Correct the Fatal Flaws
- Tags:
- Northern Pass
My name is Will Abbott, and I am here today representing the Society for the Protection of NH Forests, where I serve as Vice President for Policy & Reservation Stewardship. I have comments for the DOE on the Draft EIS. I also have comments for the SEC on the proposed Northern Pass application, comments to supplement those made by our President/Forester Jane Difley last week in Meredith. I will offer comments on the DEIS now, and respectfully request the opportunity to present an additional three minutes of comments on the SEC issues once all others have had a chance to speak.
DEIS COMMENTS
Concerning the Draft EIS, the Forest Society sees one major flaw that must be corrected in the final EIS. We believe that the DEIS fails to satisfy the legal requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) because it fails to study more than one international border crossing.
NEPA regulations require federal agencies to (and I am quoting directly from the regulations here) “to identify and assess the reasonable alternatives to proposed actions that will avoid or minimize adverse effects of these actions upon the quality of the human environment.”
An environmental impact statement (EIS) is the tool provided by NEPA to study a range of alternatives. The EIS is designed to inform the federal permitting agency as to what is the least damaging environmental alternative is for the project. NEPA does not require that the agency choose the least damaging alternative, only that it study a range of alternatives to inform the agency’s decision.
The DEIS before us today does not study a range of alternatives for the international border crossing. It only studies one crossing alternative, the one presented by the applicant. And the applicant’s proposal is the one requested by its customer, Hydro-Quebec.
We strongly urge the DOE to prepare a final EIS that studies at least one additional alternative to the applicant’s preferred border crossing point. This would correct the flaw and would better inform DOE’s Presidential Permit decision.
Given that NP changed the size of the facility and the cable technology proposed for the project last summer, after the original EIS work was completed, this is another compelling reason to revisit the issue of options for crossing the international border.
As just one example, if the final EIS studies an alternative border crossing at Derby Line, VT, it could then consider a completely buried facility from Derby Line to either Hartford or Boston or even Deerfield, NH. This would get the electricity to the southern New England markets Bill Quinlan explained earlier is a primary objective of Northern Pass.
Consider that a buried route along I-91 and I-93 would avoid Coos County completely, and all of the adverse impacts the current proposal has on Coos County.
Consider that a buried transmission line down I-91 and I-93 between Derby Line and Exit 40 off I-93 in Bethlehem NH is 10 miles shorter than the current serpentine route through Coos County.
Consider that a completely buried line from Derby Line to Deerfield would avoid nearly all of the adverse impacts of the 132 miles of overhead lines currently proposed.
Consider that an alternative border crossing at Derby Line would provide an alternative to a Coos County route that may be rendered moot by a property rights lawsuit that we have raised in Coos County Superior Court concerning our land in Clarksville, which I will discuss in more detail later.
The point here is that the DRAFT EIS does not consider any border crossing except the applicant’s proposed crossing at Hall’s Stream. In doing so the DEIS fails to meet a primary statutory objective of NEPA and fails to fully inform DOE on the decision ahead of it concerning the President Permit. This is precisely why NEPA requires a range of alternatives to be studied in the first place. The final EIS should study more than one border crossing.
SEC COMMENTS
Concerning the SEC application, I would like to share concerns with the subcommittee regarding two properties we own in Coos County that are directly impacted by NP as currently proposed.
Our 2000 acre Washburn Family Forest in Clarksville has six miles of frontage on the Connecticut River. The River itself is the town line between Pittsburg and Clarksville. The Washburn Forest includes land you visited today just south of the bridge where Route 3 crosses the River.
As you observed earlier today, this land provides an exceptional scenic gateway into the Town of Pittsburg. If NP is built as proposed, this natural landscape will be forever scarred by the overhead lines coming from Hall’s Stream to the point near Route 3 where the transition station from above ground to underground is proposed to be built. This permanent scar would harm more than just the Washburn Family Forest.
Furthermore, Northern Pass proposes to build its line 50 to 70 feet below the surface of Route 3 as the road crosses our land. The State holds a transportation easement over this land by virtue of a road layout approved jointly by the selectmen of Pittsburg, Stewartstown and Clarksville in 1931.
We believe Northern Pass does not have the legal right to build the project through our land as they propose. Without our permission, this would constitute an unconstitutional taking. We are, therefore, defending our property rights in the only legal setting where the NH Constitution provides for such relief, in Coos County Superior Court. If the Court rules in our favor, NP cannot dig in our dirt. And if NP cannot dig in our dirt the entire corridor now proposed through Coos County will likely be abandoned. When we suggested that under SEC rules this legal issue rendered the NP application incomplete, you chose to decide otherwise. But the legal dispute is real. No case with such a set of facts has ever been decided before by a New Hampshire court. The Forest Society continues to believe that it is inappropriate and a waste of resources for all of us to be investing so much time and money into this matter while the court is considering our case.
Finally, I would like to bring to your attention the concerns we as a landowner have with the proposed use of the PSNH ROW through more than a mile of our Kauffmann Forest in Stark. In this 150 foot wide right of way held by PSNH and the Portland Natural Gas Pipeline Company there is presently a 115kv overhead transmission line on wooden poles below tree line and a 24 inch natural gas pipeline buried four feet below ground. Northern Pass proposes to remove the existing above ground transmission facility and replace it with an entirely new set of steel structures well above tree line to host a new enhanced AC transmission line. This AC line is the so-called “Coos Loop.” NP also proposes to erect a second set of structures within the 150 ROW to host the new HVDC line, also well above tree line. Many of the individual towers for both facilities will be above 100 feet in height.
There is a very practical question as to how many transmission facilities can be safely crammed into this 150 foot ROW. There is a question about whether the consequence of what NP proposes represents an unreasonable adverse impact on aesthetics. And there is the question about just how safe it is to co-locate all three of these facilities in the existing ROW.
If NP is built through Stark as proposed, the natural landscapes of the Town of Stark will change dramatically. If NP as proposed in Stark were built, will private property be harmed if any of these new towers fall outside the ROW? Or if they fall on each other? Or if they fall in a way that disrupts the gas pipeline?
We think that what Northern Pass proposes for our land in Stark is not only an unreasonable adverse impact on aesthetics but also an unreasonable adverse impact on public safety.
As the SEC subcommittee contemplates the NP application, we ask that you consider these questions about property rights, aesthetics, public safety, and natural resources much more comprehensively than the DOE’s Draft EIS does. New Hampshire only has one chance to get the decision on this application right. To make a well informed decision on the NP application, the SEC should set a very high bar for the substance of its review.
Thank You.