HomeMy WebLinkAboutLarry Morin Avangrid responses for sept 5 hearingRESPONSES and COMMENTS TO:Members of the Barnstable Conservation Commission, and toRepresentatives of Avangrid:New England Wind 1 ConnectorNotice of Intent – Supplemental InformationChapter
237 of the Town of Barnstable Ordinancedated August 25, 2023date of first receipt of Notice: September 1, 2023
Response from:Laurence (Larry) P. MorinResident of Town of Barnstable (since 2001)Member of Town of Barnstable Conservation Commission (10-25-2005 through 6-30-2023)
As noted above, and in the after math of the initial public hearing on August 8, 2023, there were several comments and questions proposed by and from members of the Conservation Commission.
However, there were multiple, very well-articulated expressions of concern communicated by residential citizens,
most of whom were from the Centerville Civic Association. It was early in the hearing that the Civic Association representatives had requested that the rescheduling of the initial
hearing from July 11, should be dated for August 22, 2023. This request was “supported” at first by Town Council Member Nik Atsalis, by Patrick Johnson on behalf of Avangard, and others.
However, at the insistence of the chair of the commission, and as modified by representatives of the applicant, the July 11 hearing was rescheduled to August 8; however, the applicant
as well as chair were notified in advance that the annual meeting of the Centerville Civic Association was to be held on that night. At the conclusion of the initial hearing, notwithstanding
the request that the matter be continued to September 19, once again, the chair and the representative of the applicant insisted that the matter would be heard on September 5, again
in defiance of or disregard on behalf of the residents of the Town of Barnstable, and more specifically of the Village of Centerville where the bulk of this project is proposed to occur
and invade upon the sites and streets of the Village. One of the primary reason that the matter shouldl not be heard on the day after Labor Day was based on the likely reduced availability
of citizens, as well as the probability that the responses from the developer might not be prepared and submitted and circulated to all members of the commission as well as the public
well in advance of the scheduled rehearing date.Further, it is noted on the Agenda for the Sept. 5 hearings, that as a “continuance”, and with full reasonable knowledge that many citizens
would be logging in onto Zoom, not only was this matter, as well as the alleged “new” Notice of Intent filed under the name “Quarterra Multifamily Communities” [formerly under names
such as “35 Scudder Avenue”, “Lenmar Multifamily Communities [LMC}”, “Twin Brooks”and other names, and the chair was advised in advance of the filing of an NOI which he knew would include
many abutters, most of whom had appeared at prior hearings on November 2, 2021, and December 21, 2021]. The result of this “double barreled” assault on the Agenda, and in an obvious
attempt to minimize, limit or silence the questions and concerns of the public communities, these scheduling decisions (under the control of the chair) cast an obvious attempt to avoid
listening to and facing, but attempting to resolve any “decisions” upon only the evidence that the Commission, guided by the chair, would allow to be considered.
-1-
Cover Sheet of Supplemental InformationAs noted above, the Notice of Intent – Supplemental Information was dated August 25, 2023.
There is no reason to not assume that this document was filed with the Commission on that date.
However, there was no attempt by the chair or staff to circulate this information to all members of the commission, or to the representatives of the Centerville Civic Association who
had taken the time before, during or after their annual Association meeting on August 8, to appear on Zoom and to have prepared and presented clearly phrased questions and expressions
of concern and challenge not only to the applicant’s proposals but also to some of the positions that were being defended by the commission.The Cover sheet states that (only) Chapter
237 of the Town Ordinance (or By-law) are referenced to as constituting the “jurisdictional basis” upon which the merits of the applicant’s proposal are to be considered and decided.Further,
in the Narrative to the NOI, there were no references to specific sections of Chapter 237, no mention of any of the Conservation Regulations, and minimal references to sections of 310CMR10
under the DEP State regulations. Therefore, collectively that would preclude any attempts to refer to any of the other specific regulations, whether by the Conservation Commission,
Town Council’s Administrative Code, or corresponding rules and policies of other applicable and relevant town departments or entities. all of which have been drafted, approved and revised
subsequent to the enactment of Chapter 237. Further, the references to specific sections of the Wetlands Protection Act (WPA) were minimal at best, and there was little if any description
or connection of criteria or features of this project that justified compliance with the WPA or other Rules, Code provisions or other entities as raised by questions from the Members
of the Public.
Avangrid Renewables
New England Wind 1 Connector
Supplemental Information for Notice of Intent Application
[DEP File No. SE3-5992]
dated August 25, 2023
IntroductionThe focus, almost to the exclusion of any other opinions, was directed towards and from the Conservation Commission generally and from those members of the commission who
did, in fact,
present questions and opinions.The opening paragraph also seems to limit the issues to the “proposed microtunneling”, yet without any semblance of an equal balance of concern and significance
relating to other significant issues and concerns.At the last few lines of the second paragraph and the third paragraph, Avangrid confines the “potential impacts” only to “contingency
plans for forecast storm events” [as well as] “inadvertant release of drilling fluids”. Such a limitation reveals both Avangrid’s lack of concern or recognition of the significance
as expressed by those who proffered such questions, but also the members of the commission show no effort or attempt to place questions and issues in perspective and to be inclusive
as to every issue raised, including those that as members of the commission, should have been raised.
-2-The fourth paragraph beginning with “In addition to the comments….” quickly tries to divert many of the areas and topics of concern away from whatever the Commission may perceive
and define as “being within conservation jurisdiction”. Avangrid, without hesitancy, joined in to support the Commission’s proclivity to dismiss or disregard the impact of every activity
that may be proposed within the narrow confines of “jurisdiction”, whether within certain boundaries, or the types or nature of work project activities, as being “irrelevant” or not
worthy of being recognized, considered, or even factored into the eventual decision making process In other words, in terms of dimensions, this project
(south to north) starts more than thirty miles off shore between the Islands of Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard [and without giving deference to the fact that the Martha’s Vineyard Conservation
Commission both opposed and denied whatever portion of the project was presented as being unsupportable]. From the area within which the wind towers are proposed to be installed, lies
many miles of buried cable, the concern of which has been derived from adverse and in some instances catastrophic consequences throughout the world, most notably in the waters of the
Nordic European countries.
Once the cables come ashore onto the historic, treasured beaches known as Centerville and Covell’s Beaches, and looming westward onto Dowses Beach in Osterville, every aspect of whatever
work is proposed must be closely scrutinized with extreme and thorough caution. To slide over every issue without due respect, and with a failure to make findings as to all of the facts
presented, cannot avoid having any and every decision overturned on grounds of arbitrary and capricious, if not on more significant disregard of WPA and Chapter 237 criteria.
Also at the very bottom of the first page and fourth paragraph, Avangrid prudently makes reference to the video from the hearings rather than any reliance on the minutes themselves as
not being determinative of what was really said and/or upon what facts the decisions (to be made) were actually based.
Review of Comments and Questions
(to which a number has been given)
--- from the Commission [Comments 1-10], and
--- from the Public [Comments 11-16]The number/quantity of the comments and questions should have no bearing on the weight or significance of the real issues, not just those by which
the commission has or may attempt to cast it’s “limit of jurisdiction’.Comment 1.deals with the applicant’s experience with installation of offshore and onshoreelectric transmission
and microtunnelingFor purposes of responding to these comments, while the undersigned does not automaticallyratify or confirm them, based on his own knowledge and experience, no direct
responses orreactions are presented at this time.Comment 2.deals with [other] waterbodies that have been microtunneled successfully.For purposes of responding to these comments, while
the undersigned does not automaticallyratify or confirm them, based on his own knowledge and experience, no direct responses orreactions are presented at this time.
-3-
Comment 3.deals with optional considerations associated with the decision for going underthe Centerville River and/or within the [existing bridge] as other utilities have done.The Comments
herein directed towards this response from Avangrid lists six (6) examplesof what Avangrid refers to as “alternatives”. Whatever recitation of these other choicescould have been considered
and/or even proposed, these are choices for which the commission members as well as those members of the public who are well versed in this line of engineering and/or science, have been
given zero time or opportunity to give these, or perhaps other alternatives overlooked, deserve a thorough consideration. This comment and Avangrid’s dismissive reaction just confirms
not only the need for the commission to deploy under it’sown regulation [Chapter 708] not only to apply for and approve the hiring of a qualified,neutral expert in this/these fields
to consider alternatives with objectivity, but also puts thecommission to the test of challenging the long standing reticence of making such a decision.
Comment 4.deals with whether the installation of a duct bank beneath the river conflict withfuture dredging activties?The comments herein towards Avangrid’s response is not as challenging
as much as thepaucity of the question itself. For most if not all members of the commission, “what is a duct bank?” may have been just us unknown as might be the probable additional
concernsthan just “future dredging” than those that were overlooked such as flood conditions, erosionincreases, water contamination, adverse effects and impacts on personally owned structures,failure
of the aged bridge that crosses the Centerville River with high density of traffic.
Comment 5.deals with concerns about potential conflicts with gas lines and other buriedutilities.The comments herein are essentially similar to those for which the comments underComment
4. have been expressed. Once again, Avangrid has complimented itself bystating that it has conducted ground breaking radar investigation. But, what does thisinvolve, what impact does
it create both adverse and positive, and just leaves the burdenon the (gas, in this instance) utility company to carry the burden of relocation of its lines, without regard as to whether
those lines have failed or become obsolete, or whetherthe project itself has inflicted damages to those lines.
Comment 6.deals with the “applicant communicating with the town” with respect to potential“conflict” (in what ways?) with the planned town sewer expansion project?The comments herein
and Avangrid’s response exposes and opens up for inquiry andscrutiny, vis-a-vis: To what extent, when and with whom/what departments within theTown has Avangrid “and the Town” been
communicating? The aura of secrecy is steadilybeing exposed and uncovered, and that includes “hearing” and “discussions” from whichdecisions have been made all potentially under the
guise of “planning”, “creating”, “excluding”
-4-and “deciding” among others, and certainly not just limited to “duct banks”, “sewer excavations” (whether within recognizable locations governed by the Town’sconservation, health,
building, zoning or other departments).If there have been “frequent meetings” by and between Avangrid and any of the Towndepartments, with whom, when, about what? It is long overdue
to lift and removepermanently the veil of secrecy when it comes to present a project open for publicinquiry and comment and for any of the regulatory bodies of the town to not be expectedor
compelled to approve without having all of its questions formulated and answered.
Comment 7.deals with requesting copies of permits and authorizations received to date[and beyond??] from those of the Cape Cod Commission and DEP.The comments herein appear to reveal
a very guarded response from Avangrid regardingThe Cape Cod Commission, but only as to water quality. Both this question and itsanswer avoids all of the issues that deserve complete
disclosure. For instance, how andwhen did the Cape Cod Commission become involved? What, if anything, has been submittedto or filed with DEP, on what basis, for what purposes and with
what results, including butnot limited to the impact and consequences of such “decisions”? It has been beyond recentobviousness that with most if not all of these complex filings, not
only has the applicantcreated its own space to pursue initial or preliminary filings and approvals, but uponattaining such “approvals”, do they constitute “permits”? Do they preclude
or overridethe jurisdiction of or consideration from and by (in this instance) Town based proceduresand authority? If so, then why are we here? But if not, why does any town regulatorybody
succomb to the deference or opinion of others? For instance, regarding this specificapplication, from the review of agenda items, “testimony” during hearings, videos of suchhearings,
or actual findings by the Town Council, what effect, if any, may that preliminaryprocess be considered or allowed?
Comment 8.deals with “what are the concerns related to potential impact to ecosystemsat the Centerville River crossing from exposure to EMF?”Avangrid’s response was limited to a pamphlet.
But the followup question should be:How does the information in this pamphlet adjust or refer to all of the criteria and detailsof this project? It is without any embarrassment that
these comments acknowledge alack of what the concerns may be, what are the ecosystems, and where is the nexus toEMF exposure? There is no question that each of these terms of the question
are relevant.But, shouldn’t Avangrid been much more specific as to where, when how and whatremedies should be anticipated?
-5-
Comment 9.seeks being provided with revised plans as to “minor adjustments” that “have taken place since the NOI was submitted (date please?).For purposes of these Comments, the question
just opens the door to the overallproject. Why limit it to “minor adjustments”? As for this entire project, there should bea detailed timeline as to what was done, when and why, and
what are the future stepsto be anticipated and disclosed in advance to the Commission and to the public?The reference to and focus on contingency plans has, to a significant extent,
appeared toassume that “we won’t need any of them because there won’t be any unexpected reactionsor conditions, and hence no contingencies”. Beyond that, what about identifying everypossible
condition for which bonds, insurance coverages, and repair and replacementguarantees must be provided for prior to the commencement of any phase or stage of the project… in advance with
a waiting period.
Comment 10.inquires about the restoration of natural landscape at the microtunnel stagingarea at 2 Short Beach Road, must be completed with a CertifiedEcological Restoration Practitioner.For
purposes of these comments, there was a separate hearing on 7/18/2023 regarding theacquisition of 2 Short Beach Road, but the concern about restoration of the “natural landscape” appears
to this commenter to border on the irrelevant. What is “natural” or “beneficial” about the landscape in its current condition? Avangrid’s response is admittedly“responsive” to the
question. But both the question and answer fails to inquire orprovide for “natural versus replaced” and/or “landscape or revised” areas of the project.
* * * * * * * * ***
END OF QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS AT THIS TIME
* * * * * * * * * * * *
-6-
Questions from the Public (comments 11-16)
Comment 11.raises a further inquiry about microtunneling and the impact on the structuralintegrity of the bridge.For purposes of these comments, Avangrid responded with three separate
aspects of anypotential adverse impact on the bridge. These responses are one-sided, and actuallydisregard the real recommendation and point of urgency from the citizens: namely,having
the bridge which is old, outdated and in need of replacement more than repairs,should be considered for purposes of any routing of the power lines along side of thebridge.
Comment 12.raises shellfish habitat resource damages caused by the microtunnel operations.For purposes of response to this comment, once again Avangrid merely resorts to it’sanswers
to Comment 3., some of which “alternatives” were included in the Narrative,but it’s answers to the questions posed by both the Commission and the Publicjust suggests, but then discredits
any of the six (6) alternatives which appear to be solelyin support of what to Avangrid is “preferred”. The reason that microtunneling “avoidsdisturbance to habitat within the Centerville
River, was not only refuted but alsominimized by the public and from the lack of any shellfish habitat reports or acknowledgmentof the temporary removal of shellfish in many dock and
pier filings, to be followed up byreplacement and restocking following the completion of that portion of the project.
Comment 13.raises the question as to why (or whether) the US Army Corps of Engineersis or will be involved in any phases of this project.For purposes of response to this comment, Avangrid
states (though without havingso provided within its own Narrative) that the Army Corps was (currently?)undergoing its’ customary review.Further, however, Avangrid as well as the commission
failed to suggest or make anyreference to including a condition specific to requiring reports from the Army Corpsprior to the issuance of any approved permit as well as the commencement
of anyconstruction or structural impact on the tangible as well as remove “jurisdictional”areas.
-7-
Comment 14.raises “design modifications” associated with the Commonwealth WindProject (Osterville?), whether there should be what was described as a“transition (by and between? The)
joint bays at Craigville Beach (ie.Covells and Craigville?) be “depressed to provide greater depth of cover”?For purposes of response to this comment, this commenter does note that theNarrative
does make reference to “providing depth of cover”, but it is not readilydeterminable if those provisions in the Narrative address the question as posed.Avangrid appears to have offered
no response to clarify its interpretation of thequestion or its complete meaning of “providing greater depth of cover”. The mererecitation that by “increasing the burial depth of the
infrastructure would not increasethe area of disturbance” cannot really be convincing in response to the question.
Comment 15.raises the issue of “potential upstream impacts” resulting from the (proposedmethods to be used incident to the) Centerville River crossing.For purposes of response to this
comment, this Commenter considers this to be one ofthe most critical, yet hidden and avoided by both Avangard and the Commission, basedon their intransigence to how they define and try
to control what they consider to be“conservation jurisdictional limits”. While the question also included expressions ofconcern to the “infrastructure” and “areas of disturbance”,
again there has been adeliberate avoidance as to the long term and far reaching real and anticipated impactsto areas beyond any “buffer zones” or other undefined locations that justify
disregardingextended portions of and consequences to remote areas further inland.To further clarify and support the basis of this response by this Commenter, there will bea further Memorandum
to be submitted in the near future giving more support to this issueas well as a defendable challenge to “how conservation should be described and defined”.
Comment 16.raises the concerns as to whether Avangrid has or will document a verifiableand supporting “contingency plan” to “address any accidental release ofdrilling fluids”.For purposes
of response to this comment, it is the opinion of this Commenter thatthis very issue, while rarely raised or required as to the ordinary filings whether underChapter 237, any of the
Conservation Bylaws, or other statutory or regulatory authorities,in this instance, Avangrid’s response (longer than the others) seems to evade the real issue:namely, (a) what are or
might be causes, whether or not from failure, that would have beencreated by the mere installation of the project, and (b) what specific “plans” will not only be proposed in the Narrative
or elsewhere within the filing, and if so, (c) when will suchplan(s) be documented not only within the deliberation process conducted by the entire
-8-commission (not just be a select portion of the quorum), as well as by providing suchplans, including funding for any anticipated risks or damage, that may be required for byconservation
conditions in the Order of Conditions, and the specific time periods withinwhich such coverage shall be provided, and that if not timely provided, that the projectshall be suspended
or terminated?In the paragraph beginning “Although the bentonite….” provides that “the contractorwill take precautions to prevent any release of the drilling fluid…” covers only the
typeand nature of the “risk” as stated in the question; but ignores whatever other risks thatas the proponent of this entire project….. all of it from the towers in the ocean to theelectric
generators deep into the shore…. Must be held accountable for the contractorand developer. “Taking precautions” is akin to letting the horse out of the barn, thenlooking and hoping
to find and recover it.
ConclusionThe foregoing review of the questions as well as the responses provided by Avangridremain open to further commentary by this Commenter. The very nature and rushedtiming of
the questions as well as the responses does not serve to provide a full andcomprehensive review of the issues, and for which the appointment and retention ofqualified experts under the
guidelines of Chapter 708, would serve as a credible meansto explore and arrive at objective findings and opinions which, for the present, appearto be lacking.
September 5, 2023Respectfully submitted,//s// Laurence MorinLaurence (Larry) P. Morin
-9-