Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBarnstableNOI_Supplemental Info_082523_reducedNew England Wind 1 Connector Notice of Intent – Supplemental Information Massachusetts Wetland Protection Act (M.G.L. c. 131 §40) Chapter 237 of the Barnstable General Ordinance August 25, 2023 Prepared byEpsilon Associates, Inc.Submitted toBarnstable Conservation Commission200 Main StreetHyannis, MA 02601 Submitted byPark City Wind LLC August 25, 2023 NEW ENGLAND WIND 1 CONNECTOR Supplemental Information for Notice of Intent Application (DEP File No. SE 03-5992) Introduction At the Barnstable Conservation Commission Hearing held on the evening of August 8, 2023, the Commissioners provided comments and posed various questions regarding the Notice of Intent (NOI) submitted for the New England Wind 1 Connector (NE Wind 1 Connector). Project representatives provided verbal responses to most of these comments during the public hearing. These included responses to inquiries concerning the depth of cover for the proposed microtunnel at the Centerville River, the need for temporary staging of microtunnel spoils in the Craigville Public Beach parking lot, and potential impacts to whales and shellfish habitat. Responses to other comments and questions from C ommissioners that were not fully addressed at the August 8th public hearing are provided in this document. The C ommission also requested that Project representatives provide some additional materials, which are provided as attachments to this document. These include materials demonstrating the Proponent’s experience with similar projects and those of the Project design team with respect to the microtunneling operations (Attachment A), copies of the DRI Decision issued by Cape Cod Commission (Attachments B) and DEP Water Quality Certificate (Attachment C), a copy of the published SEER educational brochure that was referenced verbally during the hearing concerning potential impacts to fisheries and benthic habitat due to EMF exposure (Attachment D ), as well as updated plan sets to capture any design modifications that have occurred since the NOI was submitted and include appropriate notations concerning contingency plans for forecasted storm events and inadvertent release of drilling fluids (Attachment E ). In addition to comments received from the Conservation Commission, town residents and other interested parties also posed questions during the public comment portion of the hearing. Some of these comments addressed aspects of the Project that are within Conservation Commission jurisdiction, but many others concerned aspects of the Project that are not. As requested by the C ommission, responses to comments from the public provided in this document are limited to those comments that are within the jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission. Comments herein are paraphrased from the video transcript of the hearing available at the following website: Conservation Commission 08-08-2023 (townofbarnstable.us) Comments and Questions from the Commissioners Comment 1: How much experience does the applicant have with installation of offshore and onshore electric transmission and microtunnelling? Avangrid Renewables is a leader in the renewable energy industry in the U.S. and is amongst the na�on’s largest renewable operators. Avangrid Renewables’ mission is to lead the transforma�on to a compe��ve clean energy future. Headquartered in Boston, Massachusets and Portland, Oregon, Avangrid Renewables has regional offices in Philadelphia, Chicago, and Aus�n. Avangrid Renewable offshore wind division is headquartered in Boston. Avangrid Renewables controls over 6,000 MW of opera�ng genera�on including thermal, wind, solar, and biomass projects, and has more than 25,000 MW of wind and solar projects under ac�ve development. In ISO-NE, Avangrid Renewables has developed, constructed, and currently operates four wind projects in Vermont, Massachusets , and New Hampshire. Avangrid Renewables is a wholly owned subsidiary of Avangrid Inc., which is owned by Iberdrola SA.1 At the end of 2019, Iberdrola had a market capitaliza�on of approximately $64 billion with 52,082 MW of installed genera�on capacity. Of this capacity, 31,939 MW is renewable resources. More than half of Iberdrola’s renewable energy capacity is wind; the remainder is hydropower and other renewable technologies. Within the Avangrid/Iberdrola family, its considerable offshore wind energy exper�se is posi�oned in Sco�sh Power. Sco�sh Power has completed several major offshore projects, including West of Duddon Sands, UK (389 MW, completed 2014); Wikinger, Germany (350 MW, completed October 2018); East Anglia ONE, UK (714 MW, generated first power in September 2019); East Anglia THREE, UK (1,200 MW, in development); and addi�onal 2,400 MW currently in development across the UK, Germany, and France. The Proponent's Engineering Consultant, Stantec, has a team of specialist with substantial experience with microtunnel projects. Stantec was rated by Trenchless Technology Magazine as the #1 North American Trenchless design firm in 2022. Stantec has engineered and designed hundreds of miles of tunnels of various diameters worldwide. For more details on Stantec’s experience with microtunnel engineering design, please refer to the attached brochure (see Attachment A). Comment 2: What other waterbodies have been successfully microtunnelled? The industry has considerable experience in successfully microtunneling under waterbodies. The following is a partial list of locations where microtunnel technology was successfully used to install utilities beneath waterbodies. 1 Avangrid Renewables is a subsidiary of Avangrid, a New York Stock exchange listed company (AGR). Other subsidiaries of Avangrid include Central Maine Power, United Illumina�ng (CT), New York State Electric & Gas and Rochester Gas and Electric. REPRESENTATIVE MICROTUNNEL PROJECTS BENEATH WATERBODIES Seekonk River Interceptor Project, Rhode Island o Body of Water – Seekonk River o Tunnel Length – 6800 feet o Tunnel Diameters – 48 inches & 60 inches Pawtucket Tunnel Project, Rhode Island o Body of Water – Seekonk River o Tunnel Length – 1,000 feet o Tunnel Diameter – 8 feet Raw Water Pipeline Project, New Jersey o Body of Water – Raritan River o Tunnel Length – 850 feet o Tunnel Diameter – 73 inches HED 502 Project, New York o Body of Water – Bronx River o Tunnel Length – 260 feet o Tunnel Diameter – 70 inches Northeast Grid Reliability Project, New Jersey o Body of Water – Overpeck Creek o Tunnel Length – 860 feet o Tunnel Diameter – 51 inches Northeast Grid Reliability Project, New Jersey o Body of Water – Hackensack River o Tunnel Length – 615 feet o Tunnel Diameter – 51 inches Comment 3: Why is project going under river as opposed to siting within the bridge as other utilities have done? Section 2.2.2.4 of the Project’s Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) described all alternatives considered for accomplishing the Centerville River crossing. The reasons for selecting the preferred microtunnel technique and eliminating the other alternatives from further consideration are summarized below: • Microtunnel (preferred technique): This method would avoid any direct impacts to the river and would have minimal traffic impacts. It would also avoid impacts to salt marsh. In addition, microtunnel would have a smaller construction footprint compared to HDD because it avoids the need to have a pipe string laydown area. The Proponent discussed options for the Centerville River crossing with the Town of Barnstable and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT). Based on those consultations and engineering considerations, the Proponent selected microtunnel as the preferred option. • Installing cables under the existing bridge deck: The existing bridge deck cannot support the additional weight of the cables. Further, it would not be feasible to maintain existing hydraulic clearance beneath the bridge with the addition of cables, creating potential risks for storm damage and related reliability concerns. Thus, installing the proposed cables within the existing bridge deck was not considered a viable alternative and was eliminated from further consideration. • Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD): This alternative would include two separate approximately 660-foot-long (200-m-long) 28-inch-diameter HDD bores, each used to install four 8-inch-diameter FPVC power conduits and up to four 2-inch-diameter HDPE conduits for communication/grounding cables. The twin HDD bores would have a five-foot horizontal offset and a six-foot vertical offset. The pipe laydown area would require the closure of approximately 400 feet (120 m) of the westbound lane of Craigville Beach Road for the duration of HDD operations. Temporary blockage of a single driveway along Craigville Beach Road would also be needed for a period of approximately 12 hours during final preparations for execution of the two pullback operations. For these reasons, although HDD is a good and viable alternative, it was considered inferior to microtunnel and was eliminated from further consideration. • Direct Pipe: A direct pipe trenchless drilling method uses a drill head welded to a pipe casing, and as drilling progresses the pipe casing keeps getting extended. Once the drill path is complete through the receiving end, the head is cut off and the pipe remains in place, becoming the casing for the cables. For the Centerville River crossing, the direct pipe option would commence at the Craigville Public Beach parking lot and would involve a 42-inch-diameter, approximately 1,400-foot-long drive from the parking lot to the northern side of the Centerville River. The exit trench would be located north of the Centerville River within the westbound lane of Craigville Beach Road. Direct pipe would require a large unobstructed staging area to weld pipe sections together. This staging area could extend onto the beach itself and occupy a significant portion of the parking lot. On areas of the beach used for staging, geotextiles and matting would need to be used to avoid beach compaction or penetration. A direct pipe installation from the Craigville Beach parking lot is more technically challenging than the preferred microtunnel option and would require a longer duration construction schedule. Given the large staging area (with impacts to the beach) and the more complicated construction operation, combined with a longer duration construction schedule, the direct pipe option is considered inferior to the microtunnel or HDD options and was eliminated from further consideration. • Adjacent Utility Bridge: Another option to route the duct bank across the Centerville River involves construction of a new independent utility bridge immediately north of the existing Centerville River Bridge, with a minimum three-foot clearance from the existing bridge. Although this bridge would have the advantage of being independent from the existing bridge, this option has a number of disadvantages. First, the new abutment/foundation would require new piles be driven within the existing riprap, and riprap would also need to be removed and replaced. Based on the current conceptual design, the new abutment/foundation would result in a small amount of temporary and permanent impacts to salt marsh. The utility bridge would also be visible from the adjacent sidewalk, and an anti-climb fence would need to be installed on the north side of the existing bridge to prevent pedestrians from climbing from one to the other, a potential public safety risk. In addition, temporary lane closures would be required for crane operations while the utility bridge is being erected. Overhead electrical and communication lines on the north side of the existing bridge would also require temporary relocation during construction. Due to these reasons, this alternative was eliminated from consideration. • Replacement of the bridge superstructure: The bridge superstructure replacement option involves replacing the deck of the existing bridge to accommodate the onshore export cables. This option would not modify the existing bridge footprint but would instead enable the power conduits to be hidden beneath the bridge. The bridge superstructure replacement could be accomplished in a single construction season using accelerated bridge construction design and techniques. However, the accelerated construction schedule would require bridge closure from Columbus Day to Memorial Day, significantly disrupting local traffic. It would likely be impossible to maintain an open lane while replacing the deck due to the change in deck height and approach grade. The Proponent’s consultations with the Town of Barnstable and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) eliminated replacement of the bridge superstructure as an option for the Project. Comment 4: Will installation of duct bank beneath river conflict with future dredging activities? The Proponent has consulted with the Barnstable Harbormaster and understands that the Town does not have plans to dredge the Centerville River in the vicinity of the proposed microtunnel. Comment 5: Is there concern about potential conflicts with gas line and other buried utilities? The Proponent is coordinating the project design with the interfacing utility companies. The Proponent has recently conducted a ground-penetrating radar investigation program to identify the location of underground utilities, including gas lines, in the vicinity of the duct bank. The project design strives to avoid conflicts with gas lines. In cases where a conflict cannot be avoided, the gas utility will relocate gas lines. Comment 6: Is the applicant communicating with the town to ensure that the project will not conflict with the planned sewer expansion project? The Proponent meets frequently with the Town on Barnstable to coordinate details of the duct bank and sewer projects. In addition, Avangrid and the Town have individually contracted with Stantec for the detailed engineering and design of the duct bank and sewer projects, respectively. Stantec has assigned a single, dedicated team to optimize the design of both projects. Comment 7: Request for copies of permits and authorizations received to date including those from the Cape Cod Commission and DEP. The Cape Cod Commission’s Final DRI Decision and the Water Quality Certification issued by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection for the NE Wind 1 Connector are provided as Attachments B and C to this document. Comment 8: What are concerns related to potential impact to ecosystems at the Centerville River crossing from exposure to EMF? A pamphlet on this subject entitled “Electromagnetic Field Effects on Marine Life” published by U.S. Offshore Wind Synthesis of Environmental Effects Research (SEER) is provided as Attachment D to this document. Comment 9: Request for revised plans to reflect any minor adjustments to the project design that have taken place since the NOI was submitted including notes regarding contingency plans related to forecasted hurricanes and other major storm events. Updated permit drawings are included as Attachment E to this document. Comment 10: Restoration of natural landscape at the microtunnel staging area at 2 Short Beach Road must be completed by a Certified Ecological Restoration Practitioner. The site restoration plan has been revised to include a note that the restoration will be completed under the direct supervision of a Certified Ecological Restoration Practitioner (refer to Attachment E for revised site restoration plan and planting details). Additional Questions and Comments from the Public Comment 11: Will the microtunnel impact the structural integrity of the Centerville River bridge? Microtunnel was selected as the preferred construction method in part for its ability to complete the Centerville River crossing without impacting the bridge structure. Key attributes include: 1. The accuracy associated with microtunnel boring machine (MTBM) crossing is very high (within 4” to 6” of the design centerline), ensuring an adequate separation is maintained between the bridge structure and its associated piles. Controlled surveys will be performed at key locations along the MTBM alignment, confirming the accuracy of the MTBM’s laser-guided steering system and making any needed adjustments. 2. The soil removed by the tunnelling operation is replaced by the advancing concrete jacking pipe column, so stability of the soil structure is maintained at all times during the tunnel construction. 3. MTBM is a ‘one-pass’ construction methodology, meaning that the excavation remains supported at all times (concrete jacking pipe occupies the space vacated by the excavated soil as the tunnel boring machine advances). Comment 12: What recourse is available if shellfish habitat is damaged by the microtunnel operations? The microtunnel alternative has also been selected as the preferred construction methodology because it avoids disturbance to habitat within the Centerville River. As described in the NOI as well as during the first hearing, the proposed microtunnel across the Centerville River will be at least 10 feet below the river bottom and will not impact neither the river itself nor organisms in the river. Comment 13: Why is the project not undergoing review by the US Army Corps of Engineers? The entire Park City Wind project (of which the NE Wind 1 Connector is the state- jurisdictional component) is undergoing full U.S. Army Corps of Engineers review. Park City Wind submitted its application to the Corps of Engineers on August 1, 2022. Comment 14: In light of recent design modification for Commonwealth Wind project, should transition joint bays at Craigville Beach be depressed to provide greater depth of cover? The final depth of cover for the transition joint bays proposed beneath the paved parking lot at Craigville Public Beach will be based on sound engineering practices. Excavations required for installation of the transition joint bays will be contained within sheet-pile enclosures, and thus increasing the burial depth of the infrastructure would not increase the area of disturbance of areas within the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act and the Barnstable’s Wetlands Protection Bylaw. Comment 15: The Project has not adequately considered "potential upstream impacts" resulting from the Centerville River crossing. There is a need to consider potential broader impacts to the estuary including potential impacts to the annual herring migration/spawning within the river. The proposed microtunnel at the Centerville River crossing will be installed a minimum of ten feet below the lowest part of the river channel. In addition, Best Management Practices (BMP’s), including use of appropriate sediment and erosion controls at the staging area will provide the necessary protection of nearby estuarine resources. As a result, the installation will have no effect on the habitat provided by the Centerville River estuary as a whole or the anadromous/catadromous fish run that it contains. Comment 16: Will the applicant be required to submit a contingency plan to the conservation commission for review and approval prior to permit issuance to address any accidental release of drilling fluid to the Centerville River, and will this plan be made available to the public during the Conservation Commission’s review of this NOI? Drilling fluids consist of a slurry of water and bentonite, a naturally occurring, inert clay (typically the mixture ratio is less than 5% bentonite clay). This non-toxic material is used to extract material from the drill head as well as lubricate the drill bit, stem, and other equipment. Contingency plans that specify spill prevention and response actions are typically prepared by the selected contractor after award of bid and prior to construction. This is done so that a site-specific plan that is customized to the actual equipment set-up within the staging area can be developed. However, the proper management of “drilling fluids” during HDD and microtunnel operations is addressed in the NOI. Although the bentonite clay/water mixture is non-hazardous, the contractor will take precautions to prevent any release of the drilling fluid mixture into surrounding waters. The contractor will have a detailed release contingency plan in place prior to commencement of any drilling operations. All drilling personnel will be trained in the plan’s response elements and their specific role should a release occur. Operational procedures to minimize the potential for drilling mud release will be in place, and these will monitoring of all drilling mud hydraulic pressures and return volumes. Detailed geotechnical data of the HDD and microtunnel bore paths will inform the final designs and are important for establishing construction operations in a manner that will avoid and minimize the potential release of drilling fluids. Monitoring along the drill path will be incorporated during the operation with the specific response protocols in place. Should a release be detected, the drilling operations will cease immediately, and the cause will be identified, mitigated, and sealed prior to the restart of any drilling activities. The contractor will have the appropriate spill response equipment in place to respond should a release occur. These measures could include vacuum/pump equipment, underwater booms, and silt curtains. While the discharge of small amounts of naturally occurring clay to the environment does not pose a risk to the interests protected by the Act, the applicant does not object to a special condition in the Order of Conditions requiring the Proponent to comply with the commitments made in the NOI or in this Response. Attachment A Project Experience Information Attachment B Cape Cod Commission DRI Decision Attachment C Section 401 Water Quality Certification Maura T. Healey Governor Kimberley Driscoll Lieutenant Governor Rebecca L. Tepper Secretary Bonnie Heiple Commissioner This information is available in alternate format. Please contact Melixza Esenyie at 617-626-1282. TTY# MassRelay Service 1-800-439-2370 MassDEP Website: www.mass.gov/dep Printed on Recycled Paper May 12, 2023 Hans P. van Lingen, TRANSMITTAL # X288997 State Permitting Manager MassDEP # SE 48-3524 (Nantucket) New England Wind 1 MassDEP # SE 3-5681 (Barnstable) Park City Wind, LLC MassDEP # SE 20-1640 (Edgartown) EEA File # 16231 ACoE Project # NAE-2021-01301 RE: 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION AT: Nantucket Sound and Muskeget Channel at Islands Coastal and Cape Cod Coastal Dear Mr. Hans P. van Lingen: The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (the “Department” or “MassDEP”) has reviewed your application for Water Quality Certification (WQC), as referenced above, for the installation of a submarine transmission cable system in southeast coastal Massachusetts. In accordance with the provisions of Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act as amended (33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.), MGL c.21, §§ 26-53, 314 CMR 9.00 and MGL c.91, 310 CMR 9.00, the Department has determined there is reasonable assurance the project or activity will be conducted in a manner which will not violate applicable water quality standards (314 CMR 4.00) and other applicable requirements of state law. As a reminder, the Chapter 91 Permit/License will be issued in a separate document at a later date. The waters of southeast coastal Massachusetts are designated in the Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards (314 CMR 4.00) as Class SA. Such waters are intended "as excellent habitat for fish, other aquatic life and wildlife and for primary and secondary contact recreation.” Anti-degradation provisions of these Standards require that "existing uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing uses shall be maintained and protected.” In addition, this area has been designated for Shellfishing pursuant to 314 CMR 4.00. New England Wind I Project by Park City Wind, Transmittal # X288997 2 Project Description The New England Wind 1 (NE Wind 1) Connector is proposed to connect a large-scale renewable wind energy generation facility (i.e., Park City Wind) within the federally designated Wind Energy Area (WEA) on the Outer Continental Shelf of the Massachusetts coast to the New England bulk power grid. This joint Chapter 91 Waterways License application/401 WQC pertains solely the portions of the export cables located within Massachusetts waters and intertidal zones.1 NE Wind 1 offshore export cable corridor (OECC) passes through approximately 23 miles (37 km) of state waters, and is largely the same corridor utilized for Vineyard Wind; the only differences are that the OECC has been widened by approximately 985 feet (300 m) to the west, and along the stretch through the Muskeget Channel area, and it has also been widened by approximately 985 feet (300 m) to the east, bringing its typical width to approximately 3,800 feet (1,150 m) and its range from approximately 3,100 to 5,100 feet (950 to 1,550 m). Work within the OECC will include the installation of two offshore export cables. Each 275-kV armored offshore cable will be approximately 10 inches (25.5 centimeters) in diameter. The proposed Project scope within state waters entails dredging approximately 84,000 cubic meters (m3) of sediment within Land Under Ocean, which is equivalent of 110,000 cubic yards (cy) (Table 1). The estimated length of dredging for the OECC is approximately 4.2 miles with a fluidized sediment volume in trench (i.e., total volume) of around 112,000 m3. Major dredging activities are solely related to cable installation. The applicant will be required to conduct simultaneous turbidity monitoring during jet plowing and dredging (See Condition #13). Table 1 Characteristics and Impacts from Installation of Offshore Export Cable Corridors to Craigville Public Beach Landfall Site (detailed information can be found in Table 11) State Waters Only Offshore Export Cable Corridor Characteristics (state waters only) Total Length (miles) 23 (37 km) Volume of sand wave dredging (nearest 1,000 m3) Estimated Length of dredging (miles) 84,000 (110,000 cy) 4.2 (6.8 km) Volume of sediment fluidized in trench (nearest 1,000 m3) 112,000 Impact Calculations Trench impact zone (acres) 18 Disturbance zone from tool skids/tracks (acres) Direct dredging impacts (acres) 56 26 Anchoring (acres) 12.7 1 Park City Wind LLC, May 5, 2022. New England Wind 1 Connector: Joint Application for Chapter 91 License/Permit and Section 401 Water Quality Certification. Prepared by Epsilon Associates, Inc. in Association with Foley Hoag LLP, Stantec, Inc, and Geo SubSea LLC. New England Wind I Project by Park City Wind, Transmittal # X288997 3 Cable Protection (acres) 7.2 – 21.5 In addition to impacts listed in Table 1, to install the cable close to shore using tools that are best optimized to achieve sufficient cable burial depth (around 5 to 8 feet below the stable seabed), the cable laying vessel may temporarily ground nearshore, impacting an area of up to 2.4 acres (9,750 m2) per cable. Any anchoring, spud leg deployment, or grounding will occur within the surveyed area of the OECC.1 In order to install the power cable, pre-lay grapnel run and sand wave dredging are required. Usually, a pre-lay grapnel run will be made to locate and clear obstructions such as abandoned fishing gear and other marine debris. Any abandoned fishing gear recovered will be disposed of or returned to its owner in accordance with requirements of the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries and other relevant Massachusetts regulations. Following the pre-lay grapnel run and any required sand wave dredging, offshore export cable laying is expected to be performed primarily via simultaneous lay-and-burial using jet- plow or other methods (e.g., mechanical plowing) that may be used in certain areas to ensure proper burial depth will be achieved.1 Figure 1 shows the proposed alignments and routes of where the OECC will be located. The proposed Park City offshore export cables will be installed within largely the same OECC as Vineyard Wind Connector’s offshore export cables. The proposed OECC is the product of an extensive alternatives analysis, thoroughly vetted through the MEPA, as well as through coordination with federal, state, regional, and local agencies. The Proponent has also performed extensive marine surveys of the OECC over multiple seasons, results from which were thoroughly presented and discussed in the DEIR and FEIR, which was reviewed by MassDEP. The route has been carefully planned to avoid or mitigate any potential impacts. Issues such as recreational and commercial fishing, recreational and commercial navigation, the crossing of existing infrastructure, future maritime projects and uses, rare species and rare habitat protection, and pedestrian beach access have all been accounted for when crafting this plan (See Conditions #30 to #32). While there may be some temporary usage impacts for commercial or recreational fishing and navigation during periods of construction, all of the other previously mentioned aspects of the project are expected to have no short- or long-term negative impacts.1 The Proponent intends to avoid or minimize the need for cable protection to the greatest extent feasible through careful site assessment and thoughtful selection of the most appropriate cable installation tool to achieve sufficient burial. However, cable protection may be needed for specific areas where the seabed is composed of consolidated materials, which is difficult for the projects cable burial techniques. The Proponent shall seek to avoid and/or minimize the use of such cable protections, and cable protection will only be used where necessary. Aside from the limited areas where target burial depth may be difficult to achieve, the offshore export cables are not expected to interfere with any typical fishing practices. Should protection of the offshore export cables be required, it will be designed to minimize potential impacts to fishing gear to New England Wind I Project by Park City Wind, Transmittal # X288997 4 the greatest extent feasible such as using environmentally friendly concrete mattresses. Fishermen will also be notified of the areas where the cable protection is used. Cable protection methods could include methods such as rock placement, gabion rock bags, concrete mattresses, and half-shell pipes. The estimated length of cable protection in state waters is approximately 3.0 miles (4.8 km) per cable, for a total length of approximately 6.0 miles (9.7 km). The Proponent’s engineers have determined that concrete mattresses of approximately 10 feet (3 m) wide will be sufficient to protect the cable. Should rock placement be the required methodology of cable protection, a greater width of approximately 30 feet (9 m) would be needed to account for side slopes. If gabion bags are utilized, any width can be installed by using multi- compartment bags. However, currently the Proponent’s engineers do not anticipate needing a width greater than 10 feet (i.e., the same width as the concrete mattresses). The impact calculations are summarized in Table 1. Figure 1 Preliminary Offshore Cable Alignments for Vineyard Wind Connector 1/New England Wind 1 Connector.1 New England Wind I Project by Park City Wind, Transmittal # X288997 5 Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) will be required at the Craigville public beach landfall site to adequately bury the export cables nearshore. It will be the primary method utilized to avoid the area of hard bottom and co-located eelgrass near Spindle Rock, and minimize project-related impacts to the beach, intertidal zone, and benthic habitat offshore from the landfall site. It will also serve to ensure that the cables will be sufficiently buried and out of the human environment at the shoreline. After the cables make landfall at Craigville public beach, they will be routed to an onshore electrical substation where the power generated from the turbines will be initially sent. To reach the substation, the cables will run underneath the Centerville River along the proposed route starting at Craigville public beach. Sediment Sampling and Analysis Geologically, conditions along the OECC today are not much different from 10,000 years ago because sediments on the seafloor are primarily reworked from older glacial deposits.1 Within state waters, approximately 77 vibracores were collected in 2018 and another 37 were collected in 2020. Of these vibracores,12 locations from 2018 and another 5 from 2020 were within the OECC for New England Wind 1 Connector and within sand waves where dredging may occur. A detailed chemical analysis was also performed on each of the OECC vibracores located within sand waves where dredging may occur. The analysis demonstrates that all contaminant levels were either undetected or were well below the MCP RCS-1 standard levels.2 Public Notice The applicant published the required public notice in the Cape Cod Times on June 24, 2022. The Department did not receive any comment during the 21-day public comment period, which ended on July 15, 2022. Section 61 Findings Pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 30, Sections 61 to 62I inclusive [the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (“MEPA”)], this project was reviewed as EOEEA No. 16231 and the Secretary’s FEIR certificate, issued on January 28, 2022, found the FEIR complied with MEPA (M.G.L.c.30, ss. 61-62I) and its implementing regulations (310 CMR 11.00). Prior to the issuance of the FEIR certificate, the following certificates were also issued by the EOEEA Secretary: Environmental Notification Form (ENF) on August 7, 2020, and Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) on June 25, 2021. Pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 30, Section 61, the Department determines that the proposed project as conditioned will 2 Park City Wind LLC, August 30, 2022. New England Wind 1 Connector: New England Wind 1 Connector Summary of Nearshore Vibracore Sampling. Prepared by Epsilon Associates, Inc. in association with Foley Hoag LLP, Stantec, Inc, and Geo SubSea LLC. New England Wind I Project by Park City Wind, Transmittal # X288997 6 incorporate the appropriate feasible measures to avoid or minimize potential environmental impacts that may result from the construction and operation of the project. Therefore, based on information currently in the record, MassDEP grants a 401 WQC for this project subject to the following conditions to maintain or attain water quality, to minimize any damage to the environment that may result from the project, and to ensure compliance with appropriate provisions of state law. MassDEP certifies that there is reasonable assurance the project or activity, as conditioned herein, will be conducted in a manner that will not violate applicable water quality standards (314 CMR 4.00) and other appropriate requirements of state law. 401 WQC Permit Conditions 1. The Contractor shall take all steps necessary to assure that the proposed activities will be conducted in a manner that will avoid violations of the anti-degradation provi- sions of the Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards that protect all waters, including wetlands. This condition is necessary to assure that any discharge from the project complies with the Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards, as provided in 314 CMR 9.00 to protect the public health and restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the water resources of the Commonwealth. 2. Prior to the start of work, or any other portion of the work thereafter, the Department shall be notified of any change(s) in the proposed project or plans that may affect waters or wetlands. The final dredge volume should also be reported to MassDEP as the originally estimated dredging volume is dependent on the final route and cable installation method, as well as the actual morphology of the sand waves encountered during export cable installation. The Department will determine whether the change(s) require a revision to this 401 WQC. This condition, pursuant to 314 CMR 9.07(1) and 314 CMR 9.09 (2), is necessary to protect the public health and restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the water resources of the Commonwealth. 3. As provided by 314 CMR 9.09(1), dredging in accordance with this Certification may begin following the 21-day appeal period and once all other permits have been received. This condition is necessary to protect public health and restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the water resources of the Commonwealth. 4. Pursuant to 314 CMR 9.05(1), all work in waters and wetlands shall conform to the New England Wind 1 Connector General Locus, Plan Accompanying Petition of: Park City Wind LLC Sub-Sea Cable Installation Project, Nantucket Sound, State Waters & Barnstable, Massachusetts, Plan submitted in this application to the Department by Park City Wind LLC, dated April 1, 2022, which are unsigned, New England Wind I Project by Park City Wind, Transmittal # X288997 7 unstamped, and scaled as noted. The Department shall be notified if there are modifications and or deletions of work as specified in the plans. Every change should be submitted to MassDEP for a decision on whether further information is needed. At a minimum, a complete narrative of the changes of the plan should be included. Depending on the nature and the scope of any change, approval by the Department will be required. This condition is necessary as these documents outline how the execution of the project will meet the requirement of 314 CMR 9.07. 5. Pursuant to 314 CMR 9.05 (4), the applicant and its contractor shall allow agents of the Department to enter the project sites to verify compliance with the conditions of this Certification. This condition is necessary to ensure that construction practices are implemented in such a manner as to prevent degradation of wetlands and waters. 6. As provided by 314 CMR 9.05(4), the Department shall be notified, attention David Wong 617-874-7155, one week prior to the start of in-water work so that Department staff may inspect the work for compliance with the terms and conditions of this Certification. This condition is necessary to ensure that construction practices are implemented in such a manner as to prevent degradation of wetlands and waters. 7. Pursuant to 314 CMR 9.05 (4), the permittee shall designate a professional Environmental Inspector with dredge or dredge-associated experience for this project whose responsibilities shall include ensuring the project complies with the requirements of this Certification and that all necessary reports are made on a timely basis. Prior to the start of construction, the permittee shall provide MassDEP with the name, phone number and qualifications of the Environmental Inspector assigned to the project. 8. Pursuant to 314 CMR 9.07(3), a copy of this Certification and referenced plans and documents shall be provided to the contractor prior to the start of construction. This condition is necessary to minimize the impact on the aquatic ecosystem. 9. Pursuant to 314 CMR 9.07(3), a copy of this Certification and referenced plans and documents shall be kept available on the major construction vessels during all phases of construction. This condition is necessary to minimize the impact on the aquatic ecosystem. 10. The term of the 401 WQC remains in effect for the same duration as the federal permit that requires it. This condition is necessary to ensure that construction practices are implemented in such a manner as to prevent the degradation of wetlands and waters of the Commonwealth. 11. As provided by 314 CMR 9.04(5), future maintenance dredging for cable maintenance, inspection, and/or repair may be conducted as necessary for the duration of this Certification, provided that the following points are met: New England Wind I Project by Park City Wind, Transmittal # X288997 8 a. the initial project and any subsequent dredging have been conducted satisfactorily with no violations of the terms and conditions of this Certification, or if any violations did occur, they were resolved to the satisfaction of the Department; b. information has been submitted to the Department regarding chemical characteristics and final end use/disposal of the dredged material for review and approval and no future maintenance dredging has commenced without obtaining end use/disposal approval from the Department; c. if necessary, documentation showing the grain-size distribution of the sediment to be dredged is compatible with the grain-size distribution of the approved receiving beach(es) in accordance with the document entitled Beach Nourishment, Mass DEP’s Guide to Best Management Practices for Projects in Massachusetts, March 2007 and is submitted to the Department for approval. Time of Year Restriction may be implemented and restriction on placement locations may be required; d. an updated Suitability Determination from the Army Corps of Engineers for unconfined ocean disposal at MBDS or CCBDS is submitted to the Department; e. coordinates of the maintenance dredge footprint are the same as the authorized dredge footprint under this Certification; f. a current due-diligence evaluation is done to determine that no known spills of oil or other toxic substances have occurred which could have contaminated the sediment in the dredge area and submitted to the Department prior to maintenance dredging; g. a bathymetric survey has been submitted to the Department in compliance with Condition #24; h. the volume of future maintenance (such as cable inspection or repair) dredging does not exceed 110,000 cy (equivalent to 84,000 m3) and the Department is notified at least four weeks prior to the commencement of maintenance dredging. This condition is necessary to ensure that the handling of dredged material is completed in accordance with the conditions in this certification and in such a way as to prevent the degradation of wetlands and waters. 12. As provided by 314 CMR 9.07(3)(b), anchored vessels shall avoid areas of ecological importance that include shellfish habitat, salt marsh, and other areas listed in 9.07(3)(b), and which also includes hard or complex bottom areas to the greatest extent practicable. Contractors will be provided with a map of areas of ecological importance by the applicant prior to construction with areas to avoid and shall plan their mooring positions accordingly. Where it is considered impossible or impracticable to avoid a sensitive seafloor habitat, the use of mid-line anchor buoys shall be considered, where feasible and considered safe, as a potential measure to reduce and minimize potential impacts from anchor line sweep. This condition is necessary to protect water quality because it ensures that the project proponent is New England Wind I Project by Park City Wind, Transmittal # X288997 9 using planning and construction practices that will maintain the integrity of the project site and maintain the aquatic resource functions and values. 13. Pursuant to 314 CMR 9.07(3), the applicant shall conduct simultaneous turbidity monitoring during non-HDD dredging operations (including but not limited to trailing suction hopper dredging, clamshell bucket, mass flow excavator), cable installation (such as jet plowing, mechanical plowing, and hand excavation of a small seafloor area beneath the seaward end of the conduit to bury the cable into the sea floor) and other construction activities. The applicant shall submit a turbidity (NTU) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) monitoring plan to MassDEP and CZM for acceptance eight weeks prior to the commencement of the dredging/plowing operation. At a minimum, the monitoring plan shall include monitoring locations, frequency of monitoring, type of monitoring equipment, proposed action level for implementation of corrective action or BMPs, level for stop work, background monitoring locations, and frequency. TSS concentrations associated with dredging and cable installation at the avian foraging hot spot shall also be monitored.3 The monitoring report should be submitted to MassDEP, CZM, and DMF in electronic format and shall include, at a minimum, a map of sampling stations, the results at each station, and how the results compare to background and threshold turbidity concentrations of interest to MassDEP. This condition is necessary to minimize turbidity and sediment caused by construction activities. It is necessary to ensure that water quality is not degraded, and that the biology of the waters are not negatively impacted by potential sediment discharges. 14. In accordance with 314 CMR 9.07(9), where a Trailing Suction Hopper Dredge (TSHD) is used, it is anticipated that the TSHD would dredge along the cable alignment until the hopper is filled to an appropriate capacity, then the TSHD would navigate several hundred meters away and deposit the dredged material within an area of the surveyed corridor that also contains sand waves. This condition is necessary to ensure proper disposal of the dredged material within the bounds of approval. It is necessary to protect the water quality. 15. Pursuant to 314 CMR 9.07(3), any boulders that must be moved in order to install cables shall be kept within the project corridor. No boulders shall be placed in or close to any eelgrass beds or shellfish habitats. The Project will report the locations of any relocated boulders that will protrude 6.5 feet [2 meters]) or more on the seafloor to BOEM, MassDEP, Massachusetts CZM, the USCG, NOAA, and the local harbormaster (if within a town’s jurisdiction) within 30 days of relocation. These locations must be reported in latitude and longitude degrees to the nearest 10 thousandth of a decimal degree (roughly the nearest meter), or as precise as practicable. This condition is necessary to ensure that the handling of dredged material is completed in accordance with the conditions in this certification and in such a way as to prevent the degradation of wetlands and waters. 3 The document linked in the email from Holly Johnston, Epsilon Associates, Inc., to David Wong, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, dated March 7, 2023. New England Wind I Project by Park City Wind, Transmittal # X288997 10 16. In accordance with 314 CMR 9.07, Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be deployed during microtunneling under the Centerville River. No later than 28 days prior to the commencement of any microtunneling operations, a construction plan with detailed information including, but not limited to, selecting the most applicable trenchless method, the pressure used to perform the excavation, how to prevent accidental release of soil cuttings or drilling slurry, shall be developed and submitted to MassDEP for final approval. This condition is necessary to ensure that microtunneling and its associated activities shall avoid or minimize environmental impacts on wetlands and waters. 17. Pursuant to 314 CMR 9.07, Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be deployed surrounding the HDD construction area to minimize turbidity for dredging the small area of the seafloor beneath the seaward end and HDD operations shall be conducted in accordance with the proposed procedures to minimize any potential for water quality impacts. During HDD drilling, the two co-mingled products, drill cuttings and excess drill fluids (bentonite clay or mud), shall be collected from the reservoir pit and shall be processed through a filter/recycling system where drill cuttings (solids) will be separated from reusable drill fluids. Non-reusable material consisting of drill cuttings and excess drill fluids will be trucked to an appropriate disposal site; these materials shall be dewatered before being transported to an upland disposal area with a sealed truck. A drill crew that specializes in HDD shall monitor the drilling operations; immediate corrective actions such as using a portable containment structure for drilling pipe disassembly shall be taken should drill fluid seepage occur. The contractor shall deploy BMPs to minimize the amount of bentonite near the exit hole and shall have controls near the exit hole to minimize and contain any bentonite. Should an unexpected drilling fluid release occur, the contractor shall assess the size and depth of bentonite and the bentonite mass is required to be removed quickly (or otherwise mitigate for natural resource impacts, if required by MassDEP). In the event of frac out, fluid release or seepage, the applicant shall report it to MassDEP (David Wong at 617-874-7155) immediately and shall describe how BMPs have been adopted to control bentonite and other drilling fluids. This condition is necessary to ensure that water quality requirements are met. It is necessary to ensure the project proponent uses planning and construction practices that maintain the integrity of the site hydrology and maintain the aquatic resource functions and values. 18. Pursuant to 314 CMR 9.07(1), 9.07(5), 9.07(9) and 9.07(13)(b), the Department shall be notified in writing of the name and location of the upland licensed facility accepting non-reusable material consisting of drill cuttings and excess drill fluids during HDD operations. If the licensed facility is located out of state, documentation shall be provided to the Department that the dredged material disposal/reuse has been approved and will be accepted by the receiving state in accordance with 314 CMR 9.07(13)(b). The dredged material shall not be transported to the facility without the concurrence of the Department. This condition is necessary to ensure that dredge material disposal will not adversely affect any wetlands or water in the receiving area. New England Wind I Project by Park City Wind, Transmittal # X288997 11 19. In accordance with 314 CMR 9.07(5), a Dredged Material Tracking Form (DMTF) or Material Shipping Record (MSR) shall be used to track the drill cuttings and excess drill fluids to the licensed upland facility. A fully executed copy of the DMTF or MSR shall be provided to the Department within 30 days of final shipment to the facility. This condition is necessary to maintain a record of the dredge material to ensure that dredged material disposal will not adversely affect any wetlands or waters. 20. In accordance with 314 CMR 9.07(5), Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be implemented during the transportation of the non-re-usable material to the licensed receiving facility. At a minimum, when transported upon public roadways, all dredged material shall have no free liquid as determined by the Paint Filter Test or other suitably analogous methodology acceptable to the Department. If the material has elevated water content, dewatering may be required before transportation and transportation should occur in sealed trucks. This condition is necessary to protect the surrounding water quality during transportation. These practices help to avoid fugitive dust and siltation into wetland resources and waters. 21. In accordance with 314 CMR 9.07(1), no later than 21 days prior to the commencement of HDD operations, a non-reusable material dewatering plan shall be submitted to MassDEP (attention: David Wong) for review and approval. At a minimum, the dewatering plan shall include, but not be limited to, the type of containment, method of dewatering (i.e., mechanical or by gravity), method of collecting the dewatered effluent, and method of disposal. This condition is necessary to adequately minimize and contain runoff water and material from the dredged material dewatering process to protect the waters. It is also necessary to ensure that water quality is not degraded, and biological resources are not negatively impacted by potential discharges. 22. Pursuant to 314 CMR 9.06, disposal of any volume of dredged material such as non- reusable material consisting of HDD drill cuttings and excess drill fluid at any location in tidal waters is subject to approval by this Department and the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management (CZM) office. This condition is necessary to prevent any pollution of tidal water resources by the discharge of dredged material. 23. In accordance with 314 CMR9.07(3), before any hard cover is placed to permanently protect areas of exposed cable, the applicant shall contact the Department (David Wong at 617-874-7155) and CZM (Robert Boeri at 617-626-1050) and make every reasonable effort to use rock placement or a gabion system, as appropriate, to mimic native surficial material and reduce the use of concrete mats for permanent cable protection. Where temporary protection is needed, e.g., for periods of 12 months or less at a splice joint, the applicant should still notify the Department and CZM, but it may use concrete mats based on its engineering judgment. New England Wind I Project by Park City Wind, Transmittal # X288997 12 24. In accordance with 314 CMR 9.07(3), the applicant must provide the Department with a cable monitoring report within 90 calendar days following each export cable inspection to determine cable location, burial depths, state of the cable, and site conditions. An inspection of the export cable is expected to include high-resolution geophysical methods, such as a multi-beam bathymetric survey equipment, and identify seabed features, natural and human-made hazards, and site conditions along the cable route. Export cable inspection will be carried out within 6 months of commissioning, and subsequent inspections will be carried out at years 1, 2, and every 3 thereafter, and after a major storm event. Major storm events are defined as when metocean conditions (e.g., wind, wave, and climate) at the facility meet or exceed the 1 in 50-year return period calculated in the metocean design basis.4 If conditions warrant adjustment to the frequency of inspections following the Year 2 survey, a revised monitoring plan may be provided to the Department for review. In addition to inspection, the export cable will be monitored continuously with the as-built DTS system. If data indicate that burial conditions have deteriorated or changed significantly and remedial actions are warranted, a seabed stability analysis and report of remedial actions taken or scheduled must be provided to the Department within 45 calendar days of the observations. The survey shall be submitted within eight working weeks after its completion to the Department (attention: David Wong) and a copy shall be sent to the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management office (attention: Robert Boeri) and another copy to the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (attention: John Logan)..This condition is necessary to ensure that the project proponent will maintain the integrity of the project site and maintain the aquatic resource functions and values, and protect water quality during construction. 25. Pursuant to 314 CMR 9.00, all vessels used in the project shall be maintained in sea- worthy condition. Construction and construction-support vessels shall, at a minimum, implement BMPs to control the discharge of drainage and trash. Discharges of sanitary waste are prohibited in state waters. Discharge of grey water and other discharges are prohibited unless otherwise authorized via an NPDES permit, NPDES general permit, or other NPDES authorization applicable to this project. This condition is necessary to ensure that any equipment used during construction will not pose a serious or long-term risk to aquatic life or Massachusetts waters. 26. In accordance with 314 CMR 9.06(2) and 314 CMR9.07(1), to avoid or minimize impacts on water quality and marine resources, the non-HDD cable-laying operations in inshore waters of the offshore export cable area should occur outside of April-June unless otherwise (i.e., incursion) approved under Condition # 29, consistent with the 4 Metocean design basis refers to the environmental conditions that a marine or offshore structure or system is designed to withstand. It includes a range of meteorological (met-) and oceanographic (-ocean) parameters, such as waves, currents, winds, water levels, and temperature, that are expected to occur at the project site during the design life of the structure or system. New England Wind I Project by Park City Wind, Transmittal # X288997 13 Time of Year Restriction (TOY) for this project.5 This condition is necessary to avoid any adverse impacts on specified habitat sites of rare species. 27. In accordance with 314 CMR 9.06(2) and 314 CMR 9.07(1), all work and activities associated with the project shall follow the protection measures and procedures described in the Piping Plover Protection Plan to avoid impacts on Piping Plover and their habitats during the nesting season, April 1 – August 31. HDD work initiated in advance of April 1 may continue provided the Protection Plan is fully implemented.6 This condition is necessary to avoid any adverse impacts on specified habitat sites of rare species such as nesting piping plovers. 28. In accordance with 314 CMR 9.07(2), prior to commencement of construction, the permittee shall file with the Department a copy of an Oil Spill Response Plan (OSRP) for its review. All construction activity shall comply with the terms and conditions of the OSRP on file with MassDEP. A copy of the OSRP shall be kept on each affected construction vessel at all times during construction. This condition is necessary to maintain the integrity of the project site, as well as the aquatic resource functions and values. 29. Pursuant to 314 CMR 9.09(2), the applicant, or its contractor, shall make every effort to complete the project within the permitted timeframe. Should the applicant, or their contractor, fail to complete the project and wish to request an amendment to this Certification for incursion into the no-dredge period, the written request shall be received by the Department no later than March 15th. The following information shall be included in the request: a. project location and transmittal number, b. the date on which dredging started, c. the number of days and hours per day the dredge operated, d. expected daily average production rate and the actual daily average production rate, e. an explanation of why the project failed to remain on schedule, f. an account of efforts made to get the project back on schedule, g. a plan depicting the areas that remain to be dredged, h. the number of cubic yards of material that remain to be dredged, i. an accurate estimate of the number of days required to complete the project, j. an evaluation of the impact of continued dredging on the species of concern, k. a description of any efforts that will be made to minimize the impacts of the project on the species of concern, and a realistic assessment of any societal/financial effects of a denial of permission to continue dredging. 5 According to a letter from Daniel J. McKiernan, Director of Division of Marine Fisheries, to Kathleen Theoharides, Secretary of Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA), Massachusetts. Dated January 19, 2022. 6 According to a letter from Everose Schlüter, Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, to Barnstable Conservation Commission. Dated June 1, 2022. New England Wind I Project by Park City Wind, Transmittal # X288997 14 This condition is necessary to protect water quality because it ensures that the project proponent is using planning and construction practices that will maintain the integrity of the site hydrology and maintain the aquatic resource functions and values. The Department will share the information with other state agencies and a decision to grant or deny the amendment shall be made by April 1st. Requests for amendment received after March 15th will be considered at the Department’s discretion. 30. Pursuant to 314 CMR 9.07(3), a pre- and post-construction benthic habitat and benthic community monitoring plan shall be further defined and developed based on the “New England Wind Draft Benthic Habitat Monitoring Plan”.7 The monitoring plan should measure changes in seafloor topography and any disturbance of the seafloor habitats. High-resolution multibeam bathymetry, or a similar method shall be used pre- and post-construction to determine the depth and extent of sedimentation arising from the project. The Plan shall be prepared in consultation with the MassDEP, CZM, DMF and other state and federal agencies. The plan should be submitted to MassDEP, CZM and DMF for timely review and MassDEP approval no later than 12 months before the start of the non-HDD cable-laying activities. It shall be the responsibility of the Applicant to schedule the agency review meetings necessary to review monitoring results, determine the need for additional monitoring, and/or identify mitigation. In the event the Department determines that additional compensatory mitigation is due from the permittee as a result of construction-related impacts to the benthic habitat, MassDEP may consult with other state and federal agencies and specify additional measures to be implemented by the permittee. 31. As provided by 314 CMR 9.05(4), no later than 30 days after the grapnel run is completed, the applicant shall submit the report to MassDEP, MA DMF, and MA CZM identifying potential modifications to the proposed final cable-laying strategy. Any snags, potential environmental disturbances, and unexpected conditions shall be included in this report. This condition is necessary to ensure that construction practices are implemented in such a manner as to prevent the degradation of wetlands and waters. 32. Pursuant to 314 CMR 9.07(3), the applicant shall submit any updates to the existing “New England Wind Fisheries Monitoring Plan”3 and the results of the monitoring Plan to MassDEP for timely review and approval. Part of the project area provides habitats to several fisheries species such as the longfin squid, river herring, shad, sea herring, and striped bass. The purpose of the plan is to undertake fisheries surveys prior to-, during, and post-construction to measure the Project’s impact on fisheries resources and recovery of the fish communities. The Plan shall be prepared in consultation with the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth School for Marine Science and 7 According to an email from Stephanie Wilson, Avangrid Renewables, to multiple state and federal agencies, dated December 9, 2022. New England Wind I Project by Park City Wind, Transmittal # X288997 15 Technology, the MA DMF, CZM, MassDEP, fishermen, the fisheries science community, and other stakeholders to inform that effort and design the study. This condition is necessary to maintain the integrity of the project site and the aquatic resource functions and values. 33. No later than 12 months before the start of non-HDD cable-laying activities, a survey plan on eelgrass beds at Cape Pogue shall be submitted to MassDEP, CZM and DMF for timely review and MassDEP approval. Before the start of cable-laying activities, the applicant shall submit the results of eelgrass survey at Cape Pogue. The map shall be submitted to MassDEP, DMF and CZM. A similar post-construction eelgrass map shall be generated one year after the cable laying is completed. During construction, a minimum of 100-feet shall remain unaltered between the edge of the eelgrass and the slope of the project area. This condition applies to the document eelgrass bed around Spindle Rock, and any new eelgrass that may be detected during the survey. If eelgrass impact in any area including the Cape Poge eelgrass beds cannot be avoided, the applicant shall develop and submit a mitigation plan to MassDEP, DMF and CZM for review and written approval. If harvesting and transplanting of eelgrass are required as mitigation, a minimum ratio of 3:1 harvesting/transplanting shall be required. Any transplanted eelgrass shall be monitored for three years, as necessary. An annual progress report shall be submitted to the MassDEP, DMF, and CZM. The Department reserves the right to seek additional mitigation if the survival of any transplanted eelgrass is less than 50 percent at the end of the 3-year monitoring. Vineyard Wind performed a baseline eelgrass survey at Cape Pogue in August 2021. If the proposed cable installation will occur within 5 years of that survey (i.e., prior to August 2026), there should be no requirement to perform an additional baseline survey. Otherwise, additional eelgrass survey at Cape Pogue is required. This condition is necessary to protect water quality because it ensures that the project proponent is using planning and construction practices that will maintain the integrity of the project site and maintain the aquatic resource functions and values. 34. In accordance with 314 CMR 9.09(1), within 90 days prior to start of any work within the scope of this Certification, the applicant shall submit a notification procedure outlining the reporting process to the Department for incidents relating to the dredging/cable laying activities that could have potential impacts to surrounding resource areas and habitats such as, but not limited to, observed dead or distressed fish or other aquatic organisms, observed oily sheen on surface water, sediment spill, excessive turbidity plumes beyond the deployed BMP’s, and barging or equipment accident/spill. If at any time during implementation of the Project such an incident occurs, the applicant shall immediately notify MassDEP and all site related activities impacting the water shall cease until the source of the problem is identified and adequate mitigating measures are deployed to the satisfaction of MassDEP. 35. Pursuant to 314 CMR 9.07(3), at least three months prior to the start of non-HDD dredging activities, a Fisheries Notification of Construction Activities should be developed in consultation with MassDEP and DMF. The Fisheries Notification of New England Wind I Project by Park City Wind, Transmittal # X288997 16 Construction Activities should be posted on the DMF listserv and should be distributed via the other communication media identified in the Fisheries Communication Plan,8 including but not limited to industry-specific emails and social media and project- specific radio alerts to fishermen at sea. During construction there should be clear daily two-way communication channels between fishermen and project contractors and sub-contractors. This condition is necessary to identify any new obstructions that were not previously observed. 36. Pursuant to 314 CMR 9.07(3), all data generated from the benthic community monitoring, bathymetric surveys, cable burial monitoring, turbidity and sediment monitoring should be digitized and reported to MassDEP, MA DMF, and MA CZM in a format the agencies request and including metadata that provides detailed information for state agencies to depict prior- and post-installation conditions. This condition is necessary to make sure that the project will meet the performance standards. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This certification does not relieve the applicant of the obligation to comply with other applicable state or federal statutes or regulations. Any changes made to the project as described in the previously submitted Notice of Intent, 401 Water Quality Certification application, or supplemental documents will require further notification to the Department. Certain persons shall have a right to request an adjudicatory hearing concerning certifications by the Department when an application is required: a. the applicant or property owner; b. any person aggrieved by the decision who has submitted written comments during the public comment period; c. any ten (10) persons of the Commonwealth pursuant to M.G.L. c.30A where a group member has submitted written comments during the public comment period; or d. any governmental body or private organization with a mandate to protect the environment, which has submitted written comments during the public comment period. Any person aggrieved, any ten (10) persons of the Commonwealth, or a governmental body or private organization with a mandate to protect the environment may appeal without having submitted written comments during the public comment period only when the claim is based on new substantive issues arising from material changes to the scope or impact of the activity and not apparent at the time of public notice. To request an adjudicatory hearing pursuant to M.G.L. c.30A, § 10, a Notice of Claim must be 8 Park City Wind LLC, May 5, 2022. New England Wind 1 Connector: Joint Application for Chapter 91 License/Permit and Section 401 Water Quality Certification. Prepared by Epsilon Associates, Inc. in Association with Foley Hoag LLP, Stantec, Inc, and Geo SubSea LLC. New England Wind I Project by Park City Wind, Transmittal # X288997 17 made in writing, provided that the request is made by certified mail or hand delivery to the Department, with the appropriate filing fee specified within 310 CMR 4.10 along with a DEP Fee Transmittal Form within twenty-one (21) days from the date of issuance of this Certificate, and addressed to: Case Administrator Department of Environmental Protection 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the issuing office of the Wetlands and Waterways Program at: Department of Environmental Protection 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 A Notice of Claim for Adjudicatory Hearing shall comply with the Department’s Rules for Adjudicatory Proceedings, 310 CMR 1.01(6), and shall contain the following information pursuant to 314 CMR 9.10(3): a. the 401 Certification Transmittal Number and DEP Wetlands Protection Act File Number; b. the complete name of the applicant and address of the project; c. the complete name, address, and fax and telephone numbers of the party filing the request, and, if represented by counsel or other representative, the name, fax and telephone numbers, and address of the attorney; d. if claiming to be a party aggrieved, the specific facts that demonstrate that the party satisfies the definition of “aggrieved person” found at 314 CMR 9.02; e. a clear and concise statement that an adjudicatory hearing is being requested; f. a clear and concise statement of (1) the facts which are grounds for the proceedings, (2) the objections to this Certificate, including specifically the manner in which it is alleged to be inconsistent with the Department’s Water Quality Regulations, 314 CMR 9.00, and (3) the relief sought through the adjudicatory hearing, including specifically the changes desired in the final written Certification; and g. a statement that a copy of the request has been sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the applicant, the owner (if different from the applicant), the conservation commission of the city or town where the activity will occur, the Department of Environmental Management (when the certificate concerns projects in Areas of Critical Environmental Concern), the public or private water supplier where the project is located (when the certificate concerns projects in Outstanding Resource Waters), and any other entity with responsibility for the resource where the project is located. New England Wind I Project by Park City Wind, Transmittal # X288997 18 The hearing request along with a DEP Fee Transmittal Form and a valid check or money order payable to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the amount of one hundred dollars ($100) must be mailed to: Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Commonwealth Master Lockbox P.O. Box 4062 Boston, MA 02211 The request will be dismissed if the filing fee is not paid unless the appellant is exempt or granted a waiver. The filing fee is not required if the appellant is a city or town (or municipal agency), county, or district of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, or a municipal housing authority. The Department may waive the adjudicatory-hearing filing fee pursuant to 310 CMR 4.06(2) for a person who shows that paying the fee will create an undue financial hardship. A person seeking a waiver must file an affidavit setting forth the facts believed to support the claim of undue financial hardship together with the hearing request as provided above. Failure to comply with this certification is grounds for enforcement, including civil and criminal penalties, under MGL c.21 §42, 314 CMR 9.00, MGL c. 21A §16, 310 CMR 5.00, or other possible actions/penalties as authorized by the General Laws of the Commonwealth. Should you have any questions relative to this 401 WQC, please contact David Wong at david.w.wong@mass.gov. Sincerely, Lisa Rhodes Wetlands Program Chief Enclosure 1 Communication for Non-English Speaking Parties – 310 CMR 1.03(5)(a) 2 Material Shipping Record & Log (MSR) 3 Plan Set ecc: Holly Carlson Johnson and Maria Hartnett, Epsilon Associates, Inc., 3 Mill & Main Place, Suite 250, Maynard, MA 01754 Stephanie Wilson, Avangrid Renewables, 80 Marsh Hill Road, Orange, CT 06477 Brian Hooker, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Office of Renewable Energy Programs, Mail Stop VAM-OREP, 45600 Woodland Road, Sterling Virginia 20166 Christine Jacek, Regulatory/Enforcement Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 696 Virginia Road, Concord, MA 01742-2751 New England Wind I Project by Park City Wind, Transmittal # X288997 19 Kaitlyn Shawn, Alison Verkade, and Mike Johnson, National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930 Ed Reiner, Rachel Croy, and Phil Colarusso, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region One, 5 Post Office Square. Suite 100 (OEP 06-3), Boston, MA 02109 Gary Moran, Kathleen Baskin, Stephanie Moura, and Daniel Padien, MassDEP Boston, 1 Winter Street, Boston, MA 02108 Millie Garcia-Serrano, Gerard Martin, Daniel Gilmore, Mark Bartow, Brendan Mullaney, and David Hill, MassDEP Southeast Regional Office, 20 Riverside Drive, Lakeville, MA 02347 Lisa Berry Engler, Todd Callaghan, Bob Boeri, and Hollie Emery, Office of Coastal Zone Management, 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900, Boston, MA 02114 John Logan and Amanda Davis, Division of Marine Fisheries, 836 S Rodney French Blvd. 3rd floor, New Bedford, MA 02744 Amy Hoenig, Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife, 1 Rabbit Hill Road, Westborough, MA 01581 Sheri Caseau and Adam Turner, Martha’s Vineyard Commission. The Stone Building, 33 New York Avenue, Oak Bluffs, MA 02557 Jonathan Idman and Heather McElroy, Cape Cod Commission, 3225 Main Street, P.O. Box 226, Barnstable, MA 02630 Darcy Karle, Barnstable Conservation Commission, 200 Main Street, Hyannis, MA 02601 Jeff Carson, Nantucket Conservation Commission, 2 Bathing Beach Road, Nantucket, MA 02554 Jane Varkonda, Edgartown Conservation Commission, Town Hall, 2nd Floor, PO Box 5130, Edgartown, MA 02539 Dan Horn, Barnstable Shellfish Constable/Harbormaster, 1189 Phinney's Lane, Centerville, MA. 02632 Paul Bagnall, Edgartown Shellfish Constable, Shellfish Department, Town Hall, 1st Floor, 70 Main St, Edgartown, MA 02539 Tara Riley, Nantucket Shellfish Biologist, 4 Fairgrounds Rd., Nantucket, MA 02554 Sheila Lucey, Harbormaster, Town of Nantucket, 34 Washington Street, Nantucket, MA 02554 John Crocker, Edgartown Harbormaster, PO Box 1239, Vineyard Haven, MA 02568 New England Wind I Project by Park City Wind, Transmittal # X288997 20 New England Wind I Project by Park City Wind, Transmittal # X288997 21 New England Wind I Project by Park City Wind, Transmittal # X288997 22 New England Wind I Project by Park City Wind, Transmittal # X288997 23 New England Wind I Project by Park City Wind, Transmittal # X288997 24 New England Wind I Project by Park City Wind, Transmittal # X288997 25 New England Wind I Project by Park City Wind, Transmittal # X288997 26 New England Wind I Project by Park City Wind, Transmittal # X288997 27 Attachment D SEER Educational Research Brief - Electromagnetic Field Effects on Marine Life MAIN TAKEAWAYS •Subsea power cables are sources of electromagnetic fields (EMF), which are made up of induced electric fields and magnetic fields. •EMFs from natural sources also exist in the marine environment. Some marine animals, such as sharks, salmon, and sea turtles, can detect naturally occurring electric and/or magnetic fields and use those signals to support essential life functions, such as navigating and searching for prey. •When in close proximity to subsea cables, some animals have demonstrated behavioral responses in a few studies, such as increased foraging and exploratory movements. •So far, behavioral responses of individuals have not been determined to negatively affect a species population, but further research is needed to refine our understanding of the effects of EMFs on wildlife. ELECTROMAGNETICFIELD EFFECTS ONMARINE LIFE Please visit Tethys to view the literature reviewed to inform the development of this research brief. SEER // U.S. Offshore Wind Synthesis of Environmental Effects Research Electric power cables, such as those used in offshore wind (OSW) farms, are sources of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) that may add to and interact with other sources of electric and magnetic fields that are present on land, in the atmosphere, and underwater. Some marine animals have specialized receptors that can detect electric and/or magnetic fields. They use these senses for navigation, orientation, or detection of other organisms. While a small number of scientific experiments have shown that some animals have the ability to respond to EMFs, there is no conclusive evidence to determine that EMFs from an OSW farm will cause any impacts to an individual animal or population. Similar to existing submarine power cables and to a lesser extent telecommunication cables, electrical cables at OSW farms are a source of EMFs in the marine environment. Over the past 50 years, most subsea power cables have been operated to transmit electricity across bodies of water. At OSW farms, submarine power cables are used to connect individual wind turbines together (i.e., inter-array cables) and to transmit power back to shore (i.e., export cables) (Figure 1). Inter-array cables transmit power using alternating current (AC) systems, and export cables can transmit power using AC or, for longer distances, direct current (DC) systems. Most power cables are buried in the seabed or protected with a concrete mattress or other coverings, but some cables for floating OSW farms are deployed in the water column (top-right in Figure 1). TOPIC DESCRIPTION 1 Figure 1. An illustration of how electrical cables are used at fixed-bottom (top left) and floating offshore wind farms (top right). Inter-array cables connect between individual turbines and can be collected at an offshore substation to convert to a higher voltage export cable that connects to the onshore electrical system (bottom). Drawings are not to scale. Submarine power cables are used to connect individual offshore wind turbines together and transmit power back to shore. Electromagnetic Field Effects on Marine Life // Summer 2022 2 What are EMFs? Electromagnetic radiation is present in the environment across a spectrum of frequencies including radio waves, microwaves, visible and ultraviolet light, and X-rays. EMFs are a type of low-frequency electromagnetic radiation generated from natural and anthropogenic sources such as the Earth’s geomagnetic field, thunderstorms, power cables, and electronics. The type of power cable that is used (AC or DC) influences the types of EMFs that are created. Low frequency EMFs from power cables include both magnetic and electric fields (Figure 2), which are described below. •Electric Field: When a subsea power cable is electrically charged, it produces an electric field, or E-field. When perfectly grounded, the electrical shielding prevents E-fields from entering the surrounding environment. •Magnetic Field: When an electrical current flows through a cable, it produces a magnetic field, or B-field. •Induced electric Field: The oscillation of an AC magnetic field creates an induced electric field, or iE- field. Induced electric fields have the same properties as an electric field produced by the voltage on the conductors within the cable (E-field), except they are generated through a different mechanism. •Motion-Induced Electric Field: When a conductive object or an electric charge moves through a magnetic field, it produces a motion-induced electric field. For example, a motion-induced electric field is created when seawater or aquatic animals pass through a static magnetic field, such as the Earth’s geomagnetic field or a B-field around a subsea cable. Figure 2. Depiction of an EMF from an electrical cable (left) and relative field strength (right) from a snapshot in time. The electric field (orange) is contained by the cable shielding. The magnetic field (blue) is produced by both AC and DC cables. A motion-induced electric field (green) is created as a conductive object moves through the static DC magnetic field of the Earth or the magnetic field from a subsea cable. The figure does not show an induced electric field that would be created around an AC cable due to the rotating magnetic field (AC only). SEER // U.S. Offshore Wind Synthesis of Environmental Effects Research How are EMFs generated at offshore wind farms? Subsea power cables are shielded and grounded, which eliminates most electric field emissions into the surrounding environment as long as the cable is undamaged (Figure 3). However, magnetic fields cannot be eliminated through cable design and will surround the area of the cable. Local motion- induced electric fields then are produced when an animal or seawater moves through a magnetic field. Power cables from OSW farms can carry either AC or DC power. AC power typically is used for export cables from existing OSW farms, but because of lower cable costs and lower power losses, DC systems may become more economical as projects move farther from shore even though their terminal converter costs are higher. Both AC and DC systems produce magnetic fields, but DC cables are capable of carrying higher power levels that may result in the generation of stronger B-fields than those generated from an AC cable. EMFs are strongest immediately adjacent to the cable. The strength of the magnetic field and an associated induced electric field decreases with distance from the cable (Figure 4). The highest intensities of magnetic fields typically are observed within the first few meters around a subsea power cable; however, this distance will increase as higher electric current levels are carried in these cables. In certain scenarios, magnetic fields beyond the first 5 meters (16 feet) from to the cable have decreased to less than 10% of the magnitude of the initial magnetic field. The magnitude of the total magnetic field (i.e., Btotal = Bearth + Bcable) also depends on the interaction with the local geomagnetic field intensity and its orientation, which results in both positive and negative deviations in the field. Figure 3. Subsea AC electrical cable, adapted from ABB (2019) 3 Figure 4. Modeled spatial distribution of the modeled magnetic field strength on the seabed from existing and proposed offshore wind AC cables (figure adapted from Normandeau et al., 2011). The spatial range shown here extends on both sides of the cable and would be present along the entire length of the subsea cable; often several kilometers or longer. Note that this plot shows the magnetic field strength from subsea cables, not the induced electric field from AC cables. Electromagnetic Field Effects on Marine Life // Summer 2022 EMF Detection An animal’s sensory abilities determine the EMF components that it can detect (i.e., E-field, B-field, iE-field). Their sensitivity to an EMF and the minimum and maximum intensity thresholds at which they can sense the field will determine whether it responds to an EMF emitted from an electrical cable. Sensitivity to an EMF is specific to each species (Figure 6), and the range of detectable EMFs is difficult to generalize for all animals within one group without a focused study. The frequency of an EMF also is important. It has been demonstrated that DC and low-frequency (e.g., <10 Hz) fields can be detected by some species, but there is less evidence that sensory mechanisms of marine species in North America respond to fields at higher frequencies of 50–60 Hz associated with AC power cables. How do animals sense EMFs? The ability to sense either electric or magnetic fields has been identified or theorized for a range of marine wildlife including some fish species, elasmobranchs (i.e., sharks, skates, and rays), cetaceans (i.e., whales and dolphins), some sea turtles, and invertebrates (i.e., some snails, lobsters, and crabs). Electroreceptive species detect electric fields using special sensory organs, known as the Ampullae of Lorenzini, in sharks, skates, rays, and relatives of those species (Figure 5). The biological mechanisms for magnetoreception—or the ability to detect magnetic fields—are not completely understood despite years of research. Experts currently believe that magnetoreception occurs either when an animal detects an induced electric field or when animals have internal magnetic minerals that sense a magnetic field and send signals through their nervous system. Regardless of how a marine animal detects forms of EMFs, these abilities allow some electrosensitive and magnetosensitive species to respond to an EMF from electrical cables if the field is within their sensory range. 4 Figure 5. Ampullae of Lorenzini are electroreceptors located within pores on the head of a shark. Images from Wikimedia Commons (left, right). Spiracle 1st Gill Slit Figure 6. Examples of marine wildlife with the ability to sense EMFs. This diagram does not include all electrosensitive and magnetosensitive marine life. *Note that the hypothesis of magnetosensitivity in cetaceans is primarily based on indirect, theoretical, anatomical, and limited observational evidence based on migratory behaviors. SEER // U.S. Offshore Wind Synthesis of Environmental Effects Research The ability to detect electric or magnetic fields supports essential life functions in some marine animals, such as locating predators or prey and navigating and orienting through water. Although the physical interactions between cable-induced EMFs and naturally occurring EMFs are not well- understood, EMFs from subsea cables also may disguise or distort natural EMF cues that animals use for important life functions. It has been hypothesized that adding anthropogenic EMFs to the marine environment would interfere with the reception of electrical and magnetic signals by sensitive marine species and perhaps interfere with their ordinary response to natural electric or magnetic signals. Most scientific research has used laboratory or field experiments to understand electrosensitivity or magnetosensitivity of species. This research helps provide a greater understanding of how some animals use electric and magnetic fields for essential life functions, but specific studies, including experiments, are needed to understand whether EMFs from subsea cables will have a significant effect on the life outcomes of an individual or population. MAIN RISKS AND EFFECTS 5 Most scientific research has used laboratory or field experiments to understand electrosensitivity or magnetosensitivity of species. Electromagnetic Field Effects on Marine Life // Summer 2022 6 How does marine life respond to EMFs? Some marine life can detect electric and magnetic fields. Different species will respond to EMFs in different ways depending on how that animal uses EMFs in the natural world. Some behavioral responses are described below. •Navigation and Orientation: Some invertebrates, sharks, stingrays, sea turtles, eels, and salmon have been observed to use their sense of the geomagnetic field to help navigate during migrations and orient themselves to return to a specific location. Loggerhead sea turtles, which are present on both the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts, use magnetosensitivity to navigate during their migration and then reorient to return home. Sockeye salmon have been found to use the Earth’s magnetic field, in addition to chemical signals, to navigate through the ocean back to their home river to spawn. Local magnetic anomalies or additional sources of EMFs are not known to disrupt an animal’s sense of location, but there is limited evidence to confirm this. Field observations show that some species are able to navigate through a complex magnetic landscape with anthropogenic magnetic fields. For example, young Chinook salmon and green sturgeon in San Francisco Bay appear to detect magnetic fields from high-voltage DC power cables and large static magnetic anomalies produced by metal bridges as they moved through the bay to the ocean, but their migration was not affected. •Predator and Prey Interactions: Some electroreceptive predators use the ability to sense electric fields to detect prey, and some electroreceptive prey use the same ability to detect the location of predators. Sharks, rays, and skates use their sense of electric field for close-range detection of prey, especially when the target is outside their line of sight. Additionally, some prey in the embryonic state (e.g., rays and sharks) will initiate a freeze response to avoid detection when predators are present. During this time, gill movement, tail beating, and all ventilatory behaviors stop. However, it is unknown whether anthropogenic EMFs from subsea cables or other sources might influence this freeze response. Some species, such as the little skate, have shown increased exploration/foraging behaviors when exposed to EMFs from DC cables. When encountering AC cables, another study found that small-spotted catshark more frequently visited the area and exhibited less movement nearby the AC cables, which are behaviors typically are associated with feeding patterns in benthic catsharks. SEER // U.S. Offshore Wind Synthesis of Environmental Effects Research 7 •Avoidance, Attraction, and Behavioral Effects: The ability of some marine life to detect EMFs can lead to attraction or avoidance behaviors when these fields are present. In a natural setting, some species use EMFs to locate the opposite sex during mating season, whereas others use it to detect prey, predators, or other individuals. Higher-strength EMFs may elicit avoidance behavior in some species whereas lower-strength fields, which could mimic EMFs from prey, may attract other electrosensitive species. Studies show that species respond to EMFs with different behaviors. When encountering EMFs, the American lobster exhibits an increased likelihood of exploratory behaviors, and the brown crab reduces roaming and exhibits attraction behaviors to shelters where EMFs are present. Another study shows a similar species, the European lobster, exhibits no attraction, foraging, or exploratory behaviors when exposed to a static EMF. Similarly, yellow rock crab and red rock crab also did not exhibit attraction or repulsion when exposed to EMFs. The range of results from these behavioral studies helps illustrate how animals may or may not respond to different types of EMFs. •Changes Throughout Life Cycle: EMFs can elicit anatomical responses during an animal’s entire life cycle. For example, in one study rainbow trout hatched a day earlier after exposure to a static magnetic field, and in another study they displayed a faster growth rate and enhanced immunity and resistance to disease when exposed to a low-frequency (i.e., 15-Hz) magnetic field. In both cases, the EMF had no effect on the mortality of larval or embryonic fish. Steelhead trout raised in natural magnetic fields are able to orient themselves better than steelhead raised in a distorted, static magnetic field (i.e., a hatchery). Physiologically, it has been shown that juvenile benthic organisms are affected cellularly when they are exposed to a high-strength (i.e., 50-Hz) AC EMF field. An animal’s response and sensitivity to EMFs also can change during different life stages. Skates and rays use their electrical sense in early ages to find prey and then adapt to use electrosensitivity for social communication and to find mates during later life stages. Understanding potential effects of EMFs from subsea cables requires knowledge of how a cable intersects different ecosystems and life stages of animals and how often animals will encounter EMFs at frequencies and intensities within their detection range. Electromagnetic Field Effects on Marine Life // Summer 2022 8 Anthropogenic EMFs can stimulate behaviors in marine life that would occur normally in response to natural EMFs (e.g., attraction to a subsea cable because it is mistaken for prey) or it can temporarily disrupt an animal’s ability to use existing EMFs in their environment (e.g., a subsea cable locally distorting a geomagnetic field used by some animals for navigation). Behavioral responses to EMFs would be anticipated only in species that can sense these fields, such as those shown in Figure 6. Animals with the ability to detect an EMF does not mean they will respond to, or be affected by, new EMF sources in their environment. To understand the potential for EMFs to affect marine life, we must consider several technical, geographic, and biologic factors: •Cable Characteristics: The type of subsea cable (AC or DC) influences the characteristics of the EMF as well as its detectability by different species. Additionally, while inter-array and export cables both emit EMFs, inter-array cables typically operate with lower electrical current, which generate lower-strength EMFs than export cables because the strength of the magnetic field is directly linked to the amount of current flowing through the cable. The distance or range that the EMF extends from the cable depends on several factors including the cable design and amount of power flowing through the cable. A model developed for existing subsea cables found that the strongest EMF is within the first 2 meters (7 feet) of the cable and then decreases to lower levels beyond 10 meters (33 feet) from the cable (Figure 4). Because of engineering limitations, multiple parallel export cables occasionally are installed to carry lower power loads per cable instead of using a single high-power export cable. In this case, a lower-intensity EMF may be emitted across a wider footprint depending on spacing and the electrical current flowing through the cables. •Marine Life Detection Range: Electrosensitive and magnetosensitive species are able to detect particular intensities and frequencies of EMFs. To sense an EMF from a subsea cable, an animal’s range of detection must overlap with the intensity and frequency of the EMF emitted from the cable. Distinct detection ranges of electric and magnetic fields are not well known for different species. Magnetosensitive species are considered to be responsive to very small changes in the magnetic field, as these species can use small deviations in the geomagnetic field over relatively long periods of time and distances for orientation and navigation. In contrast, electrosensitive species have receptors that can detect electric fields from low-frequency, low-voltage AC signals where the need for detection is immediate and the range of detection is limited to less than 1 meter (3 feet). Some species such as sharks, skates, rays, invertebrates, and some fish have the greatest sensitivity to electric fields less than 25 Hz. AC cables used for electric power transmission, which operate at 60 Hz in the United States (50 Hz in Europe), appear to be less detectable by electrosensitive species. Overall, the intensity of EMFs does not directly correlate to potential environmental effects in which higher intensity means more likely effects. Instead, lower-intensity EMFs that are within the frequency detection range of marine organisms may be more likely to elicit a response. •Location of Cables and Likelihood of Encounter: Subsea cables cross through different marine ecosystems as they route back to shore. EMFs from subsea cables also need to be considered in the context of local geomagnetic field properties (intensity and orientation) to determine the level of EMF change that may be detected by migrating species. Site-specific studies help determine which EMF-sensitive species may use or migrate across a cable route. Marine animals that spend time on or near the seafloor are more likely to encounter EMFs than animals in the water column. Individual marine animals that frequently pass a subsea cable will encounter more EMFs during their life cycle, but the long-term effects from multiple encounters on survivability and reproductive success, if any, are not known. •Response to EMF: Responses to EMFs will vary based on how a species uses fields from natural sources. Animals may exhibit natural responses to EMF stimuli when they encounter SEER // U.S. Offshore Wind Synthesis of Environmental Effects Research 9 EMFs from subsea cables. Species that use the Earth’s static magnetic fields for navigation or to derive locational cues may lose track of their direction temporarily as they pass through a magnetic field around a cable. Animals that use EMFs to detect predators or prey may begin foraging for food around EMFs of the appropriate frequency and intensity. •Mechanisms of Impact to an Individual Animal or Population: Recent research has shown that a variety of marine species can detect and react to electric and magnetic fields. However, there is no conclusive evidence that shows whether or not an EMF from a subsea cable will cause negative impacts to an individual animal or population. Continued research and field studies are needed to understand potential impacts. Despite behavioral effects observed for some species in the experimental studies, EMFs generally have been considered to have negligible or minor impact to marine species during environmental reviews of OSW farms or other scientific reviews. A regional evaluation of EMF effects in southern New England found that those effects would be negligible to fish and invertebrates. During surveys on the Pacific Coast of California, community structures of fish and invertebrates near existing AC subsea cables were found to be similar to their structure in a natural habitat, suggesting there was no response to the magnetic field. However, the evidence base to evaluate population level impacts is limited and requires extrapolating experimental studies; therefore, confidence in these assessments is considered low by some researchers. EMFs from Floating Offshore Wind Farms For floating OSW farms developed on the Pacific Coast or other deep-water locations, inter-array cables and a portion of export cables suspended in the water column will generate EMFs (Figure 1). Most of these cables are inter-array cables, which carry less power than export cables and produce lower-strength EMFs that may be within the detection range of some species. While at present there is little evidence to illustrate an animal’s EMF detection range, floating cables have the potential to affect a different group of species (i.e., animals that move throughout the water column) that should be considered when identifying a project’s potential risk. Cumulative Effects Increased numbers of subsea cables from future OSW farm projects and other marine industries possibly could lead to cumulative effects in heavily developed regions. The potential for cumulative effects from EMFs has not been characterized from studies or research. Still, an EMF from a single cable needs to be considered in the context of other cables in the area (i.e., existing and proposed cables) and other activities that might occur in the region. For example, the addition of new cables might increase the number of subsea cables a migratory species could encounter along its migratory route. These scenarios need to be studied to understand the actual interactions that may occur. Status of Knowledge Overall, there is no conclusive evidence that EMFs from a subsea cable creates any negative environmental effect on individuals or populations. To date, no impacts interpreted as substantially negative have been observed on electrosensitive or magnetosensitive species after exposure to EMFs from a subsea cable. Behavioral responses to subsea cables have been observed in some species, but a reaction to EMFs does not necessarily translate into negative impacts. Continued research and monitoring are required to understand the ecological context within which short-term effects are observed and if species experience long-term or cumulative effects resulting from underwater exposure to EMFs. Animals with the ability to detect an EMF does not mean they will respond to, or be affected by, new EMF sources in their environment. Electromagnetic Field Effects on Marine Life // Summer 2022 Measuring or modeling the strength and extent of EMFs is an important step toward understanding if a specific cable has the potential to induce environmental effects. Magnetic fields can be modeled using specific information about the cable design and oceanographic conditions along the cable route. Model results can show how EMFs spread into the surrounding water horizontally and vertically from the cable (for example, Figure 7). Measuring the electric and magnetic components of underwater EMFs is not a common practice. The strength of DC magnetic fields can be measured using a magnetometer, but custom instrumentation is needed to measure induced electric fields. Measurement devices can be towed behind a boat, attached to a remotely operated vehicle, or deployed at a stationary location near the cable. Marine animals can be tracked and monitored to identify behavioral changes in the presence of EMFs. While challenging to implement, experiments could be conducted at OSW farms where a cable is producing an EMF and also at a controlled location where no EMFs are present to evaluate response differences within a species. Approaches for managing the effects of EMFs currently focus on reducing the amounts of these fields in areas of concern. Approaches that can be used to reduce EMFs are described below: •Siting: Cables should be routed to avoid habitat areas with electrosensitive and magnetosensitive species of concern. This approach may increase the cable length and distance but would separate EMF sources from sensitive species. •Burial: Cables typically are buried or protected with rocks or concrete mattresses to lower the risk of external damage. Cable burial plans are reviewed and approved as part of the Construction and Operation Plan and permitting phases of an OSW farm in the United States. In suitable seabed conditions, cables can be buried 1–2 meters (3-7 feet) below the seafloor to provide physical separation between the highest levels of EMFs adjacent to the cable and organisms that live near the bottom of the water column. However, burying the cable does not reduce the strength of the B-field in the soils directly adjacent to the cable; therefore, benthic organisms living below or at the seabed surface would still be exposed to the higher EMF intensities. •Cable characteristics: The intensity of a magnetic field increases with the amount of electrical current passing through a cable. Cables operating at higher voltages will produce lower-intensity EMF because higher voltage cables can transmit the same amount of power using lower electrical current. MONITORING & MITIGATIONMETHODOLOGIES 10 Figure 7. Modeled magnetic field strength of a DC cable buried 1.5 meters beneath the seafloor. The magnetic field strength is highest just above the cable and then decreases with distance from the source. Fish not to scale. Image adapted from Hutchison et al. 2021. SEER // U.S. Offshore Wind Synthesis of Environmental Effects Research •Placement: When multiple, parallel cables are used, decreasing the distance between cables will reduce the area of the magnetic field. However, there are practical and technical limits to how close cables can be placed together due to physical conditions, such as the seabed type, or operational constraints, such as providing enough space for maintenance and repair of each cable. On the other hand, EMFs from separate transmission cables placed closer together will interact with one another, which may increase or decrease overall EMF strength. EMFs are evaluated as part of the environmental review process for permitting OSW farms. In the United States, these fields have been described in Environmental Impact Statements and Construction and Operations Plans as having negligible-to-minor impacts. The environmental reports cite the burial depth, cable shielding, and limited range of EMFs as factors that contribute to a highly localized environmental condition that does not affect the entire habitat range for an animal. Mitigation or monitoring of EMFs has not been required for OSW projects in the United States. However, during its permitting process, the Block Island Wind Farm project modeled the EMF around subsea cables to predict the expected strength of the magnetic field. After project construction, researchers conducted field surveys to characterize the EMF from the AC export cable during operation and found that the magnetic field was 10 times lower than the modeled values commissioned by the grid operator. Without EMF detection or exposure thresholds for aquatic animals established by regulatory agencies, it is difficult for OSW projects to quantify environmental impacts. Further research can help determine if EMFs pose a potential risk to marine life, and if so, the frequency and intensity that would elicit a response and the ecological context of that response. 11 Electromagnetic Field Effects on Marine Life // Summer 2022 Scientific studies related to EMFs in the marine environment have progressed significantly over the past 20 years to inform how wildlife detect and respond to these fields. Overall, the effects of EMFs have been considered minor-to-negligible and a less significant issue than other environmental effects at OSW farms; however, confidence in this assessment remains low. EMFs should be considered in more depth on a site-specific basis if electrosensitive species are present and the cable design does not reduce EMFs below perceptible levels. Further research is needed to understand if EMFs from subsea cables ultimately produce long-term or cumulative effects on marine life. These research gaps could be addressed through continued analysis of subsea cables and observations of the behavior of sensitive species around cables. Because the risk of EMFs causing population damage is currently considered low, research could be accomplished by monitoring throughout the operation of new subsea cables. OSW farms provide new opportunities to strengthen the scientific understanding of EMF effects by incorporating environmental monitoring into ongoing field studies. Focus areas for further research and specific study types are discussed below. Cable Characteristics EMFs from different cables have been characterized through computer models and, in a few cases, field measurements. EMF models (e.g., submitted as part of a Construction and Operation Plan) often are carried out both for average loading conditions and the maximum output of an OSW farm to provide a range of potential EMF levels based on varying wind conditions. In contrast, measurements of EMFs are, by definition, a specific snapshot in time and space. Measurements are valuable in that they can and have been validated to be able to extrapolate measured EMF to other power generation levels so conditions along the full length of the cable at all power levels and ocean conditions can be understood. As-built information (i.e., cable burial depths along the entire route) along with minute- by-minute monitoring of power generated by OSW farms can therefore be combined to evaluate EMF models at any time and location. This would be a valuable tool for marine researchers involved in monitoring the activity of marine species around OSW farm cable installations. Research in this area could focus on developing real-time sensors to monitor the response of marine species to EMFs over time and to correlate those data with the properties and power flow through the cable. Biological Studies From a biological perspective, field studies in controlled environments or at operating cables help support laboratory research by identifying if EMF-sensitive species react to the signals in the field. While research should continue to study how individuals respond to EMFs at different stages of their life cycle, the overarching concern is whether specific observed behavioral responses to EMFs are likely to result in population-level impacts. Research toward this goal has been ongoing and is supported by basic research focused on identifying the detection range and sensitivity of marine wildlife to EMFs. KNOWLEDGE GAPS &RESEARCH NEEDS For more information on the literature reviewed to develop this Research Brief, visit: Tethys 12 Attachment E Plan Updates YARMOUTH DENNIS SANDWICH MASHPEE LOCATION MAP SCALE: 1" = 10,000' PROJECT LOCATION INDEX OF SHEETS HDD LANDFALL DRILLPATHS SHEET NO.TITLE COVER SHEET GENERAL NOTES HDD OVERALL PLAN AND CASING SECTION HDD 1 - PLAN AND PROFILE HDD 2 - PLAN AND PROFILE STAGING AREA AT HDD ENTRY 1 2 3 4 5 6 BARNSTABLE CLIENT: DOC ID: REVISION DESCRIPTIONREV.DATE APPRVDCHKD PROJECT TITLE: CONTRACTOR: DRAWN Stantec Consulting Services Inc. NEW ENGLAND WIND 1 CONNECTOR SHEET DWG. NO.REV: OF STATUS SCALE FORMAT/SIZE ORIGINAL SHEET - ANSI Dc:\pwworkdir\d0590479\cover2023.08.17 5:02:09 PMmillington, dylanby:PCW-HDD-STC-DW-0004 K HDD LANDFALL COVER PAGE B C THIS PLAN SET IS CONCEPTUAL AND HAS BEEN ISSUED FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY; AND, IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. D E F A ALL UNITS SHOWN ARE "ENGLISH UNITS" (FEET AND INCHES) G H I J K GENERAL NOTES CLIENT: DOC ID: REVISION DESCRIPTIONREV.DATE APPRVDCHKD PROJECT TITLE: CONTRACTOR: DRAWN Stantec Consulting Services Inc. SHEET DWG. NO.REV: OF STATUS SCALE FORMAT/SIZE ORIGINAL SHEET - ANSI Dc:\pwworkdir\d0590479\general notes2023.08.17 5:05:28 PMmillington, dylanby:PCW-HDD-STC-DW-0004 K THIS PLAN SET IS CONCEPTUAL AND HAS BEEN ISSUED FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY; AND, IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. ALL UNITS SHOWN ARE "ENGLISH UNITS" (FEET AND INCHES) NEW ENGLAND WIND 1 CONNECTOR HDD LANDFALL GENERAL NOTES B C D E F A G H I J K © 2021 Microsoft Corporation © 2021 Maxar ©CNES (2021) DisMHW = 3.3MLLW = 0.0MLW = 0.3HDD21-BH-001 N 2694427 E 972990 HDD21-BH-002 N 2694426 E 972881 HDD21-BH-003 N 2694028 E 973105 HDD21-BH-004 N 2694026 E 972968 HDD21-BH-005 N 2693663 E 973083 HDD21-BH-006 N 2693661 E 972891 HDD21-BH-006 N 2693661 E 972891HTL = 4.71. REFER TO GENERAL NOTES ON SHEET 2. 2. THESE SKETCHES ARE CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND ARE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. ONLY MAJOR PIECES OF EQUIPMENT ARE SHOWN AND ALL FEATURES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. THE ACTUAL SITE ARRANGEMENT WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE HDD CONTRACTOR. 3. UTILITIES LOCATIONS ARE UNKNOWN. ANY EXISTING UTILITIES MUST BE LOCATED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION BY CALLING DIG SAFE PRIOR TO EXCAVATION AND EXPOSING ANY EXISTING UTILITIES AS NEEDED. REQUIRED CLEARANCES SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ANY EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITIES. 4. THIS LAYOUT HAS BEEN BASED ON ANTICIPATED MINIMUM SEPARATION DISTANCES OF ADJACENT HDD BORES AT THE ENTRY PITS AND AT THE MHW MARK. INTENDED MINIMUM SEPARATION AT THE EXIT POINT IS 328 FEET. FINAL DESIGN OF ALL HDD DRILLPATHS WILL BE COMPLETED BY THE HDD CONTRACTOR FOR REVIEW BY VINEYARD WIND. 5. BORING LOCATIONS SHOWN WERE PROVIDED BY VINEYARD WIND / AVANGRID, BORINGS WERE PERFORMED BY OTHERS. 50 SCALE: 1" = 50' 0 100 150 200 NOTES:169.5' (51.7m)CENTER TO CENTERPLAN 5 SCALE: 1" = 5" 0 10 15 20 TYPICAL CROSS SECTION CENTERLINE OF HDD DRILL PATH 1 TOTAL HORIZONTAL LENGTH 1211.4' CENTERLINE OF HDD DRILL PATH 2 TOTAL HORIZONTAL LENGTH 1028.3' TIE-IN WITH SUBSEA TRENCHED SECTION TIE-IN WITH SUBSEA TRENCHED SECTION PIPE SPACER PE4710 NPS32 IPS DR9 CASING PIPE 3x1600mm² Cu SUBSEA CABLE 10.43" O.D. (BY OTHERS) APPROVED THERMAL CONDUCTIVE CEMENTITIOUS GROUT AS REQUIRED BY CABLE CONTRACTOR 2-HDPE TREMIE PIPES (TYP.) COMMON LANDINGCRAIGVILLE BEACH ROADMIN. 68' (20m)CENTER TO CENTEREXPORT POWER CABLE PATH MIN. 50' (15m) POINT OF ENTRY TO EDGE OF PARKING LOT MIN. 50' (15m)CLEARANCECLIENT: DOC ID: REVISION DESCRIPTIONREV.DATE APPRVDCHKD PROJECT TITLE: CONTRACTOR: DRAWN Stantec Consulting Services Inc. SHEET DWG. NO.REV: OF STATUS SCALE FORMAT/SIZE ORIGINAL SHEET - ANSI Dc:\pwworkdir\d0590479\staging-32023.08.17 4:57:29 PMmillington, dylanby:PCW-HDD-STC-DW-0004 K THIS PLAN SET IS CONCEPTUAL AND HAS BEEN ISSUED FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY; AND, IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. APPROXIMATE MLLW MHW MLW MEAN HIGH WATER LINE MEAN LOW WATER LINE MEAN LOWER LOW WATER LINE LEGEND: CONSTRUCTION FENCE CENTERLINE OF DRILL PATH 2 CENTERLINE OF DRILL PATH 1 MLLW ALL UNITS SHOWN ARE "ENGLISH UNITS" (FEET AND INCHES) HTL HIGH TIDE LINE NEW ENGLAND WIND 1 CONNECTOR HDD LANDFALL HDD OVERALL PLAN B C D E F A G H I J K BVC STA. 0+93.8 N. 2694790.4 E. 972990.6 EVCSTA. 3+38.4 N. 2694547.1 E. 973015.6 BVC STA. 8+61.0N. 2694027.3E. 973069.1 EVCSTA. 10+39.3N. 2693849.9 E. 973087.4 EXPORT CABLE CONNECTION EXIT LOCATIONSTA. 12+11.4N. 2693678.7 E. 973105.0 STAGING AREA SEE DWG. 6 CENTERLINE OF HDD DRILL PATH 1 PE4710 NPS32 IPS DR9 CENTERLINE OF HDD D R I L L P A T H 2 PE4710 NPS32 IPS DR9-10-1 8-16-14-12-8-6-4-10-10-18 -18 -18 -18 -18-18-18-16-16-16 -16 -16 -16 -16 -14-14-14-12-12-12-8-8-6-6-4-2-2-2-2-2-21046810104466881010101012MHW = 3.3MLLW = 0.0MLW = 0.3-0+62 0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 12+11 ENTRY LOCATION STA. 0+00.0N. 2694883.7E. 972981.0 HDD21-BH-001 N 2694427 E 972990 HDD21-BH-002 N 2694426 E 972881 HDD21-BH-003 N 2694028 E 973105 HDD21-BH-004 N 2694026 E 972968 HDD21-BH-005 N 2693663 E 973083 HDD21-BH-006 N 2693661 E 972891-2'-2'HTL = 4.7ELEVATION (FT, MLLW)ELEVATION (FT, MLLW)-70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 -0+60 0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 12+20 TAN G E N T LEN G T H = 9 7 . 1 ' TANGENT L E N G T H = 1 7 4. 5' 20' TOTOP OF CASING EDGE OF PARKING LOT/FENCELINE MIN. 40' COVER FROM MUDLINE TANGENT LENGTH = 522.7'24.9' TOC/L OF BORE8° 15° STA 2+88 TO STA 3+82 INTERPOLATED SURFACE STA 3+82 TO STA 12+11 GEO SUBSEA SURFACE SEE NOTE 2. STA -0+60 TO STA 2+88 FELDMAN SURFACE STA 2+88 TO STA 3+82 INTERPOLATED SURFACE SEE NOTE 2. MLLW EL 0.0 MAX. 53' COVER FROM MUDLINE EVC STA: 3+38.4ELEV: -51.2 BVC STA: 0+93.8 ELEV: -17.1 ENTRY LOCATION STA: 0+00.3 ELEV: 8.1 APPROXIMATE GROUND LEVEL (ABOVE WATER LINE) OR MUDLINE (BELOW WATER LINE) SURFACE CASING AS REQUIREDTO REACH STABLE FORMATION Rmin = 1000'Larc = 247.5' CENTERLINE OF HDD DRILL PATH 1 PE4710 NPS32 IPS DR9 APPROXIMATE MUDLINE BVC STA: 8+61.0ELEV: -59.0 EVC STA: 10+39.3ELEV: -45.7 EXIT LOCATION STA: 12+12.4ELEV: -17.2Rmin = 1000' Larc = 154.2' SURFACE CASING AS REQUIRED 0 0 HOR. 1" = 50' VER. 1" = 25' 50 100 25 25 50 0 0 50 50 SCALE: 1" = 50' 0 100 150 200 PLAN PROFILECRAIGVILLE BEACH ROADCOMMON LANDING CLIENT: DOC ID: REVISION DESCRIPTIONREV.DATE APPRVDCHKD PROJECT TITLE: CONTRACTOR: DRAWN Stantec Consulting Services Inc. SHEET DWG. NO.REV: OF STATUS SCALE FORMAT/SIZE ORIGINAL SHEET - ANSI Dc:\pwworkdir\d0590479\plan_profile_15deg2023.08.17 4:57:55 PMmillington, dylanby:PCW-HDD-STC-DW-0004 K THIS PLAN SET IS CONCEPTUAL AND HAS BEEN ISSUED FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY; AND, IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 1. REFER TO GENERAL NOTES ON SHEET 2. 2. GEO SUBSEA SURFACE PROVIDED IN NOAA MLLW FELDMAN SURVEY SURFACE PROVIDED IN NAVD88 DATUM. FELDMAN SURVEY CONVERTED FROM NAVD88 TO NOAA MLLW WITH A CONVERSION OF 2.16 FEET AT CRAIGVILLE BEACH. INTERPOLATED SURFACE SHOWN IN NOAA MLLW. 3.CONTRACTOR TO CONSTRUCT APPROPRIATE CONTAINMENT FOR DRILLING MUD. 4. THIS LAYOUT HAS BEEN BASED ON ANTICIPATED MINIMUM SEPARATION DISTANCES OF ADJACENT HDD BORES AT THE ENTRY PITS AND AT THE MHW MARK. INTENDED MINIMUM SEPARATION AT THE EXIT POINT IS 328 FEET. FINAL DESIGN OF ALL HDD DRILLPATHS WILL BE COMPLETED BY THE HDD CONTRACTOR FOR REVIEW BY VINEYARD WIND. 5. BORING LOCATIONS SHOWN WERE PROVIDED BY VINEYARD WIND / AVANGRID, BORINGS WERE PERFORMED BY OTHERS. NOTES: MHW MLW MEAN HIGH WATER LINE MEAN LOW WATER LINE MEAN LOWER LOW WATER LINE LEGEND: CONSTRUCTION FENCE CENTERLINE OF DRILL PATH 2 CENTERLINE OF DRILL PATH 1 MLLW APPROXIMATE MLLW ALL UNITS SHOWN ARE "ENGLISH UNITS" (FEET AND INCHES) HTL HIGH TIDE LINE NEW ENGLAND WIND 1 CONNECTOR HDD LANDFALL HDD 1 - PLAN AND PROFILE B C D E F A G H I J K -10 -18-18-16-14-12-8-6-4-10-10-18 -18 -18-18 -18-18-18-16-16-16 -16 -16 -14-14-12-12-8-8-6-6-4-2-2-2-2-2-21046810104466881010101012MHW = 3.3MLLW = 0.0MLW = 0.3BVC STA. 100+92.0N. 2694791.7E. 972916.9 EVC STA. 103+40.1N. 2694543.7E. 972921.0 BVC STA. 108+43.0N. 2694040.9E. 972929.4 EVC STA. 109+96.8N. 2693887.1E. 972932.0 EXPORT CABLE CONNECTIONEXIT LOCATION STA. 112+08.3N. 2693675.6E. 972935.5 STAGING AREA SEE DWG. 6 CENTERLINE OF HDD DRILL PATH 2 PE4710 NPS32 IPS DR9 CENTERLINE OF HDD DRILL PATH 1 PE4710 NPS32 IPS DR9 ENTRY LOCATION STA. 100+00.0N. 2694883.7E. 972915.4 99+38 100+00 101+00 102+00 103+00 104+00 105+00 106+00 107+00 108+00 109+00 110+00 111+00 112+00112+08 HDD21-BH-001 N 2694427 E 972990 HDD21-BH-002 N 2694426 E 972881 HDD21-BH-003 N 2694028 E 973105 HDD21-BH-004 N 2694026 E 972968 HDD21-BH-005 N 2693663 E 973083 HDD21-BH-006 N 2693661 E 972891-2'-2'HTL = 4.7ELEVATION (FT, MLLW)ELEVATION (FT, MLLW)-70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 99+60 100+00 101+00 102+00 103+00 104+00 105+00 106+00 107+00 108+00 109+00 110+00 111+00 112+00 112+30 TAN G E N T LEN G T H = 9 5 . 3 ' TANGENT L E N G T H = 2 1 3. 6' EDGE OF PARKING LOT/FENCELINE TANGENT LENGTH = 503.0'24.8' TOC/L OF BORE20' TO TOP OF CASING 15° 8° MIN. 40' COVER FROM MUDLINE STA 102+87 TO STA 103+90 INTERPOLATED SURFACE STA 103+90 TO STA 112+08 GEO SUBSEA SURFACE SEE NOTE 2. STA 99+60 TO STA 102+87 FELDMAN SURFACE STA 102+87 TO STA 103+90 INTERPOLATED SURFACE SEE NOTE 2. MLLW EL 0.0 MAX. 53' COVER FROM MUDLINE ENTRY LOCATION STA: 100+00.0ELEV: 8.1 SURFACE CASING AS REQUIRED TO REACH STABLE FORMATION BVC STA: 100+92.0ELEV: -17.0 EXIT LOCATION STA: 112+08.3 ELEV: -20.0 APPROXIMATE MUDLINE APPROXIMATE GROUND LEVEL (ABOVE WATER LINE) OR MUDLINE (BELOW WATER LINE) Rmin = 1000' Larc = 251.2'EVC STA: 103+40.1 ELEV: -52.0 EVCSTA: 109+96.8ELEV: -49.7 BVC STA: 108+43.0ELEV: -59.3 CENTERLINE OF HDD DRILL PATH 2 PE4710 NPS32 IPS DR9 Rmin = 1000'Larc = 179.0' 0 0 HOR. 1" = 50' VER. 1" = 25' 50 50 100 25 25 50 50 SCALE: 1" = 50' 0 100 150 200 PLAN PROFILE SURFACE CASING AS REQUIREDCRAIGVILLE BEACH ROADCOMMON LANDING CLIENT: DOC ID: REVISION DESCRIPTIONREV.DATE APPRVDCHKD PROJECT TITLE: CONTRACTOR: DRAWN Stantec Consulting Services Inc. SHEET DWG. NO.REV: OF STATUS SCALE FORMAT/SIZE ORIGINAL SHEET - ANSI Dc:\pwworkdir\d0590479\plan_profile_15deg2023.08.17 4:58:05 PMmillington, dylanby:PCW-HDD-STC-DW-0004 K THIS PLAN SET IS CONCEPTUAL AND HAS BEEN ISSUED FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY; AND, IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. APPROXIMATE MLLW 1. REFER TO GENERAL NOTES ON SHEET 2. 2. GEO SUBSEA SURFACE PROVIDED IN NOAA MLLW FELDMAN SURVEY SURFACE PROVIDED IN NAVD88 DATUM. FELDMAN SURVEY CONVERTED FROM NAVD88 TO NOAA MLLW WITH A CONVERSION OF 2.16 FEET AT CRAIGVILLE BEACH. INTERPOLATED SURFACE SHOWN IN NOAA MLLW. 3. CONTRACTOR TO CONSTRUCT APPROPRIATE CONTAINMENT FOR DRILLING MUD. 4. THIS LAYOUT HAS BEEN BASED ON ANTICIPATED MINIMUM SEPARATION DISTANCES OF ADJACENT HDD BORES AT THE ENTRY PITS AND AT THE MHW MARK. INTENDED MINIMUM SEPARATION AT THE EXIT POINT IS 328 FEET. FINAL DESIGN OF ALL HDD DRILLPATHS WILL BE COMPLETED BY THE HDD CONTRACTOR FOR REVIEW BY VINEYARD WIND. 5. BORING LOCATIONS SHOWN WERE PROVIDED BY VINEYARD WIND / AVANGRID, BORINGS WERE PERFORMED BY OTHERS. NOTES: ALL UNITS SHOWN ARE "ENGLISH UNITS" (FEET AND INCHES) MHW MLW MEAN HIGH WATER LINE MEAN LOW WATER LINE MEAN LOWER LOW WATER LINE LEGEND: CONSTRUCTION FENCE CENTERLINE OF DRILL PATH 2 CENTERLINE OF DRILL PATH 1 MLLW HTL HIGH TIDE LINE NEW ENGLAND WIND 1 CONNECTOR HDD LANDFALL HDD 2 - PLAN AND PROFILE B C D E F A G H I J K POWER UNITSPOILCONTAINERSKID PUMPSKID PUMPSUPPLY TRAILER CONSTRUCTION SITE OFFICE TRAILER MUD RIGSPOILCONTAINER179.5'144.0'48.1'47.9'48.0'48.1'DRILLING RIGSURVEYTRAILERENTRY PIT DRILL PIPEEXCAVATOR71.0'DRILLING RIGSURVEYTRAILERENTRY PIT DRILL PIPEEXCAVATOR49 . 5 '67.1'2-G GGGGGGGGGGGGG20 SCALE: 1" = 20' 0 50 100 ENTRY LOCATION PLAN LEGEND: CONSTRUCTION FENCE CENTERLINE OF DRILL PATH 2 CENTERLINE OF DRILL PATH 1 COMMON LANDING CRAIGVILLE BEACH R O A D SITE ACCESS 65.6' (MIN.)50.5' MINFLOOD LINE 52.8' (50' MIN.) STAGING AREA JOINT BAY JOINT BAY CLIENT: DOC ID: REVISION DESCRIPTIONREV.DATE APPRVDCHKD PROJECT TITLE: CONTRACTOR: DRAWN Stantec Consulting Services Inc. SHEET DWG. NO.REV: OF STATUS SCALE FORMAT/SIZE ORIGINAL SHEET - ANSI Dc:\pwworkdir\d0590479\staging-32023.08.17 4:59:04 PMmillington, dylanby:PCW-HDD-STC-DW-0004 K THIS PLAN SET IS CONCEPTUAL AND HAS BEEN ISSUED FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY; AND, IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. ALL UNITS SHOWN ARE "ENGLISH UNITS" (FEET AND INCHES) FIBER OPTIC PIT LINK BOX PIT FIBER OPTIC PIT LINK BOX PIT TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION FENCING TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION FENCING NEW ENGLAND WIND 1 CONNECTOR HDD LANDFALL STAGING AREA B C D E F A G H I J K YARMOUTH DENNIS SANDWICH MASHPEE LOCATION MAP SCALE: 1" = 10,000' PROJECT LOCATION INDEX OF SHEETS CENTERVILLE RIVER CROSSING SHEET NO.TITLE COVER SHEET GENERAL NOTES MICROTUNNEL PLAN AND PROFILE DETAILED VIEWS 1 2 3 4 BARNSTABLE CLIENT: DOC ID: REVISION DESCRIPTIONREV.DATE APPRVDCHKD PROJECT TITLE: CONTRACTOR: DRAWN Stantec Consulting Services Inc. NEW ENGLAND WIND 1 CONNECTOR SHEET DWG. NO.REV: OF STATUS SCALE FORMAT/SIZE ORIGINAL SHEET - ANSI Dc:\pwworkdir\d0590476\cover2023.08.18 1:38:35 PMmillington, dylanby:PCW-OCP-STC-DW-0005 F CENTERVILLE RIVER MICROTUNNEL COVER PAGETHIS PLAN SET IS CONCEPTUAL AND HAS BEEN ISSUED FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY; AND, IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. ALL UNITS SHOWN ARE "ENGLISH UNITS" (FEET AND INCHES) A C D B E F GENERAL NOTES CLIENT: DOC ID: REVISION DESCRIPTIONREV.DATE APPRVDCHKD PROJECT TITLE: CONTRACTOR: DRAWN Stantec Consulting Services Inc. SHEET DWG. NO.REV: OF STATUS SCALE FORMAT/SIZE ORIGINAL SHEET - ANSI Dc:\pwworkdir\d0590476\general notes2023.08.18 1:37:30 PMmillington, dylanby:F THIS PLAN SET IS CONCEPTUAL AND HAS BEEN ISSUED FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY; AND, IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. ALL UNITS SHOWN ARE "ENGLISH UNITS" (FEET AND INCHES) NEW ENGLAND WIND 1 CONNECTOR PCW-OCP-STC-DW-0005 CENTERVILLE RIVER MICROTUNNEL GENERAL NOTES A C D B E F WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W WWWWWWWW HTL = 2.6 HTL = 2.6 HTL = 2.6 HTL = 2.6 HTL = 2.6 HTL = 2. 6 HTL = 2 . 6 CRAIGVILLE BEACH ROAD PLAN 1" = 30' PROFILE H 1" = 30' V 1":15' B 2 A 2 TYPICAL - BRIDGE SECTION 1" = 5' BOT FOOTINGEL. 0.5 CLIENT: DOC ID: REVISION DESCRIPTIONREV.DATE APPRVDCHKD PROJECT TITLE: CONTRACTOR: DRAWN Stantec Consulting Services Inc. SHEET DWG. NO.REV: OF STATUS SCALE FORMAT/SIZE ORIGINAL SHEET - ANSI Dc:\pwworkdir\d0590476\option-2-3b2023.08.17 3:37:19 PMmillington, dylanby:PCW-OCP-STC-DW-0005 F THIS PLAN SET IS CONCEPTUAL AND HAS BEEN ISSUED FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY; AND, IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. NEW ENGLAND WIND 1 CONNECTOR CENTERVILLE RIVER MICROTUNNEL MICROTUNNEL PLAN AND PROFILE A C D B E F SECTION A 1" = 10'' SECTION B 1" = 10'' JACKING SHAFT 1" = 5' RECEIVING SHAFT 1" = 5' STAGING AREA 1" = 10' CLIENT: DOC ID: REVISION DESCRIPTIONREV.DATE APPRVDCHKD PROJECT TITLE: CONTRACTOR: DRAWN Stantec Consulting Services Inc. SHEET DWG. NO.REV: OF STATUS SCALE FORMAT/SIZE ORIGINAL SHEET - ANSI Dc:\pwworkdir\d0590476\option-2-3b2023.08.17 2:57:00 PMmillington, dylanby:PCW-OCP-STC-DW-0005 F THIS PLAN SET IS CONCEPTUAL AND HAS BEEN ISSUED FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY; AND, IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. NEW ENGLAND WIND 1 CONNECTOR CENTERVILLE RIVER MICROTUNNEL DETAILED VIEWS A C D B E F MP 11 PM 12 WILD_FLOWERS 4060_SF 3 L200 5 L200 SEDIMENT & EROSION CONTROLS SEE DETAIL: APPROXIMATE MHHW PROPOSED MICRO TUNNEL CENTERLINE 4 L200 Short B e a c h R o a d Centerville River Cr a i g v i l l e B e a c h R o a d EDGE OF SALT MARSH A A' LIMITS OF WORK JACK SHAFT 2 L200 AB 29 SS 45 BH 6 Bore shaft to be restored to pre-construction grade and replanted with native seed mix. (Refer to detail sheet) JC 7 IF 6REINFORCED HIGH MARSH 6 L100 NO DATE DESCRIPTION DRAWN CHK © SARATOGA ASSOCIATES PROJECT # REVISIONS DATE: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: Landscape Architects, Architects, Saratoga Springs, NY Engineers, and Planners, P.C. SCALE: PLOT DATE: 8/23/2023 2:51:25 PM DRAWING #: 0 20'10' L100 Landscape Restoration Plan 2 Short Beach Road Centerville, MA 180 Marsh Hill Road Orange, CT 06477 3 Mill & Main Place, Suite 250 Maynard, MA 01754 AUGUST 23, 2023 JLG MWA 1" = 10'-00" 01 08/23/2023 ADD FENCE & DETAIL JLG MWA 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 LIMIT OF WORKA A' 1.5 "THE REINFORCED HIGH MARSH WILL BE APPROXIMATELY 24" THICK AND COMPRISED OF 50% 8"-10" ROUNDED COBBLE, 25% COIR FIBER AND COMPOST AND 25% COMPATIBLE SEDIMENT. THE MIXTURE OF COBBLES, COIR FIBER, COMPOST AND COMPATIBLE SEDIMENT WILL BE ENCASED IN TWO LAYERS OF 700-GRAM COIR FABRIC AND ONE LAYER OF 20 OZ JUTE-BURLAP. ROUNDED COBBLES WILL BE PLACED IN A NATURAL ARRANGEMENT ALONG THE SEAWARD EDGE OF THE REINFORCED HIGH MARSH TO PROTECT THE REINFORCED HIGH MARSH AND PLANTNGS FROM ICE SCOUR." PLANTING NOTES: 1. ALL PLANT MATERIALS INSTALLED PURSUANT TO THIS SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHALL CONFORM TO THE AMERICAN STANDARD NURSERY STOCK (ANSI Z60.1-1986 OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN OR EQUIVALENT RECOGNIZED STANDARD, AND SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACCEPTED INDUSTRY PRACTICE. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY FIELD CONDITIONS PRIOR TO COMMENCING PLANTING WORK AND NOTIFY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE IMMEDIATELY IF CONDITIONS DETRIMENTAL TO NEW AND EXISTING PLANT MATERIAL ARE ENCOUNTERED. 3. PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO UTILIZE A LOCATING SERVICE TO VERIFY UNDERGROUND UTILITY LOCATIONS. 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL STAKE LOCATIONS OF ALL PLANT MATERIALS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. NOTIFY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE WHEN STAKING IS COMPLETE AT WHICH TIME A MEETING WILL TAKE PLACE WITH ARCHITECT TO DETERMINE FINAL LOCATIONS. 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL 4" OF TOPSOIL AND SEED ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITH A WILDFLOWER SEED MIX FROM NEW ENGLAND WETLAND PLANTS, INC. 6. ALL PLANT BEDS & SEEDED AREAS SHALL RECEIVE 3" OF SHREDDED MARSH STRAW AND WEED CONTROL FABRIC. 7. OBSERVED INVASIVE SPECIES SUCH AS ASIAN BITTERSWEET AND AUTUMN OLIVE SHALL BE REMOVED PRIOR TO SITE RESTORATION 8. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL NATURAL TWINE NETTING OVER ENTIRE RESTORATION AREA UNTIL PLANTS ARE ESTABLISHED OR EQUAL MEASURE TO PREVENT GEESE AND DUCKS FROM FORAGING. 9.SITE RESTORATION TO BE PERFORMED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A CERTIFIED ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION PRACTITIONER.20" 16" L200 Landscape Restoration Details NO DATE DESCRIPTION DRAWN CHK © SARATOGA ASSOCIATES PROJECT # REVISIONS DATE: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: Landscape Architects, Architects, Saratoga Springs, NY Engineers, and Planners, P.C. SCALE: PLOT DATE: 8/23/2023 2:49:54 PM DRAWING #: 2 Short Beach Road Centerville, MA 3 Mill & Main Place, Suite 250 Maynard, MA 01754 AUGUST 23, 2023 JLG MWA PLANT SCHEDULE 180 Marsh Hill Road Orange, CT 06477 01 08/23/2023 ADD CERP NOTE JLG MWA