Comments to DOE on Northern Pass March 9, 2016

Good Evening. My name is Jack Savage and I represent the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests. We would like to make a brief comment on the Draft EIS to add to those made by my colleague Will Abbott on Monday evening in Colebrook.

We commend the DOE for including analysis of a variety of alternatives to the proposed route of Northern Pass. We note that two potential alternate routes, one along rail corridors, and an overhead alternative in Clarksville and Stewartstown, were determined to be impractical in part because the applicant would likely have difficulty in acquiring necessary property rights to implement those alternatives. The overhead alternative, we note, is determined to be problematic because of a conservation easement held by the state of New Hampshire.

DOE also noted that Alternative 3, burial within the PSNH ROW, would be made difficult because PSNH easements “do not grant the Applicant the authority to install or operate underground transmission cables within the land governed by the easements”.

Furthermore, we understand that the applicant is required to obtain a special use permit to bury under or along roadways through the White Mountain National Forest, in part because the federal government owns the land on either side and under the roadway. In essence, Northern Pass must seek permission from that landowner to bury along the roadway.

Since the release of the supplemental DEIS in November, the Forest Society has filed suit against Northern Pass LLC in Coos County Superior Court over the applicant’s proposed use of land we own, the Washburn Family Forest, to construct their project for use by Hydro Quebec. Two other conserved properties we own, the Kauffmann Forest in Stark and the Rocks Estate in Bethlehem, present potential challenges to the applicant’s ability to construct their preferred route, and certain easements we hold specifically prohibit construction as proposed by the applicant.

The NH SEC has acknowledged that it does not have the authority to resolve these legitimate property rights issues. As an elective transmission project, Northern Pass is prohibited under New Hampshire law from using eminent domain. It is reasonable to assume that the applicant’s preferred route would be difficult to implement, even if permitted by the SEC. At best it is very uncertain.

Consequently, we would request that the DOE acknowledge these issues in its analysis of the applicant’s preferred route. In particular we urge the DOE to compare and contrast the current preferred route, Alternative 7, to Alternative 4a, one that would use I-93 where the state owns the land underneath and along the roadway, thus minimizing property rights issues.

We believe that this analysis will further support our request that the DOE look at an alternative international border crossing in Derby, Vermont.

Thank you.

References:

Burial on ROW: The portion of the Alternative 3 Project corridor which would be located within the existing PSNH transmission route is governed by more than 644 separate easements or other agreements. A review of a representative sampling these easements indicates the majority of the easements do not grant the Applicant the authority to install or operate underground transmission cables within the land governed by the easements. Therefore, in order for Alternative 3 to be implemented, the majority of these easements would need to be amended through agreement with each individual land owner. This aspect of Alternative 3 may be challenging to implement.(Draft EIS Page 2-15)

Rail: A physical review of these corridors indicated that many property owners adjacent to the railroad corridor have constructed structures (e.g., fences/walls) along one or both edges of easement such that additional width may not be available. Based on discussions with NHDOT, these corridors also contain stone box culverts which are historic/cultural resources that would create challenges for siting. Furthermore, in many cases the railroads themselves constitute historic resources. Finally, according to NHDOT, for segments owned in fee by the State, there may be limitations on how the land may be used (for example the only allowed use may be for rail transportation). (Draft EIS Page 2-35)

Overhead/Underground in Stewartstown: DOE determined that this alternative was not reasonable due to access restrictions. The terms of the NHDRED easement prohibit this use. The conservation easement was created to protect the qualities of the viewshed and natural resources on the property, with terminology included to specifically preclude the type of development the Project would require. Further, the Applicant made extensive efforts with the land owner to acquire rights for this use of the land which were unsuccessful.(Draft EIS Page 2-37)