Complete 155-Page Vineyard Wind Submission

Vineyard Wind Connector:
Environmental Notification Form
December 15, 2017
Submitted to Prepared by
Executive Office of Energy and Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Environmental Affairs 3 Mill & Main Place, Suite 250
MEPA Office Maynard, Massachusetts 01754
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, Massachusetts 02114
Submitted by In Association with

Vineyard Wind LLC Foley Hoag LLP
700 Pleasant Street, Suite 510 Stantec, Inc.
New Bedford, Massachusetts 02740 Geo SubSea LLC
December 15, 2017
Secretary, Matthew A. Beaton

Attn: MEPA Office
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
Boston, MA 02114
Subject: Vineyard Wind Connector

Dear Secretary Beaton:
On behalf of Vineyard Wind LLC (the Company, or Proponent), I am pleased to submit an Environmental
Notification Form (ENF) for the Vineyard Wind Connector.
Vineyard Wind is permitting an approximately 800-megawatt (MW) offshore wind project in federal
waters under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). Major project
elements include a wind turbine array, offshore electrical service platforms, offshore transmission to
shore, onshore underground transmission, and an onshore substation that will step down transmission
voltage for interconnection with the electrical grid. All proposed elements will be subject to review
under federal permitting and the BOEM process. Massachusetts reviews, including those by the
Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) Office and other state, regional, and local entities, will
focus on the elements proposed within Massachusetts boundaries, including most of the offshore
export cables, all of the onshore underground cables, and the proposed onshore substation; these
elements are referred to as the “Vineyard Wind Connector” (i.e., the “Project” for purposes of State
review).
The purpose of the Vineyard Wind Connector is to connect a large-scale wind energy project within the
federally-designated Wind Energy Area on the Outer Continental Shelf offshore of Massachusetts to the
New England bulk power grid. The Project will be a major step in meeting the Commonwealth’s growing
demand for clean energy. More specifically, the Project will serve the public interest by delivering up to
approximately 800 MW of power to the New England energy grid, thus making a substantial
contribution to meeting individual New England state renewable energy requirements, including the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ 2016 legislative mandate that distribution companies jointly and
competitively solicit proposals for offshore wind energy generation for an aggregate nameplate capacity
of 1,600 MW.
The Project is expected to create a range of environmental and economic benefits for southeastern
Massachusetts (including New Bedford, the Cape, and the Islands), Massachusetts as a whole, and the
entire New England region. Project benefits will extend across the design, environmental review, and
permitting phase, the procurement, fabrication, and construction/commissioning phase, the multi-
decade operating phase, as well as the future decommissioning effort.
Benefits and highlights of the Vineyard Wind project include, but are not limited to:
Early project delivery: Construction is planned to begin in 2019, with the Project fully operational by
2021. This early on-line schedule will multiply the greenhouse gas reduction and economic
development benefits of large-scale, offshore wind.
Strong public support: Vineyard Wind began meeting with local communities, fishermen, and other
stakeholders in 2009. This early outreach is reflected in the strong public support for the
project, indicated by letters of support from all six towns of Martha’s Vineyard, Nantucket, the
Mashpee Wampanoag, the Martha’s Vineyard Commission, and others.
Global experience coupled with local knowledge: The Vineyard Wind team has collectively over
10GW of offshore wind construction and generation project experience from Europe, working
alongside US leaders in offshore wind, power generation development, and permitting, with
considerable experience right here in Massachusetts.
Power where it is needed: The Vineyard Wind Connector will deliver 800MW of clean, fuel-free
energy into the Southeast Massachusetts (SEMA) Zone of the New England system, an area of
the system that has recently lost significant amounts of generation capacity.
Power when it is needed: The Vineyard Wind Connector will deliver most of its energy during the
winter months, helping to offset the need for imported natural gas during times of peak
demand for the gas, generating significant savings for ratepayers.
Importantly, the Vineyard Wind Connector will enable 1,680,000 tons per year of greenhouse gas
reductions, furthering the objectives of the Global Warming Solutions Act, and contributing to the
Commonwealth’s policy to procure 1600MW of offshore wind.
Please notice the ENF in the Environmental Monitor is to be published December 20, 2017. The Public
Comment period will extend through January 9, 2018, and the Secretary’s Certificate will issue January
19, 2018.
Thank you for your consideration of this ENF. We are committed to working with Massachusetts, BOEM,
tribal, local, and regional officials, and other stakeholders, to maximize this unique, timely, and
important opportunity to establish Massachusetts as center for the offshore wind industry in the United
States, and soon start to make large reductions in our carbon emissions.
Sincerely,
Vineyard Wind, LLC
Erich Stephens, CDO
Enclosures
cc: Circulation List (Attachment C)

ENVIRONMENTAL NOTIFICATION
FORM
Vineyard Wind Connector
Submitted to:
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS

MEPA Office
Boston, MA 02114
Submitted by:
VINEYARD WIND LLC

700 Pleasant Street, Suite 510
New Bedford, MA 02740
Prepared by:
EPSILON ASSOCIATES, INC. In Association with:

3 Mill & Main Place, Suite 250
Maynard, MA 01754 Foley Hoag LLP
Stantec, Inc.
Geo SubSea LLC
December 15, 2017

Table of Contents
Table of Contents
ENF FORM
ATTACHMENT A PROJECT NARRATIVE

ATTACHMENT B FIGURES
ATTACHMENT C CIRCULATION LIST
ATTACHMENT D PERMITS, REVIEWS, AND APPROVALS REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT
ATTACHMENT E CORRESPONDENCE FROM MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF
UNDERWATER ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
ATTACHMENT F MASSACHUSETTS COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT FEDERAL
CONSISTENCY STATEMENT
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Project Overview, USGS Locus

Figure 1-2 Onshore Locations: Preferred Route, Noticed Alternative Route, and Variants
Figure 1-3 Offshore Export Cable Corridors, Aerial Base
Figure 1-4 2015 RI and MA Lease Area Overview
Figure 1-5 Typical Submarine Cable Cutaway
Figure 1-6 Upland Cable Cutaway
Figure 1-7 Typical Duct Bank Cross Sections
Figure 1-8 Proposed Substation Site
Figure 1-9 Proposed Substation – Schematic Plan
Figure 1-10 Existing Submarine Cables in Nantucket Sound
Figure 1-11 Existing Marine Infrastructure
Figure 1-12 Preferred Route and Variants Environmental Constraints (Sheets 1 through 4)
Figure 1-13 Noticed Alternative Route and Variant Environmental Constraints (Sheets 1 through
3)
Figure 1-14 New Bedford Marine Commerce Terminal
Figure 1-15 Preferred Route and Variants Water Protection (Sheets 1 through 4)
Figure 1-16 Noticed Alternative Route and Variant Water Protection (Sheets 1 through 3)
Figure 1-17 Historic Resources, Preferred Route and Variants
Figure 1-18 Historic Resources, Noticed Alternative and Variant
Figure 1-19 Offshore Export Cable Corridors – Dredge Locations (Maximum Design Scenario)
List of Tables
Table 1-1 Annual Avoided Air Emissions in New England 22
Table 1-2 Avoided Air Emissions in New England over Project Lifespan 22
Table 1-3 Consultations with agencies, municipalities, and tribes 26
4771/Vineyard Wind i Table of Contents

Environmental Notification Form Epsilon Associates, Inc.
List of Acronyms
ACOE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

AIS Air-insulated substation
AR Avangrid Renewables
BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
CBA Community Benefit Agreement
CCC Cape Cod Commission
CIP Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners
CO2 Carbon dioxide
COP Construction and Operations Plan
COP Copenhagen Offshore Partners
CTV Crew Transport Vessels
CZM Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management
DMF Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries
DOER Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources
DP Dynamic positioning
DPU Department of Public Utilities
DPW Department of Public Works
DRI Development of Regional Impact
EA Environmental Assessment
EEA Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
EFSB Energy Facilities Siting Board
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
eGRID EPA’s Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database
EMF Electro-magnetic field
ENF Environmental Notification Form
ESP Electrical Service Platform
FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact
GHG Greenhouse gas
GIS Gas-insulated substation
GWSA Global Warming Solutions Act
HDD Horizontal directional drilling
MassCEC Massachusetts Clean Energy Center
MassDEP Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
MassDOT Massachusetts Department of Transportation
MBUAR Massachusetts Board of Underwater Archaeological Resources
MEPA Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act
MW Megawatt
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOx Nitrogen oxides
NPCC Northeast Power Coordinating Council
NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory (Department of Energy)
OMP Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan
PPA Power Purchase Agreement
RFI Request for Interest
4771/Vineyard Wind ii Table of Contents

List of Acronyms (Continued)
RFP Request for Proposals

ROW Right of way
SF6 Sulphur hexa fluoride
SO2 Sulfur dioxide
SSU Special, sensitive, and unique
TMP Traffic Management Plan
TPY Tons per year
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
WEA Wind Energy Area
WTG Wind turbine generator
XLPE Cross-linked polyethylene
4771/Vineyard Wind iii Table of Contents

ENF Form
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) Office

For Office Use Only
EEA#:
MEPA Analyst:
The information requested on this form must be completed in order to submit a document
electronically for review under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act, 301 CMR 11.00.
Project Name: Vineyard Wind Connector

Street Address: Offshore export cables from Federal/Massachusetts water boundary,
northerly to New Hampshire Avenue in Yarmouth (Preferred Route), and onshore
underground cables to interconnection point at Barnstable Switching Station. An alternative
onshore route would begin at Covell’s Beach in Barnstable and run to the Barnstable
Switching Station.
Municipality: Barnstable Watershed: Cape Cod
Universal Transverse Mercator Coordinates: Latitude: 41.639596 to 41.686002
396033 (easting) 4610514 (northing) to 393099 Longitude: -70.248332 to -70.284483 1
(easting) and 4615711 (northing) (UTM Zone 19N)
Estimated commencement date: 2019 Estimated completion date: 2021
Project Type: Utility infrastructure Status of project design: 25% complete
Proponent: Vineyard Wind
Street Address: 700 Pleasant Street, Suite 510
Municipality: New Bedford State: MA Zip Code: 02740
Name of Contact Person: Holly Carlson Johnston
Firm/Agency: Epsilon Associates, Inc. Street Address: 3 Mill & Main Place, Suite 250
Municipality: Maynard State: MA Zip Code: 01754
Phone: 978-897-7100 Fax: 978-897-0099 E-mail: hcjohnston@epsilonassociates.com
Does this project meet or exceed a mandatory EIR threshold (see 301 CMR 11.03)?
Yes No
If this is an Expanded Environmental Notification Form (ENF) (see 301 CMR 11.05(7)) or a
Notice of Project Change (NPC), are you requesting:
a Single EIR? (see 301 CMR 11.06(8)) Yes No

a Special Review Procedure? (see 301CMR 11.09) Yes No
a Waiver of mandatory EIR? (see 301 CMR 11.11) Yes No
a Phase I Waiver? (see 301 CMR 11.11) Yes No
(Note: Greenhouse Gas Emissions analysis must be included in the Expanded ENF.)
1 UTM Coordinates and Latitude/Longitude are given for the Preferred Landfall Site at New Hampshire Avenue and the
interconnection point at the Barnstable Switching Station.
Effective January 2011
Which MEPA review threshold(s) does the project meet or exceed (see 301 CMR 11.03)?
♦ 301 CMR 11.03(7)(b)(4): Construction of electric transmission lines with a Capacity of 69 or more
kV, provided the transmission lines are one or more miles in length along New, unused, or
abandoned right of way.
♦ 301 CMR 11.03(3)(a)(1)(b): Provided that a Permit is required: alteration of ten or more acres of any
other wetlands (no BVW alteration; temporary disturbance of ocean bottom and LSCSF) (ENF and EIR
Threshold).
♦ 301 CMR 11.03(3)(b)(3): Dredging of 10,000 or more cy of material
♦ 301 CMR 11.03(1)(b)(3): Conversion of land held for natural resources purposes in accordance with
Article 97 of the Amendments to the Constitution of the Commonwealth to any purpose not in
accordance with Article 97 and/or potential for release of an interest in land held for conservation
purposes(for underground easements associated with certain routes and variants).
♦ 301 CMR 11.03(2)(b)(1): Greater than two acres of disturbance of designated priority habitat, as
defined in 321 CMR 10.01, that results in a take of a state-listed endangered or threatened species
or species of special concern (possible pending NHESP consultation).
♦ 301 CMR 11.03(3)(b)(1)(a): Provided that a Permit is required: alteration of coastal dune, barrier
beach or coastal bank (only if Variant 4 of Preferred Route is utilized, and only then if a Superseding Order
of Conditions is needed from MassDEP).
Which State Agency Permits will the project require: See Attachment D for complete permit list.
♦ Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection: Chapter 91 License, 401 Water Quality
Certification, Superseding Orders of Conditions (if required);
♦ Department of Public Utilities/Energy Facilities Siting Board: Approval under MGL c. 164 Sections
69J and 72, and Chapter 40A Section 3 Zoning Exemption (if needed);
♦ Massachusetts Department of Transportation: Road Crossing Permits, Rail Division Use and
Occupancy License;
♦ State Legislature: Article 97 Authorization (potential);
♦ Massachusetts Historical Commission: Field investigation permits; and
♦ NHESP: Conservation and Management Permit (potential). 2
Identify any financial assistance or land transfer from an Agency of the Commonwealth, including
the Agency name and the amount of funding or land area in acres:
The Project does not involve any state funding or land transfer.
2 In addition, there are a number of consultations/reviews that are required but are not technically “permits”, including
MEPA Environmental Review and MHC Section 106 consultations.
-2-
Summary of Project Size Existing Change Total
& Environmental Impacts
LAND
3
Total site acreage 16.3
4
New acres of land altered 8.05
5 6
Acres of impervious area 2.0 <0.5 acre <2.5 acres
Square feet of new bordering 0
vegetated wetlands alteration
Square feet of new other wetland 4 million
alteration (93.1 acres) 7
Acres of new non-water dependent 0

use of tidelands or waterways
STRUCTURES
Gross square footage 2,116 8 (-906) 1,210 9
Number of housing units 0 0 0
10
Maximum height (feet) N/A 40 40
TRANSPORTATION
Vehicle trips per day 0 <1 <1 11
Parking spaces 0 3 3
WASTEWATER
Water Use (Gallons per day) 0 0 0
Water withdrawal (GPD) 0 0 0
Wastewater generation/treatment 0 0 0
(GPD)
3 16.3 acres = 6.3 acres to be occupied by the for the offshore export cables (assumption is three 10-inch-diameter
offshore export cables installed along the Western Offshore Export Cable Corridor with the westernmost option through
Muskeget Channel) + 3.7 acres to be occupied by the onshore underground duct bank along the Preferred Route + 6.3
acres being leased for the proposed substation.
4 Calculated for onshore land area: 1.7 acres for the width of the trench used to install the onshore duct bank along the
utility ROW + 6.35 acres being leased for the proposed substation.
5
Existing impervious area is calculated as the footprint of proposed duct bank beneath existing roadways.
6 The only new impervious area from the Project is associated with foundations, containment sumps, and a small control
building at the proposed substation. Current estimate is less than 0.5 acre. If the access driveway and parking areas
are pavement rather than gravel, new impervious area would be approximately 0.8 acres.
7 4,054,026 square feet (93.1 acres) = 1,995,840 sf (45.8 acres) for trenching of the offshore export cables, for which
installation is expected to temporarily affect an area approximately 6 feet wide (assumption is 3 offshore export cables
installed within State waters along the Western Offshore Export Cable Corridor with the westernmost option through
Muskeget Channel to the Preferred Landfall Site at New Hampshire Avenue) + 2,051,676 sf (47.1 acres) for dredging of
sand waves within State waters to achieve sufficient burial depth (this area is an incremental addition outside of the area
affected by trenching) + 6,500 sf (0.15 acres) for the temporary cofferdam at the end of the Preferred Landfall Site (New
Hampshire Avenue).
8 There is an existing building on the site of the proposed substation that will be demolished.
9 The only enclosed structure proposed is the ~1,210-square-foot control house at the proposed substation.
10 The maximum height of any element of the proposed substation is ~80 feet (three slender lightning protection masts).
The transformers and other elements are expected to be 40 feet or less in height. The only enclosed structure is a
single-story, 1,210-square-foot building. Offshore and onshore export cables will be installed entirely underground.
11 Project requires no on-site employees. Vehicle trips per day excludes construction traffic.
-3-
Length of water mains (miles) 0 0 0
Length of sewer mains (miles) 0 0 0
Has this project been filed with MEPA before?
Yes (EEA # ) No
Has any project on this site been filed with MEPA before?
Yes (A portion of the onshore Preferred Route was assessed as part of EEA
#12643, the now-cancelled Cape Wind Project.) No
-4-
GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION – all proponents must fill out this section
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Vineyard Wind LLC (Vineyard Wind, the “Company” or “Proponent”) is permitting an up to

approximately 800-megawatt (MW) offshore wind project in federal waters under the jurisdiction
of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). Major elements will include a wind turbine
array, offshore electrical service platforms, offshore transmission to shore, onshore underground
transmission, and an onshore substation that will step down transmission voltage for
interconnection with the electrical grid. All proposed elements will be subject to review under
federal permitting and the BOEM process. Massachusetts reviews, including those by the
Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) Office and other state, regional, and local
entities, will focus on the elements proposed within state boundaries, including most of the
offshore export cables, all of the onshore underground cables, and the proposed onshore
substation; these elements are referred to as the “Vineyard Wind Connector” (i.e., the “Project” for
purposes of state review).
The purpose of the Vineyard Wind Connector is to connect a large-scale wind energy project
within the federally-designated Wind Energy Area on the Outer Continental Shelf offshore of
Massachusetts to the New England bulk power grid. The Project will be a major step in meeting
the Commonwealth’s growing demand for clean energy. More specifically, the Project will serve
the public interest by delivering up to approximately 800 MW of power to the New England
energy grid, thus making a substantial contribution to meeting individual New England state
renewable energy requirements, including the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ 2016 legislative
mandate that distribution companies jointly and competitively solicit proposals for offshore wind
energy generation for an aggregate nameplate capacity of 1,600 MW.
Routing for the proposed offshore and onshore underground export cables between the
Proponent’s Wind Development Area (i.e., the northern half of the Vineyard Wind Lease Area)
and Barnstable Switching Station is shown on a United States Geological Survey (USGS)
quadrangle base map (see Figure 1-1, USGS Locus Map, in Attachment B). Figure 1-2 shows the
proposed onshore routing on a MassGIS aerial photo. The onshore Preferred Route (6 miles long)
passes through the towns of Yarmouth and Barnstable, while the onshore Noticed Alternative (5.4
miles long) is exclusively within Barnstable.
Figure 1-3 shows two proposed Offshore Export Cable Corridors on an aerial photo base, each of
which is under consideration. The two alternative Offshore Export Cable Corridors both have
some nearshore variants to arrive at one of three potential Landfall Sites. In addition, there is a
variant further offshore in Muskeget Channel. Of the two offshore corridor options, the Western
Export Cable Corridor to the preferred landing passes through approximately 21 miles of state
waters, and the Eastern Export Cable Corridor to the preferred landing passes through
approximately 19 miles of state water. 12
Offshore and onshore cables will have solid cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE) insulation, and the
cables will not contain any fluids. Offshore export cables will be trenched into the seafloor, and
all onshore export cables will be buried within concrete duct banks, primarily within public
roadway layouts with some shorter stretches in existing utility transmission rights-of-way (ROW), a
12 The total lengths of the Western and Eastern Export Cable Corridors to the Preferred Landfall Site from the Wind
Development Area in Federal waters are approximately 41 miles (66 kilometers [km]) and 45 miles (72 km),
respectively.
-5-
MassDOT-owned railroad ROW, and possibly along a MassDOT-proposed bike path corridor.
The Project also includes a proposed substation located immediately south of the existing
Eversource Barnstable Switching Station.
Existing conditions and a more detailed description of the proposed Project and its alternatives are
described in the Project Narrative provided as Attachment A, which is substantially the same as
Section 1 of the EFSB Petition.
AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN:

Is the project within or adjacent to an Area of Critical Environmental Concern?
Yes (Specify: _______) No
if yes, does the ACEC have an approved Resource Management Plan? ___ Yes ___ No;
If yes, describe how the project complies with this plan: ______________________________
Will there be stormwater runoff or discharge to the designated ACEC? ___ Yes ___ No;
If yes, describe & assess potential impacts of such stormwater runoff/discharge to the designated ACEC:
RARE SPECIES:
Does the project site include Estimated and/or Priority Habitat of State-Listed Rare Species? (see
http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/nhesp/regulatory_review/priority_habitat/priority_habitat_home.htm)
Yes (Specify: All of the offshore export cable routes and the possible Landfall Site at Great
Island (Variant 4 of the Preferred Route), if used, will require construction within priority habitat
of rare species as mapped by the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, Natural
Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP). The onshore underground cable route also
cross other mapped priority habitat areas, however, the construction will be located beneath
paved surface or within ten feet of paved road surfaces. In order to establish construction
protocols and other mitigation measures to minimize potential impacts to rare species and their
habitats, the proponent will initiate consultations with NHESP in accordance with the
Massachusetts Endangered Species Act.) No
HISTORICAL /ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES:

Does the project site include any structure, site or district listed in the State Register of Historic Places or
the inventory of Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth?
Yes (A number of properties included in the MHC Inventory and listed in the State and
National Registers are located along the Project route. No permanent alteration of any structure,
site, or district is planned.) No
If yes, does the project involve any demolition or destruction of any listed or inventoried historic or
archaeological resources? Yes No The Project will be predominantly in existing roadways
and other rights of way in which prior excavation, filling, grading, and construction activities
have already created disturbance. See the Historic and Archaeological Resources Section below
for additional information.
WATER RESOURCES:
Is there an Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) on or within a half-mile radius of the project site?
___Yes X No; if yes, identify the ORW and its location: _____________.
(NOTE: Outstanding Resource Waters include Class A public water supplies, their tributaries, and
bordering wetlands; active and inactive reservoirs approved by MassDEP; certain waters within Areas of
Critical Environmental Concern, and certified vernal pools. Outstanding resource waters are listed in the
Surface Water Quality Standards, 314 CMR 4.00.)
Are there any impaired water bodies on or within a half-mile radius of the project site? ___Yes X No;
if yes, identify the water body and pollutant(s) causing the impairment: ________________________.
Is the project within a medium or high stress basin, as established by the Massachusetts Water
Resources Commission? ___Yes ___No Unknown, insufficient data on the Cape
-6-
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT:
Generally describe the project's stormwater impacts and measures that the project will take to comply
with the standards found in MassDEP's Stormwater Management Regulations:
Once constructed, the export cable portion of the Project will have no stormwater-related
impacts and will not alter existing stormwater drainage or management. The proposed
substation will be equipped with full containment for any components containing dielectric
fluids, including all transformers and capacitor banks; no equipment will contain polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs).
The Proponent’s objective is to minimize the potential for erosion and sedimentation impact
during Project construction, and to effectively restore any disturbed areas. The Proponent will
meet these objectives by implementing the erosion and sediment control measures described in
this section. In general, the measures are designed to minimize erosion and sedimentation by:
♦ Minimizing the quantity and duration of soil exposure;
♦ Protecting areas of critical concern during construction by redirecting and reducing the
velocity of runoff;
♦ Installing and maintaining erosion and sediment control measures during construction;
♦ Establishing vegetation where required as soon as possible following final grading; and
♦ Inspecting the construction route and maintaining erosion and sediment controls as
necessary until final stabilization is achieved and final inspections completed.
It will be the responsibility of the contractor to implement and maintain erosion and sediment
control measures during construction. The Environmental Inspector or designee (such as a
construction supervisor) will provide oversight of the contractor’s activities.
MASSACHUSETTS CONTINGENCY PLAN:
Has the project site been, or is it currently being, regulated under M.G.L.c.21E or the Massachusetts
Contingency Plan? Yes ___ No X ; if yes, please describe the current status of the site (including
Release Tracking Number (RTN), cleanup phase, and Response Action Outcome classification): ___.
Is there an Activity and Use Limitation (AUL) on any portion of the project site? Yes ___ No X ;
if yes, describe which portion of the site and how the project will be consistent with the AUL: _________.
Are you aware of any Reportable Conditions at the property that have not yet been assigned an RTN?
Yes ___ No X ; if yes, please describe:__________ ______
SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE:
If the project will generate solid waste during demolition or construction, describe alternatives considered
for re-use, recycling, and disposal of, e.g., asphalt, brick, concrete, gypsum, metal, wood:
Since the Project will involve open trenching through existing roadways, there will be asphalt
and possibly concrete waste generated during construction. Asphalt and concrete will be
handled separately from soil to allow for recycling at an asphalt batching plant and/or recycling
facility. Waste materials generated during installation of the Project will be promptly removed
for recycling or proper disposal of at a suitable facility.
The duct back trench will be excavated using a “clean trench” technique, where soil will be
loaded directly into a dump truck for temporary off-site stockpiling or hauling to an off-site
facility for recycling, re-use, or disposal. Although not expected, if contaminated soil or other
regulated materials encountered along the route, soils will be managed pursuant to the Utility-
related Abatement Measure (URAM) provisions of the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP).
The Proponent will contract with a Licensed Site Professional (LSP) as necessitated by
conditions encountered within the Project area, consistent with the requirements of the MCP at
310 CMR 40.0460 et seq.
-7-
Packing crates and wood from equipment shipments will be reused or recycled to the extent
practicable, or will be disposed of appropriately.
(NOTE: Asphalt pavement, brick, concrete and metal are banned from disposal at Massachusetts
landfills and waste combustion facilities and wood is banned from disposal at Massachusetts landfills.
See 310 CMR 19.017 for the complete list of banned materials.)
Will your project disturb asbestos containing materials? Yes ___ No X ;

if yes, please consult state asbestos requirements at http://mass.gov/MassDEP/air/asbhom01.htm
Describe anti-idling and other measures to limit emissions from construction equipment:
The Proponent will require the contractor to turn off construction vehicles when not actively in
use.
DESIGNATED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER:
Is this project site located wholly or partially within a defined river corridor of a federally designated Wild
and Scenic River or a state designated Scenic River? Yes ___ No X ;
if yes, specify name of river and designation:
If yes, does the project have the potential to impact any of the “outstandingly remarkable” resources of a
federally Wild and Scenic River or the stated purpose of a state designated Scenic River?
Yes ___ No ___ ; if yes, specify name of river and designation: _____________;
if yes, will the project will result in any impacts to any of the designated “outstandingly remarkable”
resources of the Wild and Scenic River or the stated purposes of a Scenic River. Yes ___ No ___ ;
if yes, describe the potential impacts to one or more of the “outstandingly remarkable” resources or
stated purposes and mitigation measures proposed.
-8-
ATTACHMENTS:
1. List of all attachments to this document. See Table of Contents.
2. U.S.G.S. map (good quality color copy, 8-½ x 11 inches or larger, at a scale of 1:24,000) indicating
the project location and boundaries. See Figure 1-1 in Attachment B.
3. Plan, at an appropriate scale, of existing conditions on the project site and its immediate environs,
showing all known structures, roadways and parking lots, railroad rights-of-way, wetlands and water
bodies, wooded areas, farmland, steep slopes, public open spaces, and major utilities. See Figure
1-2 in Attachment B for an overview of conditions along the onshore export cable routes (and
Figures 1-12 and 1-13 contain additional detail). Existing conditions on the proposed
substation site are shown on Figure 1-8 in Attachment B.
4. Plan, at an appropriate scale, depicting environmental constraints on or adjacent to the project site
such as Priority and/or Estimated Habitat of state-listed rare species, Areas of Critical Environmental
Concern, Chapter 91 jurisdictional areas, Article 97 lands, wetland resource area delineations, water
supply protection areas, and historic resources and/or districts. See Figures 1-12 and 1-13 in
Attachment B for environmental constraints as mapped by MassGIS along the Preferred
Route and Noticed Alternative, respectively. Water supply protection areas are shown on
Figures 1-15 and 1-16 for the Preferred Route and Noticed Alternative, respectively. Historic
resources are shown on Figures 1-17 and 1-18 for the Preferred Route and Noticed
Alternative, respectively.
5. Plan, at an appropriate scale, of proposed conditions upon completion of project (if construction of
the project is proposed to be phased, there should be a site plan showing conditions upon the
completion of each phase). The proposed onshore export cable route is shown on Figure 1-2 in
Attachment B; the cables will be installed entirely underground. Figure 1-9 in Attachment B
shows a general layout of the proposed substation.
6. List of all agencies and persons to whom the proponent circulated the ENF, in accordance with 301
CMR 11.16(2). See Attachment C.
7. List of municipal and federal permits and reviews required by the project, as applicable. See
Attachment D.
-9-
LAND SECTION – all proponents must fill out this section
I. Thresholds / Permits
A. Does the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to land (see 301 CMR 11.03(1)
X Yes ____ No; if yes, specify each threshold:
301 CMR 11.03(1)(b)(3): Conversion of land held for natural resources purposes in
accordance with Article 97 of the Amendments to the Constitution of the Commonwealth
to any purpose not in accordance with Article 97 (for certain variants to the Preferred
Route and the Noticed Alternative).
II. Impacts and Permits

A. Describe, in acres, the current and proposed character of the project site, as follows:
Note: Installation of the onshore export cables will not permanently alter existing
conditions and will not create any impervious area or change in land use. Therefore, the
calculations below are specific to the site of the proposed substation.
Existing Change Total

Footprint of buildings 0.05 (-0.02) 0.03 13
Internal roadways 0.14 0.37 0.51
Parking and other paved areas 14 0.46 (-0.43) 0.03
Other altered areas 0.28 4.36 4.64
Undeveloped areas 5.42 (-4.28) 1.14
Total: Project Site Acreage 6.35 -- 6.35
B. Has any part of the project site been in active agricultural use in the last five years?
___ Yes X No; if yes, how many acres of land in agricultural use (with prime state or locally
important agricultural soils) will be converted to nonagricultural use?
C. Is any part of the project site currently or proposed to be in active forestry use?
___ Yes X No; if yes, please describe current and proposed forestry activities and indicate
whether any part of the site is the subject of a forest management plan approved by the
Department of Conservation and Recreation:
D. Does any part of the project involve conversion of land held for natural resources purposes in
accordance with Article 97 of the Amendments to the Constitution of the Commonwealth to any
purpose not in accordance with Article 97? X Yes ___ No; if yes, describe:
The Preferred Route does not require crossings of any public open space, conservation,
or recreational lands; however, Variants 2 (Utility ROW) and 3 (Bike Path) would each
require one underground crossing of land subject to Article 97 jurisdiction, albeit in the
first case the crossing would be accomplished within an existing utility easement. Areas
subject to Article 97 jurisdiction, as identified by MassGIS, are shown on Figures 1-12 and
1-13 for the Preferred Route and Noticed Alternative, respectively. While within the utility
ROW, the Noticed Alternative would cross an open space parcel owned by the Town of
Barnstable and managed by the Barnstable Conservation Commission that is shown on
MassGIS as subject to Article 97 jurisdiction. Further refinement of Article 97 jurisdiction
is continuing, but any conversion is expected to consist of subsurface easements only.
13
The only enclosed structure proposed is the control house at the proposed substation.
14 The access road around the proposed substation is assumed to be gravel or crushed stone.
- 10 -
E. Is any part of the project site currently subject to a conservation restriction, preservation
restriction, agricultural preservation restriction or watershed preservation restriction? X Yes
___ No; if yes, does the project involve the release or modification of such restriction? ___ Yes
___ No X Unknown if yes, describe:
None of the parcels crossed by the Preferred Route are subject to a conservation
restriction. With regard to the Preferred Route Variant 4 (Great Island Landfall Site), the
EEA designates the 90-acre Great Island parcel as designated private open space and
held in perpetuity under a conservation restriction held by the Chase Family and Trustees
of Reservations (source: MassGIS). The Noticed Alternative would cross several
contiguous parcels within the utility ROW on which the Barnstable Conservation
Commission holds a recently granted conservation restriction. All of these open space
parcels are located north of Communication Way and directly west of the Barnstable
Switching Station. It is unknown at this time if the project would require a release or
modification of the conservation restriction on these parcels.
F. Does the project require approval of a new urban redevelopment project or a fundamental
change in an existing urban redevelopment project under M.G.L.c.121A? ___ Yes X No; if
yes, describe:
G. Does the project require approval of a new urban renewal plan or a major modification of an
existing urban renewal plan under M.G.L.c.121B? Yes ___ No X ; if yes, describe:
III. Consistency
A. Identify the current municipal comprehensive land use plan
Title: Town of Barnstable Comprehensive Plan Date: 2010
Town of Yarmouth Comprehensive Plan Date: 2010
B. Describe the project’s consistency with that plan with regard to:
1) economic development
The Town of Barnstable’s Comprehensive Plan is intended to work for positive

economic change and build and maintain appropriate infrastructure to support the
plan. It is also intended to promote sustainable development and encourage new
economic sectors.
As stated in the Comprehensive Plan of Yarmouth, the Economic Development

Plan aims to:
(a) engage the citizens and business community in identification of
opportunities for commercial development and redevelopment;
(b) serve as a liaison between town and government and existing business
and commercial interests for policies, practices, and capital projects that
promote business success;
(c) work to recruit and assist potential new developments and investments;
and
(d) represent the Town and participate in state and regional efforts and
discussions on economic growth.
The Project supports economic development goals by bringing up to 800 MW of

clean, renewable energy into the Massachusetts electrical grid. In addition,
Vineyard Wind is in communication with the Town of Barnstable and the Town of
Yarmouth for the purpose of establishing Host Community Agreements,
agreements through which the Proponent proposes to address concerns identified
by the towns as well as provide ancillary benefits from the project to the towns.
The Project will create a number of job opportunities within the marine trades and
- 11 -
affiliated industries, and will have a positive impact on those sectors, particularly
those heavily influenced by seasonal hiring. Once operational, the Project will
create a significant number of O&M jobs. Project benefits are discussed in greater
detail in Section 1.6 of Attachment A.
2) adequacy of infrastructure
The Town of Barnstable’s land use plan calls for future infrastructure necessary to
accommodate new growth or redevelopment. Specific to energy, the plan calls for
renewable energy components, and acknowledges the Town’s goal to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.
According to Yarmouth’s Plan, the Town’s infrastructure continues to be

modernized and expanded, which allows the community to absorb the projected
level of population and economic growth without the need for major investments in
capital facilities for most aspects of both municipal government and the education
system.
The Project will provide the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with up to 800 MW

of clean, renewable energy, and will enhance the reliability and diversity of the
energy infrastructure on Cape Cod and across the state. Clean, reliable electricity
is necessary to maintain the economic vitality of these communities. The Project’s
onshore export cable route will largely be constructed beneath existing roadways,
and will not strain town resources or prevent modernization or expansion.
Additional details are provided in the Project Narrative in Attachment A.
3) open space impacts
Barnstable’s land use plan calls for the implementation of land use policies to
achieve a balance between the location, preservation and protection of uses of
land (including housing, commerce, recreation, open space, and natural
resources) along with infrastructure necessary to support existing land uses and
anticipated changes in land use.
An updated Community Preservation Plan of Yarmouth (2015) aims to (a) protect

and enhance Yarmouth’s fragile environmental resources, including water quality,
scenic beauty and unique habitats; (b) preserve and manage sufficient areas to
maintain a healthy natural environment, provide habitat for wildlife, encourage
outdoor recreation and retain community character; and (c) meet all residents and
visitors recreational needs by providing balanced year-round leisure facilities to
promote healthy lifestyles while protecting sensitive natural resources.
The Project is consistent with open space-related goals, as it is predominantly

located within existing roadway layouts and will not have any permanent impacts
to designated open space. All offshore and onshore export cables will be installed
underground, and will have no permanent effects on the use of lands through
which they pass. The proposed substation site consists of approximately 6.35
acres of industrially-zoned land and is located immediately south of the existing
Barnstable Switching Station.
4) compatibility with adjacent land uses
As the Project is proposed predominantly within existing roadway layouts and the
export cables will be installed underground, and the majority of the Project will
have no visual impacts, it is consistent with adjacent land uses in Barnstable and
Yarmouth. In addition, onshore export cable routes utilize some existing rights of
way (ROWs), including a railroad ROW and existing utility ROW. The only above-
- 12 -
ground element of the Project is the proposed substation, which will be located in
an industrially-zoned area immediately south of the existing Barnstable Switching
Station, and hence in an area already characterized by a similar use.
C. Identify the current Regional Policy Plan of the applicable Regional Planning Agency (RPA)
RPA: Cape Cod Commission
Title: Cape Cod Regional Policy Plan
Date: Effective January 16, 2009, Amended August 17, 2012
Describe the project’s consistency with that plan with regard to:
1) economic development
The Cape Cod Regional Policy Plan identifies goals and recommended actions in
the areas of land use, economic development, natural systems (water resources,
coastal resources, wetlands protection, wildlife and plant habitat, open space
protection), and human/built systems (transportation, waste management, energy,
affordable housing, heritage preservation and community character). An
economic development goal of the Plan is to promote the design and location of
development and redevelopment.
The Project will be a major step in meeting the Commonwealth’s growing demand
for clean energy. More specifically, the Project will serve the public interest by
delivering up to approximately 800 MW of power to the New England energy grid,
thus making a substantial contribution to meeting individual New England state
renewable energy requirements, including the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’
2016 legislative mandate that distribution companies jointly and competitively
solicit proposals for offshore wind energy generation for an aggregate nameplate
capacity of 1,600 MW. The proposed Project transmission will be located
predominantly within existing roadway layouts and other ROWs, and proposed
construction-related mitigation measures are consistent with goals relating to
natural resources. The offshore portion of the Project also employs best
management practices (BMPs) and techniques associated with cable installation to
avoid and minimize potential impacts to natural resources. The only above-ground
element of the Project is the proposed substation, which will be located in an
industrially-zoned area immediately south of the existing Barnstable Switching
Station, and hence in an area already characterized by a similar use. In addition,
the Project supports economic development goals and housing by improving the
reliability and diversity of the energy mix on Cape Cod and in the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts, hence enabling development and redevelopment.
2) adequacy of infrastructure
One goal of the Plan is to use infrastructure efficiently, minimize adverse impacts,
and enhance the quality of life for Cape Cod residents. This Project is proposed to
provide up to 800 MW of clean, renewable energy from offshore wind, and in so
doing will improve the reliability and diversity of the energy mix on Cape Cod.
Through a thorough routing analysis, the Proponent is seeking a carefully
considered route to the necessary electric grid interconnection in Barnstable.
3) open space impacts
According to the Plan, open space has helped define Cape Cod’s heritage and
economy and is one of the region’s most valuable assets. Marshes, beaches,
farms, and woodlands directly contribute to key industries on Cape Cod, attracting
tourists and providing areas for farming and cranberry growing, hunting, fishing
and swimming.
- 13 -
The proposed transmission system is predominantly proposed within existing
roadway layouts and other existing ROWs (a railroad ROW and utility ROW). The
Project is consistent with open space-related goals, and will not have any
permanent impacts to designated open space. All offshore and onshore export
cable swill be installed underground, and will have no permanent effects on the
use of lands through which they pass. The only above-ground element of the
Project is the proposed substation, which will be located immediately south of the
existing Barnstable Switching Station, and hence in an area already characterized
by a similar use.
RARE SPECIES SECTION

A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to rare species or habitat (see
301 CMR 11.03(2))? ___ Yes No X Unknown; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms:
The Preferred Route will temporarily disturb over two acres of priority habitat within
Nantucket Sound and adjacent coastal areas in Yarmouth and Barnstable. The Proponent
will consult with the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) to
determine if the Project will result in a take of a state-listed endangered or threatened or
special concern species.
B. Does the project require any state permits related to rare species or habitat? ___ Yes
___ No, X To be determined
The Proponent will initiate consultation with NHESP to determine whether the Project will
require a Conservation and Management Permit in accordance with the Massachusetts
Endangered Species Act Regulations (321 CMR 10.00).
C. Does the project site fall within mapped rare species habitat (Priority or Estimated Habitat?) in
the current Massachusetts Natural Heritage Atlas (attach relevant page)? X Yes ___ No.
D. If you answered "No" to all questions A, B and C, proceed to the Wetlands, Waterways, and
Tidelands Section. If you answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the
remainder of the Rare Species section below.

A. Does the project site fall within Priority or Estimated Habitat in the current Massachusetts Natural
Heritage Atlas (attach relevant page)? X Yes ___ No. If yes,
1. Have you consulted with the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Natural Heritage and
Endangered Species Program (NHESP)? X Yes ___No; if yes, have you received a
determination as to whether the project will result in the “take” of a rare species? ___
Yes X No; if yes, attach the letter of determination to this submission.
2. Will the project "take" an endangered, threatened, and/or species of special concern in
accordance with M.G.L. c.131A (see also 321 CMR 10.04)? ___ Yes ___ No;
X To be determined; if yes, provide a summary of proposed measures to minimize
and mitigate rare species impacts
3. Which rare species are known to occur within the Priority or Estimated Habitat?
Least Tern (Sternula antillarum),
Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus),
Spadefoot Toad (Scaphiopus holbrookii)
- 14 -
4. Has the site been surveyed for rare species in accordance with the Massachusetts
Endangered Species Act? ___ Yes X No
4. If your project is within Estimated Habitat, have you filed a Notice of Intent or received
an Order of Conditions for this project? ___ Yes X No; if yes, did you send a copy of
the Notice of Intent to the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program, in
accordance with the Wetlands Protection Act regulations? ___ Yes ___ No
WETLANDS, WATERWAYS, AND TIDELANDS SECTION

A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to wetlands, waterways, and
tidelands (see 301 CMR 11.03(3))? X Yes ___ No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms:
Installation of the offshore export cables will result in temporary impacts to

approximately 93.1 acres of wetlands, the vast majority of which is associated with the
installation of offshore export cables in Land Under the Ocean; a small area of Coastal
Beach may also be impacted at the Preferred Landfall Site at New Hampshire Avenue.
In areas where sand waves are present, dredging will be necessary to ensure sufficient
burial depth of the export cables; potential dredge volumes in state waters could be up
to approximately 160,800 cubic yards (123,000 cubic meters), based on the Western
Offshore Export Cable Corridor with the westernmost option through Muskeget
Channel. The specific thresholds exceeded are listed earlier in this ENF Form.
B. Does the project require any state permits (or a local Order of Conditions) related to wetlands,
waterways, or tidelands? X Yes ___ No; if yes, specify which permit: Chapter 91 License,
401 Water Quality Certification (MassDEP), Order of Conditions.
C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Water Supply Section. If you
answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Wetlands,
Waterways, and Tidelands Section below.
II. Wetlands Impacts and Permits

A. Does the project require a new or amended Order of Conditions under the Wetlands Protection
Act (M.G.L. c.131A)? X Yes ___ No; if yes, has an NOI been filed? ___ Yes X No; if yes,
list the date and MassDEP file number: ______; if yes, has a local Order of Conditions been
issued? ___ Yes ___ No; Was the Order of Conditions appealed? ___ Yes ___ No. Will the
project require a Variance from the Wetlands regulations? ___ Yes ___ No.
B. Describe any proposed permanent or temporary impacts to wetland resource areas located on
the project site:
The Project will require only temporary construction-related impacts to wetlands,

primarily in the offshore and immediate coastal areas. Offshore, the submarine cable
installation will affect approximately 4,054,000 square feet of Land Under the Ocean
within the towns of Edgartown, Yarmouth, Barnstable, and possibly Nantucket and
Mashpee. Open-cut trenching at the Landfall Site at New Hampshire Avenue will
require temporary disturbance to approximately 500 square feet of Coastal Beach.
Onshore, the Project passes through approximately 0.33 miles of Land Subject to
Coastal Storm Flowage (LSCSF) on paved roads directly inland from the preferred
Landfall Site, and also crosses approximately 400 linear feet of Riverfront Area (RFA)
associated with Thornton Brook within the paved surface of Higgins Crowell Road in
Yarmouth (see Figure 1-12).
- 15 -
C. Estimate the extent and type of impact that the project will have on wetland resources, and
indicate whether the impacts are temporary or permanent:
Coastal Wetlands Area (square feet) or Temporary or

Length (linear feet) Permanent Impact?
Land Under the Ocean 4,053,516 Temporary

Designated Port Areas 0 sf ___________________
Coastal Beaches 500 sf Temporary
Coastal Dunes 0 sf 15 ___________________
Barrier Beaches 0 sf
Coastal Banks 0 sf ____________________
Rocky Intertidal Shores 0 sf ____________________
Salt Marshes 0 sf ____________________
Land Under Salt Ponds 0 sf ____________________
Land Containing Shellfish 0 sf ___________________
Fish Runs 0 sf ____________________
Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage ~14,000 sf Temporary
Inland Wetlands
Bank (lf) 0 lf ____________________
Bordering Vegetated Wetlands 0 sf ____________________
Isolated Vegetated Wetlands 0 sf ____________________
Land under Water 0 sf ____________________
Isolated Land Subject to Flooding 0 sf ____________________
Bordering Land Subject to Flooding 0 sf ____________________
Riverfront Area 4,000 sf Temporary
D. Is any part of the project:

1. proposed as a limited project? ___ Yes X No; if yes, what is the area (in sf)?____
2. the construction or alteration of a dam? ___ Yes X No; if yes, describe:
3. fill or structure in a velocity zone or regulatory floodway? Yes X No
4. dredging or disposal of dredged material? X Yes __ No; if yes, describe the volume
of dredged material and the proposed disposal site:
The Project may involve dredging of up to approximately 160,800 cubic yards

(approximately 123,000 cubic meters) in state waters (see the Project Narrative in
Attachment A for additional details). The Proponent anticipates that any dredged
material will be sidecast next to where cable installation will occur.
5. a discharge to an Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) or an Area of Critical

Environmental Concern (ACEC)? ___ Yes X No
6. subject to a wetlands restriction order? ___ Yes X No; if yes, identify the area (in sf):
7. located in buffer zones? X Yes ___No; if yes, how much (in sf): 4,500 16
E. Will the project:

1. be subject to a local wetlands ordinance or bylaw? X Yes ___ No
2. alter any federally-protected wetlands not regulated under state law? X Yes ___ No; if
yes, what is the area (sf)?
15 The Preferred Route will not impact Coastal Dune; however, Variant 4 would have some temporary construction-
period impacts to Coastal Dune.
16 Temporary buffer-zone impacts are estimated based on a 10-foot-wide trench and 450 total linear feet of
trenching in the buffer zone at the Preferred Landfall Site (New Hampshire Avenue), near Thornton Brook, and
other wetland areas along Higgins Crowell Road.
- 16 -
The proposed offshore export cables extend outside of state-jurisdictional waters,
and extend to the offshore wind array proposed in federal waters; the offshore
export cables will also cross through federal waters within Nantucket Sound. In
total, the offshore export cable crosses through approximately 20.2 miles (106,656
feet) of federal waters. Up to three offshore export cables will be installed, and the
area impacted by installation of each cable is expected to be approximately 6 feet
wide. Therefore, installation of up to three offshore export cables will temporarily
impact approximately 1.9 million square feet (106,656 x 3 x 6) of the ocean floor in
federal jurisdiction (estimated area is based on the Western Offshore Export Cable
Corridor with the westernmost option through Muskeget Channel to the Preferred
Landfall Site at New Hampshire Avenue in Yarmouth). It is not anticipated that
activities in federal waters outside of the state geographic boundaries will have any
impact on state-jurisdictional resources.
III. Waterways and Tidelands Impacts and Permits

A. Does the project site contain waterways or tidelands (including filled former tidelands) that
are subject to the Waterways Act, M.G.L.c.91? X Yes ___ No; if yes, is there a current
Chapter 91 License or Permit affecting the project site? ___ Yes X No; if yes, list the date
and license or permit number and provide a copy of the historic map used to determine
extent of filled tidelands:
B. Does the project require a new or modified license or permit under M.G.L.c.91? X Yes ___
No; if yes, how many acres of the project site subject to M.G.L.c.91 will be for non-water-
dependent use? Current 0 Change 0 Total 0
The Vineyard Wind Connector is presumptively water-dependent: the Massachusetts

regulations at 310 CMR 9.12(2)(e), provide that “in the case of a facility generating
electricity from wind power (wind turbine facility) or any ancillary facility therefore, for
which an EIR is submitted, the Department shall presume such facility to be water
dependent if the Secretary has determined that such facility requires direct access to or
location in tidal waters.”
If yes, how many square feet of solid fill or pile-supported structures (in sf)?
No pile-supported structures are proposed within state waters. While the priority will
be to achieve sufficient burial depth in these areas, if burial is unsuccessful it may be
necessary to use concrete “mattresses” or placement of a layer of rock to protect the
cable. The Proponent will seek to avoid the use of such cable armoring, but if
necessary will seek to minimize its application.
C. For non-water-dependent use projects, indicate the following:

Area of filled tidelands on the site:_____________________
Area of filled tidelands covered by buildings:____________
For portions of site on filled tidelands, list ground floor uses and area of each use: ____
Does the project include new non-water-dependent uses located over flowed tidelands?
Yes ___ No ___
Height of building on filled tidelands________________
Also show the following on a site plan: Mean High Water, Mean Low Water, Water-
dependent Use Zone, location of uses within buildings on tidelands, and interior and
exterior areas and facilities dedicated for public use, and historic high and historic low
water marks.
D. Is the project located on landlocked tidelands? ___ Yes X No; if yes, describe the
project’s impact on the public’s right to access, use and enjoy jurisdictional tidelands and
describe measures the project will implement to avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse
impact:
- 17 -
E. Is the project located in an area where low groundwater levels have been identified by a
municipality or a state or federal agency as a threat to building foundations? ___Yes X No;
if yes, describe the project’s impact on groundwater levels and describe measures the project
will implement to avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse impact:
F. Is the project non-water-dependent and located on landlocked tidelands or waterways or

tidelands subject to the Waterways Act and subject to a mandatory EIR? ___ Yes X No;
(NOTE: If yes, then the project will be subject to Public Benefit Review and Determination.)
G. Does the project include dredging? X Yes ___ No; if yes, answer the following questions:
What type of dredging? Improvement X Maintenance ___ Both ___:
Sand waves are present across portions of the Offshore Export Cable Corridors,
and pre-cable-laying dredging may be needed to ensure sufficient cable burial
beneath the stable seabed; the Proponent anticipates that any dredged material
would be sidecast next to where cable installation will occur.
What is the proposed dredge volume, in cubic yards (cys):
Depending on the offshore export cable corridor ultimately selected, the Project
may involve dredging of up to approximately 160,800 cubic yards (approximately
123,000 cubic meters) in state waters.
What is the proposed dredge footprint _length (ft) __width (ft)___depth (ft) See below
Where dredging is necessary, it will occur within an approximately 65-foot-wide

(20-meter-wide) corridor centered on the alignment of each of the three export
cables. Excluding the 6-foot-wide zone of disturbance around trenching itself, the
area impacted by dredging would be up to approximately two million square feet
(47 acres) (based on Western Offshore Export Cable Corridor with the westernmost
option through Muskeget Channel reaching the Preferred Landfall Site at New
Hampshire Avenue in Yarmouth) (see the Project Narrative in Attachment A for
additional details). The average dredge depth will be 1.6 feet (0.5 meters) and may
range up to 15 feet (4.5 meters) in localized areas. Locations where dredging may
be necessary are shown on Figure 1-19 in Attachment B.
Will dredging impact the following resource areas?

Intertidal Yes___ No X ; if yes, ___ sq ft
Outstanding Resource Waters Yes__ No X ; if yes, ___ sq ft
Other resource area (i.e. shellfish beds, eel grass beds) Yes__ No X ; if yes
__ sq ft
If yes to any of the above, have you evaluated appropriate and practicable steps
to: 1) avoidance; 2) if avoidance is not possible, minimization; 3) if either
avoidance or minimize is not possible, mitigation?
If no to any of the above, what information or documentation was used to support
this determination?
No impacts to the specified resource areas are anticipated from dredging

because dredging is expected to be limited to well offshore and away from
intertidal zones, outstanding resource waters, and eelgrass beds. In
August/September 2017, the Proponent performed marine surveys to
identify feasible routes for the proposed offshore export cables that would
avoid and minimize impacts to resources, including eelgrass. The Export
Cable Corridors do not cross any eelgrass habitat mapped in the
Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan or by MassDEP surveys; dredge
locations are shown on Figure 1-19. Offshore export cable installation,
including dredging, may result in some temporary impacts to shellfish in
- 18 -
the area immediately along the installation path. Post-construction
shellfish monitoring would be performed to ensure the shellfish habitat will
return substantially to its pre-installation condition. Project routing and
installation techniques have been informed by results of the 2017 survey as
well as the study of existing information about the marine environment
along the Offshore Export Cable Corridors.
Provide a comprehensive analysis of practicable alternatives for improvement dredging in

accordance with 314 CMR 9.07(1)(b). Physical and chemical data of the sediment shall
be included in the comprehensive analysis.
Marine surveys completed in the summer of 2017 confirmed that portions of the
Offshore Export Cable Corridors contain sand waves. Portions of the sand waves
may be mobile over time; therefore, the upper portions of the sand waves may
need to be removed via dredging so the cable-laying equipment can achieve the
proper burial depth below the stable seabed to ensure cables stay buried. It is
anticipated that dredged sediments will be side-cast; no sediment disposal is
proposed.
Sediment Characterization
Existing gradation analysis results? X Yes ___No: if yes, provide results.
Areas identified in the 2017 surveys for potential dredging along the Export
Cable Corridors are all located within bedform fields (sand waves, >1.5 m
height) and specifically will include the top portions of individual sand
waves. Sediment grain size in these areas falls between fine sand and
coarse sand with gravel and shells common. Grain size analyses were
completed on grab samples and vibracore subsamples to define the
surficial sediment classification. Gravel, shell material, and occasional
cobbles often outcrop in the troughs between crests, and may constitute a
coarse lag surface underlying the mobile sand layer in places. A narrow
swath is proposed for dredging, up to approximately 65 feet (20 m) wide,
such that the cable can be embedded below the mobile sand layer in the
underlying stable seabed. This will reduce risk to the transmission line
over the life span of the system.
Existing chemical results for parameters listed in 314 CMR 9.07(2)(b)6?

___Yes X No; if yes, provide results.
Do you have sufficient information to evaluate feasibility of the following management

options for dredged sediment? If yes, check the appropriate option.
No sediment disposal is proposed; sediments will be side-cast immediately

adjacent to the Offshore Export Cable Corridors.
Beach Nourishment ___

Unconfined Ocean Disposal ___
Confined Disposal:
Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD) ___
Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) ___
Landfill Reuse in accordance with COMM-97-001 ___
Shoreline Placement ___
Upland Material Reuse____
In-State landfill disposal____
Out-of-state landfill disposal ____
(NOTE: This information is required for a 401 Water Quality Certification.)
- 19 -
IV. Consistency:
A. Does the project have effects on the coastal resources or uses, and/or is the project located
within the Coastal Zone? X Yes ___ No; if yes, describe these effects and the projects
consistency with the policies of the Office of Coastal Zone Management:
See Attachment F for a Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Federal Consistency

Statement.
B. Is the project located within an area subject to a Municipal Harbor Plan? ___ Yes X No; if
yes, identify the Municipal Harbor Plan and describe the project's consistency with that plan:
WATER SUPPLY SECTION

A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to water supply (see 301 CMR
11.03(4))? ___ Yes X No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms:
C. Does the project require any state permits related to water supply? ___ Yes X No; if yes,
specify which permit:
D. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Wastewater Section. If you
answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Water Supply
Section below.

A. Describe, in gallons per day (gpd), the volume and source of water use for existing and proposed
activities at the project site:
Municipal or regional water supply ________ ________ ________
Withdrawal from groundwater ________ ________ ________
Withdrawal from surface water ________ ________ ________
Interbasin transfer ________ ________ ________
(NOTE: Interbasin Transfer approval will be required if the basin and community where the proposed
water supply source is located is different from the basin and community where the wastewater
from the source will be discharged.)
B. If the source is a municipal or regional supply, has the municipality or region indicated that there
is adequate capacity in the system to accommodate the project? ___ Yes ___ No
C. If the project involves a new or expanded withdrawal from a groundwater or surface water
source, has a pumping test been conducted? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, attach a map of the drilling
sites and a summary of the alternatives considered and the results. ______________
D. What is the currently permitted withdrawal at the proposed water supply source (in gallons per
day)? Will the project require an increase in that withdrawal? ___Yes ___No; if yes, then how
much of an increase (gpd)? ____________________
E. Does the project site currently contain a water supply well, a drinking water treatment facility,
water main, or other water supply facility, or will the project involve construction of a new facility?
___ Yes ___No. If yes, describe existing and proposed water supply facilities at the project site:
Permitted Existing Avg Project Flow Total
Flow Daily Flow
Capacity of water supply well(s) (gpd) _______ ________ ________ ________
Capacity of water treatment plant (gpd) _______ ________ ________ ________
- 20 -
F. If the project involves a new interbasin transfer of water, which basins are involved, what is the
direction of the transfer, and is the interbasin transfer existing or proposed?
G. Does the project involve:

1. new water service by the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority or other agency of
the Commonwealth to a municipality or water district? ___ Yes ___ No
2. a Watershed Protection Act variance? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, how many acres of
alteration?
3. a non-bridged stream crossing 1,000 or less feet upstream of a public surface drinking
water supply for purpose of forest harvesting activities? ___ Yes ___ No
III. Consistency
Describe the project's consistency with water conservation plans or other plans to enhance water
resources, quality, facilities and services:
WASTEWATER SECTION
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to wastewater (see 301 CMR
B. Does the project require any state permits related to wastewater? ___ Yes X No; if yes,
C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Transportation -- Traffic
Generation Section. If you answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder
of the Wastewater Section below.

A. Describe the volume (in gallons per day) and type of disposal of wastewater generation for
existing and proposed activities at the project site (calculate according to 310 CMR 15.00 for septic
systems or 314 CMR 7.00 for sewer systems):
Discharge of sanitary wastewater ________ ________ ________

Discharge of industrial wastewater ________ ________ ________
TOTAL ________ ________ ________

Discharge to groundwater ________ ________ ________
Discharge to outstanding resource water ________ ________ ________
Discharge to surface water ________ ________ ________
Discharge to municipal or regional wastewater
facility ________ ________ ________
TOTAL ________ ________ ________
B. Is the existing collection system at or near its capacity? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, then describe
the measures to be undertaken to accommodate the project’s wastewater flows:
C. Is the existing wastewater disposal facility at or near its permitted capacity? ___ Yes___ No; if
yes, then describe the measures to be undertaken to accommodate the project’s wastewater flows:
- 21 -
D. Does the project site currently contain a wastewater treatment facility, sewer main, or other
wastewater disposal facility, or will the project involve construction of a new facility? ___ Yes
___ No; if yes, describe as follows:
Permitted Existing Avg Project Flow Total
Daily Flow
Wastewater treatment plant capacity
(in gallons per day) _______ ________ ________ ________
E. If the project requires an interbasin transfer of wastewater, which basins are involved, what is the
direction of the transfer, and is the interbasin transfer existing or new?
(NOTE: Interbasin Transfer approval may be needed if the basin and community where wastewater
will be discharged is different from the basin and community where the source of water supply is
located.)
F. Does the project involve new sewer service by the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
(MWRA) or other Agency of the Commonwealth to a municipality or sewer district? ___ Yes ___ No
G. Is there an existing facility, or is a new facility proposed at the project site for the storage,
treatment, processing, combustion or disposal of sewage sludge, sludge ash, grit, screenings,
wastewater reuse (gray water) or other sewage residual materials? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, what is
the capacity (tons per day):
Storage ________ ________ ________
Treatment ________ ________ ________
Processing ________ ________ ________
Combustion ________ ________ ________
Disposal ________ ________ ________
H. Describe the water conservation measures to be undertaken by the project, and other
wastewater mitigation, such as infiltration and inflow removal.
III. Consistency
A. Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with applicable state, regional, and
local plans and policies related to wastewater management:
B. If the project requires a sewer extension permit, is that extension included in a comprehensive
wastewater management plan? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, indicate the EEA number for the plan
and whether the project site is within a sewer service area recommended or approved in that
plan:
TRANSPORTATION SECTION (TRAFFIC GENERATION)

I. Thresholds / Permit
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to traffic generation (see 301
CMR 11.03(6))? ___ Yes X No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms:
B. Does the project require any state permits related to state-controlled roadways?
___ Yes X No (other than road crossing permit(s) to allow installation of underground
cables, discussed in the following section); if yes, specify which permit:
C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Roadways and Other
Transportation Facilities Section. If you answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill
out the remainder of the Traffic Generation Section below.
- 22 -
II. Traffic Impacts and Permits
A. Describe existing and proposed vehicular traffic generated by activities at the project site:
Number of parking spaces _______ ________ _______
Number of vehicle trips per day _______ ________ _______
ITE Land Use Code(s): _______ ________ _______
B. What is the estimated average daily traffic on roadways serving the site?
Roadway Existing Change Total
1. ___________________ ________ ________ ________
2. ____________________ ________ ________ ________
3. ____________________ ________ ________ ________
C. If applicable, describe proposed mitigation measures on state-controlled roadways that the

project proponent will implement:
D. How will the project implement and/or promote the use of transit, pedestrian and bicycle facilities
and services to provide access to and from the project site?
E. Is there a Transportation Management Association (TMA) that provides transportation demand

management (TDM) services in the area of the project site? ____ Yes ____ No; if yes, describe
if and how will the project will participate in the TMA:
F. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation facilities?
____ Yes ____ No; if yes, generally describe:
G. If the project will penetrate approach airspace of a nearby airport, has the proponent filed a
Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission Airspace Review Form (780 CMR 111.7) and a Notice
of Proposed Construction or Alteration with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) (CFR Title
14 Part 77.13, forms 7460-1 and 7460-2)?
III. Consistency
Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with municipal, regional, state, and federal
plans and policies related to traffic, transit, pedestrian and bicycle transportation facilities and
services:
TRANSPORTATION SECTION (ROADWAYS AND OTHER TRANSPORTATION

FACILITIES)
I. Thresholds
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to roadways or other
transportation facilities (see 301 CMR 11.03(6))? ___ Yes X No; if yes, specify, in
quantitative terms:
E. Does the project require any state permits related to roadways or other transportation
facilities? X Yes ___ No; if yes, specify which permit: Road Crossing Permit
F. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Energy Section. If you
answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Roadways
Section below.
- 23 -
II. Transportation Facility Impacts
A. Describe existing and proposed transportation facilities in the immediate vicinity of the
project site:
The onshore segment of the Vineyard Wind Connector is located primarily along
paved roadways and other existing rights of way to minimize impacts to naturally
vegetated areas. In most cases, these roads are maintained by the Towns of
Yarmouth or Barnstable. The Preferred Route crosses state highways at three
locations: an open trench crossings of Route 28 in Yarmouth, and two crossings
beneath bridge spans of Route 6 at Willow Street in Yarmouth and Mary Dunn Road
in Barnstable.
From a traffic management perspective, there are no road segments of the Preferred
Route that are considered unique or unusual for this type of construction. Prior to
construction, the Proponent will work closely with the municipalities to develop a
Traffic Management Plan (TMP) for construction. The TMP will be submitted for
review and approval by appropriate municipal authorities (typically DPW/Town
Engineer and Police). As part of a Host Community Agreement, Vineyard Wind
proposes to pay for the town to hire a construction monitor to ensure compliance
with the TMP and communicate with the town and address any resident concerns
during construction.
B. Will the project involve any

1. Alteration of bank or terrain (in linear feet)? 0
2. Cutting of living public shade trees (number)? 0
3. Elimination of stone wall (in linear feet)? 0
III. Consistency -- Describe the project's consistency with other federal, state, regional, and local plans
and policies related to traffic, transit, pedestrian and bicycle transportation facilities and services,
including consistency with the applicable regional transportation plan and the Transportation
Improvements Plan (TIP), the State Bicycle Plan, and the State Pedestrian Plan: N/A
ENERGY SECTION
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to energy (see 301 CMR
11.03(7))? X Yes ___ No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms:
301 CMR 11.03(7)(b)(4): Construction of electric transmission lines with a Capacity of 69

or more kV, provided the transmission lines are one or more miles in length along New,
unused, or abandoned right of way.
H. Does the project require any state permits related to energy? X Yes ___ No; if yes, specify
which permit: Energy Facilities Siting Board under MGL c. 164 Sections 69 and 72,
potential Zoning Exemption under MGL c. 40A §3.
I. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Air Quality Section. If you
answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Energy Section
below.
- 24 -
A. Describe existing and proposed energy generation and transmission facilities at the project site:
Capacity of electric generating facility (megawatts) 0 N/A N/A*
Length of fuel line (in miles) 0 0 0
Length of transmission lines (in miles) 0 27 17 27
Capacity of transmission lines (in kilovolts) 0 220 220
* Generating facility (offshore wind array) is located in federal waters.
B. If the project involves construction or expansion of an electric generating facility, what are:
1. the facility's current and proposed fuel source(s)?
2. the facility's current and proposed cooling source(s)?
The Project involves installation of export cables from an offshore wind array being
constructed in Federal waters.
C. If the project involves construction of an electrical transmission line, will it be located on a new,
unused, or abandoned right of way? X Yes ___ No; if yes, please describe:
Although the onshore export cables will be installed within existing roadways and other
rights of way (e.g., railroad ROW, utility ROW), the offshore export cables will be installed
within the marine environment where no existing right of way exists.
D. Describe the project's other impacts on energy facilities and services:
The Project will serve the public interest by delivering up to approximately 800 MW of
power to the New England energy grid, thus increasing reliability on Cape Cod and
making a substantial contribution to meeting individual New England state renewable
energy requirements, including the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ 2016 legislative
mandate that distribution companies jointly and competitively solicit proposals for
offshore wind energy generation for an aggregate nameplate capacity of 1,600 MW.
III. Consistency
Describe the project's consistency with state, municipal, regional, and federal plans and policies for
enhancing energy facilities and services:
The Project is consistent with, and directly advances, the Commonwealth’s policies for the
development of offshore wind energy resources. In 2016, the Commonwealth enacted
legislation specifically intended to bring about the development of offshore wind energy
generation projects such as those that would be enabled by the Vineyard Wind Connector.
Section 83C of Green Communities Act (Chapter 169 of the Acts of 2008), as amended by
Chapter 188 of the Acts of 2016, An Act to Promote Energy Diversity (Section 83C) aims to
establish a commercial-scale offshore wind industry in Massachusetts by procuring cost-
effective long-term contracts for 1,600 MW of offshore wind energy within the next decade.
The 1,600 MW of offshore wind generation procured under Section 83C would generate
zero-carbon energy.
Signed by Governor Baker in August 2016, Section 83C requires the first solicitation of
offshore wind energy to take place no later than June 30, 2017. This will be the first large-
scale competitive solicitation for offshore wind energy in the United States, and it
represents a significant, long-term commitment to offshore wind energy by the
Commonwealth. Section 83C directs the Commonwealth’s electric distribution
17 27 miles is based on approximately 6 miles for the onshore Preferred Route for the export cables and
approximately 21 miles within State waters for the Western Offshore Export Cable Corridor to the Preferred
Landfall Site at New Hampshire Avenue.
- 25 -
companies, 18 the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (DOER), and the
Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (DPU) to propose and approve solicitations
that would range from 400 MW to 1,600 MW in a staggered procurement schedule over ten
years (provided that each solicitation shall occur within 24 months of a previous
solicitation). Offshore wind developers have until December 20, 2017 to submit proposals
for the first solicitation, after which the electric distribution companies will select projects
to proceed to negotiation. Long-term contracts are expected to be submitted for DPU
approval in July 2018. Section 83C requires that each executed long-term contract (a
power purchase agreement, or PPA) be at a lower price than the previous PPA awarded – a
price ratchet.
As issued on June 29, 2017, the electric distribution companies’ initial request for
proposals calls for up to 800 MW of offshore wind energy generation, but requires each
proposal to include a 400-MW alternative. The proposed Vineyard Wind Connector would
deliver up to approximately 800 MW of wind energy to the bulk power grid serving the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The 800 MW could be constructed all at once or in two
400-MW phases. Without new transmission facilities such as the Vineyard Wind
Connector, the offshore wind energy sought by the Act would not be able to reach
Massachusetts.
18 Fitchburg Gas & Electric Light Company (Unitil), Massachusetts Electric Company (National Grid), Nantucket
Electric Company (National Grid), NSTAR Electric Company (Eversource Energy), and Western Massachusetts
Electric Company (Eversource Energy).
- 26 -
AIR QUALITY SECTION
I. Thresholds
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to air quality (see 301 CMR
B. Does the project require any state permits related to air quality? ___ Yes X No; if yes,
C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Solid and Hazardous Waste
Section. If you answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the
Air Quality Section below.

A. Does the project involve construction or modification of a major stationary source (see 310 CMR
7.00, Appendix A)? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, describe existing and proposed emissions (in tons
per day) of: Existing Change Total
Particulate matter ________ ________ ________

Carbon monoxide ________ ________ ________
Sulfur dioxide ________ ________ ________
Volatile organic compounds ________ ________ ________
Oxides of nitrogen ________ ________ ________
Lead ________ ________ ________
Any hazardous air pollutant ________ ________ ________
Carbon dioxide ________ ________ ________
B. Describe the project's other impacts on air resources and air quality, including noise impacts:
III. Consistency
A. Describe the project's consistency with the State Implementation Plan:
B. Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with other federal, state, regional, and
local plans and policies related to air resources and air quality:
SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE SECTION

A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to solid or hazardous waste (see
301 CMR 11.03(9))? ___ Yes X No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms:
B. Does the project require any state permits related to solid and hazardous waste?
___ Yes X No; if yes, specify which permit:
C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Historical and Archaeological
Resources Section. If you answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the
remainder of the Solid and Hazardous Waste Section below.
- 27 -
A. Is there any current or proposed facility at the project site for the storage, treatment, processing,
combustion or disposal of solid waste? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, what is the volume (in tons per day)
of the capacity:
Storage ________ ________ ________
Treatment, processing ________ ________ ________
Combustion ________ ________ ________
Disposal ________ ________ ________
B. Is there any current or proposed facility at the project site for the storage, recycling, treatment or
disposal of hazardous waste? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, what is the volume (in tons or gallons per day)
of the capacity:
Storage ________ ________ ________
Recycling ________ ________ ________
Treatment ________ ________ ________
Disposal ________ ________ ________
C. If the project will generate solid waste (for example, during demolition or construction), describe
alternatives considered for re-use, recycling, and disposal:
D. If the project involves demolition, do any buildings to be demolished contain asbestos?

___ Yes ___ No
E. Describe the project's other solid and hazardous waste impacts (including indirect impacts):
III. Consistency
Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with the State Solid Waste Master Plan:
HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES SECTION

I. Thresholds / Impacts
A. Have you consulted with the Massachusetts Historical Commission? X Yes __ No; if yes,
attach correspondence. An archaeology permit has been filed for the Project. For project
sites involving lands under water, have you consulted with the Massachusetts Board of
Underwater Archaeological Resources? X Yes ____ No; if yes, attach correspondence. See
Attachment E for correspondence from MBUAR.
B. Is any part of the project site a historic structure, or a structure within a historic district, in either
case listed in the State Register of Historic Places or the Inventory of Historic and Archaeological
Assets of the Commonwealth? ___ Yes X No; if yes, does the project involve the demolition
of all or any exterior part of such historic structure? ___ Yes ___ No; if yes, please describe:
C. Is any part of the project site an archaeological site listed in the State Register of Historic Places
or the Inventory of Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth? X Yes ___
No; if yes, does the project involve the destruction of all or any part of such archaeological site?
X Yes ___ No; if yes, please describe:
The Preferred Route (PR) and Noticed Alternative (NA) each pass through and adjacent to
previously recorded archaeological sites:
The PR passes through 19-BN-959 and 19-BN-74.

PR Variant 1 passes through 19-BN-959, 19-BN-74 and by 19-BN-958.
PR Variant 2 passes through 19-BN-959, 19-BN-74, 19-BN-960, 19-BN-853, and 19-BN-961.
PR Variant 3 passes through 19-BN-74.
PR Variant 4 passes through 19-BN-959 and 19-BN-74.
- 28 -
The NA passes by 19-BN-682, 19-BN-623, and 19-BN-671 and through 19-BN-675.
NA Variant 1 passes by 19-BN-682, 19-BN-829, and 19-BN-669 and through 19-BN-675.
D. If you answered "No" to all parts of both questions A, B and C, proceed to the Attachments and
Certifications Sections. If you answered "Yes" to any part of either question A or question B, fill
out the remainder of the Historical and Archaeological Resources Section below.
II. Impacts
Describe and assess the project's impacts, direct and indirect, on listed or inventoried historical and
archaeological resources:
The Project will involve trench and manhole excavation in primarily previously disturbed
roadways that will pass by and through documented archaeological sites. The Project will be
predominantly in existing roadways and other rights of way (a railroad ROW and utility ROW)
in which prior excavation, filling, grading, and construction activities have already created
disturbance. The proposed routes and variants will be examined for archaeological impacts
through an archaeological reconnaissance survey. Variant 3 of the Preferred Route utilizes a
MassDOT-proposed bike path corridor which has not been subject to previous excavation or
disturbance. Vineyard Wind is in active communication with the appropriate offices of
MassDOT to further develop this concept; coordination of construction schedules and
permitting will be addressed within sufficient time to be considered as part of this
application, if necessary (or the variant will be removed from consideration).
A portion of the Preferred Route passes through the Old Kings Highway Regional Historic
District/BRN.O. This section largely utilizes an existing utility ROW as well as paved
roadways and a railroad ROW. In addition, a portion of the Preferred Route passes by the
Yarmouth Campground Historic District/YAR.B Since the proposed export cables will be
underground, no visual impacts from them are anticipated. Furthermore, the proposed
substation will be too far distant from historic properties through intervening trees and
structures to create any adverse visual effects.
In addition, the proposed substation is not anticipated to have adverse visual impacts to
nearby historic properties due to intervening structures and vegetation.
III. Consistency
Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with federal, state, regional, and local
plans and policies related to preserving historical and archaeological resources:
Further consultation will be undertaken with the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC)
pursuant to Chapter 254 (State Register Review) and MEPA. An archaeological permit for a
reconnaissance-level survey has been submitted for examination of potential affects to
archaeological sites along the Preferred Route and Noticed Alternative as well as all variants.
Public Archaeology Laboratory (PAL) will file the permit application and act as archaeology
consultant on the Project, and will coordinate with Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO)
staff to arrange for tribal monitors, if requested. In addition, local historical commissions will
be consulted as needed regarding results of the archaeological survey and potential effects.
A report detailing potential marine archaeological impacts and all other potential impacts
under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act will be submitted to the MHC
under a separate cover.
- 29 -
CERTIFICATIONS:
1. The Public Notice of Environmental Review has been/will be published in the following newspapers
in accordance with 301 CMR 11.15(1):
Cape Cod Times, December 19, 2017
2. This form has been circulated to Agencies and Persons in accordance with 301 CMR 11.16(2).
Signatures:
12/14/2017 12/14/2017
Date Signature of Responsible Officer Date Signature of person preparing
or Proponent ENF (if different from above)
Erich Stephens, Holly Carlson Johnston

Chief Development Officer Epsilon Associates, Inc.
Vineyard Wind LLC 3 Mill & Main Place, Suite 250
700 Pleasant Street, Suite 510 Maynard, MA 01754
New Bedford, MA 02740 (978)897-7100
Attachment A
Project Narrative
ATTACHMENT A PROJECT NARRATIVE, VINEYARD WIND CONNECTOR
Vineyard Wind LLC (Vineyard Wind, the Company or Proponent) is in the process of permitting an
up to approximately 800-megawatt (MW) offshore wind project in federal waters under the
jurisdiction of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). Major elements will include a
wind turbine array, offshore electrical service platforms, offshore transmission to shore, onshore
underground transmission, and an onshore substation that will step down transmission voltage for
interconnection with the electrical grid. All proposed elements will be subject to review under
federal permitting and the BOEM process. Massachusetts reviews, including those by the Energy
Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) and other state, regional, and local entities, will focus on the elements
proposed within state boundaries, including most of the offshore export cables, all of the onshore
underground cables, and the proposed onshore substation; these elements are referred to as the
“Vineyard Wind Connector” (i.e., the “Project” for purposes of state review).
1.1 Introduction
The purpose of the Vineyard Wind Connector is to connect a large-scale wind energy
project within the federally-designated Wind Energy Area on the Outer Continental Shelf
offshore of Massachusetts to the New England bulk power grid. The Project will be a major
step in meeting the Commonwealth’s growing demand for clean energy. More specifically,
the Project will serve the public interest by delivering up to approximately 800 MW of
power to the New England energy grid, thus making a substantial contribution to meeting
individual New England state renewable energy requirements, including the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ 2016 legislative mandate that distribution companies
jointly and competitively solicit proposals for offshore wind energy generation for an
aggregate nameplate capacity of 1,600 MW.
Routing for the proposed offshore and onshore underground export cables between the
Proponent’s Wind Development Area (i.e., the northern half of the Vineyard Wind Lease
Area) and Barnstable Switching Station is shown on a United States Geological Survey
(USGS) quadrangle base map (see Figure 1-1, USGS Locus Map). Figure 1-2 shows the
proposed onshore routing on a MassGIS aerial photo. The onshore Preferred Route (6 miles
long) passes through the towns of Yarmouth and Barnstable, while the onshore Noticed
Alternative (5.4 miles long) is exclusively within Barnstable. Figure 1-3 shows two
alternative Offshore Export Cable Corridors (a Western Offshore Export Cable Corridor and
an Eastern Offshore Export Cable Corridor) on an aerial photo base. These two corridors
were identified through a process that included consultations with the Massachusetts Ocean
Team and consideration of a number of factors, such as the resources and guidance
provided by the 2015 Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan (OMP), bathymetric data,
navigation corridors, and a preliminary geophysical survey that Vineyard Wind performed
in August of 2017 along more than 125 miles (200 km) of potential offshore route segments.
Based on that information, both Offshore Export Cable Corridors are feasible options for
reaching the potential Landfall Sites, both avoid and minimize impacts to mapped SSU
4771/Vineyard Wind Connector 1 Attachment A: Project Narrative

areas, and both have generally equivalent environmental impacts. Consistent with the
approach taken in the federal permitting process, in which Vineyard Wind has requested
BOEM approval of the Offshore Export Cable Corridors shown in Figure 1-3 as part of a
“project envelope” allowing for optimization of cost, environmental protection, and
reliability within a preapproved “envelope,” Vineyard Wind requests that the MEPA Office
and EFSB approve both corridors as buildable variants, though the export cable would only
be constructed in one of them. 1
Of the two offshore corridor alternatives, the Western Export Cable Corridor to the preferred
landing passes through approximately 21 miles of state waters, and the Eastern Export Cable
Corridor to the preferred landing passes through approximately 19 miles of state waters. 2
The balance of this section presents an overview of the Vineyard Wind Connector. For
general background, this section also includes a description of the offshore wind array in
federal waters.
1.2 Offshore Wind, Background
1.2.1 Background on Offshore Wind Lease Areas
Via a public stakeholder and desk-top screening 3 process which began in 2009, the BOEM
(within the United States Department of the Interior) has evaluated areas along the Atlantic
Coast with respect to potential suitability for offshore wind development. Working in
conjunction with the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL), BOEM has identified a series of suitable tracts on the Outer Continental Shelf from
South Carolina north to Massachusetts.
The location of the Massachusetts offshore wind lease areas, including the Vineyard Wind
Lease Area, was determined through a process that involved significant public input over a
period of approximately six years. The process began with the formation of a
Massachusetts-BOEM task force, composed of representatives from many federal, state,
1
A more detailed geophysical survey corresponding to the Western and Eastern Offshore Export Cable
Corridors is planned for the spring/summer of 2018. The Survey and Sampling Plan for this detailed
survey will be finalized in consultation with the Massachusetts Ocean Team and BOEM. Results from
the 2018 survey will enable the Proponent to further refine the Offshore Export Cable Corridors.
However, the Proponent requests the ability to select a primary offshore route when an installation
contractor is selected. This will ensure the most up-to-date, commercially-available installation
techniques can be applied, thereby minimizing environmental impacts and costs by using the most
recent data available from the dynamic marine environment.
2
The total lengths of the Western and Eastern Export Cable Corridors to the Preferred Landfall Site from the
Wind Development Area in federal waters are approximately 41 miles (66 kilometers [km]) and 45 miles
(72 km), respectively.
3
Conducted by the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

tribal, and local government agencies, as well as public stakeholder meetings, starting in
2009. As a result of this initial planning, BOEM identified a preliminary Massachusetts
Wind Energy Area (WEA) of approximately 2,224 square nautical miles. 4
BOEM then published a Request for Interest (RFI) on December 29, 2010. This RFI
requested expressions of commercial interest from potential developers, as well as any
information from the public relevant to determining the suitability of BOEM’s WEA for wind
energy project development. BOEM then provided for a second period of public comment
which ended on April 18, 2011. Responses from 10 companies (including Vineyard
Wind/Vineyard Power) were received, along with 260 public comments.
After careful consideration of the public comments as well as input from BOEM’s
intergovernmental Massachusetts Renewable Energy Task Force, BOEM extensively
modified the BOEM WEA in response to stakeholder concerns. For example, BOEM
decided to exclude certain areas identified as important habitats that could be adversely
affected if ultimately developed for wind turbines. BOEM also excluded an area of high sea
duck concentration, as well as an area of high fisheries value so as reduce potential conflict
with commercial and recreational fishing activities. The distance from the BOEM WEA to
the nearest shore was also extended, so as to further reduce any possible viewshed impacts.
These extensive revisions in response to public comment resulted in BOEM’s WEA being
reduced in size to approximately 40% percent of the size of the originally proposed WEA.
On February 6, 2012, BOEM published a “Call for Information and Nominations” (the Call)
for areas within the revised BOEM WEA, and that same month BOEM also published a
Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the “Call Area”. The EA
was made available for public review on November 12, 2012, a revised EA was issued on
June 4, 2014, and BOEM issued a “Finding of No Significant Impact” (FONSI) which
concluded that reasonably foreseeable environmental effects associated with the
commercial wind lease issuance would not significantly impact the environment. The EA
and FONSI were limited to the potential issuance of leases; a project subsequently
proposed for a specific lease area would be the subject of a more detailed environmental
review. On December 20, 2017, the Proponent will file a Scoping Document initiating
Federal National Environmental Policy Act review for the Vineyard Wind Project.
On January 29, 2015, BOEM held a competitive lease sale, conducted as an auction, for the
four lease areas within the Massachusetts WEA. While the lease areas were to be awarded
to the highest cash bid, prior to the auction BOEM awarded Vineyard Wind 5 a discount to
the bid amounts it would have to pay, in recognition of the Community Benefits Agreement
that had been entered into between Vineyard Wind and the local, community-based non-
4
2,941.2 square miles, or 1,882,393 acres.
5
At the time of the auction, Vineyard Wind LLC was called Offshore MW LLC

profit cooperative, Vineyard Power. Vineyard Wind won Lease Area OCS-A-0501 in the
auction, and another bidder won a lease area immediately adjacent to the west. The other
two available lease areas within the Massachusetts WEA, south of Nantucket, were not
awarded.
In a parallel process working with the state of Rhode Island, BOEM awarded a lease area to
a third bidder, located due south of Rhode Island. These areas are shown on Figure 1-4.
Vineyard Wind’s more than 166,886-acre (approximately 261-square-mile, or 675-square-

kilometer) Lease Area is approximately 10 miles (16 kilometers [km]) wide and 30 miles (48
km) long. 6 As shown on Figure 1-4, the long axis of the Vineyard Wind Lease Area is
oriented northeast to southwest. At its nearest point, the Lease Area is approximately 14.4
miles (23 km) from the southeast corner of Martha’s Vineyard, and a similar distance to
Nantucket; the Lease Area is approximately 34 miles (54.7 km) offshore from the Cape Cod
mainland. The northern half of the 261-square-mile Lease Area, termed the Wind
Development Area, can accommodate the up to 800-MW Project.
In the opinion of Vineyard Wind, its Wind Development Area is as good as any offshore
wind site in the world. It has high wind speeds 7, excellent seafloor conditions, moderate
depths, and reasonable proximity to multiple grid interconnection locations in an area of
high electrical load and need for new generation capacity.
1.2.2 Massachusetts Energy Legislation (An Act to Promote Energy Diversity)
The Act to Promote Energy Diversity was passed by the legislature in July 2016 and by
signed by Governor Baker on August 8, 2016. The Act is intended to ensure a diversified
electrical energy portfolio for the Commonwealth while strengthening the Massachusetts
clean energy economy, and to better ensure that the greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction
requirements under the Commonwealth’s 2008 Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA) are
achieved. The offshore wind legislation is also expected to spur the development of a
major U.S. offshore wind industry, an industry in which Massachusetts is actively working
to become a leader and major player. An offshore wind industry would bring significant
job creation and economic activity to the south coast of the Commonwealth.
6
As shown on Figure 1-4, the perimeter of the Lease area is irregular or “sawtoothed” in configuration
hence the overall area is less than that of a true 10 by 30 mile rectangle.
7
Initial metocean data collected by AWS Truepower, working in connection with the MassCEC and
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute (WHOI) has a mean wind speed @ 100m of 10.3 meters per
second (23 miles per hour) (Oct 2016-June 2017).

The Act requires the Commonwealth’s utilities, working with Massachusetts Department of
Energy Resources (DOER), to solicit on a competitive basis and, if economic proposals are
received, award long-term Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) for approximately 1,600
MW of offshore wind by June 30, 2027. These PPAs are intended to enable project
developers to finance and construct the offshore wind projects.
In accordance with the Act, the first solicitation or Request for Proposals (RFP) for
commercial scale offshore wind was issued on June 29, 2017. The RFP requires each
competitor to offer a 400 MW option. Competitors may also offer alternative proposals of
up to 800 MW as well as proposals for as little as 200 MW. Lastly, competitors are
expected to address an “expandable transmission” option. Responses to the RFP are due on
December 20, 2017. Initial award selection(s) for long-term PPA(s) are expected in the
spring of 2018. Assuming that only a portion of the 1,600 MW of offshore wind capacity is
awarded in this initial procurement, subsequent RFPs will be issued. The outcome of this
procurement process will influence the size and buildout schedule of the Project. This
filing addresses Vineyard Wind’s proposals up to 800 MW.
1.2.3 Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan
Initially released in 2009 and subsequently revised in 2015, the Massachusetts Ocean
Management Plan (OMP) creates a framework for managing uses and activities within the
state’s ocean waters, including offshore wind projects and associated transmission.
Jurisdiction of the OMP covers the area from the seaward limit of state waters (generally
three miles offshore) to a nearshore boundary that lies approximately 0.3 miles seaward
from Mean High Water.
A large part of the planning process for the OMP was devoted to mapping and evaluating
natural resources and existing water-dependent uses (e.g., navigation and fishing), and
identifying which of these resources and uses may be sensitive to different types of projects,
such as transmission cables. The OMP identifies the following special, sensitive, and
unique (SSU) resources that must be addressed for cable projects: (1) core habitat of the
North Atlantic right whale, fin, and humpback whales; (2) hard/complex seafloor; (3)
eelgrass; and (4) intertidal flats. In August/September 2017, the Company performed
preliminary marine surveys to identify feasible routes for the proposed offshore export
cables that would avoid and minimize impacts to these resources.
The OMP identifies some preliminary corridors for offshore wind transmission cables that
are in presumptive compliance with siting standards of the OMP. The Company considered
these corridors while assessing offshore routing alternatives, but they were unsuitable for
the Project given that water depths within the mapped preliminary corridors are frequently
too shallow, a landing in Barnstable or Yarmouth is needed to minimize routing distance
(mapped preliminary corridors do not include a Landfall Site in those locations), and the
Project is proposed to cut through federal waters in Nantucket Sound to minimize the
distance of the Offshore Export Cable Corridor.

1.3 Project Overview
The following sections describe the proposed Vineyard Wind Connector, including for
background a brief description of the Vineyard Wind Project’s Wind Development Area in
federal waters and more detailed discussions of the offshore and onshore transmission
cables as well as proposed substation infrastructure. Portions of the Project within state
geographic jurisdiction, and hence the focus of this document, include the entire onshore
route and the portion of the Offshore Export Cable Corridor in state waters (see Figure 1-1).
After crossing into state waters between Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket and continuing
north, the proposed offshore export cables will pass through the area of federal waters
located within Nantucket Sound before re-entering state waters and making landfall. To
avoid any confusing fragmentation of the discussion of offshore transmission, the pocket of
federal waters within Nantucket Sound is included in the description of offshore export
cable routing.
1.3.1 Offshore Wind Array (Federal Waters, non jurisdictional, for background)
Vineyard Wind is developing an up to 800 MW offshore wind project for its Wind
Development Area (the northern half of its Lease Area) in federal waters. The federal
project was formally initiated more than two years ago and is currently in a very active data
collection, environmental analysis, engineering, and economic optimization phase. These
efforts will support preparation of the major federal (BOEM) application submittals as well
as the Proponent’s response to the June 29, 2017 RFP for long-term PPAs. As required and
described above, the Proponent’s bid for a PPA will be submitted on December 20, 2017.
The offshore Wind Development Area is being developed and permitted at the federal level
using an “Envelope” concept. The Envelope concept allows Vineyard Wind to properly
define and bracket the wind array’s characteristics for purposes of environmental review
and permitting while maintaining a reasonable degree of flexibility with respect to selection
and purchase of key components (e.g., wind turbine generators, foundations, offshore
cables, and offshore substations). Further, the envelope approach will allow the Project to
optimize cost, environmental protection, and reliability.
Key elements of the Project, as well as the associated Wind Development Area in federal
waters, as bounded by the BOEM Envelope, are as follows:
♦ Project Size/Construction Schedule: up to 800 MW.
♦ Wind Turbine Generators, entirely within federal waters: The WTGs being
considered by Vineyard Wind range from approximately 8 to 10 MW. Up to 106
turbine locations are being permitted federally. Depending on the WTG selected,
rotor diameter could range from 538 to 591 feet (164-180 meters), while hub height
could range from 358 to 297 feet (109-121 meters). The maximum height will be

627 to 696 feet (191-212 meters). In consultation with local fishermen and the U.S.
Coast Guard, northwest/southeast-oriented corridors through the WTG array have
been maintained in the design.
♦ Regional Emissions Reductions: The WTGs for this Project will be among the most
efficient machines currently demonstrated for offshore use. It is expected that the
WTGs will be capable of operating with an annual capacity factor in excess of
45%. 8 Assuming that an up to 800-MW Project is built, machines of this efficiency
and capability would offset CO2 emissions from the ISO New England system by
approximately 1,680,000 tons per year (tpy). 9 In addition, NOx emissions across
the New England grid would be expected to decrease by more than 1,030 tons
annually, with SO2 emissions decreasing by approximately 880 tpy.
♦ Monopile and Jacket Foundations, entirely within federal waters: Foundations will
be monopiles or jackets.
♦ Scour Protection, entirely within federal waters: All WTG foundations will have
scour protection consisting of a layer of stone laid around the pile(s).
♦ Inter-array Cables, entirely within federal waters: 66-kV inter-array cables will
connect radial “strings” of 8 to 10 WTGs to a shared offshore substation, or
Electrical Service Platform (ESP).
♦ Electric Service Platforms (ESPs), entirely within federal waters: The offshore
substations, or ESPs, will include step-up transformers (66 kV to 220 kV) and other
electrical gear. The ESPs are expected to be located along the northwest edge of the
lease area. Both conventional and light-weight ESPs are being considered and
analyzed by the Proponent. If conventional ESPs are used, there will be one per
400-MW increment of WTGs. If light-weight ESPs are selected, there would likely
be two per 400-MW increment, installed on either a monopile or jacket foundation.
♦ Interlink, entirely within federal waters: The full up to 800-MW Project will require
up to three offshore cables; under this scenario, the full 800 MW would be installed
with two 200-MW offshore cables and one 400-MW offshore cable. If developed in
phases, the first 400 MW would be installed with two 200-MW offshore cables, and
the second 400 MW would be installed with a single 400-MW cable; the second
400 MW of capacity will also require an “interlink” with the initial phase. The
8
Capacity factor is standard industry measure. A power plant operating at 100% load for 8,760 hours per
year would have a capacity factor of 100%. The same plant operating at 100% load for 4,380 hours per
year would have a capacity factor of 50%.
9
Emissions reductions calculated using BOEM’s eGRID, as updated on June 27, 2017, and a 45% Project
capacity factor.

interlink would be a 220-kV cable connecting the offshore ESPs, thus providing
additional reliability in the event of an export cable issue; the interlink would be
entirely within federal waters.
1.3.2 Offshore Transmission Cables
The wind array in federal waters will connect to the onshore electrical grid via up to three
new 220 kV three-core AC offshore transmission cable systems (export cable systems) that
will travel north from the Wind Development Area in federal waters, crossing into state
waters and then passing through a pocket of federal waters again in Nantucket Sound
before re-entering state waters and making landfall on the Cape Cod mainland. The
offshore cables will be installed along a single Export Cable Corridor, but with sufficient
separation (typically 50 to 100 meters between pairs of cables, and up to 500 meters
between a pair of cables and a third cable) to allow for safe installation and any future
repair work, if required.
Each offshore export cable will be comprised of a three-core 220 kV AC cable for power
transmission and one fiber optic cable for communication, temperature measurement, and
protection of the high-voltage system (see Figure 1-5). An 800-MW Project would require
up to three offshore export cables; under this scenario, the full 800 MW would be installed
with one 400-MW offshore cable and two 200-MW offshore cables. 10 Potential phasing of
the 800 MW is described in more detail in Section 1.9. This design would provide
sufficient redundancy to ensure reliable operations, and would also ensure sufficient
transmission capacity under conditions whereby full wind speeds are sustained over a long
duration of time.
Each 220 kV armored offshore cable will be approximately 10 inches (25.5 centimeters) in
diameter with a weight of approximately 64 pounds per linear foot (95 kilograms per
meter). As shown on Figure 1-5, each offshore cable will include three copper or
aluminum conductors, with each conductor encapsulated by solid cross-linked
polyethylene (XLPE) insulation. Water-blocking sheathing will be used to prevent water
infiltration. The three insulated conductors will be twisted with a synthetic filler between
the conductors, and the twisted or bundled conductors will then be wrapped in wire
armoring and finally encased in a tough outer sheath. This AC offshore cable system will
not contain any fluids, and has been used extensively on European offshore wind projects.
The proposed offshore Export Cable Corridors are shown on Figure 1-3. Early in Project
development, chart reviews and initial field data were used to identify potential routes from
the north end of the Wind Development Area to possible Landfall Sites in the Towns of
Yarmouth and Barnstable. The potential routes head north between Martha’s Vineyard and
10
It is possible that the up to 800-MW Project will only require two offshore cables, in which case each
would have a 400-MW capacity.

Nantucket via Muskeget Channel, then continue northward on either side of Horseshoe
Shoal. As the cables approach the Cape Cod shoreline, several possible routes were
identified based on water depths, mapped resource areas, and potential Landfall Sites.
More recently, in August/September 2017, Vineyard Wind conducted an initial offshore
geophysical and environmental survey work along more than 125 miles (200 km) of
potential offshore route segments. Routing for the portion of the offshore cable proposed in
state waters is the product of the Company’s technical analysis of conditions for cable
installation, cost, as well as consultations with the Massachusetts Ocean Team and
consideration of the Massachusetts OMP.
Within state waters, the length of the Western Offshore Export Cable Corridor to the
Landfall Site for the Preferred Route is approximately 21 miles (34 km), while its length to
the Landfall Site for the Noticed Alternative is approximately 20 miles (33 km). For the
Eastern Offshore Export Cable Corridor, its length within state waters to the Preferred
landing is approximately 19 miles (31 km).
In general, there are two possible methodologies for installation at the cable landings, each
appropriate for different situations:
♦ Horizontal directional drilling (HDD), which is appropriate when needed to avoid

sensitive habitat or environmental resources; and
♦ Open-trench installation, which is more appropriate in highly-developed areas

where the ability to complete installation quickly is important. The construction
footprint for an open-trench installation can often be smaller than for HDD, which
can sometimes mean it is the preferable method depending on the presence of
sensitive habitat and environmental resources. In addition, final cable burial depth
using open-trench is shallower than using HDD, which can allow the cable to
operate more efficiently due to thermal rating issues.
At the preferred New Hampshire Avenue Landfall Site, open trenching and HDD are both
options for accomplishing the transition from offshore to onshore areas. The Coastal Beach
at the Preferred landing is bordered by two existing bulkheads as well as a deteriorating
concrete seawall, and as such, open trench is a feasible option for installation in this
location. Open trenching is an appealing possibility in this location for a number of
reasons, including technical cable benefits, a shorter construction timeline (which will
minimize impacts to residents), and lower costs.
At the Noticed Alternative landing at Covell’s Beach, and at the Variant 4 landing at Great
Island, only HDD is proposed.
Regardless of whether HDD or open trench installation is utilized, the physical connection
between the offshore and onshore export cables will be made in an underground concrete
vault(s), accessed via two or three manholes covered by secure metal covers. From the
surface, the only visible components of the cable system will be the manhole covers. The

necessary work at the Landfall Site would be performed in the off-season, or as otherwise
permitted by the relevant agencies, to minimize any disturbance to area residents or
visitors.
1.3.3 Onshore Export Cables
For the onshore stretch of transmission, each three-core (three-conductor) offshore export
cable will transition to three separate single-core 220 kV cables consisting of a copper or
aluminum conductor covered by solid XLPE insulation and a fiber optic cable that will be
installed from the landfall site to the onshore substation; this transition will occur at the
vaults proposed at the Landfall Sites. Therefore, since the Project will consist of up to three
offshore export cables (each with three cores), it could contain up to nine onshore export
cables and three fiber optic cables.
Each onshore cable will be comprised of a single core (copper or aluminum) encapsulated
by a triple-extruded and dry-cured XLPE solid insulation. A metallic sheath and a non-
metallic outer jacket will wrap around this layer. These last layers have the main function
to avoid the direct contact of the conductor to the ground, and to control and minimize the
thermal and electrical losses. The diameter of each onshore cable could be up to 6 inches
(15 cm), and will weigh approximately 16.4 pounds per foot (24.4 kg/m); the cables will not
contain any fluids. A manufacturer’s cutaway of the onshore cable is provided as Figure 1-
6; three of these cables will make up a single 220 kV AC circuit.
Each onshore export cable will have its own conduit within a concrete duct bank that will
be installed along the entire length of the onshore cable route. This duct bank, shown in a
typical cross-section on Figure 1-7, will be an array of PVC pipes or sleeves encased in
concrete. Up to twelve approximately 10-inch-diameter conduits spaced approximately 12
inches apart will be installed within the duct bank to accommodate onshore conductors and
spare conduits, with additional smaller conduits for fiber optic communications cables;
grounding will be accommodated within the duct bank trench.
For an estimated 59% of the Preferred Route, these conduits will be arrayed three conduits
wide by four conduits deep, with the total duct bank measuring four feet wide and five feet
deep; for the remaining approximately 41% of the Preferred Route, the array will be six
conduits wide by two conduits deep, with the total duct bank measuring seven feet wide
and two-and-a-half feet deep. To accommodate the 3x4 duct bank array, which will be
predominantly used where the route follows roadway layouts, the top of the trench will be
approximately 10 feet wide. At the Landfall Site, the area under Willow Street, the crossing
beneath railroad tracks, and within the utility ROW, the duct bank layout, and hence the
excavated trench dimensions, will vary.
The bundled duct bank will have a typical depth of cover of three feet; however, if required
due to existing conditions (e.g., at certain utility crossings), the minimum cover will be 2.5
feet. The typical duct bank layout as shown in Figure 1-7 may be modified in areas where

dictated by existing conditions, such as the presence of culverts. For example, at one point
in the onshore routing, Thornton Brook crosses Higgins Crowell Road in a 12-inch-diameter
duct bank installed more than eight feet below the crown of the road. In this instance, a
two-foot high, seven-foot-wide duct bank would be installed over the existing culvert,
maintaining the desired three feet of cover. If an existing culvert is not deep enough to
allow a duct bank section to be installed above, then the duct bank will be installed
beneath the culvert while providing sufficient support.
Once the duct bank is in place, the cables (one cable per conduit) will be pulled into place
from underground vaults, which will be spaced at intervals of approximately 1,500 to 3,000
feet, depending on route characteristics. Similar XLPE cable systems have been installed by
Massachusetts utilities in several urban and suburban locations in recent years. Installation
of the in-road underground duct bank and export cables within public roadways will be
performed during the off-season, or as otherwise permitted by the relevant agency, to
minimize traffic disruption. This type of construction typically advances at the rate of 100
to 200 feet per day.
Once the proposed duct bank and associated onshore export cables arrive at the proposed
substation site (described in Section 1.3.4), the voltage will step down from 220 kV to 115
kV.
From the proposed substation, 115 kV onshore export cables (78-mm-diameter, 21.5 kg/m)
will continue for approximately 0.1 miles to the Barnstable Switching Station, where they
will interconnect with the electrical grid.
A thorough routing analysis was performed to identify the Preferred Route and a Noticed
Alternative for the proposed Project. A map showing both onshore routes, and associated
variants, is provided as Figure 1-2. The Preferred Route and Noticed Alternative are both
described geographically in Section 1.5.
1.3.4 Substation
The Project will require a land-side substation where the 220 kV export cables will step
down to 115 kV in preparation for interconnection at the existing Barnstable Switching
Station. The Project’s onshore substation site is located on the eastern portion of an
approximately 13.1-acre previously developed site within the Independence Park
commercial/industrial area in Barnstable (see Figure 1-8). It consists of approximately 6.35
acres of mostly wooded land, but also includes some existing parking areas and a small
building formerly associated with a larger structure on the western portion of the parcel that
once served as the distribution headquarters for the Cape Cod Times. The portion of the
parcel that will be leased for the substation site is bordered to the north by the Barnstable
Switching Station, to the west by the former Cape Cod Times building, to the south by

Independence Drive, and to the east by an existing approximately 150- to 200-foot-wide
electric transmission corridor with a number of 115 kV overhead lines on H-frame and
single pole support structures.
The buried duct bank will enter the Project substation site either by way of an access road
that provides access to the electric transmission corridor from Mary Dunne Road or from
Independence Drive. Vehicular access to the substation will be from the west by an
existing driveway that serves the former Cape Cod Times building at 40 Communication
Way. The site location is at the east end of an industrial park development called
Independence Park, with several commercial/industrial properties located nearby.
The Project’s onshore substation will house two 220/115-kV “stepdown” transformers,
switchgear, and other necessary equipment. The Proponent has considered both air-
insulated substation (AIS) and more compact gas-insulated substation (GIS) designs. An AIS
is the typical substation design whereby the spacing of equipment allows for the ambient air
to provide sufficient insulation; a GIS is enclosed within a structure that uses sulphur hexa
fluoride (SF6) gas to insulate the substation equipment. Both types of designs are used
extensively at substations around the northeast.
While the AIS requires more space in terms of electrical infrastructure, a GIS can be much
more expensive than an AIS, and the Company has determined that the substation site
could accommodate an AIS for the up to 800 MW Project. A conceptual level schematic
drawing of the 800-MW substation is provided as Figure 1-9.
The Project’s onshore substation site is located in the Barnstable Industrial (IND) zoning
district, the Ground Water (GW) Protection Overlay District, and the Ground-Mounted
Solar Photovoltaic Overlay District. A portion of the property is located in the Wellhead
(WH) Protection Overlay district. IND Zoning provides for a 30-foot maximum building
height, and setbacks ranging from 60 feet (front) to 30 feet (side and rear). The GW and
WH districts also include limitations on hazardous substance use, generation, storage, and
disposal, as well as limits on areas of disturbance and impervious surface.
The substation will be designed and built to provide full containment of any fluids in
substation equipment. While this additional protection is not a standard practice given the
low probability of any leakage, the Proponent has opted to commit to such containment at
this time, given the sensitive nature of the Cape Cod watershed and based on consultations
with local officials and comments at public meetings.

1.4 Existing Infrastructure in Routing Area
1.4.1 Transmission Infrastructure
Existing transmission infrastructure was assessed and considered for the routing analysis.
Existing offshore cables in the Project vicinity are shown on Figure 1-10.
On the onshore side, 345 kV transmission extends onto Cape Cod before terminating at the
West Barnstable Substation, while 115 kV transmission extends past West Barnstable
Substation to Barnstable Switching Station before continuing further onto the Cape.
Eversource Energy is the electric provider on Cape Cod, and both of the substations in
Barnstable are Eversource-owned.
On the offshore side, existing offshore cables in the overall routing study area include
transmission cables associated with the Block Island Wind Farm, trans-Atlantic
communication cables, three electric transmission and communications cables that connect
Martha’s Vineyard to the mainland in Falmouth, and two electric transmission cables
extending to Nantucket. A segment of submarine cable also provides power and data
connection to an academic offshore research platform south of Martha’s Vineyard.
The Offshore Export Cable Corridor to the preferred Landfall Site in Yarmouth would cross
the westernmost of the two existing offshore cables to Nantucket; this is also the case for the
Variant 4 Landfall Site in Yarmouth. The onshore transmission routes of the two cable
systems would not intersect. The Offshore Export Cable Corridor to the Noticed Alternative
Landfall Site in Barnstable would not cross any existing offshore cables.
1.4.2 Marine Infrastructure
Nantucket Sound and the waters off the south shore of Cape Cod contain existing marine
infrastructure that was considered during the offshore routing analysis. These features are
reported on nautical charts jointly issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the National Ocean
Service, and include features such as navigation channels, anchorage areas, and ordinance
disposal sites. For example, a navigation channel maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, which is utilized by Hyannis ferries, enters Lewis Bay parallel to the Offshore
Export Cable Corridor that would make landfall at the New Hampshire Avenue Landfall Site
of the Preferred Alternative. Existing marine infrastructure is shown on a NOAA chart on
Figure 1-11.
1.5 Summary of Routing
The routing analysis identifies a Preferred Route and a Noticed Alternative for an up to 800
MW Project. Both routes are described geographically in this subsection.

1.5.1 Onshore Preferred Route
The Preferred Route begins where the offshore export cables would come ashore at New
Hampshire Avenue in Yarmouth. This Landfall Site is located in Yarmouth where a town-
owned road dead-ends at a deteriorating seawall on the shoreline of Lewis Bay. A paved
town-owned parking area is located approximately 300 feet north of the dead-end where
staging/laydown for HDD or open trench operations could occur. The 220 kV export
cables would terminate at a new step-down substation proposed just south of the Barnstable
Switching Station, from which 115 kV underground cables would interconnect at
Barnstable Switching Station. This Preferred Route, shown as an overview in Figure 1-2 and
in detail on Figure 1-12 (Sheets 1-4), could accommodate 800 MW all at once or two
phases of 400 MW each.
Beginning at the southern end of New Hampshire Avenue, this route proceeds north for 0.1
miles, merges with Berry Avenue, and continues for 0.7 miles to the intersection with Route
28, where Berry Avenue becomes Higgins Crowell Road.
After crossing Route 28 and continuing north for 2.2 miles on Higgins Crowell Road, the
route then proceeds along an abandoned road segment for approximately 0.4 miles; this
abandoned road segment is still paved, and is part of a bike path corridor (i.e., the “Cape
Cod Rail Trail Phase III”) proposed by MassDOT that has not yet entered permitting. At the
end of the abandoned road segment, the route crosses Willow Street, turns north, and
follows a railroad corridor approximately 0.5 miles to the utility ROW. This stretch of rail,
controlled by the MassDOT Rail Division, is used from the beginning of April through
approximately mid-December. The Proponent continues to work with MassDOT to
coordinate details, but discussions thus far have indicated that Project installation could
occur along the railroad ROW between late December and the end of March. The duct
bank would be installed along the side of the railroad ROW, and would leave most of the
tracks unaffected. At the northern end of the stretch along the rail ROW, the Project would
turn west and cross the tracks via open trenching, where the tracks would be removed and
then replaced following Project installation.
After turning west, the route travels along the utility ROW for 1.2 miles to Mary Dunn Road
in Barnstable. At this point, the route diverts from the utility ROW and turns south to follow
Mary Dunn Road for 0.4 miles, turning westward at a point just south of the Mid-Cape
Highway (Route 6) to follow an access road for 0.3 miles to the proposed Project
substation. A short, 0.1-mile overland segment connects the proposed substation to the
interconnection point at the existing Barnstable Switching Substation.
The total length of this Preferred Route is 6.0 miles, 4.2 miles of which are within roadway
layout and 1.8 miles of which are predominantly within existing off-road ROWs, including
the railroad ROW and utility ROW. Where the route follows existing roadway layouts, the

proposed duct bank will be installed either beneath pavement or within ten feet of
pavement. This onshore route is substantially similar to the route previously approved by
the Siting Board in conjunction with the now-cancelled Cape Wind project.
The Proponent is also considering five variants of this Preferred Route; each variant is
described below and is shown on Figures 1-2 and 1-12.
1.5.1.1 Variant 1 – Willow Street
This variant of the Preferred Route (shown on Sheet 4 of Figure 1-12) utilizes Willow Street
instead of the existing railroad ROW, such that the route would turn north from the
abandoned road segment onto Willow Street, and proceed until turning west onto the utility
ROW. Although initial discussions with the MassDOT Rail Division have indicated that the
Project could likely be installed along the rail ROW between late December and the end of
March, the Proponent is maintaining this variant in the instance that the rail ROW becomes
infeasible, either from a technical or permitting perspective.
The benefit of utilizing the rail ROW is that it would enable the Project to largely avoid
impacts to Willow Street, which is a relatively busy roadway. However, should
construction along Willow Street be necessary, the Proponent will formulate Traffic
Management Plans (TMPs) in coordination with the Town of Yarmouth to ensure impacts
are minimized.
The Willow Street variant is approximately 0.1 miles longer than the Preferred Route, with a
total length of 6.1 miles. Approximately 4.7 miles of the route utilizing this variant are
located within existing roadway layout, and 1.4 miles are located predominantly within
existing off-road rights of way, including the utility ROW.
1.5.1.2 Variant 2 – Utility ROW
This variant (shown on Sheet 4 of Figure 1-12) diverges from the Preferred Route at the
intersection of Mary Dunne Road with the utility ROW, remaining on the utility ROW and
continuing west and then south along the ROW to the proposed Project substation, where it
would join the rest of the Preferred Route. In total, the route using this variant would be
within the utility ROW for approximately two miles.
Like the Preferred Route, the utility ROW variant has a total length of 6.0 miles.
Approximately 3.4 miles of the variant are located within existing roadway layout, and 2.6
miles are located predominantly within existing off-road rights of way, including the rail
ROW and utility ROW.

1.5.1.3 Variant 3 – Bike Path
This variant (shown on Sheet 4 of Figure 1-12) utilizes a MassDOT-proposed bike path
corridor that has not yet entered permitting but has received Article 97 approval; it is likely
that, if utilized for the Vineyard Wind Connector, the Project would need to obtain its own
Article 97 approval for use of approximately one mile of the corridor within the Town of
Barnstable if it is granted a permanent easement. The proposed bike path corridor is
currently wooded. The bike path variant would entirely bypass the utility ROW, diverging
from the Preferred Route at the westward end of the abandoned road segment, where the
variant would cross Willow Street either on a bridge proposed for the bike path or via open
trench, and then continue along the proposed bike path corridor westward for
approximately 1.26 miles, rejoining the Preferred Alternative at the access road.
The bike path variant is approximately 0.9 miles shorter than the Preferred Route, with a
total length of 5.1 miles. Approximately 3.7 miles of the variant are located in existing
roadway layout, and 1.4 miles are located within the proposed bike path corridor.
1.5.1.4 Variant 4 – Great Island Landfall Site
This variant of the Preferred Route (shown on Sheet 4 of Figure 1-12) utilizes private
property on Great Island in Yarmouth as a Landfall Site instead of New Hampshire Avenue.
Beginning at Great Island Road in Yarmouth at a point south of Pine Island, this route
proceeds northeasterly for 0.4 miles, then merges with South Sea Avenue and continues
northward for another 0.4 miles to Silver Leaf Lane. The variant then turns west onto Silver
Leaf Lane for 0.6 miles to Berry Avenue, where it rejoins the Preferred Route.
The Great Island variant is approximately 0.9 miles longer than the Preferred Route, with a
total length of 6.9 miles. Approximately 5.1 miles of the route utilizing this variant are
located within existing roadway layout, and 1.8 miles are located predominantly within
existing off-road ROWs, including the rail ROW and utility ROW.
1.5.1.5 Variant 5 – Independence Drive
Variant 5 (shown on Sheet 4 of Figure 1-12) diverges from the Preferred Route by
continuing south on Mary Dunn Road before turning west on Independence Drive and then
north onto the proposed substation site. This variant provides an alternative access to the
proposed substation site.
Like the Preferred Route, Variant 5 is approximately 6 miles long, with approximately 4.8
miles along existing roadways and approximately 1.2 miles located within existing off-road
ROWs.

1.5.2 Onshore Noticed Alternative
The Noticed Alternative begins where the offshore export cables would come ashore at
Covell’s Beach in Barnstable, and extends to an interconnection point at the existing
Barnstable Switching Station. The Noticed Alternative utilizes the same proposed
substation site as the Preferred Route, where voltage would step down prior to the
interconnection. The Noticed Alternative is shown in detail on Figure 1-13 (Sheets 1-3).
The route begins at Covell’s Beach Landfall Site and proceeds easterly direction on
Craigville Beach Road for 0.6 miles before turning north on Strawberry Hill Road, which it
follows for 1.5 miles before merging with Wequaquet Lane north of Route 28. The route
then continues northeasterly for 0.3 miles to Phinneys Lane, and follows that road for 1.3
miles, crossing Route 132 and continuing to the existing utility ROW. The route then turns
east and follows the utility ROW for 1.6 miles to the proposed Project substation. A 0.1-
mile overland segment connects the proposed substation to the interconnection point at the
existing Barnstable Switching Substation.
The total length of this route is 5.4 miles, 3.8 of which are within existing roadway layout
and 1.6 of which are within the existing utility ROW.
This Noticed Alternative could accommodate 800 MW all at once, or two phases of 400
MW each.
The Proponent is also considering a variant of this Noticed Alternative, which is described
below and shown on Figures 1-2 and 1-13.
1.5.2.1 Variant 1 – Attucks Lane and Independence Drive
This variant of the Noticed Alternative would utilize existing roadways rather than the utility
ROW. The variant diverges from the Noticed Alternative while on Phinneys Lane, where
the variant turns off onto Attucks Lane and then follows Attucks Lane, Independence Drive,
and Communication Way to the proposed Project substation. At the substation, the variant
rejoins the Noticed Alternative.
This variant is approximately 0.1 miles shorter than the utility ROW segment, with a total
length of 5.3 miles. Almost all of this route length is within existing roadway layout, with
only the final 0.1 miles located along an overland stretch between the proposed Project
substation and the interconnection point at the Barnstable Switching Station.
1.5.3 Offshore Routing
In August 2017, the Company performed preliminary marine surveys to identify feasible
routes for the proposed offshore export cables that would avoid and minimize impacts to
offshore and nearshore resources. The Offshore Export Cable Corridors shown on Figure 1-
1 are the product of those surveys. As shown on Figure 1-1, the Western Export Cable

Corridor and Eastern Export Cable Corridor provide two relatively direct options for
connecting the Wind Development Area to the Landfall Sites in Yarmouth and Barnstable.
Each Export Cable Corridor maintains sufficient water depths for installation with a
Dynamic Positioning (DP)-equipped cable-laying vessel, avoiding shoals and large seabed
slopes. Both corridors also avoid and minimize impacts to SSU areas identified in the
Massachusetts OMP, completely avoiding core habitat of the North Atlantic Right Whale
and avoiding mapped eelgrass habitat. Both corridors also minimize impacts to
hard/complex bottom.
The area in question between the islands of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket and within
Nantucket Sound is a high-energy environment, and includes sand waves, which can be on
the order of 15 feet high and move across the seafloor; the area also includes currents
through Muskeget Channel that scour the seafloor and remove finer-grained materials. The
presence of sand waves will necessitate some pre-trenching dredging to ensure sufficient
cable burial (target depth is approximately three to six feet). In addition, where the seafloor
materials are so dense that reaching the target burial depth is unlikely, mattresses made of
riprap or concrete may need to be laid down along the Export Cable Corridor to protect the
cable, although the Proponent is seeking to avoid the use of such armoring.
The Western and Eastern Offshore Export Cable Corridors are both good options for
installing the proposed export cables. They are also comparable in terms of length, seafloor
conditions, installation methods, and dredging of sand waves to ensure sufficient burial
depth. Both corridors avoid core habitat mapped for whales, and both minimize passage
through hard/complex bottom mapped in the Massachusetts OMP. In the case of the
Preferred New Hampshire Avenue Landfall Site and the Noticed Alternative Covell’s Beach
Landfall Site, both corridors also avoid OMP-mapped eelgrass habitat.
Consistent with the approach taken in the federal permitting process, in which the
Proponent has requested approval of both Offshore Export Cable Corridors as part of a
“project envelope” allowing for optimization of cost, environmental protection, and
reliability within that preapproved “envelope,” Vineyard Wind requests that MEPA and
EFSB approve both corridors as buildable variants.
1.6 Project Benefits
The purpose of the Project is to provide the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with up to

800 MW of clean, renewable wind energy, and is in direct response to 2016 energy
legislation passed by the Commonwealth and signed by Governor Baker that is described in
Section 1.2.2. Construction of the Project will serve the public interest by increasing the
reliability and diversity of the regional and statewide energy supply.
The Project is expected to create a range of environmental and economic benefits for
southeastern Massachusetts (including New Bedford, the Cape, and the Islands),
Massachusetts as a whole, and the entire New England region. Project benefits will extend

across the design, environmental review, and permitting phase, the procurement,
fabrication, and construction/commissioning phase, the multi-decade operating phase, as
well as the future decommissioning effort.
Project benefits are expected to include:
♦ Clean renewable energy at large scale and a high capacity factor. The location well
offshore in a favorable wind regime, coupled with the efficiency of the WTGs, will
enable the Project to deliver power during times of maximum grid demand.
♦ The Project will connect to the bulk power system on Cape Cod, and thus will
increase the supply of power to the Cape and southeastern Massachusetts, an area
that has experienced the largest impact from recent generation retirements.
♦ The Wind Turbine Generators (WTGs) for this Project will be among the most
efficient machines currently demonstrated for offshore use. It is expected that the
WTGs will be capable of operating with an annual capacity factor in excess of 45%.
Assuming an 800-MW Project is built, machines of this efficiency and capability will
reduce ISO NE CO2 emissions by approximately 1,680,000 tpy. In addition, NOx
emissions across the New England grid are expected to be reduced by more than
1,030 tpy with SO2 emissions being reduced by approximately 880 tpy.
♦ In accordance with the lease terms, the Project will make substantial annual rent
and operating fee payments to the Federal Treasury.
♦ The Project has already opened and staffed a New Bedford office and has engaged a
number of Massachusetts-based professionals to support elements of the design
effort, licensing, and permitting.
♦ The construction and installation process will make use of existing port facilities,
and the Project has already signed a letter of intent to utilize the New Bedford
Marine Commerce Terminal. To the extent feasible, construction materials and
other supplies, including vessel provisioning and servicing, may be sourced from
within the Project Area. The Project may also perform fabrication work in
Massachusetts.
♦ The Project will create a number of job opportunities within the marine trades and
affiliated industries, and will have a positive impact on those sectors, particularly
those heavily influenced by seasonal hiring.
♦ Project construction will create opportunities for area maritime industries (tug
charters, other vessel charters, dockage, fueling, inspection/repairs, provisioning).
♦ The Project will endeavor to make local/regional purchases of construction

materials.

♦ Once operational, the Project will create a significant number of O&M jobs.
♦ The Project will continue its efforts to work cooperatively with southeastern
Massachusetts educational institutions such as Massachusetts Maritime Academy,
UMass Dartmouth, and others to help create opportunities for their students and
faculty.
♦ The Project will make local and regional purchases of goods and services
throughout the multi-decade O&M period.
♦ The Project expects to negotiate and execute a Host Community Agreement with at
least two Cape Cod towns and will make local tax payments, as appropriate.
♦ The Project will continue to work with their local partner, Vineyard Power
Cooperative, throughout the phases of the Project.
♦ The Project with make local tax payments, as appropriate.
♦ Lastly, the Project is committed to working with BOEM, Massachusetts, local and
regional officials, and other stakeholders to maximize this unique and timely
opportunity to establish Massachusetts as center for the offshore wind industry in
the United States.
1.6.1 Reliability Benefits
The proposed Vineyard Wind Connector would enhance the reliability and diversity of the
energy mix on Cape Cod and in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This is particularly
important given that several base load/cycling plants have already retired or are slated for
retirement, including:
♦ Brayton Point Power Plant (Somerset, MA): 1,600 MW, to be closed by May 31,
2017;
♦ Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant (Plymouth, MA): 690 MW, to be closed by May 31,
2019;
♦ Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant (Vernon, VT): 620 MW, shut down
December 29, 2014;
♦ Montaup Power Plant (Somerset, MA): 174 MW, shut down in 2010; and
♦ Mt. Tom Station (Holyoke, MA): 136 MW, shut down in 2014.

In addition, other plants such as Canal Generating Station (1,200 MW, oil/natural gas-fired,
two units commissioned in 1968 and 1976), are approaching their normal end of life,
making it important for other energy generation alternatives to fill the gap. In addition to
the plants mentioned above, ISO-NE has identified over 5,000 MW of oil and coal capacity
“at risk” for retirement in the coming years.11
Between the decommissioning of nuclear power plants at Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee, and
in the 1990s closings of Yankee Rowe (185 MW) and Maine Yankee (900 MW), New
England has lost or is about to lose significant “zero carbon” base load plants.
Lastly, Cape Cod is at the outer reaches of the regional transmission system. The Cape is
essentially supplied by one 345 kV and two 115 kV radial feeds. While recent significant
investments in transmission reliability have strengthened the electricity supply to Cape Cod,
Vineyard Wind would further improve the situation by feeding power into the center of the
on-Cape transmission system.
The proposed Vineyard Wind project in federal waters, which the Vineyard Wind
Connector would bring onshore in Massachusetts, would be a major source of zero-carbon
electric power. Just 400 MW of the up to 800-MW Project could supply two-thirds of the
peak Cape Cod load. As the offshore wind industry has developed, wind turbines have
moved further offshore. When coupled with higher hub heights and longer, more efficient
blades, the Vineyard Wind WTGs will take full advantage of a superior wind regime.
Accordingly, the Vineyard Wind project is expected to operate at an annual capacity factor
in excess of 45% and will be making some power for approximately 80% of the time.
Moreover, summer offshore wind patterns will allow the Project to produce substantial
power during summer afternoons/early evenings, typical peak power demand periods on
the Cape and the Islands.
The Vineyard Wind Connector will also enhance energy supply diversity, and as a wind
project will not be affected by possible cold weather gas limitations or supply shortages. As
such, it will help to promote price stability.
Vineyard Wind’s grid connection application was formally accepted by ISO-NE on

November 8, 2016, and was assigned queue position 624.
1.6.2 Environmental Benefits
As described in Section 1.6.1, between the decommissioning of nuclear power plants at

Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee, and earlier Yankee Rowe (185 MW) and Maine Yankee (900
MW) retirements, New England has lost or is about to lose significant “zero carbon” base
11
ISO-NE. https://www.iso-ne.com/about/regional-electricity-outlook/grid-in-transition-opportunities-and-
challenges/power-plant-retirements

load plants. These market changes increase the complexity and difficulty of achieving the
aggressive GHG emissions reduction targets defined in the GWSA: 25% from 1990 levels
by 2020 and 80% from 1990 levels by 2050.
The proposed Vineyard Wind Connector would enable up to 800 MW of zero-carbon

electric power to be delivered to the ISO-NE grid. Table 1-1 quantifies the emissions
associated with conventional power generation that would be avoided by using electricity
generated from the 800-MW Project. The displacement analysis uses Northeast Power
Coordinating Council (NPCC) New England air emissions data from EPA’s Emissions &
Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID) 12. The analysis conservatively assumes
an annual capacity factor of 45% and total Project delivery of 800 MW. Constituents
included in the analysis are carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and sulfur
dioxide (SO2).
Table 1-1 Annual Avoided Air Emissions in New England
Pollutant CO2 NOx SO2

Avoided Emissions (tons/year) 1,680,000 1,030 880
Table 1-2 summarizes the emissions of CO2, NOx, and SO2 that would be avoided as a
result of the Vineyard Wind Connector over the Project’s up to 30-year lifespan (taking into
account construction and operational emissions, and assuming that current emissions offset
factors remain constant). Although there will be construction-phase emissions of regulated
pollutants, these emissions will be quickly offset during the operational phase by emissions
reductions on the New England power grid.
Table 1-2 Avoided Air Emissions in New England over Project Lifespan
Pollutant CO2 NOx SO2

Avoided Emissions (tons) 50,100,000 27,800 26,400
As shown in this analysis, the Project would result in substantial emissions reductions in the
New England region. The Project will significantly decrease the region’s reliance on fossil
fuels and enhance the reliability and diversity of the energy mix on Cape Cod, in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and across New England.
12
The displacement analysis uses subregion annual non-baseload output emission rates from
eGRID2014(v2) released 2/27/2017 https://www.epa.gov/energy/emissions-generation-resource-
integrated-database-egrid

1.7 Port Facilities
Vineyard Wind has signed a letter of intent to the use the New Bedford Marine Commerce
Terminal facility, owned by the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, to support Project
construction. The 26-acre New Bedford facility is located on the City’s extensive industrial
waterfront and was purpose-built to support offshore wind energy projects. The terminal is
just upstream of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ hurricane barrier and has ready access
to interstate highways. An aerial photo of the New Bedford facility and the surrounding
marine industrial area is provided as Figure 1-14.
Vineyard Wind plans to use the New Bedford facility to offload shipments of components,
prepare them for installation, and then load components onto jack-up barges or other
suitable vessels for delivery to the Wind Development Area for installation. Depending on
the pace and timing of the Project construction effort, as well as possible use of the New
Bedford terminal by other offshore projects, it is possible that Vineyard Wind may stage
certain activities from other Massachusetts or Atlantic ports. The Massachusetts Clean
Energy Center is currently conducting a study to identify and characterize other
Massachusetts port facilities which could be used to support offshore wind energy
construction projects. An Existing Conditions Assessment for 18 sites in Massachusetts was
completed in May 2017, and a more detailed Engineering Assessment was released in
October 2017. The assessment focused on sites in the Fall River/Somerset, New Bedford,
and Boston/Quincy areas.
Once the first increment of the Project is installed, tested, and commissioned, the Project
will enter a 20- to 30-year operating phase. In support of Project operations and the
necessary maintenance activities, Vineyard Wind will have management and administrative
team offices, a control room, and an operation and maintenance center (O&M center).
These functions will be co-located, if feasible.
Technicians and engineers responsible for long-term Project maintenance will operate from
the O&M center. The maintenance operation will include office and training space, shop
space, warehouse space for parts and tools, and pier space for Crew Transport Vessels
(CTV) and other larger support vessels. CTVs are purpose-built to support offshore wind
energy projects, and are typically about 75 feet in length and set up to safely and quickly
transport personnel, parts, and equipment. CTVs are typically used in conjunction with
helicopters.
Vineyard Wind is evaluating possible locations for the O&M center, including Martha’s
Vineyard, New Bedford, Falmouth, and other locations.

1.8 Construction Overview
The Proponent has selected cable installation techniques to maximize efficiency while
minimizing potential impacts. Onshore cable installation is proposed via open trenching;
the Proponent has consulted with MassDOT regarding this methodology since crossings of
some state roads are involved, and MassDOT did not express concern with this technique.
The transition between onshore and offshore cables is generally proposed via open trench
or HDD; at the preferred New Hampshire Avenue Landfall Site, open trench if the preferred
methodology, while HDD is proposed at the alternative Landfall Sites where it is necessary
to avoid impacts to sensitive resources or recreational interests. Offshore cable installation
is proposed via jetting, jet-plow, plow, or mechanical trenching.
1.9 Schedule and Phasing
As described above, the Vineyard Wind Connector is being proposed for up to

approximately 800 MW, which would either be constructed all at once or in two 400-MW
phases. The full 800-MW Project would require up to three offshore export cables (each
with three cores), which would transition to up to nine onshore transmission cables. If
phased, the first 400-MW phase would be constructed under one of two scenarios: (1) one
400-MW offshore export cable transitioning to three onshore transmission cables; or (2) two
200-MW offshore export cables transitioning to six onshore transmission cables. The
second phase would then be constructed with one 400-MW offshore export cable
transitioining to three onshore transmission cables.
The proposed duct bank is being designed to accommodate the entire 800 MW of
transmission plus some spare conduits for potential future use. Under a scenario where the
Project is developed in two separate 400-MW phases, the full ductbank would be installed
during the first phase, such that the second phase would simply consist of pulling the
additional onshore cables through the already-constructed duct bank.
The Proponent anticipates onshore construction will commence in early 2020 with work at
the Landfall Site, onshore substation, and upland duct bank. Installation of the offshore
export cables is anticipated in Spring 2021, while offshore construction of the WTGs and
array cables in federal waters will occur in Summer to Fall of that year. The start of
commercial operation, with production from a limited number of wind turbine generators,
is expected to begin in Summer 2021, with construction complete by the end of that year.
On Cape Cod, there are general summer limitations on construction activities, which the
Proponent has built into the Project schedule for construction at the Landfall Site and along
the onshore transmission route where the route follows public roadway layouts. Activities
at the Landfall Site where transmission will transition from offshore to onshore are not
expected to be performed during the months of June through September; activities along the
onshore transmission route (particularly where the route follows public roadway layouts)
will also likely be subject to significant construction limitations from Memorial Day through

Labor Day, but could extend through June 15 subject to consent from the local Department
of Public Works (DPW). The Company will consult with the towns regarding the
construction schedule. Typical construction hours will extend from 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM.
Nighttime work will be performed only on an as-needed basis, such as when crossing a
busy road. When needed, nighttime work/extended construction hours, including possible
work on weekends, will be coordinated through each Town.
Offshore export cables are expected to be installed between March and September of 2021.
1.10 Agency and Community Outreach
Vineyard Wind (previously OffshoreMW) and Vineyard Power Cooperative signed a

Community Benefit Agreement (CBA), which was recognized by the BOEM prior to the
Massachusetts offshore wind lease auction in January 2015. This CBA called for, among
other items, Vineyard Power to advocate for and support offshore wind legislation in
Massachusetts, support the Project through education and outreach, and called for Vineyard
Power to provide advice and guidance through the permitting and financing processes.
Community outreach and education have been primary objectives for Vineyard Power since
its formation in November 2009. Vineyard Power accomplishes these objectives by
informing the public about federal and state renewable energy goals and processes,
including regulatory frameworks, and ensuring that communities have a voice in reaching
desired outcomes. As the Project transitions into permitting and ultimately development
and construction, Vineyard Wind and Vineyard Power are committed to continuing the
outreach efforts to ensure that local communities welcome, understand, and benefit from
the proposed Project. Community outreach, education, and engagement within the
communities of Martha’s Vineyard, Nantucket, and Cape Cod will continue along with
outreach to state and local agencies and local tribes. To date, a number of parties,
including the Martha’s Vineyard Commission, Town of Barnstable, and Mashpee
Wampanoag Tribe, have written letters supporting the Project and/or detailing their
consultations with the Proponent; these letters are attached to the end of this section for
ease of review.
Further information about the partnership between Vineyard Wind and Vineyard Power, as
well as Project updates and other information can be found at www.vineyardwind.com.
Any interested parties can be added to the Project outreach mailing list by visiting
www.vineyardpower.com.
1.10.1 Agency Meetings and Consultations
The Company has been actively consulting with federal and state agencies, the Cape Cod
Commission (CCC), and affected municipalities and tribes regarding Project status, planned
studies, issues of concern, the permitting process, and related matters beginning in 2015. A
list of meetings conducted to date with agencies, municipalities, and tribes through late

November 2017 is provided in Table 1-3. The Company plans to maintain an active level
of consultation and outreach as the design effort continues and the Project proceeds
through the licensing and permitting phase.
Table 1-3 Consultations with agencies, municipalities, and tribes
Date Group Topic

May 2017 Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) Project update and permitting
planning
August 2016 Aquinnah Board of Selectmen General project information and
updates including survey
planning
July 2017 Aquinnah Board of Selectmen General project information and
planning
November 2017 Aquinnah Board of Selectmen Project update
March 2017 Barnstable: Town Manager, Assistant Town Attorney Project overview and cable
route discussion
June 2017 Barnstable: Town Manager, Assistant Town Manager, Project update and cable route
Director of the Growth Management Dept., and discussion
Assistant Town Attorney
October 2017 Barnstable Town Council Project update and cable route
discussion
October 2017 Barnstable: Town Manager, Director of Growth Project update and cable route
Management, Asst. Town Attorney, Asst. Town discussion
Manager, Leisure Service Director, Conservation
Admin, Harbormaster, DPW Director, Dir. Of
Community Services, Town Attorney, Assessing Dept.
Director
June 2016 Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) Pre-survey meeting
July 2016 BOEM Survey coordination
March 2017 BOEM Review study plans
April 2017 BOEM COP preparation
(2 days)
May 2017 BOEM Review CVA requirements
May 2017 BOEM Pre-survey meeting
June 2017 BOEM COP preparation
July 2017 BOEM COP preparation
August 2017 BOEM Review CVA scope
September 2017 BOEM COP preparation
October 2017 BOEM COP preparation
4+ meetings
November 2017 BOEM COP preparation

Table 1-3 Consultations with agencies, municipalities, and tribes (Continued)
Date Group Topic

December 2017 BOEM COP preparation
April 2017 BOEM, NOAA, NMFS, Massachusetts Division of Project overview and reviewed
Marine Fisheries (DMF) existing site data provided by
VW and additional data
provided by NMFS.
December 2016 Cape Cod Commission Project introduction
October 2015 Cape Light Compact Board (municipal aggregator General project information and
representing 23 towns on the Cape & Islands), updates
including representatives from: Aquinnah, Barnstable,
Barnstable County, Bourne, Brewster, Chatham,
Chilmark, Dennis, Dukes County, Eastham, Edgartown,
Falmouth, Harwich, Mashpee, Oak Bluffs, Orleans,
Provincetown, Sandwich, Tisbury, Truro, Wellfleet,
West Tisbury, Yarmouth
July 2016 Chilmark Board of Selectmen General project information and
planning
June 2017 Chilmark Board of Selectmen Project update and survey
planning
December 2017 Chilmark Board of Selectmen Project update
July 2016 Edgartown Board of Selectmen General project information and

planning
June 2017 Edgartown Board of Selectmen Project update and survey
planning
December 2017 Edgartown Board of Selectmen Project update
March 2017 Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) & Executive Office Pre-permitting meeting
& Energy & Environmental Affairs (EEA)
June 2017 EFSB Pre-permitting meeting
December 2017 EFSB Pre-permitting meeting
August 2017 Environmental Protection Agency Discuss OCS Air Permit
January 2017 Falmouth: Selectman, Assistant Town Manager, Town Project overview
Manager, Department of Public Works (DPW)
May 2017 MA and RI Joint Task Force Meeting: BOEM, MACEC, Project update
CZM, Tribes, Municipalities, USCG
November 2016 MA Coastal Zone Management (CZM) and Update on local outreach
Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (MassCEC)

Date Group Topic

July 2017 MA CZM Survey planning
July 2017 MA Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) and MA CZM Discussion on available data on
fishing areas and gear types
September 2017 MA DMF Discussion on available data on
fishing areas and gear types
April 2015 MA Task Force Meeting: BOEM, MACEC, CZM, Tribes, General project information and
Municipalities, USCG: updates
October 2015 Martha’s Vineyard All-Island Selectmen’s Meeting General project information and
updates
August 2016 Martha’s Vineyard Commission: Executive Director General project information and
planning
May 2017 Martha’s Vineyard Commission: Executive Director Project update
October 2017 Martha’s Vineyard Commission: Executive Director, Project Update
Regional Planner, Coastal Planner, Administrative
Assistant
November 2017 Martha’s Vineyard Commission: Full Commission Project update
June 2016 Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe (THPO) Project introduction
August 2017 Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe (THPO) Project update and survey
planning
Preliminary discussion on
upland routing
November 2017 Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe (THPO) Discuss upland route and visual
simulations
April 2017 Mashpee: Town Manager, DPW Director, Project overview and cable
Conservation Agent routing
September 2017 Massachusetts Department of Transportation, Highway Project routing and construction
and Rail Divisions techniques
April 2017 Massachusetts Ocean Team (CZM, MEPA, MassDEP, Cable survey work
MBUAR, DMF)
December 2016 Nantucket Board of Selectmen Project introduction
June 2017 Nantucket Board of Selectmen Project update and cable route
discussion
September 2017 Nantucket Board of Selectmen Project update
June 2017 Nantucket: DPW Director Project update and cable route
discussion
October 2017 Nantucket: DPW Director Project update
October 2017 Nantucket: Land Bank Project introduction
October 2017 Nantucket: Planning and Economic Development Project introduction
Council
October 2017 Nantucket: Wannacomet Water Company Project update

Date Group Topic

June 2017 Nantucket: Wastewater Treatment Director, Town Project update and cable route
Energy Manager discussion
July 2016 Narragansett Indian Tribe (THPO) Pre-survey meeting
October 2017 NMFS - Fisheries division Survey update and COP needs
October 2017 NMFS – Marine mammal division COP needs
July 2016 Oak Bluffs Board of Selectmen General project information and
planning
July 2017 Oak Bluffs Board of Selectmen Project update and survey
planning
November 2017 Oak Bluffs Board of Selectmen Project update
July 2017 Ocean Team (EEA, MassDEP, DMF, CZM) Project update and survey
planning
November 2017 Ocean Team (EEA, MassDEP, DMF, CZM, MEPA) Project update
November 2016 Public Meeting: EEA, MassCEC, BOEM Assessment activities for future
offshore wind projects in federal
wind lease areas
January 2016 Public Meeting: Executive Office of Energy and Assessment activities for future
Environmental Affairs (EEA), MassCEC, BOEM offshore wind projects in federal
wind lease areas
September 2017 Rhode Island Department of Environmental Discussion on available data on
Management (DEM) Division of Marine Fisheries fishing areas and gear types and
feedback on lessons learned for
communication during
construction.
September 2016 Tisbury Board of Selectmen General project information and
planning
May 2017 Tisbury Board of Selectmen Project overview, update
November 2017 Tisbury Board of Selectmen Project update – letter of
support request
June 2017 US Coast Guard (USCG) Project update and review draft
project layout
October 2017 USCG, BOEM Navigation Risk Assessment
discussion
May 2017 USFWS and BOEM (Avian Study Plan) Project update and reviewed
study plans and available data
August 2017 USFWS, BOEM Project update and avian
discussion on COP needs
November 2017 US Navy Project update, discussion for
COP

Date Group Topic

June 2016 Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (THPO) General project introduction
July 2016 Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head, Mashpee Pre-survey meeting

Wampanoag Tribe (THPOs)
August 2016 Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head – Tribal Council General project information and
planning
July 2016 West Tisbury Board of Selectmen General project information and
planning
June 2017 West Tisbury Board of Selectmen Project update and survey
planning
December 2017 West Tisbury Board of Selectmen Project update
March 2017 Yarmouth: Town Manager, DPW Director Project overview and cable
route discussion
June 2017 Yarmouth: Town Manager, DPW Director Project update and cable route
discussion
October 2017 Yarmouth Board of Selectmen Project update
November 2017 Yarmouth Board of Selectmen Public Hearing
1.10.1.1 Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Board Staff
As part of a broader introductory meeting with senior staff from the Massachusetts Executive
Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA), Project representatives met with the EFSB
Director on March 23, 2017 to review Project background, design, and schedule. A follow-
up meeting with EFSB staff was held on June 21, 2017 to discuss the scope of review,
routing updates, and potential interconnection strategies. A final pre-application meeting
with EFSB staff was held on December 1, 2017.
1.10.1.2 Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act Office
As part of a broader introductory meeting with senior staff from the Massachusetts EEA,
Project representatives met with the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) Office
on March 23, 2017 to review Project background, design, and schedule. MEPA was also
included in the Massachusetts Ocean Team meeting held on April 28, 2017 and a
subsequent Ocean Team meeting held on November 3, 2017 (see Section 1.9.1.3). On
December 15, 2017, the Company submitted an Environmental Notification Form (ENF) to
the MEPA Office.

1.10.1.3 Massachusetts Ocean Team
On April 28, 2017, the Company and its Project representatives met with the Massachusetts
Ocean Team (CZM, MassDEP, MBUAR, DMF, and MEPA) to review Project background as
well as to specifically discuss the Survey and Sampling Plan for the offshore portion of the
proposed transmission cables. Feedback from this meeting was incorporated into the
Survey and Sampling Plan for reconnaissance survey work completed in summer of 2017,
and the Plan was provided to the Ocean Team prior to the survey being performed. The
Company’s Project team had a follow-up meeting with the Ocean Team on November 3,
2017 to discuss results of the summer 2017 survey as well as alternatives for the Offshore
Export Cable Corridors.
1.10.1.4 Massachusetts Department of Transportation
On September 12, 2017, the Company and its Project representatives met with MassDOT
staff from the highway and rail divisions to discuss Project routing and potential
construction techniques. Project representatives presented routing alternatives under
consideration at the time, and received feedback from MassDOT staff regarding the
crossings of state roadways, open trenching as a preferred construction technique for such
crossings, the potential use of MassDOT-owned railroad ROW in Yarmouth, and the use of
an off-season open trench crossing of the rail bed. A follow-up meeting was held on
October 27, 2017 to specifically discuss possible coordination of the Vineyard Wind
Connector and the MassDOT bike path project to facilitate Variant 3 of the Project’s
Preferred Route.
1.10.1.5 Cape Cod Commission
As indicated in Table 1-3, above, the Company has had introductory discussions with the
CCC staff and will make the submissions required in accordance with the Regional Policy
Plan.
1.10.1.6 Municipalities and Tribes
As listed in Table 1-3, above, the Company and its representatives have held several
meetings with officials in Barnstable, Yarmouth, Mashpee, and Falmouth to keep them
informed about the Project and to solicit Town input on potential routing and construction
sequencing. More recently, Project representatives met with the Barnstable Town Council
and with the Yarmouth Board of Selectmen to review Project plans. The Company also met
with the full board of the Cape Light Compact, a municipal aggregator that represents 23
towns on Cape Cod and Martha’s Vineyard.

1.10.2 Stakeholder Meetings
In addition to the consultations described in Table 1-3, extensive and ongoing consultation
has been conducted by Vineyard Wind and Vineyard Wind’s community partner, Vineyard
Power, with key stakeholders. The Project held two community open houses in early
November (November 7, 2017 in Hyannis/Barnstable and November 8, 2017 in Yarmouth).
In addition, Vineyard Wind’s fisheries liason and representative have been active in
organizing dozens of meetings with fisheries stakeholders.
The following list includes, but is not limited to, the groups Vineyard Wind has been
consulting with and continues to meet with:
♦ Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound;

♦ Association to Preserve Cape Cod;
♦ Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM);
♦ Cape and Islands Self-Reliance;
♦ Cape and Vineyard Electrical Cooperative;
♦ Cape Cod Fishermen’s Alliance;
♦ Cape Light Compact;
♦ Climate Action Business Association;
♦ Coalition for Social Justice;
♦ Conservation Law Foundation;
♦ Coonamessett Farm Foundation;
♦ Eastern Fisheries;
♦ Environment Massachusetts;
♦ Environmental Business Council of New England;
♦ Environmental League of Massachusetts;
♦ Hercules SLR;
♦ Long Island Commercial Fishing Association;
♦ Martha’s Vineyard Fishermen Preservation Trust;
♦ Massachusetts Audubon Society;
♦ Massachusetts Clean Energy Center;
♦ Massachusetts Fisheries Institute;
♦ Massachusetts Fisheries Working Group;
♦ Massachusetts Fishermen’s Partnership and Support Services;

♦ Massachusetts Habitat Working Group;
♦ Massachusetts Lobstermen’s Association;
♦ Nantucket Rotary Club;
♦ National Academies of Sciences, Offshore Renewable Energy Development and
Fisheries Conference;
♦ National Wildlife Federation;
♦ Natural Resources Defense Council;
♦ New Bedford Harbor Development Commission;
♦ New England Aquarium;
♦ New England Energy and Commerce Association;
♦ Northeast Fisheries Sciences Center;
♦ Northeast Fishery Management Council;
♦ Northeast Fishery Sector Managers X, XI, XIII, VII, VIII;
♦ Port of New Bedford;
♦ Recreational Fishing Alliance;
♦ Rhode Island Fishermen’s Advisory Board;
♦ Rhode Island Habitat Advisory Board;
♦ Scallop Industry Advisors Meeting;
♦ Sierra Club;
♦ Stoveboat - Saving Seafood;
♦ The Nature Conservancy;
♦ Town Dock;
♦ University of Massachusetts (various campuses); and
♦ Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute.
Project updates and other information can be found at www.vineyardwind.com. Any

interested parties can be added to the Project outreach mailing list by visiting
www.vineyardpower.com.
Vineyard Wind plans to maintain an active level of consultation and outreach as the
environmental reviews and permitting processes continue, and is available to meet with any
interested party.

1.10.3 Abutter Outreach
In anticipation of this filing, the Company planned and hosted two community open house
events November 7, 2017 (in Barnstable) and November 8, 2017 (in Yarmouth). The open
house events provided an opportunity for interested residents and officials to view a series
of poster boards on the Project and to discuss questions and suggestions with members of
the Project team. Both open house sessions were scheduled from 5-8 PM to accommodate
a variety of schedules. Notices for both open houses were placed in the Cape Cod Times,
Barnstable Register, Milestones Newsletter Yarmouth Seniors (online and hard copy); the
Proponent also submitted the open house information to the Cape Cod Community Media
Center.
Additional community level outreach will occur during the course of the MEPA and EFSB
review processes. During the public comment period on a MEPA ENF for a Project which
will require an EIR, MEPA will convene a consultation session in the Project area. The
Proponent is afforded an opportunity to make a presentation on the Project, the MEPA
analyst explains the MEPA review process, and facilitates a question and answer session.
Following submittal of the Petition to the EFSB, EFSB staff will finalize an abutter
notification letter. The letter will include a description of the Vineyard Wind Connector,
including the Preferred Route and Noticed Alternative (with a supporting map). The letter
will also include a description of the EFSB review process and will invite interested citizens
to attend an EFSB-convened Public Hearing(s) in the Project area. The Public Hearing(s)
will be conducted by an EFSB Hearing Officer. The Public Hearing is an opportunity for
the EFSB to describe the upcoming review process, including opportunities to intervene or
to participate as an Interested Party. The Public Hearing is also an opportunity for the EFSB
to hear directly from citizens and local officials. The Public Hearing typically includes a
brief presentation from the Project Proponent.
The abutter notification letter will be sent to all direct abutters along the Preferred Route
and Noticed Alternative (and variants), including and owners of property directly across any
street or way from the right of way, and abutters to any of those owners within 300 feet for
all routes. The letter will also be sent to Town officials and others as directed by the EFSB.
1.11 Project Team
The Company has assembled a capable and highly experienced team of project developers,
planners, engineers, environmental scientists, attorneys, and outreach specialists for the
Project. The team’s principal organizations are described below.

1.11.1 Vineyard Wind
Vineyard Wind LLC is a New Bedford, Massachusetts-based company owned by

Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners (CIP) and Avangrid Renewables. Together, these
owners bring a considerable depth of offshore wind energy experience as well as strong
financial backing.
Vineyard Wind’s New Bedford based team includes scientists, engineers and managers with
domestic offshore wind energy expertise and a strong knowledge of the local grid,
infrastructure and coastline, and the ocean waters off Cape Cod and the Islands. The
Vineyard Wind team includes Chief Development Officer Erich Stephens, Rachel Pachter
(Vice President, Regulatory Affairs), and Jack Arruda (Technical Development Manager).
Vineyard Wind holds the lease for the 166,886-acre Lease Area OCS-A 0501, and is
focused on developing and building a state-of-the-industry offshore wind energy facility.
The privately-financed Project will provide “zero carbon” electrical power in furtherance of
the Massachusetts goals set by the GWSA. The Project will help Massachusetts to become
an important hub for a growing Atlantic Coast wind energy business.
Vineyard Wind also has a close partnership with a local organization, Vineyard Power, to
facilitate local input into the Project planning process and to help build community support
for the Project.
1.11.2 Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners (CIP) and Copenhagen Offshore Partners

(COP)
Copenhagen Offshore Partners (COP) is a specialized team formed to develop and deliver
offshore wind projects for institutional investors such as CIP, the co-owner of Vineyard
Wind. 13 CIP makes long-term clean energy infrastructure investments on behalf of 21
institutional investors, including several large Scandinavian pension funds. CIP currently
has over 5 billion euros (~$5.9 billion) under management. Major COP projects to date
include Veja Mate, 402 MW in the German North Sea, and Beatrice, 588 MW, Moray Firth,
North Sea. The 67 turbine Veja Mate project achieved its financial closing in 2015;
construction was completed in May of 2017, well ahead of schedule. The 588 MW
Beatrice project is currently under construction off the northeast coast of Scotland;
commercial operations are scheduled for Q2 of 2019.
13
COP has a long-term exclusivity arrangement to CIP in North America. However, there is no ownership
or governance relationship between the two companies.

COP is supporting all of CIP’s offshore wind energy projects in Europe, Canada and Taiwan.
The COP team includes individuals who have had key roles on more than 15 offshore wind
projects in Europe, dating back to 1995. COP’s co-CEO, Lars Thaaning Pedersen has
recently relocated to Massachusetts and will be in residence for the duration of the Project
development effort. Mr. Pedersen also serves as the CEO of Vineyard Wind.
1.11.3 Avangrid Renewables
Avangrid Renewables, the other co-owner of Vineyard Wind, is a leader in the renewable
energy industry in the United States and is amongst the Nation’s largest renewable
operators. Avangrid Renewable’s (AR) mission is to lead the transformation to a
competitive, clean energy future. Headquartered in Portland Oregon, AR has regional
offices in Philadelphia, Chicago and Austin. AR controls over 6,000 MW of operating
generation, including thermal, wind, solar and biomass projects. Avangrid Renewables is a
subsidiary of Avangrid, 14 which is 81.5% owned by Iberdrola, SA. Iberdrola has an asset
base which includes 14,000 MW of renewable energy in 12 countries.
Within the Avangrid/Iberdrola family, Scottish Power is where its considerable offshore
wind energy expertise is positioned. Scottish Power has completed several major offshore
projects, including West of Duddon Sands (389 MW, located in the UK). Scottish Power
teams are currently completing construction of the Wikinger project (350 MW, located in
the German Baltic Sea) and are working on East Anglia One (714 MW, located in the North
Sea, UK), and St. Brieuc (496 MW, located off the Brittany coast of France). Iain Henderson
of Scottish Power is also the Chief Financial Officer of Vineyard Wind.
1.11.4 Vineyard Power
The Vineyard Wind team also includes Vineyard Power, a member-owned 501(c)(12) non-
profit based on the island of Martha’s Vineyard since November 2009. With a growing
membership base of over 1,350 households and businesses, the 21st-Century energy
cooperative aims to produce electricity from local, renewable resources while advocating
for and keeping the benefits within the island community. Vineyard Wind has entered into
a CBA with Vineyard Power. The relationship between Vineyard Wind and Vineyard
Power has enabled significant input into the Project design process from members of the
local community, such that the Project design addresses local concerns and enhances
opportunities for local benefits. Messrs. Richard Andre and Erik Peckar of Vineyard Power
have been working closely with the broader project team, with lead responsibility for local
and regional outreach. Vineyard Power is overseen by a nine-member elected Board of
14
Avangrid Renewables is a subsidiary of Avangrid, a New York Stock exchange listed company (AGR).
Other subsidiaries of Avangrid include Central Maine Power, United Illuminating (CT), New York State
Electric & Gas and Rochester Gas and Electric.

Directors that includes Ann Berwick, former Chair of the Department of Public Utilities
(DPU) and Undersecretary for Energy at EEA, and Mike Jacobs, who is leading the Union of
Concerned Scientists’ work on electricity markets and regulatory reform.
1.11.5 Epsilon Associates, Inc. (Lead Environmental Consultant)
Epsilon Associates is an approximately 50-person engineering and environmental consulting

firm based in Maynard, Massachusetts. For the Vineyard Wind Connector, Epsilon’s role is
lead environmental consultant for the necessary state, regional, and local permitting for the
state-jurisdictional aspects of the Project.
Epsilon’s engineers, scientists, planners, and regulatory specialists are engaged in

environmental analyses, modeling, licensing, and permitting for energy infrastructure
projects throughout the northeast. In recent years, Epsilon has worked with clients to
complete the permitting for the NSTAR Electric/Comcast Martha’s Vineyard Hybrid Cable
project, New England Power Company d/b/a National Grid’s second Nantucket Cable
project, the NSTAR Electric 345kV Southeast Massachusetts (SEMA) Transmission Upgrade
project, and the NSTAR Electric 115 kV Line 139 project. Other Cape projects include the
New England Power Company d/b/a National Grid’s Mid-Cape Main Replacement project,
National Grid’s Sagamore Line Reinforcement Project (multiple segments), and the
KeySpan/National Grid Bourne Line.
Elsewhere in the Commonwealth, Epsilon has completed, or is currently involved in

permitting efforts for the Eversource HEEC Cable Project (offshore cable across Boston
Harbor), New England Power Company d/b/a National Grid’s 115 kV underground
Worcester Cable project, the New England Power Company d/b/a National Grid/Eversource
Energy d/b/a NSTAR 345kv underground Woburn to Wakefield Line Project, and the
NSTAR 345kV Transmission Reliability Project (Stoughton to Boston, underground). Other
Epsilon transmission project experience includes the 14.5-mile 345 kV Cricket Valley line
and Niagara Mohawk’s eight-mile 345kV transmission line for the Besicorp Empire
Development project.
1.11.6 Foley Hoag LLP, Counsel
Foley Hoag is a highly respected law firm with offices in Boston, New York, Washington
DC, and Paris. The firm is well known for its work in the energy, clean tech, and
environmental sectors. For the Vineyard Wind Connector, Adam Kahn, a Partner in the
Boston office, will have a lead role in the state level permitting effort, with a particular focus
on the EFSB and MEPA reviews. Mr. Kahn has more than 25 years of experience, with deep
expertise in a broad spectrum of matters involving renewable energy, conventional energy,
project permitting, and environmental compliance.

1.11.7 Stantec, Engineering Design support
Stantec is a multi-national engineering and professional services firm with more than 22,000
employees operating from over 400 locations. The firm provides a full range of power
sector services including project management, conceptual project development, detailed
engineering and design, and construction management, as well as start-up and
commissioning services. Stantec’s in-house staff has extensive experience in detailed
engineering and design of underground electrical duct banks, transmission lines, and
substations. Stantec has executed a multitude of underground electrical transmission
projects up to 345 kV and overhead transmission projects up to 765 kV, as well as
substations up to 500 kV DC and 765 kV AC. For the Vineyard Wind Connector, Stantec
engineers based in Boston and Quincy, MA have provided engineering and design support
for the landside 220 kV underground transmission lines and the 220 kV/115 kV substation.
1.11.8 Gradient Corporation
Based in Cambridge, MA, Gradient Corporation is responsible for the electro-magnetic field
(EMF) modeling and analysis. Peter Valberg, PhD and Christopher Long, PhD are widely
recognized experts in the field. Dr. Valberg has presented EMF modeling results and
analysis before the EFSB for many above-ground and underground transmission projects.
Recent examples include the 345 kV NSTAR Lower SEMA project, the 115 kV Eversource
Line 139 project on the Cape, the Eversource/National Grid 345 kV Woburn to Wakefield
project, and the 115 kV Eversource Baker Needham project.
1.11.9 Geo SubSea
Jeff Gardner, President of Geo Subsea LLC, serves as the Field Program Manager for
Vineyard Wind and subject matter expert on marine geology and geophysics. Having
supervised and conducted hundreds of surveys in the U.S. and around the world for over
27 years, he is well versed in most aspects of marine operations, including geological,
geophysical, geotechnical, and oceanographic studies. Mr. Gardner has been involved in
the offshore wind industry since its infancy in the U.S., playing a significant role in survey
programs for Deepwater Wind’s Block Island Project, the Cape Wind Energy Project, and
now Vineyard Wind, not to mention performing surveys and consulting for most of the
other offshore wind projects on the east coast and some overseas. Thus, he is very familiar
with state and federal agency requirements and has been involved in most aspects of
geophysical and geotechnical activities from pre-survey planning to field surveys to post-
survey data processing, interpretation, and product development, as well as client
representation at meetings. He holds a BS in Marine Geology and an MS in Oceanography
along with national and state Professional Geology certifications. His specialty includes the
use of geophysical methods to study coastal processes, marine sediments and stratigraphy,
underwater archaeology, and benthic habitats.

1.12 Conclusion
The Project will directly advance the goals created by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’
2016 energy legislation by delivering up to 800 MW of clean, renewable offshore wind
energy to the New England electric grid. An up to 800-MW Project would offset CO2
emissions from the ISO New England system by approximately 1,680,000 tons per year
(tpy). In addition, the Project is expected to create a range of environmental and economic
benefits for southeastern Massachusetts (including New Bedford, the Cape, and the Islands),
Massachusetts as a whole, and the entire New England region. Project benefits will extend
across the design, environmental review, and permitting phase, the procurement,
fabrication, and construction/commissioning phase, the multi-decade operating phase, as
well as the future decommissioning effort.
In advancing this Project to help fulfill the Commonwealth’s clean energy goals, Vineyard
Wind has performed a thorough routing analysis to identify suitable grid interconnection
points, workable shoreline Landfall Sites, and the most favorable offshore and onshore
export cable routes. In addition, the Proponent has selected underground cable burial
techniques to minimize potential impacts to the human and natural environments.
The proposed Project reflects a considerable engineering design effort, together with
feedback received during extensive outreach discussions with the regulatory community,
officials from local towns, and a long list of stakeholders from the fishing and maritime
sectors, environmental advocacy groups, area educational institutions, and renewable
energy cooperatives. Vineyard Wind is committed to continuing these outreach efforts as
the Project moves through the environmental review and permitting processes.

Letters of Support
Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe
Tribal Historic Preservation Department
Judith Judson, Commissioner

Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources
Boston, MA 02114
Re: Vineyard Wind
November 27, 2017
Dear Commissioner Judson,
On behalf of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe, I’d like to take this opportunity to express our support for the
Vineyard Wind offshore wind project. The Tribal Historic Preservation Department (THPD) has been in
consultation with Vineyard Wind since April of this year. We have enjoyed the candid responses to our questions
and professional manner of which our communications have been conducted. They are very accessible and
forthcoming with documents, maps, and survey results that we request. It is our practice to scrutinize the
companies vying to build turbines in our waters. Vineyard Wind has shown us a level of cooperation we have
grown to trust.
The Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe has not always supported offshore wind projects. Those objections were related
to the proposed site location not an opposition to alternative energy. As we witness the onset of climate changes
we applaud Vineyard Wind for its innovation and intent to address its project in regard to coastal weather
conditions. Indigenous leadership must always make decisions that protect our future; we are pleased to cooperate
with others who take that responsibility seriously.
The Tribal community is in need of exciting new career opportunities in the vast array of jobs offshore wind
projects like this will open. As a coastal Tribe it will be culturally meaningful to participate in this endeavor to
help supply citizens with clean energy.
We do hope the Commission will see fit to select Vineyard Wind’s bid as a company that is likely to be a good
neighbor and fitting community partner in Massachusetts waters.
In Thanksgiving,
Ramona Peters
Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Cc: Governor Charlie Baker

Secretary Matthew A. Beaton, Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
Vineyard Wind LLC
Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe

Historic Preservation Department
483 Great Neck Rd South, Mashpee, MA 02649 │P:(508) 477-0208 ext. 101 E: Ramona.Peters@mwtribe-nsn.gov
Vineyard Haven
December 10, 2017

To all concerned parties:

The community I represent is well aware of the failed endeavors to harness alternate energy
sources in the Nantucket Sound and the immediate efforts needed to reduce our carbon footprint.

We have witnessed positive collaborative efforts partnering Vineyard Power/Vineyard Wind with
our fisheries industries; learning /listening to concerns and opening discussion to find solutions
to concerns regarding this offshore energy project.

The relationships of all parties; consumers, alternative energy providers, and the fisheries that I have
been personally connected to as a commercial fisherman, science teacher and lifelong resident
(watching draggers, sea scallopers, sea clammers) pass my home of 62 years, will benefit from the
cooperative approach that has been helpful during the preliminary phase of the project. These benefits
will continue as the project develops from planning to construction.

It is with overwhelming excitement and purpose that I give my support to their project.

Respectfully yours,

Captain Ned Rice
Beamish Charters, Martha’s Vineyard

Attachment B
Figures
G:\Projects2\MA\MA\4771\MXD\Task_2_MEPA\ENF\USGS_Cable_Corridors_Upland_Routing_20171213.mxd Data Source: Office of Geographic Information (MassGIS), Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Information Technology Division
0 0.5 1 2
Nautical Miles
0 1 2
Miles
0 1 2
Barnstable Switching Station Kilometers
(Interconnection Point)
New
Hampshire
Ave
Covell's Beach
Great Island
Federal Wat ers
Southernmost Starting Point

for Vineyard Wind Connector
LEGEND
Eastern Offshore Export Cable Corridor
Western Offshore Export Cable Corridor
Federal Wat ers HDD
Preferred Upland Route
Noticed Alternative Upland Route
Alternative Landfall Site, Route Variant
U.S. Public Land Survey System
State/Federal Boundary (Submerged Lands Act)
Federal Waters
Vineyard Wind Lease Area
OCS-A 0501
Scale 1:190,080
1 inch = 3 miles
Basemap: USA Topo Maps, ESRI
0 1.5 3 Miles
°
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
This product is for informational purposes and may not be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes.
Figure 1-1
Project Overview, USGS Locus
G:\Projects2\MA\MA\4771\MXD\Task_2_MEPA\ENF\PRNA_overview_aerial_20171128.mxd Data Source: Office of Geographic Information (MassGIS), Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Information Technology Division
0 0.25 0.5 1 6A
"
) LEGEND
Un
Nautical Miles
Preferred Route ("PR")
io
n
0 0.5 1
Utility ROW Rail ROW
St
Miles Noticed Alternative Route ("NA")
re
et
0 0.5 1
Kilometers PR Variant 1: Willow Street
PR Variant 2: Utility ROW
Barnstable Switching Station
PR Variant 3: Bike Path
6
£
et ¤ PR Variant 4: Great Island
Mary Dunn Way

re
Will
St Iy
an
ak PR Variant 5: Independence Drive
ow
no
O ug
NA Variant 1: Attucks Lane
Stre
h
R
oa
et
6
£
¤ d Proposed Substation Site
d rive
oa nce D Town Boundary
R ende
i ll Indep
H
°
g 0 1,500 3,000
in Scale 1:36,000
ly
F 1 inch = 3,000 feet Feet
ot
et
o
Sh Basemap: Aerial Imagery, Google
re
Attucks Lane
St
ne
St
La
w
at
ll o
io
ys
n
Wi
ne
Av
Higg
en
in
ue
Ph
F o r es
ins C
rowe
t R oa
ve
ad
Yarmouth
o ad
ri
Ro
ll Ro
D
Barnstable
d
Cam p S
nd
hR
ad
th
Po Ro
O ld
ad
ou
d
ou t
ng W oo
rm
Lo
Be
St a g
ar m
tr ee t
Ya
ar
Iy a Buc k
se
eR
nn
st Y
ane
Is la n
sW
ou d Ro
gh ad
oa
Ro ad
et L
We
e Ro
ay
n lm o u th
Bar
La
d
Fa ad
ys
aqu
ne
ns ta
in et
Ph
qu
re
d
St
oa
We
b le
a in
R
M
ok
d
Ol
R oa
ro
ne
B
La
n
Le w is B ay
d
ad
w
ys
To
Ro
Ro ad
We
ne
st r ay 8
in
Ma G e2
Ph
et
in ut
ow
lo n y
St
re
r ee ns
l Ro
St
R oa d
t i
W
n
O ld C o
et
ai
Pit ch e
re
M
St
So
ut
h
Dennis
Straw berry Hill Road
rs Wa
ue
ue
v en
en
rA
O ce an St re
y
Av
e Si
dd lve
et
rry
rL
re
Sc ea
St
Be
fL
n
an
ai
e
M
et
h
ut
t
So
t re e
R oa d o ld S
Smi th Stre et G o sn
e
e ac h
venu
Cr ai
g vi ll
eB Lewis Bay
Sea A
O ce a
n Av e New Hampshire
n ue
Ave
h
Sout
Covell's Beach
Great Island - Variant Landfall Site
Imagery ©2017 , CNES / Airbus, DigitalGlobe, MassGIS, Commonwealth of Massachusetts EOEA, USDA Farm Service Agency
Figure 1-2
Onshore Locations: Preferred Route, Noticed Alternative Route, and Variants
G:\Projects2\MA\MA\4771\MXD\Task_2_MEPA\ENF\Aerial_Export_Cable_Corridors_20171213.mxd Data Source: Office of Geographic Information (MassGIS), Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Information Technology Division
0 0.5 1 2
Nautical Miles
0 1 2
Miles
0 1 2
Kilometers
Southernmost Starting Point

for Vineyard Wind Connector
LEGEND
Eastern Offshore Export Cable Corridor
Western Offshore Export Cable Corridor
HDD
Town Boundary
State/Federal Boundary
Federal Waters
Scale 1:158,400
1 inch = 2.5 miles
0 1.25
Basemap: Bing Aerial Imagery, Microsoft Corporation

2.5 Miles
°
Figure 1-3
Offshore Export Cable Corridors, Aerial Base
G:\Projects2\MA\MA\4771\MXD\Task_2_MEPA\ENF\Federal_Lease_Area_Overview_Focus_20171207.mxd
LEGEND
60
Rhode Island and Massachusetts Wind Energy Area Lease Areas
8
70 0
40
Massachusetts Wind Energy Area Lease Areas
30
Contours
50
10 - 50 m 100 - 150 m
60 - 90 m > 200 m
Scale 1:950,400
1 inch = 15 miles
Basemap: Ocean Basemap, ESRI
0 7.5 15 Miles
° 60
100
20
0
15
0
80
20
Massachusetts
Cape
Cod Bay
Rhode Island
7
6 0
50 0
40
30
10 Nantucket
20 0 20
Sound
1
Martha's Vineyard l
Rhode Island n ne
OCS-A Sound ha
tC
10
0486 e
40
k eg Nantucket
us
M
10
10
30
20 OCS-A
50
0486 20
Nantucket Shoals
40
OCS-A 0487
W 1
d
rd 50
30
in
OCS-A
ya A 0
20
40
0500
ne -
Vi C S
O
OCS-A 0502
30
40
OCS-A 0503
50
60
70
80
Note: 8OCS-A
0 0502 & OCS-A 0503 not yet leased Service Layer Credits: Esri, DeLorme, GEBCO, NOAA NGDC, and other contributors
Figure 1-4
2015 RI and MA Lease Area Overview
Figure 1-5
Typical Submarine Cable Cutaway
200-MW onshore cable 400-MW onshore cable
Figure 1-6
Upland Cable Cutaway
3x4 layout 6x2 layout
3’ street or ROW surface street or ROW surface
3’
4’ 7’
6’
8’
3’
5’
10” ducts spaced

12” apart
10” ducts spaced

12” apart
Trench width at top = ~10 feet Trench width at top = ~11 feet
Figure 1-7
Typical Duct Bank Cross Sections
G:\Projects2\MA\MA\4771\MXD\Task_2_MEPA\ENF\Proposed_Substation_Site_20171204.mxd Data Source: Office of Geographic Information (MassGIS), Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Information Technology Division
LEGEND
Proposed Access Driveway
Proposed Substation Site (6.35 acres)
Eversource Parcel
Eversource Right-of-Way (approx.) Barnstable
Switching Station
Parcel Boundary (MassGIS Level 3)
Scale 1:2,400
1 inch = 200 feet
0
Basemap: Aerial Imagery, Google

50 100 200
Feet °
6.35 acres
y
on Wa
unicati
Comm
Independence Drive
Independence Drive
Imagery ©2017 , DigitalGlobe, MassGIS, Commonwealth of Massachusetts EOEA, USDA Farm Service Agency
Figure 1-8
Proposed Substation Site
G:\Projects2\MA\MA\4771\MXD\Task_2_MEPA\ENF\Proposed_Substation_Schematic_20171206.mxd Data Source: Office of Geographic Information (MassGIS), Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Information Technology Division
LEGEND
Proposed Substation Layout
Proposed Access Driveway
Proposed Substation Site (6.35 acres)
Eversource Parcel Barnstabl
e
Swi
tchi
ngStation
Eversource Right-of-Way (approx.)
Parcel Boundary (MassGIS Level 3)
Scale 1:2,400
1 inch = 200 feet
0

50 100 y 200
Feet °
on Wa
unicati
Comm
Independence Drive
Independence Drive
Imagery ©2017
Vi
neyar
dWi
ndConnector
Fi
gure1-9
Pr
oposedSubstati
on–Schemati
cPlan
_
^
G:\Projects2\MA\MA\4771\MXD\Task_2_MEPA\ENF\Existing_Marine_Cables_20171207.mxd Data Source: Office of Geographic Information (MassGIS), Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Information Technology Division
LEGEND
_ 345 kV Substations
^ Cape Cod
_
^ 115 kV Substations Bay
Existing Submarine Cables
Tremont
Submerged Lands Act (SLA) Boundary
^
Transmission Lines
115 kV
_
^
_ (partial)
345 kV
_
^ West Barnstable Barnstable Switching
Station (115 kV)
_
^
Vineyard Wind Lease Area (OCS-A 0501) (345 & 115 kV)
Wind Energy Area Lease Areas
Scale 1:300,000
1 inch = 5 miles
0 1.25 2.5
Cape Cod
Canal
5
Miles °
_
^ _
^
_
^
_
^
le 1
Na
Cab
nt
u
_
^
ck
ket
et
tu c
Ca
ble
Nan
2
Buzzards
Bay
Nantucket
Sound
Mart ha 's
Vin ey ard
Na ntu ck et
Vineyard Wind
Lease Area
nergy
e Wind"
0500
OCS-A 0501
Esri, DeLorme, GEBCO, NOAA NGDC, and other contributors

Figure 1-10
Existing Submarine Cables in Nantucket Sound
G:\Projects2\MA\MA\4771\MXD\Task_2_MEPA\ENF\Existing_Marine_Infrastructure_NOAA_20171128.mxd Data Source: Office of Geographic Information (MassGIS), Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Information Technology Division
LEGEND
Anchorage Areas
Scale 1:168,000
1 inch = 14,000 feet
Basemap: NOAA Chart 13237
0 7,000 14,000
Feet
°
Figure 1-11
Existing Marine Infrastructure
G:\Projects2\MA\MA\4771\MXD\Task_2_MEPA\ENF\route_series_PR_9000_20171128.mxd Map Projection: NAD83 UTM Zone 19
an e
cl e
C ir
El
ad
t Si B ro o k
to
a L
es lve h i ll
Ro
Cr
ne
n
rL La
Roa d
Ir o
Cu
sh
Ro
ea ne
La
tte
a
fL ad
ru
qu
N e p tu n
si
e
rL
d Ro
ad
a Ex
iv
n
ne
ta
Je
an oo
oi s
is o
et Pa
Dr
ad
ew
as
e er ul P in
Aspine t
Ro
Al
P in
An
on
Ro a
Bo
ad
eS Sa ad K er La
ed
e L
ry ne
ul e
Ro
t re nd
ue
wi
Co
oad
bl
Su et y ur ad
an
Le
en
va
nt
Ne
La
im
mm t o
xR
e
ne
r R
ou
Eg
r
Av
W
M
ar
er
d
Ac
g u
LOCUS
at
S io
Pa
St
me
Ni
Ha
bo
ta
re
r ry
res
ry
ad
Na
me
rb
ag
et
ke
Ta
ad
er
or
Be
us
se
ar
rR
M
ue
tR
Av
ow
Deer field Road
4
et
aL
Ro
ad
en
Ba
ke
oa
en
sL
R
La
ad
Ro
an
Av
Yarmouth
Ba
oa
Ra
y
ue
d
ue
3
an
ne
W
in
e
en
d
tts
ry
Ro bo
es
oa
e
Variant 4 (Great Island Landfall Site)
Ro
er
Av
ad R
t
se
Ro ee
yb
Barnstable
ad
wn
hu
e
He ad
in Pa
Ba
ue
2
dg
ac
w Dennis
Ma
e
Ro
en
ss
Sac
Ma
Av
e nu e
P aw
rt
Br
he m
ou
oa
1
dw in ne
ester
C
La
a Av
r la
ka n
ay e
Path
mb er Ma
a ng
naw
Ch d
W i nch
h Se
i us
pr oa ho
ps
S lR
ue
kut D
Pa
!
Le w is B ay B o u l e v a el SCALE
S ou t
th
en
rd w
ro Sa
Av
K
C lt M
ri v e
a 0 375 750
ut
Sh
rsh 1:9,000
ti c
La Feet
or
ne 1 inch = 750 feet

e
ec
Le
R
wi Basemap: Aerial Imagery, Google

nn
oa
s
Ba
Co
d
y
Ro
ad
LEGEND
Lo Preferred Route
re
na Preferred Route Variants
New Hampshire
Ro
ad
City/Town Boundary
Avenue Landing Site Lewis Pond
Anch
o ra g e Proposed Substation Parcel
Parcel Boundary (MassGIS)
Lan
Wa
llis
H
er
Dr Article 97 Land
e
i ve i ve
i ta
D r iv e Dr
ge
r e #
* Sensitive Receptor*
S ho
South
Perennial Stream (1:25,000 USGS)
MassDEP Wetlands (1:12,000)
Lewis Bay Hydrologic Connection
Se
ag Wetland
ul l
Ro
ad Open Water
NHESP (2017)
ne
Co v
. Potential Vernal Pool
Is l a
e Ro
La
n !
ad R a d io sio
evi
nd
La n e
T el an e . Certified Vernal Pool
yL
!
e rt
Ro
Mos s Ro ad Do
h Priority Habitats of Rare Species
ad
Qua e
Sc il Ro L an
d
ers Estimated Habitats of Rare Wildlife

oa
al ad
lo P ow
R
p
w
Ro * Only the sensitive receptors directly abutting

do
ad
ea
l t the project routes are shown.

M
Sa
ad
Ro
al e
Wh
ad
Ro
nd
Isla
at
G re
Figure 1-12
Great Island - 0 0.05 0.1 0.2 Sheet 1 of 4
Variant Landfall Site 0 0.1 0.2
Nautical Miles
Miles
0 0.1 0.2 Preferred Route and Variants
Kilometers
Environmental Constraints
Imagery ©2017 , DigitalGlobe, MassGIS, Commonwealth of Massachusetts EOEA

ay
W
il l
dM
Ol
Rus
s ell
r L an
e Horse Pond LOCUS
La v e n de
L an
e
Little Sandy Pond
Orchid Lane
4 Yarmouth
3
ad
Barnstable
Ro
H or se Po nd
2
a ne
Dennis
dL
ar
o ad
1
Bo
o kR
ro
rn
nB
Ba
w
M
To
ak
ep
B u c k Isla nd Road SCALE
ea
K
Big Sandy Pond
ce
Lan 0 375 750
Road
e 1:9,000
1 inch = 750 feet Feet
Th w a t e r s D r iv e
Jabinettes
an
Pond
li v
ok
u t h Ro ad
LEGEND
ul
Bro
d
S
oa
ad
R
Ro Be Preferred Route
ton
ok
nn
Pa
et
ro
ve
.
!
Preferred Route Variants
o
orn
d
nd
n tA
Dri
r tr i
d
B
t Yarm
w
Hea
ve
R oa
To
o
e rt a nu
dg
d Robe City/Town Boundary
ll P
nu oa e
ad
ve n R
eV
to n
u
Mi
Ro
A Br a Proposed Substation Parcel
ad
Wes
ne
a lle
o
No r
ho
bi R d
ne
d ne oa Parcel Boundary (MassGIS)
nR
Ec
d
e
ol
y
oo La io Co
La
iv
Mar
Ja
nn
Ro a
ig y Article 97 Land
Dr
W
ar ar em
n
yb i
Bu
ti o
M ar
ge
em
Higg
d
a Wa y t le
Sensitive Receptor*
rd
ca
os #
*
tta
rA
Va
R
Wi
Re ve
Co
in s C
La
id n
ldw
ue
ne
ne
A
ve
La
oo
No nu
r ow e
.
! e
s
bb
d Pa
Hydrologic Connection
er
e
y
iv
ad La
l l Roa d
h
Dr
at
th
Wetland
Tr
Sc ne
P
er
n
ho
eo
Ch
nv ll Open Water
s
ec
De
m
Dr
Av
u
y
ke
ut
He
Ki Cl en
NHESP (2017)
Wa
iv
rb
rb
tW ov ue er
e
A
er
Jo
ay ry
ns
Ro . Potential Vernal Pool
sh
La !
Ke
ad ne
ua
W
. Certified Vernal Pool
ad
Be Bo
B
Co hi !
Ro
ak
ff ve xb
ac le r ly er Priority Habitats of Rare Species
er
tr
rt h
hm
Arch ie Road
ee Ro ry
R
an La
No
Estimated Habitats of Rare Wildlife
ad
oa
s L R ad ne
oa
d
Ro
an e d
d
* Only the sensitive receptors directly abutting
ls
Bog R o a
el
ad
Am the project routes are shown.
t
Ab
S tr e e
Ro
Mc ge e Str ee t
Br os
ad Ro
ay
fo ad
rd
Gr
Ru by
ad
Ro
ow
ad
Ro
28
sl
)
"
ly
in
ol
R o u te
W
d
M
28
oa
Pa t h
et
rR
re
o ad
ad
we
.
!
St
Ro
Road
lo
as
e
e
ge
B og R
r inc
iv
Ca
yf
P
om
Dr
rv
lle
m
Ma
er D ri v e
e
ia
.
!
iv
Co
Al
od
Th
Ro
i ll
de
Dr
ne
ad
ive
wo
W
n od
c
Circle
iv
s ti
Ro
Figure 1-12
o
le
tL
Dr
Dr
ad ew
La n e
Br
Ru
ng
ew l
de
ng
on
Sheet 2 of 4
le y
ad
s
Ta
st Ta
d
er
Ca
ed
er
ue
App
ia R o
ia R o a
Sib
nt
Ro W
g er
Co u
bl
eb
en
ad
u
ad Br
ue
H
st
im
oo
e
Av
Ro
le b y
e
er
rin
kh
I ro
nu
en
La n
st as
W
Hu
r tl a
Ro il l
Preferred Route and Variants
ay
El
A c ad
ve
Sp
s
a
La
qu
c le
Av
ad
ds
wi
Se
C ir ne
to
W
nd
tA
oi
ha
Ana
Le
on
st
Ro
Si
r ry
sh
h
p ec
sB
re lve Pr Pa
ut
rus
Wa
Ro
ne
am Ex
ad
di
Ro
C rL ul
Be
Cu
So
et
o
a
La
an
ad
ea
P ro s
tte Av er
y
Je
ad
ul
fL rL en La oad
St
R R
ev
ne
n
an ue od
e an Imagery ©2017 ,oDigitalGlobe,
ad MassGIS, Commonwealth of Massachusetts EOEA, USDAw o Farm Service Agency is o
ar
e in e P
d
Al
Abandoned Road 6
£
¤
(formerly Higgins
Crowell Road) Vineyard Wind Connector
Co 6
£
¤
Ha
un
ty
rl
Av
ow
en
ue
LE
Av
ue
en
Aven
OUTH
ue
STAB LOCUS
e
ac
4
Gr
YARM
BARN
Oa Yarmouth
k
Av 3
An sel H
en
ue Barnstable
2 Dennis
a ll e t
M id T e c
1
R oa d
.
!
et
h D ri v e
re
St
SCALE
ow
ad
Ro
K
i ll
ll
owe
ay
0 375 750
W
r
H ig g in s C 1:9,000
W
Feet
to
1 inch = 750 feet

ni
Bo
LEGEND
.
!
Preferred Route
T Preferred Route Variants
ck r ai
rj a l e R oa d City/Town Boundary
mb
e S h e lb u rn
Lu
Proposed Substation Parcel
New Testament
Baptist Church Parcel Boundary (MassGIS)
e ek #
* Article 97 Land
Cr Sensitive Receptor*
ill #
*
M La ne Perennial Stream (1:25,000 USGS)
ad ee
C h ic P a th
Bettys MassDEP Wetlands (1:12,000)
e s P a th
M ic h e ll
ven
ue Wetland
T he o do
n A
Jeff
erso Marguerite E Small P a th Open Water
Elementary School Dan as
H oo ve r R oa d
NHESP (2017)
F illm o re
E is e n h o
Mattacheese
.
!
re R o o
#
* . Potential Vernal Pool
J il ls P a th
Ol d Mi ll W a y
Middle School
!
G ra n t R
W oo dc re st
w er Ro a
#
* !
sev
R oa d
Priority Habitats of Rare Species

e lt Ro ad
e t Path
h es
o ad
C oc Estimated Habitats of Rare Wildlife

d
ue
La ne
to n A v
en * Only the sensitive receptors directly abutting
Ad am s
W a s h in g the project routes are shown.

Mill Creek
R o ad
H ig g
C o o li d g
Ro ad
Ch an dler Gr ay
ins
Bu c ha n
C ro w
e R o ad
Yarmouth
Police
e ll R
a n R oa d
Cam p S
Department
a
ll W
oa
W ay
L in c #
*
d
Mi
o l n Aven ue
tr e e t
D r iv e
A li jo
Ol d
B en ja m in
Figure 1-12
Sheet 3 of 4

Flax
Pond Vineyard Wind Connector
Cummaquid Golf Club
e
Co
D ri v
ng
r es
sio
na
C lu b
l
D ri v
n t ry
.
! LOCUS
e
Variant 2 (Utility ROW)
Co u
e
n a l D ri v e
Dennis Pond
L an
.
!
4
tons
Yarmouth
3
ad
Ma ry Du n n W ay
ti o
M a rs
Ro
Wi Do r
a Na
ng
foo al R Barnstable
P o in t
oa
pine
tD
Long 2 Dennis
riv d
Variant
! 1
u st
e .
C y pr e ss
M id
Pond
(Willow Street)
A ug
.
!
1
!
Utility ROW
t SCALE
Oa kmo nt R o ad ee
K
r
St 1:9,000
0 375 750
!
er
H am s te ad
d La n e t San ds La ne
Deser
S umm
Ro a
F l in t Rock Basemap: Aerial Imagery, Google
LEGEND
Preferred Route
Utility ROW Rail ROW
City/Town Boundary
ad
se Ro
Si Parcel Boundary (MassGIS)
E n t e rp ri
st
6
£
¤ er
s c le Article 97 Land
C ir
#
* Sensitive Receptor*
Bike Path (MassDOT-proposed) 6
£
¤ MassDEP Wetlands (1:12,000)
!
Wetland
Open Water
Abandoned Road
!
(formerly Higgins NHESP (2017)

Trinity
Christian Variant 3 (Bike Path) Co Crowell Road) . Potential Vernal Pool
!
Ha
un
Academy ty . Certified Vernal Pool
rl o
Av
!
en
w
#
* ue
Av
LE
ue
en
Aven
.
!
e et
OUTH
#
!
ue
STAB
!
Reach * Only the sensitive receptors directly abutting
Str
In de pe nd en ce Assembly the project routes are shown.
w
D r iv e
llo
of God
!
.
ac
Variant 5 (Independence Drive)
Wi
Gr
YARM
BARN
Oa
k
Av
An sel H
en
Barnstable Switching Station ue
(Interconnection Point) .
!
a ll e t R
Lamson
Pond
oa d
Proposed Substation Site .
!
Figure 1-12
.
!
.
! .
!
Sheet 4 of 4
M a ry D
o ad
ay
e ll R
.
!
w
Higgins C r o
W
to
un
ni
Bo
n W
ay
.
!
Imagery
.
! ©2017 , DigitalGlobe, MassGIS, Commonwealth of Massachusetts EOEA, USDA Farm Service Agency
.
! This product is for informational purposes and may not be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes.
.
!
G:\Projects2\MA\MA\4771\MXD\Task_2_MEPA\ENF\route_series_NA_9000_20171128.mxd

V ie w
ne
o ad
D r iv e
La
ys
C hild s St re
d
Lo ng
D ri ve
ne
dR
on
o ad
n
P
hi
B la nt yr e
Se ag at e La
P on
he a d
ad
P on
P
ey R
ln R o
d
P on d
H ol
e
d
iv
A r ro w
B ee La ne
ns
D un a s ki n o a
et Dr
C ir c le
W ol l
e V ie w
ly L
R
tr
Du n
et
L in c o
A ve nu e
S
T ev y aw Road
n
an e
ai
ne
M We
Pin e Str eet Ce nte
rville st
Ma LOCUS
in
St
re e
t
L a fr a n c
H il l R o a d
Oak Barnstable
ad
3
Ma in S tre et
rs R o
Yarmouth
La n e
ie w L a n e
e A ve n
L in d a ad
H e ad w a te
Ro
2
e R oa d
iver
e
Jo an R oa d
R oa d vi
ll
C a r la d ig
u
Li
oa
S tan ley
ville R
lli a
e
R iv e r v
Cr
1
an R
ad
e
D riv
K a th e ri n
e
in ld
Ro
a O
Wa y El
en
r
Cente
re
Carlott a Avenue Sh
au
ad
ad
yL
M
P
S
Ro
an e
he
SCALE
u om
as
t
ot
K
an
lli
i
0 375 750
E
t
1:9,000
Seabury Lane
L an
R
Sa 1 inch = 750 feet Feet
oa
G
un
aR
oa
d
e
oa Basemap: Aerial Imagery, Google
tF
H d
ie
i -o .
!
LEGEND
ld
Blue Jay Drive

n-
La ne
a-
hi Ol Noticed Alternative Route
Gr
ll R o a d d
S trawb erry H i ll R o
To
ee
d
oa wn Noticed Alternative Route Variant
n
No r t
h il l R h Se Ro
Chur c c ti o n ad
d
City/Town Boundary
B r ia r La
oa
R
et
oa d
Hi ll s
re

St
ea
er R
Keel Wa
ne
ve
Th e Strai ght W a
n
bor
ai
Article 97 Land
rR
Rudd
ad
M
F ox R u n
Ha r
ad
oa
P ra m R o
h
Sensitive Receptor*
ut
#
*
d
y
So
W
es
t .
! Perennial Stream (1:25,000 USGS)
r

e
Te
Riv
M e lb o u
ad
Hya nn ispo rt
rr
ne
Hem
y S ou
ad
Ro
La n e
ac
le R o
La
ing
G un w a
.
!
e
ll e
Wetland
on
Gi nge r
eon
rr
vi
Oreo Lane
r ne Ro
ift
th
ig
He
D o lp
Open Water
Cl
ra
Roa
S ec t i
C
ve
NHESP (2017)
ld
hi n L
ad
ad
Dri
O
H o rs e s
on
Ken n
Ro
h o e La ne F a rm
Pe
O ld . Potential Vernal Pool
et h
Patricia St re et
!
i ll a Street
na
an e
R ay Wa y
e E ue
m on
ab
e dy
d St !
C i rc l e
en
liz
ree
ue t Priority Habitats of Rare Species
Av
en
Is a le n
v
y
La k
A
Va e
P r is c
A v ue
ll e
u
an
en
nt e n
ce
O Cent * Only the sensitive receptors directly abutting
e Roa
s a Av
e rv il
ue
le A the project routes are shown.

ea ell
ven
en
ue
b
d
Av
er
Lake
Marie A v e
mm
Pl
ne
Irvi ng S t r
Elizabeth
Vi
Su
S ix th
ad
nue h Ro
S e c on
ad A ve ac
Ro le Be
g vi l
C ra i
nu e
h
ac
F if th
Aven u
F ir s t
ct
Be
et
ay
West W
d A ve
sp e
o rt
H a rb
T h ir d
Sh
A ven
A ven
Pr o
Ir v i n
e
Kear
nu e
Fo ur t
or Vi
e
Way
A ven
ue
s Dr iv e
ue
l ia A v e n u
Pi n e
g St
Gr e e
d
s ar g
Roa
Figure 1-13
Gre en Dun es Driv e
Fairv iew S tr e et
h A ve
each
ew
B ay
P in e W
re e
Lo ng
ue
Sheet 1 of 3
e Av enu e
l e y Avenu e
St ree t
Seven
Gr ee n Du ne
t
n ue
Ma g no
0 0.05 0.1 0.2

Nautical Miles
p o rt
t h S tr
n n is
t Hya
For e
st S tr ee 0 0.1 0.2
Miles Noticed Alternative Route
and Variant
eet
0 0.1 0.2
Covell's Beach Kilometers
Landing Site Oc
ean S
t re e t
Iy a
Hu nn
R oa d
ck ou

in gh
w Av en ue s N Ro
L a k e v ie ec ad
kR
in t
o ad
Å
õ1 32
y Po
Go
os
ive E a s t
H o ll
i d e Dr
eP
es
L ak
Co
o
i nt
tto
Ro
nw
LOCUS
.
!
Be
ad
oo
ar
d
d
a
se
Ro
La
s
od
W
ne
wo Barnstable
3
ay
h
ec Yarmouth
Be
i rc l e
W
riv e e s t
2
D
od C
de
si
ke
lewo
La 1
Cast
Ce
P itc h er s Wa
nt
er
La
SCALE
ce
K
ay
ne
0 375 750
a
Dr i ve
W
La n e
1:9,000
s T e rr
s
d 1 inch = 750 feet Feet
gu
oa
y
An
R
Beth
View
B is h o p
LEGEND
C o n n o rs
Lo ng
y
ht W a
Noticed Alternative Route
ve
Noticed Alternative Route Variant
t r a ig
Wequaquet Lake
o o d D ri
City/Town Boundary
Th e S
Ol Proposed Substation Parcel
h
d
B uc k w
ne
S ou t
ne W Parcel Boundary (MassGIS)
La
st o s
Mil l
ay ey
Fa
oa d
n
L an e Article 97 Land
ad
in
rm
Ph
il l R o
nd R
Ro
Sensitive Receptor*
is
#
*
o ad
om
ad
O a k la
r ry H
Lo
.
!
oln R
Way
e J e nn MassDEP Wetlands (1:12,000)
be
nu ie s P
Li nc
ra i g h t
a th
e
t ra w
28
Av
an
"
)
Lane
tL
Wetland
O ld S
es
Th e S t
que
ad
E ll is
28
in
o Open Water
ay
"
) ll R
fP
qua
Be
d
ers W
i nt
La
oa
NHESP (2017)
O
ay
t ai n
Po Dr St
ke
rR
We
W ra
iv wb . Potential Vernal Pool
pe
e
Cap
ri v e
Dan v
il A
ive
er E d le n
!
ni
ry L a ne
L
et
Ju
Sa
Hi
au
e Dr
nd D
ll !
St re
Ro
re
Na ad Ro 28
)
" Priority Habitats of Rare Species
l
Tr a il
th ad
s ho r
Br an ad R oa d
O a k la
Ro
D el t a
ez u th
ne F a lm o Estimated Habitats of Rare Wildlife
* St George Greek
W i nd
g en
rL
an
e
# Orthodox Church * Only the sensitive receptors directly abutting
T e ll e
the project routes are shown.

Dunns
Pond
Str
il l R o a d
D r iv e
ry H
aw
ber
P it c
e
ad
Blu
b er
R o ad
28
"
)
he r
ln R o
he a d
ry H
sW
o ad
ll
il l R
L in c o
A r ro w
y Hi
ay
rR
o ad
b e rr
n de
W
D ri v e
es
Figure 1-13
t
tM
Str ee
O la
t ra w
ai
Sheet 2 of 3
n
o ad
m St
he
Ke nn es aw Av
Ol d S
re
c
Long Pond et
J oh n
dR
Sa
e
n L an
P on
S a in t
Ch ild s St re
an e
ns
and Variant
Wag o
Du n
et t L
en ue
ls
V ie w M i tc h e l
Fa w c
W ay
D ri
nd
et
ve
Po
Er in
Imagery ©2017 , DigitalGlobe, MassGIS, Commonwealth of Massachusetts EOEA, USDA Farm Service
L a n Agency
e
ne
Bra ggs L a k Roa
d
t Ro c
oad
C a r ri a g e
Road in
B o u ld e r Fl
is B ar n st ab le R
P a l om
Acr e Hill Roa d
Old
Lane
Barnstable Switching Station
in o D
Ja
il L
an e
riv e
H y a nn
LOCUS
P on d
Li j a h
Proposed
R oa d
Substation Barnstable
6
Site 3 Yarmouth
£
¤
2
in ne ys L a n e
6
£
¤
Mar y Dun n Wa y
1
!
Utility ROW
O l d Ph
Trinity
Christian
.
! Academy SCALE
!
!
. #
* 1:9,000
0 375 750
.
! 1 inch = 750 feet Feet
.
! Hathaway's Pond Basemap: Aerial Imagery, Google
LEGEND
r iv e
t on D
.
!
City/Town Boundary
Th or n
ve
ri Parcel Boundary (MassGIS)
D .
!
Ki
e
an
Article 97 Land
dd
ce
L
M a r y Dunn W a y
's
ys
en
Sensitive Receptor*
Hi
#
*
ne
nd
ll R
in
pe
Ph
de
o
ad
In
ive
Dr
.
!
n ce
At
tu Wetland
ck
nd e
sL
an Open Water
G
e
ra
ep e
NHESP (2017)
ve
Flintrock
l
Ind
.
!
Pond . Potential Vernal Pool
Pl a ce
!
Å
õ 1 32
Iy a
nn
! . Certified Vernal Pool
!
ou
gh
Ro
ad Attucks L a n e Variant 1 Estimated Habitats of Rare Wildlife
(Attuck's Lane/Independence Drive) * Only the sensitive receptors directly abutting
Old R
Å
õ 1 32
the project routes are shown.
Ca Iy a
ou
pt a nn
t
in ou
e
Barnstable gh
13
Ro
2
ad
Police
Co
# .
!
* !
.
Department
ok L a n
O ld
e
S tr aw be rr y H i ll R o a
Å
õ
1 32 .
!
Figure 1-13
Iy a
nn
ou
Sheet 3 of 3
gh
ad
A ven ue
Ro
ad Ro
rt
d
o
i rc l
i rp
Be
A
le
and Variant
od C
ar
ir c
Pi t
se
od C
C it
che
s
lewo
W
le w o
ay
rs
Cast
Wa
.
!
Cast
G:\Projects2\MA\MA\4771\MXD\Task_2_MEPA\ENF\NBMCT_aerial_20171128.mxd Data Source: Office of Geographic Information (MassGIS), Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Information Technology Division
r
ie
rr
Ba
e
an
ic
rr
Hu
Fairhaven
Image Source: http://www.masscec.com/facilities/

new-bedford-marine-commerce-terminal
New
Bedford
ie r
arr
eB
an
rric
Hu
LEGEND
New Bedford Marine Commerce Terminal
Scale 1:14,400
1 inch = 1,200 feet
0
Basemap: 2016 Orthoimagery, Google

300 600 1,200
Feet
°
Imagery ©2017 , CNES / Airbus, DigitalGlobe, MassGIS, Commonwealth of Massachusetts EOEA, USDA Farm Service Agency
Figure 1-14
New Beford Marine Commerce Terminal
G:\Projects2\MA\MA\4771\MXD\Task_2_MEPA\ENF\route_series_PR_9000_water_20171129.mxd Map Projection: NAD83 UTM Zone 19
an e
cl e
C ir
El
ad
t B ro o
to
a L
es k h i ll
Ro
Cr
ne
n
La
Roa d
Ir o
Cu
sh
Ro
ne
La
tte
a
d
ru
qu
N e p tu n
si
e
rL a
d Ro
ad
Ex
iv
on
ta
Je
an oo
oi s
et Pa
Dr
ad
ew
as
e
is
er ul P in
Aspine t
Ro
P in
Al
An
on
Ro a
Bo
ad
eS Sa ad K er La
ed
e L
ry ne
ul
tr e
Ro
nd
wi
Co
oad
bl
et
ev
Su y ur ad
an
Si
Le
nt
Ne
La
im
mm t o
ar
lv
xR
e
ne
r R
ou
Eg
W
er
M
ar
er
Ac
d
g u
LOCUS
at
S io
ue
Pa
St Le
me
Ni
Ha
bo
ta
re
res
ry
ad
af
Na
en
me
rb
ag
et
ke
Ta
ad
er
La or
us
se
Av
ar
rR
ne
M
ue
tR
Av
ow
Deer field Road
4
et
aL
Ro
ad
en
Ba
ke
rry
oa
en
sL
R
La
Ro
ad
Av
an
Yarmouth
Ba
oa
Ra
y
ue
d
ue
Be
3
an
ne
W
in
e
d
en
t ts
ry
Ro bo
es
oa
e
Variant 4 (Great Island Landfall Site)
Ro
er
Av
ad R
t
se
Ro ee
yb
Barnstable
ad
wn
hu
ne
e
He ad
in Pa
Ba
ue
2
dg
ac
La
w Dennis
e
Ma
e
Ro
iv
en
ss
Sac
r
Dr
ge
Ma
Av
P aw
rt
Br
in
e
h em
ou
oa
on
pr
1
dw
ain
ester
S
eC
ka n
ay e rl
ad
Path
b
ue
P in
am
o
l Ma
el
naw
R
Ch
W i nch
us
Ave n
r ow ho
ps
ue
kut D
C Pa
Le w is B ay B o u l e v
!
th SCALE
en
a rd
a
Sa
h Se
Av
K
lt M
ri v e
a 0 375 750
ut
Sh
rsh 1:9,000
S ou t
t ic
La Feet
or
ne 1 inch = 750 feet

e
ec
Le
R
wi Basemap: Aerial Imagery, Google

nn
oa
s
Ba
Co
d
y
Ro
ad
LEGEND
Lo Preferred Route
re
na
New Hampshire
Ro
ad
City/Town Boundary
Avenue Landing Site Lewis Pond
Anch
o ra g e
Lan
Wa
llis
H
Public Water Supply Well (MassGIS)
er
Dr .
!
e
i ve i ve
i ta
D r iv e Dr DEP Approved Zone I
ge
e
or
Sh
South Wellhead Protection Area (Zone II)
Barnstable Wellhead Protection
Lewis Bay Overlay District
Se
ag Barnstable Groundwater Protection
ul l
Ro Overlay District
ad
Potential Public Water Supply Areas
(mapped by Cape Cod Commission)
ne
Co v
Is l a
e Ro
La
n
ad R a d io sio Parcel Boundary (MassGIS)
evi
nd
L a ne
T el an e
rt yL
Ro
he NOTE: There are no Interim Wellhead Protection
Mos s Ro ad Do
ad
Qua e Areas (IWPAs) within this mapped area.
Sc il Ro L an
d
s
oa
al
lo
ad
Po w er
R
p
w
Ro
do
ad
ea
lt
M
Sa
ad
Ro
al e
Wh
d
R oa
nd
Is la
at
G re
Figure 1-15
Great Island - 0 0.05 0.1 0.2 Sheet 1 of 4
Variant Landfall Site 0 0.1 0.2
Nautical Miles
Miles
0 0.1 0.2 Preferred Route and Variants
Kilometers
Water Protection
Zone I
Zone I
ay
W
il l
dM
Ol
Rus
Zone II/Potential Public Water Supply Area
s ell
r L an
e Horse Pond LOCUS
La v e n de
L an
e
Little Sandy Pond
Orchid Lane
4 Yarmouth
3
ad
Barnstable
Ro
H or se Po nd
2
a ne
Dennis
dL
ar
o ad
1
Bo
o kR
ro
rn
nB
Ba
w
M
To
ak
ep
B u c k Isla nd Road SCALE
ea
K
Big Sandy Pond
ce
H ig g
Lan 0 375 750
Road
e 1:9,000
in s C
Th w a t e r s D r iv e
Jabinettes
an
Pond
li v
ok
u t h Ro ad
ro
LEGEND
ul
Bro
we l
d
S
oa
ad
R
Ro
l Ro
Be Preferred Route
ton
ok
nn
Pa
et
ro
ve
o
orn
d
ad
nd
n tA
Dri Preferred Route Variants
r tr i
d
B
t Yarm
w
Hea
ve
Roa
To
o
e rt a nu
dg
Robe
ll P
u d e
en R oa City/Town Boundary
ad
eV
v un
t on
Mi
Br a
Ro
A d
Wes
e
oa
a lle
in Proposed Substation Site
No r
ho
R d
db oa
ne
ne n R
Ec
ld
e
y
oo La io Co
La
o Public Water Supply Well (MassGIS)
iv
Mar
Ja
nn
Ro a
ig y
Dr
W .
!
ar ar em
n
yb i
Bu
ti o
M ar
ge
em DEP Approved Zone I
d
a Wa y tl e
rd
ca
os
tta
rA
Va
R Re
Wi
ve
Co
Wellhead Protection Area (Zone II)
La
id n
ldw
ue
ne
ne
A
ve
La
oo
No nu
e
Overlay District
s
bb
d Pa
er
e
y
iv
ad La h
Dr
at Barnstable Groundwater Protection
th
Tr
Sc ne
P
er
n
ho Overlay District
eo
v Ch
en ll
s
ec
m
Dr
u
D
y
ve ke
ut
He
Ki Cl
Wa
iv
nu rb
rb
tW ov er
e
A
er e
Jo
ay ry
ns
Ro
sh
La
Ke
ad ne
ua
W Parcel Boundary (MassGIS)
ad
Be Bo
B
Co hi
Ro
ak
ff ve xb
ac le r ly
er
tr er NOTE: There are no Interim Wellhead Protection
rt h
hm
Arch ie Roa d
ee Ro ry
Areas (IWPAs) within this mapped area.
R
an La
No
ad
oa
s L R ad ne
oa
d
Ro
an e d
d
ls
Bog R o a
el
ad
Am
t
Ab
S tr e e
Ro
Mc ge e Str ee t
Br os
ad Ro
ay
fo ad
rd
Gr
Ru by
ad
Ro
ow
ad
Ro
28
sl
)
"
ly
in
ol
Ro ut e
W
d
M
28
oa
Pa t h
et
rR
re
ad
o ad
we
St
Ro
Road
lo
as
nc e
e
ge
B og R
iv
Pri Ca
yf
om
Dr
rv
lle
m
Ma
er D ri v e
e
ia
iv
Co
Al
d
Th
Ro
ill
oo
de
Dr
ne
ad
ive
e
W
n od
c
Circle
w
iv
s ti
Ro
Figure 1-15
o
le
tL
Dr
Dr
ad ew
La n e
Br
ue
Ru
ng
ew l
de
ng
on
Sheet 2 of 4
le y
ad
s
en
Ta
st Ta
a R oa d
er
Ca
er
ed
ue
App
ia R o
Sib
Av
nt
Ro W
g er
Co u
bl
eb
en
ad
u
ad Br
H
st
rry
im
oo
e
Ro
Av
le b y
e
er
rin
kh
I ro
nu
La n
st as
W
Hu
r tl a
Ro il l
Be
A c ad i
ay
El
ve
a
Sp
s
La
qu
ad c le
ds
Se
wi
C ir
W
to
ne
nd
tA
oi
ha
Ana
Water Protection
Le
st
on
n
Ro
Si
sh
h
p ec
sB
re lve Pr Pa
rus
ut
Wa
Ro
ne
am Ex
ad
di
Ro
C rL Cu ul
So
et
o
a
La
an
ad
ea
P ro s
tte Av er
Je
y
ul
ad
fL rL en La oad
St
R R
ev
an ne
on
an ue
Imagery ©2017 , oDigitalGlobe, MassGIS, Commonwealth of Massachusetts EOEA, USDA od
e ad w o Farm Service Agency
ar
e in e is
P
d
Al
Abandoned Road
6
£
¤
(formerly Higgins
Crowell Road) Vineyard Wind Connector
Co 6
£
¤
Ha
un
ty
rl
Av
ow
en
ue
LE
Av
ue
Zone I
en
Aven
OUTH
ue
STAB LOCUS
e
ac
4
A n se
Gr
YARM
BARN
Oa Yarmouth
3
l H a ll e t
k
Av
en
ue Barnstable
2 Dennis
R oa d
M id T e c
Zone I 1
et
h D riv e
re
St
SCALE
ow
ad
Ro
K
ill
ll
owe
ay
0 375 750
W
r
H ig g in s C 1:9,000
W
Feet
to
1 inch = 750 feet

Zone I
ni
Bo
LEGEND
Preferred Route
T
ck r ai
rj a l e Ro ad
mb
e
Zone II/Potential Public Water Supply Area S h e lb u rn City/Town Boundary
Lu
ek
.
!
re DEP Approved Zone I
il lC
M Zone I L an e Wellhead Protection Area (Zone II)
a de e
C h ic P a th
Bettys Barnstable Wellhead Protection
Overlay District
P a th
h e lle s
Hi gg
M ic
nue Barnstable Groundwater Protection
ve
T he o do
nA Overlay District
erso
i ns
Jeff P a th
Dan as
H oo ve r R oa d
C r ow
F il lm o re
E is e n h o
Zone I (mapped by Cape Cod Commission)

re R o o
J il ls P a th
Ol d Mi ll W a y
ell R
G ra n t R
W oo dc re st
wer R o a
sev
Ro ad
o ad
NOTE: There are no Interim Wellhead Protection
e lt Ro ad
th
et P a Areas (IWPAs) within this mapped area.
h es
oa d
C oc
d
ue
La ne
en
to n A v
Ad am s
W a s h in g
Mill Creek
R oa d
C o o li d g
Ch an dl er Gr ay
Ro ad Zone I
Bu ch an
e R oa d
a n Ro ad
Cam p S
y
a
ll W
W ay
L in c
Mi
o l n Aven ue
tr e e t
D r iv e
A li jo
Ol d
B en ja m in
Figure 1-15
Sheet 3 of 4

Zone I
Water Protection
Zone I
Flax
Pond Vineyard Wind Connector
e
Co
D ri v
ng
r es
sio
na
Cl u b
l
D ri v
n tr y
LOCUS
e
Variant 2 (Utility ROW)
Co u
e
n a l D ri v e
Dennis Pond
L an
4
tons
Yarmouth
3
ad
Ma ry Du n n W ay
ti o
M a rs
Ro
Wi Do r a
a Na
ng
fo o lR Barnstable
P o in t
oa
pine
tD
Long 2 Dennis
r iv d
Variant 1
u st
e
C y pr e ss
M id
Pond
(Willow Street)
A ug
1
!
Utility ROW
t SCALE
Oa kmo nt R o ad ee
K
r
St 1:9,000
0 375 750
!
mer
H am s te ad L
an e t San ds La ne
Deser Basemap: Aerial Imagery, Google
S um
R oa d
ck
tR
o
LEGEND
in
Fl
Preferred Route
Utility ROW Rail ROW Preferred Route Variants
ad
City/Town Boundary
se Ro
Zone II/Potential Public Water Supply Area/ Proposed Substation Site
Barnstable Groundwater Protection Overlay District Si
E n t e rp ri
st
er Public Water Supply Well (MassGIS)
c le
.
!
6
£
¤ s
C ir
DEP Approved Zone I
et
Str e
Bike Path (MassDOT-proposed) 6
£
¤
ow
Mary Dunn Way
W i ll
Overlay District
!
Barnstable Groundwater Protection
Overlay District
Abandoned Road
!
(formerly Higgins
Variant 3 (Bike Path) Co Crowell Road)
Ha
un
ty
rl o
Av
en
w
ue NOTE: There are no Interim Wellhead Protection
Av
LE
ue
Zone I
en
Zone II/Potential Public Water Supply Area/
Aven
OUTH
!
ue
STAB
!
Barnstable Wellhead Protection Overlay District

In de pe nd en ce
D r iv e
e
ac
Variant 5 (Independence Drive)
A n se
Gr
YARM
BARN
Oa
l H a ll e
k
Av
en
Barnstable Switching Station ue
t R oa d
Lamson
Pond
Figure 1-15
ad
Sheet 4 of 4
o
ay
we ll R
Higgins C r o
W
Zone I
to
Zone I Preferred Route and Variants
ni
Bo
Water Protection
G:\Projects2\MA\MA\4771\MXD\Task_2_MEPA\ENF\route_series_NA_9000_water_20171129.mxd

V ie w
ne
o ad
D r iv e
La
ys
C hild s St re
d
Lo ng
D ri ve
ne
d R
on
oa d
n
P
hi
B la nt yr e
Se ag at e La
P on
h ead
ad
Pon
P
ey R
ln R o
d
P on d
Ho
e
d
iv
Ar r ow
B ee La ne
ns
D un a s ki n R o a
et Dr
C ir c le
ll y
W o ll
tr
e V ie w
Du n
et
L in c o
A ve nu e
S
L an e
T ev y aw Road
n
ai
ne
M We
Pin e Str eet Ce nte
rville
Zone II/Barnstable Wellhead
st
Ma LOCUS
in
Str
Protection Overlay District ee
t
L a fr a n c
Barnstable
ad
3
Ma in S tre et
rs R o
Yarmouth
L a ne
ie w L a n e
e A ve n
L in d a ad
H e ad w a te
Ro
2
e R oa d
i ver
e
Jo an Ro ad
Ro ad vi
ll
C a r la d ig
u
Li
oa
S tan ley
ville R
lli a
e
R iv e r v
Cr
1
an R
ad
e
D riv
K a th e ri n
e
in ld Zone II/Barnstable Wellhead
Ro
a O
Wa y El
Protection Overlay District
en
r
Cente
re
Carlott a Avenue Sh
au
ad
ad
yL
M
P
S
Ro
an e
he
SCALE
u om
as
t
ot
K
an
lli
i
0 375 750
E
t
1:9,000
Seabury Lane
L an
R
Sa 1 inch = 750 feet Feet
oa
G
un
aR
oa
d
e
oa Basemap: Aerial Imagery, Google
tF
H d
ie
i -o
LEGEND
ld
Blue Jay Drive

n-
La ne
a-
hi Ol Noticed Alternative Route
Gr
ll R o a d d
S trawb erry H i ll R o
To
ee
d wn
oa Zone I Noticed Alternative Route Variant
n
No r t
h il l R h S Ro
Chur c e c ti o n ad
B r ia r La
oa
City/Town Boundary
s R
et
oa d
re
Hi ll
W
St
ea
Keel Wa
er R
ne
ve
Th e Strai ght W a
n
bor
ai
rR
.
!
Rudd
ad
M
F ox R u n
Ha r
ad
oa
DEP Approved Zone I
P ra m R o
h
ut
y
So
W
es
t Wellhead Protection Area (Zone II)
4
er

Te
Riv
M e lb o u
ad
Overlay District
rr
ne
Hem
y S ou
Roa d
Ro
La n e
ac
La
u n w a le
ing
e
e
on
Gi nge r
eon
il l
rr
Oreo Lane
r ne Ro
gv
ift
th
Overlay District
He
D o lp
Cl
ai
Roa
S ec t i
Cr
ve
ld
h in L
ad
Dri
O
H o rs e (mapped by Cape Cod Commission)
on
s h o e La
Barnstable Groundwater
Ken n
ne Pe
th
Patricia St re et
i ll a Street
na
a ne
R ay
Protection Overlay District Freshwater Recharge Area (CCC)
e
Wa y
e E ue
m on
ab
e dy
d St
C i rc l e
n
liz
ree
ve
e t
nu
yA
ve
Is a le n
La k
A
Va ue
P r is c
Av u e
NOTE: There are no Interim Wellhead Protection

l le
an
en

n t en
ce
O Cent
e R oa
sa A v
e rv il
ue
le A
e a ll
ven
en
P l rb e
ue
d
Av
Lake
Marie A v e
e
mm
ne
Irvi ng S t r
Elizabeth
Vi
Su
S ix th
nue oad
ch R
Seco n
ad A ve le Be
a
Ro g vi l
C ra i
nu e
h
ac
F if th
A ven u
F ir s t
ct
Be
et
ay
West W
d Ave
sp e
o rt
H a rb
T h ir d
Sh
Av e nu
Ave n
Pr o
e
Ir v i n
Kear
Fo ur t
nu e
or Vi
e
Way
A ven
s Dr iv e
ue
l ia A v e n u
Pi n e
g St
e
Gr e e
d
s ar g
Roa
Figure 1-16
Gre en Dun es Driv e
Fairv iew S tr e et
h Ave
e ach
ew
B ay
P in e W
ree
Lo ng
ue
Sheet 1 of 3
e Av enu e
l e y Avenu e
St ree t
Seven
Gr ee n Du ne
t
nu e
Ma g no
0 0.05 0.1 0.2

Nautical Miles
p o rt
th S t r
n is
t Hyan
F o r es
t S tr ee 0 0.1 0.2
Miles
and Variant
e et
0 0.1 0.2
Covell's Beach Kilometers
Water Protection
Landing Site O c Commonwealth of Massachusetts EOEA, USDA Farm Service Agency
Imagery ©2017 , DigitalGlobe, MassGIS,
ean St
re e t
Iy a
Hu nn
R oa d
ck ou

in gh
w Av en ue s N Ro
L a k e v ie ec ad
kR
in t
o ad
Å
õ
1 32
y Po
Go
os
ive E a s t Zone II/ Barnstable Groundwater
H o ll
d e Dr
eP
es i
L ak Protection Overlay District/
Co
o
in t
Freshwater Recharge Area
tto
Ro
nw
LOCUS
Be
ad
oo
ar
a d
se
d
Ro
La
s
od
W
ne
wo Barnstable
3
ay
h
ec Yarmouth
Be
ir c l e
W
riv e e s t
Zone II/Potential2Public Water Supply Area/
D
od C
de
Barnstable Groundwater Protection Overlay District
si
ke
le w o
La 1
Cast
Ce
P itc h er s Wa y
nt
er
La
SCALE
ce
K
ay
ne
0 375 750
T e rr a
Dr i ve
W
La ne
1:9,000
s
d 1 inch = 750 feet Feet
gu
oa
An
R
B is h o p s
Beth
View
LEGEND
C o n n o rs
Lo ng
Wequaquet Lake Zone II/Barnstable Groundwater Protection Overlay District
City/Town Boundary
Ol
h
d Proposed Substation Site
ne
Sout
ive
ne W
La
st o ay ys
Mil l
Fa
e Public Water Supply Well (MassGIS)
d Dr
Ro ad
L an e nn
ad
rm
i
.
!
Ph
il l R o
DEP Approved Zone I
Ro
woo
is
o ad
a nd
om
ad
Bu ck
rr y H
Lo
ol n R
Oakl
Way
e J e nn Barnstable Wellhead Protection
be
nu ies P
Li nc
Overlay District
ra i g h t
ath
e
tr aw
Av
28
an
)
"
Lane
tL
O ld S
es
Th e S t
Zone II/Barnstable Groundwater
que
d Overlay District
E ll is
28 a
in
Ro
ay
)
"
fP
ll
Protection Overlay District
qua
Be
d
ers W
t
La
oa
O
in
t ai n
Po Dr
rR
ke
We
iv St
ra (mapped by Cape Cod Commission)
pe
e
Cap
Dr i ve
Dan v
wb
ive
E d le n
ni
er L an e Freshwater Recharge Area (CCC)

L
et
ry
Ju
e Dr
au
Hi
St re
Ro
re
Na ll
a nd
ad Ro 28
)
"
l
Tr a il
th
s h or
Br an ad ad
Ro ad
Ro
D el t a
Oakl
ez ut h
ne F a lm o NOTE: There are no Interim Wellhead Protection
W i nd
g en
rL
an Areas (IWPAs) within this mapped area.
e
T e ll e
Dunns
Pond
Str
H il l R o a d Zone II/Barnstable Wellhead Protection Overlay District

rry
aw
be
lue
be r
D r iv e
B
d
28
"
)
Ro a
ry H
Pi
ad
o ad
tc h
h ead
ll
il l R
y Hi
ln R o
rR
e rs
o ad
Ar r ow
b e rr
nde
W
W
L in c o
D ri v e
es
Figure 1-16
ay
t
tM
Str ee
O la
t ra w
ai
Sheet 2 of 3
n
o ad
m St
Ke nn es aw Av
he
Ol d S
re
c
Long Pond et
Jo h n
d R
Sa
e
n L an
Pon
S a in t
Ch ild s St re
a ne
ns
and Variant
Wag o
Du n
ett L
Water Protection
en ue
V ie w l ls
M i tc h e
Fa w c
W ay
D ri
nd
et
ve
Po
Er Service
Imagery ©2017 , DigitalGlobe, MassGIS, Commonwealth of Massachusetts EOEA, USDA Farm in L a
n Agency e
ne
Bra ggs L a k Roa
d
t Ro c
C a r ri a g e
r Road in
B o u ld e Fl
P a l om
Acr e Hill Roa d
Old
Lane
Barnstable Switching Station Potential Public
in o D
Ja
il L
an e
(Interconnection Point) Water Supply Area
riv e
Zone II/Barnstable Wellhead Protection Overlay District
LOCUS
P on d
L i ja h
Proposed
R oa d
Substation Barnstable
6
Site 3 Yarmouth
£
¤
2
in ne ys L a n e
6
£
¤
Mar y Dun n Wa y
1
!
Utility ROW
O l d Ph
SCALE
!
0 375 750
Zone II/Barnstable 1:9,000
Hathaway's Pond Wellhead Protection Basemap: Aerial Imagery, Google
Overlay District
LEGEND
r iv e
to n D
City/Town Boundary
Th or n
Zone II/Potential Public Water Zone II/Barnstable Wellhead
ve Proposed Substation Site
Supply Area/ Barnstable Wellhead D
ri Protection Overlay District/
Ki
e

an
Protection Overlay District/
M ary Dun n Way

dd
.
!
ce
L
's
ys
DEP Approved Zone I
en
Hi
ne
nd
ll R
in
pe
Ph
de
o
ad
In
ive
Overlay District
Dr
Zone I
n ce
At
tu Barnstable Groundwater Protection
ck
Overlay District
nd e
sL
an
G
e Zone
Zone II
ra
ep e
ve
Flintrock (mapped by Cape Cod Commission)

Zone I
l
Ind
Pond
Pl a ce
Freshwater Recharge Area (CCC)

Å
õ 1 32
Iy a
nn
!
ou
gh
Ro
ad Attucks L a n e NOTE: There are no Interim Wellhead Protection
Variant 1 Areas (IWPAs) within this mapped area.
Old R
Å
õ 1 32
(Attuck's Lane/Independence Drive)
Ca Iy a
ou
pt a nn
t
in ou
e
gh
13
Ro
2
ad
Co
ok L a n
O ld
Zone II/ Barnstable Groundwater Protection Overlay District

e
S tr aw be rr y H i ll R o a
Å
õ
1 32
Figure 1-16
Iy a
nn
ou
Sheet 3 of 3
gh
ad
A ven ue
Ro
ad Ro
rt
d
Zone II/ Barnstable Groundwater i rp

o
Be
A
Protection Overlay District/ and Variant
ar
Pi t

se
Water Protection
C it
che
s
W
rs
ay
Wa
y
G:\Projects2\MA\MA\4771\MXD\Task_2_MEPA\ENF\historic_resources_PR_20171129.mxd Data Source: Office of Geographic Information (MassGIS), Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Information Technology Division
LEGEND
ne
ne
M
ad
Ton ela Roa d

oa d
i ll
o I
n ven t
oried Hist
oric Propert
ies(
poin t
)
La
La
lR Ro ute 6a Ro ut e 6a
H il
La
ve
ian
ey
ce R
ne
Preferred Rout
e("
PR"
)
Co
In d Mai n St re et
ve n
PRVa ria n t1:Willow S t
reet
me r
ue
Ke
Ra ilroa d Av en
R oa d Stone hedge Drive
ne
ree
Com
St PRVa ria n t2:U t

ilit
y ROW
s La
in
Ma PRVa ria n t3:Bike Pa t
h
st o n
PRVa ria n t4:Grea tI
sla n d
Ma r
PRVa ria n t5:I
n depen den ce Drive
Ut
ilit
y ROW Ra ilROW T own Boun da ry
Proposed S ub st
ation S it
e
B
¬
«
Sa lt R oc k
Na t
ion a lRegist
er Hist
oric Dist
rict
S t
ate Regist er Hist
oric Dist
rict
o ad
Ma r b le
(Old K in g'
sHighwa y Historic Dis
trict
)
ni s R
Oa km on t Ro ad
°
Roa d
S ca le 1:
24,000 0 5001,
000 2,
000
Mary Dunn Way
yan
1in ch =2, 000feet Feet
O ld H
Will
6
ow
£
¤
Stre
6
£
¤
et
A
¬
« Old Town Hous e Road
Ans e l H
Mid T ec
Che r
et
re
Web be rs
C ol bu rn e
St
ry L a
a ll et R o
w
l lo
h D ri ve
Wi
ne
P at h
Barnstable
et
P at h
ad
re
St
Su ffo lk Av enu e
w
l lo
Wi
P ath
West Yarmou th Road

B e tt y s
Eis en h o
Ol d M ill W ay
P ath
Frost Avenue
Da na s
G ra n t R o
C a m p S tr
Higg
C o o li d g
w e r R o ad
Airpor t Ro ad
Ada ms R
i ns C
Yarmouth
ad
rowe
ee t C a m
e R oa d
ad
oa d
ll
Ro
R oad
th
ve
A li jo D ri
p S tr ee t
ou
rm
õ
Å 132
d
Ya
R oa
k l ey
28
Hi nc
"
) d
Buc
k I sl
an
a d Ro
Ro ad
1 Y AR.
690:Ca m ielHouse,257S out
h S ea Aven ue l an
d
¬
« Is
ad
ck
Bu
Ro
¬
«2 Y AR.
689:Ella BehrHouse,246S out h S ea Aven ue
ay
Gr
3 Y AR.274-275:Ca pt .Z a dok CrowellHouse,185S out h S ea Aven ue
w
¬
«
s lo
doa
in
ad
on R
W
4 Y AR.712:Wolcot tGilm ore Hous e,48BerryAven ue
Ro
¬
«
ho
Nor t
Ro N
Ec
Sc ob
5 Y AR.
739:S chirm er-Pen n ock House,26New Ha m ps hire Aven ue
ne
ut by
¬
« e ho
La
Jo
28 ll La
sh
Av
s
n
er
Be en e
ua
6 Y AR.
289:George S t even sHouse,6New Ha m pshire Aven ue
ad
ad
ve ue
¬
«
B
r ly
Ro
Tr
ad
ak
Am
B og R oa d
Ro
er
o
os
rth
sR
ad
7 Y AR.670:Louise S a xe House,180BerryAven ue
R
Ro
oa
¬
No
« ad
e ll
d
Ab
8 Y AR.669:LewisBa y Y a chtClub ,179BerryAven ue

ad
R oa d
ay
¬
«
ve
o ad
Ro
W
8
te 2
Dri
Rou
sh
Bog R
9 Y AR.667:Chim b erly FiresLodge,174Berry Aven ue

m
L ew is
e
e
di
l ey
¬
«
iv
ia
enu
4
e
e
an
Dr
ill
nu
n
Si b
¬
«
El
R o ad
St
r La
Av
on
ve
to
10 Y AR.
666:Cha rlesAllen House,168BerryAven ue
rry
ed
¬
aA
«
nge
Ro
bl
Be
A s p in et
Se
Pa
13
im
Ni a
ad
Sp ri
Ex
11 Y AR.
290:151Berry Aven ue ¬
«
me
h
W
¬
« 14
ut
g
e te
12 ¬ «
W
tR
ara
Ac
So
es
¬
«
rR
oa
re s
tR
12 Y AR.
291:Philia sHouse,133BerryAven ue
La
o
¬ 11
d
« 10
oa
ad
ne
¬
«
Av
¬
«
d
Ma
us
e nu
13 Y AR.
287:105Berry Aven ue 8 ¬9 d Sa ho
Sh
ps
¬
« ¬
« « oa lt M Pa
e
or
a rs th
lR
6 ¬7 hL
e
« el an
14 Y AR. ¬
«
Ro
¬
« 292:John son House,92Berry Aven ue r ow 3
¬
« e
ad
C
¬
«5
A Y AR.
¬
« B/BRN.AT :Y a rm out h Ca m pgroun d His toric Dist
rict
New Hampshire 2
¬
«
B Y AR.
¬
« G/BRN. O:Old K in g’sHighwa y Hist oric District Avenue 1
¬
«
Is la
Archaeological Sites (not shown)

nd
Ra dio La ne
e Va ria n t1 Va ria n t2 Va ria n t3 Va ria n t4 Va ria n t5

Preferred Rout
Ro
ad
19-BN- 74 19-BN- 74 19-BN- 74 19-BN- 74 19-BN- 74 19-BN- 670

19-BN- 959 19-BN- 959 19-
BN- 959 19-BN- 959 19-
BN- 669
19-BN- 958 19-
BN- 960
19-
BN- 853
19-
BN- 961
Ro
ad
Great Island
nd
la
Is
at
re
I G,
m a gery ©2017,CNES /Airb us Digit
a lGlob e,M a ss
GIS ,Com m on wea lt
h ofM a ssa chuset
tsEOEA,U S DAFa rm S ervice Agen cy

Figure 1-17
Historic Resources, Preferred Route and Variants
G:\Projects2\MA\MA\4771\MXD\Task_2_MEPA\ENF\historic_resources_NA_20171129.mxd Data Source: Office of Geographic Information (MassGIS), Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Information Technology Division
LEGEND
e
an
A u n t H at
I
nve ntorie dHistoricPrope rtie s (
point)
eL
Pi n
Notice dAlte rna tive Rou te
ch L an e
6A Stre e
t
Ma NAVa ria nt 1:Attu cks La ne
"
) tre
et Ma in us h
op T
own Bou nda ry
S Av
in e nu
Ma e
Propose dSu b sta tion Site
Ol
dJ
et
I
nve ntory Prope rty (
a re a )
a
re
il L
t
kS
a
0 5001,
000 2,
000
ne
Sca le 1:
24,000
Oa
ne
1inch =2, 000fe e t Fe e t
a
sL
ey
t
ee
in n
tr
Ph
kS
6
£
¤ Utility RO W
Oa
La ne
Iy
n ey s
an
Ma ry Du nn W
no
ug
Ph i n
h
ad Ro
Ro ad
ce
r vi
6 Se
£
¤ õ
Å
132
D r iv e
Sh Iy a
ay
al l nn
ow
d
ou
nto n
oa
Po gh
ive
nd
R
Wa t Dr Ro
ll
erv ad
r
iv e
Thor
eD
Hi
i ew At
C ir c tu
g
le ck
nc
in
sL
ly
an
de
tF
en
oo
ep
Sh
In d
Attuc ks Lane
Hu
ck
in
s
Ne
ck
Be
Cit Avenue
Ro
ad ar Airport Road
se
d
s
oa
W
tR
ay
or
rp
Ai
ne
D r iv e
Barnstable
Annabelle Point Road
La
L an e
Cor po
ey s
h
V ie w
Sout
D r ive
Be th
in n
Be
t Way
r a ti o n
ar
Ph
Long
oa d
d
Roa d
se
Iy a
wood
o ad
R oa
e
o uth nn
s
ail
tr a ig h
F al m
e r ra c
H il l R
ou
W
Ba r
nd R
Tr
gh
Roa d
ad
k l ey
ay
Buc k
Ro
ian
o ad
s Ro
a ne
n st
ad
o ps T
The S
v e nu
Roa d
b er r y
O ak la
Hi nc
a ne
In d
o uth
tL
a bl
er R
ay
F al m
Ha ye
d
oa
en L
ee t
qu e
i es W
Bi sh
on A
eR
e
t r aw
t
Qua k
il
ee
Grea t Ma rs h Ro
rR
ad
g Str
ven
e n Tr a
ad
tr
qu a
oa
G ar d
O ak St re et
pe
S
Wa l t
y Ro
il l
O ld S
d B
A t
ni
in A
nu
We
le W
Sp ri n
¬
«
Ju
et
al
T ell e g
a rn
Ke ll
D riv e
Win te r St re
nk l
Yar mo uth Ro ad
Ba
Unc
st a b
Fr a
co
ue
ad
en
n
Av
h e ad
ol
ln R o
le R
Ro
e
is t
Roa d
an
Br
ad
Ar r ow
sL
o ad
an e
L in c o
ey
Me g a n
an e
on L
Pl e a
et
in n
re
St
e tt L
We
Ph
O ld
Hi
s an t
Wa g
st a in
St ra w
gh
Ma
Tevyaw Road
in M
F aw c
La fran ce
Sta g
Str et et
Sc
Stre e
Ce nt er vi lle ee Str tre
Pi ne St re et th S
Pin e
b e r ry
t
ho
h
or t So u
e Ro
et
ol
N
re et
t
St
Ro
re
Gr ov
Jo an Ro ad
La ne
St
Hi ll R
d
ad
A ve nu e
n
Ocea n Stree t
ai
oa
ad
Pi n
n
ai
Pit c h e
R
M
e A ve
h M
ne
eA
t
vi ew
oa d
ou
ai
S
v
El
Ol
Du m on t Dr iv
Su o m i
en
d
rs W a
Ri ve r
R oa d
Ch
n
To
ue
ue
ue
e
wn
as
Pa rk A ve nu
Ro en
o ad
Av
eS
O ce a n S
y
ad r
de
t re
yR
W
d
Me lb o u
d
ea
cu
e
oa
lo n
t
e
S
ve
r iv e
D o lp h
tR
Pit c h
et
Sea Stre et
rR
ot
tr e et
Co
G re e n
re
li
th D
El
oa
St
ad
rn e R o
Oreo Lane
O ld
in L an
d
Ro
e rs W
n
ai
a be
woo d
M
e
i ll
h
l iz
gv
ut
ad
ay
S tr ee t
e
Stets o n
So
ai
eE
A ve n u
Cr
et
ue
Stre
2
L ak
nol d
ld
oa d
¬
en
« Be ac h R Gos
O
a d raig v il le
v
h Ro C Smith Stree t Ma r s No rris Str eet

eA
Be ac
e
t on A
il le ve
ai g v nu e
Vi n
Cr Stud ley Roa d

Gree n Du ne s Dr ive
Way
F if th
Se v e n
R oa d Pin e
Fairview Street
h
Long
Be a c
1 BRN.
¬
« 946:Cove ll,Willia m H.Me m oria lBe a ch Ma rke r /
A ve n u
1 Cove llBe a ch ,Cra ig ville Be a c

h Roa d
th Str
¬
«
e
2 BRN.
ee
¬
« 2207:Be a ls,Willia m T.Hou se /
t
Cra ig ville Ge ne ra lStore ,628Cra ig ville Be a ch Rd

Covell's Beach
A BRN.
¬
« AI:Ph inne y’
s La ne Are a
Archaeological Sites (not shown)

Notice dAlte rna tive Attu cks La ne Va ria nt
19-BN- 682 19- BN- 669
19-BN- 675 19- BN- 682
19-BN- 623 19- BN- 675
19-BN- 671 19- BN- 829
I
m a g e ry ©2017,CNES/Airb u s,Dig ita lGlob e ,Ma ssGI
S,Com m onwe a lth of Ma ssa ch u se tts EO EA,USDAFa rm Se rv
ice Ag e ncy
Figure 1-18
Historic Resources, Noticed Alternative and Variant
G:\Projects2\MA\MA\4771\MXD\Task_2_MEPA\ENF\Marine_Corridors_Overview_with_Dredging_Western_Routes_1_5_20171213.mxd Data Source: Office of Geographic Information (MassGIS), Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Information Technology Division
0 0.5 1 2
Nautical Miles
New Ham ps hi
reAve
0 1 2
Miles Covell'
s Beac h
m
400
0 1 2
Kilometers
Lan df all at New Ham ps hi
reAve
wi ll bevi aHDDoropen c ut.
900
m
Gr
eat I
s lan d
1300m
Southern m os t Star
ti
n gPoi nt
f
orVin eyar dWi n dCon n ec tor
LEGEND
Cable Corridor
HDD
Dredging Locations
State/Federal Boundary
Federal Waters
North Atlantic Right Whale Core Habitat
Eelgrass - 2015 DEP Survey
Eelgrass - 2015 Ocean Management Plan
State Mapped Hard-Complex bottom
OCS-
A0501
Scale 1:158,400
1 inch = 2.5 miles
0
Basemap: Nautical Chart 13237, NOAA

1.25 2.5 Miles
°
Vi
n eyar
dWi
n dCon n ec tor
Fi
gur e1- 19
Of
fs hor
eExpor
t CableCor
ridor
s – Dr
edgeLoc ati
on s (
Maxi
m um Des i
gn Sc en ar
io)
Attachment C
Circulation List
ATTACHMENT C CIRCULATION LIST
Secretary Matthew A. Beaton Coastal Zone Management

Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Attn: Project Review Coordinator
Attn: MEPA Office 251 Causeway Street, Suite 500
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114
Boston, MA 02114
(2 copies) Division of Marine Fisheries (South Shore)
Attn: Environmental Reviewer
Massachusetts Department of Environmental 1213 Purchase Street - 3rd Floor
Protection New Bedford, MA 02740-6694
Attn: MEPA Coordinator
One Winter Street Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program
Boston, MA 02108 Attn: Regulatory Review
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife
Massachusetts Department of Environmental 1 Rabbit Hill Road
Protection – Southeast Regional Office Westborough MA 01581
Attn: MEPA Coordinator
20 Riverside Drive Department of Conservation and Recreation
Lakeville, MA 02347 251 Causeway Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114-2104
Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection – Waterways Division Department of Energy Resources
Attn: Ben Lynch, Program Chief Attn: MEPA Coordinator
One Winter Street 100 Cambridge Street, 10th floor
Boston, MA 02108 Boston, MA 02114
Massachusetts Department of Transportation Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Board

Public/Private Development Unit One South Station
10 Park Plaza Fifth Floor
Boston, MA 02116 Boston, MA 02110
Massachusetts Department of Transportation Barnstable Town Council

Highway Department – District 5 367 Main Street
Attn: MEPA Coordinator Hyannis, MA 02601
PO Box 111, 1000 County Street
Taunton, MA 02780 Barnstable Planning Board
200 Main Street
Massachusetts Historical Commission Hyannis, MA 02601
The Massachusetts Archives Building
220 Morrissey Boulevard Barnstable Conservation Commission
Boston, MA 02125 200 Main Street
Hyannis, MA 02601
Cape Cod Commission
3225 Main Street Barnstable Board of Health
Barnstable, MA 02630 200 Main Street
Hyannis, MA 02601
Martha’s Vineyard Commission
56 School Street Yarmouth Board of Selectmen
Oak Bluffs, MA 02557 c/o Town Administrator’s Office
1146 Route 28
South Yarmouth, MA 02664
4771/Vineyard Wind Connector C-1 Attachment C: Circulation List

Yarmouth Planning Board
Yarmouth Town Hall
1146 Route 28
Yarmouth Conservation Commission

Yarmouth Town Hall
1146 Route 28
Yarmouth Board of Health

Yarmouth Town Hall
1146 Route 28
Mashpee Conservation Commission

16 Great Neck Road North
Mashpee, MA 02649
Edgartown Conservation Commission

70 Main Street
Edgartown, MA 02539
Nantucket Conservation Commission

2 Bathing Beach Road
Nantucket, MA 02554
Hyannis Public Library

401 Main Street
Hyannis, MA 02601
South Yarmouth Library

312 Old Main Street
West Yarmouth Library

391 Main Street Route 28
West Yarmouth, MA 02673
4771/Vineyard Wind Connector C-2 Attachment C: Circulation List

Attachment D
Permits, Reviews, and Approvals Required for the Project

ATTACHMENT D PERMITS, REVIEWS, AND APPROVALS REQUIRED
FOR THE PROJECT
Agency/Regulatory Authority Permit/Approval Status

Federal
Bureau of Ocean Energy Site Assessment Plan (SAP) SAP filed March 31st 2017, deemed
Management (BOEM) 1 approval complete and sufficient November 21,
2017
Construction and Operations COP filed with BOEM October 19,

Plan (COP) approval 2017
U.S. Environmental Protection National Pollutant Discharge To be filed (TBF)
Agency (EPA) Elimination System (NPDES)
General Permit for
Construction Activities
Outer Continental Shelf Air Notice of Intent (NOI) to apply for an

Permit air permit filed on December 11, 2017
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Individual Clean Water Act TBF
(USACE) Section 404
Rivers and Harbors Act of
1899 Section 10 Permit
U.S. National Marine Fisheries Incidental Harassment IHA application for operation of vessels
Service Authorization (IHA) or Letter submitted on November 8, 2017.
of Authorization (LOA) Updated Geophysical concurrence for
no IHA submitted on November 27,
2017. Previous concurrence received
March 9, 2017.
U.S. Coast Guard Private Aids to Navigation TBF
authorization
Federal Aviation Administration No Hazard Determination TBF
(onshore construction
equipment)
State/Massachusetts (for portions of the project within state jurisdiction)
Massachusetts Environmental Certificate of Secretary of Environmental Notification Form (ENF)
Policy Act Office Energy and Environmental filed December 15, 2017
Affairs on Final Environmental
Impact Report
Energy Facilities Siting Board G.L. c. 164, § 69 Approval Petition to be filed December 18, 2017
1
In its review of the COP, BOEM must comply with its obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (MSFCMA), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), the Clean Air Act (CAA), and the Endangered
Species Act (ESA). Thus, BOEM coordinates and consults with numerous other Federal agencies including the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW), the Environmental
Protection Agency EPA), and the United States Coast Guard (USGC)) during the review process. BOEM also
coordinates with the state under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) to ensure that the project is consistent
with the state’s coastal zone management.
4771/Vineyard Wind Connector D-1 Attachment D: Permits, Reviews, Approvals

Agency/Regulatory Authority Permit/Approval Status
State/Massachusetts (for portions of the project within state jurisdiction)
Massachusetts Department of G.L. c. 164, § 72, Approval to TBF
Public Utilities Construct
G.L. c. 40A, § 3 Zoning
Exemption (if needed)
Massachusetts Department of Chapter 91 Waterways To be filed in accordance with state
Environmental Protection License; permitting order
Water Quality Certification
(Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act)
Massachusetts Department of Road Crossing Permits To be filed in accordance with state
Transportation Rail Division Use and permitting order
Occupancy License
Massachusetts Board of Special Use Permit Provisional permit issued May 23,
Underwater Archaeological 2017, final permit issued September 28,
Resources (MBUAR) 2017
Natural Heritage and Conservation and TBF (if needed)
Endangered Species Program Management Permit (if
(NHESP) needed)
Massachusetts Historical Field Investigation Permits Reconnaissance survey application filed
Commission (MHC) (980 C.M.R. § 70.00) November 14, 2017
Regional (for portions of the project within regional jurisdiction)
Cape Cod Commission Development of Regional TBF
(Barnstable County) Impact (DRI) Review
Local (for portions of the project within local jurisdiction)
Yarmouth and Barnstable Order of Conditions TBF
Conservation Commissions (Massachusetts Wetlands
Protection Act and municipal
wetland non zoning bylaws)
Yarmouth DPW and/or Board Street Opening Permits/Grants TBF
of Selectmen of Location
Barnstable DPW and/or Town Street Opening Permits/Grants TBF
Council of Location
Barnstable and Yarmouth Zoning approvals as necessary TBF
Planning/Zoning
Edgartown, Nantucket, and/or Order of Conditions TBF
Mashpee Conservation (Massachusetts Wetlands
Commissions Protection Act and municipal
wetland non zoning bylaws)
for offshore route (Nantucket
and Mashpee only if needed as
dictated by final route)
4771/Vineyard Wind Connector D-2 Attachment D: Permits, Reviews, Approvals

Attachment E
Correspondence from Massachusetts Board of

Underwater Archaeological Resources
Attachment F
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Federal Consistency Statement

ATTACHMENT F MASSACHUSETTS COASTAL ZONE MANGEMENT
FEDERAL CONSISTENCY STATEMENT
The Project is consistent with the coastal zone management program. That program will require a
certification to CZM that the Project complies with the program policies of Massachusetts’
approved coastal management program and will occur in a manner consistent with such policies.
This certification will be made in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Coastal Zone
Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.) (CZMA) and implementing regulations at 15 CFR Part
930, as amended, and pursuant to 301 CMR 21.00 and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities
for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ Coastal Zone Management Plan and Program Policies.
The analysis contained in this section of the Petition describes Project compliance with each of the
Massachusetts coastal zone program policies and will be the core of the Proponent’s future CZM
Consistency filing.
1.0 Jurisdiction for Federal Consistency Certification
The Project requires a federal consistency certification because it requires a federal action
and may affect, and is located within, the coastal zone. The Project will require approval of
the Construction and Operation Plan by BOEM and, subsequently, a permit from the
USACE pursuant to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers
and Harbors Act of 1899. The official Massachusetts coastal zone includes the lands and
waters within an area defined by the seaward limit of the state's territorial sea, extending
from the Massachusetts-New Hampshire border south to the Massachusetts-Rhode Island
border, and landward to 100 feet inland of specified major road, rail lines, other visible
rights-of-way, or in the absence these, at the coordinates specified by CZM. The coastal
zone includes all of Cape Cod, Nantucket, Martha’s Vineyard, and the Elizabeth Islands. As
such, jurisdiction over this Project extends to the entirety of the Offshore Export Cable
Corridors within State waters, associated Landfall Sites, onshore routes, and substation.
Applicable review procedures are set forth at 301 CMR 21.07 (see 301 CMR 21.04(2)).
The following section describes the Project’s compliance with the program policies and
management principles of Massachusetts’ approved Coastal Zone Management Program
Plan as set forth in the policy appendix at 301 CMR 21.98.
2.0 Certification of Consistency with MCZM Program Policies
The proponent of a project requiring a federal consistency certification must certify that the
project complies with the program policies of Massachusetts’ approved Coastal Zone
Management Plan (the Plan) and will be conducted in a manner consistent with such
policies.
The following sections list each of the Program Policies and Management Principles
contained in the Plan and describe how the Project is consistent.
4771/Vineyard Wind Connector F-1 Attachment F: CZM Consistency

2.1 Coastal Hazards
Coastal Hazard Policy #1
Preserve, protect, restore, and enhance the beneficial functions of storm damage prevention
and flood control provided by natural coastal landforms, such as dunes, beaches, barrier
beaches, coastal banks, land subject to coastal storm flowage, salt marshes, and land under
the ocean.
The coastal wetland resource areas located in the Project Area are generally not degraded
and provide the beneficial functions that are protected interests of the Wetlands Protection
Act (WPA). Through careful route selection and proper use of construction techniques, the
Project is designed to avoid potential wetlands impacts to the maximum extent practicable,
and to minimize and mitigate for unavoidable impacts.
At the Preferred Route Landfall Site at New Hampshire Avenue in Yarmouth, Vineyard
Wind prefers an open-cut technique but is also considering the use of HDD. Open-cut
construction would be completed in a shorter period of time, thus minimizing the duration
of construction within Lewis Bay and the neighborhood along New Hampshire Avenue.
The only coastal landform the open-cut technique would affect would be a small degraded
coastal beach that is bordered on each side by existing bulkheads, and a manmade concrete
seawall that backs the coastal beach.
The transition from offshore to onshore cable on the Noticed Alternative Route at Covell’s
Beach would be installed via HDD to avoid impacts to the most sensitive resource areas
along and near the shoreline.
The Preferred Route and Noticed Alternative Route will require some work within wetland
resource areas, principally Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage (LSCSF). No above-
ground structures or changes to topography are proposed within LSCSF, and the Project will
have no effect on flood velocities or floodplain storage capacity, and therefore no
permanent impact to LSCSF is anticipated.
The Preferred Route itself will have no impacts to Coastal Dune. Variant 4 of the Preferred
Route (Great Island Landfall Site) would have some temporary impacts to Coastal Dune,
with approximately one acre of previously-disturbed dune used for the HDD setup, and
approximately 6,600 square feet of Coastal Dune affected along the north side of Great
Island Road for installation of the underground duct bank. Should Variant 4 be utilized, the
Coastal Dune would be restored after construction.
Project activities along the Offshore Export Cable Corridors in Land Under the Ocean will
not alter bathymetry in a way that would result in any significant changes to
hydrodynamics.

Ensure construction in water bodies and contiguous land areas will minimize interference
with water circulation and sediment transport. Flood or erosion control projects must
demonstrate no significant adverse effects on the project site or adjacent or downcoast
areas.
The Project will not adversely interfere with water circulation or sediment transport, since it
will not significantly alter the morphology or composition of the seafloor or coastal wetland
resource areas. Any dredging performed for the Project will be limited to those sections
where it is necessary to achieve sufficient cable burial beneath the stable seabed, such as
where large sand waves are present. These existing sand waves are in high-energy areas
where morphological changes occur constantly; therefore, any bathymetric changes due to
dredging are expected to be temporary.
Ensure that state and federally funded public works projects proposed for location within
the coastal zone will: (1) not exacerbate existing hazards or damage natural buffers or other
natural resources; (2) be reasonably safe from flood and erosion related damage; (3) not
promote growth and development in hazard-prone or buffer areas, especially in velocity
zones and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern; and (4) not be used on Coastal Barrier
Resource Units for new or substantial reconstruction of structures in a manner inconsistent
with the Coastal Barrier Resource/Improvements Acts.
The Project is not a state or federally funded public works project; therefore, this policy
does not apply.
Prioritize public funds for acquisition of hazardous coastal areas for conservation or
recreation use, and relocation of structures out of coastal high hazard areas, giving due
consideration to the effects of coastal hazards at the location to the use and manageability
of the area.
The Project does not involve public funds, and therefore this policy does not apply.
Nevertheless, the Project does not propose any above-ground structures in State jurisdiction
that will be subject to hazardous coastal conditions, since the proposed cable will be
installed beneath the seafloor and underground. The Proponent has evaluated shoreline
change rates at the Landfall Sites, and the Project’s underground infrastructure will be
located a sufficient distance landward to avoid risks from coastal erosion.

2.2 Energy
Energy Policy #1
For coastally dependent energy facilities, consider siting in alternative coastal locations. For
non-coastally dependent energy facilities, consider siting in areas outside of the coastal
zone. Weigh the environmental and safety impacts of locating proposed energy facilities at
alternative sites.
Large-scale offshore wind energy generation, and the transmission of that energy to shore, is
by nature a coastally-dependent energy facility. The Project is coastally-dependent, since it
is necessary to bring the energy generated offshore to an interconnection point onshore. In
its analysis of routing alternatives, the Proponent considered numerous potential Landfall
Sites and offshore routes for the Project before selecting the proposed corridors.
Energy Policy #2
Encourage energy conservation and the use of alternative sources such as solar and wind
power in order to assist in meeting the energy needs of the Commonwealth.
In accordance with the mandate provided by the 2016 energy legislation, the Project will
provide the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with up to approximately 800 MW of clean,
renewable wind energy.
2.3 Growth Management
Growth Management Policy #1
Encourage sustainable development that is consistent with state, regional, and local plans
and supports the quality and character of the community.
This Project is proposed in response to the Commonwealth’s 2016 An Act to Promote

Energy Diversity and is located within the Massachusetts Wind Energy Area (WEA). The
WEA location was carefully selected by BOEM through a process that involved significant
public input. The Project’s Wind Development Area is located approximately 14 miles
south of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket in federal waters. The offshore cable and its
Landfall Site will not be visible, and therefore will not alter local community character.
Additionally, the Project’s proposed substation is located adjacent to the existing Barnstable
Switching Station, so will be compatible with existing land uses.
Growth Management Principle #2
Ensure that state and federally funded infrastructure projects in the coastal zone primarily
serve existing developed areas, assigning highest priority to projects that meet the needs of
urban and community development centers.

The Project involves private development of wind power in response to the
Commonwealth’s call for offshore wind energy development through the 2016 An Act to
Promote Energy Diversity. Therefore, this principle does not apply.
Growth Management Principle #3
Encourage the revitalization and enhancement of existing development centers in the

coastal zone through technical assistance and federal and state financial support for
residential, commercial and industrial development.
This is a privately-financed Project that will provide Massachusetts with up to approximately

800 MW of clean, renewable wind energy, thus improving the reliability of the
Commonwealth’s energy mix. The Project will use the purpose-built New Bedford Marine
Commerce Terminal and other existing port facilities for its construction.
2.4 Habitat
Habitat Policy #1
Protect coastal, estuarine, and marine habitats – including salt marshes, shellfish beds,
submerged aquatic vegetation, dunes, beaches, barrier beaches, banks, salt ponds, eelgrass
beds, tidal flats, rocky shores, bays, sounds, and other ocean habitats – and coastal
freshwater streams, ponds, and wetlands to preserve critical wildlife habitat and other
important functions and services including nutrient and sediment attenuation, wave and
storm damage protection, and landform movement and processes.
The Project is designed to avoid impacts to coastal habitats and wetland resource areas to
the maximum extent practicable and to minimize and mitigate unavoidable impacts in
accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. By complying with
performance standards identified in the Massachusetts WPA, the Project will serve the
protected interests identified in the statute.
While the entirety of the Offshore Export Cable Corridors will be located in Land Under the
Ocean, wetlands impacts along the onshore Preferred Route will be limited to LSCSF and
Riverfront Area (RFA) (and for Variant 4, Coastal Dune) while wetlands impacts along the
onshore Noticed Alternative Route will be limited to LSCSF. The Project will comply with
Performance Standards of the WPA.
A potential wetland impact from the Project will occur on Variant 4 of the Preferred Route
at the Great Island Landfall Site, where approximately one acre of coastal dune would be
temporarily impacted by HDD operations north of Great Island Road. The area of the dune
that will be affected by HDD staging and operations has been previously disturbed, having
once served as a dredge spoil disposal site. Approximately 6,600 square feet of Coastal

Dune will also be temporarily affected during construction of the duct bank directly
adjacent to Great Island Road. The Preferred Route without Variant 4 would not impact
Coastal Dune.
No above-ground structures or changes to topography are proposed within LSCSF. The

Project will have no effect on flood velocities or floodplain storage capacity, and therefore
no permanent impacts to LSCSF or RFA are anticipated.
An area of eelgrass is mapped from a 2015 MassDEP survey west of the entrance to Lewis
Bay, where the Landfall Site for the Preferred Route (New Hampshire Avenue) is located.
The Project would be able to avoid this mapped eelgrass west of Lewis Bay. In contrast, a
wider swath of eelgrass beds is mapped in the 2015 Massachusetts OMP offshore from the
Variant 4 Great Island Landfall Site, and it is possible that HDD would not avoid all impacts
to these eelgrass beds, though it would minimize potential impacts and the Project would
take steps necessary to ensure compliance with the Massachusetts WPA. No eelgrass
habitat has been mapped offshore from the Noticed Alternative Route’s Landfall Site at
Covell’s Beach.
The Offshore Export Cable Corridors are located entirely within Land Under the Ocean.
The Export Cable Corridors have been evaluated according to numerous factors, including
technical feasibility and environmental considerations, such as the presence of hard bottom
habitat, mapped shellfish suitability areas, and the amount of dredging required. The
corridors cross some areas of mapped hard bottom and shellfish suitability areas. The
Project has sought to avoid impacts to these areas to the greatest extent feasible and will
include post-construction benthic monitoring to evaluate impacts and recovery.
Habitat Policy #2
Advance the restoration of degraded or former habitats in coastal and marine areas.
The Project is designed to avoid impacts to wetland resource areas to the maximum extent
practicable and to minimize and mitigate unavoidable impacts in accordance with
applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Through careful route selection and the use
of the most appropriate installation techniques, the Project will not permanently degrade
any wetland resource areas.
2.5 Ocean Resources
Ocean Resources Policy #1
Support the development of sustainable aquaculture, both for commercial and

enhancement (public shellfish stocking) purposes. Ensure that the review process regulating
aquaculture facility sites (and access routes to those areas) protects significant ecological
resources (salt marshes, dunes, beaches, barrier beaches, and salt ponds) and minimizes
adverse effects on the coastal and marine environment and other water-dependent uses.

The Project is not an aquaculture project; therefore, this policy does not apply.
Except where such activity is prohibited by the Ocean Sanctuaries Act, the Massachusetts
Ocean Management Plan, or other applicable provision of law, the extraction of oil, natural
gas, or marine minerals (other than sand and gravel) in or affecting the coastal zone must
protect marine resources, marine water quality, fisheries, and navigational, recreational and
other uses.
The Project does not involve extracting oil, natural gas, or marine minerals; therefore, this
policy does not apply.
Accommodate offshore sand and gravel extraction needs in areas and in ways that will not
adversely affect marine resources, navigation, or shoreline areas due to alteration of wave
direction and dynamics. Extraction of sand and gravel, when and where permitted, will be
primarily for the purpose of beach nourishment or shoreline stabilization.
The Project does not involve offshore mining or beach nourishment; therefore, this policy
does not apply.
2.6 Port and Harbors
Ports and Harbors Policy #1
Ensure that dredging and disposal of dredged material minimize adverse effects on water
quality, physical processes, marine productivity and public health and take full advantage of
opportunities for beneficial re-use.
The Project does involve some dredging within the Export Cable Corridors, mostly intended
to ensure sufficient burial depth in areas of the seafloor affected by sand waves. Due to the
coarse-grained nature of surficial sediments within the Export Cable Corridors, any Project-
generated turbidity related to cable installation or the transition from HDD is expected to be
temporary and limited in spatial scope. Dredged sediments are expected to be sidecast or
disposed of within the Wind Development Area or along the Export Cable Corridors.
Obtain the widest possible public benefit from channel dredging and ensure that
Designated Port Areas and developed harbors are given highest priority in the allocation of
resources.

The Project does not involve the dredging any navigation channels or Designated Port
Areas (DPAs); therefore, this policy does not apply. However, although the Project itself is
not located in a DPA, the Proponent has already signed a letter of intent to utilize the New
Bedford Marine Commerce Terminal, which is located within a DPA.
Preserve and enhance the capacity of Designated Port Areas to accommodate water-
dependent industrial uses and prevent the exclusion of such uses from tidelands and any
other DPA lands over which an EEA agency exerts control by virtue of ownership or other
legal authority.
The Project is not located in a DPA, and therefore, this policy does not apply. However,
although the Project itself is not located within a DPA, the Proponent has already signed a
letter of intent to utilize the New Bedford Marine Commerce Terminal for this water-
dependent project, which is located within a DPA.
For development on tidelands and other coastal waterways, preserve and enhance the
immediate waterfront for vessel-related activities that require sufficient space and suitable
facilities along the water’s edge for operational purposes.
The Project will have no impact on the availability of the waterfront for vessel-related
activities except for brief periods during construction.
Encourage, through technical and financial assistance, expansion of water-dependent uses

in Designated Port Areas and developed harbors, re-development of urban waterfronts, and
expansion of physical and visual access.
This Project is not located in a DPA, developed harbor, or urban waterfront; therefore, this
principle does not apply. However, although the Project itself is not located within a DPA,
the Proponent has already signed a letter of intent to utilize the New Bedford Marine
Commerce Terminal for this water-dependent project, which is located within a DPA.
2.7 Protected Areas
Protected Areas Policy #1
Preserve, restore, and enhance coastal Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, which are
complexes of natural and cultural resources of regional or statewide significance.

The Project is not located within or in the immediate vicinity of any Areas of Critical
Environmental Concern (ACECs), will therefore not have any adverse impacts on ACECs,
and thus complies with this policy.
Protect state designated scenic rivers in the coastal zone.
The Project is not located in or near any state designated scenic rivers; therefore, this policy
does not apply.
Ensure that proposed developments in or near designated or registered historic places

respect the preservation intent of the designation and that potential adverse effects are
minimized.
For onshore areas, construction and operation of the Project will not affect any historic
buildings or structures in either the Preferred Route or the Noticed Alternative Route (see
Figures 1-17 and 1-18). The Preferred Route is judged to be slightly superior to the Noticed
Alternative Route because it contains fewer known historic and archaeological sites,
recognizing that none of the identified buildings or structures will be altered by proposed
underground line construction for either route. Potential effects, if any, to archaeological
resources will be addressed with the MHC, as applicable, through Section 106 and the State
Register Review processes.
No previously-identified archaeological resources are located within the Offshore Export

Cable Corridors. A permit was received to conduct a marine archaeological survey from
the Massachusetts Board of Underwater Archaeology (MBUAR), and preliminary surveys
were completed in August 2017. The surveys did not identify any shipwrecks or aircraft
debris along the Offshore Export Cable Corridors. More detailed marine geophysical and
geotechnical surveys are scheduled for Spring/Summer 2018. If potentially significant
marine archaeological resources are ultimately identified, the Proponent will consider
alternatives to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate potential impacts to those resources in
compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and State Register
Review, as applicable.
2.8 Public Access
Public Access Policy #1
Ensure that development (both water-dependent or nonwater-dependent) of coastal sites

subject to state waterways regulation will promote general public use and enjoyment of the
water’s edge, to an extent commensurate with the Commonwealth’s interests in flowed and
filled tidelands under the Public Trust Doctrine.

The Project does not involve development of coastal sites, and will only use coastal sites for
HDD Landfall Sites.
Public Access Policy #2
Improve public access to existing coastal recreation facilities and alleviate auto traffic and
parking problems through improvements in public transportation and trail links (land- or
water-based) to other nearby facilities. Increase capacity of existing recreation areas by
facilitating multiple use and by improving management, maintenance, and public support
facilities. Ensure that the adverse impacts of developments proposed near existing public
access and recreation sites are minimized.
This Project does not involve any coastal recreation facilities, nor will it affect
transportation; therefore, this principle does not apply.
Public Access Management Principle #3
Expand existing recreation facilities and acquire and develop new public areas for coastal
recreational activities, giving highest priority to regions of high need or limited site
availability. Provide technical assistance to developers of both public and private recreation
facilities and sites that increase public access to the shoreline to ensure that both
transportation access and the recreation facilities are compatible with social and
environmental characteristics of surrounding communities.
This Project does not involve any recreation facilities; therefore, this principle does not
apply.
2.9 Water Quality
Water Quality Policy #1
Ensure that point-source discharges and withdrawals in or affecting the coastal zone do not
compromise water quality standards and protect designated uses and other interests.
The Project does not propose any new point-source discharges. Limited withdrawals during
construction may include water for cable installation (if jet-plow is used) and bilge/ballast
water. These modest and temporary water withdrawals are not anticipated to have any
meaningful impact on water quality.
Ensure the implementation of nonpoint source pollution controls to promote the attainment
of water quality standards and protect designated uses and other interests.

The Project will not alter existing stormwater volumes or drainage patterns, and will not
result in any new non-point source pollution. Construction-period sedimentation and
erosion will be controlled with appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs). Since the
Project will disturb more than one acre of land, a NPDES General Permit for Stormwater
will be obtained.
Ensure that subsurface waste discharges conform to applicable standards, including the
siting, construction, and maintenance requirements for on-site wastewater disposal systems,
water quality standards, established Total Maximum Daily Load limits, and prohibitions on
facilities in high-hazard areas.
The Project does not propose any subsurface waste discharges; therefore, this policy is not
applicable.
3.0 Conclusion
As described herein, the Project complies with the enforceable policies of Massachusetts’
approved Coastal Zone Management Plan and will be conducted in a manner consistent
with such policies.


Complete 155-Page Vineyard Wind Submission

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complete 155-Page Vineyard Wind Submission

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vineyard Wind Connector:

Environmental Notification Form

December 15, 2017

Submitted by In Association with

Secretary, Matthew A. Beaton

Subject: Vineyard Wind Connector

Dear Secretary Beaton:

Erich Stephens, CDO

cc: Circulation List (Attachment C)

Vineyard Wind Connector

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS

VINEYARD WIND LLC

EPSILON ASSOCIATES, INC. In Association with:

December 15, 2017

ATTACHMENT A PROJECT NARRATIVE

Figure 1-1 Project Overview, USGS Locus

4771/Vineyard Wind i Table of Contents

ACOE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

4771/Vineyard Wind ii Table of Contents

RFP Request for Proposals

4771/Vineyard Wind iii Table of Contents

Environmental Notification Form

Project Name: Vineyard Wind Connector

a Single EIR? (see 301 CMR 11.06(8)) Yes No

Acres of new non-water dependent 0

Vineyard Wind LLC (Vineyard Wind, the “Company” or “Proponent”) is permitting an up to

AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN:

HISTORICAL /ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES:

MASSACHUSETTS CONTINGENCY PLAN:

SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE:

Will your project disturb asbestos containing materials? Yes ___ No X ;

DESIGNATED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER:

II. Impacts and Permits

Existing Change Total

The Town of Barnstable’s Comprehensive Plan is intended to work for positive

As stated in the Comprehensive Plan of Yarmouth, the Economic Development

The Project supports economic development goals by bringing up to 800 MW of

According to Yarmouth’s Plan, the Town’s infrastructure continues to be

The Project will provide the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with up to 800 MW

3) open space impacts

An updated Community Preservation Plan of Yarmouth (2015) aims to (a) protect

The Project is consistent with open space-related goals, as it is predominantly

4) compatibility with adjacent land uses

3) open space impacts

RARE SPECIES SECTION

II. Impacts and Permits

WETLANDS, WATERWAYS, AND TIDELANDS SECTION

Installation of the offshore export cables will result in temporary impacts to

II. Wetlands Impacts and Permits

The Project will require only temporary construction-related impacts to wetlands,

Coastal Wetlands Area (square feet) or Temporary or

Land Under the Ocean 4,053,516 Temporary

D. Is any part of the project:

The Project may involve dredging of up to approximately 160,800 cubic yards

5. a discharge to an Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) or an Area of Critical

E. Will the project:

III. Waterways and Tidelands Impacts and Permits

The Vineyard Wind Connector is presumptively water-dependent: the Massachusetts

C. For non-water-dependent use projects, indicate the following:

F. Is the project non-water-dependent and located on landlocked tidelands or waterways or

What is the proposed dredge volume, in cubic yards (cys):

Where dredging is necessary, it will occur within an approximately 65-foot-wide

Will dredging impact the following resource areas?

Discharge of sanitary wastewater

Particulate matter