee will be substantial.
♦ In accordance with a requirement of the Massachusetts OMP review process, the Project will pay an Ocean Development Mitigation Fee. Vineyard Wind proposes that the base fee should be $240,000, adjusted based on post-construction measurements of actual construction and permanent impacts. As discussed in Section 2.1.3.3, this fee is intended to compensate the Commonwealth for unavoidable impacts on public interests and rights in the Ocean Management Planning Area and to support planning, management, restoration, or enhancement of marine resources and uses. This fee is in addition to the tidelands occupation fee, and other direct and indirect contributions by the Company.
♦ The Project will make local and regional purchases of goods and services throughout the multi-decade operations and maintenance period.
♦ Additional benefits will include substantial numbers of indirect jobs, persistent Project-related reductions in Locational Marginal Prices for electric power, and other substantial electricity market benefits. The Project’s contractors will utilize local companies for portions of its offshore and onshore work, and will make lease or other payments to local landowners to support onshore construction on Cape Cod.
♦ As part of its winning Section 83C proposal, Vineyard Wind has proposed a $15,000,000 investment in the “Offshore Wind Accelerator Program”. The Program has three major components: (1) a $10 million Offshore Wind Industry Energy Accelerator Fund; (2) a $2 million Windward Workforce Fund; and (3) a $3 million fund for advancing innovations for marine mammal protection. Details of the three elements of the Program are provided in Sections 1.2.2.1 through 1.2.2.3 below.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 1-13 General & Project Description Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. This program, coupled with Vineyard Wind’s planned start of construction in late 2019, is expected to quickly establish the infrastructure and job-base needed for construction of the Vineyard Wind Project. Development of an offshore wind industry based in Massachusetts and kick-started by the Vineyard Wind project is expected to bring billions of dollars of private investment into the state, helping to diversify and grow the southeastern Massachusetts region’s economy through modernization of local ports, new services such as expanded vessel operations, ongoing research offshore, and skilled workforce training needed to build and operate wind farm facilities. Through strategic investment of Vineyard Wind’s Offshore Wind Accelerator Fund, Massachusetts is poised to maintain its leadership role in reaping the economic benefits of the expanding offshore wind industry.
♦ The Company will continue its efforts to work cooperatively with southeastern Massachusetts educational institutions such as Bristol Community College, Cape Cod Community College, the Massachusetts Maritime Academy, regional Vo-Tech schools, and others to help create opportunities for their students and faculty. Of equal importance, the $2 million “Windward Workforce” initiative described below will be undertaken in partnership with vocational schools, community colleges, and others. Vineyard Wind has already initiated conversations with potential partners including Bristol Community College, Martha’s Vineyard Regional High School, Cape Cod Community College, and Cape and Islands Self Reliance. These partnerships will focus on career development in offshore wind, specialized training and career mentoring, all with a strong emphasis on local hiring.
♦ Vineyard Wind will establish and contribute $1 million annually for 15 years to a Resiliency and Affordability Fund established by the Company, which will support low-income ratepayers, promote clean energy projects in communities on the Cape and Islands, and fund effective use of distributed battery energy storage to enhance the resiliency of local coastal communities in the face of climate change. The Fund will be administered by Citizens Energy and projects implemented by Citizens Energy as well as Vineyard Wind’s community partner, Vineyard Power. The Resiliency and Affordability Fund will support distributed battery energy storage and solar projects in local communities as well as provide credits directly to low-income ratepayers’ electric utility bills. Projects supported by the Fund will be implemented in host communities of the Project such as New Bedford, Martha’s Vineyard, Nantucket, Barnstable, and Somerset. Projects will include solar and energy storage projects and will demonstrate how decentralized battery energy storage will enhance reliability as Massachusetts continues to expand renewable energy resources such as offshore wind.
♦ Considering all of these various benefits from the Project, the Project as a whole will be an important foundational step in creating a thriving, utility scale, domestic offshore wind industry. The Proponent is committed to working with the BOEM,
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 1-14 General & Project Description Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Massachusetts, local and regional officials, local businesses, research and educational institutions, fishermen, environmental advocacy organizations, and other stakeholders to maximize this unique and timely opportunity to establish southern New England as a key center for the offshore wind industry in the United States.
1.2.2.1 Offshore Wind Industry Accelerator Fund ($10 million)
Vineyard Wind is committing to invest $10 million in projects and initiatives to accelerate the development of the offshore wind supply chain, businesses, and infrastructure in Massachusetts. The Fund will attract investments to upgrade or create new facilities or infrastructure needed to develop the offshore wind industry in the Commonwealth. Vineyard Wind is currently working with the Department of Energy Resources, the MassCEC, elected officials, and other stakeholders to determine the best way to make funding decisions.
The Offshore Wind Industry Accelerator Fund aims to support the state’s goals to rebuild and update ports and harbors, encourage and attract additional investments in local infrastructure, and create jobs in critical coastal communities.
Examples of possible investments by the Offshore Wind Industry Accelerator Fund include expansion and improvement of ports available to support offshore wind construction, supporting the establishment of offshore wind manufacturing or fabrication facilities in Massachusetts, and supporting the development of infrastructure or other facilities that will improve the capability to deploy offshore wind on the U.S. East Coast. By establishing such infrastructure and facilities in Massachusetts in the near term, the Commonwealth will benefit from future offshore wind development regardless of where particular projects are located.
Vineyard Wind will work with supply chain companies eager to participate in the U.S.’s first commercial scale offshore wind project and will work to identify opportunities for investment in local infrastructure or facilities. Vineyard Wind’s support of an emerging supply chain will offer Massachusetts an opportunity to leverage both the Industry Accelerator Fund and the purchasing power of the first commercial scale offshore wind project in the U.S. In doing so, Vineyard Wind will serve to attract significant investment in the state's new offshore wind industry such that ratepayers and future projects will benefit from this effort for years to come.
1.2.2.2 Windward Workforce ($2 million)
The Windward Workforce program will recruit, mentor, and train residents of Massachusetts (with a specific focus on southeastern Massachusetts) for careers in the offshore wind industry. These programs will ensure that the Commonwealth is able to provide the workforce needed for the first – as well as future – offshore wind projects in the
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 1-15 General & Project Description Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. U.S. The experience gained from working on the first commercial-scale offshore wind project in the U.S., Vineyard Wind, will be invaluable in launching careers in offshore wind for Massachusetts residents. The ultimate objective of the Windward Workforce program is for Massachusetts to have the first available, best trained, and most experienced offshore wind workforce in the U.S.
The Windward Workforce initiative may, for example, fund training courses established for certification in any number of high-skills offshore wind jobs or support services. Vineyard Wind’s proposal to construct an 800MW wind farm approximately 15 miles south of Martha’s Vineyard includes plans for up to 3,600 new jobs, including 1,000 new hires before 2022.
The Windward Workforce program will be undertaken in partnership with vocational schools, community colleges, and others. The Windward Workforce program includes a number of initiatives and company policies, including:
♦ Look Local First
Vineyard Wind and all major contractors will actively seek Massachusetts residents as candidates for positions. First-tier supply companies will also actively seek proposals and bids from Massachusetts companies. Through this policy, Vineyard Wind will ensure that Massachusetts businesses and residents have full access to new business opportunities related to the Vineyard Wind project, and that the Company can benefit from the extensive local knowledge of companies that operate in southeastern Massachusetts. These contracting opportunities will be promoted in the Massachusetts business community via a series of “Meet the Buyer/Employer” events, engaging local Chambers of Commerce, social media, and through the Vineyard Wind website. To support this policy, Vineyard Wind will include specific obligations for contractors both in the tendering and in the contract execution phase.
♦ Martha’s Vineyard Wind Working Waterfront
Vineyard Wind has set for itself the goal to have 100% of its operations and maintenance field positions staffed by Martha’s Vineyard residents within five years of the project being operational.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 1-16 General & Project Description Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. ♦ Career Development in Offshore Wind
The program will fund curriculum development and instructor education for courses in “Offshore Wind 101” and other applicable subjects at local vocational schools, high schools, and community colleges within host communities. These courses are designed to create a pipeline to incubate local talent, supporting the industry into the future.
♦ Specialized Training
Through the program, Vineyard Wind will coordinate and fund curriculum development and specific training programs, such as globally recognized certifications for offshore wind technicians, and component manufacturer certifications. These training programs and courses will be done in partnership with community colleges, such as Bristol Community College and Cape Cod Community College, as well as equipment manufacturers and non-profit organizations.
Vineyard Wind will implement a mentoring program, within its own organization and with its contractors, to ensure skills and know-how are brought to Massachusetts through the Vineyard Wind project, so that Massachusetts residents are qualified and ready to build the next offshore wind projects around the U.S.
1.2.2.3 Wind and Whales Fund ($3 million)
As part of the Offshore Wind Accelerator commitment, Vineyard Wind has allocated $3 million to helping advance marine mammal protections as the offshore wind industry develops along the East Coast. The Wind and Whales Fund will support development and demonstration of innovative methods and technologies to enhance protections for marine mammals as the Massachusetts and U.S. offshore wind industry continues to grow.
To facilitate sustainable growth of the U.S. offshore wind industry, it will be essential to develop and adapt new technologies and practices to ensure effective protection for marine mammals. The Vineyard Wind project will provide an opportunity to test or demonstrate new tools and methods, so they are more likely to be available for future projects. Such tools and methods could include innovative pile driving technologies, or technologies to better detect and monitor whales to maintain exclusion zones. By supporting innovation in this field, Vineyard Wind will support the state’s planning and management efforts to integrate commercial-scale offshore wind while minimizing impacts to marine mammals. While supporting the coexistence of offshore wind and the marine environment, the fund is also expected to produce benefits that will be applicable to wider-scale marine mammal protections, aiding existing protection efforts while combating climate change, which is a significant threat to the health of marine mammal populations.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 1-17 General & Project Description Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. The Wind and Whales Fund will be another opportunity for the Massachusetts economy to benefit from offshore wind, given the large existing base of ocean technology companies and ocean-oriented academic institutions within the Commonwealth.
To facilitate a comprehensive discussion of the how the fund can be allocated to best achieve the goal of advancing marine mammal protections quickly, Vineyard Wind will consult with experts in the field, including:
♦ The Offshore Wind industry;
♦ North Atlantic Right Whale experts working with leading research firms;
♦ Academic institutions;
♦ Federal and state government agencies; and
♦ Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs).
By assembling experts from industry, government, academic, and non-profit sectors, Vineyard Wind aims to ensure that broad ideas, approaches, and proposals are considered. Vineyard Wind is working to develop the mechanisms to implement the $3 million fund. As discussed in the Company’s Section 83C proposal (Section 14, Appendix B) and Section 1.2.2.3 of the SDEIR, Vineyard Wind will convene a panel of experts in the marine mammal field to determine guiding principles to inform allocation of the fund. Initial ideas for the fund that have been discussed are quieter pile-driving technologies, technologies to better detect whales or other mammals in exclusion zones, and supporting efforts to implement fishing practices that provide stronger protections to whales and marine mammals.
Utilizing the nation’s first commercial-scale project to develop best management practices and demonstrate innovative technologies for offshore wind construction and operation in relation to marine mammal protections will also advance the state’s understanding of how to protect and enhance marine habitat with future projects. Information and best practices from this initiative will be shared with regulators and other industry stakeholders.
1.2.3 Environmental Benefits
The Project offers significant environmental benefits. As described in Section 1.2.1, between the decommissioning of nuclear power plants at Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee, and earlier Yankee Rowe (185 MW) and Maine Yankee (900 MW) retirements, New England has lost or is about to lose significant “zero carbon” large-scale generation plants. These market changes increase the complexity and difficulty of achieving the Commonwealth’s aggressive greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets defined in the GWSA: 25% from 1990 levels by 2020 and 80% from 1990 levels by 2050.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 1-18 General & Project Description Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. The Vineyard Wind Connector would enable 800 MW of zero-carbon electric power to be delivered to the ISO-NE grid. The substantial emissions reductions on the New England power grid due to the Vineyard Wind project will quickly offset construction-phase emissions of regulated pollutants. Table 1-1 quantifies the emissions associated with conventional power generation that would be avoided by using electricity generated from the 800-MW offshore wind project. The displacement analysis uses Northeast Power Coordinating Council (NPCC) New England air emissions data from EPA’s Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID).7 The analysis conservatively assumes an annual capacity factor of 45% and total Project delivery of 800 MW. Constituents included in the analysis are carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). The avoided annual emissions of 1,630,000 tons of CO2 is roughly equivalent to taking 325,000 cars off the road.
Table 1-1 Avoided Air Emissions in New England
Pollutant CO2 NOx SO2
Annual Avoided Emissions (tons/year) 1,632,822 1,046 855
Avoided Emissions over Project Lifespan (tons) 48,984,670 31,385 25,641
As shown in this analysis, the Project would result in substantial emissions reductions in the New England region. The Project will significantly decrease the region’s reliance on fossil fuels and enhance the reliability and diversity of the energy mix on Cape Cod, in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and across New England. Thus, the potential Project- related impacts should be considered in conjunction with the Project’s energy reliability, economic, and environmental benefits.
1.3 Permitting
Table 1-2, below, is an updated version of the anticipated principal environmental reviews, permits, and approvals required for the Project. Required federal permits are included for background. By meeting the requirements for each of these review programs, permits, and approvals, the Project will demonstrate compliance with applicable state and local environmental policies.
7 The displacement analysis uses subregion annual non-baseload output emission rates from eGRID2014(v2) released 2/27/2017 https://www.epa.gov/energy/emissions-generation-resource- integrated-database-egrid
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 1-19 General & Project Description Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Table 1-2 Environmental Permits, Reviews, and Approvals for the Preferred Project Route
Agency/Regulatory Permit/Approval Status Authority Federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Site Assessment Plan (SAP) approval SAP approved May 2018 Management (BOEM)8 Construction and Operations Plan (COP) COP filed with BOEM December approval 19, 2017
National Environmental Policy Act Draft Environmental Impact (NEPA) Environmental Review Statement (DEIS) issued November 30, 2018; comment period closes January 21, 2019
Consultation under Section 7 of the To be initiated by BOEM Endangered Species Act with National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Environmental National Pollutant Discharge Elimination To be filed (TBF) immediately before Protection Agency (EPA) System (NPDES) General Permit for start of construction Construction Activities
Outer Continental Shelf Air Permit Permit application submitted August 17, 2018. U.S. Army Corps of Individual Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit application submitted Engineers (USACE) & Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 November 27, 2018 Section 10 Permit
U.S. National Marine Incidental Harassment Authorization IHA for pile-driving activities Fisheries Service (IHA) submitted September 7, 2018 (NMFS) U.S. Coast Guard Private Aids to Navigation Authorization TBF Federal Aviation No Hazard Determination TBF Administration
8 In its review of the COP, BOEM must comply with its obligations under the NEPA, the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), the Clean Air Act (CAA), and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Thus, BOEM coordinates and consults with numerous other federal agencies including the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the United States Coast Guard (USGC) during the review process. BOEM also coordinates with states under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) to ensure that the project is consistent with the state’s coastal zone management program.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 1-20 General & Project Description Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Table 1-2 Environmental Permits, Reviews, and Approvals for the Preferred Project Route (Continued)
Agency/Regulatory Permit/Approval Status Authority State/Massachusetts (for portions of the project within state jurisdiction) Massachusetts Certificate of Secretary of Energy and ENF filed December 15, 2017; Environmental Policy Environmental Affairs (EEA) on Final Secretary’s Certificate issued Act Office Environmental Impact Report February 9, 2018
DEIR filed April 30, 2018; Secretary’s Certificate issued June 15, 2018
SDEIR filed August 31, 2018; Secretary’s Certificate issued October 12, 2018 Energy Facilities Siting G.L. c. 164, § 69 Approval Petition filed December 18, 2017; Board evidentiary hearings completed October 26, 2018, briefs filed November 28, 2018 Massachusetts G.L. c. 164, § 72, Approval to Construct Section 72 and Section 40A petitions Department of Public were filed with the DPU on February Utilities (DPU) G.L. c. 40A, § 3 Zoning Exemption (if 15, 2018, together with a request for needed) consolidated review by EFSB, which was granted on April 5, 2018. Massachusetts Chapter 91 Waterways License and TBF (joint application Chapter 91 Department of Dredge Permit & Water Quality and Water Quality Certification) Environmental Certification Protection Approval of Easement (Drinking Water Easement not required for Covell’s Regulations) Beach route (TBF should the New (may be required if an easement is Hampshire Avenue Route be needed because the New Hampshire selected) Avenue route will pass through a Zone I area) Massachusetts Non-Vehicular Access Permits TBF Department of Transportation Rail Division Use and Occupancy Not required for Covell’s Beach License route (TBF should the New Hampshire Avenue Route be selected) Massachusetts Board of Special Use Permit Provisional permit issued May 23, Underwater 2017, final permit issued September Archaeological 28, 2017 Resources (MBUAR) Natural Heritage and Conservation and Management Permit (if TBF (if needed) Endangered Species needed) Program (NHESP)
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 1-21 General & Project Description Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Table 1-2 Environmental Permits, Reviews, and Approvals for the Preferred Project Route (Continued)
Agency/Regulatory Permit/Approval Status Authority Massachusetts Historical Field Investigation Permits (980 C.M.R. § Reconnaissance survey application Commission (MHC) 70.00) filed November 14, 2017 and approved
Permit to Conduct Archaeological Field Investigation issued September 28, 2018; field investigation at substation site completed November 2, 2018; final report submitted to MHC in December 2018 or January 2019 (no further investigations recommended) Massachusetts Division Letter of Authorization and/or Scientific TBF of Marine Fisheries Permit (for surveys and pre-lay grapnel run) Regional (for portions of the project within regional jurisdiction) Cape Cod Commission Development of Regional Impact (DRI) TBF; anticipated December 2018 Review Martha’s Vineyard DRI Review TBF Commission Local (for portions of the project within local jurisdiction)9 Barnstable DPW and/or Street Opening Permits/Grants of TBF; addressed in October 3, 2018 Town Council Location HCA with Barnstable Barnstable Zoning approvals as necessary TBF; exemption from zoning Planning/Zoning requested in EFSB filing; addressed in October 3, 2018 HCA with Barnstable Barnstable Conservation Order of Conditions (Massachusetts TBF Commission Wetlands Protection Act and municipal wetland non-zoning bylaws) Edgartown Conservation Order of Conditions (Massachusetts TBF Commission Wetlands Protection Act and municipal wetland non-zoning bylaws) for offshore route Nantucket Conservation Order of Conditions (Massachusetts TBF (if needed as dictated by final Commission Wetlands Protection Act and municipal offshore route through Muskeget wetland non-zoning bylaws) for offshore Channel) route
9 Based on additional analysis and refinement of the route within the Offshore Export Cable Corridor, the Company has determined that the preliminary cable alignments will not pass through Mashpee waters (based on the Submerged Lands Act boundary that defines the state/federal boundary); hence, this table has been revised from the SDEIR to exclude the Mashpee Conservation Commission.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 1-22 General & Project Description Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Table 1-2 Environmental Permits, Reviews, and Approvals for the Preferred Project Route (Continued)
Agency/Regulatory Permit/Approval Status Authority Yarmouth Conservation Order of Conditions (Massachusetts Not required for Covell’s Beach Commission Wetlands Protection Act and municipal route (TBF should the New wetland non-zoning bylaws) Hampshire Avenue Route be selected) Yarmouth DPW and/or Street Opening Permits/Grants of Not required for Covell’s Beach Board of Selectmen Location route (TBF should the New Hampshire Avenue Route be selected) Yarmouth Zoning approvals as necessary Not required for Covell’s Beach Planning/Zoning route (TBF should the New Hampshire Avenue Route be selected)
1.4 Article 97
Given the signing of an HCA with the Town of Barnstable and the resulting preference for the Covell’s Beach route, the Project will require Article 97 approval for grant of easements for the subsurface cable infrastructure beneath the Town’s Covell’s Beach property and associated parking area. The Article 97-jurisdictional property includes an approximately 630-foot-long stretch of beach, an adjoining approximately two-acre paved parking lot, which includes a small bath house at the western end of the parking lot. Article 97 approval is required because an easement will be granted across land acquired by the Town for recreational purposes. Apart from modest construction impacts discussed below, there will be no changes to the permanent uses of the protected lands. Indeed, because the Company committed in the HCA to repave the existing parking area and to fund the Town’s construction of a new bathhouse at the Landfall Site, the recreational function of the beach will ultimately be enhanced.
As described in Section 1.4.2 of the SDEIR, the Project plans to install two approximately 1,000-foot-long HDPE conduits via HDD that will be used to bring the two offshore export cables onshore to the paved parking lot at Covell’s Beach while avoiding the nearshore, intertidal zone, and beach. The conduits will be placed to avoid the offshore hard bottom area and co-located eelgrass. From the onshore end of the conduits in the paved parking lot, the offshore export cables will be trenched beneath the parking lot to transition vaults at the northern edge of the lot. At this location, the offshore export cables will transition to onshore export cables that will be contained within a buried concrete duct bank.
The HDD conduits, transition vaults, and related cable or duct bank locations are shown on Sheet 15 of the engineering plans provided in Attachment G.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 1-23 General & Project Description Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. The HDPE conduits will be placed using HDD equipment. As was most recently described in the SDEIR (see also SDEIR Attachment I, sheets 16 and 17), the HDD rig and its supporting elements will be set up in the eastern end of the parking lot. Beginning at a temporary entry pit, the HDPE conduits will follow a gentle arc beneath the parking lot, beach and intertidal zone, emerging at an exit hole location approximately 1,000 feet offshore. As shown on Figure 1-5, the HDD conduit will be approximately 22 feet (6.7 m) beneath the middle of the beach. Because of the use of HDD, there will be no disturbance to the beach or intertidal zone. Following the installation, the necessary excavations in the parking lot will be backfilled, compacted, and temporarily paved. Once all of the work is completed, the entire parking lot will be repaved and restriped, at the Project’s expense.
The HDD work, associated cable installation, and subsequent parking lot restoration and paving will be conducted in the off-season, such that impacts to the use of the parking lot and beach by Barnstable residents is are minimized. Even during the off-season construction, when use of the parking lot is expected to be limited, public access to a significant portion of the parking lot will be maintained. While the grant of a long-term easement for cable work planned at Covell’s Beach is subject to Article 97, the requested easement does not derogate from the Article 97 purposes of Covell’s Beach. While there will be a short-term off-season use of a portion of the beach parking lot, there will be no permanent change in the character or use of the parking lot or the adjoining beach.
On October 18, 2018, Town of Barnstable granted the Company an easement for the proposed work, subject to obtaining legislative approval, and has voted to petition the legislature for that approval (see Attachment K). Enabling legislation is scheduled to be filed with the legislature early in 2019.
Project representatives have consulted with EEA’s Ms. Jennifer Sulla and Mr. Kurt Gaertner to discuss the specifics of the Vineyard Wind Article 97 matter. The Project will follow the 1998 Massachusetts EEA Policy on Article 97 land disposition, and will work with the Town of Barnstable and the Legislative delegation to secure approval of the necessary legislation. The balance of this section discusses specifics of the Project’s compliance with the EEA policy.
1) “All other options to avoid the Article 97 disposition have been explored and no feasible and substantially equivalent alternatives exist”
As described at length in the DEIR and the SDEIR, as well as in the parallel EFSB review, the Covell’s Beach Landfall Site is an integral part of the Project’s now-preferred offshore and onshore cable route. It will not be possible to obtain the benefits of the preferred route without utilizing Covell’s Beach and obtaining the easement that necessitates the Article 97 disposition. While the Company considers the alternative New Hampshire Avenue Route a
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 1-24 General & Project Description Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. viable route, for the reasons that resulted in the selection of the Covell’s Beach Route as the preferred route, it is not considered a “feasible and substantially equivalent alternative” especially in light of the schedule imperative to bring 800 MW of renewable energy to the grid as quickly as possible.
2) “The disposition of the subject parcel and its proposed use do not destroy or threaten a unique or significant resource” and as 3) “part of the disposition, real estate of equal or greater fair market value or value in use of proposed use, whichever is greater, and significantly greater resource value as determined by EOEA and its agencies, are granted to the disposing agency or its designee, so that the mission and legal mandate of EOEA and its agencies and the constitutional rights of the citizens of Massachusetts are protected and enhanced”.
As described above, use of HDD to place cables well beneath the beach and paved parking lot will in no way change the value or use of the property for Article 97-protected purposes (specifically, recreation), or for other natural or open space purposes. While the beach area is mapped habitat for piping plover and used for recreational purposes, use of HDD will avoid any work on or disruption to the beach itself. The Project has consulted with NHESP regarding the timing of the HDD operations and has developed an acceptable timing approach (see Section 4.3), and with the town on the same. Further, the Project will not detract from the Town of Barnstable’s provision of a residents-only recreational area. In fact, the bathhouse improvement and paving of the two-acre parking lot will enhance the area for the enjoyment of Barnstable residents.
4) “the minimum acreage necessary for the proposed use is proposed for disposition and, to the maximum extent possible, the resources of the parcel proposed for disposition continue to be protected;”
The easement language is crafted to minimize the subsurface land required for the Project, and as noted there will be no adverse impacts on the protected parcel.
5) “The disposition serves an Article 97 purpose or another public purpose without detracting from the mission, plans, policies or mandates of EOEA and its appropriate department or division”.
In this case, the Project serves a crucial public purpose (large scale development of offshore wind energy and commensurate reduction in greenhouse gases from electrical power generation). This purpose is consistent with the Commonwealth’s GWSA and the more recent 2016 energy legislation (Section 83C).
6) the disposition of a parcel is not contrary to the express wishes of the person(s) who donated or sold the parcel or interests therein to the Commonwealth.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 1-25 General & Project Description Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Covell’s Beach was purchased by the town for recreational purposes, but to the town and the Company’s knowledge, the seller of the property did not express any limitations of any kind, and certainly did not express any wishes that the property not be used to support an offshore wind project.
The EEA policy also contains requirements applicable to dispositions of municipal interests subject to Article 97. The Vineyard Wind Connector also meets or will meet those requirements, subject again to obtaining state legislative approval. Specifically, on October 18, 2018, it obtained a unanimous Town Council vote in support of the disposition (included in Attachment K); on December 4, 2018, it obtained a unanimous vote of the Barnstable Conservation Commission that the easement is surplus to municipal, conservation, and open space needs. The Town of Barnstable has determined there are no applicable requirements of the Self-Help, Urban Self-Help, Land and Water Conservation Fund, and any other applicable funding sources. Covell’s Beach is not considered parkland and the town of Barnstable does not have a municipal Park Commission, so requirements pertaining specifically to the disposition of “parkland” do not apply.
1.5 Project Schedule and Construction Sequencing
In May 2018, the DOER and Distribution Companies completed their evaluation of the December 23, 2017 bids under the Section 83C Offshore Wind Energy Generation RFP. On May 23, 2018, the selection of Vineyard Wind as the winning bidder for an 800-MW offshore wind project was announced. With this certainty of 800 MW, the Proponent has been able to simplify the Project schedule such that the Project will be constructed in a single stage rather than being broken into two 400-MW stages, as previously described in Section 2.6 of the DEIR.
The full 800-MW Project will be constructed with two offshore export cables (each with three cores), which will transition to six onshore transmission cables. The proposed duct bank is being designed to accommodate the entire 800 MW of transmission plus spare conduits.
Construction of the onshore transmission asset is expected to take slightly more than one year, including civil work, electrical installation, commissioning, and testing. To be ready for turbine commissioning in 2021, the Company will initiate onshore transmission work late 2019. This will include preparing the Landfall Site for the offshore export cable, installing duct bank, pulling cables on the onshore export cable route, and constructing the onshore substation. As the upland construction has time-of-year limitations due to summer traffic on Cape Cod in addition to anticipated time-of-year restrictions offshore, Project construction will be carefully sequenced.
Onshore, on Cape Cod, there are general summer limitations on construction activities, which the Proponent has reflected in the Project schedule for construction at the Landfall Site and along the onshore transmission route where the route follows public roadway
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 1-26 General & Project Description Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. layouts. Activities at the Landfall Site where transmission will transition from offshore to onshore are not expected to be performed during the months of June through September unless authorized by the host town. Activities along the onshore transmission route (particularly where the route follows public roadway layouts) will also likely be subject to significant construction limitations from Memorial Day through Labor Day unless authorized by the host town, but could extend through June 15 subject to consent from the local DPW. The Proponent will consult with the towns regarding the construction schedule. Typical construction hours will extend from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM on Monday through Friday. Nighttime work will be performed only on an as-needed basis, such as when crossing a busy road. When needed, nighttime work/extended construction hours, including possible work on weekends, will be coordinated through the host Town. On October 25, 2018, the Company also met with MassDOT to discuss construction of the proposed duct bank crossings at Route 28 and Route 132; that discussion included potential construction timing, final plans for which will be formulated during ongoing consultations with MassDOT.
Offshore, time-of-year restrictions protective of rare species, wildlife, and marine resources will be in place for construction activities, where necessary and feasible. These restrictions are discussed in Section 3.
Duct banks must be fully prepared prior to cable installation, and cable installation must be complete and tested prior to turbines being installed, so that turbines can be energized immediately after construction. Windfarm construction in federal waters is currently scheduled to begin in summer of 2020, only five or six months after upland construction begins. As offshore construction will continue through the summer, onshore construction will be limited to off-road areas and therefore will not progress extensively during that time. The start of commercial operation, with production from a limited number of WTGs, is expected to begin in summer 2021, with the full 800 MW commissioned and operating by the end of 2021.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 1-27 General & Project Description Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Section 2.0
Wetlands and Waterways
2.0 WETLANDS AND WATERWAYS
The Company has designed the Project to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands and waterways. As described below, there are no impacts to inland wetlands from the proposed onshore underground transmission. In offshore areas where impacts to marine resources cannot be avoided, the Company has proposed and/or is prepared to provide appropriate mitigation in a manner that satisfies regulatory requirements.
2.1 Refined Preliminary Cable Alignments within the Offshore Export Cable Corridor
The Company’s engineers have defined preliminary cable alignments for both offshore export cables within the Offshore Export Cable Corridor. Previous maps in the DEIR and SDEIR showed the corridor and a generalized cable centerline. While the entire corridor is included and will remain within the Project Envelope, the Company is sharing these preliminary cable alignments to keep agencies informed as the engineering process progresses. These initial alignments, which will be subject to further refinement, are shown on Figure 1-4 and on the updated offshore map set in Attachment D. Attachment D also depicts results from the summer 2018 marine surveys and includes but is not limited to: bathymetry; characteristic video still images; benthic habitat characterization; delineation of hard bottom, complex bottom, and eelgrass.
In general, isolated areas of hard bottom will be avoided. In other limited areas, hard bottom extends across the entire corridor and cannot be entirely avoided. Complex bottom areas (sand waves) tend to be more extensive along portions of the cable corridor. The refined alignments do attempt to minimize crossings of complex bottom, and the associated dredging where possible, although in some locations it is necessary to cross through complex bottom to minimize impacts to hard bottom or avoid boulders.
As described below, wherever possible, the cable alignments will avoid areas of hard bottom and complex bottom that encroach over only a portion of the installation corridor. In fact, the Company’s interests and the agency’s interests are aligned in the avoidance and minimization of impacts to these areas, as this would not only be environmentally beneficial but will also minimize technical challenges in achieving sufficient burial depth, minimize the need for dredging, and avoid or minimize the need for cable protection.
The cable alignments will continue to be refined within the installation corridor based on ongoing evaluation of geological conditions in the surface and shallow subsurface, contractor input, and pre-construction surveys to avoid and minimize impacts to hard bottom and complex bottom while maintaining a technically feasible route for the cables and maximizing the likelihood of sufficient cable burial. This refinement will be accomplished through further cable route engineering, which consists of the steps described below:
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 2-1 Wetlands and Waterways Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Preliminary Route Engineering
The objective of the preliminary route engineering is to develop the first iteration of the route that the two offshore export cables will follow within the installation corridor. This preliminary route is supported by a cable burial risk assessment that determines the minimum level of burial protection that is required to protect the cable and an assessment of the method of burial that is most suitable for specific site conditions. All seabed features and environmental constraints are mapped along the installation corridor, and the route design engineer applies the following criteria to develop a preliminary cable alignment for each of the two cables (as reflected in Figure 1-4):
1. Quantification of the length where hard bottom crossing is unavoidable, with the lowest amount of hard bottom crossed being preferable; 2. Quantification of boulders along the route, where avoiding or minimizing the amount of boulders along the route is preferable; 3. Quantification of the length and volume of unavoidable dredging required along each route, with the least amount of dredging being preferable; 4. Assessment of slopes along the route (slopes of less than 10 degrees are required for cable installation tool accessibility); 5. Assessment of water depths along the route, where water depths greater than approximately 20 feet are preferable to facilitate unrestricted cable installation vessel movement; 6. Assessment of sediment types along the route, where sand or soft clays are preferable; 7. Assessment of any magnetic anomalies along the route, where maintaining a reasonable separation to any magnetic anomaly is preferable; and 8. Assessment of sediment movement and seabed morphology changes, where excessive deposition or erosion is to be avoided to avoid potential damage to the cable.
The preliminary route engineering study has resulted in the initial cable alignment shown on Figure 1-4.
Detailed Route Engineering
The detailed route engineering will be completed by the Contractor that is appointed by the Company to supply and install the submarine cables, subject to the Company’s final review and compliance with impact mitigation obligations. The Contractor will take into account the preliminary route engineering work previously completed by the Company as well as the design criteria listed above in the preliminary route engineering. The Contractor will conduct its own engineering study to verify the cable corridor and Landfall Site are suitable
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 2-2 Wetlands and Waterways Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. for the purposes of construction and operation. The Contractor will refine the alignments of the two offshore export cables within the allocated installation corridor to optimize the installation activities and burial depth, which will include avoiding or minimizing impacts to hard bottom and complex bottom. The Contractor will also develop an alignment that reduces any potential threats to the security of the cable. The Contractor's design process will be overseen by the Company, and any deviations from the preliminary route design will be subject to approval. In this manner, the Contractor can optimize the route for its specific cable installation tool, but the Company specifies the design criteria that must be met (which include minimizing the amount of hard bottom crossed and minimizing the amount of dredging required, among other permitting requirements) and maintains the right to provide final approval for the route.
2.1.1 Hard and Complex Bottom
Baseline conditions for special, sensitive, and unique (SSU) habitats, including hard and complex bottom, were described in Section 1.3.1.2 of the SDEIR. Figure 1-4 provides a side-by-side comparison of the Ocean Management Plan (OMP)-mapped SSU areas with the areas of hard bottom, complex bottom, and eelgrass delineated from the Company’s 2018 marine survey results. These delineations of hard bottom, complex bottom, and eelgrass were presented in the SDEIR; since that submittal the Company’s engineering team has been able to define preliminary alignments of both offshore export cables within the installation corridor to avoid and minimize potential impacts to hard bottom and complex bottom. These preliminary cable alignments are shown on Figure 1-4 and are reflected in the map set provided as Attachment D. The preliminary cable alignments are also reflected in the updated impact calculations provided in Section 2.2.
The remainder of this section describes hard and complex bottom and how the refined cable alignment avoids and minimizes impacts to both.
As shown on Figure 1-4, areas of the Offshore Export Cable Corridor that exhibit coarse deposits and associated rugged seafloor topography are present in the Muskeget Channel area, mainly along the eastern option, where hard bottom covers the full width of the installation corridor. Additional isolated hard bottom areas are present in the northern portion of Nantucket Sound within the Offshore Export Cable Corridor. These include scattered and piled boulders around charted features such as Collier Ledge, Gannet Rocks, and Spindle Rock toward/in Centerville Harbor and Gardiners Rock south of the Hyannis Harbor entrance.
Together with the flat sandy seafloor, bedform fields (i.e., ripples, megaripples, and sand waves) cover the most area within the Offshore Export Cable Corridor. Size and wavelength vary considerably throughout, ranging from less than 1 foot (0.3 m) to over 30 feet (9 m) in relief, with wavelengths of less than 6.5 feet (2 m) to over 410 feet (125 m). Due to the mobility of the sediments in this habitat, development of infaunal communities is greatly reduced compared to more stable seabed areas. While this equates to a lower
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 2-3 Wetlands and Waterways Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. productive infaunal benthic regime, the bottom morphology and dynamics of the fields is reportedly attractive to finfish (personal communication, Commonwealth of Massachusetts). The areal extent of these bedforms (i.e., complex bottom) is constantly changing with subtle environmental shifts in water depths, sediment grain size, and current flow. This is a laterally extensive habitat due to the predominantly sandy seafloor and tidal currents flowing over the bottom and constantly reworking sediment.
At isolated locations, where large sand waves exhibit greater than approximately 5 feet (1.5 m) of relief above the bedform troughs to either side, dredging of the top portion of the sand wave may be necessary to allow the cable installation tool to reach the stable sediment layer under the base of the mobile sand unit/habitat (see Section 1.4.1.3 of the SDEIR as well as Section 2.2.1 of this FEIR). The temporary displacement of this material from the top of the bedforms in a limited swath along the installation corridor is believed to be of minimal and short-term impact to the habitat due to mobility of the surficial sand layer, which migrates daily with the tidal currents, and the low productivity of the benthic habitat (see Attachment J of the DEIR). The disturbed bedform will evolve back to its original morphology over a relatively short time period, dependent upon the tidal forces and resulting sand migration rates for that specific location.
As discussed in the CR Environmental underwater video review report (see Attachment J of the DEIR), approximately 67% of the 37 video transects on the cable corridor (and options) consisted of low-complexity bottom habitats with a primary bottom classification of Flat Sand Mud, Sand Waves, or Biogenic Structures (using the hierarchical approach for classifying marine bottom habitats in the outer continental shelf of the northwest Atlantic developed by Auster [1998]1). At these stations, the fewest invertebrate species and only rare observations of fish were recorded. As noted in the CR report, areas of observed sand waves were the least productive of all habitats. Other habitats observed with some frequency (primary or secondary) were Shell Aggregate bottom and Pebble Cobble bottom. Secondary habitat types were based on observance in at least 25% of the time lapse video. Representative video still photos are provided as map insets in Attachment D to provide another dimension to the data overview. Other map insets are provided for side scan sonar data in sand wave areas.
As described in the context of consistency with the Massachusetts OMP in Section 2.1.3.1, the 2018 marine survey confirms that it is not possible to completely avoid SSUs along the export cable corridor. However, the proposed alignments are the least environmentally damaging practicable alternatives and result in a Project with public benefits that clearly outweigh any detriments to SSU and other resources; the Project’s public benefits are described in Section 1.2. Given the need to bring the offshore cables to shore, although the
1 Auster, P.J. 1998. The conceptual model of the impacts of fishing gear on the integrity of fish habitat. Conservation Biology V12 (6): 1198-1203.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 2-4 Wetlands and Waterways Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Proponent has taken all practicable measures to avoid SSU areas (hard bottom, complex bottom, and eelgrass), including extensive evaluation of potential cable routes in the offshore project area, a commercially-viable route that completely avoids hard bottom and complex bottom is not available. The length that each preliminary corridor passes through areas identified in the 2018 marine survey as hard bottom or complex bottom is defined in Table 2-1. The text following the table describes areas where SSU crossing was unavoidable.
Table 2-1 Length (miles) of each preliminary cable alignment in hard bottom or complex bottom (as delineated in 2018 marine survey).
Hard Bottom Complex Bottom To Covell’s Beach East through Muskeget option Eastern cable preliminary alignment 2.1 8.9 Western cable preliminary alignment 2.6 7.6 Total (both cables) 4.7 (7.6 km) 16.5 (26.5 km) West through Muskeget option Eastern cable preliminary alignment 1.8 9.0 Western cable preliminary alignment 1.6 8.2 Total (both cables) 3.4 (5.5 km) 17.2 (27.7 km) To New Hampshire Avenue East through Muskeget option Eastern cable preliminary alignment 2.1 10.4 Western cable preliminary alignment 2.6 8.9 Total (both cables) 4.7 19.3 West through Muskeget option Eastern cable preliminary alignment 1.8 10.5 Western cable preliminary alignment 1.7 9.5 Total (both cables) 3.5 (5.6 km) 20 (32.1 km)
As shown on Figure 1-4, there are a few limited areas where technical constraints result in the preliminary cable alignments being located within hard or complex bottom; these are described below:
♦ Western Option through Muskeget Channel: Moving from south to north, the preliminary corridors cross an area of complex bottom that spans nearly the entire width of the installation corridor and is unavoidable. Within this area of complex bottom, the cable alignments have been placed in the center or eastern half of the installation corridor due to the presence of larger sand waves and a deep channel with prohibitively steep slopes in the northwestern portion of the mapped complex bottom. As the cable alignments move north from the mapped complex bottom and into the adjacent mapped hard bottom, they must initially remain on the eastern side of the installation corridor to avoid these features, and they therefore cross into
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 2-5 Wetlands and Waterways Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. an isolated area of mapped hard bottom. Just north of this point, there is a mapped area of hard bottom that spans nearly the entire width of the installation corridor, where crossing it is unavoidable. ♦ Eastern Option through Muskeget Channel: Moving from south to north, the preliminary cable alignments cross through an unavoidable area of hard bottom, and are located near the center of the installation corridor to allow sufficient room for anchoring and to avoid seabed features present near the southwest corner of the mapped hard bottom. Moving north, there is an area of hard bottom on the west and an area of complex bottom to the east. The preliminary alignments enter the area of hard bottom towards the center of the corridor to avoid a relatively dense area of seabed features (likely boulders) near the eastern edge of the corridor. The preliminary corridor then skirts along the eastern edge of the mapped hard bottom while avoiding the area of mapped complex bottom due to the very large (10- to 20- foot-tall [3- to 4-meter-tall]) sand waves. Such large and mobile sand waves pose an overheating risk to the cable and would also significantly increase the dredging volume. ♦ Installation Corridor Just North of Muskeget Channel: In the portion of the installation corridor between where the two cable options through Muskeget Channel converge northward to approximately the boundary between state and federal waters, there are areas of mapped complex bottom located predominantly on the eastern side of the corridor. In these areas, the preliminary cable alignments have typically been placed in the eastern half of the installation corridor, near or somewhat within the mapped complex bottom, due to the presence of concentrated areas of seabed features (likely boulders). Cable installation within boulder fields is technically challenging, would require disturbance for boulder removal, and would likely require cable protection due to insufficient cable burial; therefore, the preliminary alignments avoid these boulder fields and cross into limited areas of complex bottom.
Hard bottom and complex bottom are discussed in greater detail in Section 2.1.3.1, and impact calculations are provided in Table 2-2.
2.1.2 Eelgrass
Eelgrass (Zostera marina) beds form an important habitat in the coastal environment that provides refuge and sustenance for a large number and variety of animals, as well as serving as a critical component of sediment and shoreline stabilization.
Evaluations of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) within the cable corridor have included a desktop study making use of data from MassDEP’s Eelgrass Mapping Project, which, over multiple years, mapped eelgrass beds in state waters using high-resolution digital imagery and extensive fieldwork supported by high-accuracy GPS, high- resolution sonar, and underwater video cameras. Following incorporation of information
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 2-6 Wetlands and Waterways Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. from the desktop study, in November 2017 an eelgrass survey was conducted in Lewis Bay aimed specifically at historically mapped beds in the area. Several transects were strategically positioned around Egg island to address this question. The desktop study was also used to inform the location and extent of “Tier-1 SAV” on-site surveys which were conducted on July 12 and July 18, 2018. As described in Section 1.3.1.2 of the SDEIR, the on-site surveys determined the presence or absence of eelgrass and/or widgeon grass beds within pre-determined transect lines for four dive investigation areas along the cable corridor (see Section 1.3.1.2 of the SDEIR). These surveys were performed in conformance with guidance provided in Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries Technical Report TR- 43, “Technical Guidelines for the Delineation, Restoration, and Monitoring of Eelgrass (Zostera marina) in Massachusetts Coastal Water”, dated October 2010, and the Joint Federal Regulatory Resource Agency’s Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Survey Guidance for the New England Region (June 21, 2011 Version).
The 2018 field campaign purposely revisited areas that had historically mapped eelgrass beds to further confirm or deny the existence and abundance of the habitat. Investigations in 2018 also infilled areas of the Offshore Export Cable Corridor where data was previously lacking. The 2018 survey data confirm that eelgrass can be avoided along the preferred Covell’s Beach route. The data also provides further information regarding the alternate New Hampshire Avenue route.
Underwater video was the primary tool used for identification and mapping of eelgrass beds, since the isolated, patchy nature of the eelgrass, where present, is not always detectable on sonar imagery (see Section 3.4.3 of Attachment E to the SDEIR). The side scan sonar records were reviewed initially in shallow areas exhibiting prime characteristics for sea grass development, with underwater video utilized to further ground-truth and confirm the presence or absence of the habitat. Towed underwater camera systems were used to more effectively and safely cover transects crossing the installation corridor and in specific locations where a higher potential for sea grass existed. Where eelgrass was documented by towed video, diver inspection of the seafloor using a handheld camera system was conducted to accurately map the areal extent of the beds and local abundance. This was only necessary offshore from Covell’s Beach at Spindle Rock. To the greatest extent possible given site conditions, the investigation followed technical guidelines for delineating sea grasses suggested by the DMF.2
In deeper water areas in both 2017 and 2018 video imagery, eelgrass strands were observed along several transects; however, these isolated occurrences were determined to be dead strands of grass that were drifting/floating and not rooted in the substrate. Drifting strands can become embedded in gravel, cobbles, and shells on the seafloor, giving the
2 Evans and Leschen. 2010. Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries Technical Report TR-43, “Technical Guidelines for the Delineation, Restoration, and Monitoring of Eelgrass (Zostera marina) in Massachusetts Coastal Water”.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 2-7 Wetlands and Waterways Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. appearance of rooted plants. Water depths typically more than 26 to 33 feet (8-10 m), together with the dark brown-black coloration of the strands, offered evidence that these were dead, drifting plant material.
Around Egg Island, November 2017 video (dormant season) showed only sparse strands of dark brown grass evident among higher concentrations of macroalgae occupying the same area. Similarly, in July 2018 (growing season), video imagery revealed the same condition: sparse distribution of eelgrass strands, and no patches of grass, mixed with abundant macroalgae cover. The same transects were surveyed for direct comparison of results. Transects were run around Egg Island as well as within the Offshore Export Cable Corridor within Lewis Bay in 2018. These results showed no prominent beds or thriving eelgrass communities in those portions of Lewis Bay.
Another area of interest was uncovered from the 2018 video survey offshore from Covell’s Beach where sparse patches of eelgrass have been identified around Spindle Rock in Centerville Harbor. Video transects included as part of the 2018 survey initially documented their presence, and a subsequent diver investigation provided a thorough mapping of the area. This patch of eelgrass, which is co-located with hard bottom (a rock pile), is shown on Figure 1-4 as well as on the plan set included in Attachment D. Patches of grass intertwined with macroalgae inhabit the discontinuous sandy bottom in and around the rock pile. In contrast to the blades of dead eelgrass near Egg Island, these exhibit the bright green coloring more common for healthy eelgrass during the growing season. An eelgrass survey report describing the occurrence of eelgrass in the vicinity of Spindle Rock was provided as Attachment P to the SDEIR.
The eelgrass is within the bounds of an OMP-mapped hard/complex bottom SSU that was confirmed during the 2018 surveys. As described previously and shown on Figure 1-4, the length and heading of the HDD from the Covell’s Beach paved parking lot has been refined to entirely avoid this SSU.
2.1.3 Consistency with Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan
The Project will comply with the management standards of the Massachusetts OMP. The OMP’s framework is intended to manage uses and activities within the state’s Ocean Management Planning Area, which begins approximately 0.3 miles from shore, and as such its geographic scope includes the ocean waters, seafloor, and subsurface.3 As stipulated in
3 The “Ocean Management Planning Area” is defined at 301 CMR 28.02 as: “The waters and associated submerged lands of the ocean, including the seabed and the soil, lying between a line designated as the "Nearshore Boundary of the Ocean Management Planning Area" and the seaward boundary of the Commonwealth, as defined in 43 U.S.C. § 1312. The "Nearshore Boundary of the Ocean Management Planning Area" is depicted on a map dated January 31, 2006, prepared by the Office of Coastal Zone Management, and available on the Massachusetts Ocean Resources Information System, that constitutes the landward boundary of the Ocean Management Planning Area.” The nearshore boundary is shown on Figure 1-16 of the SDEIR.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 2-8 Wetlands and Waterways Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. the Oceans Act of 2008, and described in Chapter 1 of the OMP, implementation is achieved through existing state review procedures, whereby all licenses, permits, and leases are required to be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the OMP. The OMP’s assessment and documentation of uses, natural resources, and other ecosystem components of Massachusetts ocean waters guide the scope of relevant aspects of the MEPA review.
The Project is located in the “Multi-Use Area” of the OMP, which covers the majority of the jurisdictional planning area. In Multi-Use Areas, proposed projects are subject to siting and performance standards associated with allowable uses; those uses are governed by the Ocean Sanctuaries Act, as modified by the Oceans Act, and include power and communications cables. See the 2015 Ocean Management Plan, p. 2-4. The OMP’s general siting and performance standards are directly related to resources and uses within a project area, as discussed below in specific reference to cable projects.
2.1.3.1 Special, Sensitive, or Unique Estuarine and Marine Life and Habitats
The Ocean Management Plan and the relevant Ocean Management Plan Regulations, found at 301 CMR 28.00, include management standards for SSU Resources (see 301 CMR 28.04). Activities in SSU areas are permitted if the maps delineating the SSU resources do not accurately characterize the resource based on substantial site-specific information (301 CMR 28.04(2)(b)(1)) or there is no less damaging practicable alternative taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics, all practicable measures have been taken to avoid damage to SSUs (including mitigation measures and time of year controls), and the public benefits outweigh the public detriments (see 301 CMR 28.04(2)(b)(2-4)).
For this Project, compliance with the Management Standards for SSUs is demonstrated using both methods.
First, as discussed below and in Section 1.3.1.2 of the SDEIR, the marine surveys, including the 2018 marine survey4 have refined the SSU areas using data that comply with the data standards requirements in 301 CMR 28.08(1). Specifically, the Proponent met on multiple occasions with representatives of the Secretary, CZM, and other relevant agencies before, during, and after the marine surveys to specifically discuss the refinement of the SSU areas. The Proponent believes that data collected as a result of those surveys is based on contemporary and accepted standards, as informed by the multiple consultations described above and therefore is appropriate to use under 301 CMR 28.08(1)(b). The Company discussed with CZM the use of its multi-track data obtained during its 2018 survey relative
4 An updated offshore corridor map set that more comprehensively depicts results from the 2018 surveys is provided in Attachment D. This map set presents information that includes but is not limited to: bathymetry; characteristic video still images; benthic habitat characterization; delineation of hard bottom, complex bottom, and eelgrass; and areas where discontinuous dredging of the tops of sand waves may be required.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 2-9 Wetlands and Waterways Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. to the mapping in the OMP; based on those discussions and consistent with the OMP, it is suitable and appropriate to use the 2018 survey data to plan routing and to assess compliance with the OMP standards.
Second, using the refined SSU locations generated as a result of the marine survey (discussed in Section 2.1.1), the Proponent has determined that it is not possible to completely avoid SSUs. As discussed in Sections 2.1.2 and 3.4.5 of the DEIR, numerous technical and environmental considerations and constraints factored into the selection of these routes, including avoidance of SSUs. However, the proposed route is still consistent with OMP Regulations because no less environmentally damaging practicable alternative exists, all practicable measures have been or will be taken to avoid damage to SSU areas, and the public benefits outweigh the public costs. Compliance with this aspect of the OMP is also discussed below.
As a component of evaluating and minimizing potential impacts related to the Project, the Company has conducted extensive surveys of the Offshore Export Cable Corridor and has mapped hard bottom, complex bottom (bedform fields), and eelgrass along the corridor (see Section 1.3.1 of the SDEIR). The Offshore Export Cable Corridor is shown in Figure 1-4 relative to these habitats mapped from the 2018 marine survey as well as OMP-mapped SSU areas. Based on these surveys and evaluation of the cable corridor, the proposed route is the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative and results in a Project with public benefits that outweigh any detriments to SSU and other resources; the Project’s public benefits are described in Section 1.2.
The Company’s delineations, based on survey results, of hard bottom, complex bottom, and eelgrass along the Offshore Export Cable Corridor are shown on Figure 1-4 and are described in Section 1.3.1.2 of the SDEIR. The only eelgrass bed observed during the survey, which is co-located with hard bottom offshore from the Covell’s Beach Landfall Site, will be avoided with an HDD trajectory and associated cable alignments that will pass the area to the east. The Project will not impact the area of core habitat for the North Atlantic Right Whale mapped as an SSU area in the OMP.
As shown in Figure 1-4, in several cases, small areas of hard bottom are present along the fringes of the Offshore Export Cable Corridor, where the cable alignments can avoid them; these include the small areas of hard bottom in the northern portion of the installation corridor offshore from the Covell’s Beach Landfall Site. In other cases, areas of hard bottom in Muskeget Channel or complex bottom (e.g., sand waves) cover the full width of the corridor. The Company’s technical engineers identified preliminary cable alignments based on 2018 survey results and technical considerations to avoid and minimize impacts to hard bottom and complex bottom; the revised impact assessment presented in Section 2.2 reflects the preliminary cable alignments, and Table 2-1 identifies the length of each route that will pass through hard bottom or complex bottom.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 2-10 Wetlands and Waterways Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Given the need to bring the offshore cables to shore, although the Proponent has taken all practicable measures to avoid SSU areas (hard bottom, complex bottom, and eelgrass), including extensive evaluation of potential cable routes in the offshore project area, a commercially-viable route that completely avoids hard bottom and complex bottom is not available. Hard bottom and complex bottom are discussed in greater detail below.
Hard Bottom
As described in Section 2.1.1 of this FEIR and Section 1.3.1 of the SDEIR, significant survey effort was directed towards assessing benthic conditions and revising boundaries of OMP- mapped hard/complex bottom along the cable corridor based on 2018 survey results. Hard bottom delineated from 2018 survey results is depicted on Figure 1-4 of this FEIR. As described above, in some locations only a small portion of the installation corridor is characterized as hard bottom, as is the case in the northern reaches of the Offshore Export Cable Corridor. Offshore from Covell’s Beach near Spindle Rock, the preliminary cable alignments will avoid impacts to the small areas mapped as hard bottom (see Figure 1-4). As described in Section 1.1 of the SDEIR and shown on Figure 1-4 of this FEIR, the Company has modified its HDD design from Covell’s Beach to avoid this mapped hard bottom and co-located eelgrass. South of Hyannis Harbor, the large area of hard/complex bottom identified in the OMP has been refined into three small areas of hard bottom on the approach to Lewis Bay and the alternative New Hampshire Avenue Landfall Site. In this location, the preliminary cable alignments can largely avoid impacts, although the orientation of the federal navigation channel does somewhat constrain options.
In both options through Muskeget Channel, the hard bottom covers the full width of the installation corridor. Thus, based on the 2018 survey data, within the two route options through the Muskeget area it is not feasible for cable installation activities to completely avoid hard bottom. In this area, side slopes and strong currents limit where the cables can be safely and properly installed, and Project engineers have identified the installation corridor as the boundary where construction is feasible. Survey data demonstrate that both the western and eastern options through the Muskeget area contain similar rugged seafloor characteristics, and thus neither option fully avoids impacts.
Complex Bottom
Complex bottom is defined based on a measure of rugosity, or the bathymetric relief and complexity on the seafloor. As described in Section 1.3.1.2 of the SDEIR, the areal extent of bedforms, such as sand waves, is constantly changing with subtle environmental shifts in water depths, sediment grain size, and current flow. Within the Offshore Export Cable Corridor, this is a laterally extensive habitat due to the predominantly sandy seafloor and tidal currents flowing over the bottom and constantly reworking the sediment. Due to the mobility of the sediments in this habitat, development of infaunal communities is greatly reduced compared to more stable seabed areas. This equates to a lower productive infaunal benthic regime.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 2-11 Wetlands and Waterways Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. As shown on Figure 1-4, complex bottom as delineated from 2018 survey results (see Section 1.3.1.2 of the SDEIR) covers, in some cases, the entire lateral extent of the Offshore Export Cable Corridor.5 Where complex bottom does not cover the full lateral extent of the installation corridor, the preliminary cable alignments minimize passage through these areas while considering technological and logistical factors. However, in most instances where sand waves are present, such as within both options through Muskeget Channel and in the central reaches through Nantucket Sound, they do cover the lateral extent of the installation corridor.
In Muskeget Channel, side slopes and strong currents limit where the cables can be safely and properly installed. Survey data demonstrate that both the western and eastern options through the Muskeget area contain similar seafloor characteristics, and thus neither option fully avoids impacts. North of Muskeget Channel within Nantucket Sound, the Offshore Export Cable Corridor stays within optimal water depths and avoids shoal features that in some cases are present to either side. Given the need for a relatively straight alignment, where the route cannot turn more than 30 degrees at a time and rapid bathymetric changes must be avoided, the installation corridor presents the most practicable option for a successful cable installation. The principal factors used for identifying the Offshore Export Cable Corridor are described in Section 1.3.1 of the SDEIR.
Eelgrass
Eelgrass (Zostera marina) and widgeon grass (Ruppia maritima) are both species of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) and are important protected resources that represent critical habitat in near-coastal ecosystems. These resources are important components of coastal ecosystems and provide food and shelter to numerous aquatic species, cycle nutrients from the water column, and stabilize marine sediments.
Eelgrass surveys are specifically described in Section 2.1.2.
The Company’s 2018 survey identified a single area of eelgrass within the installation corridor, which was described in Section 1.3.1.2 of the SDEIR. As shown on Figure 1-4, this area of eelgrass is co-located with an area of hard bottom associated with Spindle Rock. As described in Section 1.1 of the SDEIR, the Company modified the HDD design at Covell’s Beach to angle the HDD eastward from the beach, thus avoiding both the hard bottom and the eelgrass. Thus, the Project will not have any impacts on eelgrass beds.
5 Sand waves as small as approximately 1 foot in height are included in areas mapped as complex bottom. Since typical cable installation techniques would be sufficient within sand waves less than 3 to 5 feet in height (1 to 1.5 meters), the extent of complex bottom does not correspond to where discontinuous dredging may be required to achieve sufficient burial depth.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 2-12 Wetlands and Waterways Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Core Habitat of the North Atlantic Right Whale
As described in Section 2.1.2.4 of the DEIR, the Project avoids core habitat mapped for whales, including the North Atlantic Right Whale. This has been the case from the outset, although at least one agency and the Secretary’s Certificate on the DEIR incorrectly stated that the cable was crossing mapped North Atlantic Right Whale habitat.
2.1.3.2 Marine Water-Dependent Uses (Commercial and Recreational Fishing, Navigation)
The OMP includes mapped areas of commercial and recreational fishing and navigation in Nantucket Sound. Commercial and recreational fishing are vital economic activities that take place in state waters off the south coast of Massachusetts, Cape Cod, and the Islands. Although the cable corridor mostly avoids areas mapped by the OMP as “high commercial fishing effort and value,” the Proponent recognizes that commercial fishing activities will occur along the cable corridor and construction and installation activities could temporarily affect these concentrated areas of water-dependent uses. (See Section 3.0 of this FEIR and 5.0 of the SDEIR for additional discussion of fisheries and Section 4.0 of the SDEIR for discussion of navigation.)
To the maximum extent practicable, the Project avoids, minimizes, and will mitigate impacts to areas of commercial fishing effort and value, areas of concentrated recreational fishing, and other water-dependent uses as they may occur in proximity to the Project.
As an initial matter, impacts to finfish and invertebrates targeted by commercial and recreational fishermen within state waters are expected to be short-term and localized during construction and installation phases. Construction and installation activities will occur within very limited and well-defined areas of the cable corridor, and vessel restrictions are not proposed other than those imposed by the USCG in the immediate vicinity of the construction and installation activity. The majority of the cable corridor will remain accessible to commercial and recreational fishing vessel operations throughout the construction and installation process. Indeed, during the entire anticipated lifespan of the Project, the cable corridor will remain accessible to commercial and recreational fishing vessel operations.
Fish and fisheries resources are discussed in additional detail in Section 3 of this FEIR and in Section 5.4 of the SDEIR. As discussed in Section 5.4.3 of the SDEIR, species that may be impacted by cable installation activities are anticipated to quickly recover following any potential disturbances. Impacts to mobile pelagic fish and invertebrate species may include localized and short-term avoidance behavior. Mobile pelagic and invertebrate species will be able to avoid construction areas and are not expected to be substantially impacted by construction and installation. Abundance of mobile pelagic and invertebrate species,
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 2-13 Wetlands and Waterways Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. therefore, would not be affected. However, availability of these species in proximity to construction and installation activities may temporarily decrease, potentially resulting in increased catch per unit effort outside the vicinity of the cable route.
Burial and mortality of some demersal eggs (fish [e.g., Longfin Inshore Squid (Doryteuthis pealeii)] and whelk species) may occur during cable installation activities. Such impacts are confined to localized areas along the cable installation route where sediment deposition from cable installation may be greater than 1 mm.6 The impacts of sediment dispersion are discussed in 1.4.1.4 of the SDEIR and in Section 2.3.2 of this FEIR. Other mobile benthic invertebrates, such as lobsters and crabs, would be temporarily displaced by construction and installation activities, but are likely able to avoid the associated sediment deposition areas. Since the impacted area is only a small portion of the available habitat, and because most of these species produce millions of eggs each year, significant impacts are highly unlikely.
The Company has consulted with shellfish constables in Yarmouth and Barnstable, DMF, and members of the commercial bay scallop and whelk fishing communities. These consultations will continue and will be useful for determining the extent of commercial fishing effort for these species before and during Project installation. Post-installation monitoring through the Project’s Benthic Habitat Monitoring Plan (provided as Attachment D of the SDEIR) in partnerships with research and other organizations will also be conducted to document habitat disturbance and recovery. Project-related impacts along the cable route as they may impact the whelk fishery will be limited both in spatial extent and duration, and the Company will continue to avoid and minimize disturbance in coordination with DMF and directly with the fishermen.
The Project is not expected to affect the use of pots and traps, and although bottom trawl gear typically interacts with the seafloor, sufficient burial depths of offshore cables will allow for safe deployment of such gear. The Company will minimize the use of cable protection to the extent possible, as described in Section 2.2.3 of this FEIR and in Section 1.4.1.3 of the SDEIR. Should cable protection be required, it will be designed to minimize impacts to fishing gear and fishermen will be informed of the areas where protection is used (see Section 4.2 of the SDEIR).
6 The 1-mm threshold was developed for the most sensitive demersal fish eggs, such as winter flounder, which have a mean diameter of 0.75 mm (Berry et al., 2011). By contrast, squid eggs are much larger and are expected to be less sensitive to deposition than winter flounder eggs. The initial size for squid egg capsules (for a similar species, Loligo opalescens) can be approximately 16 mm in diameter and 9-10 cm long, expanding to 20-25 cm after a few days. Longfin squid mops are expected to be similar.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 2-14 Wetlands and Waterways Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. In response to feedback from fixed gear fishermen, the Company is also evaluating the feasibility of pre-established transit routes for Project-related vessel traffic during construction. Fisherman have suggested that use of consistent transit lanes for construction vessels during the installation phase may reduce conflicts and minimize or eliminate loss of gear. Construction-period transit planning is discussed in Section 2.5.1.
As described in Section 3, squid vessel activity occurs within Nantucket Sound and Massachusetts coastal waters. Through the NEPA process, BOEM is considering a Dynamic Squid Fishing Avoidance Plan that would require daily communication between squid fishery representatives and Vineyard Wind so that harvesters are aware of the day’s activities and the developer is aware of where fishing is occurring. Vineyard Wind would support implementation of such a plan.
Vineyard Wind is developing a framework for a pre-, during, and post-construction fisheries monitoring program, which is discussed in greater detail in Section 3.
To further avoid and minimize impacts to commercial fishing activities, Vineyard Wind will implement a comprehensive communications plan with the various port authorities, federal, state, and local authorities, and other key stakeholders, including recreational fishermen and boaters, commercial fishermen, harbormasters, the marine pilots, and other port operators (see Section 3 of this FEIR and Section 4.1 of the SDEIR). In addition, the Company has developed and implemented a Fisheries Communication Plan and the Project management team will continue to develop and utilize communications plans to ensure relevant and accurate information regarding the Project is disseminated to the various commercial fishing communities during each stage of the Project. As described in the Fisheries Communication Plan, Fisheries Liaisons and a network of Fisheries Representatives are, and will continue to be, employed by Vineyard Wind to ensure effective communication and coordination between the Project and fishermen. The Fisheries Communication Plan was provided as Attachment N to the DEIR along with Notices to Mariners that were issued for marine surveys in 2016, 2017, and 2018; an updated7 Fisheries Communication Plan was provided as Attachment G to the SDEIR. As additional information on commercial and for-hire recreational fishing are made available, Vineyard Wind may make adjustments to operating procedures and other practices in an effort to avoid, minimize, and mitigate Project-related impacts to these fishing communities.
Vineyard Wind will continue to distribute Notices to Mariners to notify recreational and commercial vessels of their intended operations related to both the offshore Wind Development Area in federal waters as well as the Offshore Export Cable Corridor. Local port communities and local media will be notified and kept informed as construction and installation progresses. Vineyard Wind is currently providing and will continue to provide
7 The Fisheries Communication Plan is updated on an as-needed basis with regular input from ongoing fisheries consultations and regulatory agencies.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 2-15 Wetlands and Waterways Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. portable digital media that allows locations of Project-related work to be shown on electronic charts used by most fishermen. This approach has proven effective in providing fishermen with accurate and precise information on work within the Offshore Project Area. The Project’s website is updated regularly to provide information on the construction zone, scheduled activities, and specific Project information.
As many as eight vessels may be used for cable-laying activities along the cable corridor, including crew support and transfer vessels. Temporary safety zones may be established around some of these vessels during the construction and installation phase, primarily the vessel actively installing cable. Temporary safety zones are expected to improve safety in the vicinity of active work areas and would not affect the entire cable corridor at any one time. Temporary safety zones around cable laying vessels are being determined in conjunction with the USCG; buoys may be placed at the four corners of the safety zone. A safety zone of this size is not expected to impact commercial or recreational fishing activities, nor would it significantly affect navigation in state waters. When construction and installation vessels are on-station along the cable corridor and within areas of confined navigation or in close proximity to obstructions, as may be the case in Muskeget Channel, temporary navigational impacts in the immediate vicinity of those vessels may occur. Other vessels transiting these areas may need to make adjustments to planned routes or transit times to avoid construction and installation activities.
Coordination among the New Bedford Port Authority, the New Bedford Harbor Master, USCG, local pilots, and other entities will be necessary to ensure that impacts from construction and installation vessels are minimized. Vineyard Wind is committed to working with each stakeholder to address navigation and other concerns during each phase of the Project. As part of this effort, Vineyard Wind will develop and implement a communication plan to engage these stakeholders. Vineyard Wind will work to coordinate a vessel traffic management plan, as necessary, to align construction and installation vessel operations with established port operations.
During the construction and installation phase, Vineyard Wind will employ a Marine Coordinator to manage all construction vessel logistics and act as a liaison with the USCG, port authorities, state and local law enforcement, marine patrol, and port operators. The Marine Coordinator will keep informed of all planned vessel deployment and will manage the Project’s marine logistics and vessel traffic coordination between the staging ports and the WDA. Notices to Mariners (NTMs) will be distributed by Vineyard Wind to notify recreational and commercial vessels of their intended operations to/from and within the WDA. Local port communities and local media will be notified and kept informed as construction progresses. Updated navigational charts (paper and electronic) with the location of the Project will be issued to stakeholders. The Project website will be updated regularly to provide information on the construction zone, scheduled activities, and specific Project information.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 2-16 Wetlands and Waterways Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. To minimize hazards to navigation, all Project-related vessels, equipment, and appurtenances will display the required navigation lighting and day shapes.
2.1.3.3 Ocean Development Mitigation Fee
As described in Appendix 6 of the Massachusetts OMP, projects subject to the Plan shall be subject to an Ocean Development Mitigation Fee intended to compensate the Commonwealth for unavoidable impacts on public interests and rights in the Ocean Management Planning Area and to support planning, management, restoration, or enhancement of marine resources and uses. Appendix 6 of the Plan sets forth a fee structure and related guidance, which includes considerations of a project’s scope, extent, duration, and severity of impacts, along with consideration of measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate those impacts and the public benefits of the project and other proposed mitigation (see Attachment M of the SDEIR for a copy of this appendix).
The purpose of this section is to inform the determination of the Ocean Development Mitigation Fee, as well as to provide Vineyard Wind’s proposal for an Ocean Development Mitigation Fee.
Section 1.7.1.3 of the SDEIR proposed a fee of $240,000, based on the Proponent’s interpretation of the “Appendix 6” guidance and the then-anticipated impacts. Following its review of CZM’s comment letter to the SDEIR, subsequent consultation with CZM, and based on a review of updated (and generally reduced) Project footprint and impacts, the Proponent has revised its proposal to adopt a more flexible approach that will account for the actual Project footprint and impacts based on post-construction surveys. The proposal consists of a base fee with an adjustment based on post-construction impacts, with a total fee ranging from $240,000 to $500,000. The derivation of the fee is discussed below, with a specific proposal presented at the end of this section.
Quantification of Project Footprint. The OMP fee structure in “Appendix 6” and as proposed by Vineyard Wind is based, in part, on a project’s “footprint”. For the Vineyard Wind Connector, the actual Project footprint within the Massachusetts Ocean Management Planning Area will ultimately depend on which Landfall Site is utilized, which route option is selected through Muskeget Channel, and how much cable protection is required.8 The footprints calculated below are based on the installation of two offshore export cables along the proposed Offshore Export Cable Corridor (with variants to access each possible Landfall Site), each with either the western or eastern option through Muskeget Channel; the footprints also assume that two 10-inch-diameter offshore export cables are installed. While
8 The OMP does not specifically define “footprint” but it appears that the footprint is the area of occupation, not the area of potential impact. See p. 2-35 of the OMP, which indicates that the project “footprint” for a cable is different from the width of the trench or areas affected by sidecast or suspension of sediments. Impact is nonetheless an important criteria for determining the Fee, and is also addressed in this section.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 2-17 Wetlands and Waterways Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. the final length of the export cables may vary slightly, the differences are expected to be insignificant and should not affect the calculation of the Ocean Development Mitigation Fee. These cable length figures are unchanged from Section 1.7.1.3 of the SDEIR.
Offshore Export Cable Corridor to the Covell’s Beach Landfall Site:
♦ Western option through Muskeget: 20.9 miles minus 0.3 miles (or 20.6 miles [108,768 feet]) of state waters within the Ocean Management Planning Area x 10 inches (or 0.833 feet) x 2 cables = 181,207 square feet (4.2 acres) ♦ Eastern option through Muskeget: 22.6 miles minus 0.3 miles (or 22.3 miles [117,744 feet]) of state waters within the Ocean Management Planning Area x 10 inches (or 0.833 feet) x 2 cables = 196,161 square feet (4.5 acres)
Offshore Export Cable Corridor to the New Hampshire Avenue Landfall Site:
♦ Western option through Muskeget: 21.4 miles minus 0.3 miles (nearshore boundary of planning area begins 0.3 miles offshore (or 21.1 miles [111,408 feet]) of state waters within the Ocean Management Planning Area x 10 inches (or 0.833 feet) x 2 cables = 185,606 square feet (4.2 acres) ♦ Eastern option through Muskeget: 23.3 miles minus 0.3 miles (or 23 miles [121,440 feet]) of state waters within the Ocean Management Planning Area x 10 inches (or 0.833 feet) x 2 cables = 202,319 square feet (4.6 acres)
In addition to the footprint of the two offshore export cables, cable protection may be required along up to 10% of the Offshore Export Cable Corridor (see Section 2.2); the area of cable protection has been estimated at 9 acres for the Covell’s Beach Route and 10 acres for the New Hampshire Avenue Route. These areas represent a significant decrease from the area of cable protection estimated in Section 1.4.1.3 and Table 1-4 of the SDEIR, which was projected at 27 acres. It is the Company’s intention to bury the entire cable at an adequately protective depth, thus avoiding the need for any cable protection (see Section 2.2.3 of this FEIR and Section 1.4.1.3 of the SDEIR). However, at this point in design, the Project is maintaining the conservative 10% assumption presented in the SDEIR. Moreover, since it is not possible to delineate exactly where this cable protection may be required, this impact calculation conservatively assumes all cable protection will occur in state waters. Although the potential length of cable protection has not been reduced from the 10% assumption in the SDEIR, the Company’s engineers have revised and narrowed the cable protection design to encompass an anticipated maximum width of approximately 10 feet (3 m); a maximum width of 30 feet [9 m] was presented in the SDEIR. As provided in Section 2.2, this potential cable protection along the two export cables could cumulatively cover up to approximately 9 acres of seafloor, assuming a route to Covell’s Beach (3.7 miles x 2 cables x 10 feet = ~9 acres).
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 2-18 Wetlands and Waterways Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. The extent of cable protection needed, if any, will be a function of the selected cable installation contractor’s ability to successfully install the cables at an adequate depth below the stable seabed. Factors which could influence this could include the time of year during which the work is conducted, possible limits on the extent of sand wave dredging or excavation, the length of time available for the work, unexpectedly difficult bottom conditions, the installation vessel(s) and tools deployed by the contractor, and possible limits on the extent of temporary sediment disturbance from cable installation tools.
Accordingly, the extent or area of cable protection, if any, will not be known with precision until the work is completed. Vineyard Wind’s proposed Ocean Development Mitigation Fee takes into account the potential presence of cable protection using conservative assumptions. Moreover, the Company proposes is to adjust the final fee using final “as- built” measurements and post construction surveys (or equivalent).9 It is expected that these measurements and surveys (or equivalent) will be required by relevant permits, including the Vineyard Wind Connector’s Chapter 91 license and Section 401 Water Quality Certificate, and, in any event, the information can be provided to EEA at least 60 days prior to the commencement of commercial operations of the Project.
Quantification of Project Impact Volume. Temporary and permanent impacts associated with the Offshore Export Cable Corridor are described and quantified in Section 2.2. The Company believes temporary impacts can be factored into an OMP fee but, because they are temporary, should be assigned lesser weight than permanent impacts represented by the Project Footprint (and particular the area of cable protection that will remain on the surface of the seafloor). The Company proposes to use volume of dredging as a measure of temporary impacts and a proxy for other temporary impacts.10 As shown in Table 2-2, the amount of dredging in state waters for the route to Covell’s Beach has been updated from the estimates in Table 1-4 of the SDEIR. Dredging for the Covell’s Beach route is now estimated to range from 41,000 to 50,000 cubic meters (or approximately 53,500 to 65,000 cubic yards) when assuming the western option through Muskeget, and will range from 54,000 to 65,000 cubic meters (or approximately 70,600 to 85,000 cubic yards) when assuming the eastern option through Muskeget. Although only one option will be
9 In any event, to the extent the fee proposed by Vineyard Wind in this section is not adopted by the Secretary, and the footprint area of impact is relevant, then Vineyard Wind proposes that it should have the ability to request recalculation or adjustment of the fee based on final “as built” measurements. 10 Other methods of quantifying temporary impacts could be used; Table 2-2 quantifies the estimated temporary impacts as measured by other measures such as length of dredging, volume of dredging, trench impact zone, disturbance zone, direct dredging area, anchoring area, and sediment dispersion area. Because the temporary impact calculations to some degree relate to and are correlated with each other, the Company suggests a straightforward approach based on easily-quantified metrics is the more efficient way to proceed.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 2-19 Wetlands and Waterways Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. constructed, averaging the upper bounds of these values for the Covell’s Beach route yields about 57,500 cubic meters (75,000 cubic yards). Estimated dredge volumes for the New Hampshire Avenue route are almost identical (see Tables 2-2 and 2-3).
The Company’s base fee proposal is based on two basic factors: Appendix 6 impact classification as discussed below, and prior determinations of OMP Fees.
Impact-Based Fee Hierarchy in Ocean Management Plan
The following fee classes are defined in the fee schedule from the OMP:
Class I ($10,000 - $45,000)
Class I is defined in Appendix 6 of the Ocean Management Plan as:
♦ Project is limited in scale, size, footprint. ♦ Project footprint generally less than 6 acres and project extent is generally confined to seafloor (i.e., does not also include or has only very minor footprint in water column, and water surface and space above). ♦ Effects on habitat, natural resources, or water-dependent uses are generally negligible and limited in duration (i.e., primarily during construction/installation.
Class II ($85,000 - $300,000)
Class II is defined in Appendix 6 of the Ocean Management Plan as:
♦ Project is moderate in scale, size, footprint. ♦ Project footprint generally between 6 – 20 acres and project extent may include limited water column, sea surface, or space above. ♦ Effects on habitat, natural resources, or water-dependent uses are generally minor and may be more than temporary.
Class III ($500,000 - $5,000,000)
Class III is defined in Appendix 6 of the Ocean Management Plan as:
♦ Project is large and/or complex in scale, size, footprint. ♦ Project footprint greater than 20 acres and project extent may include moderate/major water column, sea surface, or above. ♦ Effects on habitat, natural resources, or water-dependent uses are generally moderate and may be re-occurring or continuous in duration.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 2-20 Wetlands and Waterways Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Impact-Based Project Fee Classification
With the discussion above as background, the Project footprint of the cables themselves is approximately 4.2 to 4.6 acres, which fits within the Class I. This footprint will be entirely confined to the seafloor itself, with no impacts on the water column, sea surface, or space above the sea, also consistent with Class I. Furthermore, as described in Sections 1.4 and 3.0 through 5.0 of the SDEIR, as updated by the new information in this FEIR, effects on habitat, natural resources, or water-dependent uses may be considered “generally negligible and limited in duration (i.e., primarily during construction/installation).” For these reasons, even before consideration of public benefits, the Project arguably fits within Class I.
However, because the Project may involve cable protection (up to an estimated 9 acres), and due to its scale and importance, Vineyard Wind agrees that the Project should be classified as Class II. The Project footprint, assuming moderate amounts of cable protection, is likely to be in the “Class II” range of 6-20 acres. Specifically, assuming 4.2 to 4.6 acres of cable footprint and 9 acres of cable protection, the Project footprint would be 13.2 to 13.6 acres.
While the OMP allows a Class II project to extend to “limited water column, sea surface, or space above”, as noted above, the Project does not impact those areas, with the possible exception of cable protection, which could extend into the bottom of the water column.
Finally, Class II projects may have “generally minor” “effects on habitat, natural resources, or water-dependent uses” that “may be more than temporary.” To the extent Project impacts are more than “Class I” impacts, Vineyard Wind believes the Project best falls within that Class II definition.
Section 1.7.1.3 of the SDEIR indicated further reasons why the Company believes the Project should not be classified as “Class III”.
The Company also acknowledges CZM’s comments on the SDEIR and the Secretary’s Certificate on the SDEIR, which states that “based on the full extent of impacts identified in the SDEIR, the Project would be more appropriate classified as a Class III Category.” Vineyard Wind notes that those determinations were made based on the information provided in the SDEIR, which estimated 27 acres of cable protection, rather than the 9 acres of protection anticipated in the FEIR; anticipated impacts from anchoring have also been reduced (see Table 2-2). Other impacts are discussed in Section 2.2.
Vineyard Wind believes that any fee should take into account the reduced amount of cable protection anticipated, the extensive avoidance and mitigation of temporary impacts, and its flexible approach toward final determination of the fee; together, these considerations all support categorization of the Vineyard Wind Connector as “Class II.”
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 2-21 Wetlands and Waterways Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. As identified on Appendix 6 p. 6-2, determination of the fee classification can be further affected by other factors, including “public benefits of the project, and other mitigation proposed, separate and distinct from the ocean development fee.” Vineyard Wind has indicated why the environmental impacts warrant a Class II determination independent of consideration of those factors, but notes that as described in Section 1.2, the Project offers unique and substantial public benefits and mitigation.
The first category of benefits is intrinsic to the Project itself. The broader offshore wind energy project is being proposed in response to the Commonwealth’s 2016 legislation and the goal of bringing the benefits of 1,600 MW of offshore wind power to Massachusetts and the New England power grid. The environmental benefits of the Project are described in Section 1.2.3; they include massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, which in turn directly benefit oceans and the interests protected by the Ocean Management Act. The Project will also contribute to development of a new offshore wind industry, which will provide ocean-focused employment and revitalization of ports adjacent to the Ocean Management Planning Area. Furthermore, the Project is expected to provide Massachusetts electric customers with significant savings on their electric bills and related benefits.
In addition, as part of its winning 83C proposal for an 800 MW power purchase agreement, Vineyard Wind has committed to a $15,000,000 investment in the “Offshore Wind Accelerator Program”. As described in Section 1.2.2, the Program has three major components: (1) a $10 million Offshore Wind Industry Energy Accelerator Fund; (2) a $2 million Windward Workforce program; and (3) a $3 million program for advancing innovations for marine mammal protection.
Reference to other Ocean Development Mitigation Fees
Ocean Development Mitigation Fees are deposited into the Ocean Resources and Waterways Trust Fund, which was established to receive payments associated with the fee as well as other appropriations, grants or investment income. To date11, there have only been three deposits to the Fund. One was for supplemental mitigation of benthic impacts associated with construction of a natural gas pipeline, and a second was for enforcement of a permit violation. Neither of those were considered relevant by Vineyard Wind for determining the Ocean Development Mitigation Fee for the Project. However, a third assessment was the $20,000 Ocean Development mitigation fee for the Comcast/NSTAR hybrid communications /electric cable project between Falmouth and Tisbury.
That NSTAR/Comcast cable project was located in the same area as Vineyard Wind’s Project and involved approximately 4.5 miles of cable (approximately 3.9 miles in the Ocean Management Planning Area). Vineyard Wind’s proposed Offshore Export Cable
11 https://www.mass.gov/service-details/ocean-resources-and-waterways-trust-deposits-and-expenditures
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 2-22 Wetlands and Waterways Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Corridor within the Ocean Management Planning Area is roughly 6 times longer (12 times longer accounting for the two proposed export cables). Applying a linear relationship between the fee and the cable length would yield a total fee of $240,000.
Proposal for final Ocean Development Mitigation Fee
As noted, the Company proposes a base fee with an adjustment.
Base Fee. Vineyard Wind proposes a base fee of $240,000. The basis of that proposal is as follows.
The proposed $240,000 base fee is near the upper end of the Class II fee range (i.e., fees at $85,000-$300,000). Second, the Proponent’s base fee is the same as its original proposal even though the anticipated permanent footprint impacts from cable protection (see Section 2.2) have been reduced by 2/3 compared to the SDEIR (i.e., from 27 acres to 9 acres), and temporary impacts have been similarly reduced. In this way, the Company believes it has responded to CZM’s comments and to the Secretary’s Certificate on the SDEIR.
Finally, this fee is consistent with and proportional to a highly similar project (discussed in Section 1.7.1.3 of the SDEIR), which is the only other project for which an Ocean Development Fee has been assessed.
These independent methods of analysis suggest that the base fee proposed by Vineyard Wind is appropriate and consistent with the OMP.
Adjustment of Fee based on Final Impacts. The Company proposes two adjustments to the fee based on actual impacts: First, the Company proposes increasing the fee by $10,000 per acre for every acre of cable protection above 9 acres in the Ocean Management Planning area. Second, it proposes increasing the fee by $500 for every 1,000 cubic yards of dredging above 75,000 cubic yards (57,500 cubic meters) in the Ocean Management Planning area.
Maximum and Minimum Fee. To allow for proper planning, the Company further proposes that the maximum fee would be $500,000 and the minimum fee would be $240,000. These proposed adjustments would ensure that the final fee correlates with the actual environmental impacts of the Project.
As an example, if the Project required 27 acres of cable protection (the amount originally estimated in the SDEIR) and 150,000 cubic yards of dredging, the adjusted fee would be $457,500 ($240,000 + $180,000 for additional cable protection + $37,500 for additional dredging). If more than 27 acres of cable protection are used, Vineyard Wind proposes to reinitiate consultation with EEA regarding the fee to determine if fees in excess of this formula should be required.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 2-23 Wetlands and Waterways Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Payment schedule. As permitted by Appendix 6 of the OMP, Vineyard Wind proposes that the final Ocean Development Mitigation Fee as determined by the Secretary be paid in two equal installments over two years, commencing upon commencement of commercial operations of the Project. This proposal is faster than the schedule proposed in the SDEIR. Vineyard Wind further proposes it will provide its calculation of the adjusted OMP fee based on actual amount of cable protection and dredging at least 60 days prior to the commencement of commercial operations to allow time for the Secretary to review the final fee determination.
2.2 Revised Impact Calculations
Table 2-2 provides updated impact calculations associated with the installation of the two proposed offshore export cables in state waters; Table 2-3 provides these impact calculations in state and federal waters combined. This impact table has been updated from what appeared in Tables 1-4 and 1-5 of the SDEIR. As described in Sections 1.3.1.2 and 1.7.1.1 of the SDEIR, results from the 2018 marine survey enabled the Company to refine the OMP mapping of hard bottom, complex bottom, and eelgrass within the Offshore Export Cable Corridor. The Company’s technical engineers have defined preliminary cable alignments within the installation corridor to avoid and minimize impacts to hard bottom and complex bottom (the Project will not impact eelgrass or core habitat of the North Atlantic Right Whale). This preliminary cable alignments are shown on Figure 1-4 as well as the map set provided as Attachment D, and the impact estimates involving hard bottom and complex bottom in Table 2-2 are based on the preliminary alignments.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 2-24 Wetlands and Waterways Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Table 2-2 Offshore Export Cable Corridor Characteristics and Impacts from Installation of 2 Offshore Export Cables (state waters)
To Covell’s Beach To New Hampshire Avenue West through East through West through East through Muskeget Muskeget Muskeget Muskeget Offshore Export Cable Corridor Characteristics (state waters only) Total Length (miles)1 20.9 (33.6 km) 22.6 (36.4 km) 21.4 (34.5 km) 23.3 (37.4 km) Volume of sand wave dredging (nearest 1,000 m3)3 41,000-50,000 54,000-65,000 40,000-48,000 54,000-64,000 Volume of sediment fluidized in trench (nearest 1,000 m3)4 124,000 134,000 127,000 138,000 Impact Calculations (state waters only) Trench impact zone (acres)5 17 18 17 19 Disturbance zone from tool skids/tracks (acres)6 33 36 34 37 Anchoring (acres)7 2.1 2.3 2.1 2.3 Cable Protection (acres)8 9 9 10 10 Hard bottom impacted by trenching (acres)2 1.4 1.9 1.4 1.9 Complex bottom impacted by trenching (acres)2 6.9 6.6 8.0 7.7 Sediment deposition greater than 1mm from dredging 190 (0.77 km2) 165 (0.67 km2) 200 (0.81 km2) 175 (0.71 km2) operations (fish egg sensitivity threshold) (acres)9 Sediment deposition greater than 20mm from dredging 22 (0.09 km2) 15 (0.06 km2) 22 (0.09 km2) 15 (0.06 km2) operations (shellfish sensitivity threshold) (acres)9 1 1 mile = 0.87 nautical miles. The Company’s technical team has added 2% to the lengths reported in the DEIR to accommodate micro-siting within the installation corridor during installation activities. 2 The Company’s technical engineers have defined preliminary cable alignments within the installation corridor to avoid and minimize impacts to hard bottom and complex bottom (the Project will not impact eelgrass or core habitat of the North Atlantic Right Whale). These calculations are based on the length through hard bottom and complex bottom as shown in Table 2-1. Cable alignments will continue to be refined based on ongoing evaluation of geological conditions in the surface and shallow subsurface, additional pre-construction surveys, and contractor input, and will reflect the dual priorities of minimizing impacts while maximizing the likelihood of successful installation. The impact area provided in the table reflects the most conservative 3.3-foot (1-m) trench impact width. For example, 4.7 miles through hard bottom = 24,816 feet, multiplied by 3.3 feet width of impact = 74,448 square feet (1.9 acres). 3 Estimated dredge volumes have been refined to reflect a cable installation tool with a deeper achievable burial depth. The lower bounds of the range presented in the table are based on 2018 survey results; the upper bounds of the range reflect a 20% contingency to account for changes in sand wave features between the time of the 2018 survey and the time of cable installation and ongoing additional refinement of cable alignments within the installation corridor. Given the mobility and changing morphology of the sand waves, dredge volumes are provided rather than estimated length of dredging to reduce uncertainty.
4 For sediment dispersion modeling purposes, it is assumed that an area up to 3.3 feet (1 m) wide may be fluidized during installation with a jet-plow.
5 Based on updated information from the Company’s technical engineers, depending on the installation equipment used for cable installation (e.g., jet-plow, mechanical plow, etc.), the direct trenching impact area will vary between 1.3 and 3.3 feet (0.4 – 1 m) in width. The impact area provided in the table reflects the most conservative 3.3-foot (1-m) impact width.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 2-25 Wetlands and Waterways Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Table 2-2 Offshore Export Cable Corridor Characteristics and Impacts from Installation of 2 Offshore Export Cables (state waters) (Continued)
6 Based on updated information from the Company’s technical engineers, depending on the installation equipment used for cable installation (e.g., jet-plow, mechanical plow, etc.), skids or tracks on the installation tool will have the potential to cause minor disturbance along an area between 3.3 and 6.6 feet (1-2m) wide, although the functional impact is expected to be minor. The impact area identified in the table reflects the most conservative 6.6-foot-wide (2-m) disturbance zone. 7 See Section 2.2.2. 9 As described below, although the Company’s priority is to achieve sufficient burial depth and avoid cable protection, a worst-case estimate is that up to 10% of the cable alignments may require cable protection measures. To be conservative, since it is not possible to delineate exactly where this cable protection may be required, this impact calculation assumes all cable protection will occur in state waters. If it is needed, the Company’s technical engineers have determined that cable protection would be approximately 10 feet (3 m) wide. 9 See Table 20 of the revised Sediment Dispersion Modeling Report provided in Attachment F of the SDEIR. Depending on what TOY restrictions are applied to the Project, it is possible that the 1-mm sensitivity threshold for fish eggs may not be applicable.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 2-26 Wetlands and Waterways Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Table 2-3 Offshore Export Cable Corridor Characteristics and Impacts from Installation of 2 Offshore Export Cables (total, state and federal waters)
To Covell’s Beach To New Hampshire Avenue West through East through West through East through Muskeget Muskeget Muskeget Muskeget Offshore Export Cable Corridor Characteristics (total state and federal waters) Total Length from Wind Development Area (miles)1 37.5 (60.4 km) 39.4 (63.3 km) 42.0 (67.6 km) 43.9 (70.6 km) Volume of sand wave dredging (nearest 1,000 m3)2 83,000-100,000 96,000-115,000 89,000-107,000 103,000-124,000 Volume of sediment fluidized in trench (nearest 1,000 m3)3 222,000 233,000 249,000 259,000 Impact Calculations (total state and federal waters) Trench impact zone (acres)4 30 31 34 35 Disturbance zone from tool skids/tracks (acres)5 60 63 67 70 Anchoring (acres)6 3.7 3.9 4.2 4.4 Cable Protection (acres)7 9 9 10 10 Sediment deposition greater than 1mm from dredging (fish egg 304 (1.23 km2) 262 (1.06 km2) 329 (1.33 km2) 296 (1.20 km2) sensitivity threshold) (acres)8 Sediment deposition greater than 20mm from dredging (shellfish 32 (0.13 km2) 25 (0.10 km2) 36 (0.14 km2) 27 (0.11 km2) sensitivity threshold) (acres)8 1 1 mile = 0.87 nautical miles 2 Estimated dredge volumes have been refined to reflect a cable installation tool with a deeper achievable burial depth. The lower bounds of the range presented in the table are based on 2018 survey results; the upper bounds of the range reflect a 20% contingency to account for changes in sand wave features between the time of the 2018 survey and the time of cable installation and ongoing additional refinement of cable alignments within the installation corridor. Given the mobility and changing morphology of the sand waves, dredge volumes are provided rather than estimated length of dredging to reduce uncertainty. 3 For sediment dispersion modeling purposes, it is assumed that an area up to 3.3 feet (1 m) wide may be fluidized during installation with a jet-plow. 4 Based on updated information from the Company’s engineers, depending on the installation equipment used for cable installation (e.g., jet-plow, mechanical plow, etc.), the direct trenching impact area will vary between 1.3 and 3.3 feet (0.4 – 1 m) in width. The impact area provided in the table reflects the most conservative 3.3-foot (1-m) impact width. 5 Based on updated information from the Company’s engineers, depending on the installation equipment used for cable installation (e.g., jet-plow, mechanical plow, etc.), skids or tracks on the installation tool will have the potential to cause minor disturbance along an area between 3.3 and 6.6 feet (1-2m) wide, although the functional impact is expected to be minor. The impact area identified in the table reflects the most conservative 6.6-foot-wide (2-m) disturbance zone. 6 See Section 2.2.2.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 2-27 Wetlands and Waterways Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Table 2-3 Offshore Export Cable Corridor Characteristics and Impacts from Installation of 2 Offshore Export Cables (total, state and federal waters) (Continued)
7 As described below, although the Company’s priority is to achieve sufficient burial depth and avoid cable protection, a worst-case estimate is that up to 10% of the cable alignments may require cable protection measures. If it is needed, the Company’s engineers have determined that cable protection would be approximately 10 feet (3 m) wide. 8 See Table 20 of the revised Sediment Dispersion Modeling Report provided in Attachment F of the SDEIR. Depending on what TOY restrictions are applied to the Project, it is possible that the 1-mm sensitivity threshold for fish eggs may not be applicable.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 2-28 Wetlands and Waterways Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. 2.2.1 Dredging
Estimated dredge volumes based on 2018 survey results and the preliminary cable alignments within the installation corridor are provided in Tables 2-2 and 2-3. These volumes are based on a cable installation tool with a deeper achievable burial depth. In most cases, the dredge volumes presented in Tables 2-2 and 2-3 have been reduced from estimated volumes presented in the SDEIR. The lower bounds of the presented ranges are based on the initial cable alignment and the 2018 survey results; the upper bounds of the ranges reflect a 20% contingency to account for changes in sand wave features and additional refinement of cable alignments within the installation corridor. As shown in Table 2-2, the amount of dredging in state waters for the route to Covell’s Beach is estimated to be 41,000-50,000 cubic meters (or approximately 53,500 to 65,000 cubic yards) when assuming the western option through Muskeget, and is estimated to be 54,000- 65,000 cubic meters (or approximately 70,500 to 85,000 cubic yards) when assuming the eastern option through Muskeget. As previously presented in the SDEIR, estimated dredge volumes for the Covell’s Beach route were 94,000 cubic meters (123,000 cubic yards) assuming the western option through Muskeget, or 54,000 cubic meters (71,000 cubic yards) assuming the eastern option through Muskeget.
The dredging volume along a cable route is calculated based on the difference between the required cable installation level and the level that can be reached with the chosen installation tool. Dredging is required for the parts of the route where the target installation level is below the achievable installation level. The Company is currently communicating with potential contractors about the possible availability of installation tools capable of achieving deeper burial depths, which could further reduce the need for dredging in areas of sand waves. However, since these discussions are ongoing, the Company is unable to commit to lower dredge volumes at this time; therefore, the estimates in Tables 2-2 and 2-3 are considered conservative.
The dredging calculations assume a trapezoidal dredging flume with sideslopes of 1:4, where the bottom of the dredge cut is approximately 65 feet (20 m) wide. The cross- sectional area of the dredging flume is then integrated over the length of the route, where the required installation level is lower than the achievable installation level.
To minimize dredge volumes, the Company’s engineers have used the following design guidelines while refining the cable alignments in areas traversing complex bedforms such as ripples, mega ripples and sand waves:
♦ Where possible, the cable route avoids complex bedforms; ♦ Where it is not possible to avoid bedforms, and it is practical, the cable should run through the troughs between bedforms; and
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 2-29 Wetlands and Waterways Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. ♦ Where crossing bedforms is necessary, the preferable direction is perpendicular to the wave crests to minimize required dredging volume. Crossing at an angle other than directly perpendicular should be limited to ensure dredging is limited.
As described in Section 1.4.1.3 of the SDEIR, this sand wave dredging will most likely be performed with a trailing suction hopper dredge (TSHD), which uses suction to remove material from the seafloor, depositing it in the “hopper” of the vessel. With this methodology, once the hopper is full, the dredge would navigate approximately 825 feet (250 m) east or west of the dredged area to release the dredged material; this discharge would occur within the surveyed installation corridor where seafloor characteristics are comparable. Therefore, since dredging will only occur within areas characterized by sand waves, TSHD discharge will also only occur within areas characterized by sand waves. Such areas suitable for TSHD discharge are delineated on Figure 2-1, which also identifies some areas of hard bottom habitat where TSHD discharge activities will be prohibited.
2.2.2 Anchoring
The Company’s technical engineers have been incorporating feedback from potential contractors to determine the zones where anchoring may be required.
Based on feedback from contractors, the Company is evaluating use of installation tools with deeper penetration depths that would be used to achieve sufficient burial depth while reducing or eliminating dredging in areas of sand waves. To enable the option of using these deeper penetration tools, anchoring may be required along the entire Offshore Export Cable Corridor, and particularly in areas of shallow water and/or strong currents. Although this does increase the length of the corridor where anchoring may be necessary, the Company’s engineers have refined the anchoring design to a five-point anchor spread (instead of an eight-point anchor spread) and have modified the marine operations strategy so as to reposition the anchors every 1,312 feet (400 m) (rather than 200 m that had previously been anticipated). As a result, overall potential impacts from anchoring have been reduced.
Anchored vessels will avoid sensitive seafloor habitats to the greatest extent practicable. Contractors will be provided with a map of sensitive habitats prior to construction with areas to avoid and shall plan their mooring positions accordingly. Vessel anchors will be required to avoid known eelgrass beds and will avoid other SSU habitats as long as it does not compromise the vessel’s safety or the cable installation. Areas of temporary impacts from anchoring will include portions of the seafloor that could be swept by an anchor cable as the installation equipment moves along the cable. Where it is considered impossible or impracticable to avoid a sensitive seafloor habitat, use of mid-line anchor buoys will be considered, where feasible and considered safe, as a potential measure to reduce and minimize potential impacts from anchor line sweep.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 2-30 Wetlands and Waterways Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Given the uncertain and sporadic nature of potential anchoring activities, it is impossible to fully quantify anchor use and anchor sweep at this time. While Vineyard Wind is committed to avoiding anchoring except where necessary, the discussion below presents a conservative upper end analysis of potential anchoring impacts.
Project engineers estimate there would be approximately 108 square feet (10 m2) of disturbance from each anchor and associated anchor sweep (assuming an approximately 2.7-meter anchor), such that a vessel equipped with five anchors (four-point anchoring system plus a pull-ahead anchor) would disturb approximately 540 square feet (50 m2) per each anchoring set. Potential impacts from anchoring are summarized in Tables 2-2 and 2- 3; the calculation of impacts from anchoring are shown in Table 2-4 based on the anticipated length of anchoring along each route.
Table 2-4 Estimated anchoring impacts.
To Covell’s Beach To New Hampshire Avenue West through East through West through East through Muskeget Muskeget Muskeget Muskeget State Waters Only Length (miles) 20.9 (33.6 km) 22.6 (36.4 km) 21.4 (34.5 km) 23.3 (37.4 km) # of cables 2 2 2 2 Disturbance per anchoring set 540 square feet 540 square feet 540 square feet 540 square feet # of repositioned anchoring sets* 84 91 86 94 Total temporary impact 90,720 sf 98,280 sf 92,880 sf 101,520 sf (2.1 acres) (2.3 acres) (2.1 acres) (2.3 acres) State + Federal Waters Length (miles) 37.5 (60.4 km) 39.4 (63.3) 42.0 (67.6 km) 43.9 (70.6 km) # of cables 2 2 2 2 Disturbance per anchoring set 540 square feet 540 square feet 540 square feet 540 square feet # of repositioned anchoring sets* 151 159 169 177 Total temporary impact 163,080 sf 171,720 sf 182,520 sf 191,160 sf (3.7 acres) (3.9 acres) (4.2 acres) (4.4 acres) * Assumes an anchored installation vessel may need to reposition every approximately 1,312 feet (400 m).
Assuming the longest route to the preferred Covell’s Beach Landfall Site (which assumes the eastern option through Muskeget), anchoring may result in temporary impacts to approximately 2.1 to 2.3 acres within state waters.
2.2.3 Cable Protection
As described in Section 1.4.1.3 of the SDEIR, the Company’s priority will be to achieve sufficient burial depth of the two offshore export cables and to reduce or avoid the need for any cable protection wherever possible. However, there remains a risk that burial may be unsuccessful in areas where the seafloor is composed of consolidated materials, submerged boulders, or stiff clays that would hamper cable burial, making cable protection (e.g., a layer of rock or concrete “mattresses”) necessary. The Proponent will seek to avoid and/or
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 2-31 Wetlands and Waterways Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. minimize the use of such cable protections, and cable protection will only be used where necessary, thus minimizing potential impacts. If needed, the methods for cable protection, consistent with what was previously described in the SDEIR, are:
♦ Rock placement; ♦ Concrete mattresses (alternately, for smaller-scale applications the mattresses may be filled with grout and/or sand, referred to as grout/sand bags); ♦ Half-shell pipes or similar products made from composite materials (e.g., Subsea Uraduct from Trelleborg Offshore) or cast iron with suitable corrosion protection.
The conservative estimate that up to 10% of the cable alignments may require cable protection has been maintained; however, while previous calculations were based on the conservative assumption that cable protection could be up to 30 feet (9 m) wide, the Company’s technical engineers have determined that narrower cable protection, of approximately 10 feet (3 m) wide, will be sufficient to protect the cable should these measures be needed. Revised impact calculations, which show a reduction in potential cable protection-related impacts from approximately 27 acres to approximately 9 acres, are presented in Tables 2-2 and 2-3.
Areas requiring cable protection, if any, will be the only locations where post-installation conditions at the seafloor will permanently differ from existing conditions.
2.2.4 Onshore Wetland Resources
As described in Section 4.0 of the DEIR, the only onshore wetland resource area crossed by the Covell’s Beach onshore route is Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage (LSCSF), which is located in the vicinity of the Covell’s Beach Landfall Site. The Covell’s Beach onshore route does not pass within the 100-foot buffer zone of any other inland wetland resource, and will have no impacts to Coastal Beach (due to the use of HDD). Summary descriptions of the wetland resource areas and buffer zones crossed by the Covell’s Beach onshore route are presented in Table 2-5 below, and the wetland resource areas are shown on Figure 4-2 of the DEIR.
Within the Town of Yarmouth, the New Hampshire Avenue onshore route crosses Coastal Beach, LSCSF, and Riverfront Area (RFA) associated with Thornton Brook where it flows beneath Higgins Crowell Road through a culvert. The route also passes within the 100-foot buffer zone to several inland wetland resource areas in Yarmouth, but does not encroach upon the wetlands themselves. Within Barnstable, the New Hampshire Avenue onshore route does not pass through any inland wetland areas or their associated 100-foot buffer zones. Summary descriptions of the wetland resource areas and buffer zones crossed by the New Hampshire Avenue onshore route are presented in Table 2-5 below, and the wetland resource areas are shown on Figure 4-1 of the DEIR.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 2-32 Wetlands and Waterways Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Table 2-5 Temporary Wetland Impacts along Onshore Duct Bank Routes.
Wetland Resource Area Covell’s Beach Route New Hampshire Avenue Route Coastal Bank 0 0 Coastal Beach 0 1500 square feet (cofferdam*) Land Subject to Coastal 600 linear feet (within roadway) 1,500 linear feet (within roadway) Storm Flowage Riverfront Area 0 400 linear feet (within roadway) * If HDD is used rather than open-trenching at New Hampshire Avenue, this temporary impact to coastal beach would be avoided.
2.3 Lewis Bay
Figure 2-2 illustrates various features within Lewis Bay including shellfish suitability areas, the federal navigation channel, the Town of Yarmouth mooring field, the town’s quahog relay area, the Englewood Beach boat ramp, and aquaculture grant locations. As shown on Figure 2-2, the cable route does not cross the federal navigation channel and will not interfere with ferry operations or other commercial shipping into Hyannis Harbor.
2.3.1 Shellfish
The Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) has mapped several areas in Lewis Bay as suitable shellfish habitat for Bay Scallop, American Oyster, Quahog, and Soft-shelled Clam, and there is also a recreational Quahog area managed by the Town of Yarmouth in the vicinity of the alternative Landfall Site at New Hampshire Avenue. All of these areas are presumed to be Land Containing Shellfish as defined in the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act Regulations (310 CMR 10.34 (2)).
The shellfish in Lewis Bay provide a locally important natural resource, both in terms of commercial and recreational value. The Yarmouth Division of Natural Resources (YDNR) is responsible for managing the shellfish resources throughout town and supplementing the native shellfish population through its propagation and seeding programs. These efforts have helped shellfish stocks to recover in recent years, and Lewis Bay continues to provide recreational and commercial shell fishermen with a harvest of quahogs and bay scallops. The town’s recreational quahog fishery is primarily maintained through a relay program whereby, every other year, the YDNR transplants quahogs from an area of the Taunton River basin that is closed to shellfishing to the town’s recreational shellfishing area in Lewis Bay between Englewood Beach and Mill Creek. For the past few years, the town has relayed 96,000 pounds of mature quahogs bi-annually to this part of the Lewis Bay shoreline.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 2-33 Wetlands and Waterways Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Lewis Bay is also open to commercial and recreational harvest of quahogs during periods when the primary commercial quahog area of Follins Pond at the headwaters of Bass River is closed. The town also purchases and distributes seed quahogs, typically 500,000 per year, which are distributed in both the commercial and recreational shellfish areas in Lewis Bay and elsewhere throughout town.
As described in Section 4.1.2.4 of the DEIR, in 1951 the town of Yarmouth reported a total harvest of 1,200 bushels of bay scallops from Lewis Bay and Nantucket Sound; by 1995, the bay scallop harvest had dwindled to only 80 bushels. The bay scallop harvest has since rebounded, with a reported catch in 2017 of 980 bushels in Yarmouth waters.12 The Yarmouth portion of Lewis Bay is open for both commercial and recreational harvest of bay scallops between October 1 and March 31. Commercial and recreational scallopers generally work from small boats, which are often launched from the boat ramp at Englewood Beach.
As part of an ongoing discussion regarding shellfish concerns in Lewis Bay, the Company met with the DMF shellfish team and Yarmouth natural resource officials on August 17, 2018. Attendees discussed the possible need for further shellfish surveys and methods that could be used to mitigate shellfish impacts. In an effort to further explore opportunities for avoidance, Project engineers would evaluate opportunities for micro-siting the cable within Lewis Bay during final engineering. If this is deemed possible, further characterization of the shellfish in the bay may be valuable. However, due to the mobility of the Bay Scallop population, the natural variability of quahog presence, and human-influenced impacts on shellfish concentrations, it was agreed in the meeting that a survey should not be used as the method to quantify any mitigation and therefore would not be conducted for that purpose. Rather, the potential value of a future survey would be to assess potential habitat for the purpose of micro-siting.
As described in Section 1.1, Covell’s Beach is now the preferred Landfall Site for the proposed Project. Should the alternative New Hampshire Avenue Landfall Site be selected instead, a future shellfish survey may be useful during final engineering for the purpose of micro-siting.
With respect to commercial shellfishing in Lewis Bay, the Company has proposed and discussed two main forms of support with town officials and fishermen. The first is a compensation fund for lost fishing days calculated against historical landings, to be funded by the Company and administered by a third party agreed upon by the fishing community and the Company. The second is to support a multi-year scallop re-seeding program, which would enhance the fishery for several years and allow a predictable stream of scallop seed to be managed and administered by the shellfish warden. Re-seeding is an effective strategy
12 Town of Yarmouth Annual Reports for the years 1951, 1995, and 2017.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 2-34 Wetlands and Waterways Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. for enhancing shellfish stocks, and has been shown to be effective in enhancing Lewis Bay scallop populations. The shellfish department has identified a potential supplier for the seed and sufficient resource needs, and the Company would set aside funds to ensure that the seed was available for an annual broadcast in coordination with the shellfish department.
Three aquaculture farmers use Lewis Bay for access to their grants, both for maintenance and harvest. The Company is committed to ensuring access to Lewis Bay (see Section 2.3.3); however, if a limitation on access at the Englewood ramp is unavoidable, the Company will pursue an alternative arrangement to support off-site storage, create an alternative means of access, or other mutually agreed upon compensation to ensure that their businesses are protected.
Since work in Lewis Bay will maintain a significant distance from any active aquaculture gear during construction, and since cable installation is sufficiently slow so as to be easily avoidable during any scallop dragging, no loss of gear in Lewis Bay is anticipated. However, fishermen and the Company will have several means of communication including direct contact information as well as the ability to contact the shellfish department or natural resources office in the town, with which the Company will be in regular contact. Since there are roughly 20 commercial shellfish license-holders and 4 aquaculture grant holders, a clear and effective communication effort will be feasible.
Although there will be an extra level of communication with local fisheries, and a very low likelihood of gear conflict with Yarmouth fishermen, compensation for any gear loss will be administered through the Company’s protocols for gear loss throughout the Project’s construction area.
2.3.2 Sediment Dispersion Modeling
Section 1.4.1.4 of the SDEIR contained a detailed discussion of sediment dispersion and deposition along the Offshore Export Cable Corridor, and the complete report was provided as Attachment F to the SDEIR. Subsequent to that report, the Company collected five vibracores within Lewis Bay for detailed grain size analysis and has also analyzed its high- resolution bathymetric data, enabling sediment dispersion modeling that is specific to Lewis Bay. This report is provided as Attachment E. Results from the grain size analysis reveal that although the general sediment classification within Lewis Bay is similar to the inputs used in the previous sediment dispersion modeling (predominantly coarse sand), vibracores within Lewis Bay showed a relatively higher percentage of fine material13 and a higher percent solids (by volume) than what was used in the previous modeling for the entire corridor.
13 The five Lewis Bay vibracores had percent fines ranging from 3.3% to 24.1%, whereas the vibracore closest to Lewis Bay used in the previous modeling effort presented in the SDEIR had 3.3% fines.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 2-35 Wetlands and Waterways Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. As described in Attachment E, a new hydrodynamic model application was generated that focused on a smaller domain (the area of Lewis Bay only) with higher grid resolution, and that integrated the 2018 bathymetry survey of Lewis Bay, to better capture the features of Lewis Bay. Updated sediment dispersion modeling for cable installation within Lewis Bay was then performed. The modeled results showed that, for typical installation parameters, the extent of the 10 mg/L excess concentration of total suspended solids (TSS) would extend up to approximately 1,690 feet (512 m) from the route centerline but would persist for less than an hour. The modeling demonstrates that the predicted sediment plume (as delineated by concentrations of 10 mg/L or greater) would not reach aquaculture areas. For context, suspended sediment concentrations between 45 and 71 mg/L can occur in Nantucket Sound under natural tidal conditions, and increases in suspended sediment concentrations due to jet-plow are within the range of variability already caused by tidal currents, storms, trawling, and vessel propulsion. As a result, as presented in BOEM’s DEIS on the Vineyard Wind Project, the agency expects minor impacts on water quality due to sediment dispersion and increased turbidity during installation and cable-laying because of the brief duration and small area of impact.14
The modeling results revealed that sediment deposition would be less than 5 mm within Lewis Bay as a result of cable installation activities. The expected deposition of less than 5 mm is below the 20 mm sensitivity threshold for shellfish (discussed further below). Deposition above 1 mm (the sensitivity threshold for fish eggs) would be expected to cover 90.7 acres (0.367 km2). The extent of deposition of 1 mm thickness was 297 feet (90 m) from the route centerline, and would not affect aquaculture areas. This sediment deposition would be entirely related to cable burial activities, since no dredging is proposed within Lewis Bay.
Accordingly, the model predicts that typical cable installation activities will result in suspended sediment plumes that persist for less than one hour and do not reach aquaculture areas. Likewise, the predicted sediment deposition would be below 5 mm, which is below the 20 mm sensitivity threshold for shellfish, and would likewise not reach aquaculture areas.
This 20 mm sediment deposition for analysis of impacts to shellfish was selected on the following basis. Reported thresholds for the lethal burial depths of bivalves vary among species, but currently it is understood that the most sensitive species are those that are sessile or surface-oriented, such as blue mussel (Mytilus edulis), soft-shell clam (Mya arenaria), and oysters (Ostrea spp.).15 One of the more comprehensive studies available is
14 BOEM. 2018. Vineyard Wind Offshore Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement. OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2018-060. U.S. Department of the Interior. Page 3-16. 15 Essink, K. 1999. Ecological effects of dumping of dredged sediments; options for management. Journal of Coastal Conservation 5: 69-80. Available online at: http://spicosa.databases.eucc- d.de/files/documents/00000512_C5.069-80.pdf.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 2-36 Wetlands and Waterways Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. an early lab and field experiment of the effect of sudden burial on 25 species of bivalves from 8 different “life habit types” defined by habitat (infaunal [within bottom sediments], epifaunal [attached to a surface on the seafloor]), feeding method (suspension, deposit), and burrowing behavior.16 The author determined that epibenthic suspension-feeders that use byssal attachments (i.e., lack a digging foot) are less capable of escaping deposition via traveling through the sediment, while many deposit feeder mollusks (e.g., Macoma clams and others within the Tellinacea or Nuculacea superfamilies) and infaunal mucus tube feeders (e.g., Lucinidae family bivalves) can escape burial thicknesses in native sediment up to 400 mm by rapidly burrowing and/or better tolerating anoxic conditions.17
In a recent mesocosm experiment by Colden and Lipcius (2015)18, the authors concluded that oysters are highly tolerant to short-term partial and shallow total burial. The study determined that adult oyster survival declined significantly only when 90% or more of the oyster (as measured relative to total shell height) was buried for 28 days. The authors concluded that the overall low mortality rates in their study for durations less than 28 days indicated that oysters are highly tolerant to partial and shallow total burial on weekly time scales. They also found that increased mortality occurred at burial depths of 108% shell height, which for oysters with shell heights between 25 – 90 mm in size would occur at burials of 27 – 97 mm.
Most subtidal shellfish in the genera Ostrea (oysters), Mytilus (mussels), Petricola (Venus clams), and Chlamys (scallops) displayed lethal responses to deposition of either fine sand or mud at thicknesses greater 50 mm, with oysters and mussels sensitive to around 20 mm of deposition; while some less sensitive bivalves did not display a lethal response until sedimentation reached thicknesses of 200 – 500 mm.19 Conclusions regarding burial thresholds for individual species that can be drawn from the literature cited in the Essink (1999) study are somewhat limited because the studies did not always define “sensitive” or explain the level of effects (i.e., lethal vs. sublethal). For community-level effects, Essink (1999) reported that after the dumping of dredged materials, decreases in species richness and abundance of major species in the benthic community were greatest in areas where the thicknesses of deposited sediments were >300 mm.
16 Kranz, P.M. 1974. The anastrophic burial of bivalves and its Paleoecological significance. The Journal of Geology 82(2): 237-265. Available online at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/30061978. 17 Kranz, 1974. 18 Colden, A. M. & Lipcius, R.N. 2015. Lethal and sublethal effects of sediment burial on the eastern oyster Crassostrea virginica. Marine Ecology Progress Series 527: 105-117. Available online at: https://www.int-res.com/articles/meps_oa/m527p105.pdf. 19 Essink, K. 1999. Ecological effects of dumping of dredged sediments; options for management. Journal of Coastal Conservation 5: 69-80. Available online at: http://spicosa.databases.eucc- d.de/files/documents/00000512_C5.069-80.pdf.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 2-37 Wetlands and Waterways Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Several studies have indicated that many benthic species can tolerate deposition by coarser sediment sizes more than finer mud/silt sediment sizes and by sediments more similar to their native sediment type than by sediments of very different grain size.20 However, burial tolerance thresholds are difficult to generalize as they are highly species-specific as well as substrate-specific. For example, large percentages of Gemma gemma, a species of Venus clam, can cope with 230 mm thick burial by sand or a 57 mm thick burial by silt for up to 6 days (Shulenberger 1970, as cited in Kranz 1974). Meanwhile, Venus clams in the genus Petricola appear unable to survive burial of either sediment type greater than 50 mm.21
Research into the survival of Queen scallops (Aequipecten opercularis) to sedimentation indicated depth of burial and sediment type significantly affected emergence ability and therefore survival of individuals.22 The highest emergence and survival rates for Queen scallops occurred with burials of coarse sediment that were less than 20 mm (0.8 in) deep while the highest mortality occurred with fine sediment at depths of 70 mm (Hendrick et al. 2016). Mortality increased with duration of burial; however, scallops can be highly mobile and may escape burial by rapidly opening and closing their shells to jettison water, unless deposition is very sudden and deep. Similarly, other mobile benthic species such as lobsters, crabs, and demersal fish would be temporarily displaced by sedimentation events, but would likely be able to avoid burial. For example, Dungeness crab (Cancer magister) are able to survive burial depths over 120 mm (5 in) through escape responses and other adaptive behaviors.23
While the literature has shown sensitivity of bivalves to sedimentation varies greatly among species and can range up to several hundred millimeters of deposition, a sedimentation threshold of 20 mm was used as the general threshold for shellfish. This threshold is inclusive of most shellfish and life stages, including more sensitive subtidal mussel and oyster beds, and is conservatively based on the work of Colden and Lipcius (2015), Essink (1999), and Hendrick et al. (2016). While Kranz (1974) reported an escape potential thickness of 0 cm for the group of attached epifauna least capable of burrowing through sediment, he also noted that mussels can withstand burial for several months, so the escape potential thickness is not synonymous with a sedimentation tolerance threshold. Therefore, while attached shellfish may be unable to escape burial by burrowing up to the sediment
20 Kranz, 1974 and Essink, 1999. 21 Essink, 1999. 22 Hendrick, V. J., Hutchison, Z. L., Last, K. S. 2016. Sediment Burial Intolerance of Marine Macroinvertebrates. PLos One, 11(2) e0149114. Available online at: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0149114&type=printable. 23 Vavrinec, J., Pearson, W.H., Kohn, N.P., Skalski, J.R., Lee, C., Hall, K.D., Romano, B.A., Miller, M.C., and Khangaonkar, T.P. 2007. Laboratory Assessment of Potential Impacts to Dungeness Crabs from Disposal of Dredged Material from the Columbia River. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District, Portland, OR under agreement with U.S. Department of Energy. Available online at: https://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-16482.pdf.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 2-38 Wetlands and Waterways Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. surface similar to other bivalve groups (Kranz 1975), they have other adaptive responses that enable survival under sedimentation. For example, oysters can clear themselves of sediment24 and partial burial can lead to increased shell growth rates in order to reach the sediment surface (Colden and Lupcius 2015). Thus, based on these findings and on the wide range of sedimentation thicknesses and durations tolerated by bivalves in general, a 20 mm threshold is a reasonably conservative threshold for assessment of impacts. In addition, sedimentation in the Project area will be subject to currents and tidal flushing over time that may remove sediment before it can affect benthic organisms.
As described above, sediment transport modeling for the Vineyard Wind route through Lewis Bay showed that cumulative sediment deposition was <5 mm. The benthic area affected by greater than 1 mm but less than 5 mm of deposition comprised less than 0.4 km2 and was localized to within 90-100 m to either side of the cable route. As the cable route is located in the center of the bay, the area of deposition greater than 1 mm does not reach oyster aquaculture beds, as they are located close to shore.
2.3.3 Boat Ramp
Should the New Hampshire Avenue Landfall Site be utilized, regardless of whether construction occurs via open trench or HDD, the Company would work with the Town of Yarmouth to maintain access to Lewis Bay. This is shown in representative fashion on Figure 2-3, which illustrates the HDD layout at the New Hampshire Avenue Landfall Site; construction layout for open trench would take up less space than for HDD, maintaining access to the boat ramp.
For open-trench construction, the company will coordinate with shellfishermen and the shellfish warden to ensure full access for trailered boats at the Englewood boat ramp. The HDD installation method may involve a period of blocked access to the ramp, and to ensure continuous access to the bay, the town has suggested that the company support construction of a temporary boat access ramp where Berry Avenue terminates into Lewis Bay. Construction of the temporary boat ramp would require a coordinated effort between the company and the town, as well as separate applications for construction to local permitting boards and a cooperative effort with stakeholders to ensure that the design suits the needs of the fishermen and the community. Alternative boat access via a boat ramp in
24 Wilber, D. & Clarke, D. 2010. Dredging activities and the potential impacts of sediment resuspension and sedimentation on oyster reefs. Proceedings of the Western Dredging Association Technical Conference, June 6-9, 2010. San Juan, Puerto Rico, USA. pp. 61-69. Available online at: https://www.westerndredging.org/phocadownload/ConferencePresentations/2010_SanJuanPR/Session2A- EnvironmentalAspectsOfDredging/1%20-%20Wilber%20- %20Dredging%20Activities%20and%20Potential%20Impacts%20of%20Sedimentation%20and%20Res uspension%20on%20Oyster%20Reefs.pdf.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 2-39 Wetlands and Waterways Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Barnstable has also been suggested by the town of Yarmouth. That alternative, and any mitigation for fishermen inconvenience or hardship, would be evaluated and pursued after more detailed conversations with interested parties.
2.4 Monitoring Programs
Construction & post-construction monitoring programs are described below. Fisheries- related monitoring programs are described in Section 3.
2.4.1 Construction-Period Monitoring
Water quality related to suspended sediments from cable installation, dredging and other construction activities, as appropriate, will be monitored. Details of the monitoring effort will be developed with the appropriate state and federal agencies (MassDEP 401 Regulatory Program and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE]) during the permitting processes. The monitoring is anticipated to consist of using a hand-held or similar turbidity sensor deployed from a small vessel to collect turbidity readings from multiple depths within the water column. If determined to be appropriate, collection of water samples for subsequent analysis for total suspended solids (TSS) could be made from the vessel to quantify the sediment concentration in the plume. Background levels outside of the plume for turbidity (and TSS, if appropriate) could also be acquired.
Coincident with cable installation, the specific cable alignment will be monitored to record the precise location of each cable and the achieved burial depth. Many cable installation tools can precisely record the horizontal and vertical position of the cable as it is installed. The Company expects that the position of the cable will be documented either at the time of installation or shortly thereafter with an as-built survey.
2.4.2 Post-Installation Surveys
Offshore and nearshore geophysical surveys will be conducted post-construction during the operations and maintenance phase of the Project to inspect cable depth of burial and conduct as-built cable surveys. In addition, it is anticipated that short ad-hoc geophysical or geotechnical surveys may be required during construction to verify site conditions. Geotechnical work would only be conducted in areas already cleared for archaeological resources. Any unanticipated discoveries of cultural resources will be reported and avoided during further onsite work, with review and recommendations by the qualified marine archaeologist and as agreed during the Section 106 consultation.
Vineyard Wind has also assembled a Benthic Habitat Monitoring Plan (included in Attachment F) that is intended to document habitat and benthic community disturbance and recovery as a result of construction and installation.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 2-40 Wetlands and Waterways Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. All surveys will use BMPs and industry-standard equipment that has been approved for use previously for offshore renewable energy work. Most of the surveys are expected to entail use of geophysical systems 200 kHz or higher in frequency that do not require any special mitigation (e.g., multi-beam echosounder, side scan sonar, and magnetometer). Standard operating conditions (e.g., vessel strike avoidance, separation distances from protected species, necessary notifications, marine trash and debris prevention) for work will be observed.
For surveys using sonar equipment less than 200 kHz in frequency (sub-bottom profilers) and any bottom-disturbing investigations that have been previously cleared, in addition to the standard operating procedures identified above, the following mitigation measures will be employed to maintain a level of consistency with offshore project activities:
♦ Notifications when appropriate: national security and military organizations, USCG communication, tribal correspondence. ♦ Vessel strike avoidance measures. ♦ Protected Species Observer monitoring: Protected Species Observers will accompany survey vessels and follow standard monitoring protocols, actively observing an established clearance zone around each vessel. ♦ The use of passive acoustic monitoring (PAM). ♦ Shut down and soft start procedures.
After the initial post-construction surveys, bathymetric and other surveys and monitoring of cable burial depth will be performed routinely.
2.5 Minimizing Construction-Period Impacts
As discussed in Section 9.3 of the DEIR, Section 4.1 of the SDEIR, and Section 3 of this FEIR, Vineyard Wind is not proposing any long-term restrictions on navigation, fishing, or the placement of fixed or mobile fishing gear. However, temporary safety zones around construction and installation activities will be implemented in coordination with the USCG and may temporarily affect navigation and/or fishing activities in the immediate vicinity of construction and installation vessels. These impacts are temporary in nature and limited to the Project’s construction and installation period. There are no restrictions on navigation within state waters during Project operations.25
25 An exception could be if a major Project repair was necessary, such as a cable splice or cable reburial. In that case, a temporary exclusion zone may be implemented by the USCG that would be similar to temporary ones during construction.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 2-41 Wetlands and Waterways Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. As indicated in the Section 9.3 of the DEIR, Vineyard Wind has developed a detailed Navigational Risk Assessment to assess potential impacts of the Project on navigational safety in both federal and state waters during construction and throughout the anticipated operational life of the Project. The Navigational Risk Assessment conforms to the USCG guidance for Offshore Renewable Energy Installations contained in Navigation Vessel Inspection Circular 02-07, and incorporates information obtained through consultation with the USCG and numerous marine trades and maritime transportation stakeholders. A copy of the Navigational Risk Assessment is included in the COP and can be found on BOEM’s website at: www.boem.gov/webteam/Vineyard%20Wind/Vineyard-Wind-COP-Volume-III- Appendices.pdf.
The Navigational Risk Assessment evaluated potential effects of the Project on navigation, including how the Project may affect commercial and recreational vessel traffic and operations, USCG missions, and communication and navigation systems. The Navigational Risk Assessment identified the potential for increased vessel traffic volume within federal and state waters that include the Wind Development Area (WDA) where the turbines will be installed, the Offshore Export Cable Corridor, and ports used by the Company during the construction and operational phases of the Project; any and all transiting through the turbine area would occur in federal waters. The Navigational Risk Assessment also identifies potential mitigation measures to minimize risks to safe navigation from Project- related activities.
During construction and installation of the 800 MW Project, it is anticipated that an average of approximately 25 vessels will operate within both federal and state waters during a typical work day. Many of these vessels will remain in the WDA, entirely within federal waters, for days or weeks at a time. In fact, several of the large primary installation vessels will operate exclusively within federal waters except to make infrequent trips to port for bunkering and provisioning, if needed. Therefore, although an average of 25 vessels will be involved in construction activities on any given day, fewer vessels will transit to and from New Bedford Harbor each day.
Vessels making round-trips from port facilities will primarily be smaller Crew Transport Vessels (CTVs), tugboats, and jack-up vessels. Over the course of construction, the Company anticipates these vessels will make an average of approximately seven daily trips between both the primary and secondary ports and the WDA. During the most active period of construction, the Company anticipates a maximum of approximately 18 daily vessel trips. The final number of daily vessel trips to each of the Project’s ports will depend on the Project’s final schedule, the final design of the Project’s components, and the logistics solution used to achieve compliance with the Jones Act.
Specific to the Vineyard Wind Connector, on average, approximately six vessels will be used for cable-laying activities along the Offshore Export Cable Corridor in any given month, although as many as nine vessels may be used for cable laying activities in any one month. Vessels used for cable installation may include a cable laying vessel, up to three
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 2-42 Wetlands and Waterways Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. anchor-handling tug supply vessels, a CTV, a pre-lay grapnel run vessel, a tug boat, a pre- construction survey boat, a trenching vessel, a dredging vessel, a boulder relocation vessel (if required), and a vessel used to install cable protection (if required). Many of the cable installation activities are sequential; therefore, these vessels would not all operate along the Offshore Export Cable Corridor simultaneously.
Vessel traffic associated with the Project’s construction is not anticipated to represent a significant increase over the current levels of vessel traffic within Massachusetts waters. For instance, 150 to 200 vessels transit the New Bedford hurricane protection barrier each day (see Section 4.5 of the SDEIR). Therefore, in the unlikely scenario that all of the Project’s vessels use New Bedford, the Project would result in less than a 10% increase in daily vessel traffic. However, during construction, occasional arrival and departure of deep-draft vessels, typically of wider beam, delivering wind turbine generators (WTGs) and other components to and from the Project’s port facilities may cause temporary navigation impacts around confined navigation channels and turning basins, particularly at the entrance to New Bedford Harbor and at the New Bedford hurricane protection barrier. Current port practices typically restrict transit through the hurricane barrier to one large vessel at a time. Conservative estimates of vessel transits through the New Bedford hurricane protection barrier suggest that the Project’s deep-draft vessels delivering WTGs and other components could restrict vessel traffic during half-hour periods approximately one to three times per day during construction and installation.
During the construction and installation phase, Vineyard Wind will employ a Marine Coordinator to manage all construction vessel logistics and to act as a liaison with the USCG, port authorities, state and local law enforcement, marine patrol, and port operators. The Marine Coordinator will keep informed of all planned vessel deployment and will manage the Project’s marine logistics and vessel traffic coordination between the staging ports and the activities in both federal and state waters.
Vineyard Wind has also engaged with the Marine Pilots to coordinate construction and installation vessel approaches to the Project Region, as required by state and federal law to minimize impacts to commercial vessel traffic and navigation. To address navigation and other vessel-related concerns, a coordination protocol for the entrance to New Bedford Harbor and surrounding areas will be developed with the New Bedford Port Authority, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), USCG, local Harbor Masters, and Marine Pilots. It is anticipated that the protocol will, for example, allow coordinated vessel maneuvers, including the arrival and departure of larger beam vessels that potentially disrupt two-way vessel traffic at the New Bedford hurricane barrier, thereby eliminating or greatly reducing unanticipated idle time of other vessels during the short period when the Project’s large beam vessels are transiting the hurricane protection barrier.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 2-43 Wetlands and Waterways Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. 2.5.1 Designated Transit Routes for Construction Vessels
The Company is developing construction-period vessel traffic routes from U.S. and Canadian ports considering, but not limited to, typical vessel traffic, traffic separation schemes, recommended vessel routes, coastal maintained channels, anchorage areas, North Atlantic Right Whale Critical Habitat, and Maine Mammal Seasonal Management Areas. While the Company will identify typical vessel routes, but for each transit individual vessel masters will need to consider weather, loading conditions, and visibility before selecting the route to port. Therefore, vessel masters may opt for a different route. It is expected that vessel traffic routes will continue to be developed through the construction planning process.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 2-44 Wetlands and Waterways Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Section 3.0
Fisheries Resources
3.0 FISHERIES RESOURCES
This section discusses fisheries resources and is intended to supplement the discussion already provided in Sections 1.0, 3.1, 3.2, and 5.4 of the SDEIR. In addition to state-level reviews, impacts to fisheries resources are comprehensively reviewed at the federal level through the NEPA process, pursuant to which BOEM has produced a DEIS and will produce an FEIS that will cover impacts in both federal and state waters.
In response to comments submitted by DMF on the SDEIR, Section 3.1 summarizes fisheries resources potentially affected by the Project, including commercial fisheries in federal waters, as well as the potential impacts to those fisheries and the data sources used to characterize the affected environment. Section 3.1 also describes the anticipated impacts to commercial fishing associated with the installation and operation of the Vineyard Wind Connector. Section 3.2 describes construction-related transit lanes, transit corridors through the lease area in federal waters, and construction-related communications with fishermen.
Pre- and post-construction fisheries monitoring programs are described in Section 3.3 and Section 3.4 provides an update on time-of-year (TOY) restrictions.
Section 3.5 describes mitigation measures related to fisheries resources. These mitigation efforts will continue to be informed by input from Massachusetts state agencies and commercial and recreational fisheries stakeholders.
3.1 Commercial and Recreational Fisheries
The following sections provide an overview of potential impacts on fisheries resources and describe the data sources used to characterize the affected fisheries environment. Protocols for evaluating potential impacts to commercial and recreational fisheries and how information from fisheries stakeholders was, is, and will continue to be included in the Project development process are also described in the following sections.
3.1.1 Overview of Impacts to Fisheries
Project-related impacts to finfish and invertebrates targeted by commercial and recreational fishermen within state waters are expected to be short-term and localized during construction and installation phases as installation vessels proceed along the cable route. Construction and installation activities will occur within very limited and well-defined areas of the cable corridor. Within state waters, including all of Nantucket Sound, vessel restrictions are not proposed other than those imposed in coordination with the USCG in the immediate vicinity of construction and installation work. The anticipated cable installation timeframe is described in Section 4.1.2 of the SDEIR and Section 3.4, below.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 3-1 Fisheries Resources Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Prior to commencing cable installation activities within the installation corridor, the Company will work with fixed gear fishermen to remove and/or avoid placement of gear within the cable corridor. The Company will work with stakeholders to ensure that any disruptions to fishing activities are minimized during the installation process and once all cable installation is complete, fishing activities may resume per usual. Prior to installation of the cables, a pre-lay grapnel run will be made by multipurpose offshore support vessels to locate and clear obstructions such as abandoned fishing gear and other marine debris from the cable corridor. The Company will develop guidelines for the proper disposal of obstructions retrieved by contractors during the pre-lay grapnel run in coordination with DMF and in accordance with the necessary permits to do so.
The Company will continue to prioritize cable burial over the use of cable protection and is continuing to carefully evaluate both the detailed surface and subsurface geology within the installation corridor as well as available cable installation tools. The Company will select the tool that minimizes environmental impacts and is most suitable for achieving sufficient burial depth along the Offshore Export Cable Corridor. The Company will prioritize the least environmentally impactful cable installation alternatives that are practicable for each segment of cable installation, which is expected to be a simultaneous lay-and-bury tool within state waters and all of Nantucket Sound.
During the operations phase, impacts to mobile gear commercial fisheries may occur in locations where cable protection is installed. Mobile gear interaction with cable protection has the potential to cause gear damage and/or gear loss. However, the Company’s priority is to achieve sufficient burial depth, thereby eliminating or greatly minimizing the need for cable protection. Should cable protection be required, it will be designed to minimize impacts to fishing gear and fishermen will be informed of its location. Possible cable protection systems are discussed in Section 2.2.3. The Company will also have a gear loss mitigation and compensation program, as described in Section 3.5, and is working with the Massachusetts Fisheries Working Group and DMF to design the program.
To avoid and minimize disruptions to commercial and recreational fishing activities, Vineyard Wind will implement a comprehensive communications plan with the various port authorities, federal, state, and local authorities, and other key stakeholders, including recreational fishermen and boaters, commercial fishermen, harbormasters, the marine pilots, and other port operators. Commercial and recreational fishermen will be notified pursuant to the Fisheries Communication Plan of the location and duration of all planned cable installation activities. The Company will continue to develop and utilize communication plans to ensure relevant and accurate information regarding the Project is disseminated to the various commercial fishing communities during each stage of the Project. As noted in Section 2.4, post-installation monitoring through the Project’s Benthic Habitat Monitoring Plan and other research will be conducted to document habitat disturbance and recovery as described in Section 3.3.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 3-2 Fisheries Resources Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. 3.1.2 Affected Fisheries Environment
The affected environment for commercial and recreational fisheries subject to MEPA review, described with additional detail in Sections 1.0, 3.1, 3.2, and 5.4 of the SDEIR, are the areas of state waters which include the cable corridor, the commercial and recreational fisheries that make use of those waters, and the ports that support commercial and recreational fishing activities. The Company’s analysis of commercial and recreational fisheries, however, encompasses the federal waters of the Vineyard Wind Lease Area and Offshore Export Cable Corridor in addition to the state waters of the Offshore Export Cable Corridor. This section describes each of the sources utilized by the Company in that analysis.
Table 3-1 lists data sources used to characterize the affected fisheries environment. These sources provide, generally, information regarding the landed weight and dollar value of specific species the type of fishing gear deployed and the geographic location of fishing activity, as broadly characterized by the density of vessels within specific fisheries. Studies conducted by BOEM and the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RI- DEM), listed in Table 3-1, also provide estimates of landings and values of commercial and recreational fisheries in federal waters. Vineyard Wind’s ongoing, multi-year, direct stakeholder communication and engagement programs also provide important information regarding the commercial and recreational fisheries that may be affected by the Project.
Table 3-1 Commercial and Recreational Fisheries Data Sources
Source Data Study Area Massachusetts Department of Annual Landings Reports State Waters, Statistical Marine Fisheries (DMF) Reporting Areas 10 (Nantucket Sound) and 12 (waters south of Muskeget Channel) Massachusetts Office of Coastal Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan State Waters Zone Management Rhode Island Department of Spatiotemporal and Economic Analysis of Vessel Vineyard Wind Lease Area Environmental Management Monitoring System Data Within Wind Energy Areas (federal waters) in the Greater North Atlantic NOAA – National Marine Vessel Trip Reports Vineyard Wind Lease Area Fisheries Services (federal waters) NOAA – National Marine Commercial Fishing Revenue Maps based on Vessel State and Federal Waters Fisheries Services Trip Reports Bureau of Ocean Energy Socio-Economic Impact of Outer Continental Shelf Massachusetts Wind Energy Management Wind Energy Development on Fisheries in the U.S. Area (federal waters) Atlantic NOAA – National Marine Annual Commercial Landing Statistics State and Federal Waters Fisheries Services Northeast Regional Ocean Visualization and Mapping of VMS Data State and Federal Waters Council Mid-Atlantic Region Council on Visualization and Mapping of VTR Data State and Federal Waters the Ocean Vineyard Wind Stakeholder Outreach and Engagement State and Federal Waters
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 3-3 Fisheries Resources Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. The sources listed in Table 3-1 are described in additional detail below.
3.1.2.1 NOAA – Vessel Trip Reports
Operators of NOAA Fisheries Greater Atlantic Region permitted vessels are required to submit a Vessel Trip Report (VTR) for every fishing trip regardless of where the fishing occurs or what species are targeted. VTRs provide information on when and where reported landings occurred and include information on gear type, species harvested and discarded, and the port where the catch was landed. NOAA provided VTR landings data for the Vineyard Wind Lease Area and Vineyard Wind requested that NOAA process additional VTR landings data for the waters along the installation corridor, including those segments in state waters. However, NOAA has recently advised Vineyard Wind that it is unable to complete the cable corridor data request as wind energy area analysis remains an unfunded priority.
3.1.2.2 Massachusetts Department of Marine Fisheries - Vessel Trip Reports
Since 2010, all Massachusetts commercial fishing permit holders have been required to submit monthly “Trip-level” reports for commercial landings, although permittees with certain federal reporting requirements are exempt from reporting to DMF. Landings data, reported in Section 5.4.3 of the SDEIR, are for those Massachusetts Statistical Reporting Areas (SRAs) where Project-related activities may occur. These landings represent the cumulative total of federal and state reported landings in Massachusetts for those species. Cable installation work and Project-related vessel traffic will occur within a limited geographic area of the two DMF Statistical Reporting Areas described in Section 5.4.3 of the SDEIR, Statistical Reporting Area 10 (SRA 10) and Statistical Reporting Area 12 (SRA 12).
3.1.2.3 Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan
The Massachusetts OMP identifies areas of high commercial fishing activity and concentrations of recreational fishing activity. Much of the state waters within Nantucket Sound are identified within the OMP as areas of concentrated recreational fishing, although only limited segments of the installation corridor are located within such an area. Consistency with the OMP is discussed in Section 2.1.3.
3.1.2.4 Data Visualization Products
Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) and VTR data from commercial vessels have been used to characterize commercial fishing effort in the Project area. The VMS and VTR datasets and associated mapping by Northeast Regional Ocean Council (NROC) and the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on the Ocean (MARCO) qualitatively characterize the relative density of commercial fishing vessel activity for several fisheries and gear-types in the northeast and mid-Atlantic regions. Data presented in this manner provide a reasonable estimate of important fishing grounds. The fisheries included in the VMS dataset include: monkfish, herring, scallop, Atlantic surf clam/ocean quahog, mackerel, and squid. The gear types
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 3-4 Fisheries Resources Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. included in the VTR dataset include bottom-trawl, dredge, gillnet, pots and traps, and longline. Data visualizations are described in the Section 5.4.3 of the SDEIR (and on the accompanying Figures 5-4 through 5-12 of the SDEIR).
During the years analyzed by NROC, elevated density of vessels participating in the Multispecies fishery is shown in proximity to the cable corridor. However, alignment of vessel density with the Nantucket Sound Main Channel suggests that some of these vessels are transiting that navigation channel rather than fishing, despite operating at speeds consistent with vessels engaged in fishing activities. Limited areas of medium-high scallop vessel density are shown in proximity to the cable corridor, largely south of Muskeget Channel. Again, the alignment of vessel density with the Nantucket Sound Main Channel and the navigation channel approach to Lewis Bay suggests that some of these vessels are transiting rather than fishing. Vessels in the Surfclam/Ocean Quahogs fisheries have discrete areas of elevated vessel density in proximity to Lewis Bay. Vessels participating the squid, mackerel, and butterfish Fishery Management Plan appear active along portions of the cable route, which is consistent with information provided to the Company by fishermen. Fishermen have also reported that squid vessel activity south of Muskeget Channel primarily occurs in federal waters, from approximately May or June to August, and that areas within Nantucket Sound and Massachusetts coastal waters are active from April to June.
During the years analyzed by MARCO, smaller bottom trawl vessels appear to operate both within Nantucket Sound and in areas south of Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard. Low relative density of bottom trawl vessels greater than 65 feet in length appears distributed throughout Nantucket Sound. Only discrete areas of low gillnet vessel density are identified along the nearshore portions of the cable corridor in proximity to Lewis Bay. Areas of high relative density of vessels deploying pots and traps occurs within Nantucket Sound and along the cable corridor.
Additionally, VTR data was modeled by NOAA to create database of fishing activity maps that represent fishery revenue density (FRD), a measure of average annual fishing revenues generated in a geographic area. NOAA’s mapping of FRD provides an additional measure of potential economic exposure for species, gear types, and fisheries management plans in state and federal waters.
3.1.2.5 Stakeholder Engagement
As early as 2011, Vineyard Wind engaged the services of a Fisheries’ Representative to provide feedback from the fishing community during the early development stages of the Project. The Project’s outreach and engagement efforts have resulted in productive and on- going dialogue with the fishing industry and have helped to identify key concerns among the fishing industry while also providing additional information on commercial fishing operations and locations and valuable feedback on data resources used to characterize commercial fishing effort in federal and state waters. Stakeholder engagement is an
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 3-5 Fisheries Resources Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. ongoing effort that continues to inform the Company about commercial and recreation fisheries in the Project area. Further information regarding stakeholder outreach is contained in Section 6.0, specifically the response to DMF 23.
3.1.2.6 Third-Party Studies
On behalf of BOEM, NMFS conducted an analysis of commercial fishing occurring in and near the Massachusetts WEA. This analysis quantifies fishing activity that may be impacted by energy development in the WEA. The report made use of spatial data on fishery landings VTRs, spatial data from the Northeast Fisheries Observer Program database (NEFOP), and from VMS data. The report quantified several metrics, including: fishing ports most exposed in terms of total revenue and most exposed in terms of the percentage of total fishing revenue sourced from the WEA, the most exposed gear and vessel classes, and the most exposed species by total revenue. Although each of these measures of exposure were calculated for the WEA, the study provides additional data on the potential exposure of commercial fishing activity in the Vineyard Wind Lease Area.
RI-DEM also produced a report analyzing fisheries exposure using VMS, VTR, and landings data. These data were combined in a single dataset that was then categorized by fishery (by species caught, gear used, state landed in, and port landed in) and mapped as a raster of fishing density by year. The RI-DEM analysis provides an additional source of fishing location density and fishery exposure information specific to the Vineyard Wind Lease Area.
3.1.2.7 Shellfish Suitability Habitat
DMF has identified shellfish suitability habitats for the ten species of commercial shellfish listed in the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act Regulations (310 CMR 10.34). Mapped shellfish habitat in the Project area includes portions of Lewis Bay (bay scallop and quahog) as well as areas within Nantucket Sound (surf clam and bay scallop) and Muskeget Channel (surf clam and blue mussel). Figure 4-4 of the DEIR illustrates these mapped shellfish habitats, and Land Containing Shellfish was described in detail in Sections 3.1.2 and 3.2.2 of the SDEIR. Shellfish suitability habitat mapping represents potential habitat areas, although these areas may not currently support any shellfish.
In addition, the Town of Yarmouth stocks quahogs in nearshore areas near the alternative New Hampshire Avenue Landfall Site. This stocking program is conducted for recreational purposes. Quahogs are harvested from contaminated waters in Mount Hope Bay for subsequent relay to nearshore areas of Lewis Bay. The quahogs are then typically harvested following a one-year depuration1 period. Shellfish resources in Lewis Bay are discussed in greater detail in Section 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 of this FEIR.
1 Self-cleaning, or purification.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 3-6 Fisheries Resources Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. The discussion in Section 2.3.2 includes an evaluation of construction-related impacts to shellfish, including sediment dispersion modeling and the derivation of the 20-mm sediment deposition threshold for analysis of impacts to shellfish.
3.1.3 Fisheries Impacts in State Waters
The historical economic value of commercial landings for the two Massachusetts Statistical Reporting Areas where cable installation activities may occur were reported in Section 5.4.3 of the SDEIR. Those landings data, the best available source of potential fisheries exposure along the Offshore Export Cable Corridor, indicate that number of species are harvested in the area, including: whelk (Busycon carica and Busycotypus canaliculatus), surf clam/ocean quahog (Spisula solidissima/Arctica islandica), longfin squid (Doryteuthis pealeii), bluefish (Pomatomas saltatrix), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), scup (Stenotomus chrysops), summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus), black sea bass (Centropristis striata), and tautog (Tautoga onitis).
The historical economic value data for the SRAs presented in the SDEIR, however, represent landings from a geographic area larger than the Offshore Export Cable Corridor. To better characterize where commercial fishing occurs, mapping of fishing activity based on VMS, VTRs, and landings databases maintained by NROC and MARCO were presented in Section 5.4.3 and Attachment A of the SDEIR. Although these map products do not represent all fisheries, they indicate that cable installation activities will occur within only limited areas of commercial fishing activity, if at all, as described below.
As noted above, in addition to state-level reviews, potential impacts to fisheries resources associated with the Project are comprehensively reviewed at the federal level through the NEPA process, pursuant to which BOEM has produced a DEIS and will produce an FEIS that will cover environmental concerns in both federal and state waters. It is more challenging to quantitatively characterize fishing along Offshore Export Cable Corridor (as opposed to the WDA) because it is a linear feature. Nonetheless, relative to the development of the WDA, fewer fisheries potential impacts are expected along Offshore Export Cable Corridor due to the relatively narrow area being disturbed.
Moreover, potential impacts on fishing success or expected fishing success inside the Offshore Export Cable Corridor can be reduced by minor changes in fishing activity. Specifically, as shown on NROC and MARCO mapping products (see Section 5.4.3 and Attachment A of the SDEIR), productive fishing grounds for the few fisheries active in the Offshore Export Cable Corridor are readily available in the waters immediately adjacent to the cable corridor. Proposed mitigation measures and careful siting of the cable will further minimize fishing impacts.
In consideration of commercial and recreational fisheries in the state waters of the cable corridor, at any given time during the construction process, those fisheries may experience two different potential impacts:
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 3-7 Fisheries Resources Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. 1) Impacts associated with active construction, which is limited to the geographic area of installation activities (e.g., vessel safety zones, if any). There will be temporary impacts on both fish and fishing during the active construction process as the installation vessels proceed along the cable corridor. Potential cable installation timeframes are described in Section 4.1.2 of the SDEIR and Section 3.4, below; and,
2) Impacts associated with completed construction, which includes potential short- duration residual impacts on certain fish species and habitat from cable installation activities, are described in Section 5.4.3 of the SDEIR and below. There are no anticipated significant impacts on fisheries once installation is complete.2 As noted in Section 3.1, mobile gear interaction with cable protection, if used, has the potential to cause gear damage and/or gear loss. However, the Company’s priority is to achieve sufficient burial depth, thereby eliminating or greatly minimizing the need for cable protection. Possible cable protection systems are discussed in Section 2.2.3.
As noted in the Section 5.4.3 of the SDEIR and above, Project-related effects on fishing activity in the cable corridor will be very short-term and localized and are unlikely to result in significant fishery-related economic losses. Related research indicates that the types of impacts on fish resources associated with the proposed cable installation activities will also be temporary because fish habitats recover, and fish communities begin to repopulate an area within a few months of the end of the types of temporary water column and bottom habitat disturbances that are expected during construction activities.3
The period of time when the Offshore Export Cable Corridor may experience localized impacts on fish resources and fishing activity will be a matter of only a few months and will be located within limited geographic areas relative to the much larger fishing grounds utilized by commercial fishing vessels in the region. The area of the cable corridor within SRA 10 (Nantucket Sound) is only 3.5% of the total area of SRA 10, and the area of cable corridor within SRA 12 (Muskeget Channel) is only 2.7% of the total area of SRA 12. Given the anticipated modest size of the safety zone which would preclude fishing in proximity to construction vessels, a much smaller portion of the SRAs would be impacted at any one time during the installation process. The size of the cable corridor with respect to the SRAs
2 An exception could be if a major Project repair was necessary, such as a cable splice or cable reburial. In that case, a temporary exclusion zone centered around the specific splice location would be implemented by the USCG that would be similar to temporary ones during construction. 3 Dernie, K. M., Kaiser, M. J., & Warwick, R. M. (2003). Recovery rates of benthic communities following physical disturbance. Journal of Animal Ecology, 72 (6),1043-1056; Van Dalfsen, J. A., & Essink, K. (2001). Benthic community response to sand dredging and shoreface nourishment in Dutch coastal waters. Senckenbergiana marit, 31(2),329-32.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 3-8 Fisheries Resources Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. and its proximity to established fishing grounds is a significant consideration when estimating potential fisheries impacts that may occur as a result of proposed cable installation activities.
3.2 Transit Lanes, Transit Corridors, and Notices to Fishermen
3.2.1 Notices to and Communications with Fishermen
Comprehensive communication plans will be implemented during construction process to inform all mariners, including commercial and recreational fishermen, of construction activities and vessel movements. The communications plans will inform the various port authorities, federal, state, and local authorities, and other key stakeholders, including recreational fishermen and boaters, commercial fishermen, harbormasters, the marine pilots, and other port operators of scheduled construction activities, including anticipated vessel movements. In addition, the Company has developed and implemented a Fisheries Communication Plan (see SDEIR, Attachment G) and the Company will continue to develop and utilize communications plans to ensure relevant and accurate information regarding the Project is disseminated to the various commercial fishing communities during each stage of the Project. Communication of Project-related information will be facilitated through the Project’s website and other media, public notices to mariners and vessel float plans, and the Company’s Fisheries Liaisons. The Company will also provide this information to the USCG to issue Local Notice to Mariners during offshore installation activities.
3.2.2 Construction-Related Transit Routes
Commercial fishermen have suggested that use of consistent transit routes for construction vessels during the installation phase may reduce conflicts and minimize or eliminate loss of gear. In response, the Company is currently developing construction vessel traffic routes from the Project’s staging ports to areas of construction and installation activities. These designated construction vessel traffic routes are discussed further in Section 2.5.1.
3.2.3 Operations Phase Transit Lanes in Wind Energy Area and Lease Area
For the Project’s operations phase, in consultation with fishermen and the USCG, transit lanes in a northwest/southeast and northeast/southwest direction have been maintained through the Lease Area in federal waters. In addition, Vineyard Wind is currently planning to adopt a 2-nautical-mile-wide (3.7-km-wide) regional transit lane that was developed through discussion among fishing stakeholders, adjacent lease holders, and state agencies and presented during the September 20, 2018 Massachusetts Fisheries Working Group on Offshore Wind meeting. Federal and state agencies worked to synthesize input from fishing stakeholders and arrive at these regional transit lanes, which represent a compromise of the various desired transit directions and widths to/from priority areas identified by various fishing sectors and ports. Scallop, fixed gear, squid, and whiting/scup fishermen from Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island ports all agreed this was a workable
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 3-9 Fisheries Resources Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. compromise at the meeting. At the Fisheries Working Group meeting and at a follow-up meeting in Rhode Island organized by CRMC on October 11, 2018, the USCG expressed support of these lanes, as did Rhode Island fisheries stakeholders. Further, as the Massachusetts CZM Office stated in its letter on the SDEIR: “We understand that discussions on this topic are still ongoing in other jurisdictions; however, CZM believes that the working group consensus alternative is a balanced and feasible option that while perhaps optimal to none, is acceptable from a navigational safety perspective and represents a compromise approach to a very difficult issue.”
The September 20 and October 11 meetings resulted in a transit lane plan that Vineyard Wind supports. Since that time, there have been discussions of potential changes to the regional transit lanes to address outstanding concerns of certain stakeholders. Vineyard Wind will maintain ongoing discussions with all stakeholders and will look closely at adopting an alternative to address remaining concerns.
3.3 Pre- and Post-Construction Fisheries Monitoring Plan
As noted in Section 4.1.2 of the SDEIR, Vineyard Wind is implementing the framework for pre- and post-construction fisheries monitoring programs to measure the Project’s effect on fisheries resources and is working with SMAST and local stakeholders to inform that effort and design the study. The duration of monitoring is being determined as part of the initial effort to determine the scope of the studies and is anticipated to include the pre- construction period and at least one year of post-construction monitoring.
In the past two months, SMAST has hosted four workshops with the region’s fishing industry to identify priorities for assessments of impacts on fisheries and ecological conditions that are associated with offshore wind development. These priorities, which focus on effects before, during, and after construction, will be used to aid the design of studies regarding the Vineyard Wind project, which will be the nation’s first utility-scale offshore wind project. Vineyard Wind is continuing outreach to additional stakeholders in the fishing community to solicit input on the scope the studies.
Section 2.4 of this FEIR discusses construction-period monitoring and post-installation surveys for matters other than fisheries
3.3.1 Fisheries Impacts Assessment Protocol
As described above, the comprehensive research effort will be a valuable tool for assessing impacts of offshore wind development on commercial and recreational fisheries. Vineyard Wind will continue to work with the region’s fisheries interests to identify research priorities that will inform the design and effort of studies to evaluate Project-related impacts. This is intended to be a collaborative process that relies on the input of both commercial and recreational fisheries interests as well as scientists and regulators.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 3-10 Fisheries Resources Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. 3.3.2 Lobster Settlement Study
Vineyard Wind has been consulting with DMF staff to design appropriate lobster studies to determine potential project impacts on adult and juvenile lobsters. After reviewing the geophysical and geotechnical data with DMF, it was suggested that there may not be appropriate habitat to conduct a lobster settlement study. Therefore, the focus will likely be on the adult lobster population. Vineyard Wind will continue working with DMF, and other experts, in developing appropriate study methodologies and locations for those studies.
3.3.3 Studies Using Existing Data
To supplement the pre- and post-construction monitoring plan, the Company will utilize existing data sources such as the NEFSC spring and fall bottom trawl survey which has a time series dating back to 1963 and includes abundance estimates for commercially important species as well as digitally recorded bottom temperature data starting in 1971 at select sampling locations. Other existing data in the Wind Development Area that could be incorporated into the plan include a drop camera survey performed in 2012 and 2013 to count benthic species and identify bottom types from still images. The drop camera survey was funded through MassCEC and was carried out by SMAST. Other existing data are from three industry-based surveys for yellowtail founder in southern New England. Rhode Island Division of Fish and Wildlife completed two surveys in 2003 and 2005, and SMAST completed one in 2011. The purpose of the surveys was to examine the abundance, distribution, and biological characteristics of yellowtail flounder in southern New England.
Information collected by Vineyard Wind will be publicly available to inform future offshore wind permitting and public policy decisions.
3.4 Update on Time-of-Year Restrictions
As described in Section 5.3 of the SDEIR, Vineyard Wind has convened a series of meetings with state and federal agencies to address the timing of export cable installation and potential TOY restrictions. Meeting attendees have included representatives from BOEM, NMFS, Massachusetts CZM, DMF, MassDEP, and NHESP. The first of these meetings took place on July 24, 2018, and the second meeting took place on August 27, 2018.
During the meetings, Vineyard Wind reviewed two critical schedule considerations for the Project:
1. Safe operating conditions for cable-laying vessels. Cable-laying vessels can only safely operate in certain wave conditions. To ensure the welfare of the vessel and its crew, Vineyard Wind can only conduct cable-laying if there is a greater than 50% probability of obtaining the required weather conditions during the installation activity. An extensive analysis of historic weather conditions indicates it is statistically likely to obtain safe weather conditions for cable-laying during the
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 3-11 Fisheries Resources Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. period of approximately April to September. Scheduling work within safe weather conditions is critical for the Project because, if weather conditions exceed the limiting operational conditions for the cable and safe working limits for the vessel, then the crew may have to undertake a controlled abandonment of the cable, whereby the cable will be cut and placed on the seabed so the vessel can seek refuge. In this instance, the cable would then have to be spliced. Such a repair joint would take approximately six days to complete, which would then seriously compromise the progress of the operation since it would require a favourable weather window both for the repair joint and the remaining cable-laying activity.
2. Sequencing the Project to deliver power by January 2022. Offshore export cable installation is part of the critical path for power production and must be completed by May to June of 2021, so that the time- and resource-intensive process of WTG commissioning (which is partially dependent on having power from the offshore export cable(s)) can start in the late summer and power can be delivered by the end of 2021. Delays in cable installation would delay the delivery of carbon-free energy, as well as the estimated $1.4 billion in ratepayer savings.
Consideration of the safe operational conditions for cable-laying vessels and the need to provide power at a competitive rate by January 2022 has led Vineyard Wind to identify the period of April to June as the preferred offshore export cable installation timeframe.
Vineyard Wind and attendees at the TOY meetings also reviewed potential environmental considerations from cable-laying activities. Both NMFS and DMF identified that a potential TOY along the Offshore Export Cable Corridor may be desirable to protect squid mops and squid fishing activity during the spring and summer months; these are the same months when the weather conditions are most suitable for cable-laying.4 Vineyard Wind provided an analysis of modelled sediment deposition from offshore export cable installation and concluded that export cable installation would impact less than 1% (per cable) of mapped areas where longfin squid egg bycatch had been observed in bottom trawls.
Vineyard Wind acknowledges the concerns from the agencies, and in particular DMF’s comment letter on the SDEIR, stating a preference for cable laying within Nantucket Sound during the months of July and August instead of April and May. As stated by DMF: “For Nantucket Sound, cable laying in July and August instead of April and May avoids a more sensitive time of year for a wide array of natural resources that are actively reproducing and settling in the springtime. The springtime is also the period of commercial squid activity,
4 DMF also noted that no TOY is needed at Covell’s Beach, as the proposed HDD will avoid impacts to horseshoe crab spawning habitat. At the alternative New Hampshire Avenue Landfall Site, DMF identified a need for TOYs from January 15 to October 30 to protect resources such as winter flounder and shellfish. Vineyard Wind’s preliminary analysis indicates it may be feasible to install a nearshore section of submarine cable in fall 2020, outside of the recommended TOY restriction.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 3-12 Fisheries Resources Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. which is very active across parts of the cable route. The squid fishery closes on June 10 in state waters and the Nantucket Sound donut hole, which is under state fisheries jurisdiction.”
As noted above, Vineyard Wind has identified the period of April to June as the preferred offshore export cable installation timeframe for safety reasons and to ensure power delivery at a competitive rate by January 2022. Nevertheless, Vineyard Wind is committed to fully evaluating all options to allow it to avoid all or most cable-laying activities within Nantucket Sound during the months of April and May identified by DMF as a more sensitive time of year. Vineyard Wind has engaged with multiple cable suppliers and is evaluating several options, including cable manufacturing schedules and potential timeframes for earlier cable delivery. Vineyard Wind is also reviewing its probabilistic weather modelling and evaluating whether the Company could accept more weather- related risk in the earlier spring months without compromising the health and safety of the cable-laying vessel and crew. Vineyard Wind expects to make substantial progress on these evaluations over the coming months and would expect that definitive TOY restrictions could be worked out during the state permitting processes, particularly the 401 Water Quality Certification.
Although the final TOY discussion is still underway, the Company is committed to the following TOY restrictions:
♦ HDD activities at the Covell’s Beach Landfall Site will begin in advance of April 1, or will not begin until August 31, to avoid and minimize noise impacts to Piping Plover during the breeding season; and
♦ No pile-driving (an activity only proposed within federal waters) will take place from January 1 to April 30 to avoid and minimize impacts to turtles, whales (including the North Atlantic Right Whale), and other marine mammals.
3.5 Mitigation
After further consultation with staff from DMF’s Shellfish and Habitat Programs, MassDEP, CZM, and local fishermen, Vineyard Wind anticipates finalizing any necessary mitigation for the Project during the 401 Water Quality Certificate (WQC) and Chapter 91 License permitting process. Mitigation for the entire Vineyard Wind project is being addressed through the federal permitting process.
The Project continues to evaluate mitigation for any unavoidable impacts to commercially- important species in Nantucket Sound. Vineyard Wind has communicated with stakeholders from the Nantucket Sound lobster and whelk fishery and, as an important sector of Nantucket Sound fisheries, prioritizes coordination with this group. During the Company’s on-going communication and outreach efforts, fixed gear fishermen have expressed concerns about the potential for interaction between fixed gear and survey
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 3-13 Fisheries Resources Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. vessels. To address these concerns and so that the Company quickly addresses gear interaction and/or damage from Project vessels, the Company’s Fishery Communication Plan includes a Fixed Gear Interactions Protocol that outlines procedures should interaction between a survey or construction vessel and fixed gear occurs. As part of this protocol, the buoy permit number and color are logged by the survey vessel crew and communicated to the Company’s Fisheries Liaison who then identifies the gear owner from the fishing permit lists and follows up with the gear owner.
A compensatory mitigation plan for gear loss is anticipated to be included in the ongoing work with DMF and the Massachusetts Fisheries Working group. Regardless of the program used, Vineyard Wind is committed to ensuring gear loss is addressed efficiently and fishermen are compensated as discussed in the Fisheries Communication Plan. In accordance with the final gear loss plan, Vineyard Wind will compensate fishermen appropriately for gear loss if/when it occurs.
Lost fishing time is being addressed in a comprehensive mitigation plan being developed in support of the federal NEPA review process and in coordination with Massachusetts and Rhode Island agencies, and other regional stakeholders. Vineyard Wind is committing to include funding for regional fisheries studies as part of such mitigation, if there is consensus to do so among stakeholders.
Shellfish mitigation in Lewis Bay, should the alternative New Hampshire Avenue Landfall Site be utilized, is discussed in Section 2.3.1. As described in Section 3.1.2.4, squid vessel activity occurs within Nantucket Sound and Massachusetts coastal waters. Through the NEPA process, BOEM is considering a Dynamic Squid Fishing Avoidance Plan that would require daily communication between squid fishery representatives and Vineyard Wind so that harvesters are aware of the day’s activities and the developer is aware of where fishing is occurring. Vineyard Wind would support implementation of such a plan.
As described in Section 3.2 above, Section 5.4.3 of the SDEIR, and in the Fisheries Communication Plan (see Attachment G of the SDEIR), based on feedback from stakeholders, including commercial fishing interests, Vineyard Wind is developing a program to manage fishing-specific communications regarding Project activities and impacts. It is anticipated that the program will provide a single point-of-contact for fishermen to report problems and concerns with construction and installation activities and to report gear loss or damage from project components and activities. Vineyard Wind will also implement offshore markings such as high flyer buoys, as appropriate, and downloadable electronic information of project activities for chart plotters.
Vineyard Wind remains committed to continued communication and coordination with fisheries interests.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 3-14 Fisheries Resources Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Section 4.0
Rare Species, Wildlife, and Marine Resources
4.0 RARE SPECIES, WILDLIFE, AND MARINE RESOURCES
This section expands on the discussion provided in Section 5.0 of the SDEIR relating to marine mammals and avian species. Section 3 (Fisheries Resources) includes discussion related to TOY restrictions and monitoring efforts. Section 4.3 provides an update on NHESP consultations.
In addition to state-level reviews, impacts to endangered species and marine mammals are comprehensively reviewed at the federal level under both the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The ESA review is conducted by BOEM in consultation with resource agencies (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] for avian species and National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS] for marine mammals). These reviews are in addition to the NEPA review, pursuant to which BOEM has produced a DEIS (and will produce an FEIS) that will cover all environmental concerns. In addition, Vineyard Wind has applied for an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) with a separate division of NMFS. The above-described processes will result in the final mitigation measures to be implemented for these important species. The final mitigation measures will be informed by input from Massachusetts State Agencies as well as environmental non-governmental organizations (eNGOs)1. The discussion below includes mitigation that is under review for the Vineyard Wind project through the above-described processes.
4.1 North Atlantic Right Whale and other Marine Mammals
NMFS, also known as NOAA Fisheries, has responsibility for implementing the MMPA and is specifically responsible for the protection of whales, dolphins, porpoises, seals, and sea lions. While overseen by a federal agency, the MMPA is not limited to federal waters. Instead, the scope of the MMPA is to provide protection to all marine mammals regardless of location.
Vineyard Wind is continuing extensive consultations with BOEM and NMFS to define the most appropriate mitigation measures to protect marine mammals during the different phases of construction. These consultations have addressed activities in federal waters (such as pile driving) but have also included activities in state waters (such as construction vessel transit and cable laying). Working with BOEM and NMFS, Vineyard Wind has identified a suite of mitigation measures that include TOY restrictions for pile driving (an activity only proposed in federal waters) and techniques such as Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) and Protected Species Observers (PSOs), as well as other monitoring options such as aerial- or vessel-based visual observers. Vineyard Wind, BOEM,
1 eNGOs include environmental organizations that have been active in offshore wind development in Massachusetts including, but not limited to, Conservation Law Foundation, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Massachusetts Audubon Society.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 4-1 Rare Species, Wildlife, and Marine Resources Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. and NMFS expect ongoing consultations over the next seven will lead to the final specification of the multiple mitigation measures that are expected to be used to protect marine mammals.
PAM can be a useful tool for identifying marine mammals that are vocalizing underwater; however, if animals are present and not vocalizing, they will not be detected by PAM. Visual monitoring will also be implemented to detect marine mammals, which must come to the surface to breathe. PAM, in conjunction with PSOs provides a complimentary approach to marine mammal detection. As noted, the Company intends to use PAM and is in consultation with BOEM and NMFS to determine the specifications of the systems.
The Company believes that adequate protection of marine mammals is best addressed through the MMPA process and with the marine mammal experts at NMFS and BOEM, who will specify the most appropriate mitigation measures for protection of all marine mammals.
As described in Section 1.2.2.3, as part of the $15 million Offshore Wind Accelerator commitment, Vineyard Wind has allocated $3 million to a “Wind and Whales” fund to help advance marine mammal protections as the offshore wind industry develops along the East Coast. The Wind and Whales Fund will support development and demonstration of innovative methods and technologies to enhance protections for marine mammals as the Massachusetts and U.S. offshore wind industries continue to grow. Vineyard Wind is actively working with Massachusetts marine mammal experts and other relevant parties to build a framework for how funds will be allocated. The Fund represents an investment in the development and demonstration of innovative methods and technologies to enhance protections for marine mammals generally as the offshore wind industry continues to grow in the region.
Specific to this Project, Vineyard Wind will implement mitigation measures to reduce the potential for negative impacts to marine fauna generally and marine mammals in particular. In addition to the consultations with NMFS and BOEM described above, the Company has also been consulting with various environmental advocacy organizations. Consultation with eNGOs has been extensive and ongoing on a recurring basis since mid-2017, and many of the mitigation measures proposed to NMFS and BOEM were derived from these consultations, including, specifically, consultations regarding the North Atlantic Right Whale. Mitigation measures proposed to reduce potential acoustic and non-acoustic impacts during construction and operations have been included in the Company’s COP; the proposed monitoring and mitigation plans for construction and operations are shown in Table 31 of Appendix III-M of the COP available at https://www.boem.gov/Vineyard-Wind/. These plans draw on the recommendations of eNGOs and others.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 4-2 Rare Species, Wildlife, and Marine Resources Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. For context and background, mitigation for all marine mammals and sea turtles during pile driving, which will only occur within federal waters, includes but is not limited to:
♦ Seasonal restrictions;
♦ Sound reduction technology;
♦ Sound field verification testing;
♦ Prohibition of starting pile installation during low visibility;
♦ Protected Species Observers (PSOs);
♦ Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM);
♦ Pre-piling clearance monitoring; and
♦ Soft-start for pile driving.
4.2 Avian Species
As described in the SDEIR and in Section 1.1 of this FEIR, the Project has been refined in several ways that will avoid and minimize potential impacts to avian resources. First, the Company eliminated the Great Island Landfall Site from further consideration, which would have involved work in a coastal dune area providing potential piping plover habitat. Second, the number of proposed offshore export cables was reduced from three to two, significantly reducing the construction time and potential related impacts. Third, the Eastern Offshore Export Cable Corridor was eliminated from consideration, thereby selecting a shorter Offshore Export Cable Corridor and minimizing length-related impacts. Fourth, the preferred Landfall Site is now Covell’s Beach rather than New Hampshire Avenue, so cable installation is no longer proposed adjacent to Egg Island.
In the Lease Area in federal waters, the Company has also taken measures to avoid and minimize potential impacts. The Company has previously stated that out of the 106 potential positions identified for Wind Turbine Generators, only up to 100 positions would be occupied. However, the Company has recently selected the largest commercially- available Wind Turbine Generator and now anticipates that only 84 positions will be occupied. Reducing the number of turbines proposed in federal waters will result in a related reduction of rotor-swept area and reduction of the total number of lights required for FAA requirements, thus reducing potential avian impacts. In addition, the Company expects to use a radar-activated aircraft warning lighting system, Aircraft Detection Lighting System (ADLS), which will reduce potential lighting-related impacts to avian resources. The Company conducted an air traffic analysis study to determine approximately how frequent FAA obstruction lighting would be activated based on actual flight data and local sunrise and sunset times. The results of the study indicate that obstruction lights controlled by an
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 4-3 Rare Species, Wildlife, and Marine Resources Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. ADLS would have been activated for less than four hours over a one-year period. This equates to less than approximately 0.1% of the time that traditional obstruction lights would be active. Additional detail of this analysis is provided in Volume III, Appendix N of the Company’s COP. To further minimize avian impacts, the Company is committed to installing Wind Turbine Generators that are less than 700 feet in total height. In accordance with the FAA advisory circular AC No. 70/7460-1, towers over 700 feet require additional obstruction lights, thus installing Wind Turbine Generators under this height threshold reduces the number of obstruction lights required. The Company has also reduced the potential number of jacket foundations from 50% down to 10% for the Wind Turbine Generators, significantly reducing the number of perching opportunities on the structures. Additionally, the Company will deploy fencing around the HDD construction area at Covell’s Beach to avoid equipment and personnel interference with avian nesting habitats.
A comprehensive discussion of potential impacts to coastal and marine birds from the Vineyard Wind Connector and the elements of the broader energy project in federal waters, along with avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures, is provided in Section 6.2 of the COP, which is accessible from the BOEM website: https://www.boem.gov/Vineyard- Wind/. The COP includes discussion of many specific species, including Massachusetts- listed species and seaducks.
Muskeget Channel is an area of high-density observations of avian species. As shown on Figure 4-1, this bird “hot spot” as defined by MassCEC’s avian surveys2 is 110.6 square miles (excluding land mass). Avian species that may be present include scoters (diving birds that feed on the bottom) and terns (plunging birds that feed on schooling fish). Roseate Terns are a small tern species that breed colonially on islands. The northwest Atlantic Ocean population of Roseate Terns breeds in the northeastern U.S. and Atlantic Canada, and winters in South America, primarily eastern Brazil.3 Roseate Terns generally arrive at their northwest Atlantic breeding colonies in late April to late May, with nesting occurring between roughly mid-May and late July. During the breeding season, they commonly forage in shallow water areas (i.e., <5 m [16.4 feet] water depth), such as sand
2 Veit, R. R., White, T. P., Perkins, S. A., & Curley, S. (2016). Abundance and Distribution of Seabirds off Southeastern Massachusetts, 2011-2015: Final Report. In. OCS Study. US. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Sterling, Virginia. 3 (1) Nisbet, I. C. T., Gochfeld, M. & Burger, J. 2014. Roseate Tern (Sterna dougallii). The Birds of North America Online. Retrieved from http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/370. doi: 10.2173/bna.370; (2) USFWS. 2010. Caribbean Roseate Tern and North Atlantic Roseate Tern (Sterna dougallii dougallii) 5- Year Review: Summary and Evaluation.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 4-4 Rare Species, Wildlife, and Marine Resources Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. bars. Roseate Terns forage by plunge-diving or surface-dipping to catch small fish, such as sand lance (Ammodytes spp).4 Following the breeding season, adults and hatch year Roseate Terns move to post-breeding coastal staging areas from approximately late July to mid-September.5
As noted in Section 3, the Company has identified the period of April to June as the preferred offshore export cable installation timeframe for safety reasons and to ensure power delivery at a competitive rate by January 2022. As further explained in Section 3, the Company is also evaluating options where cable installation may occur in the late summer or fall to respond to potential TOY restrictions recommended by the Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF). For purposes of conservatively assessing potential Project impacts, the following paragraphs assume that cable installation occurs at a time when avian species, such as scoters and terns, may be present. Likewise, the following paragraphs conservatively include potential impacts from dredging and disposal activities, though dredging and disposal activities may occur prior to the late April timeframe.
4.2.1 Potential Impacts from Project-related Vessel Traffic during Construction
Project-related construction activities may cause temporary, minor increases in vessel traffic within the avian hot spot. It is expected that dredging activities within the marine avian hotspot will require a period of just a few days to complete. Cable installation is expected to proceed at a rate of 100 to 300 meters/hour (m/hr) through this area, and approximately 13.8 nautical miles of the Offshore Export Cable Corridor passes through the marine avian “hotspot” area identified around Muskeget Channel. Using a likely installation rate of 200 m/hr, cable installation activities for each of the two cables through this area could be expected to last approximately 5 days.
As is the case with all vessel traffic, including existing vessel traffic, some marine birds may be disturbed by vessels engaged in construction activities, which may lead to temporary displacement during cable installation. That is, birds may move to avoid construction vessels. However, the duration of cable installation activities will be temporary and short- term in any particular location, and birds displaced are likely to return to the area soon after the activities have ceased.
In addition, as is the case for any vessel, there is a small possibility that birds may collide with lighted vessels during construction in low-light conditions and in severe/poor weather; cable-laying vessels have restrictions on the weather conditions (notably related to significant wave height) in which they can safely operate, and therefore they are not
4 (1) Goyert, H. F., Manne, L.L., & Veit, R.R. 2014. Facilitative interactions among the pelagic community of temperate migratory terns, tunas and dolphins. Oikos 123:1400–1408. doi: 10.1111/oik.00814; (2) Nisbet et al., 2014. 5 USFWS (2010).
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 4-5 Rare Species, Wildlife, and Marine Resources Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. expected to be working in severe weather conditions. The Company will reduce the number of lights to only those necessary for safety or required by regulation, and will ensure down-shielding or down-lighting of the lights when possible. These measures are expected to reduce any impacts to insignificant levels because most birds, with the exception of gulls, are unlikely to be attracted to vessels during fair weather conditions. Because of the limited exposure and short-term duration of the proposed activities, significant impacts for coastal and marine birds are unlikely.
4.2.2 Potential Impacts from Temporary Increases in Suspended Sediment
Sand wave dredging and cable installation may result in temporary increases in suspended sediment; however, such impacts will occur over a limited time period. As described in the context of the sediment dispersion modeling performed for the Project (see Section 1.4.1.4 of the SDEIR), suspended sediment concentrations above 10 mg/L from cable installation activities will only last a few hours in a given location. Attachment J presents modeled sediment dispersion results for a representative day, including an hourly breakdown, within the avian hot spot in the area of Muskeget Channel. For dredging and associated disposal (bottom dumping activities), at any of the one-hour snapshots shown in Attachment J, the maximum area with excess TSS concentrations >10 mg/L is 1.75 km2, which is 0.6% of the avian hot spot. At most points, the total time period when excess TSS may be present is less than 6 hours, though limited locations may experience suspended sediment effects over multiple tide cycles, with excess TSS present intermittently over a time period of 6-12 hours. For context, suspended sediment concentrations between 45 and 71 mg/L can occur in Nantucket Sound under natural tidal conditions, and increases in suspended sediment concentrations due to jet-plow are within the range of variability already caused by tidal currents, storms, trawling, and vessel propulsion. As a result, as presented in BOEM’s DEIS on the Vineyard Wind Project, the agency expects minor impacts on water quality due to sediment dispersion and increased turbidity during installation and cable-laying because of the brief duration and small area of impact.6
For cable installation activities, the analysis in Attachment J shows that in any one-hour snapshot shown for the typical installation parameters, the maximum area with excess TSS concentrations is 0.18 km2, which is 0.06% of the marine avian hotspot. The point locations reviewed in Attachment J are anticipated to experience excess TSS (above 10 mg/L) concentrations for periods of only 1-3 hours. Further, the cable installation only occupies the bottom few meters of the water column due to the localized disturbance. Attachment J shows that only very small areas of the avian hot spot (<1% per cable) are expected to be affected in a given hour, and that suspended sediment concentrations rapidly dissipate, with excess TSS only apparent for a few hours. The suspended sediment
6 BOEM. 2018. Vineyard Wind Offshore Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement. OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2018-060. U.S. Department of the Interior. Page 3-16.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 4-6 Rare Species, Wildlife, and Marine Resources Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. thresholds are not expected to have any long-term effect on mobile fish species, including sand lance (see Section 1.4.1.4 of the SDEIR). At the suggestion of Natural Heritage, pre- and post-construction monitoring of sand lance is included as part of the Benthic Habitat Monitoring Plan (included as Attachment D to the SDEIR). In addition, the area of disruption will be along a narrow corridor with vast, unaffected adjacent areas which also provide suitable foraging opportunities to any affected species. Due to these factors, cable installation activities are not expected to have any significant effect on feeding activities of diving and plunging birds.
4.3 NHESP Consultation
Vineyard Wind has continued its close communication with NHESP regarding the proposed Project activities and potential impacts to rare and endangered species. Through these consultations, NHESP has clearly communicated its interest in potential impacts to offshore foraging and onshore nesting habitats of rare and endangered shorebirds including the Roseate Tern (Sterna dougallii), Least Tern (Sternula Antillarum), and Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus). NHESP has also expressed concerns about potential impacts to Sand Lance (Ammoytes sp.), a small burrowing fish that is a prey of the Roseate Tern. In response to these concerns, the Project has incorporated specific measures intended to avoid or minimize potential impacts to Roseate Tern and other avian resources.
On November 16, 2018, the Company met with NHESP representatives to ensure that impacts to rare species from export cable installation are avoided or minimized to the greatest extent practicable. The discussion included TOY restrictions, HDD activities at the Covell’s Beach Landfall Site, and benthic habitat monitoring (see Section 2.4.2). At the Covell’s Beach Landfall Site, as described in Section 5.2.1 of the SDEIR, HDD activities will begin in advance of April 1, or will not begin until after Labor Day, to avoid and minimize noise impacts to Piping Plover during the breeding season.
The meeting also included further discussion of federal waters and the Project activities and efforts to avoid and minimize impacts. Offshore avian resources and measures to avoid and minimize impacts are described in Section 4.2. The Company discussed its commitment to use the largest commercially-available wind turbine generators. The Company has recently selected the largest commercially-available Wind Turbine Generator and anticipates that only 84 positions will be occupied by a Wind Turbine Generator, reducing the number of turbines proposed in federal waters and thus reducing the rotor-swept area. The discussion also included use of a radar-activated aircraft warning lighting system, ADLS, which will reduce potential lighting-related impacts to avian resources (see Section 4.2). Vineyard Wind provided an update on marine mammal mitigation considerations as well (see Section 4.1). As discussed in that meeting, the Company plans to continue to consult with NHESP on the federal portion of the project as that process proceeds through BOEM and other federal agency processes.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 4-7 Rare Species, Wildlife, and Marine Resources Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. The Company has completed a Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA) checklist pursuant to 321 CMR 10.18 with regard to priority habitat within state waters, and the checklist is provided as Attachment I and is being submitted to NHESP for review. The Company anticipates this is the last piece needed to complete MESA review. Pursuant to 310 CMR 10.37, Vineyard Wind will submit copies of each Notices of Intent (NOI) to the NHESP, although those filings are expected to contain substantially the same information.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 4-8 Rare Species, Wildlife, and Marine Resources Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Section 5.0
Proposed Section 61 Findings and Mitigation Summary
5.0 PROPOSED SECTION 61 FINDINGS AND MITIGATION SUMMARY
This section includes proposed Section 61 Findings for State Agencies as well as a summary discussion of mitigation commitments.
5.1 Proposed Section 61 Findings
In accordance with M.G.L. c. 30, Section 61 and 301 CMR 11.12(5), any State Agency that takes Action on a project for which the Secretary required an EIR shall determine whether the project is likely, directly or indirectly, to cause Damage to the Environment and shall make a finding describing the Damage to the Environment and confirming that all feasible measures have been taken to avoid or minimize the Damage to the Environment.
Contents of Section 61 Findings (301 CMR 11.12(5)(a)): In all cases, the Agency shall base its Section 61 Findings on the EIR and shall specify in detail: all feasible measures to be taken by the Company or any other Agency or Person to avoid Damage to the Environment or, to the extent that Damage to the Environment cannot be avoided, to minimize and mitigate Damage to the Environment to the maximum extent practicable; an Agency or Person responsible for funding and implementing mitigation measures, if not the Company; and the anticipated implementation schedule that will ensure that mitigation measures shall be implemented prior to or when appropriate in relation to environmental impacts.
Section 61 Findings and Agency Action (301 CMR 11.12(5)(b)): Provided that mitigation measures are specified as conditions to or restrictions on the Agency Action, the Agency shall:
1. make its Section 61 Findings part of the Permit, contract, or other document allowing or approving the Agency Action, which may include additional conditions to or restrictions on the Project in accordance with other applicable statutes and regulations; or
2. refer in its Section 61 Findings to applicable sections of the relevant Permit, contract, or other document approving or allowing the Agency Action.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction Limitations (301 CMR 11.12(5)(c)): In the case of a Project undertaken by a person that requires state permits or land transfers, but no funding, the Scope of any EIR is limited to those aspects of the project that are within the subject matter of the permit(s) or within the area subject to a land transfer that are likely, directly or indirectly, to cause damage to the environment. Any Participating Agency shall limit its Section 61 Findings, or any mitigation measures specified as conditions to or restrictions on the Agency Action, to those aspects of the Project that are within the subject matter of any required Permit or within the area subject to a Land Transfer. In the words of the MEPA
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 5-1 Proposed Section 61 Findings and Mitigation Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. statute (M.G.L. c. 30, sec. 62A), “[a]ny finding required by section sixty-one shall be limited to those matters which are within the scope of the environmental impact report, if any, required by this section.”
State Agencies that will be required to make Section 61 Findings for the Project prior to issuing permits for, funding, or otherwise implementing the Project include or may include the Agencies identified in Table 1-2.
Depending on agency procedures, as described above, the various Section 61 Findings may be part of permits or agency actions, or may be stand-alone documents. Moreover, agencies will generally limit Section 61 Findings to impacts and mitigation within the scope of the subject matter of their permits.
The Proposed Section 61 Findings below and the subsequent sections contain commitments the Proponent has made as a basis for respective agency Section 61 Findings. See also the Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures, Table 5-1.
5.1.1 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Project Name: Vineyard Wind Connector Project Location: Barnstable, Edgartown (and perhaps Yarmouth and/or Nantucket) Project Proponent: Vineyard Wind LLC EEA Number: 15787 Date Noticed in Monitor:
These Findings for the Vineyard Wind Connector (EEA #15787) have been prepared in accordance with the provisions of M.G.L. c. 30, Section 61 and 301 CMR 11.00. On [insert date] the Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs issued a Certificate stating that the Project’s Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), dated [insert date] adequately and properly complied with the MEPA statute and regulations.
The Vineyard Wind Connector is up to 800 MW of transmission through offshore and onshore cables and a new substation in the town of Barnstable located immediately south of the existing Barnstable Switching Station. The offshore portion of the proposed Project is proposed to pass through state waters in the towns of Barnstable and Edgartown and, for some routing variations, the towns of Yarmouth and/or Nantucket. The onshore portion of the Project would be located in the town of Barnstable or, in the case of the alternative route, Barnstable and Yarmouth. The purpose of the Project is to connect Vineyard Wind’s proposed offshore wind farm in federal waters to the regional electric grid.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 5-2 Proposed Section 61 Findings and Mitigation Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. As this Project is currently described, the following permits will be required from the Department:
♦ Chapter 91 License and Dredge Permit;
♦ Water Quality Certification; and
♦ If there are appeals from a local conservation commission’s Order of Conditions under the state Wetlands Protection Act, a Superseding Order of Conditions.
Based upon its review of the MEPA documents, the request for authorization submitted to date, and the Department’s regulations, the Department finds that the terms and conditions to be incorporated into the authorization required for this Project will constitute all feasible measures to avoid damage to the environment, including consideration of the potential effects of climate change, and will minimize and mitigate such damage to the maximum extent practicable for those impacts subject to the Department’s authority (see the appended Mitigation Table). Implementation of the mitigation measures will occur in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the authorization.
______Department of Environmental Protection
______By
______[Date]
5.1.2 Massachusetts Department of Transportation
Project Name: Vineyard Wind Connector Project Location: Barnstable, Edgartown (and perhaps Yarmouth and/or Nantucket) Project Proponent: Vineyard Wind LLC EEA Number: 15787 Date Noticed in Monitor:
These Findings for the Vineyard Wind Connector (EEA #15787) have been prepared in accordance with the provisions of M.G.L. c. 30, Section 61 and 301 CMR 11.00. On [insert date] the Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs issued a Certificate stating that the Project’s Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), dated [insert date] adequately and properly complied with the MEPA statute and regulations.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 5-3 Proposed Section 61 Findings and Mitigation Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. The Vineyard Wind Connector is up to 800 MW of transmission through offshore and onshore cables and a new substation in the town of Barnstable located immediately south of the existing Barnstable Switching Station. The offshore portion of the proposed Project is proposed to pass through state waters in the towns of Barnstable and Edgartown and, for some routing variations, the towns of Yarmouth and/or Nantucket. The onshore portion of the Project would be located in the town of Barnstable or, in the case of the alternative route, Barnstable and Yarmouth. The purpose of the Project is to connect Vineyard Wind’s proposed offshore wind farm in federal waters to the regional electric grid.
As this Project is currently described, the following permits will be required from the Department:
♦ Road Crossing Permits; and
♦ Rail Division Use and Occupancy License.
Based upon its review of the MEPA documents, the permit applications submitted to date, and the Department’s regulations, the Department finds that the terms and conditions to be incorporated into the permit required for this Project will constitute all feasible measures to avoid damage to the environment, including consideration of the potential effects of climate change, and will minimize and mitigate such damage to the maximum extent practicable for those impacts subject to the Department’s authority (see the appended Mitigation Table). Implementation of the mitigation measures will occur in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the permit.
______Department of Transportation
______By
______[Date]
5.2 Table of Mitigation Commitments
Table 5-1 summarizes potential Project impacts and related mitigation measures.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 5-4 Proposed Section 61 Findings and Mitigation Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Table 5-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Subject Matter Impact Mitigation Measure Schedule and Cost Wetlands As described in Section 2.2 (see Table Regardless of route, for the onshore portion of the Project, given that the During construction. 2-2), offshore impacts include affected inland wetland resource areas are previously-disturbed, and that approximately 18 acres of direct impacts will be temporary, mitigation is limited to construction measures Cost included in impacts from trenching for cable such as erosion controls as well as post-construction (i.e., restoring road overall Project costs. installation within state waters, plus surfaces and shoulders to pre-construction condition) (see Section 9.1.3.3 of additional temporary impacts from the DEIR). Vineyard Wind can commit that if Covell’s Beach is used as the cable installation tool skids, dredging Landfall Site, drilling for the export cable conduits will begin between Labor of sand waves, anchoring, and Day and April 1. possibly cable protection. For offshore areas, regardless of route, the Proponent has selected
installation techniques that will minimize the level of seafloor disturbance Since both onshore transmission routes during installation of the export cables. Moreover, the alignment of the utilize existing roadways and other Offshore Export Cable Corridor is the product of an extensive consideration existing transportation and of alternatives, and is itself intended to avoid and minimize potential transmission corridors, the Project will impacts to sensitive resources, including SSU areas and Land Containing avoid temporary or permanent impacts Shellfish (see Sections 1.3.1, 1.4.1, and 3.2 of the SDEIR). to naturally vegetated inland wetland resource areas. Regardless of route, the Proponent will use efforts to minimize the amount of dredging necessary, only performing the work where necessary to ensure The preferred Covell’s Beach Route sufficient cable burial beneath the seabed. Similarly, the Proponent will will temporarily impact approximately seek to avoid and/or minimize the use of cable protection, thus minimizing 7,500 square feet of LSCSF. The potential impacts. As described in Section 2.2, although anchoring may be alternative New Hampshire Avenue needed along the entire corridor to enable the use of cable installation tools Route would temporarily impact with greater achievable burial depths (hence minimizing dredging), the 19,350 square feet of LSCSF and 5,600 anchoring set has been reduced from 8 anchors to 5 anchors, and the sf of RFA. spacing for anchor set repositioning has been increased from 200 m to 400 m, thereby reducing overall impacts from anchoring.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 5-5 Proposed Section 61 Findings & Mitigation Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Table 5-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Continued)
Subject Matter Impact Mitigation Measure Schedule and Cost Wetlands (cont’d) Shellfish During construction.
With respect to commercial shellfishing in Lewis Bay, relevant for the route Cost included in to the alternative New Hampshire Avenue Landfall Site, the Company has overall Project costs. proposed and discussed two main forms of support with town officials and fishermen. The first is a compensation fund for lost fishing days calculated against historical landings, to be funded by the Company and administered by a third party agreed upon by the fishing community and the Company. The second is to support a multi-year scallop re-seeding program, which would enhance the fishery for several years and allow a predictable stream of scallop seed to be managed and administered by the shellfish warden. Re-seeding is an effective strategy for enhancing shellfish stocks, and has been shown to be effective in enhancing Lewis Bay scallop populations. The shellfish department has identified a potential supplier for the seed and sufficient resource needs, and the Company would set aside funds to ensure that the seed was available for an annual broadcast in coordination with the shellfish department.
Although there will be an extra level of communication with local fisheries, and a very low likelihood of gear conflict with Yarmouth fishermen, compensation for any gear loss will be administered through the Company’s protocols for gear loss throughout the Project’s construction area.
Avoidance and minimization of impact to bay scallops in Lewis Bay could be accomplished through translocation whereby scallops within the cable corridor will be either harvested or temporarily relocated by local fishermen under the direction of the local Shellfish Constable immediately prior to cable installation. Avoidance and minimization of impacts to quahogs within the shallow water recreational shellfishing area off New Hampshire Avenue could be largely accomplished by coordinating with the Shellfish Constable to ensure that seeding of contaminated quahogs is temporarily suspended within the cable installation corridor until the cable installation has been completed.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 5-6 Proposed Section 61 Findings & Mitigation Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Table 5-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Continued)
Subject Matter Impact Mitigation Measure Schedule and Cost Wetlands (cont’d) Chapter 91 As described in Section 1.7.2 of the SDEIR, the proposed Project will occur over flowed tidelands, and as such is subject to review under MGL Chapter 91 (Waterways) and its associated regulations (310 CMR 9.00). Compliance with Chapter 91 standards is demonstrated in Section 1.7.2.2 of the SDEIR. Mitigation measures related to Chapter 91 compliance include, but are not limited to: ♦ During the construction and installation phase, regardless of route, Vineyard Wind will employ a Marine Coordinator to manage all construction vessel logistics and to act as a liaison with the USCG, port authorities, state and local law enforcement, marine patrol, and port operators. ♦ Regardless of route, it is the Company’s goal to achieve sufficient burial depth to avoid the need for cable protection; however, if cable protection is required, its exact location will be recorded on electronic charts that will be distributed to fishermen. ♦ Through additional route engineering and consideration of installation tools with greater achievable burial depths, the Company is seeking to minimize the amount of sand wave dredging required to achieve sufficient burial depth, regardless of route. ♦ Should the New Hampshire Avenue Landfall Site be utilized, regardless of whether construction occurs via open trench or HDD, the Company would work with the Town of Yarmouth to maintain access to Lewis Bay and would seek to avoid and minimize any temporary restrictions on access to the Englewood boat ramp. Ocean Development Mitigation Fee The Ocean Development Mitigation Fee is discussed in Section 2.1.3.3. Vineyard Wind will pay such a fee regardless of the offshore route, although the fee may vary based on the route. Inland transmission construction will not affect any vegetated wetland resource areas, and therefore no mitigation for inland wetland impacts is proposed.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 5-7 Proposed Section 61 Findings & Mitigation Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Table 5-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Continued)
Subject Matter Impact Mitigation Measure Schedule and Cost Noise The proposed substation will consist of The proposed substation will include noise control features to limit sound During operation. a series of noise-producing electrical level impacts in the neighboring community primarily northeast and east of equipment as described in Section 7 of the substation site. A low-noise design will be specified for the main Cost included in the DEIR. transformers, and synchronous condensers will be housed in an existing overall Project costs. building or acoustically treated equipment enclosure. A series of strategically placed noise barriers of varying heights and lengths will be included in the Project design to further reduce noise impacts. The noise barriers discussed in Section 7.0 of the DEIR were conceptual in design. As described in Section 1.1, the Company has enhanced the design of proposed noise barriers at the substation to further reduce noise impacts to the nearby Village Green apartment complex. While the exact design of the noise barriers will continue to be refined through modeling as the actual equipment sound power levels become available from the manufacturers, the Company has developed an initial approach that includes modifications to the northeast corner barrier walls, geometric revisions to interior barrier walls, and the addition of interior walls. The anticipated noise barriers will also provide complete visual screening of the substation from locations to the east and north. Water Quality The Project is not expected to result in The Project is essentially a civil construction project predominantly located During operation. any significant impacts to water along roadways and existing ROWs that involves standard inert materials resources, as discussed in Section 8.1 such as concrete, PVC conduit, and solid dielectric cable. The proposed Cost included in of the DEIR. cables will not contain any liquids, oils, or other substances that could leak overall Project costs. out of the cables. The proposed substation will be equipped with an integrated fluid containment system capable of capturing at least 110% of contained fluids for any components containing dielectric fluid, including all transformers and capacitor banks, plus an incremental volume sufficient to account for a simultaneous 100-year, 24-hour rainfall event (i.e., 9 inches of rain) (see Section 1.4.4.1 of the SDEIR).
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 5-8 Proposed Section 61 Findings & Mitigation Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Table 5-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Continued)
Subject Matter Impact Mitigation Measure Schedule and Cost Historic and No direct impacts to terrestrial historic For terrestrial archaeology on the potential upland routes, a reconnaissance- During construction. Archaeological resources are anticipated. Onshore level survey final report was provided to MHC on September 18, 2018 Resources and offshore cables will not be visible. responding to MHC’s comments on a previous draft submitted in June 2018. Cost included in Further, the proposed substation MHC also issued an archaeological permit for an intensive-level survey on overall Project costs. modifications are too far distant September 28, 2018, and the survey was completed at the proposed through mature tree growth to create substation site on November 2, 2018. The survey was completed in adverse visual effects on historic cooperation with local historical commissions and THPO. Public properties. Archaeology Lab (“PAL”) did not recommend further testing. When a survey report is available, the Company will submit a copy to the MHC. Data from high-resolution geophysical offshore survey along the Offshore Offshore surveys in 2018 extended seafloor and subsurface coverage in all Export Cable Corridors contain areas where bottom disturbance could occur during construction activities possible paleolandforms and indicate along all routes still under consideration. Survey line spacing, coverage, dates that might have permitted geophysical system parameters, and methodologies were discussed with the habitation during the late Paleoindian Massachusetts Ocean Team and complied with BOEM geophysical and through middle Archaic Periods. geotechnical as well as archaeological guidelines applicable to this Project. The Company’s marine archaeology consultant, Gray & Pape, is still in the process of acquiring data collected during the Project’s 2018 marine geophysical and geotechnical surveys. The analysis is ongoing, and when a draft archaeological report for marine aspects of the Project is complete, it will be submitted to MHC for review and comment.
Avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for terrestrial and submarine historical and archaeological resources within the Project area, regardless of final route, will be determined in consultation with MHC and MBUAR through the Section 106 process.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 5-9 Proposed Section 61 Findings & Mitigation Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Table 5-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Continued)
Subject Matter Impact Mitigation Measure Schedule and Cost Rare Species NHESP has determined that the On November 16, 2018, the Proponent continued consultations with During construction Project’s offshore transmission is NHESP to ensure that impacts to rare species from export cable installation and operation. located within the habitat of state listed are avoided or minimized to the greatest extent practicable, in accordance migratory birds including Least Tern with the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA) Regulations (321 Cost included in (Sternula antillarum), Common Tern CMR 10.14). overall Project costs. (Sterna hirundo), Piping Plover The onshore Project is essentially a civil construction project predominantly (Charadrius melodus), and Roseate located along roadways and existing ROWs, and the only proposed land Tern (Sterna dougallii), which is also a clearing is at the site of the proposed substation, which is not within federal-listed species. protected habitat for rare species. Since there is no anticipated alteration
required of inland rare species habitat, no mitigation for inland rare species NHESP has also determined that the impact is proposed. onshore transmission is located within mapped habitat for two state-listed If the landfall at Covell’s Beach is used, the HDD at Covell’s Beach would invertebrate species: Water Willow pass beneath the beach, with the only onshore construction activity Borer Moth (Papaipema sulphurata) occurring in the previously-disturbed parking lot. Thus, there would be no and Scarlet Bluet (Enallagma pictum). direct impacts to habitat used by piping plovers at Covell’s Beach. In However, the Project will be confined consultation with NHESP, Vineyard Wind has agreed to minimize the to the existing paved roadway and potential for construction noise impacts to piping plovers by beginning work adjacent shoulder areas or within no later than April 1 to avoid impacts to nesting activities. existing cleared transmission corridor, and therefore will not impact actual Due to the short duration of installation activities in any single location, and rare species habitat. because the area of disruption will be along a narrow corridor with vast, unaffected adjacent areas which also provide suitable foraging opportunities to any affected avian species, cable installation activities are not expected to have any significant effect on feeding activities of diving and plunging birds. In addition, as is the case for any vessel, there is a small possibility that birds may collide with lighted vessels during construction in low-light conditions and in severe/poor weather. The Company will reduce the number of lights to only those necessary for safety or required by regulation and will ensure down-shielding of the lights when possible.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 5-10 Proposed Section 61 Findings & Mitigation Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Table 5-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Continued)
Subject Matter Impact Mitigation Measure Schedule and Cost Marine Mammals Just as is the case with all vessel traffic, The duration of cable installation activities will be temporary and short-term During construction. including existing vessel traffic, some in any particular location, and most marine mammals and birds are likely marine mammals and birds may be habituated to vessel traffic in the Project area and specifically Muskeget Cost included in disturbed by vessels engaged in Channel, which sees regular vessel traffic. overall Project costs. construction activities, which may lead Vineyard Wind is in the middle of extensive, ongoing consultations with the to temporary displacement during BOEM and NMFS to define the most appropriate mitigation measures to cable installation. protect marine mammals during the different phases of construction. These consultations have addressed activities in federal waters (such as pile driving) but have also included activities in state waters (such as construction vessel transit and cable laying). Working with BOEM and NMFS, Vineyard Wind has identified a suite of mitigation measures that include TOY restrictions for pile driving (an activity only proposed in federal waters) and techniques such as Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM), as well as other monitoring options such as aerial- or vessel-based visual observers (see Section 4.1). Vineyard Wind, BOEM, and NMFS expect ongoing consultations over the seven to ten months will lead to the final specification of the multiple mitigation measures that are expected to be used to protect marine mammals. The Company believes that adequate protection of marine mammals is best addressed through the MMPA process and with the marine mammal experts at NMFS and BOEM, who will specify the most appropriate mitigation measures for protection of all marine mammals. As described in Section 1.2.2.3, Vineyard Wind will allocate allocated $3 million to a “Wind and Whales” fund to help advance marine mammal protections as the offshore wind industry develops along the East Coast. The Wind and Whales Fund will support development and demonstration of innovative methods and technologies to enhance protections for marine mammals as the Massachusetts and U.S. offshore wind industries continue to grow. Vineyard Wind is actively working with Massachusetts marine mammal experts and other relevant parties to build a framework for how funds will be allocated. Ultimately, a panel of scientists from academia, research organizations, or local experts and members from state and federal agencies will be convened to guide funding decisions.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 5-11 Proposed Section 61 Findings & Mitigation Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Table 5-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Continued)
Subject Matter Impact Mitigation Measure Schedule and Cost Air The Project will have significant air It is estimated that the Project will have an avoided annual emissions of During operation. quality and greenhouse gas emission approximately 1,680,000 tons of CO2 (see Section 6.1 of the DEIR). benefits by enabling up to 800 MW of Although there will be construction-phase emissions of regulated pollutants, Cost included in zero-carbon electric power to be these emissions will be quickly offset during the operational phase by overall Project costs. delivered to the ISO-NE grid. emissions reductions on the New England power grid.
Line losses are being minimized primarily by optimizing the length of the overall offshore and onshore routes. These routes are optimized by interconnecting at the nearest substation practicable and by using extensive offshore surveys to identify the most direct offshore route that also avoids sensitive habitats and allows for practical installation. Similarly, onshore route selection was performed to achieve the most direct route feasible while avoiding and minimizing disturbance to local communities and sensitive resources. Line losses will also be avoided by transmitting power from the offshore electrical service platforms in federal waters to the Point of Interconnection at 220 kV, the highest practical voltage based on commercially available offshore cable technology. In addition, the Proponent is optimizing equipment sizing, selection, and configuration at the offshore and onshore substations, and by locating the onshore substation adjacent to the Point of Interconnection at the Barnstable Switching Station.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 5-12 Proposed Section 61 Findings & Mitigation Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Table 5-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Continued)
Subject Matter Impact Mitigation Measure Schedule and Cost Construction Temporary impacts on traffic, air Prior to construction, the Proponent will work closely with the Town of During construction. quality, noise. Barnstable and, if the New Hampshire Avenue route is selected, the Town of Yarmouth, to develop appropriate TMPs for minimizing construction-period Cost included in traffic disruptions. The TMPs will be submitted for review and approval by overall Project costs. appropriate municipal authorities (typically DPW/Town Engineer and Police). Vineyard Wind will pay for the municipalities to hire a construction monitor to ensure compliance with the TMPs, communicate with the municipalities, and address any resident concerns during construction. Draft TMPs are included with the engineering plans in Attachment G (Covell’s Beach Route) of this FEIR and Attachment H of the SDEIR (New Hampshire Avenue Route). Specific construction-period air quality mitigation measures expected to be required include: ♦ For on-ROW construction, use of appropriately designed track out pads to prevent off-site migration of soils; ♦ Mechanical street sweeping of construction areas and surrounding streets and sidewalks as necessary; ♦ Removal of construction waste in covered or enclosed trailers; ♦ Wetting of exposed soils and stockpiles to prevent dust generation; ♦ Minimizing stockpiling of materials on site; ♦ Turning off construction equipment when not in use and minimizing idling times; ♦ Minimizing the storage of construction waste on site; ♦ Minimizing the duration that soils are left exposed; and ♦ Use of marine vessels that will be certified by the manufacturer to comply with applicable marine engine emission standards. Expected noise mitigation measures include: ♦ Minimizing the amount of work conducted outside of typical construction hours; ♦ Ensuring that appropriate mufflers are installed and maintained on construction equipment; ♦ Ensuring appropriate maintenance and lubrication of construction equipment to provide the quietest performance; ♦ Requiring muffling enclosures on continuously-operating equipment such as air compressors and welding generators;
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 5-13 Proposed Section 61 Findings & Mitigation Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Table 5-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Continued)
Subject Matter Impact Mitigation Measure Schedule and Cost Construction The Project will have no long-term ♦ Turning off construction equipment when not in use and minimizing During construction. (cont’d) impact on drainage or water quality, idling times; and and construction is designed to avoid ♦ Mitigating the impact of noisy equipment on sensitive locations by using Cost included in any impact to existing drainage shielding or buffering distance to the extent practical. overall Project costs. systems. Post-construction, the Project will not generate nitrogen or Blasting is not anticipated, nor is construction expected to result in hazardous liquids and will have no noticeable vibrations. impacts to water quality. Nearly all vehicle fueling and all major equipment maintenance will be performed off-site at commercial service stations or a contractor’s yard. A few pieces of large, less mobile equipment (e.g., excavators, paving equipment) will be refueled as necessary on-site. Any such field refueling will not be performed within 100 feet of wetlands waterways, or within 100 feet of known private or community potable wells, or within any Town water supply Zone I area. The fuel transfer operation will be conducted by a competent person knowledgeable about the equipment, the location, and with the use of the work zone spill kit. Proper spill containment gear and absorption materials will be maintained for immediate use in the event of any inadvertent spills or leaks. All operators will be trained in the use and deployment of such spill prevention equipment. During construction, equipment will be inspected for incidental leaks (e.g., hydraulic fluid, diesel fuel, gasoline, anti-freeze) prior to site access and on a daily basis at the commencement of each work shift. The Proponent will require its contractor to document the daily inspections as part of the approved means and methods. Small pieces of powered equipment such as generators and pavement saws will be placed in containment bins or on absorbent blankets or pads to contain any accidental fuel spills or leaks. In addition, under no circumstances shall fuel or oils of any kind be stored or brought into any duct bank vault, nor shall there be any re-fueling of equipment either inside a vault or within 100 feet of any vault.
Fixed gear fishermen have suggested the use of consistent transit lanes for construction-related vessels during construction to facilitate avoidance of conflicts and minimize or eliminate loss of gear. Vineyard Wind will implement such an approach with the Marine Coordinator and Fisheries Liaison.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 5-14 Proposed Section 61 Findings & Mitigation Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Section 6.0
Response to Comments
6.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
This FEIR is structured in response to the Secretary’s Certificate on the SDEIR. A copy of the Secretary’s October 12, 2018 Certificate is included in this section.
This section responds to comment letters received on the SDEIR submitted on August 31, 2018. In accordance with the instructions provided on page 25 of the Secretary’s Certificate, the specific comment responses contained in this section are direct responses to comments to the extent that they are within MEPA jurisdiction. As further stated in the Certificate, “This directive is not intended, and shall not be construed, to enlarge the scope of the SDEIR beyond what has been expressly identified in this certificate.”
Each letter from government agencies, municipalities, advocacy groups, or elected representatives has been assigned an abbreviation as listed below in Table 6-1. The comment letters are reprinted in this section, and specific comments within each letter are noted in the margin with the abbreviations in Table 6-1 and a sequential numbering. Following each letter is a listing of the comments accompanied by a response to each.
Table 6-1 Secretary’s Certificate and Comment Letters from Agencies, Towns, Interest Groups, and Elected Officials Commenter Abbreviation EEA Secretary’s Certificate on the SDEIR MEPA Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection DEP Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management CZM Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries DMF Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, Natural Heritage & Endangered Species NHESP Program Massachusetts Historical Commission MHC Board of Underwater Archaeological Resources BUAR Cape Cod Commission CCC Martha’s Vineyard Commission MVC Town of Yarmouth YAR State Senator Cyr and Representative Fernandes CF Association to Preserve Cape Cod APCC Boston & New England Maritime Trades Council MTC Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce CC Fisheries Survival Fund FSF Hyannis Park Civic Association HPCA Interest Groups: Conservation Law Foundation, Natural Resources Defense Council, National Wildlife Federation, Massachusetts Audubon Society, Environmental League of IG Massachusetts, Acadia Center Island Wind IW Patriot Offshore PO Responsible Offshore Development Alliance RODA SouthCoast Energy Challenge SCEC The Town Dock TTD Vineyard Power Cooperative VP Yarmouth Neighborhood and Civic Associations YNA
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-1 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. In addition to the agencies, municipalities, and advocacy groups who submitted comment letters, many individuals submitted letters of support or comments on the SDEIR. These individuals are listed in Table 6-2.
Numerous letters of support were received during the SDEIR comment period. In addition to the many citizen supporters listed in Table 6-2, letters of support were received from the Association to Preserve Cape Cod, Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce, and others. The Project sincerely appreciates this support.
As listed on Table 6-2, many individuals also submitted comments on the SDEIR that raised common questions and issues. Based on a review of these letters, 10 common topics are identified in Table 6-3. The table provides responses and/or reference(s) to sections of this FEIR and other MEPA filings where the specific questions or issues are addressed. As with the letters of support, the Project appreciates the interest shown by these individuals.
Comments or questions from all letters were considered in Project planning and preparation of this FEIR. For reference, Attachment H contains copies of all comment letters submitted by individuals.
Lastly, all FEIR commenters listed in Tables 6-1 and 6-2 (i.e., agencies, towns, elected representatives, advocacy groups, and individuals) are included in the Circulation List provided as Attachment B.
Table 6-2 Individuals who commented on the SDEIR and the common issues raised in their letters (see Table 6-3 for list of common issues)
Names (alphabetical order by last name) Issue Number from Table 6-3 Raised in Individual’s Comment Letter Letters of Support Blake, Nicola 10 Boyle, Alexander 10 Coedy, Lisa 10 Condon, Maureen 10 Donahue, Mark 10 Durkin, Tom 10 Edey, Anna 10 Hartzband, Jon 10 Henderson, John 10 Hodgson, Morgan 10 Hughes, Sarah Jane 10 Jacobs, Michael 10
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-2 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Table 6-2 Individuals who commented on the SDEIR and the common issues raised in their letters (see Table 6-3 for list of common issues) (Continued)
Names (alphabetical order by last name) Issue Number from Table 6-3 Raised in Individual’s Comment Letter Letters of Support Kominers, Jeffrey 10 Lake, William 10 Lieberman, Rabbi Elias 10 Mallinson, Don 10 Mavriodes, Sally 10 Overholz, WJ 10 Plunkett, Laura 10 Rodio, Elizabeth 10 Rosenkranz, Ann 10 Shaw, Michael 10 Soldini, Tom 10 Sullivan, Thomas 10 Williams, Resolvert 10 Ziegler, Linda 10 Letters that Raised Issues or Questions (see Table 6-3 for corresponding responses) Beebe, Kenneth and Cynthia (form letter) 2, 3, 6, 8 Bernstein, David 1, 7 Boulay, Steve 5, 6, 8 Brita, Susan 9 Charif, Sheila and Loren (form letter) 2, 3, 6, 8 Cove, Paul and Veronica 5 Cummings, Denise (form letter) 2, 3, 6, 8 DiTrapano, Joanna (form letter) 2, 3, 6, 8 DiTrapano, Katherine (form letter) 2, 3, 6, 8 Durkin, Barbara 5 Edmunds, Judy (form letter) 2, 3, 6, 8 Fox, Jeanne (form letter) 2, 3, 6, 8 Genovese, Robert and Linda 5, 7 Greeley, Christine 1 Grienneren, John (form letter) 2, 3, 6, 8 Johnson, Ronna 2, 3, 6, 8 Kozma, Mark 1, 2 Monaldo, Robert (form letter) 2, 3, 6, 8 O’Conner, Karen (form letter) 2, 3, 6, 8 Schatz, Kathleen 2, 3, 6, 8 Sforza, Marianne 5, 6, 8 Shannon, Dorothy 4, 5, 8, 9 Sostek, Bruce (form letter) 2, 3, 6, 8 Thompson, Paul and Amy (form letter) 2, 3, 6, 8 Warren, Arthur and Judy 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8 Resident (name illegible) (form letter) 2, 3, 6, 8 Judith Dan (illegible) (form letter) 2, 3, 6, 8
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-3 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Table 6-3 Responses to common issues raised in individuals’ comment letters on the SDEIR
Issue Topic Number 1 Concerns Regarding Potential Impacts to Lewis Bay (water quality, habitat) Response: As described in Section 1.1, Covell’s Beach in the Town of Barnstable is now the preferred Landfall Site for the Project and New Hampshire Avenue is the alternative Landfall Site. If the Covell’s Beach Route is used, the Project will not use Lewis Bay. Background material on Lewis Bay was provided in Section 4.1.2.4 of the DEIR and Sections 1.3 and 1.4.2 of the SDEIR. While the three-cable installation across the ~1,000-acre Lewis Bay would have temporarily disturbed approximately 2.5 acres of bottom, the Proponent has reduced the number of offshore export cables to two. If the Lewis Bay route is used the two-cable installation would temporarily disturb only approximately 1.7 acres of bottom in Lewis Bay. Potential Project-related impacts to the jurisdictional wetlands resource areas of Lewis Bay were described in detail in Section 4.3 of the DEIR, including shellfish in Section 4.3.2 and Coastal Beach in Section 4.3.3. These sections also address minimization and mitigation measures. Additional relevant information is provided in Attachment E of this FEIR, a Sediment Dispersion Modeling Study specific to Lewis Bay. If the alternative Landfall Site is used, the Proponent is committed to working closely with the Town of Yarmouth, the Town of Barnstable, and Lewis Bay fishing/shell fishing and aquaculture interests to ensure that any temporary disruptions from cable-laying are minimized. Where temporary impacts cannot be avoided, the Project will work with the Towns and other state resource agencies to develop appropriate mitigation. As described in this FEIR and the previous MEPA filings, the Project will have no long-term effect on Lewis Bay water quality or habitat. 2 Concerns Regarding Potential Impacts to future use or management of Lewis Bay (navigation, anchoring, dredging) Response: As described in Section 1.1, Covell’s Beach is now the preferred Landfall Site for the Project and New Hampshire Avenue is the alternative Landfall Site. If the Covell’s Beach Route is used, the Project will not use Lewis Bay. The actual cable installation in Lewis Bay would be expected to be completed in approximately 10 work days, and would be carefully coordinated with local shell fishermen and other mariners. The soft sediments in Lewis Bay allow for ample burial depth. Nearshore and onshore construction at the south end of New Hampshire Avenue, should this alternative site be selected, will be conducted in the off-season. As shown on Figure 2-2, the cable route does not cross the dredged federal navigation channel and will not interfere with ferry operations or other commercial traffic into or out of Hyannis Harbor; similarly, the cables will not interfere with normal maintenance dredging of the navigation channel. Once installed, the offshore export cables will not affect navigation, including navigation directly over the area where the cables are installed.
The target burial depth of the cables is sufficient to allow continued use of mobile fishing gear, and anchors from vessels operating at the water depths in the cable area would not penetrate to the target burial depth even in storm situations. While the nearshore cable corridor crosses a small portion of the existing Town of Yarmouth mooring field, it will not preclude the careful placement of future moorings (see Section 4.1.2.4 of the DEIR). Certain types of mooring anchors can penetrate to the target burial depth, and the Project will work with the Town of Yarmouth to establish a procedure to ensure that these types of anchors are not used directly over the cables.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-4 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Table 6-3 Responses to the common issues raised in individuals’ comment letters on the SDEIR (Continued)
Issue Topic Number In the area proposed for cable installation, specific plans for dredging do not exist at this time. The Yarmouth Department of Natural Resources (“YDNR”) has indicated that continued infill within Lewis Bay has formed “pockets” of deep water. A 2011 study by the Army Corps of Engineers found that growth of Smiths Point Spit and Egg Island was due to relocation of sand from adjacent (Great Island) beach nourishment projects in the 1990s. The Army Corps asserted that no further accretion of Smith’s Point Spit or Egg Island is likely to occur.
To improve circulation, the YDNR has discussed potential dredging within Lewis Bay. The town has also discussed a possible dredging project that would improve circulation by opening a channel across the Smith’s Point Spit, to the east of the entrance to Lewis Bay. Within Lewis Bay, the Company has proposed to locate its cable under the deeper portions of the bay, where no dredging has been suggested. Similarly, the proposed landfall approach is in an area where dredging has not been suggested.
The 2011 Army Corps study also included an analysis of future circulation dredging, and the study identified increased nutrient loading as the cause of decreased water quality in the bay, rather than reduced tidal flow from the expansion of the Smith’s Point Spit and Egg Island. The Army Corps study also evaluated a potential dredging project that would be for the purpose of restoring a historical navigation channel through a portion of the existing Smiths Point Spit, and suggested a depth of six (6) feet for a new channel. To achieve a 6-foot depth, removal of a portion of the new dune land on the spit would be necessary, as would substantial nearshore dredging out to roughly 100 feet from the shoreline. The Project would not interfere with the potential historic navigation channel dredging or circulation dredging evaluated in the Army Corps study.
Although no new circulation or navigation dredging plans have advanced beyond initial concepts, the Company will continue to work with the town around their potential future dredging concepts and plans to minimize potential conflicts. Where appropriate and feasible, the Company would consider greater installation depths to accommodate for potential future dredging. 3 Possible economic impacts from Project through decreased tourism Response: The Project’s numerous and extensive public benefits are described in detail in Section 1.2. The benefits include economic benefits to local municipalities, the region, the Commonwealth, and the federal government. The Project will not result in any permanent restrictions on recreational or commercial activities onshore or within Lewis Bay or state waters, with the only impacts being temporary restrictions around active construction operations; the onshore work in roadways will occur during the off-season, unless otherwise authorized by the host town(s). Upon completion, the Project will leave no visual or aesthetic impacts along the Cape shoreline or along the cable route, as the only visible features along the shoreline will be at-grade manhole access points of the same type as existing utility-manholes.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-5 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Table 6-3 Responses to the common issues raised in individuals’ comment letters on the SDEIR (Continued)
Issue Topic Number 4 Potential construction-period disruptions and inconveniences (onshore) Response: Section 9.0 of the DEIR was dedicated to describing construction methodology and construction-period impacts and mitigation measures for the proposed Project. An update on traffic impacts was provided in Section 6.0 of the SDEIR. Construction of the underground duct bank will proceed at the rate of 100 to 200 feet per day, thus active construction in a given area will be limited in duration. As is the normal practice on the Cape, in-road work will be done in the offseason to minimize potential traffic-related impacts (see Section 9.2 of the DEIR). Access to businesses and public buildings along the route will be maintained at all times. The Proponent has and will continue to work closely with Town officials, the Police Department, and regulators to develop effective Traffic Management Plans (TMPs); draft TMPs are provided in the engineering plan sets in Attachment G (Covell’s Beach Route) of this FEIR and in Attachment H of the SDEIR (New Hampshire Avenue Route). 24/7 access to Police buildings and similar facilities will be maintained during the duct bank construction process. 5 General opposition to project location Response: The Proponent engaged in an extensive alternatives analysis, which examined many different cable routing options, potential Landfall Sites, and feasible interconnection locations in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. This process resulted in the identification of two favorable routes: the New Hampshire Avenue Route and the Covell’s Beach Route. As described in Section 1.1, the Covell’s Beach Route is now the preferred route for the Project. Described in detail in Section 3.0 of the DEIR, the alternatives analysis considered numerous potential interconnection locations, landfall sites, sites for the proposed substation, and offshore and onshore routing. Routes were selected based on a comprehensive review of options across a wide set of relevant criteria to minimize environmental and construction impacts while achieving the purpose and objectives of the Project. 6 Covell’s Beach is a better alternative to New Hampshire Avenue Response: As presented in the DEIR and SDEIR, the Company believes both Covell’s Beach and New Hampshire Avenue are favorable, comparable Landfall Sites for the proposed Project. Nonetheless, for the reasons described in Section 1.1, Covell’s Beach is now the Project’s preferred Landfall Site, and New Hampshire Avenue is the alternative Landfall Site. 7 The Massachusetts OMP lists Lewis Bay as an “area to Avoid” Response: Please see the response to YAR 11. 8 Shellfish/aquaculture Response: Section 2.3 describes resources within Lewis Bay, including shellfish and aquaculture. 9 Concern regarding economic impacts of HCA for Yarmouth residents Response: As described in Section 1.1, the Company has signed an HCA with the Town of Barnstable, which will provide significant economic benefits to that community as well as guarantees around the management of construction and operation of onshore portions of the Project. Covell’s Beach is now the preferred Landfall Site for the Project. The Company has not signed an HCA with Yarmouth, and is not actively pursuing such an agreement given the shift to Covell’s Beach and an all-Barnstable onshore route. 10 Supportive of the Project Response: Vineyard Wind is greatly appreciative of those organizations and individuals who have expressed their support for the Project. The Proponent will continue to engage with state, regional, and local interests to ensure that relevant questions are answered and to ensure a successful Project that achieves its stated goals while avoiding and minimizing potential community and environmental impacts.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-6 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc.
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) 626-1081 LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR http://www.mass.gov/eea Matthew A. Beaton SECRETARY
October 12, 2018
CERTIFICATE OF THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ON THE SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PROJECT NAME : Vineyard Wind Connector PROJECT MUNICIPALITY : Barnstable, Yarmouth, State/Federal Waters PROJECT WATERSHED : Cape & Islands EEA NUMBER : 15787 PROJECT PROPONENT : Vineyard Wind DATE NOTICED IN MONITOR : September 5, 2018
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 Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report (SDEIR) and hereby determine that it adequately and properly complies with MEPA and its implementing regulations. The Proponent may file the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) in accordance with the Scope provided in this Certificate.
The Vineyard Wind project is proposed in response to the clean energy mandate of Chapter 188 of the Acts of 2016 (An Act to Promote Energy Diversity) and associated Request for Proposals (RFP). The RFP was issued by energy distribution companies, in coordination with the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (DOER), to solicit long-term contracts to satisfy the policy directives encompassed within Section 83C of the Act and to assist the Commonwealth with meeting its Global Warming Solution Act (GWSA) goals. Subsequent to the filing of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), Vineyard Wind was selected to advance to contract negotiations for 800 megawatts (MW) of wind energy. The Proponent filed executed Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) with the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (DPU) on July 31, 2018.
EEA# 15787 SDEIR Certificate October 12, 2018
Subsequent to the filing of the SDEIR, the Proponent indicated its decision to select the offshore cable route to Covell’s Beach in Barnstable (previously identified Noticed Alternative) as its Preferred Route based on the execution of a Host Community Agreement (HCA) with the Town of Barnstable (October 3, 2018).1 The offshore cable route to New Hampshire Avenue in Yarmouth (previously identified as the Preferred Route) is now identified as the Noticed Alternative route.
Project Description
The purpose of the Vineyard Wind project is to generate and distribute Offshore Wind Energy Generation2 to Massachusetts in accordance with An Act to Promote Energy Diversity (the Act). The Act was promulgated as part of a strategy to meet the Commonwealth’s Greenhouse Gas (GHG) reduction and energy goals. The project proposes to construct an offshore wind project located in the federally designated Wind Energy Area (WEA) which is under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). The WEA is located in federal waters to the south of Martha’s Vineyard. Vineyard Wind will deliver 800 MW of energy to the New England energy grid via submarine export cables that will make landfall in Massachusetts. The SDEIR indicates that the Vineyard Wind project would offset carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by approximately 1,680,000 tons per year (tpy).
For the purpose of MEPA review, the portion of Vineyard Wind subject to state jurisdiction is referred to as the Vineyard Wind Connector and the “Project”. Major elements of Vineyard Wind include a wind turbine array including wind turbine generators (WTGs), offshore electrical service platforms (ESPs), offshore submarine transmission cables, onshore underground transmission cables, and an onshore substation. The SDEIR indicates that two offshore export cables will be installed in a 2,660-foot wide installation corridor to distribute the energy to the New England bulk power grid (a reduction from the three export cables proposed in the DEIR). The Project includes offshore transmission cables in state waters, onshore cables and a substation. The SDEIR describes the elimination of one of the two offshore cable corridors previously presented (Eastern Offshore Export Cable Corridor (Eastern cable corridor)). The Proponent will advance the Western Offshore Export Cable Corridor (Western cable corridor) which will make landfall at one of two potential sites in Massachusetts. The Western cable corridor includes variations that extend through Muskeget Channel to the west and the east. Approximately 20.9 to 23.3 miles of the transmission lines will be located in state waters depending on the selected route through Muskeget Channel and landfall site. Covell’s Beach in Barnstable has been selected as the Preferred Route based on support from the Town of Barnstable, shorter cable length and associated reduction in impacts, and avoidance of crossing the existing National Grid Cape Cod to Nantucket Cable.
Each 10-inch diameter offshore export cable will be comprised of a three-core 220 kilovolt (kV) alternating current (AC) cable for power transmission bundled with a fiber optic cable. The cables are proposed to be buried approximately five to eight feet below the seafloor and laid with a combination of jet-plowing (through flat, soft sediments), jetting (through small sand waves), suction dredging (through large sand waves), and mechanical trenching (through compacted sand/gravel/cobble). Boulders will be
1 Email to Purvi Patel, MEPA from Rachel Pachter, Vineyard Wind, on October 5, 2018. 2 Chapter 188 of the Acts of 2016 defines Offshore Wind Energy Generation as offshore electric generating resources derived from wind that: (1) are Class I renewable energy generating sources, as defined in section 11F of Chapter 25A of the General Laws; (2) have a commercial operations date on or after January 1, 2018, that has been verified by DOER; and (3) operate in a designated WEA for which an initial federal lease was issued on a competitive basis after January 1, 2012.
2 EEA# 15787 SDEIR Certificate October 12, 2018 relocated (except within dense areas which will be avoided) from the cable route and placed in another location within the construction corridor. Where burial is not possible due to subsurface conditions, it will be laid on the ocean floor and covered by rock or concrete mattresses. Within the transition zone between Nantucket Sound and land, Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) or open trenching will be used to install the cable.
The Preferred Route (5.4 miles long) for the onshore cable is located exclusively within Barnstable; the Noticed Alternative (6 miles long) extends from Yarmouth to Barnstable. The substation is proposed adjacent to the Eversource 115 kV Switching Station in Barnstable. The identification of Covell’s Beach as the Preferred Route does not affect the on-shore variants of each route.
The SDEIR indicates that Vineyard Wind will include two 400-MW offshore cables (reduced from three offshore cables proposed in the DEIR). The Proponent plans to construct the full 800 MW sequentially (in a single phase), rather than being separated into two 400-MW phases (as previously described as a possibility in the DEIR). The two cables will be separated by approximately 330 feet within the 2,660-foot wide installation corridor.
Installation of each offshore cable from the Wind Development Area (WDA) to the landfall site will require approximately 24 days for simultaneous lay and bury (16 days for lay, six days for splice, two days for landfall connection) and approximately 37 days for the less weather-sensitive free lay and post lay burial technique (11 days for lay, six days for splice, 18 days for burial, two days for landfall connection). Preparatory or advance activities such as a grapnel run (to provide clearance for installation) and dredging of sand waves will occur two to four weeks prior to cable installation. The cable laying vessel and its guard vessels will follow a pre-identified route at a speed of less than one knot and will maintain a “moving” safety exclusion zone in consultation with U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) (approximately 0.6-mile radius).
The SDEIR indicates that the following changes to the project will reduce environmental impacts compared to those identified in the DEIR:
• Installation of 800 MW in a single phase, rather than two phases (400 MW each); • Elimination of the Eastern cable corridor alternative; • Elimination of one of the three offshore export cables and associated reduction in number of onshore cables (from nine to six); • Reduction in the size of the duct bank to accommodate eight conduits instead of 12; • Identification of rock placement as the preferred cable protection approach; • Identification of a shorter HDD route at a more oblique angle to completely avoid areas of hard/complex bottom and eelgrass near Covell’s Beach; • Selection of Variant 1 (Attucks Lane and Independence Drive – entirely within existing roadway layouts) as the Preferred Route to the substation; and • Advancement in substation design and redesign of the stormwater management system to accommodate additional containment volumes.
3 EEA# 15787 SDEIR Certificate October 12, 2018
Project Area
The cable routes through Nantucket Sound include sections within the area of federal waters in the center of the sound. A portion of the cable route within state waters lies within the Cape and Islands Ocean Sanctuary (CIOS) and the Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan (OMP) planning area. The Western cable corridor to the preferred landing site passes through 20.9 miles and 22.6 miles of state waters using the western route and eastern route through Muskeget Channel, respectively. The Noticed Alternative would extend through 21.4 miles and 23.3 miles of state waters using the western route and eastern route through Muskeget Channel, respectively.
The substation is proposed within a 6.35-acre site that is zoned for industrial use. It is located on Independence Drive within the Independence Park commercial/industrial area. The majority of the site is wooded and includes some limited parking areas and a small building. The site is bordered to the north by the Barnstable Switching Station, to the west by the former Cape Cod Times building, to the south by Independence Drive, and to the east by a 150- to 200-foot wide electric transmission corridor. The surrounding area has been zoned, permitted and developed or is proposed to be developed with residential, commercial, and recreational uses. A residential neighborhood is located approximately 2,000 feet from the site. Onshore transmission lines are proposed primarily within paved roadways and other existing rights of way (ROW) in Yarmouth and Barnstable.
According to the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP), portions of the project area are mapped as Priority and Estimated Habitat for rare species including Roseate Tern (Sterna dougallii)3, Common Tern (Sterna hirundo), Least Tern (Sternula antillarum), Water-willow Borer Moth (Papaipema sulphurata), Scarlet Bluet (Enallagma pictum), and Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus).4 North Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis), Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), marine birds such as Long-tailed Duck , Northern Gannet, Razorbill, Wilson’s Storm Petrel, fulmars, loons, scoters, and shearwaters, and Loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and Leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) sea turtles have been observed throughout Nantucket Sound.
The Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) indicates that the cable routes will pass through areas of commercial and recreational fishing and habitat for a variety of invertebrate and finfish species, including channeled whelk (Busycotypus canaliculatus), knobbed whelk (Busycon carica), longfin squid (Doryteuthis pealeii), summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus), windowpane flounder (Scophthalmus aquosus), scup (Stenotomus chrysops), surf clam (Spisula solidissima), sea scallop (Argopecten irradians), quahog (Mercenaria mercenaria), horseshoe crabs (Limulus polyphemus), and blue mussel (Mytilus edulis). Blue mussel and kelp (Saccharina latissima) aquaculture operations are also located within Horseshoe Shoals (a subtidal area of Nantucket Sound).
Lewis Bay supports a variety of marine resources including winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus), horseshoe crabs, and shellfish. Sections of the Lewis Bay shoreline are mapped soft shell clam (Mya arenaria), American oyster (Crassostrea virginica), and quahog habitat. Oyster aquaculture grants are present along the eastern shoreline. Most of Lewis Bay is identified as bay scallop habitat and it supports a seasonal bay scallop fishery. Covell’s Beach is mapped as a horseshoe crab nesting beach and waters offshore of the beach are mapped as surf clam habitat. Waters offshore of portions of
3 Species also federally protected pursuant to the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA, 50 CFR 17.11). 4 Ibid.
4 EEA# 15787 SDEIR Certificate October 12, 2018
Covell’s Beach and the entrance channel to Lewis Bay contain mapped eelgrass (Zostera marina) habitat. The 2018 marine surveys located an area of eelgrass offshore from Covell’s Beach around Spindle Rock in Centerville Harbor.
The Massachusetts Board of Underwater Archaeological Resources (BUAR) has identified Nantucket Sound as an area of high sensitivity that is rich in submerged ancient Native American cultural resources and shipwrecks. A number of properties included in the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) Inventory of Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth (Inventory) and State and National Registers are located along the onshore segment of the transmission route. Both the Preferred Route and Noticed Alternative extend through and are adjacent to archaeological sites.
In addition, portions of the project area include land held in accordance with Article 97 of the Amendments of the Constitution of the Commonwealth (Article 97) and land permanently protected through a conservation restriction (CR).
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
Potential environmental impacts5 of the project in Massachusetts include alteration of up to 8.3 acres of land, creation of up to 0.6 acres of impervious area, and alteration to wetland resource areas. Based on information in the SDEIR regarding the Preferred Alternative, the project will impact Land Under the Ocean (LUO), of which up to nine acres will be Land Containing Shellfish (LCS) based on DMF shellfish suitability maps, associated with installation of the submarine cable, dredging of sand waves, sediment dispersion and installation of the cofferdam at the end of the alternate landfall site. Installation of the land-based section of the transmission line for the Noticed Alternative will alter approximately 19,350 square feet (sf) of Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage (LSCSF) and 5,600 sf of Riverfront Area (RFA) and open-cut trenching at the alternate landfall site will alter approximately 1,500 sf of Coastal Beach. Installation of the land-based section of the transmission line for the Preferred Alternative will alter approximately 7,500 sf of LSCSF. The project will include up to approximately 104,000 cubic yards (cy) of dredging of sand waves within state waters and 164,000 cubic meters (m3) total from the WDA based on the Western cable corridor (west through Muskeget Channel).
The submarine cable will be installed using jetting, jet-plow, or mechanical trenching to minimize the area of dredging and direct seafloor impact. HDD will be used for the transition to landfall to avoid impacts to coastal wetland resource areas along the Preferred Route (Covell’s Beach). Open trench and HDD have been considered for the Noticed Alternative. Areas of Coastal Beach, RFA, and LSCSF impacted during construction will be restored. The project will be required to comply with management standards in the OMP to minimize impacts to marine resources. Best management practices (BMPs) will be employed during the construction period. The substation will include full containment for any components containing dielectric fluids including transformers and capacitor banks.
The project will offset 1.68 million tpy of GHG emissions and improve the resiliency of energy infrastructure.
5 Certain impacts identified in the SDEIR are associated with the Vineyard Wind Connector only, while others are associated with elements of the project under state and federal jurisdiction.
5 EEA# 15787 SDEIR Certificate October 12, 2018
Permits and Jurisdiction
The Project is subject to a Mandatory EIR because it requires Agency Action and it will alter ten or more acres of other wetlands (LUO) pursuant to 301 CMR 11.03(3)(a)(1)(b) of the MEPA regulations. The project also exceeds ENF thresholds at 301 CMR 11.03(3)(b)(3) for dredging of 10,000 or more cubic yards (cy) of material and at 301 CMR 11.03(7)(b)(4) for construction of electric transmission lines with a capacity of 69 or more kV that are over one mile in length. The Project may exceed the ENF threshold at 301 CMR 11.03(2)(b)(2) for disturbance of greater than two acres of designated priority habitat that results in a take of a state-listed rare species. Depending on the on-shore transmission route selected, the Project may also exceed ENF thresholds at 301 CMR 11.03(1)(b)(3) for conversion of land held for natural resources purposes in accordance with Article 97 to any purpose not in accordance with Article 97; and 301 CMR 11.03(1)(b)(5) for release of an interest in land held for conservation purposes.
The Project will require a Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC), a Chapter 91 (c. 91) License, and Approval of Easement pursuant to 310 CMR 22.00 from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP); review under the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA) by NHESP; review under the OMP and Ocean Sanctuaries Act; a Non-Vehicular Access Permit, Road Crossing Permits, and a Rail Division Use and Occupancy License from the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT); and Approval under MGL Chapter 164 Sections 69J and 72, and Chapter 40A Section 3 Zoning Exemption from the Energy Facility Siting Board (EFSB) and DPU. The Project also requires a Federal Consistency review by the Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management (CZM). The Project is subject to the MEPA GHG Emissions Policy and Protocol (the Policy). It may require authorization from the State Legislature in accordance with Article 97.
Consistent with the request for proposals issued pursuant to Section 83 of Chapter 169 of the Acts of 2008 (An Act Relative to Green Communities), as amended by Chapter 188 of the Acts of 2016, the distribution companies must submit any long-term contract proposed to the DPU for review and approval.
The Project will require Orders of Conditions from Conservation Commissions in Edgartown, Yarmouth, and Barnstable, and potentially, Nantucket and Mashpee (or in the case of an appeal, Superseding Orders of Conditions from MassDEP).
Vineyard Wind and elements of the Vineyard Wind Connector require approvals from BOEM6; an Individual Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA); review from the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), USCG, and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); consultation with and Field Investigation Permits from MHC in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 and M.G.L. Chapter 9, Sections 26-27C; a Special Use Permit from BUAR; Development of Regional Impact (DRI) review from the Cape Cod Commission (CCC) and
6 During its review, BOEM must comply with its obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the NHPA, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), the Clean Air Act (CAA), and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). BOEM will coordinate/consult with other Federal agencies including NMFS, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW), EPA, and USGC). BOEM will also coordinate with the State pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA).
6 EEA# 15787 SDEIR Certificate October 12, 2018
Martha’s Vineyard Commission (MVC); and a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit and Outer Continental Shelf Air Permit from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
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 Agency Actions that are likely, directly or indirectly, to cause Damage to the Environment. The subject matter of the EFSB/DPU approvals and the c. 91 License 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.
Review of the SDEIR
The SDEIR provides an updated description of baseline environmental conditions informed by surveys and impacts associated with proposed Project elements within State jurisdiction. It describes several methodologies for installation of offshore export cables. Baseline conditions for Project elements located in federal waters are available in the Construction and Operations Plan (COP) found on the BOEM website. The SDEIR provides a general project schedule. It describes applicable time-of-year (TOY) restrictions, some of which conflict for various resources, and indicates that consultation with state and federal agencies regarding construction scheduling and potential TOY restrictions for offshore elements is ongoing.
The SDEIR identifies the Proponent’s extensive consultation with federal, state and local agencies and officials and to stakeholders and the public. Comments from MassDEP, DMF and CZM indicate that the SDEIR is generally responsive to the Scope. It describes changes to the project since the filing of the DEIR and provides additional information to support the alternatives analysis.
The SDEIR contains additional data and analyses, including preliminary results from the 2018 marine surveys as well as an updated and expanded sediment dispersion modeling study that includes cable installation activities and dredging of sand waves. These surveys provide data to delineate site conditions, evaluate impacts associated with cable routes and support micro-siting of cables within the corridor; provide information regarding sensitive environmental resources for avoidance, minimization and/or mitigation of impacts; and inform the proposed cable design, burial techniques and cable protection.
The 2018 marine survey includes data collection along multiple lines within the 2,660-foot wide installation corridor, including the two options through Muskeget Channel (west and east) and the Preferred Route and Noticed Alternative landfall sites. Based on the results of the survey, the Proponent has eliminated the Eastern cable corridor. The Proponent determined that it would impact a larger proportion of complex bottom which would require additional dredging of sand waves. The survey data will supplement the OMP-mapped “special, sensitive or unique resources” (SSU).
The SDEIR indicates that the Western cable corridor was selected as the preferred route for the offshore export cable based on marine surveys which confirm that it is technically feasible and that it will avoid and minimize potential impacts compared to the Eastern cable corridor.
7 EEA# 15787 SDEIR Certificate October 12, 2018
The SDEIR includes updated site plans and graphics (Attachment A); new plans reflecting marine surveys and OMP-mapped resources (Attachment C); and engineering plans (landfall and onshore duct bank) for the Preferred Route and the Noticed Alternative (Attachments I and H, respectively). The SDEIR includes an updated list of State, federal and local permitting and review requirements and provides an update on the status of each of these pending actions. It includes an assessment of the Project’s consistency with the OMP, c. 91 regulations (310 CMR 9.00) and 401 WQC regulations (314 CMR 9.00).
The SDEIR provides draft Section 61 Findings and describes measures to mitigate environmental impacts. The SDEIR includes a draft Benthic Habitat Monitoring Plan (Attachment D) that will guide post-construction monitoring to document habitat disturbance and recovery. The Proponent indicates it will consult with NHESP, DMF, research and other organizations, and interested stakeholders to identify parameters that will be monitored, methodology and frequency of monitoring, development of monitoring reports and distribution of monitoring reports.
Federal Consistency
CZM review will extend to the entire Vineyard Wind project. The SDEIR includes the Federal Consistency Statement submitted to CZM (Attachment O). The SDEIR was required to provide context and information regarding cumulative impacts of the entire project to support meaningful review and, in particular, to support Federal Consistency Review by CZM. As previously mentioned, the SDEIR includes a brief description of the activities proposed in federal waters and references the COP for additional information on elements outside State jurisdiction. The SDEIR focuses on impacts within State jurisdiction and provides an impact analysis for LUO associated with certain activities within federal waters such as dredging.
Ocean Management Plan
The project is subject to review under the Massachusetts OMP.7 The OMP identifies and maps important ecological resources that are key components of the State’s estuarine and marine ecosystems - defined as SSUs - and identifies key areas of water-dependent uses including commercial and recreational fishing and navigation. It contains siting and management standards applicable to specific ocean-based activities to protect SSU resources and water-dependent uses. For cable projects, the OMP identifies the applicable SSUs as core habitat areas for the North Atlantic Right Whale, Fin Whale and Humpback Whale, areas of hard/complex seafloor, intertidal flats, and eelgrass. SSU resources potentially impacted by the Project are primarily areas of hard/complex seafloor. Eelgrass and North Atlantic Right Whale core habitat will be avoided. OMP maps also depict areas of Sea duck core habitat, Concentrated Recreational Fishing, Concentrated Commerce Traffic, Concentrated Commercial Fishing Traffic and Concentrated Recreational Boating.
The siting standards of the OMP and its implementing regulations (301 CMR 28.00) presume that a project alternative located outside mapped SSU resources is a less environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA) than a project located within a mapped SSU resource. The OMP management standards require a demonstration that new, site-specific information provides more accurate delineation of the resource areas, that no other LEDPA exists, that the project has undertaken
7 The OMP was developed pursuant to the Oceans Act (Chapter 114 of the Acts of 2008) in 2009 and was updated in 2015.
8 EEA# 15787 SDEIR Certificate October 12, 2018
all practicable measures to avoid damage to SSU resources, that there will be no significant alteration of SSU resource values or interests, and that the public benefits of the project outweigh the public detriments posed by impacts to SSU resources. The SDEIR provides additional analysis to supplement information in the DEIR. It provides a discussion of the Project’s consistency with the management standards of the OMP by identifying the project purpose and constraints, reviewing alternatives that would avoid SSUs, providing sufficient details of existing and proposed conditions along the proposed cable route, documenting environmental impacts of the project and mitigation measures, and addressing its public benefits.
Available data and recent surveys are used to demonstrate that cable route alternatives generally avoid sensitive resources identified in the OMP and minimize potential impacts to those resources. The SDEIR includes revised maps that update benthic conditions and identify the extent of hard/complex seafloor and eelgrass along the cable route in higher resolution than mapped in the OMP. The SDEIR separately delineates hard bottom and complex seafloor (sand waves). The 2018 survey data was used to establish boundaries of hard/complex bottom habitat areas and eelgrass to determine impacts to SSUs and to provide a comparison to post-construction conditions. The proposed cable route will be sited to avoid hard seafloor to the maximum extent practicable; however, the SDEIR indicates that the amount of hard bottom (areas of cobble and biogenic habitat) that cannot be avoided and may be impacted during the cable laying process is not fully known. New areas of eelgrass uncovered around Spindle Rock will be avoided by realigning the cable corridor at an angle at it approaches the Covell’s Beach land site.
The OMP includes mapped areas of commercial and recreational fishing and navigation in Nantucket Sound that could be affected by the project. Proponents must avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to areas of concentrations of water dependent uses identified in the OMP pursuant to 301 CMR 28.04(3). The SDEIR evaluates potential conflicts to navigation as vessels transit between ports and the offshore wind lease area and evaluate establishment of transit corridors to provide safe passage. The SDEIR provides additional information to describe how cable installation could affect fishing, including restrictions on navigation, on fishing and on the placement of fixed or mobile fishing gear.
The SDEIR describes measures to minimize impacts to recreational/commercial fishing activities and navigation including employing a Marine Coordinator during the construction and installation phase to manage all construction vessel logistics; liaise with USCG, port authorities, and others; and coordinate with fisherman and other mariners in advance of cable laying (by providing notices to mariners to minimize conflicts between construction and recreational/commercial vessels); maintaining a 1,640-foot safety zone around all construction activities; establishing a vessel traffic management plan; and coordinating with local pilots during construction. The SDEIR includes an updated Fisheries Communications Plan (FCP) (Attachment G) for alerting mariners of the location and timing of activities in Nantucket Sound. The Proponent will prioritize burying cables to a sufficient depth within the seabed to avoid and minimize the use of cable protection measures which could impact fishing activities post-construction. The Proponent is developing a framework for a pre- and post-construction fisheries monitoring program to measure the Project’s effect on fisheries resources in consultation with the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth School for Marine Science and Technology (SMAST) and local stakeholders. The duration of monitoring will be determined as part of the initial effort to determine the scope of the study, but it is anticipated to include the pre-construction period and at least one year of post-construction monitoring.
9 EEA# 15787 SDEIR Certificate October 12, 2018
The Proponent will continue to actively consult with DMF, the Massachusetts Lobstermen’s Association (MLA), New England Fisheries Management Council (NEFMC), and a number of other fisheries groups and individuals to consider design and construction measures to minimize interference with fishing activity and impacts to fish habitat.
The Oceans Act established 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. If the Project is permitted, the fee must be deposited in the Oceans and Waterways Trust. The fee will be established through MEPA review. The guidance and fee structure contained in the OMP, the information and analysis contained in the SDEIR and FEIR and consultation with agencies will inform the determination of the fee.
The SDEIR proposes a fee based on the project’s footprint and taking into consideration public benefits and the $15 million Offshore Wind Accelerator Program. The Proponent asserts that the Project should be classified within the Class II category and proposes a fee of $240,000 based on 27 acres of permanent cover on the seafloor associated with cable protection along the two export cables.
Based on the full extent of impacts identified in the SDEIR, the Project would be more appropriately classified as a Class III category. These impacts include: direct cable laying and dredging area, dredged disposal area, sediment deposition area, and impacts to biota and habitat, and permanent hard cover. The SDEIR estimates that impacts associated with cable installation in state waters could temporarily alter up to 94 acres of seafloor; permanently alter 27 acres of seafloor (hard cable protection); fluidize up to 138,000 m3 of sediment resulting in up to 200 acres covered in over 1 millimeter (mm) of sediment; and dredge 104,000 m3 of sand waves. As noted by CZM, it is possible that some of these impacts may be underestimated. In addition, project changes and/or provision of additional data and analysis in the FEIR could result in reductions in identified impacts. The Proponent should engage in further discussions with the MEPA Office and CZM to estimate the Ocean Development Mitigation Fee for the FEIR.
The SDEIR provides additional information regarding the $15 million Offshore Wind Accelerator Program and its three major components: $10 million Offshore Wind Energy Industry Accelerator Fund; $2 million WindWard Workforce program; and $3 million for the Innovations for Marine Mammal Protection program.
Alternatives Analysis
The DEIR included an alternatives analysis for offshore and onshore routing, landfall sites, substation sites, and construction methodology and identified criteria employed to evaluate alternatives. The proposed reduction in the number of cables from three to two will avoid and minimize environmental impacts. The SDEIR indicates that the Proponent considered sequential and simultaneous installation of the two export cables. The Proponent selected sequential installation because simultaneous installation would require two separate vessels which would increase expenses and create logistical challenges.
10 EEA# 15787 SDEIR Certificate October 12, 2018
The SDEIR asserts that the complex nature of the project necessitates that interrelated elements (offshore route, landfall site, onshore route, substation site, and interconnection location) must be independently feasible and also work as a unified system to meet the project purpose. The Proponent has indicated its interest in retaining flexibility to advance the project through a “permitting envelope” approach. The SDEIR outlines the importance of providing flexibility in maintaining: a 2,660-foot wide installation corridor; eastern and western route options through Muskeget Channel; two landfall sites; two options for transitioning from offshore to onshore cables at New Hampshire Avenue; comparable onshore routing variants; possible cable installation techniques; and options for cable burial and cable protection.
The MEPA Regulations include provisions to support flexibility of review and changes to projects over time, including the ability to advance more than one alternative to permitting. This provision requires that the environmental impacts of alternatives have been adequately reviewed and that the alternatives are similar in terms of environmental impact. Specifically, the regulations at 301 CMR 11.10 (1) indicate that “The selection by the Proponent or the imposition as a condition or restriction in a Permit or other relevant review document allowing or approving an Agency Action of any alternative that similarly avoids, minimizes or mitigates potential environmental impacts shall not constitute a change in the Project, provided that the alternative was previously reviewed in an EIR.”
The Proponent identifies the Preferred Alternative and alternatives that the Proponent will continue to evaluate. The SDEIR advances analysis of a single offshore submarine transmission route (Western cable corridor and associated western and eastern routes through Muskeget Channel) including two landfall sites, and two onshore transmission routes (Preferred Route and Noticed Alternative) including onshore variants. The SDEIR indicates that the Eastern cable corridor was eliminated because of its slightly longer length and comparable environmental characteristics (although it exhibited larger sand waves). The SDEIR describes and compares the offshore routing from the WDA to the landfall sites (along both routes through Muskeget Channel). The SDEIR describes how selection of the Preferred Route and Noticed Alternative avoid or minimize impacts to resources and uses.
In considering alternative geographic routes, the Proponent delineated a Study Area that included all of southeastern Massachusetts and eastern Rhode Island. The SDEIR provides additional analysis of the West Barnstable, Brayton Point and Pine Street Substations to justify selection of the Barnstable Switching Station as the preferred interconnection point.
The project includes high-voltage alternating current (HVAC) technology based on its flexibility, reliability and reduced costs. The Proponent indicates that HVAC technology will support expansion of transmission cables and substation capacity and avoids costs associated with converter stations necessary at both cable termini. The maximum cable length from the federal lease area to the interconnection point could not exceed 62 miles without requiring an expensive mid-way reactor station.
The SDEIR maintains that both offshore routes are feasible, avoid core habitat mapped for whales, avoid mapped eelgrass habitat, and minimize impacts to mapped SSU areas. It asserts that the routes have generally equivalent impacts.
Offshore installation of the two cables for the majority of the route is anticipated to use simultaneous lay-and-bury via jet plow. The SDEIR indicates that other methods may be required in areas of hard bottom or other challenging conditions and provides information regarding cable
11 EEA# 15787 SDEIR Certificate October 12, 2018
installation methods. Target burial depth will be approximately five to eight feet below stable seabed. Jet-plowing, plowing, and/or mechanical trenching will create a trench that is up to 3.3 feet wide. Where subsurface conditions prevent burial of the cable it will be placed on the seafloor and covered with protective material. The SDEIR describes potential impacts from offshore cable installation associated with the 3.3-foot-wide trench (direct), 6.6-foot-wide corridor for the cable installation tool which will move along the seafloor on skids or tracks (temporary), sediment dispersion and deposition, dredging through sand waves, anchoring, and cable protection. The SDEIR does not identify where certain installation methods will be used. The SDEIR claims that the selected installation method will not involve significant sidecasting of sediment.
HDD is proposed at the Covell’s Beach landfall site to avoid impacts to sensitive resources and recreation. Open trench installation is proposed at the New Hampshire Avenue landfall site; however, the SDEIR includes analysis of both methodologies and compares impacts. HDD is proposed at Covell’s Beach to avoid impacts to the rare species habitat, nearshore area, tidal zone, beach, and coastal dunes. Open-trench is identified as the preferred method for the Noticed Alternative because cable burial depth would be three to five times greater using HDD and deeper burial depths cause a cable to operate at a higher temperature (open trench would result in a better cable rating); shorter construction timeline; and lower costs. The SDEIR outlines a contingency plan describing measures that will be undertaken to minimize and contain turbidity, sedimentation and release of drilling slurry during the drilling or trenching process.
Wetlands and Water Quality
Vineyard Wind includes work within wetland resource areas and activities that trigger Federal, State and local wetland permitting jurisdiction, each with its own performance standards and regulations. The Conservation Commissions of Yarmouth, Barnstable, and Edgartown and potentially Nantucket and Mashpee will review the project to determine its consistency with the Wetlands Protection Act (WPA), the Wetlands Regulations (310 CMR 10.00), and associated performance standards, including the stormwater management standards (SMS). MassDEP will also review the Project to determine its consistency with the 401 WQC (314 CMR 9.00) and c. 91 regulations (310 CMR 9.00). Finally, ACOE review will determine its consistency with Section 404 of the Federal CWA and Section 10 of the RHA.
The SDEIR describes impacts to onshore and offshore resource areas in Massachusetts including certain impacts within federal waters (discussion of seafloor impacts and dredging).8 The SDEIR describes the methodology and assumptions for quantifying impacts from cable installation on LUO.
Maximum area of seafloor (LUO) impacts associated with installation of two cables are updated and summarized in the following table (Tables 1-4 and 1-5 of the SDEIR summarize individual impacts to LUO from cable installation along each cable route).
8 Certain impacts were disaggregated into those under MEPA jurisdiction and those under federal jurisdiction.
12 EEA# 15787 SDEIR Certificate October 12, 2018
Total Project Activity State Waters (State and Federal Waters) Trench impact zone (acres)* 19 35 Disturbance zone from tool skids/tracks (acres)** 37 70 Length of sand wave dredging (miles) 2.2 3.8 Volume of sand wave dredging (nearest 1,000 m3) 104,000 164,000 Volume of sediment fluidized in trench (nearest 1,000 m3) 138,000 259,000 Dredging of sand waves (acres)*** 39 68 Sediment deposition greater than 1 mm from dredging 200 329 operations (acres) Sediment deposition greater than 20 mm from dredging 22 36 operations (acres) Anchoring (acres)**** 3.7 6.9 Cable Protection***** 27 27 * based on 3.3-foot-wide trench (the DEIR indicated a 6-foot wide trench) ** based on a 6.6-foot-wide disturbance zone (the DEIR indicated a 20-foot wide trench) ***65-foot-wide centered on cable less the 6.6-foot wide jet plow and 3.3-foot wide trench impacts **** Estimate based on half the length of the longest offshore corridor route ***** Up to 3.7 miles includes federal waters in Nantucket Sound
The SDEIR indicates that the Proponent will maintain both options through Muskeget Channel to provide flexibility in design and installation. The SDEIR compares both routes through Muskeget Channel to each of the landfall sites.
The majority of the export cable is expected to be installed using simultaneous lay and bury via jet plowing (fluidizing the sediment within the trench and allowing the cable to sink under its own weight to the appropriate depth or be placed at depth by the tool) or other typical techniques such as mechanical plowing and mechanical trenching. Dredging techniques will have differing impacts on seafloor disturbance and sedimentation. Comments from CZM concur that simultaneous cable laying and burial in soft sediments (as opposed to trenching and laying the cable at a later time) is the preferred method for minimizing impacts. Depending on which cable installation tool is selected, trench disturbance is expected to be up to approximately 3.3 feet wide. The tool is expected to move along the seafloor on skids or tracks which will slide over the surface of the seafloor (along an area 3.3 to 6.6 feet wide) and may disturb benthic habitat. While the Proponent will prioritize the least environmentally impactful cable installation alternatives practicable for each segment of cable installation, the SDEIR indicates that the exact methods and equipment for dredging sand waves and offshore cable installation will be developed through the contractor evaluation and selection process. Assessment of measures to avoid and minimize certain resource areas is ongoing based on consultation with resource agencies, final processing and analyzing of survey data, and refinements to cable laying methods.
Dynamic positioning vessels will be used for cable installation. Shallow water and strong currents may preclude its use in some areas, particularly within Muskeget Channel and potentially within Lewis Bay. Where it is precluded, anchoring will be necessary. Anchoring impacts would be associated with disturbance of the substrate resulting in localized mortality of infauna and anchor sweeps across the seafloor. Anchored vessels must avoid eelgrass and will avoid other SSU habitats to the greatest extent practicable. The SDEIR indicates that mid-line anchor buoys, where feasible and
13 EEA# 15787 SDEIR Certificate October 12, 2018
safe, will be used. With the exception of Muskeget Channel and Lewis Bay (up to 3,300 feet), anchoring will be contained within the installation corridor.
The SDEIR estimates that cable burial may not be achievable for up to 3.7 miles of the corridor (including at the crossing of the existing Nantucket cable required if the New Hampshire Avenue landing site were used). The Proponent indicates that it will reattempt burial before armoring. Hand- jetting may be used in very limited instances. Where armoring cannot be avoided, the SDEIR describes alternative cable protection methods including rock placement along relatively larger areas, concrete mattresses within limited areas, and protective cable shells (Uraduct/half-shell or similar). The SDEIR does not propose specific mitigation measures to offset conversion of benthic habitat.
The SDEIR was required to use field data and hydrodynamic modeling to characterize the wave dynamics, currents, and sediment transport along the proposed cable route, particularly in areas of sand waves, to better understand whether the proposed depth of burial is sufficient to avoid the potential use of armoring. After the initial survey, the Proponent will survey the cable’s burial depth annually for the first three years after construction, every three years for the next 12 years, and every five years beyond that. Sections of cable that are inadequately buried will be buried again using a secondary burial tool.
The SDEIR estimates discontinuous sand wave dredging along up to 2.2 miles with a corresponding volume of dredging up to 104,000 m3 in state waters. Where dredging is required to remove the upper portions of the sand waves above the stable seabed, the Proponent is considering the use of jetting and trailing suction hopper dredge (TSHD). Jetting uses a pressurized stream of water to push sand to the side and is distinct from jet-plowing, which is the preferred approach for cable burial. TSHD involves using suction to remove material from the seafloor, depositing in the vessel hopper, releasing dredged material within the surveyed installation corridor in a comparable area characterized by sand waves, and laying the cable at a later time. The SDEIR does not identify locations for deposition nor does it quantify associated impacts to the benthic environment. Dredged corridors through sand waves would be approximately 65 feet wide at the bottom with 1:4 side slopes.
The SDEIR includes a revised sediment dispersion modeling study of offshore cable installation activities (Attachment F) and provides a discussion of the results. Two approaches were modeled: TSHD Pre Dredge and Limited TSHD Pre Dredge including Jetting. Modeling of sand wave dredging using TSHD indicated that total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations above 10 milligrams per liter (mg/L) extended up to 10 miles from the cable trench centerline. TSS concentrations greater than 1,000 mg/l is predicted up to three miles away during hopper overflow and dumping. Modeling indicates greater impacts are associated with TSHD than jetting or jet-plowing. The SDEIR asserts that increased turbidity and possible siltation during cable installation will be minor and of short duration and acknowledges that resettlement of sediment may cause mortality of benthic fauna particularly sessile and attached organisms proximate to the route. In addition, dredging of sand waves will directly impact organisms within and adjacent to the dredge footprint.
The two offshore export cables would transition to up to six onshore transmission cables. The Preferred Route and Noticed Alternative include variants for the underground duct bank routes to the substation. Routes are generally similar in length and both routes and variants are considered viable.
The Proponent will locate synchronous condensers within the existing building (the former Cape Cod Times building) just west of the substation site to reduce potential visual and noise impacts and
14 EEA# 15787 SDEIR Certificate October 12, 2018
avoid construction of a separate enclosure. The substation will be equipped with full containment (110 percent) for any components containing dielectric fluids plus an incremental volume sufficient to account for a simultaneous 100-year, 24-hour rainfall event (9 inches of rain). The substation stormwater design has been updated to reflect this change and includes a revised Stormwater Management Report (Attachment N). The onshore segment of the Project is proposed within or proximate to the Zone I and Zone II of public water supplies, which are considered Critical Areas. The stormwater management design at the substation site will meet or exceed the Massachusetts Stormwater Policy recommendations for this Project, and will comply with the MassDEP Stormwater Standard 6 for Critical Areas. The site design will also comply with Barnstable source water protection ordinances, bylaws, and regulations.
Waterways
The submarine cable will be located within flowed tidelands of Nantucket Sound and Lewis Bay and will be subject to licensing under c. 91 and the Waterways Regulations. The SDEIR discusses the Project’s consistency with the applicable c. 91 regulations. The SDEIR provides additional information to evaluate the impacts of dredging.
As a facility generating electricity from wind power which requires an EIR pursuant to 310 CMR 9.12(2)(e), MassDEP shall find the project to be water-dependent based on a comprehensive alternatives analysis demonstrating that the facility requires direct access to or location in tidal waters and cannot reasonably be located or operated away from tidal waters. For projects subject to an EIR, the alternatives analysis must be provided during MEPA review so that I may make a finding regarding water- dependency. The SDEIR includes information intended to document that the project is a water- dependent facility in accordance with the Waterways Regulations (310 CMR 9.00) and describes why the project cannot be reasonably located away from tidal waters.
The SDEIR addresses potential impacts of armoring of the cable on commercial fishing operations. The analysis of the Noticed Alternative identifies how crossing of the NSTAR Yarmouth to Nantucket Cable would be addressed and describes how cable installation would be designed and installed to avoid, minimize and mitigate constraints on municipal projects including potential dredging use of helical anchors within Lewis Bay.
The SDEIR assesses the impacts of the installation, operations and maintenance of the cables on commercial and recreational fishing and navigation. It identifies how potential impacts will be avoided and minimized. It indicates that the planned burial depth of the offshore cables will allow continued use of mobile fishing gear. The SDEIR indicates the Proponent will select and design protection to minimize impacts to fishing and other gear and to avoid impacts to navigation.
Rare Species, Wildlife, and Marine Resources
The cable routes extend through diverse marine environments within the Outer Continental Shelf, Nantucket Sound, and the CIOS. As noted by the NHESP, CZM, and DMF, the area includes habitat and prey species important for rare species, including several state- and federally-listed terns (Roseate, Common, and Least), Piping Plover, as well as shellfish and finfish species that are important to the commercial and recreational fishing industries. The critically endangered North Atlantic Right Whales transit through this area and have been observed in areas outside of the Core Habitat SSU. The
15 EEA# 15787 SDEIR Certificate October 12, 2018
SDEIR describes the size of vessels, the frequency and time of year of trips, and speed restrictions that will be observed. The SDEIR describes measures to avoid and minimize impacts to whales, turtles, and seabirds during construction. The Proponent will use acoustic monitoring during construction to protect whales and other marine species. Passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) will be used during pile driving activities within federal waters.
Comments from the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), National Wildlife Federation (NWF), Mass Audubon, and Sierra Club note that North Atlantic Right Whales have been observed in areas outside of the SSU in State and federal waters and recommend additional mitigation to avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts to whales.
The SDEIR identifies measures to avoid eelgrass and horseshoe crab spawning off of Covell’s Beach. The landfall location at Covell’s Beach intersects mapped habitat for Piping Plover. Based on recommendation from NHESP, the SDEIR commits to begin HDD in advance of April 1 or after August 31 to minimize noise impacts to this species during the breeding season. Discussions with resource agencies to determine appropriate TOY restrictions for construction to avoid impacts to Piping Plovers (work prohibited from April 1 – August 31), bay scallops, whelks, squid eggs, and diving/plunging birds are ongoing. The Proponent indicates that installation of export cables may be sequenced to begin in the nearshore in one year ending with burial of the partial cable segments followed by splicing and laying of the remaining cable lengths in the offshore portion in the following year. The SDEIR identifies an ideal weather window for cable installation from April through September. For simultaneous lay and burial, cables would be installed in May and June, with shoreward work completed in April. For free lay and burial, cables would be installed in late March and late May, with shoreward work completed in April.
The SDEIR includes an updated draft of the Benthic Habitat Monitoring Plan, which incorporates the sand lance, and is intended to document habitat and benthic community disturbance and recovery associated with project construction and installation within areas of the WDA and in the selected offshore cable corridor. The Proponent will continue consultation with NHESP on the specifics of this plan with respect to the Sand Lance. The benthic survey is proposed to begin in 2019 or 2020. The plan will focus on seafloor habitat and benthic community to measure potential impacts and the recovery of these resources comparable to controls outside the areas of construction activity. The plan outlines the schedule for conducting pre-construction (baseline) and post-construction surveys; parameters that will be monitored; employing a benthic ecologist; content of monitoring reports; site locations and survey/sampling configurations; and monitoring methodologies.
The SDEIR includes a revised Electric and Magnetic Field (EMF) assessment (Attachment J). Magnetic field (MF) modeling for both the offshore and onshore cables was performed for 800 MW of output. MF impacts were modeled at the seafloor at two burial depths (one and two meters). Results indicate that the highest modeled MFs for the submarine cross sections would occur directly above the 400 MW cable at the one-meter burial depth. Modeled MFs fall rapidly with lateral distance from the buried cable and results suggest MF associated with buried, subsea cables is very low and would not interfere with the navigational sense of marine organisms. The SDEIR concludes that the electrical energy from cables will not be detected by marine organisms.
16 EEA# 15787 SDEIR Certificate October 12, 2018
Fisheries Resources
The SDEIR addresses comments from DMF and CZM regarding potential impacts to fisheries and other marine resources and measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate these impacts along the length of the cable corridor and within the project area. Consideration of TOY restrictions is ongoing in consultation with resource agencies.
The SDEIR characterizes fish and fisheries resources in the Project area and their value. Commercial fishing resources include maps of fishing activity based on Vessel Monitoring System (VMS), Vessel Trip Reports (VTRs), and landings databases maintained by the Northeast Regional Ocean Council (NROC) and the Mid-Atlantic Council on the Ocean (MARCO). The SDEIR includes a discussion of the potential impacts of the cable installation process, and an estimate of predicted recovery time for affected resources. The SDEIR includes revised sediment dispersion modeling for jet- plowing using two soil deposition thresholds: a deposition thickness of 1 mm (sensitivity threshold for demersal eggs based on findings related to Winter Flounder and a deposition thickness of 20 mm (sensitivity threshold for shellfish). Modeling results indicate that the predicted extent of sediment deposition that might impact Winter Flounder eggs (deposition greater than 1 mm) is limited to within 330 feet of the cable trench and dissipated within four to six hours following disturbance. Recolonization and recovery to pre-construction levels is expected given the similarity of nearby habitat and species.
Traffic and Transportation
The Project requires a Non-Vehicular Access Permit, Road Crossing Permits, and a Rail Division Use and Occupancy License from MassDOT. All onshore export cables will be buried within concrete duct banks, primarily within paved public roadway layouts with some shorter stretches in existing utility transmission ROW, a MassDOT-owned railroad ROW, and potentially along the bike path corridor proposed by MassDOT (Variant 3). The majority of these roads are maintained by the Towns of Yarmouth or Barnstable; the Preferred Route, Variant 1 (Independence Drive), is located exclusively within Barnstable and almost entirely within roadway ROWs.
Traffic impacts are limited to the construction period. The Proponent will continue to work closely with the municipalities and MassDOT to develop Traffic Management Plans (TMPs) to evaluate construction-related traffic impacts, maintain safe and efficient access for all modes of travel in the vicinity of the ROW, and propose mitigation including night work, signage, and similar measures. The SDEIR provides an outline of the revised draft TMP and describes potential construction sequencing and traffic impacts. The TMPs will be submitted for review and approval by the municipalities. The TMPs will be adapted and revised to address unanticipated changes in construction prior to implementation of construction changes. The Proponent will provide funding to municipalities to hire a construction monitor to evaluate compliance with TMPs and coordinate with municipalities and residents regarding concerns during construction. The TMPs will serve as Temporary Traffic Control Plans (TTCP) consistent with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and MassDOT guidelines.
Cultural Resources
Both 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 colonial
17 EEA# 15787 SDEIR Certificate October 12, 2018 settlement. The project area includes a high density of shipwrecks and may include submerged ancient Native American cultural resources. The Project route contains numerous historic and archaeological resources which are either listed in the State and/or National Register of Historic Places, Inventory, or within local historic districts. The Project will require review from MHC pursuant to the Programmatic Agreement with BOEM as part of Section 106 of the NHPA. BUAR issued a Special Use Permit on September 28, 2017 for a marine archaeological reconnaissance survey in Barnstable, Martha’s Vineyard, Nantucket, and Yarmouth. Activities allowed under this permit include archaeological reconnaissance and remote sensing, video documentation, benthic grab sample collection, and vibracore sampling in the permit area. MHC issued an archaeological permit to conduct a terrestrial archaeological reconnaissance survey for the onshore segment of the project.
The marine surveys were developed with BUAR, CZM and DMF to address data collection, including systematic sub-bottom coring and collection of geophysical data. The Proponent will provide upland and marine survey results to BUAR, MHC, CZM, and DMF. The SDEIR provides an update on consultations with MHC. The Proponent will coordinate directly with MHC regarding the need for additional field surveys and, to the extent necessary, will develop impact avoidance and mitigation plans. Potential impacts to archaeological resources will be addressed with MHC through Section 106 and the State Register Review processes.
The Proponent submitted a hardcopy of the draft COP to MHC and will provide an updated version of the COP after BOEM completes its sufficiency review, which includes draft archaeological reports for the terrestrial and marine aspects of the Project. The Proponent also submitted a draft terrestrial archaeological reconnaissance report MHC for its review. The COP will provide additional information about the scope of the wind array in federal waters and Areas of Potential Effect (APE) as determined by BOEM through its review under Section 106. The SDEIR indicates that cables and substation will not result in an adverse visual impact to historic properties and that construction and operation will not affect any historic buildings or structures.
The SDEIR indicates that the survey identified limited areas of archaeological sensitivity. The Proponent will avoid, minimize and/or mitigate impacts to archaeological resources during the final route selection. The SDEIR outlines the steps taken to limit adverse effects to submerged cultural resources in an inadvertent find protocol developed in accordance with BUAR’s Policy Guidance for the Discovery of Unanticipated Archaeological Resources.
Port Facilities
The Proponent has signed a letter of intent with the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (MassCEC) to use the New Bedford Marine Commerce Terminal for construction staging. The 26-acre facility is located on the New Bedford’s industrial waterfront and was built to support offshore wind energy projects. The terminal is located within the ACOE hurricane barrier, has access to interstate highways and is located within a Designated Port Authority (DPA). The facility will be used to offload, prepare, and load components onto barges/vessels for delivery to the wind turbine array area for installation. It may also be used to fabricate and fit up components.
The Proponent may stage activities from other port facilities in the North Atlantic including Brayton Point and/or Montaup in Somerset; Providence, Rhode Island; Davisville, Rhode Island; and/or
18 EEA# 15787 SDEIR Certificate October 12, 2018
New London and Bridgeport in Connecticut. The Proponent will use port facilities in Vineyard Haven and the New Bedford Marine Commerce Terminal during the operations and maintenance phase. The SDEIR indicates environmental review and permitting of port improvements will be addressed by the owners of those facilities.
The SDEIR describes potential conflicts with project-related vessels transiting to the WDA and other vessels along the route will be avoided and minimized. During the construction and installation phase, the Marine Coordinator will manage all construction vessel logistics between staging ports and the WDA, keep informed of all planned vessel deployment and liaise with the USCG, port authorities, state and local law enforcement, marine patrol, and port operators. Larger vessels used to install foundations, ESPs, and WTGs in federal waters will likely remain within federal waters and use port facilities or impact navigation within state waters to make infrequent bunkering trips. Vessels making round-trips from port facilities in Massachusetts are primarily smaller crew transport vessels (CTVs), tugboats, and jack-up vessels. Although an average of 25 vessels will be involved in construction activities on any given day, the SDEIR anticipates an average of 10 daily trips between both the primary and secondary ports and the WDA during construction.
Decommissioning
Decommissioning activities are anticipated to require federal, state, regional, and local permitting. The Proponent is required to “remove or decommission all facilities, projects, cables, pipelines, and obstructions and clear the seafloor of all obstructions created by activities on the leased area, including any project easements(s) within two years following lease termination, whether by expiration, cancellation, contraction, or relinquishment, in accordance with any approved Site Assessment Plan (SAP), COP or approved Decommissioning Application and applicable regulations in 30 CFR Part 585.” The SDEIR indicates that these regulations extend to the full project, onshore and offshore, and in state and federal waters. The decommissioning application must be submitted to BOEM for its review and approval prior to decommissioning. It will include an analysis of resources, conditions, and activities that could be impacted by or could impact the decommissioning activities, a schedule, plans for disposal/reuse of removed facilities, and measures to protect archaeological and sensitive biological features and avoid discharge of pollutants. In addition, the Proponent will be required to set aside decommissioning funds (bond or other guaranteed financial assurance) in an amount determined by BOEM based on anticipated decommissioning costs pursuant to 30 CFR 585.516.
Decommissioning of the Project includes retirement in place or removal of offshore export cables, potential removal of onshore export cables and potential removal of substation equipment. Equipment and vessels used during decommissioning will likely be similar to those used during construction and installation. The Project’s equipment is expected to have a life expectancy of up to 30 years and decommissioning would begin no earlier than 2052. The SDEIR does not identify potential environmental impacts associated with each decommissioning alternative. The Proponent asserts that it is challenging to quantify impacts associated with decommissioning at this time because experience in the European offshore wind industry and technological advances in methods and equipment may result in increased efficiencies and reduced environmental impacts associated with decommissioning.
The SDEIR addresses potential conflicts for future uses such as sewer or water mains within streets where splice vaults, conduits, and duct banks are left in place. The SDEIR indicates that the
19 EEA# 15787 SDEIR Certificate October 12, 2018
Proponent has worked with town officials to assess potential onshore cable routes, which included identification of existing and planned underground municipal infrastructure. The Proponent commits to working with the Town of Yarmouth to ensure that the onshore duct bank will not conflict with potential sewer installation.
Conclusion
Based on a review of the SDEIR, the Scope included in the Certificate on the DEIR, consultation with State Agencies and review of comment letters, I have determined that the SDEIR is responsive to the Scope. Significant changes to the project identified in the SDEIR and during MEPA review will reduce environmental impacts compared to the DEIR. The Proponent should prepare the FEIR consistent with the Scope outlined below.
SCOPE
General
The FEIR should follow Section 11.07 of the MEPA regulations for outline and content, as modified by this Scope. Additional recommendations provided in this Certificate may result in a modified design that enhances the ability to avoid, minimize, or mitigate Damage to the Environment. The FEIR should discuss steps the Proponent has taken to further reduce the impacts of the project since the filing of the SDEIR, or, if certain measures are infeasible, the FEIR should discuss why these measures will not be adopted.
The FEIR should clearly identify the selection of the Covell’s Beach landing site as the Preferred Route and identify its commitment to design and permit the project accordingly while continuing to include the New Hampshire Avenue landing site as the Noticed Alternative. The FEIR should address how and under what circumstances a subsequent change in routing would be disclosed to regulators and the public.
Project Description and Permitting
The FEIR should describe any changes to the project since the filing of the SDEIR. It should include updated site plans for existing and proposed conditions. Conceptual plans should be provided at a legible scale and clearly identify all: major project components; impervious areas; ownership of parcels including easement areas; stormwater, and utility infrastructure; and the location of wetland resource areas. The FEIR should include a list of required Permits, Financial Assistance, or other State approvals and provide an update on status. The FEIR should note that the project will require a Letter of Authorization and/or Scientific Permit from DMF for surveys and for the pre-lay grapnel run. The FEIR should provide an update on the federal and local review and permitting processes.
The FEIR should clarify whether the area of Covell’s Beach affected by the project is protected by Article 97. If it is determined that it is Article 97 land, the FEIR must include an evaluation of
20 EEA# 15787 SDEIR Certificate October 12, 2018
consistency with the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) Article 97 Land Disposition Policy (Article 97 Policy).
The FEIR should provide information regarding the project schedule and construction sequencing for both onshore and offshore project elements.
Ocean Management Plan
The FEIR should include additional information to demonstrate that the selected route and cable laying method(s) will minimize impacts to hard/complex bottom. The FEIR should clearly delineate and describe the extent and area of hard bottom that cannot be avoided and must be excavated or covered to successfully bury the cables. The FEIR should include additional images obtained and habitat classification analysis conducted based on field surveys and investigations for areas where identified hard bottom and biogenic habitats are within or proximate to the cable footprint. It should provide updates and identification of specific areas of proposed construction activity (dredging, cable laying, vessel anchoring, dredged material deposition or disposal, cable burial), and provision of more detailed anchoring plans.
The FEIR should address the Project’s consistency with the siting and management standards of the OMP for the routes through Muskeget Channel and landing at Covell’s Beach. The FEIR should clearly demonstrate how the public benefits of the project outweigh the public detriments to SSU resources.
Comments from CZM and DMF emphasize the importance of selecting methods and equipment for cable installation that maximize avoidance and minimization of impacts to SSU resources. To the extent possible, installation methods, such as jet plowing and remotely operated seabed tractors that achieve burial with minimal seabed disturbance (including footprint, width of trench, and sidecast and suspension of sediments) should be used. The FEIR should include a commitment to develop an inspection and maintenance plan to assess coverage of the pipeline post-installation and, if problematic areas are identified, to identify measures to reestablish adequate burial or provide protection.
The Proponent and resource agencies have been consulting regarding the multiple and overlapping TOY restrictions which could severely limit, if not preclude, the installation window for the cable. The consultation and prioritization of TOY restrictions and other mitigating measures that will provide a sufficient window for cable installation will continue. The FEIR should include a framework for balancing construction needs and TOY restrictions.
DMF has established a standard protocol for communicating the location and timing of survey activities to fixed gear fishermen which includes using various media sources to alert members of the MLA to the location and start time of a survey, to provide daily updates on activities, to answer inquiries from fishermen, and identifies how to return intercepted gear. The Proponent should work with DMF and the fixed gear community to adopt a similar program to minimize impacts to this commercial fishery during construction.
21 EEA# 15787 SDEIR Certificate October 12, 2018
Wetlands and Waterway
The FEIR should demonstrate that the Project will avoid, minimize or mitigate wetland resource area impacts to the maximum extent practicable. It should outline a comprehensive wetland mitigation program designed to meet ACOE, MassDEP, and local bylaw requirements and performance standards. This mitigation program should include monitoring, construction period measures, and restoration. The FEIR should address comments from CZM, DMF and others regarding identification of impacts to the seafloor and benthic habitat and appropriate mitigation. The FEIR should provide updated information regarding potential impacts to LCS, LUO, Coastal Bank, Coastal Beach and RFA for each cable route. The Proponent has indicated that it will provide all interpreted and raw field data (photos, videos, bathymetry, sidescan, biological and sediment grab samples) from the 2018 marine survey to State Agencies including CZM, MassDEP, DMF and NHESP.
The SDEIR indicates that the Proponent is refining the cable alignment within the installation corridor to avoid and minimize impacts to hard bottom and complex bottom. The FEIR should describe the refined cable alignment within the installation corridor and provide additional information regarding the extent of cable that cannot avoid these areas. To the extent possible based on project design and available data, the FEIR should identify where certain installation methods will be used.
The FEIR should specifically address comments from CZM and DMF regarding offshore cable installation. Estimates of length of hard/complex seafloor disturbed, volume of sand waves to be dredged and volume of fluidized sediment from jet-plowing should be updated using the most recent field data on sediment types, depths and the location and extent of hard/complex seafloor. The lengths, areas and volumes of disturbed seafloor should be recalculated taking into consideration guidance provided by CZM.
Comments from CZM suggest the analysis in the SDEIR may underestimate the potential volumetric impacts associated with dredging of sand waves. The FEIR should clarify the assumptions and assess the height and extent of areas of sand waves, based on marine survey data, to provide updated estimates of the volumetric impacts. The FEIR should assess resources within each proposed disposal area to ensure that impacts to sensitive benthic habitat or fisheries resources will be avoided during these activities. As recommended by CZM, the FEIR should identify potential dredge disposal locations that minimize impacts to benthic resources and to establish areas where dumping will be avoided using recent survey data. Suitable locations should avoid mapped biogenic habitats and identify areas with similar characteristics as the sites from which the material is dredged. The FEIR should clearly depict areas to be dredged and dredge disposal areas in maps with supporting field data. CZM comments indicate that the Proponent should validate areas mapped as biogenic structures and cobble or cobble mixes. The FEIR should incorporate the complete results from the 2018 marine surveys and present the data in a usable format. To the extent practicable, the FEIR should include references/links to the raw field data.
CZM comments note that results from the sediment dispersion modeling appear to integrate the sediment plume impacts over the total period of dredging activity and do not provide information for any given day. The FEIR should include model results for a representative day (potentially with an hourly breakdown) to better understand potential impacts associated with sedimentation and visibility for diving birds. The Proponent should use the 2018 survey data to avoid or minimize laying cable in
22 EEA# 15787 SDEIR Certificate October 12, 2018
large sand waves (to avoid and minimize use of TSHD) and maximize the use of fluidization and jetting (using simultaneous cable lay and burial techniques) to minimize direct impacts to habitat and biota on the seafloor and indirect sedimentation on these resources. The Proponent should commit to verifying modeled results during the installation process and work with CZM and other resource agencies regarding the details of this monitoring program.
Comments from CZM and DMF emphasize that adequate burial of the cable should be maximized and armoring should be avoided to the extent possible. If burial depth is insufficient, the Proponent should employ efforts to rebury the cable to the appropriate depth or, if that is not feasible, cover the cable with sand bags and gravel/cobble cover to mimic adjacent seafloor conditions.
Fisheries Resources
The location and configuration of the WTGs in federal waters will impact resources and uses of State waters. Significant marine vessel navigational activity occurs across the offshore wind lease areas. The SDEIR indicates that the Proponent, in consultation with the Marine Coordinator and Fisheries Liaison, is evaluating the use of consistent transit lanes for construction vessels during the installation phase to reduce conflicts and minimize and eliminate loss of fishing gear. The FEIR should include a commitment to the establishment of transit corridors to ensure the safe passage of a high volume of vessels and identify transit lanes through the offshore lease areas in consultation with CZM, DMF, the MA Fisheries Working Group on Offshore Wind, USCG and other stakeholders. Comments from CZM and DMF provide additional guidance on feasible alternatives.
The FEIR should specify what type(s) of information will be provided regarding commercial and for-hire recreational fishing, how it will be collected, and how potential impacts on commercial and recreational fisheries will be evaluated. It should indicate how these fleets, management agencies and the public will be notified regarding adjustments to surveying, construction or operating procedures. The FEIR should describe appropriate compensatory mitigation for gear loss and lost fishing time. The Proponent should confirm it will use high flyer buoys to delineate active and future cable laying areas which has been a successful strategy in other projects.
The FEIR should include a summary of discussions regarding prioritization of TOY restrictions and a framework for construction sequencing. Comments from DMF indicate that cable laying in July and August instead of April and May avoids a more sensitive TOY for a wide array of natural resources that are actively reproducing and settling in the springtime in Nantucket Sound. The FEIR should describe the methods and results of all eelgrass surveys conducted, including at Spindle Rock and Egg Island. The FEIR should identify the basis for use of the 20 mm sediment deposition threshold for analysis of impacts to shellfish.
The Proponent has indicated that the Noticed Alternative will be carried through permitting. The FEIR should provide additional information regarding marine resources in Lewis Bay and measures to avoid impacts, or where avoidance is not possible, to minimize and mitigate impacts. DMF recommends that the Proponent conduct pre- and post-construction shellfish surveys. The FEIR should provide a map of Lewis Bay and the Noticed Alternative route, indicating the spatial extent of features, including mooring areas, shellfish propagation areas, bay scalloping and fishing areas, and aquaculture sites. The FEIR should describe how the cable could be micro-sited to avoid high density shellfish areas and how
23 EEA# 15787 SDEIR Certificate October 12, 2018
TOY provisions (to avoid Winter Flounder and shellfish spawning seasons) could be employed to minimize impacts to resources in Lewis Bay. For the Noticed Alternative, the FEIR should compare impacts of the open trench and HDD alternatives to boat ramp traffic.
Rare Species, Wildlife, and Marine Resources
The Proponent will continue to work with MassDEP, CZM, DMF and the other resource agencies on development of monitoring plans and establishment of a process for determining if established performance standards have been met. The Proponent is working with DMF to incorporate Sand Lance into the plan to the extent feasible. NHESP will continue to evaluate these impacts as they relate to state-listed tern species and will provide comments on the Benthic Habitat Monitoring Plan. The FEIR should provide an update on these consultations and identify refinements to the plan.
A joint comment letter from CLF, Mass Audubon, NRDC, Environmental League of Massachusetts, NWF and the Acadia Center highlight the need for protection of North American Right Whales. These comments note the measures identified in the SDEIR and COP to avoid and minimize impacts to marine mammals in state and federal waters and urge the Proponent to clarify, strengthen and expand these measures in the FEIR. The FEIR should address the feasibility of incorporating the identified measures into the Project. In addition, it should indicate how and whether marine mammal protection identified in the FEIR will be coordinated and/or funded by the $15 million Accelerator Program.
NHESP comments continue to express concerns regarding potential impacts of the WTGs on rare and endangered shorebirds including Roseate Tern, Common Tern, and Least Tern associated with their staging, nesting and foraging habitats. The Proponent recently submitted supplemental information to NHESP documenting the results of a boat-based avian survey (focusing on state and federally-listed species during spring migration) within the WDA which confirmed that terns, including Roseate Terns, use the WDA during spring migration. NHESP anticipates providing additional comments and recommendations on the project through the NEPA process. NHESP identifies concerns that impacts to state- and federally-protected Roseate Tern and other listed avian species associated with the project have not been adequately addressed within either the COP or the SDEIR. The FEIR should include a comprehensive, adaptive strategy for avoiding, minimizing and mitigating potential impacts to listed avian species.
The FEIR should include details regarding how the construction activities, particularly in Muskeget Channel, will be timed, staged, and sequenced to minimize impacts to the high density of diving and plunging birds that use the channel for seasonal foraging, in addition to turtles, whales, other marine mammals, and other species of concern. As noted previously, the FEIR should propose a framework for balancing construction needs and TOY restrictions.
Mitigation and Section 61 Findings
The FEIR should include an updated and revised chapter that summarizes proposed mitigation measures and provides individual draft Section 61 Findings for each State Agency that will issue permits for the Project. The FEIR should contain clear commitments to implement mitigation measures, estimate the individual costs of each proposed measure, identify the parties responsible for implementation, and
24 EEA# 15787 SDEIR Certificate October 12, 2018
contain a schedule for implementation. The draft Section 61 Findings provided in the SDEIR are very general and require additional specificity. In addition, they should clearly identify mitigation measures that are limited to a specific route or landing site.
Responses to Comments
The FEIR should contain a copy of this Certificate and a copy of each comment letter received. In order to ensure that the issues raised by commenters are addressed, the FEIR should include direct responses to comments to the extent that they are within MEPA jurisdiction. This directive is not intended, and shall not be construed, to enlarge the scope of the FEIR beyond what has been expressly identified in this certificate. I recommend that the Proponent use either an indexed response to comments format, or a direct narrative response.
Circulation
In accordance with Section 11.16 of the MEPA Regulations, the Proponent should circulate a hard copy of the FEIR to each State Agency and municipal agency from which the Proponent will seek permits or approvals. The Proponent must circulate a copy of the FEIR to all other parties that submitted individual written comments on the ENF, DEIR, and SDEIR.
In accordance with 301 CMR 11.16(5), the Proponent may circulate copies of the FEIR to these other parties in a digital format (e.g., CD-ROM, USB drive) or by directing commenters to a project website address. However, the Proponent should make available a reasonable number of hard copies to accommodate those without convenient access to a computer and distribute these upon request on a first- come, first-served basis. The Proponent should send a letter accompanying the digital copy or identifying the website address of the online version of the FEIR and indicate that hard copies are available upon request, noting relevant comment deadlines, and appropriate addresses for submission of comments. The FEIR submitted to the MEPA office should include a digital copy of the complete document. A copy of the FEIR should be made available for review at the public libraries in Yarmouth, Barnstable, Edgartown, Mashpee and Nantucket.
October 12, 2018 ______Date Matthew A. Beaton
Comments received:
09/06/2018 Mark S. Donahue 09/13/2018 Rabbi Elias Lieberman 09/15/2018 Don Mallinson (2nd comments 10/03/2018) 09/16/2018 Sally Mavroides 09/16/2018 Jeffrey K. Kominers
25 EEA# 15787 SDEIR Certificate October 12, 2018
09/17/2018 Nicola J. Blake, PhD 09/19/2018 Elizabeth Rodio 09/19/2018 Thomas Sullivan 09/20/2018 Linda Ziegler 09/20/2018 Wendy K. Northcross, Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce 09/25/2018 Richard Andre, Vineyard Power Cooperative 09/25/2018 Morgan D. Hodgson 09/25/2018 Eric P. 09/25/2018 Christine K. Greeley 09/25/2018 Dorothy Shannon 09/26/2018 Thomas Hodgson 09/26/2018 Ann Rosenkranz 09/26/2018 Anna Edey 09/26/2018 Katherine DiTrapano (2nd comments – 9/28/2018) 09/26/2018 Robert and Linda Genovese (2nd comments – 9/28/2018) 09/26/2018 Robert Monaldo (2nd comments – 9/28/2018) 09/26/2018 Steve and Donna Boulay 09/27/2018 Loren & Sheila Charif 09/28/2018 David R. Bernstein 09/28/2018 Dr. W. J. Overholtz 09/28/2018 Lisa Coedy 09/28/2018 Resolvert Williams 09/30/2018 Michael B. Jacobs, Vineyard Power Cooperative 09/30/2018 Sarah Jane Hughes 09/30/2018 Tom Soldini 09/30/2018 Laura Plunkett 10/01/2018 Massachusetts Board of Underwater Archaeological Resources (BUAR) 10/01/2018 Michael H. Shaw, Patriot Offshore Inc. 10/01/2018 Bruce S. Sostek 10/01/2018 Illegible signature 10/01/2018 Paul and Amy Thompson 10/01/2018 Kenneth & Cynthia Beebe 10/01/2018 Joanna DiTrapano (2nd comments 10/03/2018) 10/01/2018 Jeanne Fox 10/01/2018 Judy Edmunds 10/01/2018 Ronna C. Johnson (2nd comments 10/03/2018) 10/01/2018 Thomas Finelli 10/01/2018 Susan Seiton 10/01/2018 Donald Sostek 10/01/2018 Alan Richard Sostek 10/01/2018 Joan Ramidas 10/01/2018 Cynthia R. 10/01/2018 Chris Egan 10/01/2018 James and Diane Coco 10/01/2018 Robert and Marguerite Anderson 10/01/2018 J. Goldstein
26 EEA# 15787 SDEIR Certificate October 12, 2018
10/01/2018 Maureen A. and John C. Dolan 10/01/2018 Mary M. Conneely 10/01/2018 Thomas and Roberta Burke 10/01/2018 Donna S. Ripley 10/01/2018 Robert M. Ripley 10/01/2018 Maurice and Eileen Cavanaugh 10/01/2018 Sean and Kelly J. 10/01/2018 Eileen Larney 10/01/2018 Paul Loselle 10/02/2018 Mark Kozma 10/02/2018 Karen L. O’Connor, PhD 10/02/2018 Barbara Durkin (2nd comments – 10/02/2018; 3rd, 4th, 5th comments – 10/03/2018) 10/02/2018 Denise K. Cummings 10/02/2018 Ardith Orr and John Griesemer 10/02/2018 Marianne Sforza 10/02/2018 Alexander and Elizabeth Boyle 10/02/2018 William T. Lake 10/03/2018 Association to Preserve Cape Cod (APCC) 10/03/2018 Martha’s Vineyard Commission (MVC) 10/03/2018 Nicole Morris-McLaughlin, Marion Institute’s Southcoast Energy Challenge 10/03/2018 Tom Durkin 10/03/2018 Maureen Condon 10/03/2018 Jonathan Hartzband 10/03/2018 Sheila B. Place 10/03/2018 Michelle Sgarlat 10/03/2018 Susan Starkey 10/03/2018 Russell and Nancy Twist 10/03/2018 Jan Hively, PD 10/03/2018 Barb Lambdin 10/03/2018 Paul F. Pimentel 10/03/2018 Dr. and Mrs. Gilbert Brinckerhoff 10/03/2018 Laurie Gates 10/03/2018 Dr. David D. Dow 10/03/2018 Kathleen Schatz 10/03/2018 Susan Brita 10/03/2018 Acres of Pines, Inc., Crowell Beach Associates, Inc., Englewood Shores Beach Association, Great Island Associates, Inc., Grist Mill Village Civic Association, Inc., Harborside Estates Beach Association, Hyannis Park Civic Association, Inc., Lewis Bay Neighborhood Association, Inc., Ocean Harbor Estates, Inc., Wimbledon Shores, Inc. 10/03/2018 Cynthia J. Khoury Bolles 10/03/2018 Arthur and Judith Warren (corrected version submitted 10/03/2018) 10/03/2018 Alyssa Greeley 10/03/2018 Denise Rooney 10/03/2018 Martha and John Sawyer 10/03/2018 Jo Daley 10/03/2018 Richard and Linda Loring
27 EEA# 15787 SDEIR Certificate October 12, 2018
10/03/2018 John Nickandros 10/03/2018 Paul and Veronica Cove (2nd comments late – 10/09/2018) 10/03/2018 Mary Khoury 10/03/2018 Monica Kelley 10/03/2018 Janice VanDenton 10/03/2018 John Crowell 10/03/2018 Illegible signature 10/03/2018 Nancy J. Diomandes 10/03/2018 Thomas and Mary Mara 10/03/2018 Kelly Wietecha 10/03/2018 Susan Doliner 10/03/2018 Karen H. Crowell 10/03/2018 Gail Benson 10/03/2018 Mollie Jean Miller 10/03/2018 Charles E. Moran 10/03/2018 Cristopher Wietecha 10/03/2018 Benjamin D. Van Der Aa 10/03/2018 Judith Green 10/04/2018 Cape Cod Commission (CCC) 10/04/2018 John A. Cooke 10/04/2018 Rachel Youngling, Hyannis Park Civic Association 10/04/2018 Edmund J. Janiunas and Michael Dunbar 10/04/2018 Paul and Keri P. 10/04/2018 Annick S. Cooper 10/04/2018 Michael Dunbar 10/04/2018 Jim Reardon 10/04/2018 David Lowe 10/04/2018 Julie Taberman and Richard Horsley 10/04/2018 Jan Kubiac 10/05/2018 Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) 10/05/2018 Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) 10/05/2018 State Senator Julian Cyr and State Representative Dylan Fernandes 10/05/2018 Town of Yarmouth 10/05/2018 Conservation Law Foundation, Natural Resources Defense Council, National Wildlife Federation, Mass Audubon, Environmental League of Massachusetts, and Acadia Center 10/05/2018 Fisheries Survival Fund 10/05/2018 The Town Dock 10/05/2018 Responsible Offshore Development Alliance 10/05/2018 Charles Grant Walker 10/05/2018 Gerard Dhooge, Boston & New England Maritime Trades Council 10/05/2018 Susan L. Moran 10/05/2018 Jim Davos 10/05/2018 Chris Powicki 10/05/2018 Andrea and Dave Slote 10/05/2018 Linda Lancaster 10/05/2018 Warren Adams
28 EEA# 15787 SDEIR Certificate October 12, 2018
10/05/2018 Raymond Rose Jr. 10/05/2018 Angela Carbone 10/05/2018 The DeNucci/Asaley/Busa Families 10/05/2018 Vida R. Morris 10/05/2018 Jeff K. Shrago 10/05/2018 John C. Henderson (2nd comments late – 10/09/2018) 10/05/2018 Martin T. Reilly, former State Senator 10/05/2018 Douglas Lawson (attachment could not be opened) 10/07/2018 Lindsay Crouch 10/08/2018 Unknown 10/09/2018 Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) 10/09/2018 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) 10/09/2018 Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management (CZM)
MAB/PPP/ppp
29 SECRETARY’S CERTIFICATE ON THE SDEIR
MEPA 01 The FEIR should discuss steps the Proponent has taken to further reduce the impacts of the project since the filing of the SDEIR, or, if certain measures are infeasible, the FEIR should discuss why these measures will not be adopted.
Project refinements, which include changes that have reduced Project-related impacts, are described in Section 1.1.
MEPA 02 The FEIR should clearly identify the selection of the Covell’s Beach landing site as the Preferred Route and identify its commitment to design and permit the project accordingly while continuing to include the New Hampshire Avenue landing site as the Noticed Alternative. The FEIR should address how and under what circumstances a subsequent change in routing would be disclosed to regulators and the public.
Section 1.1 describes Project refinements since the filing of the SDEIR, including the selection of Covell’s Beach as the preferred Landfall Site for the Project. The Company is maintaining the New Hampshire Avenue Landfall Site as an alternative in the EFSB and MEPA processes. If unforeseen issues render the Covell’s Beach Landfall Site infeasible, the Project would move back to New Hampshire Avenue as the landfall. Such a change would require, at a minimum, a Notice of Project Change (NPC) to the EFSB and could also involve filing an NPC with the MEPA Office (even though both routes have been considered fully in the process). Whichever route is advanced will also need a suite of permits, as described in Section 1.3.
MEPA 03 The FEIR should describe any changes to the project since the filing of the SDEIR. It should include updated site plans for existing and proposed conditions. Conceptual plans should be provided at a legible scale and clearly identify all: major project components; impervious areas; ownership of parcels including easement areas; stormwater and utility infrastructure; and the location of wetland resource areas.
Project refinements are described in Section 1.1. Project plans and graphics provided in Attachment A, together with the engineering plans for the Covell’s Beach Route provided as Attachment G of this FEIR and the engineering plans for the New Hampshire Avenue Route previously provided as Attachment H of the SDEIR, depict existing and proposed conditions.
MEPA 04 The FEIR should include a list of required permits, financial assistance, or other state approvals and provide an update on status. The FEIR should note that the project will require a Letter of Authorization and/or Scientific Permit from DMF for surveys and for the pre-lay grapnel run. The FEIR should provide an update on the federal and local review and permitting processes.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-7 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Section 1.3 provides an updated list of permits, reviews, and approvals required for the Project, and also reflects the status of each.
MEPA 05 The FEIR should clarify whether the area of Covell’s Beach affected by the project is protected by Article 97. If it is determined that it is Article 97 land, the FEIR must include an evaluation of consistency with the EEA Article 97 Land Disposition Policy (Article 97 Policy).
Article 97 is discussed in Section 1.4.
MEPA 06 The FEIR should provide information regarding the project schedule and construction sequencing for both onshore and offshore project elements.
Section 1.5 describes the Project schedule. Section 3.4 provides an updated discussion of possible TOY restrictions.
MEPA 07 The FEIR should include additional information to demonstrate that the selected route and cable laying method(s) will minimize impacts to hard/complex bottom. The FEIR should clearly delineate and describe the extent and area of hard bottom that cannot be avoided and must be excavated or covered to successfully bury the cables. The FEIR should include additional images obtained and habitat classification analysis conducted based on field surveys and investigations for areas where identified hard bottom and biogenic habitats are within or proximate to the cable footprint. It should provide updates and identification of specific areas of proposed construction activity (dredging, cable laying, vessel anchoring, dredged material deposition or disposal, cable burial), and provision of more detailed anchoring plans.
Figure 1-4 shows the preliminary cable alignments within the installation corridor, and the revised impact calculations provided in Section 2.2 reflect these preliminary cable alignments and include estimates of hard bottom and complex bottom that are unavoidable. The offshore map plan set provided in Attachment D has been revised to reflect additional results from the 2018 survey. Section 2.2.2 provides additional detail and specificity regarding where this anchoring is anticipated and the reasons why anchoring may be necessary. Dredging, dredged material disposal, and cable protection are also discussed in Section 2.2.
MEPA 08 The FEIR should address the Project’s consistency with the siting and management standards of the OMP for the routes through Muskeget Channel and landing at Covell’s Beach. The FEIR should clearly demonstrate how the public benefits of the project outweigh the public detriments to SSU resources.
Consistency with the OMP is addressed in Section 2.1.3.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-8 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. MEPA 09 The FEIR should include a commitment to develop an inspection and maintenance plan to assess coverage of the pipeline post-installation and, if problematic areas are identified, to identify measures to reestablish adequate burial or provide protection.
While not expected, any exposure of offshore export cable would be detected via the Company’s post-construction monitoring program (discussed in Section 2.4). After such identification, the Company’s technical team would evaluate whether the exposed cable could be reburied; if reburial is not possible, placement of rock protection or concrete mattresses would protect the export cable.
MEPA 10 The FEIR should include a framework for balancing construction needs and TOY restrictions.
Section 3.4 provides a discussion of TOY restrictions.
MEPA 11 DMF has established a standard protocol for communicating the location and timing of survey activities to fixed gear fishermen which includes using various media sources to alert members of the MLA to the location and start time of a survey, to provide daily updates on activities, to answer inquiries from fishermen, and identifies how to return intercepted gear. The Proponent should work with DMF and the fixed gear community to adopt a similar program to minimize impacts to this commercial fishery during construction.
In consultation with DMF, the Fisheries Communication Plan (which was provided as Attachment G of the SDEIR) will adopt aspects of the DMF protocol for communicating the location and timing of survey activities. Programs to minimize impacts to fishermen and related communications are discussed in Section 3.5.
MEPA 12 The FEIR should demonstrate that the Project will avoid, minimize or mitigate wetland resource area impacts to the maximum extent practicable. It should outline a comprehensive wetland mitigation program designed to meet ACOE, MassDEP, and local bylaw requirements and performance standards. This mitigation program should include monitoring, construction period measures, and restoration.
Potential wetlands impacts and mitigation measures are discussed in Section 2.0. Since the offshore transmission portion of this Project is water-dependent and cannot be located outside of wetland resource areas, the Project will, by necessity, result in temporary impacts to the seafloor. The onshore portions of the Vineyard Wind Connector have been routed predominantly within roadway layouts such that there is no anticipated disturbance to inland wetland resource areas. Jurisdictional wetland resource areas were described in detail in Section 3.1 of the SDEIR. Specific mitigation measures will be selected with the appropriate permitting authorities. Construction and post-construction monitoring is described in Section 2.4.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-9 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. MEPA 13 The FEIR should provide updated information regarding potential impacts to LSCSF, LUO, Coastal Bank, Coastal Beach and RFA for each cable route.
A revised impact assessment is provided in Section 2.2.
MEPA 14 The Proponent has indicated that it will provide all interpreted and raw field data (photos, videos, bathymetry, sidescan, biological and sediment grab samples) from the 2018 marine survey to State Agencies including CZM, MassDEP, DMF and NHESP.
The Company has committed to providing the Ocean Team with its raw data from the 2018 marine survey, is coordinating with DMF on data formatting based on a meeting on December 4, 2018 and subsequent discussions, and is compiling the data in a format to accomplish this transfer.
MEPA 15 The SDEIR indicates that the Proponent is refining the cable alignment within the installation corridor to avoid and minimize impacts to hard bottom and complex bottom. The FEIR should describe the refined cable alignment within the installation corridor and provide additional information regarding the extent of cable that cannot avoid these areas. To the extent possible based on project design and available data, the FEIR should identify where certain installation methods will be used.
Figure 1-4 and the updated offshore plan set provided in Attachment D depict the preliminary cable alignments within the Offshore Export Cable Corridor; these cable alignments will continue to be refined with input from contractors and pre- construction surveys to minimize impacts while maximizing the likelihood of successful cable burial. Impact calculations presented in Section 2.2 assess potential impacts to hard bottom and complex bottom as identified from the Company’s 2018 survey.
MEPA 16 Estimates of length of hard/complex seafloor disturbed, volume of sand waves to be dredged and volume of fluidized sediment from jet-plowing should be updated using the most recent field data on sediment types, depths and the location and extent of hard/complex seafloor. The lengths, areas and volumes of disturbed seafloor should be recalculated taking into consideration guidance provided by CZM.
A revised impact assessment, which does take into consideration CZM’s guidance (discussed in responses to CZM’s comments below), is provided in Section 2.2.
MEPA 17 The FEIR should clarify the assumptions and assess the height and extent of areas of sand waves, based on marine survey data, to provide updated estimates of the volumetric impacts.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-10 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Methods for estimating the dredge volumes are discussed in Section 2.2, and dredge volume estimates are provided in Tables 2-2 and 2-3. Please also see the response to CZM 16 below.
MEPA 18 The FEIR should assess resources within each proposed disposal area to ensure that impacts to sensitive benthic habitat or fisheries resources will be avoided during these activities. As recommended by CZM, the FEIR should identify potential dredge disposal locations that minimize impacts to benthic resources and to establish areas where dumping will be avoided using recent survey data. Suitable locations should avoid mapped biogenic habitats and identify areas with similar characteristics as the sites from which the material is dredged. The FEIR should clearly depict areas to be dredged and dredge disposal areas in maps with supporting field data.
As described in Section 1.4.1.3 of the SDEIR and Section 2.2.1 of this FEIR, this sand wave dredging will most likely be performed with a trailing suction hopper dredge (TSHD), which uses suction to remove material from the seafloor, depositing it in the “hopper” of the vessel. With this methodology, once the hopper is full, the dredge would navigate approximately 825 feet (250 m) east or west of the dredged area to release the dredged material; this discharge would occur within the surveyed installation corridor where seafloor characteristics are comparable (i.e., within an area characterized by sand waves). Such areas suitable for TSHD discharge are delineated on Figure 2-1, which also identifies some areas of hard bottom habitat where TSHD discharge activities will be prohibited.
Impacts from dredged material disposal and dredge volumes have been incorporated into the Sediment Dispersion Modeling Report, which was provided as Attachment F of the SDEIR (and discussed in Section 1.4.1.4 of the SDEIR).
MEPA 19 The Proponent should validate areas mapped as biogenic structures and cobble or cobble mixes.
The map set provided in Attachment D more comprehensively reflects 2018 survey results. Grab samples, vibracores, and underwater video have all provided confirmation of surficial sediment types and benthic habitat.
MEPA 20 The FEIR should incorporate the complete results from the 2018 marine surveys and present the data in a usable format.
The updated offshore map set provided in Attachment D reflects results from the 2018 marine surveys. In addition, the updated impact assessment in Section 2.2 also reflects results from those surveys.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-11 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. MEPA 21 CZM comments note that results from the sediment dispersion modeling appear to integrate the sediment plume impacts over the total period of dredging activity and do not provide information for any given day. The FEIR should include model results for a representative day (potentially with an hourly breakdown) to better understand potential impacts associated with sedimentation and visibility for diving birds… The Proponent should commit to verifying modeled results during the installation process and work with CZM and other resource agencies regarding the details of this monitoring program.
The sediment dispersion report included as Attachment F to the SDEIR presented time-integrated results to show a comprehensive picture of potential impacts. As requested by CZM, a new memo by RPS has been prepared (included as Attachment J and discussed in Section 4.2.2) to present modeled sediment dispersion results for a representative day, including an hourly breakdown, within the avian hot spot in the area of Muskeget Channel. This attachment includes results for both dredging and associated disposal activities, as well as cable installation activities. Results show that Project activities only impact very limited portions of the avian hot spot at any one time and that impacts to any given point are of a short duration (just a few hours). The Project’s construction and post-construction monitoring program is discussed in Section 2.4. The Company will continue to consult with CZM, DMF, and MassDEP regarding monitoring programs during the permitting process. MEPA 22 The SDEIR indicates that the Proponent, in consultation with the Marine Coordinator and Fisheries Liaison, is evaluating the use of consistent transit lanes for construction vessels during the installation phase to reduce conflicts and minimize and eliminate loss of fishing gear. The FEIR should include a commitment to the establishment of transit corridors to ensure the safe passage of a high volume of vessels and identify transit lanes through the offshore lease areas in consultation with CZM, DMF, the MA Fisheries Working Group on Offshore Wind, USCG and other stakeholders.
Construction-period transit routes are described in Section 2.5.1. Transit lanes through the WEA are discussed in Section 3.2.
MEPA 23 The FEIR should specify what type(s) of information will be provided regarding commercial and for-hire recreational fishing, how it will be collected, and how potential impacts on commercial and recreational fisheries will be evaluated. It should indicate how these fleets, management agencies and the public will be notified regarding adjustments to surveying, construction or operating procedures. The FEIR should describe appropriate compensatory mitigation for gear loss and lost fishing time.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-12 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. The Project’s Fisheries Communication Plan (which was provided as Attachment G of the SDEIR) describes the information to be provided to commercial fisheries, for- hire recreational fisheries, and other interested stakeholders. Compensatory mitigation for gear loss and fishing time lost is discussed in Section 3.5.
MEPA 24 The Proponent should confirm it will use high flyer buoys to delineate active and future cable laying areas which has been a successful strategy in other projects.
Marine traffic control measures, including use of high-flyer buoys, are discussed in Section 3.5.
MEPA 25 The FEIR should include a summary of discussions regarding prioritization of TOY restrictions and a framework for construction sequencing.
An updated discussion of TOY restrictions is provided in Section 3.4.
MEPA 26 The FEIR should describe the methods and results of all eelgrass surveys conducted, including at Spindle Rock and Egg Island.
Eelgrass surveys are discussed in Section 2.1.2.
MEPA 27 The FEIR should identify the basis for use of the 20-mm sediment deposition threshold for analysis of impacts to shellfish.
The discussion of sediment dispersion modeling within Lewis Bay that is presented in Section 2.3.2 contains the basis for the 20-mm sensitivity threshold for shellfish.
MEPA 28 The FEIR should provide additional information regarding marine resources in Lewis Bay and measures to avoid impacts, or where avoidance is not possible, to minimize and mitigate impacts. DMF recommends that the Proponent conduct pre- and post-construction shellfish surveys. The FEIR should provide a map of Lewis Bay and the Noticed Alternative route, indicating the spatial extent of features, including mooring areas, shellfish propagation areas, bay scalloping and fishing areas, and aquaculture sites. The FEIR should describe how the cable could be micro-sited to avoid high density shellfish areas and how TOY restrictions (to avoid Winter Flounder and shellfish spawning seasons) could be employed to minimize impacts to resources in Lewis Bay.
As described in Section 1.1, Covell’s Beach is now the preferred route, and New Hampshire Ave has been designated as an alternative Landfall Site. Section 2.3 provides a discussion of resources within Lewis Bay, and Figure 2-2 illustrates various features within the bay including mooring areas, shellfish suitability areas, and aquaculture. TOY restrictions are discussed in Section 3.4. Shellfish surveys and possible micro-siting are addressed in the response to DMF 03.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-13 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. MEPA 29 For the Noticed Alternative, the FEIR should compare impacts of the open trench and HDD alternatives to boat ramp traffic.
Access to the boat ramp at Englewood Beach is described in Section 2.3.3.
MEPA 30 The Proponent will continue to work with MassDEP, CZM, DMF and other resource agencies on development of monitoring plans and establishment of a process for determining if established performance standards have been met. The Proponent is working with DMF to incorporate Sand Lance into the plan to the extent feasible. NHESP will continue to evaluate these impacts as they relate to state-listed tern species and will provide comments on the Benthic Habitat Monitoring Plan. The FEIR should provide an update on these consultations and identify refinements to the plan.
Monitoring plans are discussed in Section 2.4, and the Benthic Habitat Monitoring Plan is provided as Attachment F. An update on NHESP consultations is provided in the response to NHESP 06.
MEPA 31 A joint comment letter from CLF, Mass Audubon, NRDC, Environmental League of Massachusetts, NWF and the Acadia Center highlights the need for protection of North Atlantic Right Whales. These comments note the measures identified in the SDEIR and COP to avoid and minimize impacts to marine mammals in state and federal waters and urge the Proponent to clarify, strengthen and expand these measures in the FEIR. The FEIR should address the feasibility of incorporating the identified measures into the Project. In addition, it should indicate how and whether marine mammal protection identified in the FEIR will be coordinated and/or funded by the $15 million Accelerator Program.
Section 4.1 discusses mitigation designed to protect marine mammals, including the North Atlantic Right Whale, and addresses ongoing consultations with BOEM, NMFS, and eNGOs (e.g., CLF, NRDC, NWF). Section 1.2.2 discusses economic benefits from the project, including the $15 million Offshore Wind Accelerator Program. One of the components of the Accelerator Program is a $3 million “Wind and Whales Fund” for advancing innovations for marine mammal protection, which is described in greater detail in Section 1.2.
MEPA 32 The FEIR should include a comprehensive, adaptive strategy for avoiding, minimizing and mitigating potential impacts to listed avian species.
Section 4.2 discusses avian species, including potential impacts and measures designed to protect these species.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-14 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. MEPA 33 The FEIR should include details regarding how the construction activities, particularly in Muskeget Channel, will be timed, staged, and sequenced to minimize impacts to the high density of diving and plunging birds that use the channel for seasonal foraging, in addition to turtles, whales, other marine mammals, and other species of concern. As noted previously, the FEIR should propose a framework for balancing construction needs and TOY restrictions.
The broader issue of construction scheduling and possible TOY restrictions for elements of the work in federal waters and in state waters is the subject of an ongoing series of meetings with state and federal agencies, and this comment was addressed in Section 5 of the SDEIR. An updated discussion of TOY restrictions is provided in Section 3.4 of this FEIR. Avian resources are specifically discussed in Section 4.2.
MEPA 34 The FEIR should include an updated and revised chapter that summarizes proposed mitigation measures and provides individual draft Section 61 Findings for each State Agency that will issue permits for the Project. The FEIR should contain clear commitments to implement mitigation measures, estimate the individual costs of each proposed measure, identify the parties responsible for implementation, and contain a schedule for implementation. The draft Section 61 Findings provided in the SDEIR are very general and require additional specificity. In addition, they should clearly identify mitigation measures that are limited to a specific route or landing site.
Section 5.0 contains proposed Section 61 Findings and a summary of proposed mitigation measures.
MEPA 35 The FEIR should contain a copy of this Certificate and a copy of each comment letter received.
This section includes direct narrative responses to the MEPA Certificate and all comment letters submitted by agencies, municipalities, interest groups, and elected officials. As described at the beginning of this section, many individuals also submitted comments on the SDEIR, and those letters are contained within Attachment H. Common issue areas raised in individuals’ comment letters are identified and responded to in Table 6-2 above; Table 6-3 identifies all individual commenters as well as an index of the issues raised in their letters.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-15 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. MEPA 36 In accordance with Section 11.16 of the MEPA Regulations, the Proponent should circulate a hard copy of the FEIR to each State Agency and municipal agency from which the Proponent will seek permits or approvals. The Proponent must circulate a copy of the FEIR to all other parties that submitted individual written comments… A copy of the FEIR should be made available for review at the public libraries in Yarmouth, Barnstable, Edgartown, Mashpee and Nantucket.
The Circulation List provided as Attachment B complies with these circulation requirements.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-16 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Charles D. Baker Matthew A. Beaton Governor Secretary
Karyn E. Polito Martin Suuberg Lieutenant Governor Commissioner
October 5, 2018
Mathew A. Beaton, RE: SDEIR Review EOEEA #15787 Secretary of Environment and Energy BARNSTABLE. Vineyard Wind Connector ATTN: MEPA Office located from the offshore export cables to the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs from Federal/ Massachusetts water boundary, 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 northerly to New Hampshire Avenue in Boston, MA 02114 Yarmouth or alternatively to Covell’s Beach in Barnstable and run to the Barnstable Switching Station
Dear Secretary Beaton,
The Southeast Regional Office of the Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) has reviewed the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report (SDEIR) for the proposed Vineyard Wind Connector, located from the offshore export cables to the Federal/ Massachusetts water boundary, northerly to New Hampshire Avenue in Yarmouth or alternatively to Covell’s Beach in Barnstable and run to the Barnstable Switching Station, Barnstable, Massachusetts for the proposed (EOEEA 15787). The Project Proponent provides the following information for the Project:
This information is available in alternate format. Contact Michelle Waters-Ekanem, Director of Diversity/Civil Rights at 617-292-5751. TTY# MassRelay Service 1-800-439-2370 MassDEP Website: www.mass.gov/dep Printed on Recycled Paper 2
Bureau of Water Resources Comments Wetlands and Waterways Program. The proponent’s response in the SDEIR addresses the Wetlands and Waterways Program comments on the ENF and DEIR with the exception that the proponent has DEP 01 not made a final decision on whether the offshore cables will connect to the chosen Landfall site by open-trenching or by Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD). MassDEP requests that the final determination and supporting documentation be submitted with the Final Environmental Impact Report for a thorough Departmental review.
Drinking Water Program: The Proponent has adequately addressed the comments of the Drinking Water Program in the DEIR.
Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup Comments The Proponent has adequately addressed the comments raised by the Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup.
Other Comments/Guidance MassDEP staff is available to provide additional guidance to the Proponent upon request. If you have any questions regarding this comment letter please do not hesitate to contact George Zoto at (508) 946-2820.
Very truly yours,
Jonathan E. Hobill Regional Engineer Bureau of Water Resources
JH/GZ
Cc: DEP/SERO
ATTN:Millie Garcia-Serrano, Regional Director David Johnston, Deputy Regional Director, BWR Maria Pinaud, Deputy Regional Director, BAW Gerard Martin, Deputy Regional Director, BWSC Jennifer Viveiros, Deputy Regional Director, ADMIN Jim Mahala, Chief, Wetlands and Waterways, BWR David Hill, Wetlands and Waterways, BWR Allen Hemberger, C&E Brownfields, BWSC MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (DEP)
DEP 01 The Proponent has not made a final decision on whether the offshore cables will connect to the chosen Landfall Site by open-trenching or by HDD. MassDEP requests that the final determination and supporting documentation be submitted with the FEIR.
As described in Section 1.1, Covell’s Beach is now the preferred Landfall Site for the Project. HDD is the proposed method for installation at the Covell’s Beach Landfall Site. At the alternative New Hampshire Avenue Landfall Site, should that site be selected, open trenching is the preferred method of installation; as described in Section 1.4.2 of the SDEIR, there are several advantages of open trenching over HDD at the New Hampshire Avenue Landfall Site. However, at this time that landfall is not being advanced into permitting, and therefore HDD is the only offshore-to-onshore transition method the Company is currently pursuing.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-17 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. MEMORANDUM
TO: Matthew A. Beaton, Secretary, EEA ATTN: Purvi Patel, MEPA Unit FROM: Bruce Carlisle, Director, CZM DATE: October 5, 2018 RE: EEA-15787, Vineyard Wind Connector
The Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management (CZM) has completed its review of the above-referenced Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report (SDEIR), noticed in the Environmental Monitor dated September 5, 2018. These comments address the responsiveness of the SDEIR with regards to CZM’s comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), respond to new information provided since the SDEIR as part of the ongoing discussions between the proponent and state agencies, and review the proposed project with regards to the siting standards as stated in Ocean Management Plan (OMP) Regulations (301 CMR 28.00) which will provide a framework for the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) review and the Secretary’s Certificate on the proposed project. The SDEIR is largely responsive to comments and questions raised in CZM’s comment letter on the DEIR. CZM commends Vineyard Wind for their efforts to address agency concerns throughout the MEPA review.
Project Description Vineyard Wind proposes to install two 10-inch diameter 220 kV AC offshore export cables to connect its wind energy project, located within the federally designated Wind Energy Area off Massachusetts, to the existing electrical grid on Cape Cod. This proposal is part of a larger project that seeks to permit an 800-megawatt (MW) offshore wind farm under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). Major elements of the total project include a wind turbine array, offshore electrical service platforms, offshore electric transmission to shore, onshore underground transmission, and an onshore substation. The SDEIR maintains two alternative offshore export cable corridors (a Western cable corridor and an Eastern cable corridor) which can make landfall at one of two potential sites (New Hampshire Avenue in Yarmouth and Covell’s Beach in Barnstable). Each proposed cable construction corridor may be up to 810 meters wide. The Western corridor to the landing site at New Hampshire Avenue passes through 21.4 miles of state waters, while the Eastern corridor to the New Hampshire Avenue landing passes through 23.3 miles of state waters. Selection of the Covell’s Beach landing site would result in corridors 20.9 and 22.6 miles long, respectively. Both proposed cable routes through Nantucket Sound include sections within the area of federal waters in the center of the sound. The cables will be buried approximately 1.5 to 2.4 meters below the seafloor and laid with a combination of hydroplowing (through flat, soft sediments), jetting (through small sand waves), suction dredging (through large sand waves), and mechanical dredging (through compacted sand/gravel/cobble). Dense aggregations of boulders will be avoided while solitary boulders will be removed from the cable pathway and placed in another location within the construction corridor. Project Comments CZM supports the responsible development of marine renewable energy to help meet state and regional greenhouse gas emission reduction goals as well as other statutory obligations. Vineyard Wind’s offshore wind project has been developed through the federal planning and analysis, leasing, site assessment and construction and operations plan processes in which CZM has been an active participant since 2009. Through MEPA, NEPA, and federal consistency reviews CZM seeks to ensure that the project is consistent with state coastal program policies and applicable regulations.
In comments on the DEIR, CZM requested that Vineyard Wind provide clearer depictions of the proposed project relative to existing ocean resources and uses. The maps in Attachment A and the map books provided to CZM are largely highly responsive to this request. Due to project logistics relating to the processing of survey data, ongoing discussions with resource agencies, and still-to-be- confirmed cable laying methods, assessment of the project’s avoidance and minimization of impacts to some sensitive resource areas is ongoing.
In the DEIR comments, CZM recommended that the information collected during the 2018 field campaign be used to demonstrate that Vineyard Wind’s preferred cable route alternative avoids sensitive resources identified in the Ocean Management Plan (OMP) and, where avoidance is not practicable, minimizes potential impacts to those resources. After review of the information and CZM 01 analysis provided to date, CZM finds that Vineyard Wind has adequately demonstrated avoidance and minimization of potential impacts to core whale habitat areas, eelgrass, and intertidal flats in conformance with the siting standards of the OMP; however, more information is required in the FEIR on how the selected route and cable laying method(s) will minimize impacts to hard/complex seafloor resources. As Vineyard Wind is still processing and analyzing its 2018 field data, CZM looks forward to reviewing this information in the FEIR. This data should confirm the conclusions of Vineyard Wind’s alternatives analysis and assessment of impacts. Similarly, CZM understands that the exact methods and equipment for dredging sand waves and installing the submarine cable will not be known until a contractor for such work is selected. Specific points and questions related to the OMP management standards, dredging methods and impacts, time of year restrictions, monitoring plans, and the Ocean Development Mitigation Fee are detailed below and should be addressed in the FEIR.
Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan The OMP and its implementing regulations at 301 CMR 28.04(2) and (6) describe the management standards that apply to cables in the ocean planning area. The siting standard for activities in the ocean management planning area are presumptively excluded from the special, sensitive or unique (SSU) resource areas delineated on maps contained in the OMP. The presumptive exclusion may be overcome by a clear demonstration that (1) new, site-specific information provides more accurate delineation of the resource areas; or (2) no less environmentally damaging practicable alternative exists; and (3) all practicable measures to avoid damage to SSU resources have been taken and the activity will cause no significant alteration; and (4) the public benefits associated with the activity outweigh the public detriments to the SSU resource. For cable projects, the SSU resources that must be avoided are: hard/complex seafloor, eelgrass, intertidal flats, North Atlantic right whale core habitat, humpback whale core habitat, and fin whale core habitat. In the siting of cable projects for the transmission of offshore wind energy, the OMP management standards clarify that such cables are in presumptive compliance with the siting standards if: 1) investigations and surveys confirm the predominance of soft-bottom seafloor (i.e., the general absence of hard-bottom substrate) within cable corridors such that sufficient burial depths for cables can be reasonably expected, and that the presence of relatively small areas of hard-bottom substrate, such that the cable route cannot be
2 practicably located outside of these areas, within acceptable limits, is permissible; and 2) time of year controls are in place such that operations and dredging will avoid damage and cause no significant alteration to North Atlantic right whale core habitat, humpback whale core habitat, and fin whale core habitat. As stated above, CZM finds that Vineyard Wind has sufficient protocols in place to avoid impacts to endangered whales. The revised maps provided in the SDEIR show the extent of hard/complex seafloor in higher resolution than depicted in the OMP. Vineyard Wind has further CZM 02 delineated hard seafloor separately from complex seafloor (sand waves) and has made efforts to avoid hard seafloor when siting the proposed cable route. However, at this time, the amount of hard seafloor (areas of cobble and biogenic habitat) that cannot be avoided and may be impacted during the cable laying process are not fully known. CZM recommends that the FEIR clearly delineate and describe the extent and area of hard seafloor that is unavoidable and must be excavated or covered to successfully bury the cables. The FEIR should also present additional images obtained and habitat CZM 03 classification analysis conducted based on Vineyard Wind’s field surveys and investigations for areas where identified hard bottom and biogenic habitats are within or proximate to the cable footprint.
The SDEIR provides a summary of impacts for the proposed cable routes (Table 1-4) and CZM 04 identifies that the western route through Muskeget Channel landing at Covell’s Beach in Barnstable results in the least amount of impacts to the seafloor. In meeting the siting standards at 301 CMR 28.04(2)(b), it appears that the western route to Covell’s Beach may represent the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative; however, further information and analysis to be presented in the FEIR may supersede this. Additionally, to meet the management standards in the OMP, Vineyard CZM 05 Wind should demonstrate, and clearly describe in the FEIR, how the public benefits of the proposed project outweigh the public detriments to SSU resources.
The method and machinery selected for the laying of the transmission cables is important to the avoidance and minimization of SSU resources. The OMP contains language that states that installation methods that achieve burial with minimal seabed disturbance—including footprint, width of trench, and sidecast and suspension of sediments—are strongly preferred. Such methods include jet plowing, remotely operated seabed tractors, and some towed seabed plows. The plan also states that all cable projects will need to have an approved plan for inspection and maintenance to ensure that adequate coverage is maintained. Vineyard Wind has conveyed that it seeks to maximize the use of trench fluidization through soft sediments as the preferred mode of cable laying. CZM agrees that simultaneous cable laying and burial in soft sediments (as opposed to trenching and laying the cable at a later time) is the preferred method for minimizing impacts. In areas of sand waves or other locations where dredging is required, CZM notes that the several dredging techniques presented in the SDEIR have different effects in terms of seafloor disturbance and sedimentation. It is clear from the additional modeling presented in the SDEIR that Trailing Suction Hopper Dredging (TSHD) has greater impacts than jetting or jetplowing. In order to reduce both direct impacts to habitat and biota CZM 06 on the seafloor and indirect sedimentation on these resources per the OMP requirements, Vineyard Wind should use the 2018 survey data to avoid or minimize laying cable in large sand waves (a process that requires TSHD), and maximize the use of fluidization and jetting (processes that allow simultaneous cable laying).
Under the OMP regulations at 301 CMR 28.04(3), proponents must avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to areas of concentrations of water dependent uses identified in the plan. Vineyard Wind’s proposed steps to minimize impacts to recreational and commercial fishing activities and navigation include employing a Marine Coordinator to manage all construction vessel logistics,
3 enacting a 500-meter safety zone around all construction activities, and establishing a vessel traffic management plan and coordination with local pilots during construction. CZM encourages Vineyard CZM 07 Wind to provide notices to mariners to keep them apprised of specific construction activities and to minimize conflicts between construction vessels and recreational or commercial vessels in high transit areas, especially Muskeget Channel. In addition, DMF has a standard protocol for communicating the location and timing of survey activities to fixed gear fishermen. The protocol includes using various media sources (letters, texts, postcards, emails, website) to alert members of the Massachusetts Lobstermen’s Association to the location and start time of a survey, to provide daily updates on activities, to answer inquiries from fishermen, and details a process for returning intercepted gear. CZM encourages Vineyard Wind to work with DMF and the fixed gear community to adopt a similar program to minimize impacts to this important commercial fishery during construction.
Transit Corridor and Turbine Spacing While located in federal waters and therefore not under MEPA jurisdiction, the location and configuration of the turbines will have effects on resources and uses of the state’s coastal zone. CZM’s federal consistency review includes all of the elements of the proposed project in both the coastal zone and in federal waters. In our comments on the DEIR, CZM indicated that data from Vessel Monitoring Systems and Automatic Identification Systems show significant marine vessel navigational activity across the offshore wind lease areas, and that due to the high volume of vessel traffic (fishing and otherwise), the establishment of transit corridors is critically important to the safe passage of vessels. Since June, CZM has been working with the MA Fisheries Working Group on Offshore Wind CZM 08 (comprised of fishing industry representatives, representing various fisheries, gear types and ports) and the U.S. Coast Guard on the issue of identifying transit lanes through the offshore lease areas. Over the course of several meetings with significant discussion and consultation on a number of options and alternatives, general consensus was reached at the September 20th working group meeting on an alternative that provides safe options for vessels transiting through the adjacent wind energy lease areas via 2 nautical mile wide transit lanes to/from priority areas identified by various fishing sectors and ports. This alternative includes east/west and north/south transit lanes and a lane to the southeast ending just south of Nantucket shoals. Additionally, another north/south lane within the currently unleased areas (502 and 503) was discussed, to be revisited after the delineation of lease areas in BOEM’s pending Final Sale Notice. We understand that discussions on this topic are still ongoing in other jurisdictions; however, CZM believes that the working group consensus alternative is a balanced and feasible option that while perhaps optimal to none, is acceptable from a navigational safety perspective and represents a compromise approach to a very difficult issue.
Species of Concern Vineyard Wind has previously presented information on how it plans to mitigate for construction noise disturbance and ship strikes to whales and turtles. In the SDEIR, Vineyard Wind presents a plan for avoiding eelgrass beds and horseshoe crab spawning off Covell’s Beach in Barnstable, should that landing alternative be chosen. Discussions to find appropriate TOY for construction to avoid impacts to Piping Plovers, bay scallops, whelks, squid eggs, and diving/plunging birds are ongoing. In meetings with resource agencies, Vineyard Wind has proposed that it may be possible to begin construction of the energy export cables in the nearshore in one year, bury the partial cable segments, and then splice and continue laying the remaining cable lengths in the offshore portion of the project in the following year. The FEIR should include details as to how the construction CZM 09 activities will be timed, staged, and sequenced to minimize impacts to the species of concern mentioned above. CZM acknowledges that the cumulative result of the various TOY restrictions may severely limit, if not preclude, time available for cable installation. Vineyard Wind should continue
4 discussions with resource agencies to determine the highest priority TOY and identify other mitigating measures (such as clearing the cable route prior to work) that will allow for a sufficient window for cable installation.
Fisheries Resources In the SDEIR, Vineyard Wind provided new modeling (discussed further in the next section) for jetplowing, that shows the predicted extent of sediment drape that might affect winter flounder eggs (deposition > 1mm) is confined to within about 100 meters of the cable trench. Sediment deposition associated with dredging techniques is greater. As stated above, Vineyard Wind has had CZM 10 discussions with DMF and NMFS regarding the best TOY for construction to avoid impacts to fisheries resources. A summary of these discussions and a possible construction sequencing solution should be provided in the FEIR.
Vineyard Wind presented a third-party analysis of the potential electromagnetic frequency (EMF) energy released by the proposed energy export cables. The results suggest that the AC magnetic fields associated with buried, subsea cables is very low and when acting on a “compass-like magnetic sensing system, would have a time-average force of zero.” Thus, the EMF energy from the cable is not expected to interfere with the navigational sense of marine organisms. Vineyard Wind concludes that the electrical energy from its cables will not be detected by marine organisms.
Vineyard Wind should continue to work with DMF and the Town of Yarmouth shellfish CZM 11 program to delineate shellfish resources within the proposed cable corridor in Lewis Bay. Details of how the cable could be sited to avoid high density shellfish areas and how TOY provisions could be employed to minimize impacts to resources in Lewis Bay should be presented in the FEIR.
Cable Installation The SDEIR includes new modeling of the potential sediment plume and deposition associated with laying the cables. Three methods of cable laying are modeled: 1) “jet plowing” (hydroplowing) where simultaneous fluidizing of the trench and cable laying occurs; 2) “TSHD” where a suction dredge excavates sand waves areas, material is placed in a hopper and then dumped a distance away from the cable trench, and the cable is laid some time later; and 3) “jetting” (mass flow excavation) where jets of water push small sand waves away from the desired trench area and the cable is laid simultaneously. Mechanical trenching, with a tool similar to a chain saw discussed previously by Vineyard Wind for removing packed sand/gravel/cobble areas, was not modeled. During jet plowing, CZM 12 the model results predict that deposition of sediments > 1 mm would be confined to within 100 meters of the cable. However, the modeling work assumes the jetplow trench would be 1 meter wide while published field evidence from the Block Island Wind Farm (BOEM 2017-027) indicates that this method leaves a trench 2 meters wide. CZM requests that Vineyard Wind describe why jetplowing for this proposed project would result in half the trench width than has been documented for a similar offshore export cable.
During TSHD activities, the modeling depicts a plume of sediment with Total Suspended CZM 13 Solids (TSS) > 10 mg/l that is predicted to extend 10 miles from the dredged area while TSS > 1000 mg/l is predicted up to 3 miles away during hopper overflow and dumping. However, the model results shown seem to integrate all of the sediment plume impacts over the entire course of the total days of dredging activity and do not represent what would be present on any given day. CZM recommends that the FEIR include the model results for a representative day, perhaps even with an hourly breakdown, to better understand potential effects on both sedimentation and on visibility for
5 diving birds. As stated above, CZM recommends that Vineyard Wind minimize TSHD activities and maximize the use of simultaneous cable lay and burial techniques (e.g., jetplowing and jetting) to minimize impacts to the seafloor.
As stated in the DEIR comment letter, CZM recommends that the modeled results be verified CZM 14 during the actual installation process. The SDEIR suggests that this monitoring activity might include a handheld turbidity meter deployed from a small vessel at various depths during dredging. CZM looks forward to working with Vineyard Wind and the resource agencies on the details of this monitoring program.
In previous comments, CZM suggested that Vineyard Wind use its field data and its hydrodynamic model to characterize the wave dynamics, currents, and sediment transport along the proposed cable route, particularly in areas of sand waves, to better understand whether the proposed depth of burial is sufficient to avoid the potential use of armoring. The SDEIR describes a cable burial survey effort initially after construction, every year for the first three years, every three years for the next 12 years, and every five years beyond that. The SDEIR describes that sections of cable that are identified as inadequately buried, will be buried using a secondary burial tool. CZM discourages the CZM 15 use of armoring due to the detrimental impacts which can include increased scouring of the seafloor adjacent to the hard cover, increased substrate providing a vector for invasive species colonization, and impacts to commercial and recreational fishing operations. CZM instead recommends additional efforts to bury the cable to the appropriate depth or covering the cable with sand bags and gravel/cobble cover, as appropriate to mimic adjacent seafloor conditions.
Sand Waves Vineyard Wind estimates that the linear extent of sand wave dredging would be 1.4 to 2.2 miles (depending upon the corridor and landing point) and the volume of dredging required in sand waves to be 71,000 to 136,000 cubic yards. Vineyard Wind estimates that the dredged corridors through sand waves for both cables will be approximately 65 feet wide at the bottom and with a 4:1 side slope ratio. This suggests that cable corridors within a 10-foot sand wave would be 145 feet wide and within a 15-foot sand wave would be 185 feet wide. CZM’s understanding is that the potential CZM 16 dredging estimates were calculated assuming a 65-foot width which, given the above information, would underestimate the volumetric impacts. CZM suggests that for the FEIR Vineyard Wind use field survey data on the height and extent of sand wave areas to provide an updated estimate of the volume of material that will need to be removed from the seafloor to allow for cable laying in sand wave areas.
At this time, Vineyard Wind has not identified the exact areas where dredged material will be CZM 17 deposited other than to state that hopper dredge spoils will be dumped to the east or west of the dredging area within the 810-meter cable corridor. As CZM stated previously, there should be resource assessment information for each proposed disposal area to ensure that sensitive benthic habitat or fisheries resources are not impacted during this aspect of construction. CZM recommends that Vineyard Wind use its survey data (bathymetry, videos, benthic grabs) in the FEIR to identify potential dredge disposal locations that minimize impacts to benthic resources and to establish areas where dumping will be avoided. For example, dredge material should not be placed on areas mapped by Vineyard Wind as biogenic habitats. Potential dredge disposal areas should be similar in sediment CZM 18 texture and structure as the sites from which the material is dredged (e.g., excavated sand waves should be deposited in a nearby sand wave site). CZM recommends that areas to be dredged and dredge disposal areas be clearly defined in maps, with supporting field data to confirm the mapped units. The
6 FEIR should include all interpreted and raw field data (photos, videos, bathymetry, sidescan, biological and sediment grab samples) and these data should be used to inform this process. In particular, CZM would like to see validation for areas mapped as biogenic structures and cobble or cobble mixes.
Monitoring Plan(s) CZM’s previous comments asked for information on monitoring plans related to: CZM 19
• Real-time cable installation effects (turbidity, sediment drape, physical disturbance) so that actual effects can be compared to anticipated effects; • Construction impacts to biogenic habitats, benthic infauna, and/or fisheries resources; • Recovery times of various resources; • Demonstration of the as-built cable condition to verify the appropriate depth of cable burial; • Demonstration that the cable remains adequately buried over the long-term.
While Vineyard Wind has outlined a monitoring effort to address each of these subjects in the SDEIR, the details regarding specific methods, times of year, frequency, and locations are still to be determined. CZM looks forward to working with Vineyard Wind and the other resource agencies on the details of these monitoring plans and establishing a process for determining if established performance standards have been met.
Ocean Development Mitigation Fee Pursuant to the OMP and its regulations, the project is subject to an Ocean Development Mitigation Fee. In the SDEIR, pursuant to the fee structure contained in the OMP, Vineyard Wind identified the proposed project as a Class II ocean development activity category and proposed $240,000 mitigation for a predicted 27 acres of permanent hard cover in state waters to protect the energy export cables. CZM’s position is that mitigation for the Vineyard Wind project should be based CZM 20 upon the full extent of the impact of the project including: direct cable laying and dredging area, dredged disposal area, sediment deposition area, and impacts to biota and habitat, as well as permanent hard cover. Based upon Vineyard Wind’s estimates of area impacted by cable installation in state waters (Table 1-4), up to 94 acres of seafloor could be disturbed temporarily; 27 acres of seafloor could be permanently covered with hard cable protection; 166,000 cubic yards of sediment could be fluidized resulting in 200 acres covered in over 1 mm of sediment; and 136,000 cubic yards of sand waves could be dredged. As stated above, some of these impacts may be underestimated. The extent of the anticipated impacts would place the project in the Class III ocean development activity category (i.e., footprint greater than 20 acres). CZM looks forwards to further discussion with Vineyard Wind and the Secretary’s office on the Ocean Development Mitigation Fee for the FEIR.
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 617-626-1050 or visit the CZM web site at www.state.ma.us/czm/fcr.htm.
BKC/rlb/tc/sm
7
cc: Yarmouth Conservation Commission Barnstable Conservation Commission Holly Carlson Johnston, Epsilon Associates, Inc. Rachel Pachter, Vineyard Wind Conrad Caia, Yarmouth Shellfish Constable Dan Horn, Barnstable Shellfish Constable Christopher Boelke, Sue Tuxbury & Alison Verkade, NMFS Ed Reiner, EPA Derek Standish, David Wong, DEP Kathryn Ford, John Logan, Eileen Feeney, DMF
8
MASSACHUSETTS OFFICE OF COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT (CZM)
CZM 01 After review of the information and analysis provided to date, CZM finds that Vineyard Wind has adequately demonstrated avoidance and minimization of potential impacts to core whale habitat areas, eelgrass, and intertidal flats in conformance with the siting standards of the OMP; however, more information is required in the FEIR on how the selected route and cable laying method(s) will minimize impacts to hard/complex seafloor resources. As Vineyard Wind is still processing and analyzing its 2018 field data, CZM looks forward to reviewing this information in the FEIR. This data should confirm the conclusions of Vineyard Wind’s alternatives analysis and assessment of impacts. Similarly, CZM understands that the exact methods and equipment for dredging sand waves and installing the submarine cable will not be known until a contractor for such work is selected.
As described in Section 1.1 and shown on Figure 1-4 and in the map set provided as Attachment D, the Company’s technical team has defined preliminary cable alignments within the installation corridor based on 2018 survey results. The cable alignments will continue to be refined based on contractor input and pre- construction surveys to avoid and minimize impacts to hard bottom and complex bottom while maintaining a technically feasible route for the cables and maximizing the likelihood of sufficient cable burial. Section 2.2 contains updated impact calculations based on the preliminary alignments, and Section 2.1.3 addresses Project consistency with the Massachusetts OMP.
CZM 02 Vineyard Wind has further delineated hard seafloor separately from complex seafloor (sand waves) and has made efforts to avoid hard seafloor when siting the proposed cable route. However, at this time, the amount of hard seafloor (areas of cobble and biogenic habitat) that cannot be avoided and may be impacted during the cable laying process are not fully known. CZM recommends that the FEIR clearly delineate and describe the extent and area of hard seafloor that is unavoidable and must be excavated or covered to successfully bury the cables. Please see the response to CZM 01.
CZM 03 The FEIR should also present additional images obtained and habitat classification analysis conducted based on Vineyard Wind’s field surveys and investigations for areas where identified hard bottom and biogenic habitats are within or proximate to the cable footprint.
Please see the response to CZM 01. The map set provided in Attachment D has been updated to more comprehensively reflect the 2018 survey results.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-18 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. CZM 04 The SDEIR provides a summary of impacts for the proposed cable routes (Table 1-4) and identifies that the western route through Muskeget Channel landing at Covell’s Beach in Barnstable results in the least amount of impacts to the seafloor. In meeting the siting standards at 301 CMR 28.04(2)(b), it appears that the western route to Covell’s Beach may represent the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative; however, further information and analysis to be presented in the FEIR may supersede this.
As described in Section 1.1, Covell’s Beach is now the preferred Landfall Site for the Project. Revised impact calculations within state waters are presented in Table 2-2. Given the dynamic currents and seafloor conditions in the Muskeget Channel area, both options through Muskeget Channel are being maintained through permitting to enable contractors to assess the practicability and technical feasibility of both routes. Based on existing information, both options are relatively comparable from the perspective of OMP siting standards.
CZM 05 … [T]o meet the management standards in the OMP, Vineyard Wind should demonstrate, and clearly describe in the FEIR, how the public benefits of the proposed project outweigh the public detriments to SSU resources.
Project consistency with the OMP, including a discussion of how public benefits of the Project outweigh the impacts to SSU areas, is addressed in Section 2.1.3.
CZM 06 In order to reduce both direct impacts to habitat and biota on the seafloor and indirect sedimentation on these resources per the OMP requirements, Vineyard Wind should use the 2018 survey data to avoid or minimize laying cable in large sand waves (a process that requires TSHD), and maximize the use of fluidization and jetting (processes that allow simultaneous cable laying).
Please see the response to CZM 01. The cable alignments within the installation corridor avoid and minimize impacts to hard bottom and complex bottom while maintaining a technically feasible cable route. Refined impact estimates are presented in Section 2.2 with additional discussion of sand wave dredging.
CZM 07 CZM encourages Vineyard Wind to provide notices to mariners to keep them apprised of specific construction activities and to minimize conflicts between construction vessels and recreational or commercial vessels in high transit areas, especially Muskeget Channel. In addition, DMF has a standard protocol for communicating the location and timing of survey activities to fixed gear fishermen. The protocol includes using various media sources (letters, texts, postcards, emails, website) to alert members of the Massachusetts Lobstermen’s Association to the location and start time of a survey, to provide daily updates on activities, to answer inquiries from fishermen, and details a process for returning intercepted gear. CZM
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-19 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. encourages Vineyard Wind to work with DMF and the fixed gear community to adopt a similar program to minimize impacts to this important commercial fishery during construction.
Efforts to minimize impacts to use of waterways, including measures such as Notices to Mariners, are described in Section 2.5. The Company has developed and implemented a Fisheries Communication Plan and the Company will continue to develop and utilize communications plans to ensure relevant and accurate information regarding the Project is disseminated to the various commercial fishing communities during each stage of the Project, including construction. Communication of Project-related information will be facilitated through the Project’s website and other media, public notices to mariners and vessel float plans, and the Project’s Fisheries Liaisons. The Company will also provide this information to the USCG to issue Local Notice to Mariners during offshore installation activities. In consultation with DMF, the Fisheries Communication Plan has adopted aspects of the DMF protocol for communication the location and timing of construction activities.
CZM 08 Since June, CZM has been working with the MA Fisheries Working Group on Offshore Wind (comprised of fishing industry representatives, representing various fisheries, gear types and ports) and the U.S. Coast Guard on the issue of identifying transit lanes through the offshore lease areas. Over the course of several meetings with significant discussion and consultation on a number of options and alternatives, general consensus was reached at the September 20th working group meeting on an alternative that provides safe options for vessels transiting through the adjacent wind energy lease areas via 2 nautical mile wide transit lanes to/from priority areas identified by various fishing sectors and ports. This alternative includes east/west and north/south transit lanes and a lane to the southeast ending just south of Nantucket shoals. Additionally, another north/south lane within the currently unleased areas (502 and 503) was discussed, to be revisited after the delineation of lease areas in BOEM’s pending Final Sale Notice. We understand that discussions on this topic are still ongoing in other jurisdictions; however, CZM believes that the working group consensus alternative is a balanced and feasible option that while perhaps optimal to none, is acceptable from a navigational safety perspective and represents a compromise approach to a very difficult issue.
Transit lanes through the WEA are discussed in Section 3.2.
CZM 09 The FEIR should include details as to how the construction activities will be timed, staged, and sequenced to minimize impacts to the species of concern mentioned above. CZM acknowledges that the cumulative result of the various TOY restrictions may severely limit, if not preclude, time available for cable installation. Vineyard Wind should continue discussions with resource agencies to determine
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-20 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. the highest priority TOY and identify other mitigating measures (such as clearing the cable route prior to work) that will allow for a sufficient window for cable installation.
An updated discussion of TOY restrictions is provided in Section 3.4.
CZM 10 As stated above, Vineyard Wind has had discussions with DMF and NMFS regarding the best TOY for construction to avoid impacts to fisheries resources. A summary of these discussions and a possible construction sequencing solution should be provided in the FEIR.
An updated discussion of TOY restrictions, including related consultations, is provided in Section 3.4.
CZM 11 Vineyard Wind should continue to work with DMF and the Town of Yarmouth shellfish program to delineate shellfish resources within the proposed cable corridor in Lewis Bay. Details of how the cable could be sited to avoid high density shellfish areas and how TOY provisions could be employed to minimize impacts to resources in Lewis Bay should be presented in the FEIR.
Section 2.3 provides a discussion of resources within Lewis Bay, and Figure 2-2 illustrates various features within the bay including mooring areas, shellfish suitability areas, and aquaculture. Shellfish surveys and possible micro-siting are addressed in the response to DMF 03.
CZM 12 During jet plowing, the model results predict that deposition of sediments >1 mm would be confined to within 100 meters of the cable. However, the modeling work assumes the jetplow trench would be 1 meter wide while published field evidence from the Block Island Wind Farm (BOEM 2017-027) indicates that this method leaves a trench 2 meters wide. CZM requests that Vineyard Wind describe why jetplowing for this proposed project would result in half the trench width than has been documented for a similar offshore export cable.
This comment may be confusing trench volume and trench mark. Trench volume is a parameter used in the sediment dispersion modeling, whereas the trench mark is the visible area of disturbance after jet plowing occurs.
The trench volume is an important part of the sediment dispersion modeling. Sediment dispersion modeling takes into consideration the cross-sectional area of the trench from the cable installation equipment, as this is directly related to the volume of sediment that can be introduced into the water column and subsequently dispersed. As noted in the sediment dispersion report included in the SDEIR, Vineyard Wind evaluated two trench cross-sectional areas: a “typical installation” trench that is 2 square meters (1 m wide and 2 m deep) and a “maximum impact”
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-21 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. trench that is 3 square meters (1 m wide and 3 m deep). These values are very similar to what was used for the Block Island project. As noted on page 44 of the study Observing Cable Laying and Particle Settlement During the Construction of the Block Island Wind Farm (OCS Study BOEM 2017-02), the Block Island project modeled a trench cross sectional area of 2.28 square meters:
“Conservative trench dimensions created by the jet plow were calculated to have a cross sectional area of 2.28 square meters. This is based on a surface width of 1.5 meters, a bottom width of 0.6 meter and an average depth of 2.1 meter (RPS ASA 2012). Therefore, for every meter travelled a trench volume of 2.28 cubic meters is created.”
Further, different types of jet-plow equipment can have different trench widths, so the minor variation in anticipated trench widths between the Vineyard Wind Project and the Block Island project is not unexpected. The modeled trench volume for the Vineyard Wind Project is representative, or even conservative, of the specific type of cable installation equipment anticipated to be used for this Project.
A temporary trench mark may be visible upon completion of cable installation. After cable-laying associated with the Block Island project, trench marks (of around 2 m wide) and overspill levees of deposited sediment (located within 1.5 to 7 m from the trench) were observed. The Vineyard Wind sediment dispersion modeling and associated impact calculations very conservatively account for both the trench width, disturbance from tracks or skids, and deposition above 1 mm, which is modeled to typically extend about 80 m from the trench, a far greater distance than what was actually observed during the Block Island project.
CZM 13 During TSHD activities, the modeling depicts a plume of sediment with Total Suspended Solids (TSS) >10 mg/l that is predicted to extend 10 miles from the dredged area while TSS >1,000 mg/l is predicted up to 3 miles away during hopper overflow and dumping. However, the model results shown seem to integrate all of the sediment plume impacts over the entire course of the total days of dredging activity and do not represent what would be present on any given day. Please see the response to MEPA 21.
CZM 14 As stated in the DEIR comment letter, CZM recommends that the modeled results be verified during the actual installation process. The SDEIR suggests that this monitoring activity might include a handheld turbidity meter deployed from a small vessel at various depths during dredging. CZM looks forward to working with Vineyard Wind and the resource agencies on the details of this monitoring program.
Construction-period monitoring, including water quality, is described in Section 2.4.1.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-22 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. CZM 15 CZM discourages the use of armoring due to the detrimental impacts which can include increased scouring of the seafloor adjacent to the hard cover, increased substrate providing a vector for invasive species colonization, and impacts to commercial and recreational fishing operations. CZM instead recommends additional efforts to bury the cable to the appropriate depth or covering the cable with sand bags and gravel/cobble cover, as appropriate to mimic adjacent seafloor conditions.
The Company’s priority will be to achieve sufficient burial depth of the two offshore export cables and to avoid the need for any cable protection. Indeed, selection of Covell’s Beach as the preferred Landfall Site would avoid the need to cross one of the existing Nantucket cables, where cable protection had initially been proposed. Along the remainder of the installation corridor, the Company hopes to avoid and minimize the need for cable protection. As described in Section 4.3.1.4 of the DEIR, it is possible that achieving sufficient burial depth may be unsuccessful in areas where the seafloor is composed of consolidated materials, making complete avoidance of cable protection measures infeasible. In these cases, cable protection (e.g., a layer of rock or concrete “mattresses”) may be necessary. The Proponent will seek to avoid and/or minimize the use of such cable protections, and cable protection will only be used where necessary, thus minimizing potential impacts. Refined impact assessments from cable protection are provided in Section 2.2, and demonstrate that the Company’s technical engineering team has reduced the anticipated width of cable protection from approximately 30 feet (9 m) to approximately 10 feet (3 m), reducing the maximum anticipated impact from 27 acres to 9 acres. Since, as described in Section 2.2.3, cable protection is only anticipated to be necessary (if necessary at all) where the seafloor is composed of consolidated materials, submerged boulders, or stiff clays that would hamper cable burial, scouring is not expected to be a concern and the cable protection would provide hard bottom habitat surrounded by adjacent hard bottom habitat, and therefore would not be expected to affect species colonization.
CZM 16 CZM’s understanding is that the potential dredging estimates were calculated assuming a 65-foot width which, given the above information, would underestimate the volumetric impacts. CZM suggests that for the FEIR Vineyard Wind use field survey data on the height and extent of sand wave areas to provide an updated estimate of the volume of material that will need to be removed from the seafloor to allow for cable laying in sand wave areas.
The dredging estimates presented in the SDEIR and FEIR are intended to be inclusive of sideslopes, with a 65-foot width at the bottom of the trench. Vineyard Wind has evaluated dredging volumes, including sideslopes, using the 2018 survey data, and refined estimates of dredge volume are provided in Tables 2-2 and 2-3. As shown in those tables and discussed in Section 2.2.1, the lower bounds of the
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-23 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. estimated dredge volumes for each route option have been calculated based on 2018 survey data and the preliminary cable alignments; the upper bounds of the estimated dredge volumes include a 20% contingency, reflecting the active morphology of sand wave features and therefore some uncertainty about their actual form at any given time. As shown in Tables 2-2 and 2-3, in almost all cases the estimated dredge volumes have been reduced from the estimates presented in the SDEIR.
CZM 17 At this time, Vineyard Wind has not identified the exact areas where dredged material will be deposited other than to state that hopper dredge spoils will be dumped to the east or west of the dredging area within the 810-meter cable corridor. As CZM stated previously, there should be resource assessment information for each proposed disposal area to ensure that sensitive benthic habitat or fisheries resources are not impacted during this aspect of construction. CZM recommends that Vineyard Wind use its survey data (bathymetry, videos, benthic grabs) in the FEIR to identify potential dredge disposal locations that minimize impacts to benthic resources and to establish areas where dumping will be avoided.
Please see the response to MEPA 18.
CZM 18 Potential dredge disposal areas should be similar in sediment texture and structure as the sites from which the material is dredged (e.g., excavated sand waves should be deposited in a nearby sand wave site). CZM recommends that areas to be dredged and dredge disposal areas be clearly defined in maps, with supporting field data to confirm the mapped units. The FEIR should include all interpreted and raw field data (photos, videos, bathymetry, sidescan, biological and sediment grab samples) and these data should be used to inform this process. In particular, CZM would like to see validation for areas mapped as biogenic structures and cobble or cobble mixes.
Please see the response to CZM 17. Attachment D includes an updated offshore map plan set more comprehensively depicting 2018 survey results; all raw data from the 2018 surveys will be provided to the Massachusetts Ocean Team, which includes the CZM Office.
Regarding validation of areas mapped as biogenic structures and cobble or cobble mixes, please see the response to MEPA 19.
CZM 19 CZM’s previous comments asked for information on monitoring plans related to: ♦ Real-time cable installation effects (turbidity, sediment drape, physical disturbance) so that actual effects can be compared to anticipated effects; ♦ Construction impacts to biogenic habitats, benthic infauna, and/or fisheries resources; ♦ Recovery times of various resources;
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-24 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. ♦ Demonstration of the as-built cable condition to verify the appropriate depth of cable burial; ♦ Demonstration that the cable remains adequately buried over the long-term.
While Vineyard Wind has outlined a monitoring effort to address each of these subjects in the SDEIR, the details regarding specific methods, times of year, frequency, and locations are still to be determined. CZM looks forward to working with Vineyard Wind and the other resource agencies on the details of these monitoring plans and establishing a process for determining if established performance standards have been met.
Construction and post-construction monitoring plans are discussed in Section 2.4. The Company will continue to consult with CZM, DMF, and MassDEP regarding monitoring programs during the permitting process.
CZM 20 CZM’s position is that mitigation for the Vineyard Wind project should be based upon the full extent of the impact of the project including: direct cable laying and dredging area, dredged disposal area, sediment deposition area, and impacts to biota and habitat, as well as permanent hard cover… CZM looks forwards to further discussion with Vineyard Wind and the Secretary’s office on the Ocean Development Mitigation Fee for the FEIR.
The Ocean Development Mitigation Fee is discussed in Section 2.1.3.3. In November and December 2018, the Company consulted with CZM representatives to inform on the fee calculation proposed in Section 2.1.3.3. The proposed OMP fee includes consideration of permanent impacts (including cable protection) and construction-related temporary impacts, as well as consideration of Project benefits and other factors.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-25 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Commonwealth of Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries 251 Causeway Street, Suite 400 Boston, Massachusetts 02114 David E. Pierce, Ph.D. (617) 626-1520 Director fax (617) 626-1509 Charles D. Baker Governor Karyn E. Polito Lieutenant Governor October 3, 2018 Matthew A. Beaton Secretary Secretary Matthew A. Beaton Ronald Amidon Commissioner Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) Mary-Lee King Attn: MEPA Office Deputy Commissioner Purvi Patel, EEA No. 15787 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114
Dear Secretary Beaton: The Division of Marine Fisheries (MA DMF) has reviewed the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report (SDEIR) by Vineyard Wind LLC for the Vineyard Wind Connector project. The proposed cable routes would link the Vineyard Wind offshore wind array and associated cables in federal waters to the onshore Barnstable Switching Station. This letter provides our assessment of the SDEIR and its conclusions regarding how various project alternatives avoid and minimize environmental impacts. The ENF for the Vineyard Wind Connector project was filed December 15, 2017 and the Secretary’s Certificate issued February 9, 2018. In response to the ENF, DMF requested a variety of additional information in the DEIR submission. Our comments included recommendations to communicate with a variety of stakeholders that share the marine and estuarine components of the project area; further discussion of proposed nearshore cable laying alternative sites and methods; and consideration of marine resources potentially impacted by the various cable laying routes and methods, including potential relocation approaches for species with limited mobility (e.g., whelks, surf clams). We also requested more details on potential cable armoring; contingency plans for potential frac-out events associated with HDD; impacts of electromagnetic fields on fisheries resources, and eelgrass and shellfish surveys. Finally, we provided specific requests regarding monitoring data format to ensure compatibility with existing datasets. In our letter to the DEIR, filed June 6, 2018, we requested the filing of a supplemental DEIR since the DEIR lacked sufficient detail to adequately address MA DMF recommendations. The SDEIR, in combination with agency meetings with the proponent, has improved upon the information available to assess alternatives. Since the review of the first Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) in June, the wind farm portion of the project still is in the same location and contains the same number of wind turbine generator (WTG) units (up to 106) configured in a grid layout for the purpose of generating 800 MW of power. The offshore project will be built out to 800 MW in one phase, as opposed to the potential 2 phases originally discussed. The project will install two 220 kV AC offshore transmission cables, as opposed to the original proposal for up to three. Each cable is 10” in diameter. Radial strings of eight to ten WTGs will be connected to a shared offshore
1 Electrical Service Platform (ESP) via inter-array cables. The entire offshore array will be connected to an onshore electrical grid with two 220 kV AC offshore transmission cables installed with up to 100 meter separation between the cables (narrower closer to the Landfall Site). In the DEIR, there were two proposed cable routes: the Eastern and Western Export Cable Corridors, each run from the offshore array north between Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket through Muskeget Channel and continuing north through Nantucket Sound to potential landfall sites at New Hampshire Avenue in the Town of Yarmouth or Covell’s Beach in the Town of Barnstable. The proponent has selected the Western Cable Corridor as the preferred alternative. In the SDEIR, on pages 2-11 and 2-12, the Eastern route is instead described as longer, containing more complex bottom, and therefore requiring more sand wave dredging. Offshore cable installation would be accomplished using jetting, jet-plow, or mechanical trenching. The two potential routes through Muskeget are being maintained – page 1-27 and Table 1-3. The installation of each of the 75 to 80 km offshore submarine cables will require approximately 44 days1 for simultaneous lay and burial and 70 days2 if free lay and post lay burial technique is used, and the cable will be exposed on the seafloor for 30-90 days (as described in follow up to an interagency time of year meeting on 7/24/2018). For either technique there will be some preparatory or advance activities (grapnel run, sand wave dredging) 2-4 weeks before cable laying. The cable laying vessel and its guard vessels follow a pre- identified route at a generally predictable pace of approximately 1 knot. The Project would expect to maintain a “moving” safety exclusion zone (on the order of a 250 m-1 km radius, subject to further input from the USCG) for the simultaneous lay and burial option, and an exclusion zone around any unburied cable for the free lay and post lay burial option. Using probabilistic meteorological modeling, the company defined a weather window of approximately April through September. All work will be done over 24 hour work days. Vineyard Wind proposed starting their work at the beginning of their weather window. For simultaneous lay and burial, cables would be installed in May and June, with shoreward work being done in April. For free lay and burial, cables would be installed in late March and late May, with shoreward work being done in April. The three potential landfall sites identified in the Environmental Notification Form (ENF) filing have since been further reduced to two sites: New Hampshire Avenue in the Town of Yarmouth and Covell’s Beach in the Town of Barnstable. The third potential landfall site, Great Island, was removed due to a variety of obstacles including the presence of coastal dune, barrier beach, and extensive mapped eelgrass habitat as well as rare species and private property concerns. Installation in nearshore waters bordering landfall would be accomplished using horizontal directional drilling (HDD) at the Covell’s Beach site and open trench methods at the New Hampshire Avenue site.
Landfall Alternatives The landfall locations at Covell’s Beach and New Hampshire Avenue are better described and important resources are better identified in the SDEIR than they were in the DEIR. The two landfall alternatives considered in the SDEIR are Covell’s Beach and New Hampshire Avenue. Our focus is on the marine resource impacts of each option, and it appears clear that the Covell’s Beach landing has less marine resource impact. New Hampshire Avenue, within Lewis Bay, will potentially impact shellfish beds, a depuration area, bay scallop habitat, and a mooring field. Also, the Lewis Bay route will require a crossing of the National Grid Nantucket Cable which will likely require
1 For simultaneous lay and bury: 16 working days plus approximately 6 days for a ship board splice for each cable. 2 For free lay and burial: 11 days for lay, 6 days for ship board splice, 18 days for burial for each cable. 2 concrete mattresses (page 1-41). The proponent selected New Hampshire Avenue as the preferred alternative “primarily because its inland transmission route is believed to have less overall impact on existing infrastructure and the built environment, particularly with respect to adjacent residential properties” (page 1-60). To avoid and minimize marine resource impacts, Covell’s Beach is a better choice. The primary potential marine resource conflict for the Covell’s Beach site identified by MA DMF in a previous ENF comment letter was horseshoe crab nesting habitat, but proposed HDD methods would allow this conflict to be avoided. The mitigation options presented for New Hampshire DMF 01 Avenue are feasible, but need to be more fully developed. Avoidance or minimization of impacts to marine resources for the New Hampshire Avenue site would require staging to avoid winter flounder and shellfish spawning seasons as well as cable route micrositing to avoid direct impacts to areas of prime shellfish habitat or high concentrations of shellfish resources. The proponent more clearly described the differences between the HDD and open trench DMF 02 options for landfall at New Hampshire Avenue at a meeting held with DMF on 9/17/2018. A primary limiting factor for HDD at this site is upland space for equipment, and the noise associated with that equipment in a residential neighborhood. There is also a boat ramp proximal to the site. We recommend the FEIR clearly describe potential impacts to boat ramp traffic between the open trench and HDD options. MA DMF’s ENF comment letter recommended both pre- and post-construction shellfish surveys for the Lewis Bay section of the proposed landfall route. Survey design methods and goals are not described. To date, no shellfish surveys have been conducted to site the cable in Lewis Bay in a manner that would minimize impacts to shellfish by avoiding high density shellfish areas. In a meeting with MA DMF and the Town of Yarmouth DMF 03 natural resources department, we discussed more detailed survey work to better delineate shellfish habitat and resources with the zone of potential cable laying and further information from Vineyard Wind regarding the feasibility of micrositing the cable within this zone. Such details should be included in the FEIR. As requested in our ENF and DEIR comment letters, we still seek further definition of eelgrass surveys that have been conducted at both landfall alternatives. Attachment P in the SDEIR describes survey work to delineate eelgrass at Spindle Rock, which was reviewed by MA DMF prior to the survey. Attachment P does not provide additional detail regarding work done at Egg Island. The FEIR should include a comprehensive DMF 04 document describing the methods and results of all eelgrass studies conducted both at Spindle Rock and Egg Island. The report should include the survey dates, include a map with the location of survey lines and/or photo stations, and clearly describe the results. Available historical information (including Cape Wind surveys such as Woods Hole Group 2003), NOAA nautical chart information, and state survey results should be included. Any rooted eelgrass identified in the cable corridor alternatives should similarly be described. The SDEIR includes a 20 mm sediment deposition threshold for impacts to shellfish (e.g., DMF 05 page 1-51) but does not provide any references or written justifications for this threshold. Given that this threshold is used to analyze potential impacts, more information should be provided to explain its relevance. We recommend that a map of Lewis Bay relative to the proposed cable route, indicating DMF 06 the spatial extent of features mentioned in the SDEIR, including mooring areas, shellfish propagation areas, bay scalloping fishing areas, and aquaculture sites, be provided in the FEIR.
3 Offshore Cable Routes & Cable Laying The proponent’s objective is to bury the cable, which is the best way to avoid interactions with fishing gear and to best maintain existing habitat types. In areas where cable protection is needed, either rock or concrete mattresses will be used (page 1-5). Natural rock is the proponent’s preferred choice of cable matting material, since it has less likelihood of resulting in snags of fishing gear (stated during a meeting with MA DMF on 9/17/2018). Rock dumping will result in fairly linear features, 2 feet high off the seafloor with a width of 11.5-29.5 feet (page 1-49). The proponent described that cable matting will require less bottom disturbance than rock coverage in a meeting with MA DMF on 9/17/2018. It is our assumption that natural rock is a better material with respect to compatibility with the surrounding habitat and would result in fewer snags. However, that is an assumption based on very limited evidence (we have one complaint of mobile gear snagging on a concrete mattress used between Block Island Sound and mainland Rhode Island). If the extent of habitat disturbance is substantially less and evidence shows that mobile gear fishing is compatible with concrete mattresses, the mattresses may be a better material. Therefore, the FEIR should use supporting information DMF 07 regarding the compatibility of concrete mattresses with marine resources and fishing activity. Monitoring to assess impact of either method is warranted. For cable burial, we recommend methods that maximize the likelihood of achieving DMF 08 burial depth, keeping the cable buried, minimizing the time the cable is on the seafloor, and minimizing the spatial and temporal extent of safety/operational closures (to other vessel activity) in the vicinity of the cable laying vessel. Cable laying will occur sometime between the spring and fall. The springtime is a very active time of year for marine flora and fauna, the time when the squid fishery occurs, and the start of several other fisheries. During cable-laying activities, vessel activity DMF 09 closures are estimated to be 1 km from the cable laying vessel. Fishermen will be unable to traverse the closure. This could result in significant impacts particularly to mobile gear fishing. Those who are rerouted may incur higher time and fuel expenses. MA DMF recommends utilizing the simultaneous lay and burial method since it is likely DMF 10 to have less impact to the seafloor (this is assumed based on a single handling of the cable, eliminating any potential impact from cable sweep from an unexposed cable). Furthermore, an exposed cable for any length of time during the mobile gear fluke commercial fishery (which opens Apr 23), the mobile gear squid commercial fishery (which opens Apr 23), the fixed gear whelk commercial fishery (which opens Apr 15), the mobile gear surf clam and scup commercial fisheries (open year-round), and active hook and line commercial and recreational fishing, is risky and closures around the cable area will be long and linear and interfere with towing.
Impacts of Cables, Electromagnetic Fields There is minimal discussion of the potential impacts of the cables themselves. We DMF 11 recommend that the FEIR reference the monitoring results associated with the nearby subsea power cables, such as the Nantucket 2nd Cable, the Vineyard cable, the Block Island cable, and the Cross Sound cable in Long Island. The SDEIR information on EMF impacts to marine species (Attachment J) is lacking in DMF 12 detail and does not provide sufficient detail to determine potential effects. A recent study of EMF impacts on Cancer crabs demonstrated both behavioral and physiological effects and actually showed an attraction effect (Scott et al. 2018). Potential effects of cable magnetic fields on the distribution and condition of marine species should be further assessed by the proponent.
4 The FEIR should compare EMF levels modeled in Attachment J to measured values of DMF 13 cables of the same size and type, as well as cables placed locally. In addition to presenting modeled data, measured values should be provided. Attachment J is missing Appendices. The EMF report does not cite any literature DMF 14 substantiating its claims of lack of impact on marine species. The statement in Attachment J “Underground lines produce no aboveground electric DMF 15 fields, so these new 220-kV conductors will not produce any aboveground electric fields. Accordingly, no electric field modeling was performed,” contradicts that of another published report, “The magnetic fields generated by the AC in the cable and the induced electric fields due to the changing magnetic fields are within the detectable range for EM sensitive species” (Gill et al. 2012). In the FEIR discuss the potential for induced electric fields, what the magnitude is, and what the potential for impact to biological resources is.
Fish and Fisheries The SDEIR provides a more comprehensive description of fisheries resources and fishing activity within Nantucket Sound than the DEIR did. The description relies on data products processed in the ocean data portals and landings data, and correctly identifies important fisheries for whelk (Busycon carica and Busycotypus canaliculatus), surf clam/ocean quahog (Spisula solidissima/Arctica islandica), and longfin squid (Doryteuthis pealeii). Because of the type of data used, the SDEIR likely underweights DMF 16 the habitat and commercial values associated with recreationally and commercially caught finfish including bluefish (Pomatomas saltatrix), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), scup (Stenotomus chrysops), summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus), black sea bass (Centropristis striata), and tautog (Tautoga onitis). The SDEIR splits its description of fisheries resources between Sections 1, 3, and 5. While the description of resources and fishing activity is more comprehensive than the DEIR, coherence is lacking. In the FEIR, including a comprehensive Affected DMF 17 Environment section would be helpful. One problem with relying on the regional data analyses in the data portals is that they can mask important local-scale activities, such as state-permitted clamming in Nantucket Sound. “Vineyard has [sic] is actively procuring additional data for areas potentially impacted by the Project, including the waters of Nantucket Sound” (page 5-22). This DMF 18 additional data should be included in the FEIR and the source of the data clearly described. In the Fisheries Resources section 5.4.1, the sea scallop fishery is reported as having landed “an average of 28.9 million pounds, worth an annual average of approximately $276 million.” This statement should be clarified to indicate that these numbers represent DMF 19 only New Bedford, MA landings. The overall scallop fishery landed an average of approximately 49 million pounds, worth an annual average of approximately $455 million. It is important that the impact assessment considers how potential impacts on commercial DMF 20 and recreational fisheries will be evaluated and how information from fisheries stakeholders will be included in project development. The Secretary requested that the SDEIR should include a proposal for a comprehensive DMF 21 monitoring plan that identifies what will be monitored, methodology and frequency of monitoring, development of monitoring reports and distribution of monitoring reports. For fisheries resources, the proponent states that a plan for pre- and post-construction fisheries monitoring is being developed with SMAST this fall. This means that there will be a year or less of pre-construction monitoring data. Therefore, we recommend that in addition to new field initiatives, a study relying on existing data with a longer time series
5 be developed and utilized to assess impact. MA DMF also had an in-person meeting with the fisheries liaison on 9/14/2018, during which we recommended a lobster settlement study focused on the hard bottom habitat in Muskeget Channel for impact assessment. MA DMF is developing additional questions we would like to see studied, and is available to participate in research discussions. The benthic habitat report is improved, and the delineation of hard and complex seafloor DMF 22 is consistent with the state’s definition of hard and complex seafloor. Prior to the FEIR, the data associated with the benthic studies, including bathymetry, sidescan sonar, video, stills, and grab samples, needs to be made available to the MA DMF team in a GIS format to review for seafloor features of interest.
Fisheries Communication Plan and Fisherman Correspondence Overall, the Fisheries Communication Plan v. 6 includes more detailed descriptions of the roles and responsibilities of the Fisheries Liaison and Representative, as well as more detailed information about communications plans than previous versions. Outreach to the fishing communities has been a priority. Documentation of the outreach DMF 23 should be made available publicly and include the numbers of meetings, attendees, and meeting minutes. Near-instantaneous communication of delays in surveying or construction was requested DMF 24 at a Mass Fisheries Working Group meeting. The fisheries communication plan should include this type of communication mechanism (e.g. texting if a weather day happens, daily radio/Facebook/webpage broadcasts and updates). Using high flyer buoys to delineate active and future cable laying areas has been a DMF 25 successful strategy in other projects.
Mitigations for Fisheries Fixed gear fishermen have suggested the use of consistent transit lanes for construction- DMF 26 related vessels during construction to facilitate avoidance of conflicts and minimize or eliminate loss of gear. Vineyard Wind will implement such an approach with the Marine Coordinator and Fisheries Liaison (page 9-10). It would be useful for Vineyard Wind to provide details in the FEIR of how they are evaluating the suggestion and to what extent it may be feasible to use consistent transit lanes for construction vessels. The closure around cable installation activities could adversely impact mobile (especially DMF 27 fluke, squid, and surf clam) and fixed gear (especially whelk) fishermen. This impact will be less in the winter period (November-February) and in the height of summer (July- August). Section 5.4.3 states “As additional information on commercial and for-hire recreational fishing are made available, Vineyard Wind may adjust operating procedures and other practices in an effort to avoid, minimize, and mitigate Project-related impacts to these fishing communities.” The FEIR should specify what type(s) of additional information is DMF 28 expected and how it is being collected, and how Vineyard Wind will notify the commercial and for-hire recreational fleets, as well as management agencies and general public about adjustments to operating procedures. Establishing appropriate compensatory mitigation for gear loss and fishing time lost is DMF 29 still needed. We have identified the whelk fishery and resources as potentially highly vulnerable to DMF 30 cable laying activities. MA DMF had suggested pre-construction removal as a potential approach to minimize impacts to this resource. Dr. Edmundson of the Martha’s Vineyard Preservation Trust, pointed out that baiting the construction area may cause attraction, and therefore result in a higher risk of impact to the whelk resource. Therefore, in the
6 permitting process other mitigation strategies need to be considered and used to understand the potential environmental impacts associated with the export cable. The proponent “is also in ongoing discussions with Town officials and fishermen DMF 31 regarding potential mitigation measures, including a multi-year reseeding program and other supporting measures for Lewis Bay and its fisheries” (page 1-76). MA DMF recommends including representatives of our Shellfish and Habitat Programs in those discussions.
Permitting The proponent should include a Letter of Authorization and/or Scientific Permit needed DMF 32 from MA DMF for surveys and for the pre-lay grapnel run. These permits should be included in the list on page 1-78.
Benthic Monitoring Plan As described in Attachment D, one impact and one control station will be sampled in DMF 33 shell aggregate habitat and pebble cobble habitat, and one impact station in sand habitat. More sites are needed to improve the power with which impact is measured. Further discussion of the appropriate number of sites to test for impact is needed as well as their spatial distribution relative to the cable laying corridor. Towed video is a useful tool for establishing context and we recommend the proponent DMF 34 continue to use it in its benthic resource assessments. However, it is very limited in its capacity for quantitative analysis, in particular in before-after-control impact assessments. We recommend the proponent describe how this data will be quantified and used for impact assessment, or rely on a more quantitative method such as the SPI camera and benthic grabs. Another reliable method for more quantitative data for comparison is a downward looking (plan view) image of the seabed. It will be useful to ask specific questions using the data collected in 2017 and 2018 in an DMF 35 impact assessment manner. For example, focus on whelk egg cases or squid mops.
Time of year restrictions For Nantucket Sound, cable laying in July and August instead of April and May avoids a DMF 36 more sensitive time of year for a wide array of natural resources that are actively reproducing and settling in the springtime. The springtime is also the period of commercial squid activity, which is very active across parts of the cable route. The squid fishery closes on June 10 in state waters and the Nantucket Sound donut hole, which is under state fisheries jurisdiction. Working in the summertime also increases the probability of getting a contiguous six-day weather window. The scheduling provided at the meeting showed cable laying would be complete in July. We recommend aiming to complete cable laying by the end of August. The time of year recommendation for New Hampshire Avenue is January 15-October 30. DMF 37 For Covell’s Beach we have no time of year recommendation for the landfall portion of the project as the proposed HDD approach should avoid any disturbance to horseshoe crab spawning habitat. At Covell’s Beach we would expect the edge of the eelgrass bed to be marked with a buoy to ensure avoidance of the eelgrass by any bottom-tending equipment or anchors.
7 Questions regarding this review may be directed to Dr. Kathryn Ford or Dr. John Logan in our New Bedford office at (508) 742-9749 or (508) 742-9722.
Sincerely yours,
David E. Pierce, Ph.D. Director
cc: Yarmouth Conservation Commission Barnstable Conservation Commission Conrad Caia, Yarmouth Shellfish Constable Karl Van Hone, Yarmouth Director of Natural Resources Dan Horn, Barnstable Shellfish Constable Rachel Pachter, Vineyard Wind Michael Pentony, Sue Tuxbury, NOAA Julia Livermore, RIDEM Bruce Carlisle, Robert Boeri, Todd Callaghan, CZM Brian Hooker, BOEM Tim Timmerman, EPA Ronald Amidon, Richard Lehan, DFG Bill White, CEC Terry O’Neil, Tom Shields, Mike Hickey, Kathryn Ford, Mike Pol, Kelly Whitmore, Erin Burke, Catherine O’Keefe, John Logan, Pooja Potti, MA DMF
References
Gill, A.; Huang, Y.; Spencer, J.; Gloyne-Philips, I. 2012. Electromagnetic Fields Emitted by High Voltage Alternating Current Offshore Wind Power Cables and Interactions with Marine Organisms. Electromagnetics in Current and Emerging Energy Power Systems Seminar, Collaborative Offshore Wind Research into the Environment (COWRIE), London U.K. Scott K, Harsanyi P, Lyndon AR (2018) Understanding the effects of electromagnetic field emissions from Marine Renewable Energy Devices (MREDs) on the commercially important edible crab, Cancer pagurus (L.). Mar Pollut Bull 131:580–588 Woods Hole Group (2003) Cape Wind submerged aquatic vegetation diver survey. 6 pp.
DP/KF/JL/CO/sd
8 MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF MARINE FISHERIES (DMF)
DMF 01 The mitigation options presented for New Hampshire Avenue are feasible, but need to be more fully developed. Avoidance or minimization of impacts to marine resources for the New Hampshire Avenue site would require staging to avoid winter flounder and shellfish spawning seasons as well as cable route micro-siting to avoid direct impacts to areas of prime shellfish habitat or high concentrations of shellfish resources.
Please see the response to MEPA 28 and the discussion of TOY restrictions in Section 3.4. As described in Section 1.1, Covell’s Beach in the Town of Barnstable is now the preferred Landfall Site for the Project and New Hampshire Avenue is the alternative Landfall Site.
DMF 02 The proponent more clearly described the differences between the HDD and open trench options for landfall at New Hampshire Avenue at a meeting held with DMF on 9/17/2018. A primary limiting factor for HDD at this site is upland space for equipment, and the noise associated with that equipment in a residential neighborhood. There is also a boat ramp proximal to the site. We recommend the FEIR clearly describe potential impacts to boat ramp traffic between the open trench and HDD options.
Access to the boat ramp, should the alternative New Hampshire Avenue Landfall Site be utilized, is discussed in Section 2.3.3.
DMF 03 In a meeting with MA DMF and the Town of Yarmouth natural resources department, we discussed more detailed survey work to better delineate shellfish habitat and resources with the zone of potential cable laying and further information from Vineyard Wind regarding the feasibility of micro-siting the cable within this zone. Such details should be included in the FEIR.
Section 2.3.1 describes shellfish resources in Lewis Bay and addresses the August 17, 2018 meeting between the Company, the DMF shellfish team, and Yarmouth natural resource officials. The Company’s engineering team has determined that micro-siting within Lewis Bay to minimize impacts to shellfish resources is feasible so long as the route remains within the minimum bend radius of the offshore export cable. Should the alternative New Hampshire Avenue Landfall Site be selected instead, a future shellfish/habitat survey may be useful during final engineering for the purpose of micro-siting.
DMF 04 The FEIR should include a comprehensive document describing the methods and results of all eelgrass studies conducted both at Spindle Rock and Egg Island. The report should include the survey dates, include a map with the location of survey lines and/or photo stations, and clearly describe the results. Available historical
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-26 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. information (including Cape Wind surveys such as Woods Hole Group 2003), NOAA nautical chart information, and state survey results should be included. Any rooted eelgrass identified in the cable corridor alternatives should similarly be described.
Eelgrass surveys are discussed in Section 2.1.2.
DMF 05 The SDEIR includes a 20 mm sediment deposition threshold for impacts to shellfish (e.g., page 1-51) but does not provide any references or written justifications for this threshold. Given that this threshold is used to analyze potential impacts, more information should be provided to explain its relevance.
The discussion of sediment dispersion modeling within Lewis Bay that is presented in Section 2.3.2 contains the basis for the 20-mm sensitivity threshold for shellfish.
DMF 06 We recommend that a map of Lewis Bay relative to the proposed cable route, indicating the spatial extent of features mentioned in the SDEIR, including mooring areas, shellfish propagation areas, bay scalloping fishing areas, and aquaculture sites, be provided in the FEIR.
A map of Lewis Bay and its features is provided as Figure 2-2.
DMF 07 … [T]he FEIR should use supporting information regarding the compatibility of concrete mattresses with marine resources and fishing activity. Monitoring to assess impact of either method is warranted.
Concrete mattresses are widely used as primary cable protection where sufficient burial depth cannot be achieved. If cable protection is required, assessment of its impacts to marine resources and fishing activity will likely be a component of Vineyard Wind’s post-construction fisheries monitoring program (see Section 3.3).
DMF 08 For cable burial, we recommend methods that maximize the likelihood of achieving burial depth, keeping the cable buried, minimizing the time the cable is on the seafloor, and minimizing the spatial and temporal extent of safety/operational closures (to other vessel activity) in the vicinity of the cable laying vessel.
As described in Section 1.4.1.3 of the SDEIR, the Company’s priority will be to achieve sufficient burial depth of the two offshore export cables. Also, as described in Section 3.3 of the SDEIR, the Company will bury the offshore export cables to a target burial depth of 5 to 8 feet (1.5 to 2.5 meters), and the planned burial depth of the cables for the Vineyard Wind Connector is sufficient to allow continued use of mobile and fixed fishing gear and any other marine activity typical of the region. A post-construction survey will ensure and document cable burial depth, and the export cables will be monitored on a regularly scheduled basis over the life of the Project to ensure that adequate cover is maintained over each cable (see Section
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-27 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. 2.4). If insufficient depth of cover is discovered over any cable segments, the Company would take appropriate actions to either restore the cable to the appropriate burial depth or provide cable protection over the affected area as described above.
DMF 09 During cable-laying activities, vessel activity closures are estimated to be 1 km from the cable laying vessel. Fishermen will be unable to traverse the closure. This could result in significant impacts particularly to mobile gear fishing. Those who are rerouted may incur higher time and fuel expenses.
Temporary safety zones around cable-laying vessels are discussed in Section 2.5. Cable laying will progress along the cable corridor at a rate of 200 to 300 meters per hour and the safety zone will be relocated accordingly, meaning that in practical terms, the safety zone would preclude the activities of vessels in any one area only for a short period of time. Commercial and recreational vessel operators will be notified in advance of cable installation activities, allowing for those vessel operators to plan the most practical route and/or fishing location.
DMF 10 MA DMF recommends utilizing the simultaneous lay and burial method since it is likely to have less impact to the seafloor (this is assumed based on a single handling of the cable, eliminating any potential impact from cable sweep from an unexposed cable). Furthermore, an exposed cable for any length of time during the mobile gear fluke commercial fishery (which opens Apr 23), the mobile gear squid commercial fishery (which opens Apr 23), the fixed gear whelk commercial fishery (which opens Apr 15), the mobile gear surf clam and scup commercial fisheries (open year-round), and active hook and line commercial and recreational fishing, is risky and closures around the cable area will be long and linear and interfere with towing.
Vineyard Wind will continue to prioritize cable burial and is carefully evaluating both the detailed surface and shallow subsurface geology within the offshore export cable corridor and available cable installation tools. Vineyard Wind will select the tool that minimizes environmental impacts and is most suitable for achieving sufficient burial depth along the Offshore Export Cable Corridor and will prioritize the least environmentally impactful cable installation alternatives that are practicable for each segment of cable installation, which is expected to be a simultaneous lay-and-bury tool within state waters and all of Nantucket Sound. TOY restrictions are discussed in Section 3.4.
DMF 11 There is minimal discussion of the potential impacts of the cables themselves. We recommend that the FEIR reference the monitoring results associated with the nearby subsea power cables, such as the Nantucket 2nd Cable, the Vineyard cable, the Block Island cable, and the Cross Sound cable in Long Island.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-28 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. An initial discussion of magnetic fields from submarine power cables was provided Section 4.3.6.5 of the DEIR; the supporting modeling analysis of the Project’s offshore export cables was provided as Attachment F to the DEIR, and an updated modeling analysis of magnetic fields was provided in Attachment J of the SDEIR. These analyses were prepared by Gradient Corporation, and the principal Gradient scientists for this work were Dr. Peter Valberg and Dr. Chris Long, both having extensive experience with modeling and analysis of electric and magnetic fields. The revised EMF report included in the SDEIR updated magnetic field calculations based on the Project’s two-cable configuration, and included the proposed eight- sleeve design of the onshore duct bank. Section 10 of the SDEIR also included information on magnetic field considerations (see specifically MEPA 31, CZM 11, NHESP 04, and NHESP 05).
With respect to monitoring results from other cables, the DEIR included the Project’s summary of an extensive BOEM-sponsored study of potential EMF-related impacts to lobsters and skates. The in-ocean elements of the March 2018 study were conducted in Long Island Sound using a marine species enclosure placed over the operating Cross Sound Cable (two HVDC cables with a reported total capacity of 330 MW, 25 miles in length, New Haven Connecticut to Shoreham on Long Island). The BOEM study reported measured magnetic field levels ranging from 51.6 micro-Tesla (uT) to 65.3 uT, with corresponding cable loads ranging from near zero to full load. For perspective, 1 uT equals 10 milligauss (mG), so the measured levels were 516 mG to 653 mG, an order of magnitude higher than the predicted 44.5 mG level for the Vineyard Wind Connector’s offshore export cables at a two- meter burial depth. As noted in the DEIR, that study did not detect any harm caused to the animals, and detected only subtle changes in activity when organisms were exposed to EMF from a submarine high-voltage direct current (HVDC) cable.
With respect to DMF’s request for measured magnetic field levels from nearby subsea cables, the Project has examined several power cables in Massachusetts waters. These include the 46-kV Nantucket Cable 1, the 46-kV Nantucket Cable II, and the 35-kV Martha’s Vineyard Hybrid Cable (power and fiber optic data cables). The Nantucket cables have been in operation for more than a decade, while the Vineyard Cable was installed several years ago. The Company is not aware of any publicly available EMF measurements for the Nantucket Cables nor the Vineyard Cable. The Company has, however, conducted magnetic field modeling for the Nantucket cables and the Martha’s Vineyard Hybrid Cable. This modeling yielded maximum seafloor levels in the range of 10 to 30 mG. For comparison, the corresponding level for the Project’s cables at a two-meter burial depth is 44.5 mG (see the response to DMF 12 for an explanation of how this modeling is conservative).
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-29 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. More recently, National Grid completed installation of the 20-mile “sea2shore” cable from the Rhode Island mainland to Block Island. This 34.5-kV buried submarine cable has a capacity of approximately 30 MW, and was designed and constructed in association with Deepwater’s 30-MW Block Island Wind project. The March 2018 BOEM study discussed above (lobsters and skates) also took field measurements of magnetic fields associated with the Block Island sea2shore cable. Measured magnetic field levels were in the range of 0.05 to 0.3 uT or 0.5 to 3 mG. The BOEM study (page xiv) also observes that these measured magnetic field levels were roughly 10 times lower than the modeled levels, indicating that the three- conductor twisted design for this 34.5-kV cable achieves significant self- cancellation. Load data during the Block Island field measurements were not provided.
Please see the responses to DMF 13 for additional information on this specific question and the responses to DMF 12, DMF 14 and DMF 15 for related information.
DMF 12 The SDEIR information on EMF impacts to marine species (Attachment J) is lacking in detail and does not provide sufficient detail to determine potential effects. A recent study of EMF impacts on Cancer crabs demonstrated both behavioral and physiological effects and actually showed an attraction effect (Scott et al. 2018). Potential effects of cable magnetic fields on the distribution and condition of marine species should be further assessed by the proponent.
The Project has reviewed an online draft manuscript of the paper entitled “Understanding the effects of electromagnetic field emissions from “Marine Renewable Energy Devices (MREDs) on the commercially important edible crab, Cancer pagurus (L)”. The paper was published in the May 2018 issue of the Marine Pollution Bulletin, and the work was carried out at St. Abbs Marine Station and Heriot Watt University in Scotland. The abstract reads as follows:
“The effects of simulated electromagnetic fields (EMF), emitted from sub-sea power cables, on the commercially important decapod, edible crab (Cancer pagurus), were assessed. Stress related parameters were measured (L- Lactate, D-Glucose, Haemocyanin and respiration rate) along with behavioural and response parameters (antennular flicking, activity level, attraction/avoidance, shelter preference and time spent resting/roaming) during 24-hour periods. Exposure to EMF had no effect on Haemocyanin concentrations, respiration rate, activity level or antennular flicking rate. EMF exposure significantly disrupted haemolymph L-Lactate and D-Glucose natural circadian rhythms. Crabs showed a clear attraction to EMF exposed shelter (69%) compared to control shelter (9%) and significantly reduced their time spent roaming by 21%. Consequently, EMF emitted from Marine
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-30 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Renewable Energy Devices (MREDs) will likely affect edible crabs both behaviourally and physiologically, suggesting that the impact of EMF on crustaceans must be considered when planning MREDs.”
Notwithstanding the concluding sentence of the abstract, the cancer crab study design is such that the results are simply not relevant to the offshore export cables proposed for the Vineyard Wind Connector. More specifically, the study used electric solenoid magnets, powered by a variable power supply, to create magnetic fields. At full power, this setup created a magnetic field of 40 milli Tesla (mT) (Section 2.1.1 of the paper). The testing was repeated at a lower field strength of 2.8 mT to “correspond to the expected, although highly variable, levels on the surface of a subsea cable.” The lower field strength of 2.8 mT is 28,000 mG. In stark contrast, the modeled seafloor magnetic field levels directly above the centerline of a Vineyard Wind offshore export cable are 162.9 mG at a one-meter burial depth and 44.5 mG at a two-meter burial depth. At a lateral distance of 20 feet from the cable centerline, the modeled magnetic field levels fall to ~5 mG.
Since magnetic field levels used in the referenced study were on the order of 200 to 600 times higher than the maximum seafloor levels expected for the buried offshore export cables for the Vineyard Wind Connector, the Company does not believe the crab study results are relevant to the Project.
Furthermore, the maximum modeled seafloor magnetic field levels directly above the cable centerline are conservative in two respects. First, the modeling is done at 100% of the rated output of the wind turbine generators. In reality, the Project is expected to operate at an annual average capacity factor of approximately 45%, meaning that average power flow (amps) will be about half of the modeled current. Magnetic fields strength is proportional to current flow, thus the average magnetic field strength will be about one-half of the modeled level. Similarly, the calculations do not reflect the reduction in magnetic fields arising from the steel wire armoring on the export cables. Relevant literature indicates that the partial shielding provided by this heavy wrap will reduce modeled magnetic field levels by 50%. Taken together, the actual average seafloor magnetic field level is expected to be about one-quarter of the modeled maximum (i.e., for a two-meter burial depth, ~11 mG versus the modeled level of 44.5 mG).
DMF 13 The FEIR should compare EMF levels modeled in Attachment J to measured values of cables of the same size and type, as well as cables placed locally. In addition to presenting modeled data, measured values should be provided.
Attachment J to the SDEIR is the Revised EMF Modeling Report prepared by Gradient Corporation, a subconsultant to Epsilon Associates. The principal Gradient scientists for this work were Dr. Peter Valberg and Dr. Chris Long; both having extensive experience with modeling and analysis of electric and magnetic fields.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-31 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. The revised EMF report included in the SDEIR updated magnetic field calculations based on the selected two-cable configuration, including the revised eight-sleeve design of the onshore duct bank. The SDEIR also included information on magnetic field considerations in Section 10, Response to Comments (see specifically MEPA 31, CZM 11, NHESP 04, and NHESP 05).
The DEIR included the initial EMF Modeling Report as Attachment F, and a discussion of modeled magnetic field levels in the context of marine species was provided in Section 4.3.6.5 of the DEIR. This section included the Project’s summary of an extensive BOEM-sponsored study of potential EMF-related impacts to lobsters and skates. As noted in the DEIR, that study did not detect any harm caused to the animals, and detected only subtle changes in activity when exposed to EMF from a submarine HVDC cable. The in-ocean elements of the March 2018 study were conducted in Long Island Sound using a marine species enclosure placed over the operating Cross Sound Cable (two HVDC cables with a reported total capacity of 330 MW, 25 miles in length, New Haven Connecticut to Shoreham on Long Island). The BOEM study reported measured magnetic field levels ranging from 51.6 uT to 65.3 uT; with corresponding cable loads ranging from near zero to full load. For perspective, 1 uT equals 10 mG, so the measured levels were 516 mG to 653 mG, considerably higher than the predicted 44.5 mG level for the Vineyard Wind Connector’s offshore export cables at a two-meter burial depth.
With respect to DMF’s request for measured magnetic field levels from cables of the same size and type, as well as cables placed locally, the Project has examined several power cables in Massachusetts waters. These include the 46-kV Nantucket Cable 1, the 46-kV Nantucket Cable II, and the 35-kV Martha’s Vineyard Hybrid Cable. The Nantucket cables have been in operation for more than a decade, while the Vineyard Cable was installed several years ago. More recently, National Grid completed installation of the 20-mile “sea2shore” cable from the Rhode Island mainland to Block Island. This 34.5-kV buried submarine cable has a capacity of approximately 30 MW; and was designed and constructed in association with Deepwater’s 30-MW Block Island Wind project. As an aside, the BOEM study discussed above also took field measurements of magnetic fields associated with the Block Island sea2shore cable, and measured magnetic field levels were in the range of 0.05 to 0.3 uT (or 0.5 to 3 mG). The BOEM study (page xiv) also observes that these measured magnetic field levels were ~10 times lower than the modeled levels, indicating that the three-conductor twisted design for this 34.5-kV cable achieves significant self-cancellation. Load data during the Block Island field measurements were not provided.
There are a few older power cables to the Vineyard, but they were laid directly on the seafloor and thus are not comparable to the buried cables. There is also an existing buried submarine power cable across Boston Harbor; but the cable is
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-32 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. several decades old and uses a fluid-filled design; this cable will be replaced by the 115-kV solid dielectric HEEC cable, currently in late-stage permitting. The Company is not aware of any other submarine electrical transmission cables in Massachusetts waters.
The Vineyard Wind Connector includes two 220 kV AC submarine export cables, each with a capacity to deliver approximately 400 MW. While 220 kV AC submarine cables are used routinely for offshore wind energy projects in Europe, the Vineyard Wind Connector will be the first such installation in the United States. The existing submarine cables in Massachusetts waters are lower voltage and with lower power ratings than the cables that will be used by Vineyard Wind. For example, the Nantucket cables are 46 kV with a capacity of approximately 35 MW each.
As has been previously explained, seafloor magnetic field levels from power cables are primarily a function of current (amperage) and burial depth. Higher voltage cables can move a given level of power at a lower amperage than a lower voltage cable. Magnetic field modeling conducted by the Company for the Nantucket cables and the Martha’s Vineyard Hybrid Cable yielded maximum seafloor levels in the range of 10 to 30 mG. For comparison, the corresponding level for the Project cable at a two-meter burial depth is 44.5 mG (see the response to DMF 12 for an explanation of how this modeling is conservative). Finally, as noted in the SDEIR (page 10-55), the Company is not aware of any formal studies of potential magnetic field effects from operating power cables in Nantucket Sound, nor is the Project team aware of any anecdotal or observed evidence indicating that the existing cables are having a deleterious effect on marine life.
DMF 14 The EMF report does not cite any literature substantiating its claims of lack of impact on marine species.
Please see the responses to DMF 12 and DMF 13. These responses discuss results of the two most recent studies on EMF and marine life. The cancer crab study describes some effects on the subject species, but at magnetic field levels on the order to 200 to 600 times higher than expected from the Project’s buried cables. The 2018 BOEM study of two sensitive species (America lobster and skate) concludes that “the EMF associated with the Cross Sound Cable (CSC) did not constitute a barrier to movements across the cable for either skates or lobsters.” The study does observe that the subject lobsters exhibited a “statistically significant but subtle change in behavioral activity when exposed to EMF of the HVDC cable, which operated at a constant power of 330 MW” (full load). In comparison to the control enclosure, skates in the treatment enclosure “traveled further but at a slower speed with an increased proportion of large turns which suggested an increase in exploratory behavior and/or area restricted foraging behavior”. Of necessity, the study used cages or enclosures for the in-situ elements. As described on page 73 of
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-33 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. the study, the enclosures measured approximately 5 m by 3.7 m by 2.4 m (~44 cubic meters). The study includes a discussion of the limitations of an enclosure- style study versus a free-ranging tracking study on page 141.
With this as background, and recognizing that skates and lobsters are mobile creatures in the open ocean, it is the Company’s opinion that the key finding of this study is “the EMF associated with the Cross Sound Cable (CSC) did not constitute a barrier to movements across the cable for either skates or lobsters.” Finally, as discussed in the response to DMF 13, the measured magnetic field levels in the BOEM study were 516 mG to 653 mG, an order of magnitude higher than the predicted 44.5 mG level for the Vineyard Wind Connector’s proposed offshore export cables at a two-meter burial depth.
DMF 15 The statement in Attachment J “Underground lines produce no aboveground electric fields, so these new 220-kV conductors will not produce any aboveground electric fields. Accordingly, no electric field modeling was performed,” contradicts that of another published report, “The magnetic fields generated by the AC in the cable and the induced electric fields due to the changing magnetic fields are within the detectable range for EM sensitive species” (Gill et al. 2012). In the FEIR discuss the potential for induced electric fields, what the magnitude is, and what the potential for impact to biological resources is.
The Company stands by the statement made in Attachment J of the SDEIR, which is a summary statement aimed at contrasting the electric fields, or the lack thereof, from underground transmission as opposed to electric fields associated with above- ground electric transmission lines. The EFSB has long-established guidelines for edge of ROW electric (and magnetic) fields. The EFSB guideline for edge of ROW electric field strength is 1.8 kV/m; this guideline is aimed at keeping electric field levels at essentially historical levels. The International Commission on Non- Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) has established a health-protective guideline level of 4.2 kV/m (general public, continuous exposure).
The March 2018 BOEM study included field measurements of both magnetic and electric fields in the immediate vicinity of the HVDC Cross Sound Cable and the 600-MW HVDC Neptune submarine cable (Sayreville, New Jersey to Newbridge Road substation on Long Island). The BOEM report provides results for three separate days of field measurements (April 28, 2016, 16-amp maintenance current only); May 9, 2016 (no current); and May 3, 2016 (345-amp current, approximately 30% of rated power). The report does not explain why measurements were taken when the line was not operating.
The results for the 30% load case are summarized on pages 32 and 33 of the report. As can be seen on the graphic presented on page 33, the peak electric field measured directly over the buried cable is just less than 0.001 V/m (the graphic has
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-34 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. a vertical axis of 0 to 1 V/m, but with a 10-3 notation at the upper left corner). The EFSB guideline, expressed in the same units, is 1,800 V/m. In other words, the study is reporting a measured electric field level which is less than 0.0000006 of the EFSB guideline. It is unclear what was being measured and reported, but it is clear that the reported electric field is vanishingly small and in the opinion of our EMF experts would have no effect on marine life.
DMF 16 Because of the type of data used, the SDEIR likely underweights the habitat and commercial values associated with recreationally and commercially caught finfish including bluefish (Pomatomas saltatrix), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), scup (Stenotomus chrysops), summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus), black sea bass (Centropristis striata), and tautog (Tautoga onitis).
No single dataset provides a comprehensive overview of all commercial or recreational fisheries in any one geographic area. Characterization of commercial fishing activity based on Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) data available through the ocean data portals may not, for example, provide information about all species and fisheries that could be active in any one area, as not all fisheries require the use of VMS. These data products, however, convey important spatial and temporal information that is otherwise not publicly available. Because the data visualization products do not provide information on certain species, landings data from federal Vessel Trip Reports (VTRs) and Massachusetts Trip-Level Reports (MATL) were presented in Table 5.4-2 and Table 5.4-3 of the SDEIR to provide a comprehensive overview of the value of each commercial fishery (including the species referenced in DMF 16) active within the two Statistical Reporting Areas (SRAs) through which the cable corridor crosses. The Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP), NOAA’s publically accessible recreational fisheries dataset, aggregates data at state- level and is not useful for characterizing recreational fishing activity at the spatial scale of the cable corridor.
DMF 17 In the FEIR, including a comprehensive Affected Environment section would be helpful.
Wetlands impacts have been updated and are presented in Section 2.2; the affected fisheries environment is described in Section 3.1.2.
DMF 18 One problem with relying on the regional data analyses in the data portals is that they can mask important local-scale activities, such as state-permitted clamming in Nantucket Sound. “Vineyard has [sic] is actively procuring additional data for areas potentially impacted by the Project, including the waters of Nantucket Sound” (page 5-22). This additional data should be included in the FEIR and the source of the data clearly described.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-35 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. As noted in DMF 16, the ocean data portals are intended to be used at a regional- scale and do not provide a comprehensive overview of all commercial or recreational fisheries, particularly at the small spatial scale of the cable corridor. To augment the publicly accessible data from the portals, and to provide a robust assessment of potentially local-scale fishing activities in Nantucket Sound, Vineyard Wind submitted a data request to NOAA for VTRs that reported fishing activities within the cable corridor and a 1 km “buffer zone.” NOAA has only recently stated that they are unable to complete the cable corridor data request as wind energy area analysis remains an unfunded priority.
DMF 19 In the Fisheries Resources section 5.4.1, the sea scallop fishery is reported as having landed “an average of 28.9 million pounds, worth an annual average of approximately $276 million.” This statement should be clarified to indicate that these numbers represent only New Bedford, MA landings. The overall scallop fishery landed an average of approximately 49 million pounds, worth an annual average of approximately $455 million.
Between 2007 and 2016, annual average sea scallop landings in Massachusetts have been approximately 28.9 million pounds, with an annual average value of approximately $276 million.1 The majority of Massachusetts sea scallop landings occur at the Port of New Bedford.
Between 2007 and 2016, the entire U.S. sea scallop fishery harvested an annual average of approximately 49 million pounds, worth an annual average of approximately $455 million. While these figures accurately portray the Massachusetts sea scallop fishery, these landings are not confined to the area of the Company’s proposed Project and, indeed, based on VMS data the majority of sea scallop vessel activity occurs well outside the Vineyard Wind Lease Area.
DMF 20 It is important that the impact assessment considers how potential impacts on commercial and recreational fisheries will be evaluated and how information from fisheries stakeholders will be included in project development.
Baseline data in federal and state waters covering all potential impact areas (including commercial and recreational fisheries, regardless of jurisdiction) were included in the COP. The COP is periodically updated at the direction of BOEM; the most current public version can be found at https://www.boem.gov/Vineyard- Wind/. BOEM will also include additional impact analysis in its Draft and Final
1 NOAA Fisheries, Fisheries Statistics Division. 2018.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-36 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. EISs. Incorporation of information from fisheries stakeholders will be included in the framework for pre-, during, and post-construction fisheries monitoring program to measure the Project’s effect on fisheries resources.
DMF 21 The Secretary requested that the SDEIR should include a proposal for a comprehensive monitoring plan that identifies what will be monitored, methodology and frequency of monitoring, development of monitoring reports and distribution of monitoring reports. For fisheries resources, the proponent states that a plan for pre- and post-construction fisheries monitoring is being developed with SMAST this fall. This means that there will be a year or less of pre-construction monitoring data. Therefore, we recommend that in addition to new field initiatives, a study relying on existing data with a longer time series be developed and utilized to assess impact. MA DMF also had an in-person meeting with the fisheries liaison on 9/14/2018, during which we recommended a lobster settlement study focused on the hard bottom habitat in Muskeget Channel for impact assessment. MA DMF is developing additional questions we would like to see studied, and is available to participate in research discussions.
Fisheries resources, including monitoring efforts, are discussed in Section 3.0. The Company welcomes DMF’s continuing participation as the Project moves through permitting, construction, and operation.
DMF 22 The benthic habitat report is improved, and the delineation of hard and complex seafloor is consistent with the state’s definition of hard and complex seafloor. Prior to the FEIR, the data associated with the benthic studies, including bathymetry, sidescan sonar, video, stills, and grab samples, needs to be made available to the MA DMF team in a GIS format to review for seafloor features of interest.
The Company has committed to providing the Massachusetts Ocean Team (which includes DMF) with raw data from the 2018 surveys, and is currently compiling data in a format to complete this transfer. On December 4, 2018, the Company met with DMF and CZM representatives to closely review survey results.
DMF 23 Outreach to the fishing communities has been a priority. Documentation of the outreach should be made available publicly and include the numbers of meetings, attendees, and meeting minutes.
Vineyard Wind hired its first Fisheries’ Representative in 2011. Since then, Vineyard Wind has worked with regional fishermen to develop a comprehensive lists of fishing industry leaders, key organizations, and other fishermen. This effort was critical in developing the Company’s ongoing dialogue with the fishing industry and helped to identify key concerns, provide feedback, and gather fishery data and data resources.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-37 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Recognizing the importance of the whelk and lobster fisheries in state waters, ongoing communication and coordination with these fishermen includes:
♦ Mailings regarding planned survey activity using the DMF permit list;
♦ Notification of survey work through the DMF list serve;
♦ A meeting on Cape Cod specific to this fishery and another one on Martha’s Vineyard where project details and planning were discussed; and
♦ Continuous communication with the Massachusetts Lobstermen’s Association and the Martha’s Vineyard Fishermen Preservation Trust who are understood to represent a substantial portion of this fishery.
Specific coordination, feedback, and planning with this group includes:
♦ Requested information on upcoming Project activities so fixed gear can avoid project survey and construction vessels; and
♦ If gear is snagged during surveys or construction, buoy colors, permit lists, and ongoing consultations with the fishermen will be used to help to ensure proper follow-up from the Company. This is further discussed in the Fishery Communication Plan and in Section 3.0 of the FEIR.
The Fisheries Representative has played an integral role in representing the interests of the fishing community to Vineyard Wind as the project is being developed. The Fisheries Representatives will continue those efforts throughout the construction and installation process to ensure effective communication between the Project and the fishermen. While Fisheries Representatives are compensated for their time and expenses by the Project, their duty is to the fishing region, industry, organization, gear-type, or sector they represent. There is more than one Fisheries Representative providing input to the Company at any time, given the diverse nature of the fisheries in the project area. The Company’s current official FRs include:
♦ New Bedford Port Authority;
♦ Massachusetts Lobsterman’s Association;
♦ Martha’s Vineyard Fishermen Preservation Trust;
♦ New Bedford Seafood Consulting;
Additional informal FRs work with the project to pass information to fishermen and from fishermen to the project.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-38 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. In addition to the official FR roles, several organizations and working groups provide direct access to fishermen and have been active disseminating information and providing feedback throughout the development of the project. These include, but are not limited to:
♦ Massachusetts Fisheries Working Group;
♦ Rhode Island Fisheries Advisory Board;
♦ Massachusetts Department of Marine Fisheries; and,
♦ Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management
Vineyard Wind also employs a full time Fisheries Liaison representing the project and coordinating with the Fisheries Representatives and other groups and individual fishermen.
Vineyard Wind has had hundreds of individual and group meetings and discussions over the last few years and commits to continuing its communications throughout permitting, construction, and operation. With respect to publishing the specifics of the outreach efforts, Vineyard Wind has found that information shared with developers from fishermen can be considered sensitive by fishermen, fishing groups, or other fisheries interests. To that end, the Company is reluctant to provide the level of detail requested by DMF in this document so as not to dissuade any fishermen or fishing groups from continuing to provide or disseminate information. However, Vineyard Wind would be happy to provide appropriate additional information to DMF.
DMF 24 Near-instantaneous communication of delays in surveying or construction was requested at a Mass Fisheries Working Group meeting. The fisheries communication plan should include this type of communication mechanism (e.g. texting if a weather day happens, daily radio/Facebook/webpage broadcasts and updates).
The Company appreciates the DMF recommendations for features of its Fisheries Communication Plan. The Company will incorporate this type of communication into its next version of the Fisheries Communication Plan, and will continue to consult with DMF officials on the features of that plan.
DMF 25 Using high flyer buoys to delineate active and future cable laying areas has been a successful strategy in other projects.
Please see the response to MEPA 24.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-39 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. DMF 26 Fixed gear fishermen have suggested the use of consistent transit lanes for construction related vessels during construction to facilitate avoidance of conflicts and minimize or eliminate loss of gear. Vineyard Wind will implement such an approach with the Marine Coordinator and Fisheries Liaison (page 9-10). It would be useful for Vineyard Wind to provide details in the FEIR of how they are evaluating the suggestion and to what extent it may be feasible to use consistent transit lanes for construction vessels.
Transit lanes for construction vessels are discussed in Section 2.5.1.
DMF 27 The closure around cable installation activities could adversely impact mobile (especially fluke, squid, and surf clam) and fixed gear (especially whelk) fishermen. This impact will be less in the winter period (November-February) and in the height of summer (July- August).
Vineyard Wind held two meetings with state and federal agencies to address the timing of cable installation and potential TOY restrictions. Consideration of the safe operational conditions for cable laying vessels and the need to provide power at a competitive rate by January 2022 has led Vineyard Wind to identify the period of April-June as the preferred offshore export cable installation timeframe. Additional details on TOY are provided in Section 3.4.
DMF 28 The FEIR should specify what type(s) of additional information is expected and how it is being collected, and how Vineyard Wind will notify the commercial and for- hire recreational fleets, as well as management agencies and general public about adjustments to operating procedures.
The Project’s Fisheries Liaison and Fisheries Representatives will remain engaged with fisheries stakeholders throughout the life of the Project. It is anticipated that feedback from that engagement process will provide information about operating procedures and other practices which will inform efforts to avoid, minimize, and mitigate Project-related impacts to fishing communities. The Fisheries Communication Plan (provided as Attachment G of the SDEIR) describes how Vineyard Wind will notify the commercial and for-hire recreational fleets, as well as management agencies and general public about adjustments to operating procedures.
DMF 29 Establishing appropriate compensatory mitigation for gear loss and fishing time lost is still needed.
Compensatory mitigation for gear loss and fishing time lost is discussed in Section 3.5.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-40 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. DMF 30 We have identified the whelk fishery and resources as potentially highly vulnerable to cable laying activities. MA DMF had suggested pre-construction removal as a potential approach to minimize impacts to this resource. Dr. Edmundson of the Martha’s Vineyard Preservation Trust, pointed out that baiting the construction area may cause attraction, and therefore result in a higher risk of impact to the whelk resource. Therefore, in the permitting process other mitigation strategies need to be considered and used to understand the potential environmental impacts associated with the export cable.
Vineyard Wind recognizes the importance of the local whelk fishery and the potential impacts of cable installation on this species and the associated commercial fishery. During the permitting process Vineyard Wind will work with federal and state agencies as well as whelk fishery stakeholders to ensure that cable installation activities minimize impacts to this resource.
DMF 31 The proponent “is also in ongoing discussions with Town officials and fishermen regarding potential mitigation measures, including a multi-year reseeding program and other supporting measures for Lewis Bay and its fisheries” (page 1-76). MA DMF recommends including representatives of our Shellfish and Habitat Programs in those discussions.
The Company has had joint discussions with Yarmouth officials and the DMF shellfish and habitat programs regarding avoidance and mitigation strategies, and will continue to engage DMF in these discussions should the alternative New Hampshire Avenue Landfall Site be pursued. Mitigation associated with shellfishing in Lewis Bay is discussed in Section 2.3.1
DMF 32 The proponent should include a Letter of Authorization and/or Scientific Permit needed from MA DMF for surveys and for the pre-lay grapnel run. These permits should be included in the list on page 1-78.
Table 1-2 identifies the anticipated permits, reviews, and approvals required for the Project.
DMF 33 As described in Attachment D, one impact and one control station will be sampled in shell aggregate habitat and pebble cobble habitat, and one impact station in sand habitat. More sites are needed to improve the power with which impact is measured. Further discussion of the appropriate number of sites to test for impact is needed as well as their spatial distribution relative to the cable laying corridor.
Although five general monitoring sites are defined in Table 1 of the Benthic Habitat Monitoring Plan (see Attachment F), text on page 2 explains that two monitoring sites of each habitat type will be sampled for a total of 10 monitoring sites within the impact area, plus 3 control sites. Impacted monitoring sites (those within the
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-41 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Project area) will be selected using a stratified random sampling design based on habitat type, which will be inferred using data from baseline surveys conducted in 2016, 2017, and 2018. Sampling at each monitoring site consists of a systematic grid scheme (see Figure 3 of the Plan), which includes multibeam depth sounding, continuous underwater video along and across the cable, and 9 benthic grab stations (with 3 replicate samples per grab station [red square in Figure 3], for a total of 27 grab samples) or sediment profile imaging (SPI) stations. A total of 18 benthic grab stations with 27 individual grab samples at each station (or SPI if successful grabs cannot be taken in the pre-construction survey) will be collected in each habitat type (flat sand near scour protection in federal waters, flat sand along cable corridor, shell aggregate, pebble cobble, mobile sand layer), which allows for sufficient power in detecting change in benthic richness and diversity before and after impact.2 In addition, although only one control site per habitat type will be sampled, each site consists of the same systematic design as the impact sites and consists of a multibeam transect, 4 underwater video transects, and 9 benthic grab sample stations. Thus, over the 13 proposed monitoring sites, there will be a total of 351 grab samples (13 sites * 9 sample locations per site * 3 replicates per sampling location), 52 video transects, and 13 multibeam areas of coverage collected for monitoring.
DMF 34 Towed video is a useful tool for establishing context and we recommend the proponent continue to use it in its benthic resource assessments. However, it is very limited in its capacity for quantitative analysis, in particular in before-after- control impact assessments. We recommend the proponent describe how this data will be quantified and used for impact assessment, or rely on a more quantitative method such as the SPI camera and benthic grabs. Another reliable method for more quantitative data for comparison is a downward looking (plan view) image of the seabed.
Underwater video will be used to make visual comparisons and assess presence of habitat and organisms. Enumeration of organisms per area captured on video and summary statistics of the resulting density data will be calculated. Video surveys have been used successfully for monitoring studies and are an efficient way to capture densities of species with patchy or sparse distributions.3 As described in the response to DMF 33, benthic grabs will be implemented at 9 stations in each of the
2 Franco, A., Quintino, V., Elliott, M. 2015. Benthic monitoring and sampling design and effort to detect spatial changes: a case study using data from offshore wind farm sites. Ecological Indicators 57: 298– 304. 3 (1) Noble-James, T., Jesus, A., McBreen, F. 2017. Monitoring guidance for marine benthic habitats. JNCC Report No. 598. JNCC, Peterborough. (2) Karatayev, A.Y., Mehler, K., Burlakova, L.E., Hinchey, E.K., Warren, G.J. 2018. Benthic video image analysis facilitates monitoring of Dreissena populations across spatial scales. Journal of Great Lakes Research 44: 629-638.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-42 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. 13 monitoring and control sites; these will be used in conjunction with video surveys to capture both infaunal and epifaunal densities. An SPI camera may also be used in areas where successful benthic grabs cannot be collected or where otherwise deemed appropriate. Data from grab and/or SPI samples will be enumerated in the lab and used to calculate ecological parameters such as species richness and diversity of infauna.
DMF 35 It will be useful to ask specific questions using the data collected in 2017 and 2018 in an impact assessment manner. For example, focus on whelk egg cases or squid mops.
Data collected in 2017 and 2018 will be utilized to define the areas where the five different general habitat types presented in Table 1 of the Benthic Habitat Monitoring Plan are present. Once these areas have been determined, the two different monitoring sites within each of the five main habitat types will be randomly selected to ensure statistical robustness. One of the primary purposes of the benthic habitat monitoring survey will be to assess the recovery of the overall habitat and associated benthic community. This will be accomplished through a combination for the monitoring methodologies listed in Section 4 of the Benthic Habitat Monitoring Plan. Additionally, it is expected that the benthic habitat monitoring will provide information on whelk egg cases and squid mops. Underwater video will be used to enumerate and qualitatively assess presence and distribution of features, such as whelk egg cases and squid mops.
DMF 36 For Nantucket Sound, cable laying in July and August instead of April and May avoids a more sensitive time of year for a wide array of natural resources that are actively reproducing and settling in the springtime. The springtime is also the period of commercial squid activity, which is very active across parts of the cable route. The squid fishery closes on June 10 in state waters and the Nantucket Sound donut hole, which is under state fisheries jurisdiction. Working in the summertime also increases the probability of getting a contiguous six-day weather window. The scheduling provided at the meeting showed cable laying would be complete in July. We recommend aiming to complete cable laying by the end of August.
Project construction and TOY restrictions are discussed in Section 3.4.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-43 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. DMF 37 The time of year recommendation for New Hampshire Avenue is January 15- October 30. For Covell’s Beach we have no time of year recommendation for the landfall portion of the project as the proposed HDD approach should avoid any disturbance to horseshoe crab spawning habitat. At Covell’s Beach we would expect the edge of the eelgrass bed to be marked with a buoy to ensure avoidance of the eelgrass by any bottom-tending equipment or anchors.
Project construction and TOY restrictions are discussed in Section 3.4. As described in Section 1.1, Covell’s Beach is now the preferred Landfall Site for the Project. With regard to avoiding eelgrass resources offshore from the Covell’s Beach Landfall Site, Vineyard Wind discovered and fully surveyed the area, and has incorporated full avoidance of that area into its design plans. Vineyard Wind will either mark the eelgrass bed with a buoy or will provide the Contractor with electronic coordinates to ensure avoidance and will consult with DMF regarding the necessity of a physical buoy offshore.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-44 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. October 5, 2018
Matthew A. Beaton, Secretary Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Attention: MEPA Office Purvi Patel, EEA No. 15787 100 Cambridge St. Boston, Massachusetts 02114
Project Name: Vineyard Wind Connector Proponent: Vineyard Wind LLC Location: Cable connection (from offshore wind project within federal waters) through Massachusetts waters northerly through Nantucket Sound to New Hampshire Ave, Yarmouth or Covell’s Beach, Barnstable with onshore underground cables to Barnstable Switching Station. Project Description: Utility – Transmission Cables from offshore Wind Energy Generation Document Reviewed: Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report EEA File Number: 15787 NHESP Tracking No.: 17-37398
Dear Secretary Beaton:
The Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program of the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife (the Division) has reviewed the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report (SDEIR) for the proposed cable connection through Massachusetts waters northerly through Nantucket Sound to New Hampshire Avenue (Yarmouth) or Covell’s Beach (Barnstable) as well as onshore underground cables to a new Barnstable Substation. The proposed cable connection will facilitate a proposed 800 MW offshore wind project within federal waters. The Division would like to offer the following comments regarding state-listed species and their habitats.
The Division understands that renewable energy sources, such as wind power, would reduce the Commonwealth’s reliance upon fossil fuels and is projected to be a necessary component of a future, sustainable energy portfolio. However, wind power can have unintended impacts, particularly upon avian species and, as a result, requires comprehensive planning and adaptive management to avoid, minimize and mitigate these potential impacts.
Components of Vineyard Wind Connector will occur within areas mapped as Priority Habitat and Estimated Habitat for state-listed species, including Piping Plover (Threatened), Roseate Tern (Endangered), Common Tern (Special Concern), and Least Tern (Special Concern) according to the 14th Edition of the Massachusetts Natural Heritage Atlas. The Piping Plover and Roseate Tern are also listed as Threatened and Endangered, respectively, pursuant to the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA, 50 CFR 17.11). These species and their 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 rare wildlife provisions of the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act and its implementing regulations (WPA, 310 CMR 10.37, 10.58(4)(b) and 10.59). Vineyard Wind Connector will require a direct filing with the Division for compliance with the MESA and rare species provisions of the WPA.
As outlined in the SDEIR, the Proponent continues to evaluate the landfall sites and underground NHESP 01 transmission routes. As previously acknowledged, the landing site at New Hampshire Avenue ( Yarmouth), its route including variants thereof and the switching station - appear to avoid mapped Priority Habitat and Estimated Habitat for state-listed species. However, the Division would like to highlight that Variant 3 (Bike Path) may traverse the Division’s Hyannis Ponds Wildlife Management Area. Should this Variant be pursued by the Proponent, additional and early coordination with the Division’s Chief of Wildlife Lands will be necessary.
The SDEIR acknowledges that the landfall location utilizing Covell’s Beach (Barnstable) intersects mapped habitat for Piping Plover. The Proponent has continued to proactively consult with the Division regarding this site and has provided additional information regarding the Horizontal Direction Drill (HDD) installation process, site utilization, and related details. As outlined in Section 5.2, the Division NHESP 02 recommends that the noise regime relative to the HDD begin in advance of April 1, or not begin until after August 31, in order to avoid and minimize impacts to this species during the breeding season. The Proponent has committed to ensuring that, if this route is utilized, it will adhere to this time of year restriction (Section 5.2.1).
The Proponent has refined details on sediment dispersion, turbidity, anchoring, cable protection and potential impacts from dredging associated with cable installation and methodologies thereof, which now provides a more quantitative approach to evaluating potential effects. As outlined in the SDEIR, the project has reduced the number of proposed offshore cables from three to two. The Proponent has provided supplemental information relative to secondary impacts (e.g. electromagnetic fields (EMF) and heat from the cables) and their anticipated impacts on benthic organisms, particularly Sand Lance – a critical prey resource for state-listed terns. According to the information provided to date, and as previously included in the DEIR (Section 4.3.6.5), “…the magnetic field at the seabed would be expected to be weak and likely only detectable by demersal species,” suggesting that Sand Lance and their eggs may be affected by EMF. The modeling provided in the SDEIR indicates that the depth to which the cable is buried is a key factor for reducing EMF. Therefore, as acknowledged in the SDEIR and as recommended by the Division, the Proponent is working with DMF to incorporate Sand Lance into the Benthic Habitat Monitoring Plan to the extent feasible. The Division will continue to evaluate these impacts as they relate to state-listed tern species and looks forward to providing comments on the Benthic Habitat Monitoring Plan.
Any work within Priority Habitat will require a filing with the Division for compliance with the MESA. The NHESP 03 Division will not render a final decision until the MEPA review process and associated public and agency comment period is completed, and until all required MESA filing materials are submitted by the proponent to the Division. As the MESA review is not complete, no work associated with the proposed project shall occur until the Division has made a final MESA determination.
The Division would like to stress that a large proportion of the North American Roseate Tern population is reliant upon Massachusetts for nesting. In addition, the largest Roseate Tern breeding colony in New York annually (spring and fall) travels through federal waters to Massachusetts for staging in advance of migrating south for the winter. Because a large proportion of the North American population is likely to travel within and through the Vineyard Wind Lease Area, and given the regional importance of Massachusetts to nesting, feeding and staging Roseate Terns, wind turbines have the potential to increase risks to Roseate Terns and other state-listed avian species (e.g., Common Tern, Least Tern and Piping Plover).
The Proponent provided the avian sections of the Construction and Operations Plan (COP) for Division review and comment; the COP was prepared for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) permitting of the Wind Development Area in federal waters pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Recently, the Proponent submitted to the Division supplemental information documenting the results of a boat-based avian surveys (focusing on state and federally-listed species during spring migration) within the Wind Development Area. The survey results confirmed that terns, including Roseate Terns, utilize the Wind Development Area during spring migration. The Division anticipates providing additional comments and recommendations on the wind development project through the NEPA process.
As thoroughly outlined in the SDEIR, the Proponent has proposed a comprehensive strategy for NHESP 04 avoiding, minimizing and mitigating potential impacts to marine mammals associated with cable (state) and the Wind Turbine Generator (federal) installations. Given the likelihood of impacts to avian species associated with the Wind Turbine Generator installation, and given that the Vineyard Wind Lease Area represents only a portion of a larger lease area, the Division believes that a similar approach is warranted relative to listed avian species.
The Division appreciates recent conversations with the Proponent regarding potential measures to avoid NHESP 05 and minimize impacts to state-listed species, including a conceptual approach for long-term monitoring and adaptive management. However, the Division is concerned that impacts to state- and federally- protected Roseate Tern and other listed avian species associated with the entire Vineyard Wind project have not been adequately addressed within either the COP or the SDEIR. As stated in the Division’s June 8, 2018 response to the DEIR, the Division again requests that the Proponent submit a comprehensive plan to avoid and minimize impacts to state- and federally-listed avian species. We also request that the Proponent develop a mitigation plan to address unavoidable impacts to avian species resulting from the wind energy development.
We recommend that the Proponent continue proactive consultations with the Division in advance of NHESP 06 future MEPA and NEPA submittals, and we look forward to working with the Proponent to develop a comprehensive, adaptive strategy for state- and federally-listed avian species that addresses all components of the Vineyard Wind project.
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,
Thomas W. French, Ph.D. Assistant Director
cc: Holly Carlson Johnston, Epsilon Associates, Inc. Yarmouth Board of Selectmen Yarmouth Conservation Commission Yarmouth Planning Department Barnstable Board of Selectmen Barnstable Conservation Commission Barnstable Planning Department DEP Southeast Regional Office, MEPA Jason Zimmer, District Manager, MassWildlife Southeast District Office Trina Moruzzi, Assistant Director of Operations, MassWildlife Elizabeth Wroblicka, Chief of Wildlife Lands, MassWildlife
MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE, NATURAL HERITAGE & ENDANGERED SPECIES PROGRAM (NHESP)
NHESP 01 As outlined in the SDEIR, the Proponent continues to evaluate the landfall sites and underground transmission routes. As previously acknowledged, the landing site at New Hampshire Avenue (Yarmouth), its route including variants thereof and the switching station - appear to avoid mapped Priority Habitat and Estimated Habitat for state-listed species. However, the Division would like to highlight that Variant 3 (Bike Path) may traverse the Division’s Hyannis Ponds Wildlife Management Area. Should this Variant be pursued by the Proponent, additional and early coordination with the Division’s Chief of Wildlife Lands will be necessary.
The Proponent acknowledges this requirement. At this time, Variant 3 is being maintained as a workaround on the alternative onshore route from New Hampshire Avenue. As described in Section 1.1, Covell’s Beach is now the preferred Landfall Site.
NHESP 02 As outlined in Section 5.2, the Division recommends that the noise regime relative to the HDD begin in advance of April 1, or not begin until after August 31, in order to avoid and minimize impacts to this species during the breeding season. The Proponent has committed to ensuring that, if this route is utilized, it will adhere to this time of year restriction (Section 5.2.1).
As described in Section 5.2.1 of the SDEIR, HDD activities at the Covell’s Beach Landfall Site will begin in advance of April 1, or will not begin until after Labor Day, in order to avoid and minimize noise impacts to Piping Plover during the breeding season.
NHESP 03 Any work within Priority Habitat will require a filing with the Division for compliance with the MESA. The Division will not render a final decision until the MEPA review process and associated public and agency comment period is completed, and until all required MESA filing materials are submitted by the proponent to the Division. As the MESA review is not complete, no work associated with the proposed project shall occur until the Division has made a final MESA determination.
Please see the response to NHESP 06. Section 4.3 provides an update on the status of NHESP consultations, and a MESA Checklist is provided as Attachment I.
NHESP 04 As thoroughly outlined in the SDEIR, the Proponent has proposed a comprehensive strategy for avoiding, minimizing and mitigating potential impacts to marine mammals associated with cable (state) and the Wind Turbine Generator (federal) installations. Given the likelihood of impacts to avian species associated with the
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-45 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Wind Turbine Generator installation, and given that the Vineyard Wind Lease Area represents only a portion of a larger lease area, the Division believes that a similar approach is warranted relative to listed avian species.
Avian species, including potential impacts and mitigation measures, are discussed in Section 4.2.
NHESP 05 The Division appreciates recent conversations with the Proponent regarding potential measures to avoid and minimize impacts to state-listed species, including a conceptual approach for long-term monitoring and adaptive management. However, the Division is concerned that impacts to state- and federally-protected Roseate Tern and other listed avian species associated with the entire Vineyard Wind project have not been adequately addressed within either the COP or the SDEIR. As stated in the Division’s June 8, 2018 response to the DEIR, the Division again requests that the Proponent submit a comprehensive plan to avoid and minimize impacts to state- and federally-listed avian species. We also request that the Proponent develop a mitigation plan to address unavoidable impacts to avian species resulting from the wind energy development.
Section 4.2 discusses avian species, including potential impacts and mitigation measures. As described in Section 4.2, the Company has recently selected the largest commercially-available Wind Turbine Generator and now anticipates that only 84 positions will be occupied (down from up to 100). Reducing the number of turbines proposed in federal waters will result in a related reduction of rotor-swept area and reduction of the total number of lights required for FAA requirements, thus reducing potential avian impacts. In addition, the Company is planning to use a radar-activated aircraft warning lighting system, ADLS, which will significantly reduce potential lighting-related impacts to avian resources (see Section 4.2 for additional details).
NHESP 06 We recommend that the Proponent continue proactive consultations with the Division in advance of future MEPA and NEPA submittals, and we look forward to working with the Proponent to develop a comprehensive, adaptive strategy for state- and federally-listed avian species that addresses all components of the Vineyard Wind project.
Section 4.2 discusses avian species, including potential impacts and mitigation measures. On November 16, 2018, the Company met with NHESP representatives to ensure that impacts to rare species from export cable installation are avoided or minimized to the greatest extent practicable. Section 4.3 provides an update on the status of NHESP consultations.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-46 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. MHC 01
MHC 02 MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION (MHC)
MHC 01 A hard copy of the complete COP should be submitted to MHC for review and comment by the project proponent or engineer.
A hard copy of the COP was provided to the MHC in September 2018.
MHC 02 The draft archaeological reports for the terrestrial and marine aspects of the project should be submitted to the MHC for review and comment as they are completed.
For terrestrial archaeology, a reconnaissance-level survey final report was provided to MHC on September 18, 2018 responding to MHC’s comments on a previous draft submitted in June 2018. MHC also issued an archaeological permit for an intensive-level survey on September 28, 2018, and the survey on the substation site was completed on November 2, 2018. A survey report, in which the archaeology consultant PAL recommends no further testing, is being drafted and will be submitted to MHC in late December 2018 or January 2019.
The Company’s marine archaeology consultant, Gray & Pape, is still in the process of acquiring data collected during the Project’s 2018 marine geophysical and geotechnical surveys. The analysis is ongoing, and when a draft archaeological report for marine aspects of the Project is complete, it will be submitted to MHC for review and comment.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-47 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. BUAR 01
BUAR 02 BOARD OF UNDERWATER ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BUAR)
BUAR 01 BUAR notes that the marine and inter-tidal archaeological survey components of this project in state waters, as described in Section 7 Cultural Resources, are being conducted under Special Use Permit No 17-003 issued to Gray & Pape, Inc. This was not noted in the DEIR or SEIR and must be noted in the FEIR.
MBUAR Special Use Permit 17-003, issued to the Company’s marine archaeology consultant, Gray & Pape, Inc., was recently renewed to allow the Company to complete its data interpretation and reporting responsibilities. This permit is noted in Table 1-2.
BUAR 02 Given the potential for heretofore-unknown submerged cultural resources to be encountered during the curse of the project, the Board expects that the project’s sponsor will take steps to limit adverse effects and reminds the proponent that any unanticipated discovery protocol (“inadvertent find protocol” within state waters must be in accordance with BUAR’s Policy Guidance for the Discovery of Unanticipated Archaeological Resources. In such an event, BUAR as well as BOEM must be consulted.
The Company acknowledges this requirement. Section 7.2 of the SDEIR discussed the Project’s inadvertent find protocol.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-48 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. 3225 MAIN STREET • P.O. BOX 226 BARNSTABLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02630 CAPE COD (508) 362-3828 • Fax (508) 362-3136 • www.capecodcommission.org COMMISSION Via Email
October 4, 2018 Matthew A. Beaton, Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) Attn: MEPA Office, Purvi Patel, Project Analyst 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114
Re: Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report EEA No. 15787 Vineyard Wind Connector (Commission Project No. 17026)
Dear Secretary Beaton:
The Vineyard Wind offshore wind project provides an opportunity to significantly advance the Commonwealth's renewable energy and greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals and policies through delivering up to 800 MW of wind-generated power to the New England energy grid, providing clean energy for an estimated 400,000 homes and businesses. According to the materials submitted by Vineyard Wind LLC as part of the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report, the Vineyard Wind offshore wind project is anticipated to increase the reliability of the electric grid, including during times of peak demand.
After MEPA review concludes, the Connector project will require Development of Regional Impact (DRI) review by the Commission. Commission staff reviewed the SDEIR with regards to the resources and values identified by the Cape Cod Commission Act and the Cape Cod Regional Policy Plan. Specific issue areas that are anticipated to be addressed by the Commission during DRI review include, but are not limited to, those outlined herewith.
Commission staff expects that Vineyard Wind LLC will ultimately bring forth a Vineyard Wind Connector project for DRI review that takes into account Cape Cod's special characteristics, which is in the best interests of both the Cape Cod region and the Commonwealth, and minimizes impacts to the Cape Cod region's natural resources; terrestrial, coastal, and marine ecosystems; water quality; natural resource-dependent economy; biodiversity; community health and well-being; historic and maritime character; transportation systems; and infrastructure to the greatest extent possible.
Further, through MEP A review, Commission staff expects that the proponent will continue to refine the cable route and will have continued discussions with the respective Towns regarding a host agreement.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide the attached comments on the above-referenced SDEIR. Cape Cod Commission staff are available and would be happy to answer any questions you might have.
Sincerely,
Kristy Senatori Executive Director cc: Project File Holly Carlson Johnston, Epsilon Associates Inc. via email Elizabeth Jenkins, Director, Planning & Development, Town of Barnstable via email Karen Greene, Director, Community Development, Town of Yannouth via email Barnstable Cape Cod Commission Representative via email Yarmouth Cape Cod Commission Representative via email Sandwich Cape Cod Commission Representative via email Brewster Cape Cod Commission Representative via email
Page 2 of6 Cape Cod Commission Staff Comments Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report - EEA No. 15787 Vineyard Wind Connector (Commission Project No. 17026) Date Comments Submitted: October 4, 2018
Under DRI review, the Commission ultimately determines whether the probable benefit of a proposed development is greater than its probable detriment. However, more specifically, the Commission also determines whether a proposed development is consistent with applicable goals, standards and practices from the Cape Cod Regional Policy Plan ("RPP").
In order to determine consistency with the RPP, the Commission will review the Vineyard Wind Connector project ("Project") relative to applicable RPP goals, standards, and practices including those related to the following issue areas: water resources, wildlife and plant habitat, wetlands, coastal resources, marine resources, open space, recreation, transportation, economic development, heritage preservation, and community character.
Commission staff has reviewed the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report ("SDEIR") and provides the following comments relative to the RPP:
• The Preferred and Noticed Alternative Routes for onshore cable installation are proposed to extend through Wellhead Protection Areas as identified by the RPP. The proposed Hyannis substation is also located in a Wellhead Protection Area.
• The substation will require storage and use of significant amounts of dielectric coolant and lubricants at the CCC 01 station site. The Proponent is investigating the potential use of biodegradable dielectric oil; if proposed, additional information would be needed to determine whether the fluid is deemed a "hazardous material" as defined in the RPP, and thus whether the fluid exceeds hazardous materials limits. The Proponent is presently CCC 02 offering containment to address potential material releases at the substation; use of materials ultimately deemed "hazardous materials" may require fmiher mitigation under the RPP. Commission staff will conduct a detailed Spill Prevention Control and Countenneasures Plan review when the final cable route is determined, which should be prepared and provided by the Proponent.
• The RPP also sets f01ih standards for addressing stormwater runoff and erosion & sediment control during construction. Commission staff will conduct a detailed review of the revised Stormwater Management Report for the proposed substation for consistency with the RPP during DRI review, which should provide details for stormwater management during construction and the post-construction conditions.
• For the land-based cable routes, both the Preferred and Noticed Alternative Routes are located within paved CCC 03 surfaces or within established utility easements or the railroad ROW. Commission staff does not anticipate adverse impacts to natural resources based on either of these proposed installation routes, provided Best Management Practices ("BMPs") are employed during construction. The Proponent will be requested to provide such proposed BMPs for DRI review.
• Some of the variant routes would involve Article 97 conversions to allow for installation of the cable. These alternatives should be avoided, if possible; if unavoidable, the Proponent will be required to mitigate for the CCC 04 loss of protected open space lands.
• The Proponent should conduct a Natural Resources Inventory ("NRI") for the substation site, because that site CCC 05 is presently wooded and undisturbed, and submit it for DRI review, to assist the Commission in determining whether wetlands, rare species habitat, or other sensitive resources are present on the site and might be impacted by proposed development. Commission staff would encourage the proponent to site the proposed substation on previously disturbed land to the greatest extent feasible.
Page 3 of6 • The ocean-based cable routes located within state jurisdictional waters are proposed to be installed by directional drilling or open trench construction in the near-shore areas. The Proponent proposes to make the landfall connection at New Hampshire Avenue with a 30 ft wide by 215 ft long cofferdam. The offshore cable installations will be installed underground by jet-plow or mechanical plow or trenching. The impacts from these methods appear to be 6 feet wide and 6 feet deep, or less. The SDEIR indicates that eelgrass surveys conducted in July 2018 have identified eelgrass resources, as well as rocky and complex ocean floor (hard/complex bottom) in the vicinity of Covell' s Beach, and that the western cable route has been modified to avoid these resources. Both of the proposed routes within the Cape Cod jurisdictional area appear to have avoided mapped CCC 06 sensitive resources, but there is still the potential for impacts to shellfish, finfish, and benthic organisms. During DRI review of the Project, the Proponent should demonstrate that impacts to marine resources have been avoided or minimized, including through cable siting, routing, and installation methods.
• In addition, DRI review will consider the cumulative impacts of the proposed cable installation together with CCC 07 existing development within the Nantucket Sound Ocean Resource Area. The Proponent should provide some analysis of the cumulative impacts to address this review standard.
• Given the material presented in the SDEIR, and other inventory and analysis provided to-date, it appears to CCC 08 Commission staff that there are fewer potential impacts associated with the western/Covell's Beach route. This route is sho1ter overall, thus impacting less ocean-floor resources. The HDD installation proposed will minimize impacts to multiple resources through this section of the route and allow for a smaller area of impact at the beach landing. The land-based route from this landing to the substation site would be located entirely under existing roads, or within ROWs, minimizing the need for work within undisturbed areas.
• It also appears that, based on the materials submitted to-date, there would be less of an impact on nearshore CCC 09 commercial fishing and fisheries resources with the western/Covell's Beach route.
• The landfall site at Covell's Beach is mapped rare species habitat for the federally endangered Piping Plover. CCC 10 Proposed directional drilling at this location would avoid impacts to potential bird nesting areas, though timing of construction to avoid plover nesting season will be impmtant.
• The Project may also adversely affect habitat of Roseate, Common, and Least Terns. Commission staff will CCC 11 look for guidance from DMF and NHESP in determining the adequacy of the Project design to avoid and mitigate impacts to rare species, marine mammals, and other sensitive marine resources.
• The Proponent has proposed to retain the existing wooded buffer along the southern and pait of the eastern gravel substation yard boundaries, to help screen the proposed substation. The Proponent proposes to construct a screening wall/fence where space constraints preclude a wider wooded/vegetated buffer. Though the substation is proposed adjacent to an existing substation and within an industrial zoning district, the zoning district allows for and is improved with a variety of uses and development, including multi-family residential development that is becoming more prevalent in the vicinity of the proposed substation. The Proponent should CCC 12 fmther investigate oppmtunities to design the substation site to be more compatible with and sensitive to the variety of uses and development within the area of the substation, including the referenced residential uses and development. For example, the Proponent might incorporate a more substantial buffer of native vegetation around the perimeter of the gravel substation yard into its site design, including along the nmtheast corner, to minimize adverse visual impacts to existing or planned multi-family residential developments in close proximity to the substation, and to further mitigate for noise. Th~ Proponent might also consider constructing the fence along the edge of the gravel substation yard, inside the vegetated buffer, rather than placing the fence outside the vegetated buffer, to further reduce visual impacts. The Proponent should provide more detailed landscaping and wall/fence details during DRI review.
• The Project should be designed to minimize impacts to Cape Cod's economy, which is integrally linked to CCC 13 coastal and ocean resources, from seasonal tourism to fisheries-dependent businesses. While the SDEIR states that onshore construction will take place off-season, which will reduce impacts to land-based tourism and
Page 4 of6 transp01iation during the summer months, Commission staff will be looking for additional specificity on the timing of landing site, nearshore, and offshore Project stages and potential associated impacts to: terrestrial, avian, and marine species, and their associated habitats; marine-based tourism; shellfishing resources and operations; recreational, charter, and commercial fishing; and coastal recreation, including swimming, boating, fishing tournaments, and sailing races. The SDEIR outlines some of the species-specific time of year restrictions that are being reviewed relative to cable installation and indicates that the Proponent is convening a series of meetings with State and Federal officials to address the timing of exp01i cable installation. Commission staff recommend careful timing of Project stages to minimize impacts, to the greatest extent CCC 14 possible, to Cape Cod's species, habitats, and resource-dependent economy. Commission staff would recommend restricting development activities at the landing site, near the Cape Cod shoreline, and in Muskeget Channel during July and August, when the use of these areas for many of the resource-dependent economic activities outlined above are highest. Depending on the landing site selected, additional time of year restrictions related to shellfishing and/or sensitive species will need to be incorporated into the timing of Project stages. Muskeget Channel is an active navigational route between Mmiha's Vineyard and Nantucket for Cape Cod's recreational, chmier, and commercial fishermen, including trips through the narrow channel at night and in low visibility conditions to reach fishing grounds; the navigation route and safe passage unhindered by construction equipment during high-use times of year should be factored into Project staging.
• Commission staff will look for guidance from DMF, and the Proponent should include a more detailed plan for CCC 15 post-construction fisheries monitoring, to include long-term monitoring of species important to Cape Cod's recreational, chatier, and commercial fisheries, both inshore and offshore.
• Wherever existing infrastructure, such as roads, sidewalks, and street trees, are impacted, they should be CCC 16 repaired or replaced to the same or better condition. Where a Town identifies a planned infrastructure project, such as installation of a sidewalk or multi-use path, that overlaps with the proposed work, all reasonable effotis should be made to come to a mutually beneficial work approach that forwards the interests of both parties. This has been successful in the region in the past where underground utility work has left a graded surface suitable for and consistent with plans for future installation of a multi-use path.
• In considering the onshore routes, variants thereof, and the location of ductbanks along those routes, the CCC 17 following should be considered: minimizing conflicts with existing utilities and future maintenance of those utilities; accommodating the potential for future utility placement within roadway layout; where feasible, advancing regional and local effotis to improve and extend sidewalks and multi-use paths; and minimizing traffic disruption.
• With the above considerations in mind, Commission staff has identified specific examples of locations where CCC 18 minor deviations from the ductbanks footprint, as currently shown, may better align with regional interests. For example, the Town is in the process of advancing a project to bring additional sidewalks to the alternative route which includes Attucks Lane; an alternate ductbank placement along Attucks Lane could be considered if that route variant is followed. The current plans indicate trenching along the planted median and appears to impact street trees. If the ductbank were located to the south of the roadway surface, it would provide an opp01iunity to extend sidewalk on p01iions that currently have only an unpaved shoulder and may minimize traffic disruption. A similar approach could be considered on Independence Drive. Commission staff are available to fmiher discuss such details in consultation with the relevant municipality.
• Additional details in terms of construction period traffic management may be required when a final route CCC 19 variant is determined; Commission staff will review futiher traffic management plan information during DRI review.
• The Proponent should bring fotih a proposal for DRI review that demonstrates how natural, historic, CCC 20 archaeological, and cultural resources, both on land and underwater, will be preserved during cable installation and substation construction, including through the establishment of construction best practices.
Page 5 of6 • The proposed Offshore Wind Industry Energy Accelerator Fund and the Windward Workforce Program are anticipated to provide a significant investment in job training and career development programs in pminership with educational institutions and organizations in the region - including Cape Cod Community College and Mass Maritime Academy - to develop a highly-qualified local workforce for positions associated with the Vineyard Wind offshore wind energy project. In addition, the proposed Resiliency and Affordability Fund will support low-income rate-payers and fund distributed battery energy storage projects that will enhance the resiliency of coastal communities. The Proponent is requested to provide additional information regarding the CCC 21 oppo1iunities that will be available to Cape Cod specifically through the Offshore Wind Indust1y Energy Accelerator Fund, the Windward Workforce Program, and the Resiliency and Affordability Fund. The Commission will also be interested in fmiher details about the host community agreement; Commission staff will make themselves available to the Town should they request assistance in reviewing the details of a host agreement.
Page 6 of6 CAPE COD COMMISSION (CCC)
CCC 01 The substation will require storage and use of significant amounts of dielectric coolant and lubricants at the station site. The Proponent is investigating the potential use of biodegradable dielectric oil; if proposed, additional information would be needed to determine whether the fluid is deemed a "hazardous material" as defined in the RPP, and thus whether the fluid exceeds hazardous materials limits.
Vineyard Wind is actively investigating the possible use of biodegradable dielectric fluid for the main transformers, and will utilize such fluids if their use is safe and feasible. The Company has engaged the major suppliers in discussion for the use of “environmentally-friendly” dielectric fluid in components where it is feasible. The initial response has been that the use of this type of dielectric fluid in the main transformers may be likely possible, but confirmation of experience with transformers of this size (450MVA) still requires validation. It would also be expected that the tapped changed reactors could also utilize the environmentally friendly dielectric fluid. Vineyard Wind has not been able to confirm any experience with the use of this oil in the factory-sealed harmonic filter capacitors. It does not appear such a request has been made to the industry, since these factory- sealed components which contain relatively small quantities of dielectric fluid (e.g., 4-8 gallons/unit) do not have a history of failure. Regardless of the fluid used, the Company has agreed to provide containment under these units. Additional information will be provided during the Development of Regional Impact (DRI) process with the CCC.
CCC 02 The Proponent is presently offering containment to address potential material releases at the substation; use of materials ultimately deemed "hazardous materials" may require further mitigation under the RPP. Commission staff will conduct a detailed Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan review when the final cable route is determined, which should be prepared and provided by the Proponent.
A Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan (SPCC plan) for construction will be part of the DRI review. An operations-specific SPCC plan for the substation will likely not be ready for the DRI process, but CCC review of such a plan could certainly be a condition of the DRI approval.
CCC 03 For the land-based cable routes, both the Preferred and Noticed Alternative Routes are located within paved surfaces or within established utility easements or the railroad ROW. Commission staff does not anticipate adverse impacts to natural resources based on either of these proposed installation routes, provided Best Management Practices ("BMPs") are employed during construction. The Proponent will be requested to provide such proposed BMPs for DRI review.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-49 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Construction BMPs will be described during the DRI process, and were also described in Section 9 of the DEIR.
CCC 04 Some of the variant routes would involve Article 97 conversions to allow for installation of the cable. These alternatives should be avoided, if possible; if unavoidable, the Proponent will be required to mitigate for the loss of protected open space lands.
The Company is seeking Article 97 authorization for a subsurface easement under Covell’s Beach. The Project will not result in the permanent loss of any protected open space lands. Article 97 applies to the Covell’s Beach Landfall Site and is discussed in Section 1.4. The Project will improve the recreational value of the Covell’s Beach area by providing funds to construct a new bathhouse for beach users and by repaving the parking lot, which is on the town’s list as a priority for capital improvements.
CCC 05 The Proponent should conduct a Natural Resources Inventory ("NRI") for the substation site, because that site is presently wooded and undisturbed, and submit it for DRI review, to assist the Commission in determining whether wetlands, rare species habitat, or other sensitive resources are present on the site and might be impacted by proposed development. Commission staff would encourage the proponent to site the proposed substation on previously disturbed land to the greatest extent feasible.
A Natural Resources Inventory (NRI) will be included in the DRI application submitted for the Project. While a portion of the substation site is currently wooded, it is surrounded by developed properties consistent with its use – the former Cape Cod Times printing facility is located to the west, the existing Barnstable Switching Station is located to its north, an overhead transmission ROW is located to its east, and Independence Drive is located to its south.
CCC 06 Both of the proposed routes within the Cape Cod jurisdictional area appear to have avoided mapped sensitive resources, but there is still the potential for impacts to shellfish, finfish, and benthic organisms. During DRI review of the Project, the Proponent should demonstrate that impacts to marine resources have been avoided or minimized, including through cable siting, routing, and installation methods.
The DRI will provide a discussion of how impacts to marine resources have been avoided and minimized. Fisheries resources are discussed in Section 3 of this FEIR, while other marine resources (e.g., marine mammals and avian resources) are addressed in Section 4. Section 2 contains a detailed discussion of seafloor habitats and potential impacts.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-50 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. CCC 07 In addition, DRI review will consider the cumulative impacts of the proposed cable installation together with existing development within the Nantucket Sound Ocean Resource Area. The Proponent should provide some analysis of the cumulative impacts to address this review standard.
Cumulative impacts will be a subject of discussion during the DRI process.
CCC 08 Given the material presented in the SDEIR, and other inventory and analysis provided to-date, it appears to Commission staff that there are fewer potential impacts associated with the western/Covell's Beach route. This route is shorter overall, thus impacting less ocean-floor resources. The HDD installation proposed will minimize impacts to multiple resources through this section of the route and allow for a smaller area of impact at the beach landing. The land-based route from this landing to the substation site would be located entirely under existing roads, or within ROWs, minimizing the need for work within undisturbed areas.
The Covell’s Beach Route is now the preferred route for the Project, as described in Section 1.1.
CCC 09 It also appears that, based on the materials submitted to-date, there would be less of an impact on nearshore commercial fishing and fisheries resources with the western/Covell's Beach route.
The Covell’s Beach Route is now the preferred route for the Project, as described in Section 1.1.
CCC 10 The landfall site at Covell's Beach is mapped rare species habitat for the federally endangered Piping Plover. Proposed directional drilling at this location would avoid impacts to potential bird nesting areas, though timing of construction to avoid plover nesting season will be important.
Please see the response to NHESP 02.
CCC 11 The Project may also adversely affect habitat of Roseate, Common, and Least Terns. Commission staff will look for guidance from DMF and NHESP in determining the adequacy of the Project design to avoid and mitigate impacts to rare species, marine mammals, and other sensitive marine resources.
Sections 4.1 and 4.2 discuss marine mammals (including the North Atlantic Right Whale) and avian species, respectively, and the discussion is intended to expand on the discussion previously provided in Section 5.0 of the SDEIR.
CCC 12 The Proponent should further investigate opportunities to design the substation site to be more compatible with and sensitive to the variety of uses and development within the area of the substation, including the referenced residential uses and
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-51 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. development. For example, the Proponent might incorporate a more substantial buffer of native vegetation around the perimeter of the gravel substation yard into its site design, including along the northeast corner, to minimize adverse visual impacts to existing or planned multi-family residential developments in close proximity to the substation, and to further mitigate for noise. The Proponent might also consider constructing the fence along the edge of the gravel substation yard, inside the vegetated buffer, rather than placing the fence outside the vegetated buffer, to further reduce visual impacts. The Proponent should provide more detailed landscaping and wall/fence details during DRI review.
The Company’s substation design optimizes vegetative buffers to retain at least a 50- foot-wide band of existing vegetation along the south side of the site (along Independence Drive) as well as a band of existing vegetation on the eastern side of the site. The buffer on the east side of the site will be maintained at a width of approximately 30 feet in locations where it would not interfere with the existing utility ROW to the east; however, vegetative screening cannot be placed within the utility ROW. No landscaping inside the substation fence line is proposed, and the vegetated buffers will be allowed to remain in their existing state.
The closest residences to the Project substation site are at the Village Green apartment complex, located northeast of the site, which consists of four separate buildings, each containing thirty apartments. There is no wooded buffer between the Village Green apartments and the existing Eversource Barnstable Switching Station, which is fully or partly visible from most if not all of the apartments. The Project’s substation is located to the south and west, and the clearing of vegetation will have no effect on the visibility of the existing substation from the apartments. The northeast portion of the substation where the existing ROW infringes on the parcel will incorporate a security wall providing both visual and noise mitigation. As described in Section 1.1 of this FEIR, the Company has refined the noise barrier design such that the barrier at the northeast corner of the substation will be a height of approximately 30 feet, thus minimizing noise-related impacts at the adjacent Village Green apartment complex while simultaneously mitigating visual impacts. The Proponent will provide additional detail during DRI review.
CCC 13 The Project should be designed to minimize impacts to Cape Cod's economy, which is integrally linked to coastal and ocean resources, from seasonal tourism to fisheries-dependent businesses. While the SDEIR states that onshore construction will take place off-season, which will reduce impacts to land-based tourism and transportation during the summer months, Commission staff will be looking for additional specificity on the timing of landing site, nearshore, and offshore Project stages and potential associated impacts to: terrestrial, avian, and marine species, and
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-52 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. their associated habitats; marine-based tourism; shellfishing resources and operations; recreational, charter, and commercial fishing; and coastal recreation, including swimming, boating, fishing tournaments, and sailing races.
On Cape Cod, there are general summer limitations on construction activities, which the Proponent has reflected in the Project schedule for construction at the Landfall Site and along the onshore transmission route where the route follows public roadway layouts. Activities at the Landfall Site where transmission will transition from offshore to onshore are not expected to be performed during the months of June through September unless authorized by the host town. Activities along the onshore transmission route (particularly where the route follows public roadway layouts) will also likely be subject to significant construction limitations from Memorial Day through Labor Day unless authorized by the host town, but could extend through June 15 subject to consent from the local DPW. The Proponent will consult with the towns regarding the construction schedule. The overall Project schedule and construction sequencing is presented in Section 1.5. In addition, Section 3.4 provides an update on TOY restrictions designed to protect marine species and fisheries.
CCC 14 Commission staff recommend careful timing of Project stages to minimize impacts, to the greatest extent possible, to Cape Cod's species, habitats, and resource- dependent economy. Commission staff would recommend restricting development activities at the landing site, near the Cape Cod shoreline, and in Muskeget Channel during July and August, when the use of these areas for many of the resource- dependent economic activities outlined above are highest. Depending on the landing site selected, additional time of year restrictions related to shellfishing and/or sensitive species will need to be incorporated into the timing of Project stages. Muskeget Channel is an active navigational route between Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket for Cape Cod's recreational, charter, and commercial fishermen, including trips through the narrow channel at night and in low visibility conditions to reach fishing grounds; the navigation route and safe passage unhindered by construction equipment during high-use times of year should be factored into Project staging.
Please see the response to CCC 14. In addition, measures to minimize construction- period impacts to navigation and waterways are discussed in Section 2.5.
CCC 15 Commission staff will look for guidance from DMF, and the Proponent should include a more detailed plan for post-construction fisheries monitoring, to include long-term monitoring of species important to Cape Cod's recreational, charter, and commercial fisheries, both inshore and offshore.
Monitoring programs are described in Section 2.4.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-53 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. CCC 16 Wherever existing infrastructure, such as roads, sidewalks, and street trees, are impacted, they should be repaired or replaced to the same or better condition. Where a Town identifies a planned infrastructure project, such as installation of a sidewalk or multi-use path, that overlaps with the proposed work, all reasonable efforts should be made to come to a mutually beneficial work approach that forwards the interests of both parties. This has been successful in the region in the past where underground utility work has left a graded surface suitable for and consistent with plans for future installation of a multi-use path.
The Company has been closely coordinating with the Town of Barnstable to ensure the Project does not conflict with other planned infrastructure projects. With the exception of the proposed substation site, there is no significant tree clearing planned for the proposed Project. As described in Section 9.1.3.3 of the DEIR, all affected public roads will be repaved to as-new condition after construction is complete. In off-pavement or landscaped areas, the final backfill will typically be a sandy loam, which can be seeded. The shoulder will be graded to its pre-existing contours, with slight mounding to allow for settlement. Any disturbed vegetated areas will be loamed and seeded to match pre-existing vegetation. Any lawn-edge that has been affected by duct bank installation, including equipment passage, will be hand-dressed, seeded, and mulched.
CCC 17 In considering the onshore routes, variants thereof, and the location of duct banks along those routes, the following should be considered: minimizing conflicts with existing utilities and future maintenance of those utilities; accommodating the potential for future utility placement within roadway layout; where feasible, advancing regional and local efforts to improve and extend sidewalks and multi-use paths; and minimizing traffic disruption.
Section 6.0 of the SDEIR contained a detailed discussion of traffic management and mitigation measures designed to avoid and minimize construction-period impacts. The Proponent has worked closely with knowledgeable town officials to assess onshore/in-street cable routes. This coordination included gathering data on the locations of existing and planned underground municipal infrastructure. The Company is committed to continuing this coordination with municipal engineering departments and DPWs to ensure that the buried duct bank for the onshore export cables does not conflict with Town infrastructure or future plans.
CCC 18 With the above considerations in mind, Commission staff has identified specific examples of locations where minor deviations from the ductbanks footprint, as currently shown, may better align with regional interests. For example, the Town is in the process of advancing a project to bring additional sidewalks to the alternative route which includes Attucks Lane; an alternate ductbank placement along Attucks Lane could be considered if that route variant is followed. The current plans indicate trenching along the planted median and appears to impact street trees. If
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-54 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. the ductbank were located to the south of the roadway surface, it would provide an opportunity to extend sidewalk on portions that currently have only an unpaved shoulder and may minimize traffic disruption. A similar approach could be considered on Independence Drive. Commission staff are available to further discuss such details in consultation with the relevant municipality.
As described in Section 1.1 of the SDEIR, the Company refined the Covell’s Beach route to utilize what had been initially identified as a variant along Attucks Lane and Independence Drive. The Company has been engaged in discussions with the Town of Barnstable regarding the sidewalk planned along Attucks Lane and Independence Drive and the possibility of installing the proposed duct bank along the sidewalk alignment to minimize traffic impacts and advance the sidewalk project for the town. Should the duct bank remain within Attucks Lane and Independence Drive following further evaluation of existing utility conflicts rather than along the town-proposed sidewalk alignment, the Company will adjust the duct bank alignment within the roadway layout to minimize impacts to the vegetated median and implement TMP measures that will minimize disruption. The Company welcomes the opportunity to discuss and refine Project details with Commission staff and relevant officials in the Town of Barnstable.
CCC 19 Additional details in terms of construction period traffic management may be required when a final route variant is determined; Commission staff will review further traffic management plan information during DRI review.
The Company acknowledges that additional details regarding traffic management will be discussed during DRI review.
CCC 20 The Proponent should bring forth a proposal for DRI review that demonstrates how natural, historic, archaeological, and cultural resources, both on land and underwater, will be preserved during cable installation and substation construction, including through the establishment of construction best practices.
The Company acknowledges these items will be discussed further during DRI review.
CCC 21 The Proponent is requested to provide additional information regarding the opportunities that will be available to Cape Cod specifically through the Offshore Wind Industry Energy Accelerator Fund, the Windward Workforce Program, and the Resiliency and Affordability Fund. The Commission will also be interested in further details about the host community agreement; Commission staff will make themselves available to the Town should they request assistance in reviewing the details of a host agreement.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-55 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. On October 3, 2018, the Town of Barnstable and Vineyard Wind signed an HCA that reflects a shared belief that the Project can benefit the Town of Barnstable and that impacts to the Town of Barnstable can and will be minimized and/or appropriately mitigated. The HCA reflects significant community support for the Project, for the route landing at Covell’s Beach, and for cooperation in Project permitting, construction, and operations between the Company and the Town of Barnstable. The HCA states specifically that “the Town and Vineyard Wind express a mutual preference for, and interest in prioritizing, the route(s) involving Covell’s Beach” (see Attachment C).
As described in Section 1.2.2, Vineyard Wind will establish and contribute $1 million annually for 15 years to the Resiliency and Affordability Fund, which will support low-income ratepayers, promote clean energy projects in communities on the Cape and Islands, and fund effective use of distributed battery energy storage to enhance the resiliency of local coastal communities in the face of climate change. The Fund will be administered by, and projects implemented by, Citizens Energy and Vineyard Wind’s community partner, Vineyard Power. An advisory committee, composed of representatives from each of the host communities, will help identify new project opportunities and guide funding decisions. The Offshore Wind Accelerator Fund and the Windward Workforce Program are described in detail in Sections 1.2.2.1 and 1.2.2.2, respectively.
Vineyard Wind is working with MassCEC to allocate its $2 million Windward Workforce fund to support workforce development throughout the state, with a special focus on Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard, and the South Coast. As part of this effort, Vineyard Wind has been in discussions with Mass Maritime and Cape Cod Community College to encourage and support proposals to MassCEC to fund Global Wind Organization (GWO) safety training courses and curriculum development as it relates to offshore wind. Vineyard Wind has initiated outreach efforts to Cape Cod Regional Technical High School and Upper Cape Cod Regional Technical High School about educational pathways for Cape students and adults interested in careers in offshore wind.
Vineyard Wind has committed funds to help implement an Offshore Wind 101 program at the Cape Cod Community College beginning in 2019 and to conduct outreach to Cape students to ensure awareness of and interest in the program. Vineyard Wind will also be a Premier Sponsor of the Cape Cod Blue Economy Foundation’s WaterWorks Career Day, which will bring students from Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard, Nantucket, and southern Plymouth County to learn about the various career opportunities presented by offshore wind and other ocean-based industries.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-56 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. MVC 01 MVC 02 MARTHA’S VINEYARD COMMISSION (MVC)
MVC 01 The SDEIR should commit to passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) for vessel navigation and operation during construction… a firm commitment to passive acoustic monitoring from vessels. Particularly during the spring and fall migration, should be included in the Final EIR.
As described in Section 5.1.4 of the SDEIR and in Section 4.1 of this FEIR, Vineyard Wind will implement Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) during pile-driving activities (an activity proposed only within federal waters), which will be designed to specifically listen for baleen whales, such as the North Atlantic Right Whale, but will also detect the frequencies and call signatures of other marine mammals that may be encountered in the vicinity of the turbine area. PAM systems will also be incorporated during transit activity of higher concern. Section 4.1 discusses mitigation designed to protect marine mammals, including the North Atlantic Right Whale, and addresses ongoing consultations with BOEM, NMFS, and eNGOs (e.g., CLF, NRDC, NWF).
MVC 02 Attachment J, Revised EMF Modeling Analysis, includes modeling results projecting the EMF levels in the vicinity of the finished and operating cable. ♦ The report focuses on the diminishing impacts with distance from the cable. The report does not indicate how the results translate to impacts to migrating mammals and fish. However, the cable lies in a general South-North direction; while migration paths in the vicinity generally run West-East in the spring and East-West in the fall. ♦ The final EIR should better indicate the impacts to migrating mammals and fish, particularly considering that they must all cross the cable. There is no choice to keep enough distance to avoid the cable.
As discussed in the response to DMF 14, an extensive 2018 BOEM study examined the effects of submarine cable-related magnetic fields on two sensitive species (America lobster and skate). The study concluded that “the EMF associated with the Cross Sound Cable (CSC) did not constitute a barrier to movements across the cable for either skates or lobsters.” As discussed in DMF 13, the measured magnetic field levels in the BOEM study were 516 mG to 653 mG, an order of magnitude higher than the predicted 44.5 mG level for the Vineyard Wind Connector’s offshore export cables at a two-meter burial depth.
Also, as discussed in the response to DMF 13, there are two submarine power cables between Cape Cod and Nantucket as well as three active (and one inactive) submarine power cables between Cape Cod and Martha’s Vineyard. These cables have been in operation for many years, and the Company is not aware of any anecdotal or observed information with respect to these cables impairing or affecting the movement of whales in Nantucket Sound.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-57 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Additional discussion of magnetic fields is provided in the responses to DMF 12 and DMF 13. This issue was also discussed in Section 4.3.6.5 of the DEIR. The relevant text is repeated below for ease of reference.
This issue was also discussed in Section 4.3.6.5 of the DEIR, which described potential EMF impacts from the proposed offshore export cables. Because EMF produced by cables decreases with distance, and the target burial depth for the proposed cables is 5 to 8 feet (1.5 to 2.5 meters), the magnetic field at the seabed would be expected to be weak and likely only detectable by demersal species.4 To date, there is no evidence linking anthropogenic EMF from wind turbine cables to negative responses in fish.5 Recent research investigating habitat use around energized cables found no evidence that fish or invertebrates were attracted to or repelled by EMF emitted by cables.6
4 Normandeau Associates Inc., Exponent Inc., Tricas, T., & Gill, A. (2011). Effects of EMFs from undersea power cables on elasmobranchs and other marine species, final report. Prepared under BOEMRE Contact M09P C00014. OCS Study BOEMRE 2011-09. Published by the US Department of the Interior Pacific OCS Region. 5 Baruah, E. (2016). A Review of the Evidence of Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Effects on Marine Organisms. Research & Reviews: Journal of Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 4(4), 22-26. And Normandeau et al., 2011, above. 6 Love, M., Robbins, C., Baldera, A., Eastman, S., Bolten, A., Hardy, R., … & Wallace, B. (2017). Restoration with borders: An Assessment of cumulative stressors to guide large-scale, integrated restoration of sea turtles in the Gulf of Mexico. Retrieved from https://oceanconservancy.org/wp- content/uploads/2017/10/Restoration_Without_Borders.pdf. Accessed on November 1, 2017.
4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-58 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. BOARD OF TOWN OF YARMOUTH SELE CTMEN
1146 ROUTE 28, SOUTH YARL\10 UTH, MASSACH USETTS 02664-4491 TOWt Telephone (508) 398-2231 Ext. 1271, Pax (508) 398-2365 1\Dr-. IT N ISTRATOR Daniel J\I. l October 5, 2018 Secretary Matthew A. Beaton Attn: MEPA Office (Ms. Purvi Patel) Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 Subject: Vineyard Wind Connector Project (EEA# 15787) Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear Secretary Beaton: The Town of Yarmouth has reviewed the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report (SDEIR), as it has been identified by the Vineyard Wind Connector Project as a potential location for the landing of the project's high voltage electric cable. The proposed submarine cable may transect Lewis Bay with a landing location at New Hampshire Avenue, which is a residential neighborhood. As proposed, the cable then would generally be buried within the Town right-of-way underneath a number of streets, eventually making its way to a substation in Barnstable. The Town Administrator's Office, on behalf of the Board of Selectmen, Division of Natural Resources, Yarmouth Conservation Office, and a number of Town residents, respectfully submit to your office the following questions, comments and requests for additional information for consideration. Comments are listed using the reference numbers provided by the proponent in SDEIR in their response to the Town's comments made to the DEIR. Items in this letter may not be all inclusive: YAR01 The Town continues to have concerns with the limited detailed information provided in order to fully YAR 01 evaluate the potential impacts of this project to Lewis Bay (i.e., turbidity, sediment suspension, silting, and destabilization of fine bottom sediments (liquefaction), water quality, nutrient suspension/ re introduction, and its impacts on wild stock shellfish, propagated she llfish, shellfish aquaculture leases and recreation activities. YAR02 It remains the position of the Town of Yarmouth that a detailed pre-project environmental, water YAR 02 quality, and habitat study of the whole of Lewis Bay needs to be completed to establish a baseline to assist in proper post-project monitoring and remediation ofthe impacted estuary. Post-project benthic habitat monitoring as noted in Attachment D appears to be limited in the Lewis Bay area. 1 YAR03 The proponent indicates that 20mm is the threshold for sensitivity to shellfish. The Town continues to YAR 03 be concerned that there may be adverse impacts to the health of the wild and propagated shellfish population, harvest and marketability at or below this threshold as a result ofthe jet plowing installation method and the liquefaction of the sediment, particularly as it relates to the suspension and deposition of fine clay/sand/silt sediments identified in the marine survey. The suspension of nutrients during cable installation and the impact on turbidity and shellfish health are not addressed in detail in the SDEIR. Further details and documentation of similar projects within an inshore estuary as to the re colonization and recovery to preconstruction species and assemblages is needed. The Town requests due consideration of impacts to shellfish and benthic populations below the sensitivity threshold. The Town requests that more detail be provided with a detailed pre-project survey for comparison to post project monitoring with mitigation. YAR04 Even though the proponent has stated the project will not have permanent impact on the composition YAR 04 of the seafloor and will not permanently impact water quality, bathymetry, or circulation patterns, the project may prevent the Town from engaging in projects that could be used to improve the flushing of Lewis Bay, in turn improving circulation, reducing nitrogen levels and improving water quality. The presence of the cable at the proposed installation depth may prevent the ability to carry out Lewis Bay improvement projects. This further emphasizes the need for a pre-construction study identifying potential water quality, flushing, and circulation improvement options. YAROS The Town continues to have significant concerns associated with the loss of shellfish habitat in the YAR 05 proposed installation route as well as adjacent areas due to siltation. There has been no documentation provided that demonstrates shellfish habitat recovery within estuaries with fine clay, sand, and silt substrate as noted in the SDEIR. Once this fine material is liquefied there is the potential that this sediment will not be suitable for shellfish repopulation and may remain unstable providing sediment re suspension. Further analysis and documentation is needed and requested to ensure that habitat loss is avoided. YAR06 The proponent has stated their commitment to working with the Town to ensure that the buried cable YAR 06 duct bank will not conflict with the Town's future plans for sewer installation and existing water supply infrastructure. The Town continues to be concerned as there has not been a tangible guarantee by the proponent to provide for assistance with engineering plans and requirements for sewer installations that are currently being developed. What specific measures will the proponent take to accommodate future Town sewering needs? For example, relocation of the duct bank if necessary. Additionally, all existing water supply infrastructure should be thoroughly inspected or replaced during the duct bank installation. YAR07 The Town continues to have concerns and do not agree with the proponent's statements that the YAR 07 planned cable route will not result in bathymetric changes within Lewis Bay and will avoid existing dredge channels. The concern is that the ability of the Town to open up new areas for improved flushing will be limited by the existence of the cable. What specific measures will the proponent take to accommodate future Town dredging to improve flushing? For example, installation ofthe submarine 2 cable at a depth of 10-15 feet. Additionally, a post-construction survey should be required to confirm the installed burial depth of the cable. YAROS The Town continues to have concerns with the loss of shellfish habitat associated with the submarine YAR 08 cable installation, and potential electromagnetic field impacts. The proponent has proposed that the bay scallops, quahogs, and other shellfish within the cable route be harvested and relocated. Concerns remain that bay scallops are a free swimming shellfish species and will likely immediately repopulate the area proposed to be disturbed, ultimately resulting in significant bay scallop losses. The harvest and relocation of shellfish along the proposed cable route will be extremely time consuming and will require significant resources to adequately remove and relocate the shellfish species identified. Future shellfish propagation will be needed, however it is still to be determined if the cable route area will be conducive to sustain shellfish repopulation. YAR 10 The Town has no agreements, commitments nor has it had detailed discussions to address loss of YAR 09 shellfish and shellfish habitat as well as other potential negative impacts to commercial, recreational and aquaculture resources and income. A detailed mitigation plan should be required to be in place between the proponent and the Town of Yarmouth prior to permitting. This should include but not be limited to compensation for loss of commercial and aquaculture revenues as a result of construction and residual impacts, loss of shellfish and shellfish habitat. In addition, a long term shellfish management and propagation plan should be required as an effective method for increasing shellfish stocks and seeding to be used to sustain and enhance native and propagated shellfish stocks. YAR 11 The Town continues to have concerns as to the evaluation process. Given the data presented in table YAR 10 1-4 and 1-7 of the SDEIR, the environmental impacts are noted to be greater at the New Hampshire Avenue landfall site compared to the Covell's Beach alternative. Per table 1-7, New Hampshire Avenue will experience similar or greater impacts than Covell's Beach for fifteen of the 20 listed criteria. In addition, the quantified impacts in table 1-4 for the New Hampshire Avenue landfall are all noted to be greater than or equal to those at the Covell's Beach landfall. YAR 12 The Town continues to have concerns as to the evaluation process. Please see YAR 11 for comparison of YAR 11 landfall sites and YAR 13 for selection criteria for the cable route. It is the Town's opinion that the Ocean Management Plan purposefully omits Lewis Bay as an acceptable site for an offshore wind transmission cable landing. YAR 13 The Town continues to have concerns as to the evaluation process. Please see YAR 11 and 12. YAR 12 Additionally, in accordance with the offshore route selection criteria, Covell's Beach appears to be the most advantageous as none of the principle factors are triggered. The New Hampshire Avenue landfall appears to trigger eight of the areas of concern: 1. The cable will transect an existing mooring field and will run parallel to a short term and storm anchorage basin; 2. Transects an environmentally sensitive estuary adversely impacting a viable and significant bay scallop fishery; 3 3. Is a longer route; 4. The landfall is more congested and provides limited area of construction (majority of the work will need to be done within the road layout); 5. Transects an estuary with a depth considerably less than 20 feet; 6. Consists of several significant turns, however less than 30 degrees; 7. Crosses an existing offshore submarine electric cable (to Nantucket); 8. Transects a major commercial ferry route and runs parallel within 10 meters to a federally maintained navigation channel. YAR 14 The Town continues to be concerned with potential conflict with the existing mooring field at the New YAR 13 Hampshire Avenue landfall site as well as the area that runs parallel to the short term anchorage/storm anchorage area. The Town requests that the proponent use the HOD installation method in these two locations to avoid potential negative impacts or breakage. YAR 15 The Town remains concerned if there is a fa ilure, that the sole source aquifer that is used for Cape Cod YAR 14 as a whole may be compromised/contaminated. The proponent should include adequate containment measures for any hazardous materials/liquids associated with the cable installation both offshore and onshore, including equipment refueling. YAR 16 The Town remains concerned that financial assurance is limited to a decommissioning bond and does YAR 15 not include costs associated with safety measures for addressing unintended or unforeseen consequences during the construction and operation life time. YAR 17 The Town remains concerned that the proponent has not demonstrated or engaged the Town in YAR 16 upfront commitment to provide financial support for proposal review, therefore the Town is concerned that if the submarine transects Lewis Bay that the proponent will not be able/willing to provide supplemental benefits including infrastructure improvements, environmental monitoring and restoration. YAR 18 The Town continues to request that the state require the applicant to pay for costs associated with YAR 17 mitigating and relocating present and future utilities including engineering services, design services and any needed construction. Please refer to YAR 06. YAR 19 The Town continues to be concerned with the extent of the proposed disturbance and impacts to YAR 18 shellfish habitat, commercial and recreational shellfisheries, exacerbated by the impacts caused by the submarine cable installation equipment (i.e., jet plow, excavation equipment and potential barge and vessel grounding) and installation vessel anchor sweep. In addition, the Town is concerned with the impacts of cable protection required for the New Hampsh ire Avenue route in crossing the existing National Grid cable. 4 YAR 20 The Town continues to be concerned at the impacts to shellfish habitat, recreational shellfishing, YAR 19 mooring placements and potential uncovering of t he submarine cable (for example, Block Island) resulting from the proposed open trench cable installation method. YAR 21 The Town continues to be concerned and requests that the state or the appropriate agency limit the YAR 20 landfall capacity to not allow for further cable capacity, to prevent any future known or unknown utility to utilize any unused bank capacity. This includes any capacity that is proposed for reserve in case of a cable break or other issues that may arise. YAR22 The Town continues to be concerned and requests that the proponent establish an account for the YAR 21 identified municipalities where a landfall and cable route of the Vineyard Wind Connector are proposed in order to hire experts to include, but not limited to: legal; engineering; environmental; coasta l geologist; maritime or any other appropriate consultant to provide expertise in reviewing the proponent's project so as not to burden the taxpaying public of the Town of Yarmouth or other communities for a private entitled financial benefit. To date the amount of financial support offered will not be adequate to obtain meaningful effective expert support. YAR 23 The Town would prefer the use of the HOD installation method over the open trench method as the YAR 22 environmental impacts will be less. The Town remains concerned as the area is limited and congested, however the Town will be open to work with the proponent on an HDD landfall. Significant concerns remain on the overall submarine cable route through Lewis Bay. YAR24 After reviewing the SDE IR, including the comment letters from other reviewing agencies and interested YAR 23 parties, and Vineyard Wind's responses to their comments, we support and would be interested in seeing more detailed responses to the following Agency concerns: MEP, DEP, CZM, NHESP, DOT, CCC, BAR, APCC, AUD, APNS, NEIGH, IG, RFA, MLA, MOS {Aquinnah BaS), Sinc:VMtk(}MVC. Daniel M. Knapik Town Administrator 5 TOWN OF YARMOUTH (YAR) YAR 01 The Town continues to have concerns with the limited detailed information provided in order to fully evaluate the potential impacts of this project to Lewis Bay (i.e., turbidity, sediment suspension, silting, and destabilization of fine bottom sediments (liquefaction), water quality, nutrient suspension/re introduction, and its impacts on wild stock shellfish, propagated shellfish, shellfish aquaculture leases and recreation activities. As described in Section 1.1, Covell’s Beach is now the preferred Landfall Site for the Project, while New Hampshire Avenue is considered an alternative Landfall Site. Section 2.3 of this FEIR contains additional information related to Lewis Bay, including discussion and detailed modelling of sediment dispersion performed specific to the bay itself. YAR 02 It remains the position of the Town of Yarmouth that a detailed pre-project environmental, water quality, and habitat study of the whole of Lewis Bay needs to be completed to establish a baseline to assist in proper post-project monitoring and remediation of the impacted estuary. Post-project benthic habitat monitoring as noted in Attachment D appears to be limited in the Lewis Bay area. During the spring and summer 2018, the Company conducted additional marine surveys to further document the bathymetry and environmental resources such as shellfish and eelgrass that may be present along the Offshore Export Cable Corridor and within Lewis Bay. Section 1.4.1.4 of the SDEIR contained a detailed discussion of sediment dispersion and deposition along the Offshore Export Cable Corridor, and the complete report was provided as Attachment F to the SDEIR. Subsequent to that report, the Company collected five vibracores within Lewis Bay for detailed grain size analysis and has also analyzed its high-resolution bathymetric data, enabling sediment dispersion modeling that is specific to Lewis Bay. This report is provided as Attachment E and is discussed in Section 2.3.2. Project monitoring is described in Section 2.4. YAR 03 The proponent indicates that 20mm is the threshold for sensitivity to shellfish. The Town continues to be concerned that there may be adverse impacts to the health of the wild and propagated shellfish population, harvest and marketability at or below this threshold as a result of the jet plowing installation method and the liquefaction of the sediment, particularly as it relates to the suspension and deposition of fine clay/sand/silt sediments identified in the marine survey. The suspension of nutrients during cable installation and the impact on turbidity and shellfish health are not addressed in detail in the SDEIR. Further details and documentation of similar projects within an inshore estuary as to the re- colonization and recovery to preconstruction species and assemblages is needed. The Town requests due 4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-59 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. consideration of impacts to shellfish and benthic populations below the sensitivity threshold. The Town requests that more detail be provided with a detailed pre- project survey for comparison to post-project monitoring with mitigation. Section 2.3.2 discusses sediment dispersion modeling performed specific to the bay itself, and identifies the basis for the 20-mm sensitivity threshold for shellfish. As described in Section 1.1, Covell’s Beach is now the preferred Landfall Site for the Project, while New Hampshire Avenue is considered an alternative Landfall Site. Pre-construction, construction, and post-construction monitoring efforts are described in Section 2.4. Disturbance of sediment does not necessarily release nitrogen to the surface water; in fact, most of the nitrogen is not released, and remains with the TSS and is hence deposited when the TSS settles out.7 Ambient conditions usually return within 1-2 hours after a disturbance. YAR 04 Even though the proponent has stated the project will not have permanent impact on the composition of the seafloor and will not permanently impact water quality, bathymetry, or circulation patterns, the project may prevent the Town from engaging in projects that could be used to improve the flushing of Lewis Bay, in turn improving circulation, reducing nitrogen levels and improving water quality. The presence of the cable at the proposed installation depth may prevent the ability to carry out Lewis Bay improvement projects. This further emphasizes the need for a pre-construction study identifying potential water quality, flushing, and circulation improvement options. The planned cable route in and around Lewis Bay avoids all existing dredge channels, and the Company has not been made aware of any dredging plans in or around Lewis Bay that would be impeded by the Vineyard Wind Connector proposal (please also see the response to Issue 2 in Table 6-3). As described in Section 1.1, Covell’s Beach is now the preferred Landfall Site for the Project, while New Hampshire Avenue is considered an alternative Landfall Site. YAR 05 The Town continues to have significant concerns associated with the loss of shellfish habitat in the proposed installation route as well as adjacent areas due to siltation. There has been no documentation provided that demonstrates shellfish habitat recovery within estuaries with fine clay, sand, and silt substrate as noted in the SDEIR. Once this fine material is liquefied there is the potential that this sediment will not be suitable for shellfish repopulation and may remain unstable providing sediment resuspension. Further analysis and documentation is needed and requested to ensure that habitat loss is avoided. 7 Dunn RJK, Waltham NH, Teasdale PR, Robertson D, Welsh DT. 2017. Short-term nitrogen and phosphorus release during the disturbance of surface sediments: a case study in an urbanised estuarine system (Gold Coast Broadwater, Australia). Journal of Marine Science and Engineering. 5:16 4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-60 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. The Project will not result in any habitat loss within Lewis Bay. Section 2.3.2 discusses sediment dispersion modeling performed specific to the bay itself, and identifies the basis for the 20-mm sensitivity threshold for shellfish, which will not be exceeded within Lewis Bay. As described in Section 1.1, Covell’s Beach is now the preferred Landfall Site for the Project, while New Hampshire Avenue is considered an alternative Landfall Site. YAR 06 The proponent has stated their commitment to working with the Town to ensure that the buried cable duct bank will not conflict with the Town's future plans for sewer installation and existing water supply infrastructure. The Town continues to be concerned as there has not been a tangible guarantee by the proponent to provide for assistance with engineering plans and requirements for sewer installations that are currently being developed. What specific measures will the proponent take to accommodate future Town sewering needs? For example, relocation of the duct bank if necessary. Additionally, all existing water supply infrastructure should be thoroughly inspected or replaced during the duct bank installation. As described in Section 1.1, Covell’s Beach is now the preferred Landfall Site for the Project, while New Hampshire Avenue is considered an alternative Landfall Site; as a result, the Company is not currently pursuing HCA negotiations with the Town of Yarmouth, but would resume those discussions should it seek to develop that route in the future. In early discussions with Yarmouth Department of Public Works (DPW), town officials indicated that duct bank installation was feasible without creating future conflicts with sewer installation. If the alternative New Hampshire Avenue Landfall Site were to be selected, the Company is committed to closely coordinating installation with the DPW and town engineers. The Company previously offered through a draft HCA a guarantee that no conflicts with future installation would be created from the Project. In the prior draft HCA, the Company also offered to pre-install sewer mains in coordination with the town, and also offered $1 million in infrastructure repairs to town utility infrastructure in conjunction with in-road construction. YAR 07 The Town continues to have concerns and do not agree with the proponent's statements that the planned cable route will not result in bathymetric changes within Lewis Bay and will avoid existing dredge channels. The concern is that the ability of the Town to open up new areas for improved flushing will be limited by the existence of the cable. What specific measures will the proponent take to accommodate future Town dredging to improve flushing? For example, installation of the submarine cable at a depth of 10-15 feet. Additionally, a post-construction survey should be required to confirm the installed burial depth of the cable. 4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-61 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. The planned cable route in and around Lewis Bay avoids all existing dredge channels, and the Company has not been made aware of any dredging plans in or around Lewis Bay that would be impeded by the Vineyard Wind Connector proposal (please also see the response to Issue 2 in Table 6-3). Monitoring plans, including post-construction monitoring, are described in Section 2.4. As described in Section 1.1, Covell’s Beach is now the preferred Landfall Site for the Project, while New Hampshire Avenue is considered an alternative Landfall Site. Should the Company ultimately pursue the New Hampshire Avenue Landfall Site, deeper burial in areas of potential future dredging would be pursued in coordination with the town. Deeper burial depths within the seafloor in Lewis Bay would allow several feet of dredging, in coordination with the Company, without posing a threat to the cable. YAR 08 The Town continues to have concerns with the loss of shellfish habitat associated with the submarine cable installation, and potential electromagnetic field impacts. The proponent has proposed that the bay scallops, quahogs, and other shellfish within the cable route be harvested and relocated. Concerns remain that bay scallops are a free swimming shellfish species and will likely immediately repopulate the area proposed to be disturbed, ultimately resulting in significant bay scallop losses. The harvest and relocation of shellfish along the proposed cable route will be extremely time consuming and will require significant resources to adequately remove and relocate the shellfish species identified. Future shellfish propagation will be needed, however it is still to be determined if the cable route area will be conducive to sustain shellfish repopulation. As described in Section 1.1, Covell’s Beach is now the preferred Landfall Site for the Project, while New Hampshire Avenue is considered an alternative Landfall Site. Through discussions with town officials and DMF, the parties agreed that extensive shellfish population survey, pre-harvest, and relocation would have limited value. Thus, if the Company ultimately pursues the New Hampshire Avenue landfall, an analysis of potential habitat in Lewis Bay would be performed to establish an appropriate level of mitigation. There has been no scientific evidence offered, nor any scientific theory or mechanism suggested, to indicate that the area above the cable installation would have reduced ability to support shellfish. Nonetheless, the Company would be committed to pre-and post- installation monitoring to assess the impact of installation and to ensure that the installation corridor returns to its original state. Shellfish resources within Lewis Bay and potential mitigation measures are discussed in Section 2.3.1. YAR 09 The Town has no agreements, commitments nor has it had detailed discussions to address loss of shellfish and shellfish habitat as well as other potential negative impacts to commercial, recreational and aquaculture resources and income. A 4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-62 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. detailed mitigation plan should be required to be in place between the proponent and the Town of Yarmouth prior to permitting. This should include but not be limited to compensation for loss of commercial and aquaculture revenues as a result of construction and residual impacts, loss of shellfish and shellfish habitat. In addition, a long term shellfish management and propagation plan should be required as an effective method for increasing shellfish stocks and seeding to be used to sustain and enhance native and propagated shellfish stocks. As described in Section 1.1, Covell’s Beach is now the preferred Landfall Site for the Project, while New Hampshire Avenue is considered an alternative Landfall Site. The Project will not result in any habitat loss within Lewis Bay. Section 2.3.2 discusses sediment dispersion modeling performed specific to the bay itself, which demonstrates there will be no impacts to aquaculture areas. The Company remains committed to coordinating with town staff around management of recreational quahog resources. While Project construction of the alternative New Hampshire Avenue Route would result in some temporary disruption to some shellfishing areas, if the Company seeks to develop that route, the Company would work with town officials to provide resources over multiple years to for the purpose of enhancing recreational shellfish stocks (see Section 2.3.1). Seeding programs are proven effective and commonly used in Lewis Bay and other areas. Thus, support of the town’s shellfish seeding program would be a viable solution, and the Company is confident that this method can enhance the recreational fishery beyond its current state. YAR 10 The Town continues to have concerns as to the evaluation process. Given the data presented in table 1-4 and 1-7 of the SDEIR, the environmental impacts are noted to be greater at the New Hampshire Avenue landfall site compared to the Covell's Beach alternative. Per table 1-7, New Hampshire Avenue will experience similar or greater impacts than Covell's Beach for fifteen of the 20 listed criteria. In addition, the quantified impacts in table 1-4 for the New Hampshire Avenue landfall are all noted to be greater than or equal to those at the Covell's Beach landfall. As described in Section 1.1, Covell’s Beach is now the preferred Landfall Site for the Project, while New Hampshire Avenue is considered an alternative Landfall Site. YAR 11 The Town continues to have concerns as to the evaluation process. Please see YAR 11 for comparison of landfall sites and YAR 13 for selection criteria for the cable route. It is the Town's opinion that the Ocean Management Plan purposefully omits Lewis Bay as an acceptable site for an offshore wind transmission cable landing. As described in Section 1.1, Covell’s Beach is now the preferred Landfall Site for the Project, while New Hampshire Avenue is considered an alternative Landfall Site. 4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-63 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Section 1.7.1 of the SDEIR and Section 2.1.3 of this FEIR discuss the project’s compliance with the OMP. The “Ocean Management Planning Area” for the OMP is defined at 301 CMR 28.02 as: “The waters and associated submerged lands of the ocean, including the seabed and the soil, lying between a line designated as the "Nearshore Boundary of the Ocean Management Planning Area" and the seaward boundary of the Commonwealth, as defined in 43 U.S.C. § 1312. The nearshore boundary was shown on Figure 1-16 of the SDEIR and demonstrates that the boundary begins 0.3 miles offshore; Lewis Bay itself, for example, is not within the OMP Planning Area and thus is purposely omitted from the OMP. Appendix 5 of the OMP discusses the analysis used to identify the OMP’s “preliminary corridors” for offshore wind transmission (which had been illustrated on Figure 2-18 of the DEIR). As part of this analysis, Table 1 in Appendix 5 lists “water depth <16 feet (limitations to cable installation vessels due to draft, currents, navigational hazards)” as an “area to avoid”, which puts the entire coast of Massachusetts, into this category, including the preliminary corridors identified in the OMP. This is a product of using the depth limitation as a criterion in the assessment of transmission corridors, and not landfall sites. Further, the OMP has excluded from consideration areas that were already slated for hosting permitted offshore wind infrastructure, which at the time of publication (2015) included those areas proposed for the now-defunct Cape Wind project. Finally, the OMP identified cable corridors as “preliminary” and indicated that surveying by developers would be critical in identifying feasible routing. YAR 12 The Town continues to have concerns as to the evaluation process. Please see YAR 11 and 12. Additionally, in accordance with the offshore route selection criteria, Covell's Beach appears to be the most advantageous as none of the principle factors are triggered. The New Hampshire Avenue landfall appears to trigger eight of the areas of concern: ♦ The cable will transect an existing mooring field and will run parallel to a short term and storm anchorage basin; ♦ Transects an environmentally sensitive estuary adversely impacting a viable and significant bay scallop fishery; ♦ Is a longer route; ♦ The landfall is more congested and provides limited area of construction (majority of the work will need to be done within the road layout); ♦ Transects an estuary with a depth considerably less than 20 feet; ♦ Consists of several significant turns, however less than 30 degrees; ♦ Crosses an existing offshore submarine electric cable (to Nantucket); ♦ Transects a major commercial ferry route and runs parallel within 10 meters to a federally maintained navigation channel. 4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-64 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. As described in Section 1.1, Covell’s Beach is now the preferred Landfall Site for the Project, while New Hampshire Avenue is considered an alternative Landfall Site. In addition to the materials in Section 1.1, the routes were compared in Section 3 of the DEIR and in Sections 3 through 5 of the SDEIR. YAR 13 The Town continues to be concerned with potential conflict with the existing mooring field at the New Hampshire Avenue landfall site as well as the area that runs parallel to the short term anchorage/storm anchorage area. The Town requests that the proponent use the HDD installation method in these two locations to avoid potential negative impacts or breakage. As described in Section 1.1, Covell’s Beach is now the preferred Landfall Site for the Project, while New Hampshire Avenue is considered an alternative Landfall Site. Nonetheless, for the reasons described in Section 9.1.2 of the DEIR and Section 1.4.2 of the SDEIR, should the New Hampshire Avenue Landfall Site be utilized, open trench is the preferred method for achieving the transition between offshore and onshore; HDD is an alternative method being maintained as well. With regard to mooring, please see the response to Issue 2 in Table 6-3. YAR 14 The Town remains concerned if there is a failure, that the sole source aquifer that is used for Cape Cod as a whole may be compromised/contaminated. The proponent should include adequate containment measures for any hazardous materials/liquids associated with the cable installation both offshore and onshore, including equipment refueling. The onshore and offshore transmission cables will have a “solid dielectric” design. The primary insulating material is cross linked polyethylene (XLPE), a dense solid plastic, and there will be no fluids of any kind in the cables. Measures to protect water quality during construction, including refueling considerations, were described in detail in Section 9.8 of the DEIR. As described in Section 1.4.4.1 of the SDEIR, the substation design will include full- volume (110%) impervious containment sumps for all equipment containing dielectric fluid and will adjust the 110% containment volume upwards to account for a simultaneous 100-year, 24-hour rainfall event, which on Cape Cod is conservatively established at 9 inches of rain. YAR 15 The Town remains concerned that financial assurance is limited to a decommissioning bond and does not include costs associated with safety measures for addressing unintended or unforeseen consequences during the construction and operation life time. Vineyard Wind will be a responsible community member and will proactively address any unforeseen construction and operational issues that may arise. 4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-65 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. YAR 16 The Town remains concerned that the proponent has not demonstrated or engaged the Town in upfront commitment to provide financial support for proposal review, therefore the Town is concerned that if the submarine transects Lewis Bay that the proponent will not be able/willing to provide supplemental benefits including infrastructure improvements, environmental monitoring and restoration. As described in Section 1.1, Covell’s Beach is now the preferred Landfall Site for the Project, while New Hampshire Avenue is considered an alternative Landfall Site. As such, the Company is not currently HCA pursuing negotiations with the Town of Yarmouth, but would resume those discussions should it seek to develop that route in the future. YAR 17 The Town continues to request that the state require the applicant to pay for costs associated with mitigating and relocating present and future utilities including engineering services, design services and any needed construction. Please refer to YAR 06. As described in Section 1.1, Covell’s Beach is now the preferred Landfall Site for the Project, while New Hampshire Avenue is considered an alternative Landfall Site. The Company has stated a willingness to offer a guarantee that the town would incur no additional costs for any future utility upgrades, expansion, or repairs associated with the Project. In addition, during HCA discussions the Company proposed to support up to $1 million in upgrades and repairs including water mains and other infrastructure along the Project route. See also the response to YAR 06. YAR 18 The Town continues to be concerned with the extent of the proposed disturbance and impacts to shellfish habitat, commercial and recreational shellfisheries, exacerbated by the impacts caused by the submarine cable installation equipment (i.e., jet plow, excavation equipment and potential barge and vessel grounding) and installation vessel anchor sweep. In addition, the Town is concerned with the impacts of cable protection required for the New Hampshire Avenue route in crossing the existing National Grid cable. As described in Section 1.1, Covell’s Beach is now the preferred Landfall Site for the Project, while New Hampshire Avenue is considered an alternative Landfall Site. Updated impact calculations are provided in Section 2.2, and the characteristics of the impacts (including their temporary duration) were described in detail in Section 1.4.1.3 of the SDEIR. YAR 19 The Town continues to be concerned at the impacts to shellfish habitat, recreational shellfishing, mooring placements and potential uncovering of the submarine cable (for example, Block Island) resulting from the proposed open trench cable installation method. 4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-66 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Please see the response to YAR 05 for a discussion of shellfish. With regard to the submarine cable for Block Island, the location and installation methods of that submarine cable differ significantly from the offshore export cables, Landfall Site, and installation methods proposed for the Vineyard Wind Connector. While the shoreline at Covell’s Beach is stable, the landfall used for the Block Island cable was a northeast-facing beach that experiences significant erosion, particularly during nor’easters. The Landfall Site at New Hampshire Avenue is largely sheltered from Nantucket Sound, which is in turn protected from the open ocean. In addition, while the Company proposes an approximately 1,000-foot HDD offshore from Covell’s Beach, the Block Island cable was trenched offshore from the beach using a jet-plow, resulting in shallower burial depth. The Company’s extensive surveys strongly indicate that the nearshore areas consist almost entirely of sandy soils to several feet of depth, and thus sufficient and permanent burial is highly likely in either the Covell’s Beach or New Hampshire Avenue landfalls. YAR 20 The Town continues to be concerned and requests that the state or the appropriate agency limit the landfall capacity to not allow for further cable capacity, to prevent any future known or unknown utility to utilize any unused bank capacity. This includes any capacity that is proposed for reserve in case of a cable break or other issues that may arise. Please see the response to BAR 13 in Section 10 of the SDEIR. The duct bank that would be installed at the New Hampshire Avenue Landfall Site would not contain any additional capacity to accommodate a future project. As described in Section 1.1, Covell’s Beach is now the preferred Landfall Site for the Project, while New Hampshire Avenue is considered an alternative Landfall Site. YAR 21 The Town continues to be concerned and requests that the proponent establish an account for the identified municipalities where a landfall and cable route of the Vineyard Wind Connector are proposed in order to hire experts to include, but not limited to: legal; engineering; environmental; coastal geologist; maritime or any other appropriate consultant to provide expertise in reviewing the proponent's project so as not to burden the taxpaying public of the Town of Yarmouth or other communities for a private entitled financial benefit. To date the amount of financial support offered will not be adequate to obtain meaningful effective expert support. As described in Section 1.1, Covell’s Beach is now the preferred Landfall Site for the Project, while New Hampshire Avenue is considered an alternative Landfall Site. Through an HCA ratified by the Town of Barnstable in October 2018, that town will receive requested support for pertinent independent analysis of certain aspects of the Project. 4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-67 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. On August 22, 2018, the Company received a scope of services from Yarmouth for technical and legal review associated with HCA negotiation and environmental review. The Company agreed to provide certain funding to the town for this review apart from any HCA negotiation. The Company’s offer was not accepted. Because New Hampshire Avenue is no longer the preferred landfall, the Company is not currently pursuing HCA negotiations with the Town of Yarmouth, but would resume those discussions should it seek to develop that route in the future. YAR 22 The Town would prefer the use of the HDD installation method over the open trench method as the environmental impacts will be less. The Town remains concerned as the area is limited and congested, however the Town will be open to work with the proponent on an HDD landfall. Significant concerns remain on the overall submarine cable route through Lewis Bay. As described in Section 1.1, Covell’s Beach is now the preferred Landfall Site for the Project, while New Hampshire Avenue is considered an alternative Landfall Site. Nonetheless, for the reasons described thoroughly in Section 9.1.2 of the DEIR and Section 1.4.2 of the SDEIR, should the New Hampshire Avenue Landfall Site be utilized, open trench is the preferred method for achieving the transition between offshore and onshore; HDD is an alternative method being maintained as well. Use of open trench will result in fewer construction-period impacts and restrictions at the New Hampshire Avenue Landfall Site. YAR 23 After reviewing the SDEIR, including the comment letters from other reviewing agencies and interested parties, and Vineyard Wind's responses to their comments, we support and would be interested in seeing more detailed responses to the following Agency concerns: MEP, DEP, CZM, NHESP, DOT, CCC, BAR, APCC, AUD, APNS, NEIGH, IG, RFA, MLA, MOS (Aquinnah BoS), MVC. Issues raised by Agencies and stakeholders in their comments on the SDEIR are addressed in this FEIR. 4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-68 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. October 5, 2018 Matthew Beaton Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) Attn: MEPA Office Purvi Patel, EEA No. 15787 (Vineyard Wind Connector) 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston MA 02114 Dear Secretary Beaton, We write to submit comments in support of the Vineyard Wind offshore wind farm proposal. CF 01 As the United States’ first large-scare offshore wind farm, this project would deliver invaluable benefits to our districts in terms by protecting our environment and creating a new green economy for the Cape and the Islands. Over the last eight years, Vineyard Wind has advocated extensively within our community about these benefits, through dozens of forums and additional opportunities for local involvement. Vineyard Power Cooperative signed the first offshore Community Benefits Agreement with Vineyard Wind in January of 2015. Since then, The Vineyard Wind Connector Project has conducted extensive and sustained outreach, seeking input from local residents, elected and appointed officials, local tribes, fishing and marine interests, environmental advocacy groups, and other interested parties. We are confident that this collaborative spirit will continue as the project advances. Vineyard Wind recently signed a Host Community Agreement with the Town of Barnstable. This agreement represents another milestone for this project, and includes $16 million in payments to the town in return for landing the transmission cable in Barnstable. Furthermore, the HCA also provides opportunity for detailed review of Vineyard Wind’s specifications for a new substation by the Town, further ensuring protection of groundwater, as transformers and other electrical equipment at the substation will be underlain by full volume, impervious containment systems. We are particularly impressed with Vineyard Wind’s commitment to locate their Operations & Maintenance facility on Martha’s Vineyard, as well as their commitment to work with the Town of Nantucket to benefit local rate payers and improve the Island’s power supply. The relationship that has been built over the last seven years inspires confidence in the lasting partnership we will continue to foster. We all share concerns about the effects of climate change, but none more than the residents of the Cape and Islands, who see and live with these effects on a daily basis. Approving and implementing the Vineyard Wind project will be a tangible demonstration of our commitment and resolve. Vineyard Wind’s 800 MW offshore wind project will produce enough electricity to power approximately 400,000 homes, and will reduce CO2 emissions from the ISO New England system by approximately 1,680,000 tons per year – the equivalent of taking 325,000 cars off of state roads. This proves a vital step in meeting our renewable energy and greenhouse gas reduction targets, and protecting our fragile coastal environment. This project will not only green our energy supply and support our local economy, but will critically enhance the reliability of power supply across the Cape and Islands, whose vulnerability highlighted this past winter when parts of the Cape and Islands lost power for nearly a week during some of the violent Nor’easters that hit our shores. Supporting this project is an opportunity to take concrete steps toward combatting climate change on a state level. We recognize that there will be short-term disturbances to residents along the land cable routes, but they can be minimized through proper construction planning, scheduling, and traffic management. Affected streets will be restored and repaved, leaving them in “like new” condition. Any temporary local inconveniences should be weighed against the large-scale benefits of this project. Additionally, Vineyard Wind has demonstrated its commitment to further developing Host Community Agreements with the affected towns in order to mitigate and plan for these disruptions, as they have done with the Town of Barnstable. Furthermore, Vineyard Wind has committed to a $2 million “Wind Workforce” initiative that will recruit, mentor, and train local residents for high-skills careers. The program will be undertaken in partnership with vocational schools, community colleges and other local organizations. Vineyard Wind has also committed to a Resiliency and Affordability Fund in coordination with local partner Vineyard Power and Citizen’s Energy Corporation. This fund will contribute $1 million annually for 15 years to provide substantial and self-sustaining benefits to towns that host the off-shore wind project. According to a study conducted by the Public Policy Center at the University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, the Vineyard Wind project will generate up to $17 million annually in new state and local tax revenue beginning in 2021 as a result of the development, construction, and annual operation of the project. We cannot afford to overlook the enormous economic benefits of this project, which will help sustain a year-round economy for the Cape and Islands, as well as work to safeguard our communities against the increasingly severe impacts of climate change. Once again, we thank you for your consideration of our comments. Respectfully, Senator Julian Cyr Representative Dylan Fernandes State Senator State Representative Cape & Islands Barnstable, Dukes & Nantucket SENATOR CYR AND REPRESENTATIVE FERNANDES (CF) CF 01 We write to submit comments in support of the Vineyard Wind offshore wind farm proposal. The Company greatly appreciates the support of the State Senator for the Cape and Islands district and the State Representative for the Barnstable, Dukes, and Nantucket district. 4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-69 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. October 3, 2018 Secretary Matthew Beaton Andrew Gottlieb Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Executive Director Attn. MEPA Office BOARD OF DIRECTORS 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 Margo L. Fenn President RE: Vineyard Wind Connector Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report, EEA # Charles Sumner Vice President 15787 Robert Ciolek Treasurer Dear Secretary Beaton: Maureen O’Shea Clerk The Association to Preserve Cape Cod (APCC), the Cape’s leading nonprofit Michael Corrigan environmental advocacy and education organization, has reviewed the Supplemental DeeDee Holt Draft Environmental Impact Report (SDEIR) for the Vineyard Wind Connector and offers the following comments. Thomas Huettner Pat Hughes Restating APCC’s written comments for the project’s Draft Environmental Impact Cheryl Lubin Report (DEIR), there is a critical need to replace our nation’s dependence on fossil Elysse Magnotto-Cleary fuels with clean, renewable energy from a variety of technology sources. The modern advancements in deep water offshore wind technology have made it one of the most Blue Magruder viable sources for large-scale green energy production. APCC commends the Eliza McClennen Commonwealth on its commitment to produce 1,600 MW of offshore wind energy Kris Ramsay within the next decade and encourages it to move forward on adopting even more aggressive goals for offshore energy development and production. Robert Summersgill Taryn Wilson As a first major step toward that goal, Vineyard Wind is proposing to develop an offshore wind project capable of generating 800 MW of power. As described in the SDEIR, for the New England grid, Vineyard Wind is projected to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by approximately 1,630,000 tons per year (tpy), which is described in the SDEIR as being the equivalent of removing 325,000 cars from the road. Nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions are expected to be reduced by approximately 1,050 tpy. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions will be reduced by approximately 860 tpy. Over the 30-year lifespan of the project, Vineyard Wind is expected to offset 48,984,670 tons of CO2, 31,385 tons of NOx and 25,641 tons of SO2. As expressed in our previous comment letters, APCC considers these projected carbon emissions reductions to be a significant benefit for the environment of Cape Cod, Massachusetts and New England. APCC appreciates Vineyard Wind’s responses in the SDEIR to the written comments we 482 Main Street l Dennis, MA 02638 Tel: 508-619-3185 l [email protected] l www.apcc.org 1 A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION. DUES AND CONTRIBUTIONS TAX DEDUCTIBLE AS PROVIDED BY LAW. submitted for the DEIR. We believe these responses, and other additional information provided in the SDEIR, sufficiently addressed a number of the questions we posed in our review of the DEIR. However, some of our questions and concerns remain unresolved. These issue areas, as well as several new issue areas that emerged in the SDEIR, are discussed in these written comments. While APCC is a strong advocate of large-scale renewable energy production and the development of offshore wind as a means to meet our state’s and our nation’s energy needs, we also believe that offshore wind, including this proposed Vineyard Wind project, must meet required environmental protection standards, work to avoid both offshore and onshore environmental impacts, and when necessary, properly and completely mitigate environmental impacts. Ocean Management Plan The SDEIR describes the marine surveys and analysis conducted by the applicant to show the project’s compliance with the Ocean Management Plan and management standards for Special, Sensitive, or Unique Estuarine and Marine Life and Habitats. APCC looks for more information in APCC 01 the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) regarding ongoing discussions with the Office of Coastal Zone Management and other state agencies for confirmation on the project’s compliance with the Ocean Management Plan. Rare and Protected Species Sufficient protections for state and federally listed rare species must be a prominent component of this project. The Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) has determined that four species of state-listed birds are found within the project’s transmission corridor: least tern (Sternula antillarum), common tern (Sterna hirundo), piping plover (Charadrius melodus), and roseate tern (Sterna dougallii). In ensuring protection APCC 02 of tern species, potential impacts to the sand lance, a fish that is an important food source for terns, must also be considered with regard to benthic impacts. APCC calls on the project applicant to continue to work with federal and state agencies to APCC 03 further reduce the potential for adverse impacts to whales—particularly the North Atlantic right whale—other marine mammal species and sea turtles. The applicant has stated that best management practices and mitigation will be used for offshore construction and installation activities “to meet or exceed the required standards of applicable statutes, regulations, and policies” to protect rare species. Additionally, the applicant has pledged $3 million for the Whales and Wind Fund to help advance marine mammal protections as the offshore wind industry develops along the East Coast. Discussions with NHESP and other state agencies on refining project planning to further APCC 04 guarantee the avoidance of impacts to rare species should continue. APCC anticipates additional details on such plans, including contingencies for protecting North Atlantic right whales that may range outside their core habitat area and within state jurisdictional waters, will be discussed further in the FEIR. 2 Offshore Cable Routes APCC supports the development of a benthic monitoring plan, as described in the SDEIR, to APCC 05 document the disturbance to and recovery of marine habitat and benthic communities from construction and installation activities associated with the offshore components of the project in federal and state waters. This monitoring plan should be accompanied by a commitment to develop appropriate mitigation responses if deemed necessary to address unanticipated project-related impacts. The SDEIR provides information on a revised Hydrodynamic and Sediment Dispersion Modeling Study to gauge the probable impacts from sediment dispersion and deposition caused by laying the offshore cable. Information from the study provided in the SDEIR suggests that impacts from sediment dispersion will be minor and temporary for both the New Hampshire Ave. route and the Covell’s Beach route. The study also suggests that sediment deposition from proposed open trenching is not expected to exceed sensitivity thresholds for shellfish in Lewis Bay. If this analysis is correct, APCC is satisfied that impacts from laying the offshore cable, and particularly impacts to shellfish in Lewis Bay, will be minimal and temporary. However, in written comments on the DEIR, the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) expressed continued concern about impacts to marine resources in Lewis Bay from the proposed trenching method. In its written comments, DMF states that the Covell’s Beach APCC 06 alternative appears to have a lower impact to marine resources relative to the New Hampshire Ave. route and calls for further justification by the project applicant if it continues to identify New Hampshire Ave. as the preferred landfall route. APCC recommends clarification in the FEIR regarding whether DMF’s concerns have been adequately addressed by the additional information provided in the SDEIR. If the Lewis Bay route is selected, APCC encourages the applicant to continue discussions with APCC 07 state agencies, the town and shellfishermen on a mitigation plan that would include shellfish reseeding and other appropriate measures. Nitrogen Resuspension in Lewis Bay APCC’s questions about resuspension of nitrogen in Lewis Bay in our comments submitted for the project’s Environmental Notification Form (ENF) and the DEIR have not been adequately addressed. From APCC’s June 6, 2018 comments on the DEIR: “In APCC’s comment letter on the ENF, we said that, ‘Given that Lewis Bay has a TMDL for nitrogen, the DEIR should discuss measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate potential water quality impacts and impacts on aquatic species due to resuspension of sediments and remobilization of nitrogen during offshore trenching and horizontal direct drilling...’ To reiterate our concern about nitrogen being released during resuspension of sediments, the Massachusetts Estuaries Project (MEP) study of Lewis Bay (2008) stated that the Lewis Bay embayment system is at risk of eutrophication (over enrichment) from enhanced nitrogen loads primarily from wastewater but also other sources. 3 Nitrogen enrichment is the primary cause of impairment of eelgrass, according to the MEP report.” Although extensive study was conducted by the Vineyard Wind project applicant of the APCC 08 project’s impacts on sediments and the likely suspended sediment plumes associated with cable burial, the analysis does not address the potential resuspension of nitrogen into the water column and the effects it would have on nutrient loading in Lewis Bay. The SDEIR states that sediment suspension is expected to be temporary, but APCC’s concern centers on the resuspension and remobilization of nitrogen in the water column and its potential impact on water quality in the bay. The release of nitrogen from suspended sediments and its function as a nutrient that facilitates the growth of algae may or may not have longer-term impacts associated with this project, but given the nutrient-related water quality problems currently existing in Lewis Bay, APCC believes this issue should be looked at and specifically addressed. We could find no information about this in the SDEIR. Landing Sites In the DEIR, APCC recommended that the applicant compare and discuss the benefits and detriments of the two proposed landing sites—New Hampshire Ave. in Yarmouth via Lewis Bay and Covell’s Beach in Barnstable. The SDEIR includes that comparison. In the SDEIR’s discussion of the two sites, which includes an analysis of potential impacts, the applicant continues to state a preference for the New Hampshire Ave. site, largely based on easier accessibility, cost and fewer disruptions to residential areas along the land cable route during installation. But, the applicant continues to view both sites as feasible. The applicant also continues to indicate a strong preference for using open trenching to lay the offshore cable in Lewis Bay versus horizontal directional drilling (HDD) based on efficiency and cost. APCC suggests that the APCC 09 applicant make a determination in the FEIR for which method will be used if the New Hampshire Ave. route is chosen. According to information provided in the SDEIR, it appears environmental impacts from both landing sites, although slightly different at each location, would be minimal and temporary. Based on the analysis made available by the applicant in the DEIR and SDEIR, APCC continues to believe that both landing sites and proposed land routes to the substation site are viable—if accompanied by proper mitigation. Onshore Cable Routes In response to APCC’s comments in the DEIR, the applicant confirmed that the preferred New Hampshire Ave. land route would use existing roadways and/or existing utility rights-of-way (ROW) and would avoid Article 97 lands and lands under conservation restriction. The applicant has also revised the Covell’s Beach preferred landward route in the SDEIR. With this change, the preferred Covell’s Beach onshore route to the substation site will be entirely within existing roadway layouts, including the Covell’s Beach parking lot. It will not require disturbing any ROW or Article 97 lands, and therefore has advantages from that perspective over the previous Covell’s Beach route as well as having advantages over variants of the route being considered for the New Hampshire Ave. landing site that would utilize ROW and Article 97 lands. APCC 4 welcomes this change in the routing, which avoids disturbance of vegetated areas in the ROW and reduces environmental impacts. Ultimately, APCC encourages a final decision on the landing site and landward routing to be based on assessing and weighing the overall environmental impacts and choosing the route with the least impact. In Attachment H (Revised Engineering Plans for New Hampshire Avenue Route) in the SDEIR, Sheet 12 (Proposed Duct Bank Layout) shows proposed equipment staging areas #3 and #4 as being "on town owned land" near Spyglass Hill Road. These delineated staging areas appear to be significantly wide and long and would require significant clearing. APCC seeks clarification on APCC 10 the current designated land use for these parcels—are they general municipal use, open space, or possessing a specified land use restriction? If clearing is required, particularly tree clearing, what mitigation is proposed by the applicant? Substation The site of the proposed substation is within the Zone II for public water supply. It is therefore critical that groundwater resources be guaranteed protection from the potential for hazardous materials spills or from contaminants in stormwater runoff. The SDEIR provides additional information about the construction of containment structures for equipment that will contain oil at the substation. The applicant proposes to place transformers and other equipment within containment structures designed to contain 110% of the oil volume of the equipment, plus an additional nine inches of storage to account for a potential 100-year 24-hour storm event. The containment system will be fitted with a spill alarm network. Vineyard Wind states that it is also looking into the possibility of transformers and other major electrical equipment that can use a biodegradable dielectric fluid. The applicant has affirmed that it will include a spill response plan as part of the project’s safety management system. The SDEIR states that a final spill prevention and containment plan for the substation site has not been developed, but a “conceptual design basis has been established and an operational phase plan will be formulated during permitting.” Since spill prevention and containment is the most important environmental aspect of the land- APCC 11 based portion of this project, APCC believes it is in the public interest for the applicant to provide a largely complete plan for protecting public water resources in the FEIR so that the public has the opportunity to review the plan and comment. Additionally, APCC looks for more APCC 12 information on transformer selection in the FEIR that would help satisfy concerns about potential impacts to groundwater. We are also mindful that this project will be subject to review by the Cape Cod Commission and must satisfy regional standards for storage and use of hazardous materials within Zone II Wellhead Protection Areas. The proposed stormwater plan for the substation, which includes best management practices and some low impact development measures, appears on its surface to be adequate in treating 5 and releasing stormwater onsite. However, the SDEIR discusses the proposed inclusion of APCC 13 multiple oil absorbing inhibition devices that will be utilized to capture dielectric fluid that may be released from the oil containment structures. APCC would like confirmation on whether these devices are designed to capture 100 percent of oil in stormwater. If not, what percent of oil in stormwater going through the oil absorbing inhibition devices can be expected to pass through with the recharged stormwater? APCC looks to future review of the project, including review through the Cape Cod Commission regulatory review process, for final determinations on the effectiveness of the project’s stormwater plan and its ability to comply with MassDEP Stormwater Standards and regional water protection standards. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Andrew Gottlieb Don Keeran Executive Director Assistant Director 6 ASSOCIATION TO PRESERVE CAPE COD (APCC) APCC 01 APCC looks for more information in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) regarding ongoing discussions with the Office of Coastal Zone Management and other state agencies for confirmation on the project’s compliance with the Ocean Management Plan. The Project’s consistency with the OMP is described in Section 2.1.3, which also describes consultations with CZM. APCC 02 In ensuring protection of tern species, potential impacts to the sand lance, a fish that is an important food source for terns, must also be considered with regard to benthic impacts. The benthic habitat monitoring plan (see Attachment F) includes pre- and post- construction monitoring with respect to sand lance specifically to address concerns about roseate tern. Further discussion regarding avian species is included in Section 4.2 of this FEIR. ACPP 03 APCC calls on the project applicant to continue to work with federal and state agencies to further reduce the potential for adverse impacts to whales—particularly the North Atlantic right whale—other marine mammal species and sea turtles. Measures designed to protect marine mammals, as well as consultations on this subject, are discussed in Section 4.1. APCC 04 Discussions with NHESP and other state agencies on refining project planning to further guarantee the avoidance of impacts to rare species should continue. APCC anticipates additional details on such plans, including contingencies for protecting North Atlantic right whales that may range outside their core habitat area and within state jurisdictional waters, will be discussed further in the FEIR. Measures to protect marine mammals and avian species are described in Section 4.0. An updated discussion of TOY restrictions is provided in Section 3.4. APCC 05 APCC supports the development of a benthic monitoring plan… This monitoring plan should be accompanied by a commitment to develop appropriate mitigation responses if deemed necessary to address unanticipated project- related impacts. As previously discussed in Section 1.5 of the SDEIR, post-installation monitoring through the Project’s Benthic Habitat Monitoring Plan and partnerships with research and other organizations will be conducted to document habitat disturbance and recovery. The benthic habitat monitoring plan is provided as Attachment F. 4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-70 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. APCC 06 In its written comments, DMF states that the Covell’s Beach alternative appears to have a lower impact to marine resources relative to the New Hampshire Ave. route and calls for further justification by the project applicant if it continues to identify New Hampshire Ave. as the preferred landfall route. APCC recommends clarification in the FEIR regarding whether DMF’s concerns have been adequately addressed by the additional information provided in the SDEIR. As described in Section 1.1, Covell’s Beach is now the preferred Landfall Site for the Project, while New Hampshire Avenue is considered an alternative Landfall Site. Nonetheless, the Company has provided additional information related to both landfall sites in the SDEIR and now in this FEIR. APCC 07 If the Lewis Bay route is selected, APCC encourages the applicant to continue discussions with state agencies, the town and shellfishermen on a mitigation plan that would include shellfish reseeding and other appropriate measures. As described in Section 1.1, Covell’s Beach is now the preferred Landfall Site for the Project, while New Hampshire Avenue is considered an alternative Landfall Site. Nonetheless, should the New Hampshire Avenue Landfall Site ultimately be chosen for the Project, the Company is dedicated to ongoing consultations regarding mitigation. Shellfish resources and mitigation within Lewis Bay are discussed in Section 2.3. APCC 08 Although extensive study was conducted by the Vineyard Wind project applicant of the project’s impacts on sediments and the likely suspended sediment plumes associated with cable burial, the analysis does not address the potential resuspension of nitrogen into the water column and the effects it would have on nutrient loading in Lewis Bay. Please see the response to YAR 03. APCC 09 APCC suggests that the applicant make a determination in the FEIR for which method will be used if the New Hampshire Ave. route is chosen. If the New Hampshire Avenue Landfall Site is utilized, open-trench is the preferred method for installation while HDD is the alternative method. Selection of the final method for installation will be informed by the EFSB, and permitting programs such as the state Wetlands Protection Act and the Chapter 91 waterways program. APCC 10 In Attachment H (Revised Engineering Plans for New Hampshire Avenue Route) in the SDEIR, Sheet 12 (Proposed Duct Bank Layout) shows proposed equipment staging areas #3 and #4 as being “on town owned land” near Spyglass Hill Road… APCC seeks clarification on the current designated land use for these parcels—are 4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-71 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. they general municipal use, open space, or possessing a specified land use restriction? If clearing is required, particularly tree clearing, what mitigation is proposed by the applicant? Staging areas #3 and #4 are town-owned parcels located within the Eversource ROW that runs east-west through the towns of Yarmouth and Barnstable, and were identified as areas that could be used during construction of the New Hampshire Avenue route. As described in Section 1.1, Covell’s Beach is now the preferred Landfall Site and route for the Project, and New Hampshire Avenue is being maintained as an alternative. If these staging areas are utilized, Vineyard Wind anticipates needing to obtain approval from Barnstable and Yarmouth as well as from the easement owner (Eversource) to occupy these areas for construction staging. The ROW is cleared of trees, with vegetation predominantly consisting of grass and low shrubs. Therefore, use of these areas for construction staging would not require the clearing of any trees, and would require only minimal grading to facilitate the storage of duct bank materials (e.g., conduit, brackets, concrete vaults) and contractor’s equipment. Any temporarily-disturbed areas would have erosion control measures based on procedures outlined in the Company’s Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). These staging areas would be restored with new grass plantings after the contractor’s use has ended. APCC 11 Since spill prevention and containment is the most important environmental aspect of the land-based portion of this project, APCC believes it is in the public interest for the applicant to provide a largely complete plan for protecting public water resources in the FEIR so that the public has the opportunity to review the plan and comment. The Company has been working closely with the Town of Barnstable on final design of the containment system proposed at the substation. As described in detail in Section 1.4.4.1 of the SDEIR, the substation design will include full-volume (110%) impervious containment sumps for all equipment containing dielectric fluid and will adjust the 110% containment volume upwards to account for a simultaneous 100- year, 24-hour rainfall event, which on Cape Cod is conservatively established at 9 inches of rain. APCC 12 Additionally, APCC looks for more information on transformer selection in the FEIR that would help satisfy concerns about potential impacts to groundwater. Vineyard Wind is continuing to actively investigate the possible use of biodegradable dielectric fluid for the main transformers. See also response to CCC 01. 4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-72 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. APCC 13 …[T]he SDEIR discusses the proposed inclusion of multiple oil absorbing inhibition devices that will be utilized to capture dielectric fluid that may be released from the oil containment structures. APCC would like confirmation on whether these devices are designed to capture 100 percent of oil in stormwater. Oil-absorbing devices will be incorporated into any drainage outlets in the containment areas. These devices will allow stormwater that does not contain oil to pass through to the containment drainage system collector pipe, which in turn will connect to an oil/water separator tank (e.g., Highland Tank or equal) as an added precaution. Each oil-absorbing device located at an outlet to a containment area allows clean stormwater to pass, but it contains an absorbent material that absorbs all oil it comes into contact with, thus preventing any oil flow from the device. Should oil continue to be present in the stormwater, the absorbent media will eventually become saturated and solidify, completely blocking flow through the device. The concrete containment structure will then capture and hold 100% of any remaining oil from the spill. The concrete containment structure will be designed to contain 110% of the transformer or equipment oil volume plus 9-inches of rainfall (from a 100-yr, 24-hour rainfall event). In summary, the oil-absorbing devices are designed to allow stormwater to drain from the containment areas unless a spill occurs. However, in the event of a spill, the reagent within the device will absorb any oil and solidify, creating a seal at the outlet of the containment area and preventing any oil from reaching the drainage system. 4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-73 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. From: GERARD DHOOGE To: Patel, Purvi (EEA) Subject: Support Vineyard Wind SDEIR Submission Date: Friday, October 05, 2018 11:17:41 AM To Whom It May Concern, I write on behalf of the tens of thousands of maritime, marine industrial, building and construction trades workers MTC 01 that are represented by the Boston & New England Maritime Trades Council, AFL-CIO, in support of the Vineyard Wind Company's submission of their Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report. Vineyard Wind has compile a comprehensive and thorough Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report while conducting an extensive outreach program that included, but was not limited to, environmental-conservation groups, local officials, community-neighborhood groups, and held numerous public meetings. The Boston & New England Maritime Trades Council has been directly engaged with Vineyard Wind officials as they compiled the SDEIR document and we fully support their submission of this report. On behalf of the members of the BNE Maritime Trades Council, I thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments in support of the Vineyard Wind SDEIR. Gerard Dhooge / President Boston & New England Maritime Trades Council, AFL-CIO 750 Dorchester Avenue Boston, MA 02125 phone: 617-733-2270 email: [email protected] BOSTON & NEW ENGLAND MARITIME TRADES COUNCIL (MTC) MTC 01 I write on behalf of the tens of thousands of maritime, marine industrial, building and construction trades workers that are represented by the Boston & New England Maritime Trades Council, AFL-CIO, in support of the Vineyard Wind Company's submission of their Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report. The Company greatly appreciates this support for the Project. 4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-74 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. September 20, 2018 Secretary, Matthew A. Beaton Attn: MEPA Office, Purvi Patel (EEA #15787) Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 Dear Secretary Beaton, On behalf of the more than twelve hundred member businesses and organizations in the Cape Cod CC 01 Chamber of Commerce, I wish to lend our strong support to an expedited approval of Vineyard Wind’s proposed wind energy facility off the Massachusetts coastline. The Chamber’s standing energy policy is to support a balanced, stable and reliable energy portfolio for the Commonwealth, that is cost competitive, environmentally responsible and supports the resiliency of coastal regions. As you know, our current energy fuel mix is anything but balanced, relying overwhelming on natural gas. When Pilgrim Nuclear Station comes offline in less than a year, the region will be near 90% reliant on gas for electricity production. This situation underscores the urgent and pressing need to get offshore wind production online as quickly as possible, to help restore balance in our fuel mix and allow us to reap the benefits of home- grown energy production, along with the economic development opportunities it will bring to southeast Massachusetts. It has become evident over the past few years with increased storm events, that the electrical infrastructure on Cape Cod is among the most vulnerable in the state. Vineyard Wind’s direct tie-in to the Cape power grid represents an important opportunity for improved reliability and resiliency. It will create new storage capacity through distributed projects on Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket that can help in emergencies, and minimize peak demand. The Cape Cod region is grounded in a Blue Economy – one where its water resources drive economic prosperity. We view development of local renewable energy as a major economic opportunity for the region bringing not only meaningful jobs, but research and technology development that will fit squarely with the work conducted by world renown organizations in the Woods Hole marine technology cluster. Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce, 5 Patti Page Way, Centerville, Cape Cod, Massachusetts 02632 1-888-33CapeCod (888-332-2732) or 508-362-3225 Massachusetts is leading in the race to offshore wind, but our neighbors along the Atlantic coast are moving quickly. For Massachusetts to become the hub of offshore wind supply chain development, it is critical to get steel in the ground as soon as possible. We urge your speedy approval of the Vineyard Wind application and look forward to more offshore wind development in the near future, that will help stabilize our fuel mix while at the same time strengthening the Massachusetts economy and creating energy resiliency. Sincerely, Wendy K. Northcross, CCE Chief Executive Officer Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce, 5 Patti Page Way, Centerville, Cape Cod, Massachusetts 02632 1-888-33CapeCod (888-332-2732) or 508-362-3225 CAPE COD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE (CC) CC 01 On behalf of the more than twelve hundred member businesses and organizations in the Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce, I wish to lend our strong support to an expedited approval of Vineyard Wind’s proposed wind energy facility off the Massachusetts coastline. The Company greatly appreciates this support for the Project. 4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-75 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP WASHINGTON HARBOUR, SUITE 400 FACSIMILE 3050 K STREET, NW NEW YORK, NY (202) 342-8451 LOS ANGELES,CA WASHINGTON, DC 20007 www.kelleydrye.com HOUSTON.TX C H I C A G O , I L (202) 342-8400 DAVID E. FRULLA PARSIPPANY, NJ DIRECT LiNE;(202) 342-8648 STAMFORD, CT EMAIL: [email protected] BRUSSELS, BELGIUM ANDREW E. MINKIEWICZ AFFILIATE OFFICE DIRECT LlNE;(202) 342-8474 MUMBAI. INDIA EMAIL; [email protected] October 5, 2018 Via Email Delivery to: [email protected] Mr. Matthew Beaton Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) Attn.; MEPA Office Purvi Patel, EEA No. 15787 (Vineyard Wind Connector) 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 Re: Comments in Response to the Vineyard Wind Connector: Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear Secretary Beaton: On behalf of the Fisheries Survival Fund (“FSF”), we submit the following comments in response to the Vineyard Wind Connector: Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report ("SDEIR"). FSF represents the significant majority of the full-time limited access permit holders in the Atlantic scallop fishery. Our members are home-ported along the Atlantic coast from North Carolina and Virginia north through New Jersey, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. As you know. New Bedford has long been the lead scallop port on the East Coast, and scallop landings have consistently made New Bedford the largest fishing port in the U.S. by value of fish landed over the last decade-plus. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Vineyard Wind’s draft Environmental Impact Statement for the on-shore cabling element of its wind farm development. FSF would ask that Vineyard Wind reconsider one element of its proposal contained in the FSF 01 SDEIR, relating to the covering materials employed for the up to 3.7 mile section of cable that Vineyard Wind does not expect it will be able to bury. The SDEIR proposes to use rock placements or concrete mattressing to cover these cables, instead of Trelleborg’s Uraduct. However, we learned from our counterparts in Scotland, at the Scottish Fishing Federation, that manufactured covering devices for lines used in the North Sea oil and gas industry have proven preferable to rocks or concrete mattressing, in terms of reducing the possibility for snagging fishing KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP Mr. Matthew Beaton October 5, 2018 Page Two gear, to the detriment of both a vessel and its crew, as well as stable delivery from/to the offshore installation. We understand that fiberglass covers may also be available for this purpose, in addition to the Uraduct technology. Accordingly, and especially given the discrete 3.7-mile segment of cable in question, we urge Vineyard Wind to more fully consider alternative covering materials for its cables. The scallop industry would be willing to work with Vineyard Wind and your Department to assess the effectiveness of alternative eahle eovering techniques, with an eye to ensuring the best available, feasible technology is explored and deployed by Vineyard Wind and any other developers willing to work proactively with the fishing industry on ameliorative technologies. Finally, we would also ask that Vineyard Wind, and all wind farm developers, collaborate FSF 02 on turbine layout to enable fishing vessel transit lanes to be developed through the various adjoining leaseholds, especially those offshore Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment. Respectfully submitted, David E. Frulla Andrew E. Minkiewicz Counsel for Fisheries Survival Fund ee: Ms. Pamela LaFreniere City of New Bedford (via email to [email protected]) 4842-4486-0535V.! FISHERIES SURVIVAL FUND (FSF) FSF 01 FSF would ask that Vineyard Wind reconsider one element of its proposal contained in the SDEIR, relating to the covering materials employed for the up to 3.7 mile section of cable that Vineyard Wind does not expect it will be able to bury… We urge Vineyard Wind to more fully consider alternative covering materials for its cables. The Company very much respects the views of the Fisheries Survival Fund and the advice presented on alternative methods of cable protection that has been received from their associates within the Scottish Fisheries Federation. Vineyard Wind is also aware of a follow-up email from the Fisheries Survival Fund regarding cable protection methodologies, and the Company is open to consultations with the FSF to discuss the various options currently available for protecting cable that may not be sufficiently buried to ensure any product or material used considers their shared usage of the seabed and does not present a hazard. Vineyard Wind would also like to reiterate its strategy for cable burial, as described in Section 1.4.1.3 of the SDEIR, which prioritizes achievement of a sufficient burial depth of the two offshore export cables to ideally avoid the need for any cable protection. This will be done first by selecting the correct burial tool for the seabed conditions, and then by ensuring the cable alignment is engineered to avoid or minimize areas where seabed conditions are unsuitable for the selected methods of cable burial. However, it is possible that achieving sufficient burial depth may be impractical or unsuccessful in areas where the seafloor is composed of very stiff clay, rock, or interbedded boulders which could prevent or impede efforts to bury the cables, in which case cable protection (e.g., a layer of rock or concrete “mattresses”) may be necessary. The Proponent will seek to avoid and/or minimize the use of such cable protections, and cable protection will only be used where necessary, thus minimizing potential impacts. Revised impact calculations are provided in Section 2.2 of this FEIR; these revised calculations show the maximum area of cable protection is now estimated at 9 acres, reduced from 27 acres estimated in the SDEIR, and the Company hopes to avoid the need for any cable protection. FSF 02 Finally, we would also ask that Vineyard Wind, and all wind farm developers, collaborate on turbine layout to enable fishing vessel transit lanes to be developed through the various adjoining leaseholds, especially those offshore Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Transit lanes through the WEA are discussed in Section 3.2, and Vineyard Wind is committed to ongoing discussions to address this concern. 4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-76 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. From: Rachel Youngling To: Sedor, Kathryn (DPU); Patel, Purvi (EEA) Subject: Hyannis Park Civic Association comments on Vineyard Wind Connector Date: Thursday, October 04, 2018 8:45:18 AM Dear Ms. Sedor, I have mailed the letter below to your attention and Secretary Matthew Beaton. Please add this to your consideration of the Vineyard Wind Connector. Thank you, Rachel Youngling President Hyannis Park Civic Association October 3, 2018 Hon. Matthew A. Beaton Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 Also via email: [email protected] [email protected] Subject: Vineyard Wind Connector (EEA #15787) Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report Vineyard Wind LLC EFSB 17-05/D.P.U. 18-18/18-19 Dear Secretary Beaton: I am writing to you on behalf of the approximately 550 homeowners and residents within the boundaries of the Hyannis Park Civic Association along Lewis Bay in West Yarmouth. We are the longest continuously operating civic association on Cape Cod and represent the quality of life, environmental, commercial and public interests of the residents and homeowners within our confines. I have spent a great deal of time reviewing the scientific literature on the burial of submarine power cables (SPC) and their relative impact on the marine environment. One item that has become glaringly clear is that there is very limited independent study of how a SPC being buried in a fragile marine environment will affect that ecosystem. In fact, after months of research, I have not been able to gather any scientific or anecdotal evidence of a SPC being buried in a fragile, small, protected estuary. The proposal by Vineyard Wind to use Lewis Bay as their preferred location for burying the onshore industrial transmission cable appears to be the very first not only in the United States, but in the entire world. In a recent scholarly article, dated July 3, 2018, “A review of potential impacts of submarine power cables on the marine environment: Knowledge gaps, recommendations and future directions,” authored by Taormina, Bald, Want, Thouzeau, Lejart, Desroy and Carlier, it is noted that: “Despite more than 10 years of scientific work on potential environmental impacts of Marine Renewable Energy (MRE) projects, SPC have received much less attention than MRE devices themselves. Indeed, only nine published papers focusing on in situ effects or impacts of SPC were found during the literature research. These studies addressed the impacts of SPC on benthic communities, considering both installation or operation phases, examined communities colonizing unburied structures, and/or reported species-specific changes of behavior.” Key items that jump out to me in this review are the assessments of physical changes, biological changes, sediment redisposition and electromagnetic fields. Physical changes: “These methods of reworking the seabed may lead to direct destruction of benthic habitats, flora and fauna.” Biological changes: “Substratum alterations may affect related benthic communities by direct impacts such as displacement, damage or crushing of organisms.” Sediment redisposition: “Depending on the nature of the seafloor, sediment reworking by installation, maintenance or decommissioning can lead to turbid plumes that can reach several tens of hectares, with suspended particulate matter concentrations that can reach several dozen mg/L” Electromagnetic fields (EMF): “When the cable is buried, the sediment layer does not entirely eliminate the EMF, but reduces the exposure to the strongest EMF existing in direct contact with the cable.” Each of these statements rests heavily on “may,” pointing to the fact that we do not have comprehensive research or data to make sound analysis and assessments. Proceeding with a project that is based loosely on hypothesis and has little science to support it, could be disastrous for the Commonwealth and Lewis Bay. One of the main recommendations of this scientific review is: “Planning the cable route to avoid impact on habitats and benthic species that HPCA 01 are most sensitive to disturbance or are of special ecological interest” This final recommendation is of utmost importance to the abutters of Lewis Bay. We HPCA 02 have a fragile estuary ecosystem which has been compromised by nitrogen loading from our own septic systems. The aquaculture economy in Lewis Bay is currently propagating greater than three million shellfish which filter a combined 150M+ gallons per day of water and remove the nitrogen from the ecosystem. A compilation of peer- reviewed scientific studies points to the fact that burying a SPC in Lewis Bay will compromise this process and the livelihood of our local shell fishermen. We ask that you take this opportunity to permit the transmission cable at Covell’s Beach in Barnstable, rather than through Lewis Bay. Our quality of life, longevity of our tourism and shell fishing income and ecological diversity depends on this decision. Respectfully yours, Rachel Youngling President Hyannis Park Civic Association PO Box 561 West Yarmouth, MA 02673 HYANNIS PARK CIVIC ASSOCIATION (HPCA) HPCA 01 One of the main recommendations of this scientific review is: “Planning the cable route to avoid impact on habitats and benthic species that are most sensitive to disturbance or are of special ecological interest” The documentation provided to the MEPA Office and other agencies (e.g., the EFSB) has demonstrated how, through deliberate routing and Project design, the Company is seeking to avoid and minimize Project impacts while delivering numerous public environmental, energy, and economic benefits. HPCA 02 We have a fragile estuary ecosystem which has been compromised by nitrogen loading from our own septic systems… The aquaculture economy in Lewis Bay is currently propagating greater than three million shellfish which filter a combined 150M+ gallons per day of water and remove the nitrogen from the ecosystem. A compilation of peer-reviewed scientific studies points to the fact that burying a SPC in Lewis Bay will compromise this process and the livelihood of our local shell fishermen. As described in Section 1.1, Covell’s Beach is now the preferred Landfall Site, and New Hampshire Avenue is an alternative site. As described in the context of shellfish resources in Lewis Bay (see Section 2.3), the Project is not expected to have any impacts on aquaculture. 4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-77 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Submitted electronically to: [email protected] October 5, 2018 Mr. Matthew Beaton Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) Attn: MEPA Office, Purvi Patel, EEA No. 15787 (Vineyard Wind Connector) 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston MA 02114 Re: Massachusetts Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report for Vineyard Wind, LLC’s Proposed Vineyard Wind Connector (EEA #15787) Dear Secretary Beaton: On behalf of Conservation Law Foundation, Natural Resources Defense Council, National Wildlife Federation, Mass Audubon, Environmental League of Massachusetts, Acadia Center, and our millions of members and supporters, we submit the following comments on the Massachusetts Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Vineyard Wind Connector (EEA #15787) (Project) submitted by Vineyard Wind, LLC. Our organizations applaud the Commonwealth’s leadership to advance offshore wind power, which we believe can bring significant environmental and economic benefits to the region when developed responsibly with careful attention to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to coastal and marine wildlife. Our primary concern in reviewing this SDEIR is the health and status of North Atlantic right whales, and specifically the potential adverse impacts resulting from increased underwater noise and vessel traffic in this area as a result of the Project. We appreciate that Vineyard Wind has engaged in discussions with ENGOs like ours, scientists, and other stakeholders regarding North Atlantic right whale mitigation strategies and are actively working to develop strategies that can avoid, minimize, and mitigate risks. With these comments, we specifically seek to ensure that the Commonwealth does everything in its power to protect critically endangered North Atlantic right whales as offshore wind energy moves forward. After reviewing the SDEIR, which includes some improvements to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (issued on April 30, 2018), we offer these further comments to help ensure that the Final Environmental Report provides comprehensive analysis of the potential impacts of the Project on North Atlantic right whales and the applicant’s proposed mitigation measures to avoid, minimize and mitigate those potential impacts. We incorporate by reference the joint comments of our organizations and other partners on the Massachusetts Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Vineyard Wind Connector (EEA #15787) submitted on June 8, 2018 (Joint Comments) and the joint comments of CLF and NRDC on Vineyard Wind Coastal Management Act, Consistency Certification submitted on July 24, 2018 (MA Consistency Review Comments) as these comments reflect our - 1 - organizations’ understanding of the current status of North Atlantic right whales, our understanding and ongoing concerns about the potential impacts of offshore wind construction and operation on North Atlantic right whales, the Commonwealth’s legal obligation to protect North Atlantic right whales, and the best management practices which we believe must be implemented to adequately protect this severely endangered species. As our prior letters discussed, we recognize that Vineyard Wind is working through the federal permitting process and will undergo review by BOEM, however, there are activities in federal waters that may affect right whales in state waters and these activities and the proponent’s proposed mitigation must be described with enough specificity for the Commonwealth to adequately assess their impacts and the efficacy of proposed mitigation on state resources, including North Atlantic right whales. The North Atlantic right whale is listed as “endangered” under the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq., as well as the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act, M.G.L. c. 131A. The Commonwealth must meet its obligations under the Massachusetts Environmental Protection Act (MEPA) to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that ensures that the Project will minimize damage to the Commonwealth’s natural resources.1 The Commonwealth must also meet its obligations under the Massachusetts Ocean Act of 2008 to ensure that “all certificates, licenses, permits and approvals for any proposed structures, uses or activities” are “consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with the plan. See Chapter 114 of the Acts of 2008 – An Act Relative to Oceans). The Commonwealth must also meet its obligations under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 16 U.S.C. § 1451 et seq., when it completes its federal consistency review. Id. at § 1456. On June 15, 2018, the Massachusetts Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs issued the Secretary’s Certificate on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Project and a determination that the Project “does not adequately and properly comply with the MEPA and its implementing regulations (301 CMR 11.00).”2 Among the deficiencies noted in the DEIR was the lack of detailed analysis of the potential impacts of the Project on North Atlantic right whales or details on effective mitigation of those impacts. Specifically, the DEIR failed to address avoiding conflicts with marine mammals, an assessment of the use of acoustic monitoring during installation, a description of the size of vessels, the frequency and time of year of trips, and speed restrictions that will be observed.3 1 See G.L. c. 30, § 61 (“All agencies, departments, boards, commissions and authorities of the commonwealth shall review, evaluate, and determine the impact on the natural environment of all works, projects or activities conducted by them and shall use all practicable means and measures to minimize damage to the environment.”). 2 Certificate of the Massachusetts Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Vineyard Wind Connector Project (EEA #15787), June 15, 2018. p. 2. 3 See supra at fn 2, p. 27. - 2 - I. The Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report Continues to Provide Little Specificity on the Necessary Mitigation Measures for North Atlantic Right Whales The SDEIR continues to provide little specificity on potential impacts of the Project on North IG 01 Atlantic right whales and measures to avoid, minimize and mitigate those impacts. The EIR must provide this specificity consistent with MEPA and other applicable law. We note that the SDEIR now articulates basic speed and separation distance protocols for all marine mammals, that Vineyard Wind will adhere to the Right Whale Ship Strike Reduction Rule, and that there will be no pile driving during the months of January through April.4 We appreciate these commitments and expect that additional measures to protect right whales will be included in the EIR as a result of further stakeholder discussions and the ongoing federal permitting process. As context for our comments, we call your attention to the attached letter addressed to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries and dated September 19, 2018 in which five of the world’s leading scientific experts on North Atlantic right whales provide their recommendations for “adequate and effective mitigation of impacts to the North Atlantic right whale during offshore wind development and operations.” In this letter, right whale scientists recommend a seasonal prohibition on pile driving from January 1 to April 30 and “if development activities absolutely cannot be avoided” the implementation of an “enhanced mitigation protocol” for pile driving during the periods of May 1 to 14 and November 1 to December 31. The enhanced mitigation protocol would be project-specific and developed through “a participatory process that includes scientists, offshore wind developers, and environmental groups” and would be reassessed every two years because right whale distribution is “known to be shifting.” Further, these scientists call for the implementation of noise reduction and attenuation technologies throughout the construction period to address potential impacts of noise, which they state is “one of the primary impacts to marine mammals from offshore wind development.” The scientists’ letter also calls for vessel-based monitoring of right whales, real-time acoustic monitoring of major vessel routes, and a vessel speed restriction of 10 knots for all vessels within and transiting to and from the lease areas during times involving the confirmed presence of North Atlantic right whales or the expected presence of mother-calf pairs, pregnant females, and aggregations of three or more whales, based on best available science. Furthermore, the scientists recommend a mandatory 10 knot speed limit of all project-based vessels within any Dynamic Management Areas established by NOAA Fisheries. We urge the Commonwealth to factor the recommendations of these scientific experts into your decision-making and require similarly strong mitigation requirements in all state permits as well as the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office’s federal consistency review. Measures that could provide the additional clarity necessary to adequately assess the Project’s plan to mitigate the impacts on right whales include: vessel speed restrictions; 4 See Vineyard Wind Connector: Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report EEA #15787 (August 31, 2018) (“SDEIR”), at p. 5-2 (165/1111 pdf). - 3 - separation distance protocols; impacts of noise; and monitoring. For example, the SDEIR states that “vessel operators and crews,” rather than appropriately trained observers without additional duties, will keep a vigilant watch for right whales.5 Measures to reduce ship strikes include caveats, such as: vessels “near” a whale will reduce speed and “attempt” to route around animals or maintain safe distances “when possible.”6 Although Vineyard Wind has stated its intent to adhere to the Right Whale Ship Strike Reduction Rule,7 the rule measures are either entirely voluntary (Dynamic Management Area) or allow a vessel to continue at greater than 10 knots of speed under certain circumstances so long as certain information is entered into a logbook (Seasonal Management Area). The SDEIR’s description of potential measures to mitigate the noise impacts, as well as the visual and acoustic monitoring measures considered, must also be improved to ensure comprehensive mitigation throughout the entire Vineyard Wind Project. Further, recognizing that North Atlantic right whales are not limited to their Core Habitat off IG 02 the Southeast corner of Martha’s Vineyard, the potential 10 percent increase in daily vessel traffic associated with construction of this Project8 could be significant for right whales that have increasingly begun to congregate in the waters south of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket from November 1 to May 14. The approximately 25 vessels a day that will be involved during construction, and the 18 vessels that will go in and out of New Bedford Harbor on an average day,9 increase the risk of ship strikes (a leading cause of death with the severity of the injury dependent upon the size and speed of the vessel). As right whales spend extended periods of time at the surface, and are generally unresponsive to vessel sounds, they are even more susceptible to ship strikes than other large whales.10 Although strikes may be less likely to occur during the geophysical and geotechnical surveys due to the slower speed of those vessels, Vineyard Wind plans to transport crew and materials from New Bedford Harbor (and potentially other harbors) to and from the Project Area in vessels traveling at greater speeds.11 The FEIR should include a description of how this increase in vessel traffic will be mitigated. We strongly urge the Commonwealth to require more comprehensive and effective vessel speed mitigation measures to protect right whales and refer it to the best management practices detailed in our comments on the DEIR and in Section III below. II. North Atlantic Right Whale Core Habitat Must be Protected The SDEIR frequently underscores that the project will not impact Core Habitat of the North Atlantic right whale, defined as a Special, Sensitive and Unique area (SSU) in the Massachusetts Ocean Plan12 (see, for example, pages 1-81, 1-84, 2-1, 5-2). We appreciate that the Vineyard 5 SDEIR at p. 5-2 (165/1111 pdf). 6 SDEIR at p. 5-3 (166/1111 pdf). 7 Id. 8 SDEIR at 4-3 (155/1111 pdf) 9 Id. 10 Nowacek et al., 2004. Proc Biol Sci. Feb 7; 271 (1536): 227-31. 11 See e.g., SDEIR at 4-4 (156/1111), 5-2 (165/1111 pdf), 5-3 (166/1111). 12 Available at https://www.mass.gov/service-details/massachusetts-ocean-management-plan. - 4 - Wind Project avoids construction directly in the right whale Core Habitat SSU. We note however that the preferred Western Offshore Export Cable Corridor is adjacent to right whale Core Habitat13 and that construction activities that take place in waters adjacent to the Core Habitat may impact the Core Habitat by making it unsuitable, even temporarily, for right whales particularly when they are foraging. Therefore, to adequately protect Right Whale Core Habitat, the Project proponent must demonstrate that all practical measures to avoid damage to the SSU have been taken and that the Project will not cause significant alteration of the SSU.14 III. Recommendations on Effective Mitigation of Potential Impacts to North Atlantic Right Whales Any responsible approach to offshore wind development must take strong, precautionary action to safeguard North Atlantic right whales that are frequently sighted in the Massachusetts Wind Energy Area. To be consistent with all applicable laws, best management practices (BMPs) must be in place to demonstrate that sufficient actions will be taken to protect this critically endangered species. Our organizations endorse the measures outlined below as BMPs for the protection of the North Atlantic right whale during wind energy development off the U.S. East Coast. The BMPs are designed to: (i) reduce co-occurrence of development activities with this sensitive species; (ii) minimize and mitigate any impacts that do occur to the maximum extent practicable; (iii) reduce risk of vessel collisions throughout the life of the Project; and (iv) ensure effective long-term monitoring of the health of marine life present at the new offshore wind site to help guide the development of the American offshore wind industry. We note that these BMP’s have been slightly revised from versions submitted in prior letters to reflect our understanding of the best available science. (1) Site selection Offshore wind projects should not be sited in, at minimum, North Atlantic right whale foraging or calving critical habitat, as defined under the Endangered Species Act, until peer-reviewed scientific research determines that offshore wind activities can proceed in a manner that will not adversely impact North Atlantic right whales or modify their behavior or habitat. (2) Temporal restrictions on geophysical surveys and construction Construction activities and geophysical surveys with noise levels that could cause injury or IG 3 harassment in marine mammals must not occur during periods of highest risk to North Atlantic right whales, defined as times of highest relative density of animals during their migration, and times when mother-calf pairs, pregnant females, aggregations of three or more whales (including surface active groups, indicative of breeding or social behavior), or entangled animals, are, or are expected to be, present, as supported by best available science. 13 See SDEIR at Figure 2.3 (508/1380 pdf). 14 301 C.M.R. 28.04(2)(b)(3). - 5 - Geophysical survey and pile driving activities should commence, with ramp-up, only during IG 4 daylight hours and good visibility conditions to maximize the probability that North Atlantic right whales are detected and confirmed to be clear of the exclusion zone (see, also, (3), below). The activity can then continue into nighttime hours. If the activity is halted or delayed because of documented North Atlantic right whale presence in the area, developers must wait until daylight hours and good visibility conditions to recommence. (3) Exclusion zones and exclusion zone monitoring during geophysical surveys and construction For the North Atlantic right whale, a minimum exclusion zone of 1,000 meters should be IG 5 established around all vessels conducting activities with noise levels that could result in injury or harassment to these species (e.g., geophysical surveys and pile driving). The activity must be halted or delayed if a North Atlantic right whale is detected in the exclusion zone. To maximize the probability of detection of North Atlantic right whales within the exclusion IG 6 zone, comprehensive monitoring is essential. At minimum, a combination of National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)-approved Protected Species Observers (PSOs) to watch for whale presence and passive acoustic monitoring with underwater recorders to detect when animals are vocalizing nearby should be required at all times. Staffing and shift-schedules should allow for each PSO to monitor a maximum of 180° during daylight hours. Aerial surveys would also provide a useful supplement to increase detection probability. At night, a combination of night- vision, thermal imaging, and passive acoustic monitoring should be used for geophysical surveys. Pile driving should not commence at night, as per (2), above. (4) Vessel speed restriction for the lifetime of the Project Ship strikes are one of the leading causes of mortality for large whales, including the North Atlantic right whale. Probability of serious injury or mortality significantly increases when vessels of any length are traveling at speeds greater than 10 knots. Vessel-based North Atlantic right whale monitoring measures must be used, including (i) staffing of at least one NMFS-approved PSO aboard industry vessels and real-time acoustic monitoring of primary transit routes (note that at least two NMFS-approved PSOs should be on watch at any one time during site surveying and construction, as specified in (3), above); and (ii) real-time acoustic monitoring of major vessel routes (e.g., using fixed location hydrophones with real-time reporting to transiting vessels). All vessels operating within or transiting to/from IG 7 lease areas should observe a speed restriction of ten knots during times when North Atlantic right whales are present, or when mother-calf pairs, pregnant females, or aggregations of three or more whales (including surface active groups; indicative of feeding or social behavior) are expected to be present based on best available science. A compulsory vessel speed restriction of ten knots must be required of all industry vessels within any Dynamic Management Area established by NOAA Fisheries. (5) Reduction of underwater noise during construction During construction, developers should commit to minimizing impacts of underwater noise on the North Atlantic right whale to the full extent practicable through the consideration and use - 6 - of foundation types and installation methods that eliminate or reduce noise, and the use of technically and commercially feasible and effective noise attenuation measures, including the use of the lowest practicable source level. (6) Commitment to scientific research and long-term monitoring Developers should commit to carry out scientific research and long-term monitoring in lease IG 8 areas to advance understanding of the effects of offshore wind development on marine and coastal resources, and the effectiveness of mitigation technologies (e.g., noise attenuation, thermal detection). Science should be conducted in a collaborative and transparent manner, utilizing recognized marine experts, engaging relevant stakeholders, and making results publicly available. Developers should coordinate with state and regional scientific efforts to ensure results from individual lease areas can be interpreted within a regional context and contribute to the generation of regional-scale data, which is required to address questions related to population-level change and cumulative impacts across the geographic range of the North Atlantic right whale. (7) Contribution to species conservation efforts As a broad commitment to species conservation efforts, offshore wind developers should IG 18 support mitigation approaches and strategies to reduce other stressors facing potentially affected species such as the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale. In conclusion, we reiterate our support for responsibly developed offshore wind power and applaud the Commonwealth’s actions to date to advance this important climate and clean energy solution. We look forward to working together to ensure that all projects built to meet the Commonwealth’s goals are developed responsibly with strong protections in place for our most vulnerable coastal and marine wildlife. Sincerely, Priscilla M. Brooks, Ph.D. Jack Clarke Vice President and Director of Ocean Director of Public Policy Conservation Mass Audubon Conservation Law Foundation Eric Wilkinson Francine Kershaw, Ph.D. General Counsel and Director of Energy Policy Project Scientist, Marine Mammal Protection Environmental League of Massachusetts and Oceans, Nature Program Natural Resources Defense Council Deborah Donovan Massachusetts Director & Senior Policy Catherine Bowes Advocate Program Director, Offshore Wind Energy Acadia Center National Wildlife Federation - 7 - INTEREST GROUPS: CONSERVATION LAW FOUNDATION, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, MASSACHUSETTS AUDUBON SOCIETY, SIERRA CLUB (IG) IG 01 The SDEIR continues to provide little specificity on potential impacts of the Project on North Atlantic right whales and measures to avoid, minimize and mitigate those impacts… Measures that could provide the additional clarity necessary to adequately assess the Project’s plan to mitigate the impacts on right whales include: vessel speed restrictions; separation distance protocols; impacts of noise; and monitoring. For example, the SDEIR states that “vessel operators and crews,” rather than appropriately trained observers without additional duties, will keep a vigilant watch for right whales… The SDEIR’s description of potential measures to mitigate the noise impacts, as well as the visual and acoustic monitoring measures considered, must also be improved to ensure comprehensive mitigation throughout the entire Vineyard Wind Project. Measures designed to protect marine mammals, including North Atlantic right whales, are described in Section 4.1; the proposed monitoring and mitigation plans for construction and operations are shown in Table 31 of the COP available at https://www.boem.gov/Vineyard-Wind/. IG 02 Further, recognizing that North Atlantic right whales are not limited to their Core Habitat off the southeast corner of Martha’s Vineyard, the potential 10 percent increase in daily vessel traffic associated with construction of this Project could be significant for right whales that have increasingly begun to congregate in the waters south of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket from November 1 to May 14… Although strikes may be less likely to occur during the geophysical and geotechnical surveys due to the slower speed of those vessels, Vineyard Wind plans to transport crew and materials from New Bedford Harbor (and potentially other harbors) to and from the Project Area in vessels traveling at greater speeds. The FEIR should include a description of how this increase in vessel traffic will be mitigated. Measures designed to protect marine mammals, including North Atlantic right whales, are described in Section 4.1; the proposed monitoring and mitigation plans for construction and operations are shown in Table 31 of Appendix III-M of the COP available at https://www.boem.gov/Vineyard-Wind/. The approximately 10% increase in daily vessel traffic describes vessels transiting the New Bedford hurricane protection barrier in the unlikely scenario that all of the Project’s vessels use New Bedford harbor. Project-related vessel traffic represents an insignificant percentage of all vessel traffic in the context of Nantucket Sound and the waters south of Martha’s Vineyard. 4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-78 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. IG 3 Construction activities and geophysical surveys with noise levels that could cause injury or harassment in marine mammals must not occur during periods of highest risk to North Atlantic right whales, defined as times of highest relative density of animals during their migration, and times when mother-calf pairs, pregnant females, aggregations of three or more whales (including surface active groups, indicative of breeding or social behavior), or entangled animals, are, or are expected to be, present, as supported by best available science. Measures designed to protect marine mammals, including North Atlantic right whales, are described in Section 4.1; the proposed monitoring and mitigation plans for construction and operations are shown in Table 31 of Appendix III-M of the COP available at https://www.boem.gov/Vineyard-Wind/. IG 4 Geophysical survey and pile driving activities should commence, with ramp-up, only during daylight hours and good visibility conditions to maximize the probability that North Atlantic right whales are detected and confirmed to be clear of the exclusion zone (see, also, (3), below). The activity can then continue into nighttime hours. If the activity is halted or delayed because of documented North Atlantic right whale presence in the area, developers must wait until daylight hours and good visibility conditions to recommence. Measures designed to protect marine mammals, including North Atlantic right whales, are described in Section 4.1.; the proposed monitoring and mitigation plans for construction and operations are shown in Table 31 of Appendix III-M of the COP available at https://www.boem.gov/Vineyard-Wind/. IG 5 For the North Atlantic right whale, a minimum exclusion zone of 1,000 meters should be established around all vessels conducting activities with noise levels that could result in injury or harassment to these species (e.g., geophysical surveys and pile driving). The activity must be halted or delayed if a North Atlantic right whale is detected in the exclusion zone. Measures designed to protect marine mammals, including North Atlantic right whales, are described in Section 4.1; the proposed monitoring and mitigation plans for construction and operations are shown in Table 31 of Appendix III-M of the COP available at https://www.boem.gov/Vineyard-Wind/. IG 6 To maximize the probability of detection of North Atlantic right whales within the exclusion zone, comprehensive monitoring is essential. At minimum, a combination of National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)-approved Protected Species Observers (PSOs) to watch for whale presence and passive acoustic monitoring with underwater recorders to detect when animals are vocalizing nearby should be required at all times. Staffing and shift-schedules should allow for each PSO to monitor a maximum of 180° during daylight hours. Aerial surveys would 4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-79 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. also provide a useful supplement to increase detection probability. At night, a combination of night-vision, thermal imaging, and passive acoustic monitoring should be used for geophysical surveys. Pile driving should not commence at night, as per (2), above… Vessel-based North Atlantic right whale monitoring measures must be used, including (i) staffing of at least one NMFS-approved PSO aboard industry vessels and real-time acoustic monitoring of primary transit routes (note that at least two NMFS-approved PSOs should be on watch at any one time during site surveying and construction, as specified in (3), above); and (ii) real-time acoustic monitoring of major vessel routes (e.g., using fixed location hydrophones with real- time reporting to transiting vessels). Measures designed to protect marine mammals, including North Atlantic right whales, are described in Section 4.1; the proposed monitoring and mitigation plans for construction and operations are shown in Table 31 of Appendix III-M of the COP available at https://www.boem.gov/Vineyard-Wind/. IG 7 All vessels operating within or transiting to/from lease areas should observe a speed restriction of ten knots during times when North Atlantic right whales are present, or when mother-calf pairs, pregnant females, or aggregations of three or more whales (including surface active groups; indicative of feeding or social behavior) are expected to be present based on best available science. A compulsory vessel speed restriction of ten knots must be required of all industry vessels within any Dynamic Management Area established by NOAA Fisheries. Measures designed to protect marine mammals, including North Atlantic right whales, are described in Section 4.1; the proposed monitoring and mitigation plans for construction and operations are shown in Table 31 of Appendix III-M of the COP available at https://www.boem.gov/Vineyard-Wind/. IG 8 Developers should commit to carry out scientific research and long-term monitoring in lease areas to advance understanding of the effects of offshore wind development on marine and coastal resources, and the effectiveness of mitigation technologies (e.g., noise attenuation, thermal detection). Vineyard Wind is participating in ongoing stakeholder discussions about plans for scientific research and long-term monitoring. Development of effective mitigation technologies is a likely focus for the Wind and Whales fund as described in Section 1.2.2.3. Vineyard Wind will also be employing studies for numerous resource areas including benthic habitat, fisheries, and marine mammals. These studies may be part of existing ongoing regional studies or individualized for the lease area. Planning for studies is in coordination with regulators, scientific experts, and stakeholders. 4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-80 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. From: [email protected] To: Patel, Purvi (EEA) Subject: Comments on the Vineyard Wind"s SDEIR Date: Sunday, September 16, 2018 9:58:20 PM Hello Mr. Patel, I would like to submit comments on Vineyard Wind's SDEIR. The SDEIR demonstrates that, with respect IW 01 to the planned construction and operation of the Vineyard Wind Offshore Project, Vineyard Wind is taking extraordinary care to protect the environment, fisheries, and onshore residents, and to comply with all environmental laws and regulations. In addition, the wind farm project is the first of many in Massachusetts that will help the State achieve its goal of attaining 100% sustainable energy from non-fossil fuels. It is necessary for the future and ultimately necessary to save the planet. The time is now to start and we must all press for it to vigorously continue indefinitely. Thank you. Sincerely, Jeffrey K.Kominers Board Member Island Wind ISLAND WIND (IW) IW 01 I would like to submit comments on Vineyard Wind's SDEIR. The SDEIR demonstrates that, with respect to the planned construction and operation of the Vineyard Wind Offshore Project, Vineyard Wind is taking extraordinary care to protect the environment, fisheries, and onshore residents, and to comply with all environmental laws and regulations. The Company greatly appreciates this support for the Project. 4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-81 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. From: Michael Shaw To: Patel, Purvi (EEA) Subject: Patriot Offshore Comment - Vineyard Wind EIR Date: Monday, October 01, 2018 1:39:02 PM Secretary Beaton, I received a newsletter from the Vineyard Power Co-operative in regard to submitting comments on the status of Vineyard Wind's SDEIR. Regardless of the weight it carries, I felt submitting positive comments about the project was appropriate, as the folks driving and supporting its development are deserving of some praise. As a start-up company in the Commonwealth, Patriot Offshore has monitored Vineyard Wind, attended local supply chain events, met with company representatives and are ready to respond to a competitive bidding process with the goal of providing marine transportation services through all phases of the wind farms construction and service. During our campaign, the companies founders have attended additional local events on the Cape & the Islands advertised and promoted by Vineyard Wind & Vineyard Power. These events were public knowledge and inviting to all parties interests. Some of which included forums for public comment, documentation and review. As natives to MA, it is easy to see the benefits a project of this scale will provide when it comes to a cleaner environment, onshore and offshore skilled labor demand, potential for academic incentives and training, etc. It seems unfortunate that relatively small, temporary coastwise reclamation may be negating the bigger picture and the commencement of the project. Patriot Offshore recognizes the effort put forth by all ranks, supports Vineyard Wind and PO 01 would like to express thanks to all the folks working hard to enable new opportunities here in Massachusetts. Cheers, Michael H. Shaw¦Director, Marine Operations Master Mariner (Unlimited) Patriot Offshore Inc. E-mail: [email protected] Cell: (508)-954-9380 www.patriotoffshore.com PATRIOT OFFSHORE (PO) PO 01 Patriot Offshore recognizes the effort put forth by all ranks, supports Vineyard Wind and would like to express thanks to all the folks working hard to enable new opportunities here in Massachusetts. The Company greatly appreciates this support for the Project. 4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-82 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. RODA Responsible Offshore Development Alliance October 5, 2018 Mr. Matthew Beaton, Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) Attn: MEPA Office Purvi Patel, EEA No. 15787 (Vineyard Wind Connector) 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston MA 02114 Dear Mr. Beaton, The Responsible Offshore Development Alliance (RODA) submits the following comments regarding the Vineyard Wind project’s Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report (SDEIR) to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act Office (MEPA). RODA is a coalition of fishing industry associations and fishing companies with an interest in improving the compatibility of new offshore development with their businesses. Our Board of Directors consists of representatives of commercial fishing businesses and vessels from federally- and state-permitted Atlantic fisheries from North Carolina to Maine, including Massachusetts. We believe that any leasing of Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) lands for new activities is best approached with direct involvement from fishermen who depend on the same areas for their livelihoods, and therefore have practical knowledge of and experience with the affected human and natural environment. Only by working together to minimize conflicts at the outset of—and all throughout—leasing processes can we ensure adequate protection of our living marine resources, the habitats they rely on, and the economic value of our fishing fleets. This, in turn, will lead to the best mutual outcomes and promote efficiency in leasing and construction. The Vineyard Wind project will significantly impact the operations of federally permitted fishing vessels and businesses that operate within the lease area. Of relevance to the SDEIR, the Vineyard Wind Connector element of the project includes the proposed offshore export cables that will transmit electricity from the offshore wind energy facility to the onshore grid connection in Massachusetts. As with the turbine array, the construction of a large export cable through highly productive fishing grounds will pose numerous challenges and concerns to fishermen operating in the area. RODA therefore urges Vineyard Wind and the State of Massachusetts to continue working RODA 01 with our group and fisheries science experts from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (MA DMF) on an appropriate timeline to continue to develop solutions for fisheries and offshore energy coexistence. Navigating Together into the Future Executive Director: Anne Hawkins Chairman: Peter Hughes Treasurer: Eric Reid For Information, Contact [email protected] RODA Responsible Offshore Development Alliance Consultation with the Fishing Industry Has Occurred Far Too Late The Vineyard Wind project is broadly seen as a proving ground (or, more aptly, a learning RODA 02 opportunity) for many aspects of offshore wind energy facility permitting and construction, as it is likely to be the first such facility built in U.S. federal waters. The result is that many important details of the project have been overlooked, particularly with regard to commercial fishing compatibility, and are now the subject of efforts to “back-fill” key decisions. For example, the project proponents (along with state and federal regulating entities) have fine-tuned siting and design information as provided in the SDEIR and Construction and Operations Plan, but only recently begun in earnest to address the issue of transit corridors for fishing vessels. Now the Massachusetts Fisheries Working Group and others are struggling to develop transit corridors in the lease site that allow fishermen to even safely access areas outside of the wind energy facility without making the entire project economically unfeasible to the developer. Vineyard Wind notes in its SDEIR that it has met with “over 125 individual fishermen” in order to RODA 03 better understand fisheries within the project region.1 While this outreach is laudable, RODA remains concerned that these discussions have largely occurred only recently, and have not been highly productive due to the late stages of project design and perceived short timeline before construction must begin. It is simply not appropriate to “back-fill” fisheries protections and only consider compatibility with our enormously economically and historically important industry once all but the finest details of siting, design, and operations have been determined and approved. While RODA and its members have met with representatives of Vineyard Wind in the past few months in an attempt to minimize conflicts and, ideally, produce outcomes that will lead to the long-term sustainability of both industries, it is unclear what, if any, real modifications could be accommodated at this point to avoid serious harm to the fishing industry. We remain committed to working with Vineyard Wind on these issues. However, the solutions will take time to get right. It is far more important to design and construct this project in a sustainable way, with informed weighing of trade- offs and using a true conflict-minimization approach, than it is to rush to approvals and suffer from downstream delays or unintended impacts. RODA therefore urges the EEA and MEPA to use all available discretion in the permitting timeline in order to gather the necessary input and data to inform the project elements under their jurisdictions, including the transmission cable. The SDEIR Relies on Inadequate Data Sets The SDEIR attempts to characterize fishing activity in the project area solely using information from RODA 04 the Data Portals operated by the Northeast Regional Ocean Council and the Mid-Atlantic Regional 1 SDEIR at 5-24. RODA Responsible Offshore Development Alliance Ocean Council. These data sets were not designed for, nor are robust enough to support, regulatory decisions that involve fisheries science and management. The Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Regional Planning Bodies (RPB) created the Data Portals as a component of their Ocean Action Plans (OAP). While the user-friendly data sets can provide some valuable information about certain ocean uses, they are most limited in their ability to convey information regarding commercial fisheries and fish resources. Not only did the process for the portals’ development included very limited engagement with experts in fisheries or fishery science, it is inherently impossible to express fisheries data in two dimensions. Recognizing that the complex socio-ecological ecosystem in which fisheries exist could not be summarized in simple charts, the RPBs placed explicit caveats regarding their respective portals in the OAPs: All RPB member entities should use the Data Portal as an important, but non-exclusive, source of information to help identify potential conflicts, impacts, and potentially affected stakeholders . . . the Data Portal serves as a common data vocabulary or starting point for conversations between ocean resource managers and the applicants and stakeholders with whom they interact.2 While the RPB recognizes the limitations of available information, the consistent regional characterizations of certain fisheries can assist with the preliminary identification of potential conflicts by helping to identify fisheries using a particular area and the nature of that use (e.g., in transit or engaged in fishing) . . . [Specific to offshore energy, t]he information in the Plan and the Portal will provide an important beginning step in identifying fisheries and fishing activity that may be affected by these activities.3 The limitations associated with the fisheries data in the portals are well-known, numerous, and partially described in the SDEIR itself. It is difficult to understand, then, why the SDEIR’s analysis does not include any of the wealth of much more appropriate data held by NMFS, MA DMF, and the fishing industry. RODA therefore urges Vineyard Wind to work more closely with these entities to develop information that appropriately reflects the temporal-spatial characteristics of fishing activity so that it may be informative to the project. The SDEIR Contains No Information on Fishery Resources In the “Fisheries Resources” section, the SDEIR provides very basic descriptions of Massachusetts RODA 05 ports and their economic connection to fishing. However, it entirely lacks any description of biological resources (i.e., fish populations and stocks).4 This omission is a critical flaw in the SDEIR. 2 Mid-Atlantic Regional Planning Body, Mid-Atlantic Regional Ocean Action Plan (Dec. 2016) at 32, 34 (emphasis added). 3 Northeast Regional Planning Body, Northeast Ocean Plan (Dec. 2016) at 95-96 (emphasis added). 4 It also fails to recognize fishing ports in other states that will be significantly impacted by the proposed action. RODA Responsible Offshore Development Alliance Massachusetts’ Environmental Policy Act regulations require an EIR to describe animal species and habitat “in sufficient detail to provide a baseline in relation to which the Project and its alternatives can be described and analyzed and its potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures can be assessed.”5 It would be difficult to imagine a project for which such a detailed description could be more important; determination of ecological impacts resulting from this first-of-its-kind project will be absolutely critical to informing future offshore developments and technology. The State and the project developer should work closely with RODA and NMFS to develop robust and informative baseline data to correct this flaw. The SDEIR Lacks Consideration of Potential Fisheries Impacts In addition to failing to describe fishery resources from a scientific standpoint, the SDEIR’s RODA 06 description of impacts from the proposed activities is woefully inadequate and entirely qualitative. In terms of construction impacts, the SDEIR includes claims such as: “[m]obile pelagic and invertebrate species will be able to avoid construction areas and are not expected to be substantially impacted by construction and installation”6 with absolutely no justification or citation to evidence. It similarly includes no predicted economic impacts even though it admits the project will have impacts in the form of vessel traffic disruption and impacts from sediment disturbance.7 These types of impacts, as well as those to safety and navigation, can and should be properly described and analyzed. Another category of impacts to fishery stocks that is anticipated from the installation of a subsea RODA 07 cable are those associated with changes in electro-magnetic fields. A wide range of scientific studies have shown that such changes are capable of producing behavioral or distributional shifts in marine fish and invertebrates. The SDEIR omits this important topic entirely. Vineyard Wind should play an active role in providing and developing this information. The SDEIR Fails to Account for the Possibility of Cable Exposure Finally, the SDEIR fails to discuss the important risks that the cable itself will pose to fishing RODA 8 operations. In describing potential impacts, it assumes that the cable will be entirely buried to a depth that would not interfere with fishing gear, while leaving open the vague possibility that it may not: Should the Project not be able to achieve target burial depth in certain areas, cable protection may be required. In such cases, it will be designed to minimize impacts to fishing gear, when possible, and fishermen will be informed of the areas where protection is used.8 5 301 CMR 11.07(6)(g)(4). 6 SDEIR at 5-11. 7 Id. at 5-10-11. 8 Id. at 5-11. RODA Responsible Offshore Development Alliance Whether the cable is—and remains—buried are of key importance when assessing potential fisheries impacts, and should not be relegated to a “catch-all” phrase that defers any consideration of the matter until all meaningful environmental review is complete. Hard tides run through the area where the cable is proposed, which could plausibly result in cable exposure under certain conditions. It is imperative that the cable is not only initially buried to the correct depth, and that its depth is in fact verified by permitting authorities, but that a monitoring system is in place to ensure that it remains sufficiently below the surface. As you likely know, in August of this year both the Deepwater Wind cable and National Grid’s Sea2shore Cable associated with the Block Island offshore wind facility were exposed,9 despite assurances from regulators and the developer that the risk of such an event was extraordinarily low. So, too, do protective devices such as mattresses pose risks to fishing operations, safety, and gear. These risks should be described and analyzed in the SDEIR. At a minimum, RODA requests both the project developer and the State to continue to work with the fishing industry to develop solutions for proper cable installation, and to mitigate gear conflicts and loss that may result from cable interactions. * * * * * RODA and its member organizations thank you for your consideration of these comments. We look forward to continuing to work with both the State of Massachusetts and Vineyard Wind in developing science-based approaches to offshore renewable energy. Sincerely, Annie Hawkins, Executive Director Responsible Offshore Development Alliance 9 Lars Trodson, Deepwater Wind’s Cable Exposed, THE BLOCK ISLAND TIMES (Aug. 17, 2018), available at: https://www.blockislandtimes.com/article/deepwater-wind’s-cable-exposed/53036. RESPONSIBLE OFFSHORE DEVELOPMENT ALLIANCE (RODA) RODA 01 RODA… urges Vineyard Wind and the State of Massachusetts to continue working with our group and fisheries science experts from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (MA DMF) on an appropriate timeline to continue to develop solutions for fisheries and offshore energy coexistence. The Company is committed to ongoing consultations and collaborations, as described throughout Project documents. RODA 02 The Vineyard Wind project is broadly seen as a proving ground (or, more aptly, a learning opportunity) for many aspects of offshore wind energy facility permitting and construction, as it is likely to be the first such facility built in U.S. federal waters. The result is that many important details of the project have been overlooked, particularly with regard to commercial fishing compatibility, and are now the subject of efforts to “back-fill” key decisions… For example, the project proponents (along with state and federal regulating entities) have fine-tuned siting and design information as provided in the SDEIR and Construction and Operations Plan, but only recently begun in earnest to address the issue of transit corridors for fishing vessels. As described in Section 1.2.1 of the DEIR, beginning in 2009, BOEM evaluated areas along the Atlantic Coast with regard to potential suitability for offshore wind development. Between 2011 and 2015, BOEM continued with the offshore wind Site Identification Process. As part of that process, BOEM excluded certain areas that were identified as important habitats, as well as an area of high fisheries value to reduce potential conflict with commercial and recreational fishing activities. As a result of this process, the BOEM Wind Energy Areas were reduced by 60% of the size originally proposed. Vineyard Wind’s lease area was awarded after the conclusion of Site Identification Process in 2015. In developing the site layout, Vineyard Wind used extensive feedback from fishermen and incorporated transit into the initial project design. A broader effort on transit lanes among adjacent leaseholders is underway, and Vineyard Wind is participating in good faith to support workable solutions. RODA is a participant in those efforts (see Section 3.2.3 for additional detail. Vineyard Wind appreciates and agrees that, as the first commercial-scale offshore wind project, there is a responsibility to learn from the experience. To that end, Vineyard Wind has committed to pre-, during, and post-construction fisheries studies that incorporate feedback from fishermen, scientists, and regulators and has 4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-83 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. also committed to making the data public (see Section 3.3). Vineyard Wind is also committing to include funding for regional fisheries studies, if there is consensus to do so among stakeholders. RODA 03 Vineyard Wind notes in its SDEIR that it has met with “over 125 individual fishermen” in order to better understand fisheries within the project region. While this outreach is laudable, RODA remains concerned that these discussions have largely occurred only recently, and have not been highly productive due to the late stages of project design and perceived short timeline before construction must begin. Fisheries outreach has been underway by Vineyard Wind since 2011 as the WEA was being selected. Fisheries working groups and advisory boards have worked with state agencies in Massachusetts and Rhode Island since 2010/2011. Vineyard Wind has also implemented the Fisheries Liaison/Fisheries Representative approach described in BOEM’s Guidelines8. While broader discussions have recently been initiated by RODA, which was only formed in 2018, Vineyard Wind respectfully disagrees that the work done prior to filing project applications was minimal or lacked substance as most of the structure for discussions has been in place for over five years and many of the stakeholders engaged now have been engaged during that time. Additional details on fisheries outreach are described in the response to DMF 23. RODA 04 The SDEIR attempts to characterize fishing activity in the project area solely using information from the Data Portals operated by the Northeast Regional Ocean Council and the Mid-Atlantic Regional Ocean Council. These data sets were not designed for, nor are robust enough to support, regulatory decisions that involve fisheries science and management… It is difficult to understand, then, why the SDEIR’s analysis does not include any of the wealth of much more appropriate data held by NMFS, MA DMF, and the fishing industry. RODA therefore urges Vineyard Wind to work more closely with these entities to develop information that appropriately reflects the temporal-spatial characteristics of fishing activity so that it may be informative to the project. Section 3.0 FEIR provides additional information about data used to support the project review. NMFS, DMF, RI-DEM, and the fishing industry have all provided data sources used in the projects’ federal and state reviews. 8 BOEM. 2015. Guidelines for Providing Information on Fisheries Social and Economic Conditions for Renewable Energy Development on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf Pursuant to 30 CFR Part 585. https://www.boem.gov/Social-and-Economic-Conditions-Fishery-Communication-Guidelines/. 4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-84 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. RODA 05 In the “Fisheries Resources” section, the SDEIR provides very basic descriptions of Massachusetts ports and their economic connection to fishing. However, it entirely lacks any description of biological resources (i.e., fish populations and stocks). Information provided in the SDEIR was responsive the Secretary’s Scope on the DEIR. Additional information on biological resources in the Lease Area are addressed, as appropriate, in Vineyard Wind’s COP. RODA 06 In terms of construction impacts, the SDEIR includes claims such as: “[m]obile pelagic and invertebrate species will be able to avoid construction areas and are not expected to be substantially impacted by construction and installation” with absolutely no justification or citation to evidence. It similarly includes no predicted economic impacts even though it admits the project will have impacts in the form of vessel traffic disruption and impacts from sediment disturbance. These types of impacts, as well as those to safety and navigation, can and should be properly described and analyzed. Fisheries resources and potential impacts were described in Section 5.4 of the SDEIR, and have been discussed extensively in the federal NEPA process. The general conclusion that “mobile pelagic and invertebrate species will be able to avoid construction areas and are not expected to be substantially impacted by construction and installation” is consistent with two BOEM studies9. Due to the slow speed of cable installation vessels, the short duration of the cable installation period, and the relatively small portion of the cable corridor that will be under construction at any given time, the cable installation process is expected to have very little impact on commercial fishing activities or the value derived therefrom (see response to DMF 09). Furthermore, as described in Section 1.4.1.4 of the SDEIR, a sediment dispersion modeling study performed for the Project shows that excess TSS will settle out of the water column within a matter of hours, avoiding significant impacts. After construction, there will be no impacts, except for the possibility that there may be short segments of the cable protection which could pose risks to bottom fishing gear; the location of any cable protection would be submitted to NOAA after construction, along with the surveyed location of the cables. Any necessary cable 9 BOEM. (2007). Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Alternative Energy Development and Production and Alternate Use of Facilities on the Outer Continental Shelf. Final Environmental Impacts Statement. OCS EIS/EA MMS 2007-046. Retrieved from https://www.boem.gov/Guide-To-EIS/; (2) BOEM. (2012). Commercial wind lease issuance and site assessment activities on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf offshore Rhode Island and Massachusetts: Environmental Assessment. [Online.] Retrieved from http://www.boem.gov/uploadedFiles/BOEM/Renewable_Energy_Program/Smart_from_the_Start/BOEM_RI _MA_EA_2012-070.pdf 4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-85 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. protection is likely to be primarily located where the seafloor is composed of consolidated materials, submerged boulders, or stiff clays that would hamper cable burial (see Section 2.2.3). Vineyard Wind intends to minimize or avoid the need for cable protection through careful site assessment and the use of advanced cable installation methods to achieve sufficient burial depth. A navigational risk assessment for the project is included in the COP. RODA 07 Another category of impacts to fishery stocks that is anticipated from the installation of a subsea cable are those associated with changes in electro-magnetic fields. A wide range of scientific studies have shown that such changes are capable of producing behavioral or distributional shifts in marine fish and invertebrates. The SDEIR omits this important topic entirely. Potential EMF impacts from offshore export cables were discussed in Section 4.3.6.5 of the DEIR. Please also see the response to DMF 12. RODA 08 Finally, the SDEIR fails to discuss the important risks that the cable itself will pose to fishing operations. In describing potential impacts, it assumes that the cable will be entirely buried to a depth that would not interfere with fishing gear, while leaving open the vague possibility that it may not…” Hard tides run through the area where the cable is proposed, which could plausibly result in cable exposure under certain conditions. It is imperative that the cable is not only initially buried to the correct depth, and that its depth is in fact verified by permitting authorities, but that a monitoring system is in place to ensure that it remains sufficiently below the surface. Vineyard Wind acknowledges that cable burial is an important priority. Vineyard Wind continues to prioritize burial of the cable through detailed engineering (driven by the oceanographic and geologic conditions along the cable route) to minimize, if not eliminate altogether, the use of cable protection and the risk cable exposure. Please see additional information in Section 2.2 as well as the response to DMF 08. Vineyard Wind notes there are currently four buried cables in Nantucket Sound. 4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-86 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. From: Nicole Morris-McLaughlin To: Patel, Purvi (EEA) Subject: Support letter for Vineyard Wind to EEA Date: Wednesday, October 03, 2018 8:32:27 AM Nicole Morris-McLaughlin Program Manager Marion Institute 202 Spring St. Marion, MA 02738 October 3, 2018 Mr. Matthew Beaton, Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) Attn: MEPA Office Purvi Patel, EEA No. 15787 (Vineyard Wind Connector) 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston MA 02114 Dear Matthew Beaton, I am the Program Manager of the Marion Institute’s Southcoast Energy Challenge and our SCEC 01 mission is to advocate for clean, affordable energy that is accessible to everyone. The Vineyard Wind Project aligns with our mission; construction of the Project will serve the public interest by increasing the reliability and diversity of the regional and statewide energy supply while reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the regional power generation grid. I urge the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, as the Vineyard Wind project is now slated as the first big offshore wind Project, to move the permitting process along efficiently and expeditiously. Vineyard Wind’s team of environmental scientists, engineers, and attorneys have worked hard to incorporate the available results of the 2018 marine surveys and to present the detailed data in a user-friendly way. The proposed three export cables were reduced to two in this most recent SDEIR report, and the Eastern Offshore Cable Corridor was dropped from the proposal, this reduces the Project’s footprint on the seafloor. Additional survey work and technical analyses have allowed Vineyard Wind to focus on a single offshore cable corridor, where environmental impact have been avoided, minimized, or mitigated. At this point in the review process, the single offshore corridor retains two options for traversing through Muskeget Channel, as well as two possible landfall sites (one in Yarmouth and one in Barnstable). Each Landfall Site has an associated onshore duct bank route, each with variant(s), that ends at the same proposed onshore substation. For each route configuration that is continuing through the review process, environmental impacts are comparable on the whole, and have been avoided, minimized, or mitigated consistent with MEPA standards. The Vineyard Wind team participated in two informative and collaborative discussions on construction sequencing and the possible need for time of year restrictions or other protective measures. I believe Vineyard Wind is making good progress towards a construction approach which will allow the Project to meet its scheduled power supply commitments while working in safe weather conditions and respecting significant marine environmental concerns. The total net benefits to Massachusetts ratepayer over the term of the contract would be approximately $1.4 billion. DOER noted that the 800 MW Vineyard Wind Project provides a “unique opportunity to maximize the value of the federal investment tax credit (“ITC”) as the value of the credit is scheduled to be gradually reduced and will not be available for projects that start construction after December 31, 2019.” In addition to the estimated 1,680,000 tons- per-year of CO2 emissions reductions across New England, the Project will create substantial economic benefits for southeastern Massachusetts and the Commonwealth as a whole. Vineyard Wind is constantly engaging with local officials and local communities, with extensive outreach to, and discussions with, the commercial and recreational fishing community. To date, Vineyard Wind has had over 125 meetings with individual fishermen or fishing organizations from New Bedford, the Cape and the Islands, and in neighboring Rhode Island. Vineyard Wind is incorporating input and information from the fishing industry into the Project’s design and operations. Vineyard Wind has engaged with the non-profit I work for, the Marion Institute on multiple occasions making themselves available for conversation with us and the people we represent, including creating a tour of the New Bedford Marine Commerce Terminal along with bringing in multiple speakers for our 15 high school interns this summer. The community that the Southcoast Energy Challenge serves, New Bedford, is an Environmental Justice Community and the fact that clean wind energy will be able to replace burning fossil fuels around this community, decrease the cost of electricity and create much- needed good jobs in the community is a wonderful gift to our region and it cannot happen soon enough. Sincerely, Nicole Morris-McLaughlin Nicole Morris-McLaughlin Program Manager Southcoast Energy Challenge Marion Institute 202 Spring St. Marion, MA 02738 Ph: (508)748-0816 ext 119 www.marioninstitute.org Mon-Thurs 8am-2pm SOUTHCOAST ENERGY CHALLENGE (SCEC) SEC 01 The Vineyard Wind Project aligns with our mission; construction of the Project will serve the public interest by increasing the reliability and diversity of the regional and statewide energy supply while reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the regional power generation grid. I urge the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, as the Vineyard Wind project is now slated as the first big offshore wind Project, to move the permitting process along efficiently and expeditiously. The Company appreciates this support for the offshore wind industry in New England. 4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-87 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. October 5, 2018 Mr. Matthew Beaton, Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) Attn: MEPA Office Purvi Patel, EEA No. 15787 (Vineyard Wind Connector) 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston MA 02114 Dear Mr. Beaton, I am writing to comment on Vineyard Wind’s Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report (SDEIR). The Town Dock is a seafood dealer and processor located in Pt. Judith Rhode Island. All seven of our company owned vessels fish in and around the area that is slated for wind energy development by Vineyard Wind. Several of our vessels have the necessary Massachusetts Coastal Access Permit (CAP) that is required to be able to fish within Nantucket Sound from mid-April to mid-June, this is the same area that the cable will run through. We also fish the area below Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard where you intend to lay the cable. I noticed in the SDEIR that Rhode Island landings were left out of the TTD 01 analysis. Rhode Island in general lands a significant amount of squid from those areas and we feel that the Rhode Island data should have been incorporated in your analysis. Regarding the actual cable, we believe it should be buried deep enough to prevent any TTD 02 chance of it being exposed to trawling. Vessels from several surrounding states heavily trawl this area each spring and summer for squid and other species. A suggestion would be to have continuous monitoring of the cable route to make sure that none of the cable has become exposed which puts gear loss and/or damage at a high risk. The SDEIR states that Vineyard wind has been consulting with the fishing industry since 2010 and has met with “over 125 individual fishermen”. As one of the major longfin squid purchasers and processors on the east coast, a species that is heavily fished for in and around the Vineyard Wind WEA, we were not reached out to until 2015/2016. The Town Dock: P.O. Box 608; 45 State St Narragansett, RI 02882 PH: 401-789-2200 FAX: 401-782-4421 Website: www.towndock.com Once we did sit down and meet with Vineyard Wind we were told that the fishing industry would have the opportunity to help plan how the turbine array would be laid out so that fishing might be able to continue within the area. To our disappointment and without any notice Vineyard Wind submitted their COP with the turbine array design included without consulting the very fishery that depends so much on that area. About a year ago we supplied Vineyard Wind with data regarding our fishing activity within the WEA. We hope that Vineyard Wind reaches out to the affected stakeholders and to the TTD 03 National Marine Fisheries Service to gather the information that is necessary to reduce the impacts to the fishing industry, especially when it comes to the timing of construction for not only the array, but also the laying of the cable which is bound to disturb the squid (and other species) and displace fishing activity. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Katie Almeida Fishery Policy Analyst The Town Dock The Town Dock: P.O. Box 608; 45 State St Narragansett, RI 02882 PH: 401-789-2200 FAX: 401-782-4421 Website: www.towndock.com THE TOWN DOCK (TTD) TTD 01 I noticed in the SDEIR that Rhode Island landings were left out of the analysis. Rhode Island in general lands a significant amount of squid from those areas and we feel that the Rhode Island data should have been incorporated in your analysis. As an introductory matter, the Project welcomes Town Dock’s participation in the MEPA review process and is aware of the relevant fishing activity. As noted in the organization’s comments on the SDEIR, The Town Dock owns seven otter trawl vessels. Vineyard Wind understands that these vessels fish for longfin squid, illex squid, whiting, butterfish, fluke, scup, black sea bass, herring and a mix of groundfish (per the RODA website). The SDEIR was developed and submitted as part of the MEPA review of the Vineyard Wind Connector. The Vineyard Wind Connector is defined as the Massachusetts-jurisdictional aspects of the broader Vineyard Wind Project. More specifically, the Vineyard Wind Connector is the portion of the offshore export cables in Massachusetts state waters, the Landfall Site in Massachusetts, the onshore cable/duct banks, and the proposed onshore substation. Temporary fisheries impacts from installation of the offshore export cables in Massachusetts waters will be limited to a short-term exclusion area which will move with the cable-laying vessels, together with some short-term preparatory activity (e.g., sand wave dredging, pre-lay grapnel run). As was done for the 2017 and 2018 marine surveys along the cable corridors, the Project will use a comprehensive Fisheries Communications Plan and Notices to Mariners to ensure that trawlers and mobile gear fisherman have ample notice and information about the planned location and movements of the cable installation and support vessels. The Fisheries Communication Plan and examples of Notices to Mariners were provided as Attachment N to the DEIR. An updated Fisheries Communication Plan was provided as Attachment G to the SDEIR. As described in Section 5.3 of the SDEIR, installation of each export cable is expected to take about one month. Weather delays or the need for a second splice may add somewhat to this duration. A discussion of the Company’s efforts to minimize impacts to marine resources in general, and the fishing industry in particular, from cable installation is provided in Section 5.4 of the SDEIR and is updated in Section 3 of this FEIR. The broader question of potential fisheries impacts from the wind turbine array in federal waters is addressed in the Company’s COP and the subsequent BOEM NEPA analysis of the entire Project. The fisheries analysis developed for the COP includes data for Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York ports. 4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-88 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. TTD 02 Regarding the actual cable, we believe it should be buried deep enough to prevent any chance of it being exposed to trawling…. A suggestion would be to have continuous monitoring of the cable route to make sure that none of the cable has become exposed which puts gear loss and/or damage at a high risk. It is the Company’s priority to bury the two offshore export cables at a sufficient depth within the stable seabed. Plans for cable installation have been carefully described in the DEIR and SDEIR, including the range of possible installation tools and techniques. These plans are being refined as the Company works with cable suppliers and installation contractors. Once the cables are installed and connected, operations will be monitored on a continuous basis. The Project’s O&M plans will include monitoring of the cable position in the sediments. Please see the responses to RODA 08 and DMF 08 for additional information. TTD 03 We hope that Vineyard Wind reaches out to the affected stakeholders and to the National Marine Fisheries Service to gather the information that is necessary to reduce the impacts to the fishing industry, especially when it comes to the timing of construction for not only the array, but also the laying of the cable which is bound to disturb the squid (and other species) and displace fishing activity. The NOAA NMFS is a formal “Cooperating Federal Agency” in the BOEM NEPA review process. NMFS has been an active participant in a number of Project meetings on fisheries data, possible TOY restrictions for cable installation, and related matters. TOY restrictions are further discussed in Section 3.4. The Company is dedicated to continuing this outreach with stakeholders and minimizing impacts and disruption to fisheries. Further discussion of outreach is located in DMF 23. 4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-89 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. September 21, 2018 Secretary Matthew A. Beaton Attn: MEPA Office, Purvi Patel (EEA #15787) Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 Dear Secretary Beaton, I, Richard Andre, President of Vineyard Power Cooperative on behalf of our approximate VP 01 3,500 members on the island of Martha’s Vineyard would like to express our full support for all aspects of the Vineyard Wind project including their proposed cable landing and interconnection on Cape Cod. As a community that is connected to the New England grid by four high voltage power cables coming to our shores, we understand the impact of these structures in our local waters. This project’s benefits far outweigh the negative effects we are facing if we continue to depend on fossil fuels for our energy. These impacts include ocean sea level rise, ocean acidification, coastal zone erosion, and exposure to increasing storm strength and frequency. These are the greatest threat to our coastal communities not a power cable that will supply clean, carbon free electricity. The project’s 800 MW of renewable electricity will reduce CO2 emissions from the grid by approximately 1.68 million tons/year, which is the equivalent of removing 325,000 vehicles off the road. This project is a giant leap in meeting our Commonwealth’s renewable energy and greenhouse gas reduction goals and will deliver power where it’s needed most, at the end of the electrical grid on Cape Cod, thereby improving resiliency and greening our grid. On behalf of all of our members, we thank you for providing us an opportunity to provide feedback into the project. Sincerely, Richard Andre President - Vineyard Power Cooperative P.O. Box 1077, West Tisbury, MA 02575 t. 508.693.3002; [email protected] www.vineyardpower.com VINEYARD POWER COOPERATIVE (VP) VP 01 I, Richard Andre, President of Vineyard Power Cooperative on behalf of our approximate 3,500 members on the island of Martha’s Vineyard would like to express our full support for all aspects of the Vineyard Wind project including their proposed cable landing and interconnection on Cape Cod. The Proponent appreciates this support for the offshore wind industry in New England and looks forward to continued collaboration with Vineyard Power Cooperative on this project. 4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-90 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. Acres of Pines, Inc. Crowell Beach Associates, Inc. Englewood Shores Beach Association Great Island Associates, Inc. Grist Mill Village Civic Association, Inc. Harborside Estates Beach Association Hyannis Park Civic Association Lewis Bay Neighborhood Association, Inc. Ocean Harbor Estate Association, Inc. Wimbledon Shores, Inc. c/o Susan Brita 19 West Road, West Yarmouth, MA 02673 [email protected] October 2, 2018 Hon. Matthew Beaton Attn: MEPA Office Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA. 02114 M. Kathryn Sedor, Esq., Presiding Officer Senior Officer/Hearing Officer MA Energy Facilities Siting Board One South Station, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Also via email: [email protected] [email protected] Re: Public Comment Vineyard Wind Connector (EEA #15787) Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report EFSB 17-05; D.P.U. 18-18; D.P.U. 18-19 2 Dear Secretary Beaton: The neighborhood and civic associations listed above submit this letter as our Public Comment to the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report (SDEIR) filed by Vineyard Wind, LLC. These neighborhood and civic associations represent approximately 1000 residents and homeowners in Yarmouth, MA. We submit this Public Comment to present our opposition to the placement of industrial 800 megawatt transmission cables in the Lewis Bay estuary. Since Vineyard Wind’s first announcement to involve the Lewis Bay estuary in its Onshore Preferred Route for the burial of the 800 megawatt transmission cables, we have been active in expressing our opposition to this one part of the Project. We have ▪ attended public hearings and Town of Yarmouth Board of Selectmen meetings ▪ met with representatives of Vineyard Wind ▪ met with Town of Yarmouth personnel ▪ submitted written comments to the Siting Board for the public record ▪ submitted Letters to the Editor of the Cape Cod Times and The Register ▪ met with you and your staff at your Boston office ▪ reviewed thousands of pages of the two DRAFT Environmental Impact Reports inclusive of maps and charts, and ▪ gathered 2,029 signatures on the PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO INSTALLATION OF HIGH VOLTAGE TRANSMISSION CABLES IN LEWIS BAY AS PROPOSED BY VINEYARD WIND, LLC. This Petition was presented to Governor Charles Baker and to the Town of Yarmouth Board of Selectmen. Five neighborhood representatives requested and have been granted status as Limited Participants in the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) proceedings. The SDEIR still contains unresolved, inconsistencies between Vineyard Wind’s proposal and our Massachusetts agencies and their 3 guiding legislation. We wish to point out the following major inconsistencies to the Siting Board. A. The Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan, 2009 and 2015 YNA 01 Supplement, states that it is important to not place cables in Lewis Bay. This document is a major resource for all projects involving the Massachusetts coast. Yet, Vineyard Wind proposes to bury 800 megawatt transmission cable in Lewis Bay. B. The SDEIR states that Vineyard Wind’s plan for the methods of YNA 02 burying the 800 megawatt cable in Lewis Bay are still unsettled. Both horizontal direct drilling (HDD) and plowing are described as potential methods throughout the entirety of Lewis Bay. Leaving construction methods unresolved at this point in Project reveals a major lack of preparedness on the part of Vineyard Wind and makes it impossible for all reviewers to adequately respond to the possible ecological damage caused by either cable installation method. C. A third inconsistency involves basic definitions. Lewis Bay is an estuary. It has been identified as an estuary by the MA Estuaries Project Linked Watershed -Embayment Model to Determine Critical Nitrogen Loading Thresholds for the Lewis Bay Embayment System, Barnstable/Yarmouth MA, dated September 2007. As an estuary, Lewis Bay requires the level of protection from YNA 03 industrial intrusion afforded to all estuaries, especially given that Lewis Bay is part of the Lewis Bay watershed supporting Cape Cod’s sole source water supply. Shallow estuaries like Lewis Bay are a unique mixture of salt water and fresh water streams providing an abundance of richness to flora and fauna, recreation and commercial activities, and aesthetic value impossible to replace. Yet, Vineyard Wind’s proposal ignores this fact, the SDEIR includes no relevant discussion of the impact on the Lewis Bay estuary. Our long held opposition is grounded in our fundamental concerns for the environmental health of Lewis Bay. These concerns lead us to 4 recognize that Vineyard Wind’s preferred cable site through Lewis Bay with an on-shore landing at New Hampshire Avenue, West Yarmouth, presents complex and damaging consequences which far exceed the alternative landing site at Covells Beach, Barnstable, MA. Our concerns are as follows. Lewis Bay is the site of recreational swimming, boating and shell fishing, making it a major tourist attraction not only in the Town of Yarmouth but also all of Cape Cod. Lewis Bay is dotted with a dozen or more residential and town beaches, hundreds of boat moorings, recreational shell fishing provided by the Town of Yarmouth through its seasonal shellfish planting program and the sale of almost 1,000 recreational shell fishing permits. In addition, the Town of Yarmouth’s Sailing Program, located within 100 yards of the proposed landing site, serves both youths and adults. Recreational boats of all sizes anchor at all locations throughout Lewis Bay and along the intended cable route. By comparison, Covells Beach sits on the edge of Nantucket Sound, which is 750 square miles of open water. During construction, the disturbed sediment will quickly be washed away by significant currents. There are no boat moorings nor recreational shell fishing program at Covells Beach. Lewis Bay estuary is small and shallow as well as home to active marine life. Lewis Bay is only 1.2 square miles and has only one ingress and egress. Various species of fish come into Lewis Bay to spawn. Any disturbance of the Lewis Bay seabed will stay inside the Bay because of lack of current flushing. Given the huge dimensions of the trench to be plowed as cited in the SDEIR, sand and sediment will remain floating for an extensive period of time, and will float throughout the Bay. By comparison, Covells Beach is located on Nantucket Sound whose boundary includes open water contiguous to the Atlantic Ocean. The water depth at Covells Beach becomes significantly deeper near the shoreline than does the water’s depth at the New Hampshire landing site 5 in Lewis Bay. The wave action and currents in Nantucket Sound will serve to quickly clear the water of disturbed sand and sediment. We note that there are no existing cable routes through any estuary in Nantucket Sound. Alternatively, Covells Beach mimics the characteristics of the other deeper water Nantucket Sound locations where existing cables between Cape Cod and Martha’s Vineyard and Cape Cod and Nantucket Island come ashore in the towns of Falmouth, Tisbury and Nantucket. Lewis Bay is currently challenged by the presence of nitrogen. There is no comparable challenge at Covells Beach. Four Commercial Oyster Aquafarms are operating in Lewis Bay. The four oyster aquafarms in Lewis Bay are conducted in accordance with commercial permits and certificates from the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries and leases with the Town of Yarmouth. The aquafarmers have relied for almost two decades on the statements of the state and local authorities to invest in and operate their aquafarms. Construction activity and maintenance activity, which results in the disturbance of sand and silt, and the ongoing transmission of electricity in Lewis Bay will result in partial or possibly permanent damage to the several million oyster seeds now planted and to the aquafarm equipment. In addition, it is well documented that the presence of oyster farms is a recognized, non-traditional, non-technological, and effective abatement process for the elimination of nitrogen in bodies of water like Lewis Bay. The presence of the oyster farms is a significant abatement measure in use for the reduction of nitrogen in Lewis Bay. The Town of Yarmouth is not prepared at this time to build a sewer system. The Town encourages both commercial aquafarms and recreational quahog seed planting and harvesting in Lewis Bay as a nitrogen abatement strategy. By contrast, there are no commercial aquafarms at Covells Beach. The need for future dredging Lewis Bay is very apparent. The YNA 04 presence of the Vineyard Wind transmission cables will complicate and 6 possibly hinder future dredging operations which will be a required element in any remedial plan for the Lewis Bay estuary. Lewis Bay’s water does not ebb and flow like the shores of the Atlantic Ocean or Nantucket Sound. The Bay is experiencing an influx of sand caused by the constant boat and ferry traffic into Hyannis Harbor, constantly shifting ocean sands, and extreme winter storms and currents. This influx of sand results in the Bay becoming increasingly shallow. The need for future dredging is apparent. Failure to dredge Lewis Bay may result in significant loss of useable recreational boating areas and lost tourism. There is no comparable dredging or remedial action required at Covells Beach. Low Cost does not insure safety. During the public meeting hosted YNA 08 by the Town of Yarmouth on July 17, 2018, the Vineyard Wind representatives were asked why the Lewis Bay/New Hampshire Avenue route was chosen as the “preferred route.” Mr. Erich Stephens responded that this was the least expensive route. We are very concerned that this management principle, as reflected in the SDEIR, does not include sufficient measures to insure the safety and protection of Lewis Bay and the Town of Yarmouth land based construction. Complications with future wastewater system. The presence of YNA 09 the industrial 800 megawatt transmission cables through the Town of Yarmouth streets will complicate the Town’s plans to complete the state- required installation of a wastewater system throughout the Town. The Town of Barnstable has completed its planning process. Lewis Bay contains the only channel servicing Hyannis Harbor. YNA 10 Passenger and supply ferries make more than 30 round trips per day from Hyannis to Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket from May through October, and slightly less in number during the remaining months. Other commercial and recreational vehicles continuously travel in the channel each and every day of the year. In contrast, the off-shore area near Covells Beach is not near any channel used by commercial vehicles, and does not have the same level of boat activity. 7 Mr. Secretary, the Lewis Bay estuary is a precious natural resource that needs to be protected, not industrialized for private profit. Fortified by the availability of ample public information, we remain steadfast in our opposition to Vineyard Wind’s proposal to bury the 800 megawatt transmission cables in Lewis Bay estuary, and we support Vineyard Wind’s identified alternative on-shore landing site at Covells Beach, Barnstable, MA. We appreciate your review and consideration of our Comments. Sincerely, The Neighborhood and Civic Associations located in Yarmouth, MA: Acres of Pines, Inc. Crowell Beach Associates, Inc. Englewood Shores Beach Association Great Island Associates, Inc. Grist Mill Village Civic Association, Inc. Harborside Estates Beach Association Hyannis Park Civic Association, Inc. Lewis Bay Neighborhood Association, Inc. Ocean Harbor Estate Association, Inc. Wimbledon Shores, Inc. YARMOUTH NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS (YNA) YNA 01 The Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan, 2009 and 2015 Supplement, states that it is important to not place cables in Lewis Bay. This document is a major resource for all projects involving the Massachusetts coast. Please see the response to YAR 11. YNA 02 The SDEIR states that Vineyard Wind’s plan for the methods of burying the 800 megawatt cable in Lewis Bay are still unsettled. Both horizontal direct drilling (HDD) and plowing are described as potential methods throughout the entirety of Lewis Bay. Leaving construction methods unresolved at this point in Project reveals a major lack of preparedness on the part of Vineyard Wind and makes it impossible for all reviewers to adequately respond to the possible ecological damage caused by either cable installation method. This comment mischaracterizes the Company’s descriptions of proposed work. Should the alternative New Hampshire Avenue Landfall Site be utilized, the Company has been clear that the preferred method for achieving the transition from offshore to onshore is open-trench, although HDD is still under consideration as an alternative. The remainder of installation within Lewis Bay itself would be via jet- plow or similar measure (the maximum distance available to the Company for HDD would not eliminate the need for hydroplow in some portion of the bay). As described in Section 1.1, Covell’s Beach is now the preferred Landfall Site for the Project. YNA 03 As an estuary, Lewis Bay requires the level of protection from industrial intrusion afforded to all estuaries… Yet, Vineyard Wind’s proposal ignores this fact, the SDEIR includes no relevant discussion of the impact on the Lewis Bay estuary… Lewis Bay is the site of recreational swimming, boating and shell fishing, making it a major tourist attraction not only in the Town of Yarmouth but also all of Cape Cod… Any disturbance of the Lewis Bay seabed will stay inside the Bay because of lack of current flushing. Given the huge dimensions of the trench to be plowed as cited in the SDEIR, sand and sediment will remain floating for an extensive period of time, and will float throughout the Bay… Construction activity and maintenance activity, which results in the disturbance of sand and silt, and the ongoing transmission of electricity in Lewis Bay will result in partial or possibly permanent damage to the several million oyster seeds now planted and to the aquafarm equipment. As described in Section 1.1, Covell’s Beach is now the preferred Landfall Site for the Project. The Company’s DEIR and SDEIR provided detailed information regarding wetland resources, including Lewis Bay. Section 2.3 of this FEIR provides additional information specific to Lewis Bay, including a sediment dispersion modeling analysis demonstrating that sediment dispersion from the narrow trench will have 4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-91 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc. localized, short-duration effects and will have no effects on aquaculture areas. Construction will be a short-term event, and no maintenance of the cables within Lewis Bay is anticipated. YNA 04 The presence of the Vineyard Wind transmission cables will complicate and possibly hinder future dredging operations which will be a required element in any remedial plan for the Lewis Bay estuary. Please see Section 4.4 of the SDEIR for a discussion of potential impacts to future projects and uses. Please also see the response to Issue 2 in Table 6-3. YNA 09 The presence of the industrial 800 megawatt transmission cables through the Town of Yarmouth streets will complicate the Town’s plans to complete the state required installation of a wastewater system throughout the Town. As discussed in Table 11-2 of the DEIR and again in Section 10 of the SDEIR, the Proponent has worked closely with knowledgeable town officials to assess potential onshore/in-street cable routes. This coordination included gathering data on the locations of existing and planned underground municipal infrastructure. The Town of Yarmouth has conceptual plans to install municipal sewers in the Ellington Beach area south of Route 28, but has indicated that this infrastructure work is several years away and no engineering drawings or plans have been developed that could be incorporated in the Project’s planning. Regardless, the Proponent is committed to working with the Yarmouth Engineering Department to ensure that the buried duct bank for the onshore export cables does not conflict with the Town’s future plans for sewer installation, and the Town’s Engineering Department has indicated that avoiding such conflict is feasible given the Project’s requirements for the duct bank and likely requirements for any future sewer infrastructure. YNA 10 Lewis Bay contains the only channel servicing Hyannis Harbor. The Project will not impact the federal navigation channel (please see the response to Issue 2 in Table 6-3). 4771.02/Vineyard Wind Connector 6-92 Response to Comments Final Environmental Impact Report Epsilon Associates, Inc.