ENVIRONMENTAL NOTIFICATION FORM

Atlantic Link Project Coleson Cove, New Brunswick, Canada, to Plymouth, Massachusetts

PREPARED FOR

Clean Power Northeast Development A subsidiary of Emera, Inc. 1223 Lower Water Street Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3J 3S8

PREPARED BY

500 Southborough Drive Suite 105B South Portland, ME 04106 207.889.3150

SEPTEMBER 15, 2017

\\vhb\proj\Portland\55057.01\docs\VARIOUS\MEPA\ENF\Atlantic Link - ENF - Cover Letter 2017-09-02.docx

September 15, 2017 Ref: 55057.01 Secretary Matthew A. Beaton Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Attn: MEPA Office 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 Re: Environmental Notification Form

Atlantic Link Project Coleson Cove, New Brunswick, Canada, to Plymouth, Massachusetts

Dear Secretary Beaton,

On behalf of Clean Power Northeast Development (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Emera, Inc.), VHB is pleased to submit the enclosed Environmental Notification Form (“ENF”) for the Atlantic Link Project (the “Project”) located primarily within the Atlantic Ocean, between Coleson Cove, New Brunswick, Canada, and Plymouth, Massachusetts. The Project involves the installation of a subsea high-voltage direct-current (“HVdc”) transmission line to deliver clean energy from Atlantic Canada to Massachusetts, approximately 19 miles of which will traverse Massachusetts state waters. At landfall in Plymouth, the Project would include the construction of an underground HVdc cable extending approximately 2,375 feet, HVdc converter station, substation, and transmission line tap within currently undeveloped land owned by Entergy (owner of Pilgrim Station). Construction of the Project will serve the public interest by providing Massachusetts and the New England electricity system with long-term access to clean energy at stable prices from land-based wind farms and hydro facilities in Atlantic Canada.

We anticipate that the MEPA Office will notice the ENF for public review in the September 20, 2017, edition of the Environmental Monitor and that comments will be due October 10, 2017. Pursuant to 301 CMR 11.16(2), a copy of this ENF will be distributed to those agencies and individuals on the ENF Distribution List (see Attachment D) and additional copies are available upon request. Requests for copies of the ENF can be directed to me at 207.889.3102 or via email at gpaquette@vhb.com.

We look forward to working with you and your staff during the review of this Project.

Sincerely,

Gil A. Paquette, CWB, PWS

Director of Energy & Environmental Services gpaquette@vhb.com

Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs

Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) Office

Effective January 2011

Environmental Notification Form 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: Atlantic Link Project Street Address: Atlantic Ocean—Coleson Cove, New Brunswick (Canada) to Plymouth, MA Municipality: Plymouth Watershed: Cape Cod Bay-Rocky Point

to Cape Cod Canal Universal Transverse Mercator Coordinates: Converter Station: Easting: 369561.22 / Northing: 4643310.61

Latitude/Longitude: Converter Station: 41.930986, -70.573292

Estimated commencement date: 2020 Estimated completion date: 2022 Project Type: Utility - Transmission Line Status of project design: 10 %complete Proponent: Clean Power Northeast Development (a subsidiary of Emera, Inc.) Street Address: 1223 Lower Water Street Municipality: Halifax State: Nova Scotia, Canada Zip Code: B3J 3S8 Name of Contact Person: Gil A. Paquette Firm/Agency: VHB Street Address: 500 Southborough Dr., Suite 105B Municipality: South Portland State: ME Zip Code: 04106 Phone: 207-889-3102 Fax: E-mail: GPaquette@vhb.com

- 2 -

Does this project meet or exceed a mandatory EIR threshold (see 301 CMR 11.03)? ☒ Yes ☐ No 301 CMR 11.03(7)(a)4. Construction of electric transmission lines with a Capacity of 230 or more kV, provided the transmission lines are five or more miles in length along new, unused or abandoned right of way. 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.) Which MEPA review threshold(s) does the project meet or exceed (see 301 CMR 11.03)?

• 301 CMR 11.03(7)(a)4. Construction of electric transmission lines with a Capacity of 230 or more kV, provided the transmission lines are five or more miles in length along new, unused or abandoned right of way.

Which State Agency Permits will the project require? EFSB/DPU:

• Approval to construct, G.L. c. 164, § 69J and 72 • Request for zoning exemptions, G.L. c. 40A, §3

MassDEP: • Chapter 91 Waterways License • Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act • 401 Water Quality Certification

MHC/BUAR: • Project Notification Form / Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act Consultation

NHESP: • Massachusetts Endangered Species Act - potential Conservation and Management Permit

CZM: • Coastal Zone Management Program Consistency Review (including Massachusetts Ocean

Management Plan) DMF:

• Consultation with Division of Marine Fisheries DCR:

• Massachusetts Ocean Sanctuaries Act Review 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: None

- 3 -

Summary of Project Size & Environmental Impacts

Existing Change Total

LAND Total site acreage (ROW and converter site easements) 52.1

New acres of land altered (ROW, HDD pad, and converter site) 18.1

Acres of impervious area (Footprint of converter site elements) 0 3.2 3.2

Square feet of new bordering vegetated wetlands alteration (HDD pad)

3,771

Square feet of new other wetland alteration (HDD/trench in Land Under the Ocean)

148,462 (temporary)

Acres of new non-water dependent use of tidelands or waterways

—

STRUCTURES Gross square footage (Footprint of converter site elements)

0 139,408 139,408

Number of housing units — — —

Maximum height (feet) (Typical station with lightning protection)

0 approx. 80 approx. 80

TRANSPORTATION Vehicle trips per day — — —

Parking spaces — — —

WASTEWATER Water Use (Gallons per day) — — —

Water withdrawal (GPD) — — —

Wastewater generation/treatment (GPD) — — —

Length of water mains (miles) — — —

Length of sewer mains (miles) — — —

Has this project been filed with MEPA before? ☐ Yes (EEA # ) ☒ No Has any project on this site been filed with MEPA before? ☐ Yes (EEA # ) ☒ No

- 4 -

GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION – all proponents must fill out this section PROJECT DESCRIPTION NOTE: The project description should summarize both the project’s direct and indirect impacts (including construction period impacts) in terms of their magnitude, geographic extent, duration and frequency, and reversibility, as applicable. It should also discuss the infrastructure requirements of the project and the capacity of the municipal and/or regional infrastructure to sustain these requirements into the future. Describe the existing conditions and land uses on the project site: Clean Power Northeast Development (“CPNE,” or “the Company”) plans to install and operate a subsea high-voltage direct-current (“HVdc”) transmission line to deliver clean energy from Atlantic Canada to Massachusetts. The proposed HVdc cable landing point would be located on an undeveloped segment of the shore of Plymouth, Massachusetts, in the vicinity of the Pilgrim nuclear generating plant scheduled to be taken out of service in 2019. An HVdc underground cable, DC converter station, and 345 kilovolt (“kV”) transmission interconnection substation would also be constructed at this location. Existing conditions in this area are identified in Attachment A2. Plymouth is located within the Seaboard Lowlands section of the New England physiographic province, which has elevation and relief that is typically limited to a range of a few hundred feet. The site is characterized by irregular, undulating terrain with short slopes and is underlain by loose glacial till, ice-contact deposits, and glaciofluvial material with predominantly sandy textures and some cobbles and stones. The soils are generally well-drained, with a few wetlands in topographic depressions. Major streams and watercourses are absent within the proposed project area. The proposed HVdc cable landing point, buried cable, DC converter station, and transmission interconnection substation would be located on currently undeveloped forested land that is under the ownership of Entergy, the owner of Pilgrim station. Species of oak, white pine, and pitch pine are predominant tree species at the site. The shore of Cape Cod Bay is located north of the project area. Residential development is located approximately 600 to 1,000 feet east and southeast of the project area. The existing Pilgrim nuclear facility is located approximately 500 feet to the northwest, and electric transmission rights-of-way with two existing 345 kV transmission lines and other conserved forest land are located southwest and west of the site. As shown in Attachments B and C, the subsea cable portion of the route passes through mapped rare species habitat, the Cape Cod Bay Ocean Sanctuary, and the Stellwagen National Marine Sanctuary. There are also shellfish harvesting areas in Cape Cod Bay. Describe the proposed project and its programmatic and physical elements: The preferred transmission line route will be located within a ROW connecting Coleson Cove, New Brunswick, Canada, to Plymouth, Massachusetts, for a total length of approximately 337 miles, over 99 percent of which will be subsea to simplify construction, provide greater reliability, and reduce cost. The majority of the transmission line route occurs in United States federal waters; however, short sections of the transmission line route will traverse Massachusetts state waters for a total of approximately 19 miles. The total length of the submarine transmission line route in US federal waters (i.e., exclusive of MA State waters) will be approximately 190 miles. The route is shown in Attachment A. Atlantic Link would provide Massachusetts and the New England electricity system with long-term access to clean energy at stable prices from land-based wind farms and hydro facilities in Atlantic Canada. The project is being developed in response to an upcoming procurement for clean energy mandated by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts under “An Act to Promote Energy Diversity”, which was signed into law by Governor Charlie Baker in August, 2016 (Ch. 188 of the Acts of 2016); specifically, in response to a Request for Proposals issued March 31, 2017 by electric distribution companies in Massachusetts for Long-Term Contracts for Clean Energy Projects (https://macleanenergy.com/). As required in the Act, the Project will also contribute to Massachusetts’ legally-required efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under its Global Warming Solutions Act

- 5 -

(Chapter 298 of the Acts of 2008). The Project will also optimize infrastructure that would otherwise be unused (or underutilized) following closure in 2019 of the Pilgrim nuclear station.1 Atlantic Link comprises two 320 kV direct-current, cross-linked polyethylene (“XLPE”) cables with a delivered capacity of 1000 MW, possibly bundled together along with one fiber optic cable, and buried in the ocean floor with subsea protection consisting of a combination of trenching, rock placement, and/or concrete mattressing. Each cable is approximately 5 inches in diameter. The cables will be bundled together for installation. For most of the route, the Company plans to bury the cables at a depth of 3 to 6 feet. Where the cables cannot be buried, they will be covered by rock placement or with protective mattressing. In Plymouth, an HVdc converter station, substation, and transmission line tap will be constructed. The cables will be buried between landfall and the converter station, and may be protected by a concrete barrier or buried in a concrete duct bank, as necessary. The proposed submerged transmission cable system will most likely be primarily installed via a burial device such as a jet plow, which uses high-pressure water jets to create a trench (the specific burial strategy will be determined by the selected installer). The burial device may be towed along the seafloor by a ship, or the device may be self-propelled, and will simultaneously create a trench, lay cable fed to the device from the ship, and infill the trench with native material. The burial device will allow the cable system installation to proceed rapidly, generally in a single pass of the device, with a very limited disturbance footprint. The installation will be supplemented with cable protection measures in discrete locations where target burial depths cannot be achieved, such as areas with hard-bottom sea floors. At the origin and landfall of the transmission line route, upland installation techniques will be utilized over short distances (2,375 feet in Massachusetts). Any on-land portion of the cables would be buried. In the transition area between upland and subsea, the cables will be installed using standard horizontal directional drill (“HDD”) techniques to avoid impacts to the intertidal zone. Describe the on-site project alternatives (and alternative off-site locations, if applicable), considered by the proponent, including at least one feasible alternative that is allowed under current zoning, and the reasons(s) that they were not selected as the preferred alternative: NOTE: The purpose of the alternatives analysis is to consider what effect changing the parameters and/or siting of a project, or components thereof, will have on the environment, keeping in mind that the objective of the MEPA review process is to avoid or minimize damage to the environment to the greatest extent feasible. Examples of alternative projects include alternative site locations, alternative site uses, and alternative site configurations. The Company considered several different landing and interconnection points, as well as two routes (including the proposed route) landing in Plymouth. These alternatives are described below, and the route and landing/interconnection points are shown in Attachment D. Proposed Route As described under the Project Description section, the proposed route would be located within a ROW connecting Coleson Cove, New Brunswick, Canada, to Plymouth, Massachusetts, for a total length of approximately 337 miles. The majority of the route will be subsea and occurs within US federal waters; however, approximately 19 miles of the route will traverse Massachusetts state waters. Alternative Route Like the proposed project, the routing alternative would connect Coleson Cove, New Brunswick, Canada, to Plymouth, Massachusetts. However, rather than approaching Plymouth from the northeast, this route would stay closer to the coast and approach Plymouth from the north via Massachusetts Bay. This route would pass through a Gulf of Maine ground fish habitat closure area as well as three Massachusetts Ocean Sanctuaries (North Shore, 1 If the RFP is not procured, the proponent may develop the Atlantic Link project subject to its assessment of market conditions at that time.

- 6 -

South Essex, and Cape Cod Bay). It would also pass through a North Atlantic Right Whale Precautionary Area. This route would cross the Neptune LNG Pipeline and the Northeast Gateway Pipeline, and other infrastructure located within Massachusetts Bay. However, this route would avoid Stellwagen National Marine Sanctuary and the proposed Stellwagen Designated Habitat Research Area, North Atlantic Right Whale Critical Habitat, Fin Whale Core Habitat, and Humpback Whale Core Habitat. Landing/Interconnection Alternative #1 (Seabrook) Alternative #1 was potentially the least constrained offshore HVdc transmission line corridor. The major protected areas and constraints located offshore from Massachusetts could be avoided by landing the cables further north in New Hampshire, if geotechnical and other subsea site conditions allowed. However, the subsea cables would still need to cross the proposed Stellwagen Designated Habitat and Research Area (“DHRA”) and reference area. Nearshore constraints included the presence of extensive salt marshes, potential for eelgrass habitat, and a rivermouth at Hampton Harbor. These constraints could potentially be avoided by employing HDD techniques to land at Seabrook Station with sufficient depth to avoid being disturbed or damaged by periodic dredging operations at the Hampton Harbor rivermouth. Terrestrial constraints for this alternative would be based around the need to establish a new HVdc ROW, which would require landing at Salisbury Beach, Massachusetts. Potential constraints associated with the new ROW include dense residential and commercial development along part of the route, potential for seasonal construction constraints in an area that is heavily used for coastal summer tourism, potential for impacts to wetlands, streams, vernal pools, and rare species, and potential for having to manage disturbance of contaminated soil along a railroad ROW. From an electrical system stability perspective, it was determined that landing at Seabrook would result in the need for system upgrades in the form of additional high voltage line needing to be constructed, thereby increasing terrestrial environmental impacts and burdening landowners. Landing/Interconnection Alternative #2 (Gloucester) Alternative #2 was eliminated on the basis of being the worst landing point for interconnecting with existing 345 kV system. It would potentially need to cross the northern part of the Stellwagen National Marine Sanctuary (“NMS”) and/or the Stellwagen DHRA and reference area. Nearer to shore, this alternative would also cross the North Shore Ocean Sanctuary. The potential for geotechnical constraints is also high in the Cape Ann vicinity, with a very rocky shoreline, numerous offshore islands formed on bedrock, and a very shallow depth to bedrock in many areas. This alternative would also require siting the HVdc cables through Gloucester Harbor, which is a very active and busy commercial and recreational harbor. Upon landfall, this alternative lacks suitable existing electric transmission infrastructure and a ROW suitable for collocation, and has dense residential and commercial development, and again, a shallow depth to bedrock throughout much of Cape Ann. From an electrical system stability perspective, it was determined that landing at Gloucester would result in the need for system upgrades in the form of additional high voltage line needing to be constructed, thereby increasing terrestrial environmental impacts and burdening landowners. Landing/Interconnection Alternative #3 (Salem Harbor) Alternative #3 presented constraints related to the potential need to cross the Stellwagen NMS and the proposed Stellwagen DHRA and reference area, as well as the North Shore Ocean Sanctuary. Other nearshore constraints would also be encountered to reach the Salem Harbor Station site and included dredged channels, anchorage areas/berths, and the potential for shallow bedrock. A significant terrestrial constraint associated with the Salem Harbor landing point is the need for new electric transmission capacity. The site is situated next to a densely populated area in the northeastern section of Salem, with residences abutting the site to the west and north, and historic districts in the vicinity. The addition of a new 345 kV line would be challenging to site given the density of the existing development and limited available ROW. Landing/Interconnection Alternative #4 (Mystic Substation) Located in Lynn, just south of Salem Harbor, Alternative #4 presented constraints similar to Alternative #3 related to the potential need to cross the Stellwagen NMS and the proposed Stellwagen DHRA and reference area. However, unlike Alternative #3, a suitable location to site an HVdc converter station could not be identified. Additionally, urban construction and additional system upgrades would be required at this site to transmit the electricity provided by Atlantic Link. Landing/Interconnection Alternative #5 (Weymouth to Holbrook) Alternative #5 was the most challenging site from a nearshore siting perspective due to the presence of extensive subsea infrastructure within inner Massachusetts Bay, sewer lines and outfalls, and an historic/abandoned industrial dumping site. Against this backdrop of a complicated nearshore construction environment were

- 7 -

substantial terrestrial and offshore siting constraints, including crossing the middle of the Stellwagen NMS and potentially the proposed Stellwagen DHRA, as well as the North Shore Ocean Sanctuary and the South Essex Ocean Sanctuary; crossing very active shipping and boating areas; and limited available land for construction of an HVdc converter station at the existing Holbrook Substation. Landing/Interconnection Alternative #6 (Scituate Harbor) Alternative #6 was eliminated due to a combination of terrestrial, nearshore, and offshore siting constraints. While Alternative #6 would likely require a similar offshore route to that of the preferred alternative Plymouth due to their proximity, Alternative #6 would offer none of the added benefits of an ideal 345 kV interconnection site that is provided by the Preferred Project. It would require crossing the Stellwagen NMS and near or potentially through designated North Atlantic right whale critical habitat, as well as crossing the commercial shipping lane to Boston Harbor. Within Scituate harbor, there is extensive recreational and commercial marina activity and a maintained and periodically dredged channel, and the sheltered embayment has the potential to support valued coastal resources including tidal marshes, intertidal flats, and eelgrass beds. Terrestrial siting challenges include constrained space at the Auburn Street Substation for construction of an HVdc converter station, and the need to establish new ROW along municipal roads and the existing 115 kV ROW to the Auburn Street Substation. Landing/Interconnection Alternative #7 (Brayton) As with Alternative #1, Alternative #7 would avoid designated right whale critical habitat, the Stellwagen NMS, all Massachusetts waters including Ocean Sanctuaries and Ocean Management Plan areas, and offshore infrastructure in the vicinity of Massachusetts Bay. However, approaching nearshore waters, this alternative would encounter designated “areas of particular concern” and exclusion zones specified in the Rhode Island Ocean Special Area Management Plan, and state water use designations under the jurisdiction of the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council. This alternative would also cross natural resources including two aquaculture sites, a shellfish management and spawning area, and a productive commercial quahog fishery; and existing infrastructure including cables and a natural gas pipeline. Furthermore, this route would require a much longer cable length and complex installation within a river system, resulting in a significantly higher expense than the proposed route. Summarize the mitigation measures proposed to offset the impacts of the preferred alternative: Most of the Project’s potential environmental impacts would occur during construction and site development. Potential environmental impacts from project construction would be related to the subsea cable installation, the terrestrial cables, the DC converter station and substation construction, and transmission line tap construction. Subsea Cable Construction The proposed submerged transmission cable system will most likely be installed principally in soft bottom sediments using a burial device such as a jet plow. The jet plow could be towed along the seafloor by a ship, or the device may be self-propelled, and would simultaneously create a trench, lay cables fed to the plow from the ship, and infill the trench with native material. The trench would be less than two feet wide and approximately 6 feet deep and would infill immediately as the plow installs the cables. The cables would be buried to a depth of approximately 3 to 6 feet. Suspended sediment would be limited to the immediate installation area. The only direct impacts of the jet plow installation to the marine environment are in the footprint of the trench and jet plow, and these would be very short-term. Typically, use of a jet plow allows for 2 to 4 miles of cable to be installed per day. The subsea cables would have no significant environmental impacts during operation because it would be buried beneath the seafloor for most of its length. Where hard-bottom seafloor is encountered and the cables are not able to be buried in marine sediments, the cables would be covered with rocks or a protective mattress to armor the cables and hold them in-place. Where the cables are armored, potential environmental impacts would be limited to the footprint of the protective covering. The locations where the cables must be laid on the seafloor surface and armored will be minimized by pre-construction siting analysis. To date CPNE has completed desktop analysis and preliminary surveys to identify a transmission line corridor with the highest probability of encountering soft bottom sediments. CPNE will also complete detailed pre-construction field surveys and field data collection to maximize cable installation in soft bottom sediments that can be trenched rather than installed on hard seafloor bottom.

- 8 -

A short segment of the cables would be installed using the HDD installation technique where it approaches the landfall location in Plymouth. HDD installation involves a GPS-guided drilling device that bores and reams a hole through the subsurface between a subsurface entry and exit location. The HDD construction would be a ‘land to water’ installation, where the drilling device would penetrate the ground surface from a terrestrial starting point and exit the seafloor near the cable trench. The cables would be attached to the drilling device and pulled back through the subsurface HDD path to the terrestrial starting point to complete the cable landfall. The advantage of HDD installation is that the cables can be installed with no disturbance to the seafloor, the terrestrial surface, and nearshore resources (e.g., beaches, dunes, eelgrass beds, and marshes), except where the HDD enters and exits the ground or seafloor at the start and end points. This minimizes impacts to valued and protected shoreland, water, and wetland resources. A potential risk of HDD installation is the inadvertent return of lubricating drilling mud (water and bentonite clay), pressurized within the bore hole, to the seafloor surface. This can create temporary turbidity in the water from suspended sediment. This risk would be mitigated by monitoring the pressure of the drilling mud in the HDD bore hole, and through implementing an approved contingency plan to minimize and contain turbidity and sedimentation. The principal potential for environmental impact risks related to subsea cable construction are related to spawning and Essential Fish Habitat disturbance, harassment or injury to threatened, endangered, or protected marine species (i.e. marine mammals), and offshore sanctuary and cultural resources (i.e., Stellwagen NMS, Massachusetts Ocean Sanctuaries, or shipwrecks). The proposed subsea transmission line corridor has been sited to avoid and minimize crossings and impacts to protected areas and species associated with them. Furthermore, the subsea cables are expected to have no significant environmental impacts during operation because it would be buried beneath the seafloor for most of its length. The potential for impacts to these resources will be fully evaluated, minimized, and mitigated through completion of the various permit authorizations and agency consultations. Key among these will be consultations with the National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”), the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (“DMF”), the Massachusetts Bureaus of Underwater Archaeological Resources (“MBUAR”), and the Massachusetts Historical Commission (“MHC”), under laws and regulations including the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, National Marine Sanctuaries Act, and the Massachusetts Ocean Sanctuaries Act. Terrestrial Cables, DC Converter Station Construction, and Transmission Line Tap Terrestrial components of the Project include buried HVdc cables, a DC converter station, substation, and electric transmission line tap. Construction of these elements of the project have the potential for short-term environmental impacts. The sequence of project construction would generally follow:

• Clearing and vegetation removal; • Grading and site preparation; • Construction, and • Site restoration.

The work would generally move from one end of the line to the other over the duration of the construction period. The transmission line corridor easement is 200 feet wide and 2,375 feet long; however, the disturbed area would be 50 feet wide and occupy approximately 2.7 acres, with the remaining 8.2 acres serving as a buffer to surrounding land uses. This area would require limited associated grading to facilitate equipment access during construction. The cables would be buried in an open trench less than two feet wide between landfall and the converter station. As design progresses, the cables may be protected by a concrete barrier or buried in a concrete duct bank, as necessary. The DC converter station and substation would be developed on an approximately 41-acre site and would require substantial site grading and preparation, although only 10 to 15 acres of the site would be developed to construct the facilities. Following construction, the HVdc cables and transmission line tap ROWs would be maintained in a shrub-meadow cover type. The DC converter station and substation would be permanently developed with electric transmission infrastructure. Potential construction-phase environmental impacts would be minimized by adhering to construction Best Management Practices (“BMPs”) and permit conditions, and implementation of an Environmental Inspection (“EI”) Program. Key elements of the BMPs and EI program would include implementation of erosion and

- 9 -

sedimentation controls, a spill prevention and countermeasures plan, regular environmental inspections and coordination between environmental compliance and construction personnel. If the project is proposed to be constructed in phases, please describe each phase: The Project will not be phased.

- 10 -

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 and assess the 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: PH 842/EH 682 and PH 945/EH 756) ☐ No

HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Does the project site include any structure, site or district listed in the State Register of Historic Place or

the inventory of Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth? ☒ Yes (Specify PLY.F: Manomet Inventoried Area ) ☐ No If yes, does the project involve any demolition or destruction of any listed or inventoried historic

or archaeological resources? ☐ Yes (Specify ) ☒ No WATER RESOURCES: Is there an Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) on or within a half-mile radius of the project site?

☐ Yes ☒ 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 ☒ 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 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:

The Project will be constructed in compliance with the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act and the MassDEP Stormwater Regulations. The majority of the stormwater management standards are not applicable to the proposed work. The primary applicable standard is Standard #8: Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Controls. The Company will install erosion control devices and employ dewatering as needed. Daily inspections of all work areas and erosion controls will be conducted by construction crews and weekly inspections will be performed by an experienced environmental monitor.

- 11 -

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; 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;

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; 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:

The Company will recycle construction debris such as packaging materials, conductors, insulators, pallets, and wooden spools to the extent practical and as required by regulations.

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;

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: During project construction, air quality impacts would include emissions from ships, barges, and land-based construction equipment. These impacts would include emissions from fossil fuel combustion, and fugitive dust emissions from land-based construction. These air quality impacts would be short-term. During operation of the Project, there may be a small standby generator on site that would be used only for black starts subsequent to system power interruptions. Air quality impacts from this infrequent use and from general operation of the facility would be de minimus, and limited to vehicles run by project operation and maintenance personnel. The Project’s potential for air quality impacts would be reviewed by the EPA under Section 7627 of the Clean Air Act, and air quality impacts would be mitigated through compliance with state and federal regulatory requirements. The Company will establish standards and protocols for contractor operation of equipment in an environmental protection plan. 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; 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.

- 12 -

ATTACHMENTS: 1. List of all attachments to this document.

See below.

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. Provided as Attachment A.

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. Provided as 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. Provided as Attachment C.

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). Please see Attachment C for the proposed location of the Project. At this time, engineered details are not available.

6. List of all agencies and persons to whom the proponent circulated the ENF, in accordance

with 301 CMR 11.16(2). Provided as Attachment D.

7. List of municipal and federal permits and reviews required by the project, as applicable.

Municipal (Town of Plymouth) • Plymouth Zoning Board of Appeals

o Zoning Bylaw Variance Approval • Conservation Commissions

o Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (310 CMR 10.00) o Plymouth Wetlands Protection Bylaw

• Plymouth Department of Public Works o Trench Permit – Public Property

• Plymouth Building and Zoning Department o Trench Permit – Private Property

Federal • US Department of Energy:

o Presidential Permit • US Army Corps of Engineers:

o Section 10 Rivers and Harbors Act o Sections 403/404 Federal Clean Water Act

• US Environmental Protection Agency:

- 13 -

o National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges from Construction Activities

o Clean Air Act Notice of Intent • NMFS/USFWS:

o Endangered Species Act review o Marine Mammal Protection Act review o Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act review o Migratory Bird Treaty Act review o National Marine Sanctuaries Act Section 310 Special Permit or Section 922.48 Authorization

• Bureau of Ocean Energy Management o Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act easement o NEPA Review

• US Coast Guard o US Coast Guard Regulations Navigational Risk Assessment

- 14 -

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) ☐ Yes ☒ No; if yes, specify each threshold:

II. Impacts and Permits

A. Describe, in acres, the current and proposed character of the project site, as follows:

Existing Change Total Footprint of buildings 0 3.2 3.2 Internal roadways 0 0 0 Parking and other paved areas 0 0 0 Other altered areas 0 0 0 Undeveloped areas 52.1 -17.5 34.6

ROW 0 2.7 2.7 Converter Station Site 0 14.8 14.8

Total: Project Site Acreage 52.1 0 52.1

B. Has any part of the project site been in active agricultural use in the last five years? ☐ Yes ☒ 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 ☐ 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: Entergy is participating in the Chapter 61 tax program and has a Forest Management Plan in place approved by DCR. The Proponent is coordinating with Entergy to determine the status of current and proposed forestry activities on the site.

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? ☐ Yes ☒ No; if yes, describe:

E. Is any part of the project site currently subject to a conservation restriction, preservation

restriction, agricultural preservation restriction or watershed preservation restriction? ☐ Yes ☒ No; if yes, does the project involve the release or modification of such restriction? ☐ Yes ☒ No; if yes, describe: In 2013, Entergy and the Town of Plymouth entered into a Payment in Lieu of Tax Agreement (“PILOT Agreement”), in which a restrictive covenant prevented Entergy’s property from being used for residential development as long as the PILOT Agreement is in effect. However, in 2016, Entergy negotiated an updated PILOT Agreement in which the restrictive covenant expired on June 30, 2017.

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 ☒ 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; if yes, describe:

- 15 -

III. Consistency A. Identify the current municipal comprehensive land use plan

Title: Town of Plymouth, Massachusetts: Master Plan, 2004-2024 Date: August 2006

B. Describe the project’s consistency with that plan with regard to: 1) economic development: The Project would contribute to the Town’s non-residential tax

base, which the Master Plan indicates Plymouth must increase to assure long-term fiscal stability. The Project also supports Economic Development Objective 1, which specifically identifies a goal to replace a portion of the expected losses in assessed valuation associated with the devaluation of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant. The project will deliver an estimated $260 million in capital investment, as well as more than 900 full-time equivalent construction jobs and $217 million in wages for Massachusetts workers. The Town of Plymouth will receive ongoing tax revenue of $2.5 million annually, for the term of Atlantic Link’s contract resulting from the Clean Energy RFP. In addition, Emera Inc. will contribute $750,000 annually for the benefit of low income customers in the Commonwealth by augmenting energy-related programs delivered in the Plymouth area by the South Shore Community Action Council. Clean Power Northeast, on behalf of Emera, has made a commitment to SSCAC for this funding over the term of the PPA that would be signed with Massachusetts electric utilities; the Board of SSCAC has agreed to deliver programs in a manner that maximizes direct benefit for low-income residents served by the agency. The local tax income and low-income commitment by Atlantic Link are direct, positive offsets to the loss of local economic benefits associated with the closure of the Pilgrim nuclear station in 2019.

2) adequacy of infrastructure: The Master Plan indicates that Plymouth has faced accelerated residential growth that is expected to continue, and the Project will support the increased energy demand using renewable sources.

3) open space impacts: The Project is proposed on existing Entergy property. This property is identified in the Master Plan as containing approximately 1,600 acres of “temporarily protected open space,” protected as long as Entergy owns the property. The buried cables will require conversion of some existing forested areas into shrub/meadow vegetative communities, but will not result in any other permanent impacts to the existing open space. The new substation and converter station would be constructed within an approximately 41-acre site and require the development of approximately 10 to 15 acres within this land.

4) compatibility with adjacent land uses: The Project will be built within the existing Entergy property, consistent with existing energy infrastructure uses developed on other parts of the property including a nuclear generator, substation, and electric transmission ROWs. Extensive areas of undeveloped forested land are available around the proposed DC converter station site to facilitate a forested buffer that would be several hundred feet wide.

C. Identify the current Regional Policy Plan of the applicable Regional Planning Agency (RPA) RPA: Old Colony Planning Council

Title: Regional Policy Plan: A Guide for Shaping Our Communities and the OCPC Region Date: 2000

D. Describe the project’s consistency with that plan with regard to: 1) economic development: The regional employment projections indicated that the Town of

Plymouth was expected to have the greatest share of the region’s new jobs. The Project will support and provide reliable energy for this future economic development. As described above, Atlantic Link’s landfall in Massachusetts creates economic benefit to the Commonwealth. The project will deliver an estimated $260 million in capital investment, as well as more than 900 full-time equivalent construction jobs and $217 million in wages for Massachusetts workers. In addition, Emera Inc. will contribute $750,000 annually for the benefit of low income customers in the Commonwealth by augmenting energy-related programs delivered in the Plymouth area by the South Shore Community Action Council. Clean Power Northeast, on behalf of Emera, has made a commitment to SSCAC for this

- 16 -

funding over the term of the PPA that would be signed with Massachusetts electric utilities; the Board of SSCAC has agreed to deliver programs in a manner that maximizes direct benefit for low-income residents served by the agency.

2) adequacy of infrastructure: The Project is intended to provide a continued reliable source of electricity to customers in Massachusetts and New England.

3) open space impacts: The Project will be built within existing Entergy property with the land impacts noted in Section II above. The Project will not have any direct impacts to permanently protected open space.

- 17 -

RARE SPECIES SECTION I. Thresholds / Permits

A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to rare species or habitat (see 301 CMR 11.03(2))? ☐ Yes ☐ No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms: (NOTE: If you are uncertain, it is recommended that you consult with the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) prior to submitting the ENF.) To be determined. The subsea cables cross through rare species habitat. It is unclear at this time whether the Project will meet or exceed any review thresholds. The Company will work with NHESP to determine whether rare species or habitat is present, and whether the Project may result in impacts to rare species or habitat. If the Project is found to have potential impacts to rare species or habitat, the Company will work with NHESP to avoid and minimize impacts to habitat for the listed species to the extent possible.

B. Does the project require any state permits related to rare species or habitat?

☐ Yes ☐ No There is a possibility that the Project may require a Conservation and Management Permit. The Company will coordinate with NHESP to avoid and minimize impacts to rare species and habitat.

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)? ☒ Yes ☐ No. The subsea cables cross through PH 842/EH 682 and PH 945/EH 756, according to MassGIS data.

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.

II. Impacts and Permits

A. Does the project site fall within Priority or Estimated Habitat in the current Massachusetts Natural Heritage Atlas (attach relevant page)? ☒ Yes ☐ No. If yes,

1. Have you consulted with the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Natural Heritage

and Endangered Species Program (NHESP)? ☐ Yes ☒ No; if yes, have you received a determination as to whether the project will result in the “take” of a rare species? ☐ Yes ☐ 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; if yes, provide a summary of proposed measures to minimize and mitigate rare species impacts.

To be determined. The Company will work with NHESP to minimize impacts to habitat for the listed species to the extent possible.

- 18 -

3. Which rare species are known to occur within the Priority or Estimated Habitat? The specific species mapped within PH 842/EH 682 and PH 945/EH 756are not

known at this time. The Company will submit an Information Request to NHESP to obtain the species list.

4. Has the site been surveyed for rare species in accordance with the

Massachusetts Endangered Species Act? ☐ Yes ☒ No 5. If your project is within Estimated Habitat, have you filed a Notice of Intent or

received an Order of Conditions for this project? ☐ Yes ☒ 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

B. 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; if yes, provide a summary of proposed measures to minimize and mitigate impacts to significant habitat:

To be determined. The Company will work with NHESP to minimize impacts to habitat for the listed species to the extent possible.

- 19 -

WETLANDS, WATERWAYS, AND TIDELANDS SECTION I. Thresholds / Permits

A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to wetlands, waterways, and tidelands (see 301 CMR 11.03(3))? ☐ Yes ☒ No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms:

B. Does the project require any state permits (or a local Order of Conditions) related to

wetlands, waterways, or tidelands? ☒ Yes ☐ No; if yes, specify which permit:

The Project will require a 401 Water Quality Certificate and Chapter 91 Waterways License from MassDEP, and an Order of Conditions from the Plymouth Conservation Commission under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act and Plymouth Wetlands Protection Bylaw.

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)? ☒ Yes ☐ No; if yes, has a Notice of Intent been filed? ☐ Yes ☒ 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 amount of permanent or temporary impacts to wetland resource areas will be determined once project design has progressed further. At this time, no impacts are anticipated to inland wetland resources.

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 148,462 sf temporary (Note this is the length the cable would be buried beneath the surface of the ocean floor within state waters; the temporary impact would result from trenching and recovering.) Designated Port Areas 0 sf Coastal Beaches 0 sf Coastal Dunes 0 sf 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 0 sf

- 20 -

Inland Wetlands

Bank (lf) 0 lf Bordering Vegetated Wetlands 3,771 sf temporary fill, tree clearing (HDD Pad and ROW) ated 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 0 sf

D. Is any part of the project: 1. proposed as a limited project? ☒ Yes ☐ No; if yes, what is the area (in sf)?____

The entire Project is proposed as a Limited Project pursuant to 310 CMR 10.53(3)(d)—electrical distribution or transmission lines.

2. the construction or alteration of a dam? ☐ Yes ☒ No; if yes, describe: 3. fill or structure in a velocity zone or regulatory floodway? ☐ Yes ☒ No 4. dredging or disposal of dredged material? ☐ Yes ☒ No; if yes, describe the

volume of dredged material and the proposed disposal site: 5. a discharge to an Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) or an Area of Critical

Environmental Concern (ACEC)? ☐ Yes ☒ No 6. subject to a wetlands restriction order? ☐ Yes ☒ No;

if yes, identify the area (in sf): 7. located in buffer zones? ☒ Yes ☐ No; if yes, how much (in sf) 60,859 sf total

Details: Area (sf) Temporary or Permanent Impact? HDD Pad 35,255 sf temporary disturbance & tree clearing ROW 41,968 sf tree clearing *Note that these impacts overlap; the total area of impact is 60,859 sf. The 150 feet of

buffer on eastern portion of 200-ft ROW will not be cleared.

E. Will the project: 1. be subject to a local wetlands ordinance or bylaw? ☒ Yes ☐ No 2. alter any federally-protected wetlands not regulated under state law?

☐ Yes ☒ No; if yes, what is the area (sf)?

- 21 -

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? ☒ Yes ☐ No; if yes, is there a current Chapter 91 License or Permit affecting the project site? ☐ Yes ☒ 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: Construction activities requiring approval include the installation of a submarine cable system in the seafloor. CPNE will prepare an application for a Chapter 91 license, and complete the supporting technical studies, associated agency consultations and coordination. CPNE plans to file a Chapter 91 license in 2018, and anticipates a license to be issued by the first quarter of 2019 based on the scope of work proposed within waters under the jurisdiction of Chapter 91 review.

B. Does the project require a new or modified license or permit under M.G.L. c.91?

☒ 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 Change Total If yes, how many square feet of solid fill or pile-supported structures (in sf)? To be determined upon further design.

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 ☒ 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:

E. Is the project located in an area where low groundwater levels have been identified by

a municipality or by a state or federal agency as a threat to building foundations? ☐ Yes ☒ 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 ☒ No;

(NOTE: If yes, then the project will be subject to Public Benefit Review and Determination.)

G. Does the project include dredging? ☐ Yes ☒ No; if yes, answer the following

questions: What type of dredging? Improvement ___ Maintenance ___ Both ____

- 22 -

What is the proposed dredge volume, in cubic yards (cys) _________ What is the proposed dredge footprint ____length (ft) ___width (ft)____depth (ft); Will dredging impact the following resource areas?

Intertidal ☐ Yes ☐ No; if yes, ___ sq ft Outstanding Resource Waters ☐ Yes ☐ No; if yes, ___ sq ft Other resource area (i.e. shellfish beds, eel grass beds) ☐ Yes ☐ No;

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?

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.

Sediment Characterization Existing gradation analysis results? ☐ Yes ☐ No: if yes, provide results. Existing chemical results for parameters listed in 314 CMR 9.07(2)(b)6?

☐ Yes ☐ 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.

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.)

IV. Consistency:

A. Does the project have effects on the coastal resources or uses, and/or is the project located within the Coastal Zone? ☒ Yes ☐ No; if yes, describe these effects and the projects consistency with the policies of the Office of Coastal Zone Management: Among the resources and habitats identified by the Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan that are relevant to the Project include: fin whale core habitat, humpback whale core habitat, North Atlantic right whale core habitat, and hard or complex seafloor areas. The Project is expected to have a minimal impact on natural coastal resources and is not anticipated to affect water circulation or sediment transport; exacerbate existing hazards or damage natural buffers; nor affect the natural resources’ ability to provide storm damage prevention and flood control. The Project is not expected to promote growth or development within hazard-prone or buffer areas, and does not prevent the acquisition of hazardous coastal areas that have high conservation and/or recreation values. The Project supports Energy Policy #2 by increasing the use of renewable sources in order to assist in meeting the energy needs of the Commonwealth. The Project is coastally dependent as it serves as a transfer point between the subsea cables and connection to the existing infrastructure on land. Based on the alternatives analysis that has

- 23 -

been completed, CPNE believes the proposed site is the best location for this coastally dependent energy facility and minimizes risks to public safety, impacts to public access and existing coastal infrastructure, and the environmental impacts of transmission line construction and maintenance.

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

- 24 -

WATER SUPPLY SECTION I. Thresholds / Permits

A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to water supply (see 301 CMR 11.03(4))? ☐ Yes ☒ No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms:

B. Does the project require any state permits related to water supply? ☐ Yes ☒ No; if yes,

specify which permit: C. 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.

II. Impacts and Permits

A. Describe, in gallons per day (gpd), the volume and source of water use for existing and proposed activities at the project site:

Existing Change Total 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) _______ ________ ________ ________

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?

- 25 -

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:

- 26 -

WASTEWATER SECTION I. Thresholds / Permits

A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to wastewater (see 301 CMR 11.03(5))? ☐ Yes ☒ No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms:

B. Does the project require any state permits related to wastewater? ☐ Yes ☒ No;

if yes, specify which permit: 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.

II. Impacts and Permits

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):

Existing Change Total Discharge of sanitary wastewater ________ ________ ________ Discharge of industrial wastewater ________ ________ ________ TOTAL ________ ________ ________ Existing Change 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:

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) _______ ________ ________ ________

- 27 -

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):

Existing Change Total 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:

- 28 -

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 ☒ No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms:

B. Does the project require any state permits related to state-controlled roadways?

☐ Yes ☒ No; 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.

II. Traffic Impacts and Permits

A. Describe existing and proposed vehicular traffic generated by activities at the project

site: Existing Change Total

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:

- 29 -

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 ☒ No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms:

B. Does the project require any state permits related to roadways or other transportation

facilities? ☐ Yes ☒ No; if yes, specify which permit: C. 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.

II. Transportation Facility Impacts

A. Describe existing and proposed transportation facilities in the immediate vicinity of the project site:

B. Will the project involve any

1. Alteration of bank or terrain (in linear feet)? 2. Cutting of living public shade trees (number)? 3. Elimination of stone wall (in linear feet)? 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:

- 30 -

ENERGY SECTION I. Thresholds / Permits

A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to energy (see 301 CMR 11.03(7))? ☒ Yes ☐ No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms: 301 CMR 11.03(7)(a)4. Construction of electric transmission lines with a Capacity of 230 or more kV, provided the transmission lines are five or more miles in length along new, unused or abandoned right of way.

B. Does the project require any state permits related to energy? ☒ Yes ☐ No; if yes,

specify which permit: EFSB/DPU: Approval to construct, G.L. c. 164, § 69J and § 72 Request for zoning exemptions, G.L. c. 40A, §3

C. 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.

II. Impacts and Permits

A. Describe existing and proposed energy generation and transmission facilities at the project site: Existing Change Total Capacity of electric generating

facility (megawatts) N/A N/A N/A Length of fuel line (in miles) N/A N/A N/A Length of transmission

lines (in miles) 0 19 miles 19 miles Capacity of transmission

lines (in kilovolts) 0 320 320

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)?

Not applicable

C. If the project involves construction of an electrical transmission line, will it be located

on a new, unused, or abandoned right of way? ☒ Yes ☐ No; if yes, please describe: The Project will be constructed within a new subsea ROW between New Brunswick, Canada, and Plymouth, Massachusetts, as well as a short terrestrial subsurface transmission line corridor between landfall and the HVdc converter station.

D. Describe the project's other impacts on energy facilities and services:

Atlantic Link would provide Massachusetts and the New England electricity system with long-term access to clean energy at stable prices from land-based wind farms and hydro facilities in eastern Canada. The project is being developed in response to an upcoming procurement for clean energy mandated by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts under “An Act to Promote Energy Diversity”, which was signed into law by Governor Charlie Baker in August, 2016 (Ch. 188 of the Acts of 2016); specifically, in response to a Request for Proposals issued March 31, 2017 by electric distribution companies in Massachusetts for Long-Term

- 31 -

Contracts for Clean Energy Projects (https://macleanenergy.com/). As required in the Act, the Project will contribute to Massachusetts’ legally-required efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under its Global Warming Solutions Act (Chapter 298 of the Acts of 2008). The Project will also optimize infrastructure that would otherwise be unused (or underutilized) following closure in 2019 of the Pilgrim nuclear station.

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 all state plans/policies as set forth in Chapter 164 of the General Laws and in other federal, state and local environmental policies for enhancing energy facilities and services. The Restructuring Act provides that the Company must demonstrate that the Project minimizes environmental impacts consistent with the minimization of costs associated with mitigation, control, and reduction of the environmental impacts of the Project. Accordingly, an assessment of all impacts of a proposed facility is necessary to determine whether an appropriate balance is achieved both among conflicting environmental concerns as well as among environmental impacts, cost, and reliability. A facility that achieves the appropriate balance thereby meets the Chapter 164 requirement to minimize environmental impacts at the lowest possible cost. The Company compared a range of alternative projects and will propose specific plans to mitigate environmental impacts associated with the construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission line, consistent with cost minimization. The Company will obtain all environmental approvals and permits required by federal, state, and local agencies and will construct and operate the Project to fully comply with Federal, state and municipal regulations and environmental policies. Thus, the Project will contribute to a reliable, low cost, diverse energy supply for the Commonwealth while avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, the Project is also consistent with the Commonwealth’s Environmental Justice (“EJ”) Policy, as promulgated by the predecessor to the EEA and as subsequently updated by then-Governor Patrick through Executive Order #552 signed on November 25, 2014, because the Company is pursuing an inclusive community outreach plan to facilitate the meaningful opportunity to participate by all and because the Project does not exceed any environmental impacts thresholds that would necessitate enhanced analysis under the EJ Policy. As such, the Project is consistent with the Commonwealth’s environmental policies. The Green Communities Act is a comprehensive, multi-faceted energy reform bill that encourages energy and building efficiency, promotes renewable energy, creates green communities, implements elements of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, and provides market incentives and funding for various types of energy generation. The Green Communities Act (as amended and supplemented by St. 2012, c. 209, An Act Relative to Competitively Priced Electricity), can be expected to result in greater renewable supplies and substantial new conservation initiatives in future years. As previously described, Atlantic Link would provide Massachusetts and the New England electricity system with long-term access to clean energy at stable prices from land-based wind farms and hydro facilities in eastern Canada. The project is being developed in response to an upcoming procurement for clean energy mandated by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts under “An Act to Promote Energy Diversity”, which was signed into law by Governor Charlie Baker in August, 2016 (Ch. 188 of the Acts of 2016); specifically, in response to a Request for Proposals issued March 31, 2017 by electric distribution companies in Massachusetts for Long-Term Contracts for Clean Energy Projects (https://macleanenergy.com/).

- 32 -

The Global Warming Solutions Act (“GWSA”) was signed into law on August 7, 2008, by then-Massachusetts Governor Patrick, and established aggressive greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions reduction targets of 25 percent from 1990 levels by 2020 and 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050. Pursuant to the GWSA, the Secretary of the EEA issued the Clean Energy & Climate Plan for 2020 in December of 2010. Among other provisions, the GWSA obligates administrative agencies such as the Siting Board, in considering and issuing permits, to consider reasonably foreseeable climate change impacts (e.g., additional GHG emissions) and related effects (e.g., sea level rise). As required in the Act to Promote Energy Diversity, the Project will contribute to Massachusetts’ legally-required efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the GWSA. The Project is also responsive to the recently promulgated Clean Energy Standard (310 CMR 7.75).

- 33 -

AIR QUALITY SECTION I. Thresholds

A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to air quality (see 301 CMR 11.03(8))? ☐ Yes ☒ No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms: There may be a small standby generator on site that would be used only for black starts subsequent to system power interruptions.

B. Does the project require any state permits related to air quality? ☐ Yes ☒ No; if yes,

specify which permit: 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.

II. Impacts and Permits

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:

- 34 -

SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE SECTION I. Thresholds / Permits

A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to solid or hazardous waste (see 301 CMR 11.03(9))? ☐ Yes ☒ No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms:

B. Does the project require any state permits related to solid and hazardous waste?

☐ Yes ☒ 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.

II. Impacts and Permits

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:

Existing Change Total 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:

Existing Change Total 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:

- 35 -

HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES SECTION I. Thresholds / Impacts

A. Have you consulted with the Massachusetts Historical Commission? ☐ Yes ☒ No; if yes, attach correspondence. For project sites involving lands under water, have you consulted with the Massachusetts Board of Underwater Archaeological Resources? ☐ Yes ☒ No; if yes, attach correspondence

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 ☒ 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? ☐ Yes ☐ No; if yes, does the project involve the destruction of all or any part of such archaeological site? ☐ Yes ☐ No; if yes, please describe: CPNE will collect historic property and archaeological field data needed for the Project as necessary, prepare associated reports, and provide information to support consultations with the MHC, the MBUAR, and Native American Tribes.

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 crosses PLY.F, the Manomet Inventoried Area. No impacts to historic resources within this Area are anticipated at this time; however, the Company will coordinate with MHC to determine whether the final design of the project will result in impacts that may require mitigation.

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: CPNE will collect historic property and archaeological field data needed for the Project as necessary, prepare associated reports, and provide information to support consultations with the MHC, the MBUAR, and Native American Tribes. The Company will evaluate potential impacts to archaeological resources prior to construction to identify areas that should be avoided or, if not able to be avoided, would necessitate measures to protect the cultural resource. Procedures to handle unanticipated discoveries during construction will also be specified as part of a Construction Management Plan. The Project will be subject to review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 C.F.R 800, “Section 106”) and will require a permit from the USACE as well as a ROW grant from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (“BOEM’). The Project will also be subject to review by the Massachusetts Historical Commission (“MHC”) under G.L. c. 9 §§ 26–27C. Based on interagency pre-application meetings, BOEM will be the lead federal agency, and the Company will coordinate with BOEM and MHC to avoid and/or minimize adverse effects to any eligible historic resource and to archaeological resources. As part of federal review, and pursuant

- 36 -

to Section 106, BOEM will also consult with Native American Tribes that express an interest in the cultural resources that may be affected by those portions of the Project subject to USACE and MHC jurisdiction. MHC and local historic commissions will provide review and comment under the MEPA process.

Attachment A: Topographic Maps

#

Canadian Waters

United States Waters

Pilgrim NuclearStation

(345 kV)

Coleson CoveSubstation

Connecticut

Vermont

Maine

NewHampshire

Massachusetts

RhodeIsland

New York

Boston

Plymouth

SaintJohn

logos

Atlantic Link Project New Brunswick to Plymouth, Massachusetts

Attachment A1

Topographic Map

Source Info: VHB, MassGIS, NOAA, ESRI

i 0 35 7017.5 Miles

August 22, 2017\\N

HBED

ATA\

gislib

\Portl

andO

ffice\5

5057

.01\Pr

oject\

MEPA

_Rev

iew_Fi

gures

\Atta

chme

ntA1_

USGS

.mxd

Landing Point (US)# Landing Point (Canada)

Preferred Route

MA State Waters (Submerged Lands Act Boundary)US Federal Waters (Territorial Sea)New England State BoundariesUS/Canadian Border

US/CANADIAN BORDER

NOTE: Cable alignment is conceptual and subject to change based on further engineering design.

Proposed HDD Pad (1.2 AC)

50-ft ConstructionROW (2.7 AC)

Proposed Converter StationSite (14.8 AC)

Barlett PondBarlett Pond

logos

Atlantic Link Project Plymouth, Massachusetts

Source Info:VHB, MassGIS (1:24K USGS Topo)

i 0 1500 3000750 Feet

September 05, 2017\\N

HBED

ATA\

gislib

\Portl

andO

ffice\5

5057

.01\Pr

oject\

MEPA

_Rev

iew_Fi

gures

\Atta

chme

ntA2_

MA_U

SGS.m

xd

Indicative Horizontal Directional Drill (HDD) Cable InstallationProposed Converter Station Site (14.8 AC)50-ft Construction ROW (2.7 AC)

Proposed HDD Pad (1.2 AC)Proposed Converter Site Elements (3.2 AC)Converter Station Buffer SpaceFull 200-ft ROW (including buffer space)

Attachment A2

NOTE: Cable alignment is conceptual and subject to change based on further engineering design.

USGS MapPlymouth Landing Point

Attachment B: Existing Conditions

Pilgrim NuclearStation

(345 kV)

PH 554

PH 15

PH 1172PH 1172

PH 1172

PH 1172

PH 843

PH 878

PH 901

PH 902

PH 1010

PH 1041

Cape CodOcean

Sanctuary

Cape CodBay OceanSanctuary

DUXBURY

MARSHFIELD

PROVINCETOWN

PLYMOUTH

SCITUATE

EH 550EH 559

EH 644EH 631

EH 665EH 646 EH 649

EH 710

EH 682

EH 754

EH 756

logos

Atlantic Link Project Plymouth, Massachusetts

Attachment B1

Environmental ConstraintsNatural Resources

Source Info: MassGIS, VHB

i 0 9000 180004500 Feet

September 01, 2017\\N

HBED

ATA\

gislib

\Portl

andO

ffice\5

5057

.01\Pr

oject\

MEPA

_Rev

iew_Fi

gures

\Atta

chme

ntB1_

MA_En

viron

menta

lCons

traint

s.mxd

Pilgrim Nuclear StationPreferred Route

NHESP Priority and Estimated HabitatStellwagen National Marine SanctuaryNorth Atlantic Right Whale Critical HabitatMassachusetts Ocean SanctuaryWetland Resource Area (MassDEP)Chapter 91 Jurisdiction Line

Outstanding Resource WaterWellhead Protection Area (Zone I)

Designated Shellfish Growing AreaApprovedProhibited

MA State Waters (Submerged Lands Act Boundary)

NOTE: Cable alignment is conceptual and subject to change based on further engineering design.

Resources Not Present Within/Adjacent to the Project Location:1. Article 97 Lands2. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Proposed HDD Pad (1.2 AC)

50-ft ConstructionROW (2.7 AC)

Proposed Converter StationSite (14.8 AC)

Pilgrim NuclearStation

(345 kV)

STATEROAD

WARREN AVENUE

PRISCILLA BEACH ROA D

ROCKY HILL ROAD

ARL INGTON

ROAD

HILL

TOP A

VENU

E

BEAC

H ST

REET

TAYLOR AVENUE

BRIANS WAY

WHITE

HORSE ROAD

BROOK ROAD

DRIF TWOO

D LANE

ELLIOT

LANE

DOTEN ROAD

HEMLOCK STREET

HOMER AVENUE

PEAR

L STR

EET

TOWER ROAD

ASIA

F WAY

KEVIN AVENUE

AVEN

UE C

GATEROAD

AVEN

UE B

VINE BROOK ROADARBORETUM ROAD

BACK

ROAD

COCHITUATE

ROAD

CARY ROAD

EMERSO

N ROAD

FLOW

ERY

LANE

MANOM

ET

POINT ROAD

ELM

STRE

ET

BAY SHORE DRIVE

OLD FIELD ROAD

POWDERHOUSE ROAD

SCOT

TDR

IVE

TURNBERRY

DRIV EBRE NTWOOD CIRCL E

PH658

PH 842

EH 682

logos

Atlantic Link Project Plymouth, Massachusetts

Attachment B2

Environmental Constraints: Natural Resources Plymouth Landing PointSource Info:VHB, MassGIS

i 0 1500 3000750 Feet

September 06, 2017\\N

HBED

ATA\

gislib

\Portl

andO

ffice\5

5057

.01\Pr

oject\

MEPA

_Rev

iew_Fi

gures

\Atta

chme

ntB2_

MA_Ex

isting

Cond

itions

_New

.mxd

Indicative Horizontal Directional Drill (HDD) Cable InstallationProposed Converter Station Site (14.8 AC)50-ft Construction ROW (2.7 AC)

Proposed HDD Pad (1.2 AC)Proposed Converter Site Elements (3.2 AC)Converter Station Buffer SpaceFull 200-ft ROW (including buffer space)Existing 345kV ac Transmission Corridor

Conservation/Public LandForest Land (MassGIS Land Use)Wetland Resource Area (MassDEP)NHESP Priority HabitatNHESP Estimated Habitat

Interval ContourIndex Contour

Barlett Pond

NOTE: Cable alignment is conceptual and subject to change based on further engineering design.

Scokes Pond

"""

"

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Proposed HDD Pad (1.2 AC)

50-ft ConstructionROW (2.7 AC)

Proposed Converter StationSite (14.8 AC)

Barlett PondBarlett Pond

Pilgrim NuclearStation

(345 kV)

STATEROAD

WARREN AVENUE

PRISCILLA BEACH ROA D

ROCKY HILL ROAD

ARL INGTON

ROAD

HILL

TOP A

VENU

E

BEAC

H ST

REET

TAYLOR AVENUE

BRIANS WAY

WHITE

HORSE ROAD

BROOK ROAD

DRIF TWOO

D LANE

ELLIOT

LANE

DOTEN ROAD

HEMLOCK STREET

HOMER AVENUE

PEAR

L STR

EET

TOWER ROAD

ASIA

F WAY

KEVIN AVENUE

AVEN

UE C

GATEROAD

AVEN

UE B

VINE BROOK ROADARBORETUM ROAD

BACK

ROAD

COCHITUATE

ROAD

CARY ROAD

EMERSO

N ROAD

FLOW

ERY

LANE

ELM

STRE

ET

BAY SHORE DRIVE

OLD FIELD ROAD

POWDERHOUSE ROAD

SCOT

TDR

IVE

TURNBERRY

DRIV EBRE NTWOOD CIRCL E

Manomet

Chiltonville

TheForges

ManometPoint Area

WhiteHorseBeach

StoneEstate

logos

Atlantic Link Project Plymouth, Massachusetts

Environmental ConstraintsCultural Resources Plymouth Landing Point

Source Info:VHB, MassGIS

i 0 1500 3000750 Feet

September 06, 2017\\N

HBED

ATA\

gislib

\Portl

andO

ffice\5

5057

.01\Pr

oject\

MEPA

_Rev

iew_Fi

gures

\Atta

chme

ntB3_

MA_C

ultura

l Res

ource

.mxd

Indicative Horizontal Directional Drill (HDD) Cable InstallationProposed Converter Station Site (14.8 AC)50-ft Construction ROW (2.7 AC)

Proposed HDD Pad (1.2 AC)Proposed Converter Site Elements (3.2 AC)Converter Station Buffer SpaceFull 200-ft ROW (including buffer space)Existing 345kV ac Transmission Corridor

MHC Historic Inventory!( Inventoried Property

Inventoried Area

Conservation/Public Land

Barlett Pond

Attachment B3

NOTE: Cable alignment is conceptual and subject to change based on further engineering design.

Attachment C: On-Site and Off-Site Alternatives

"

#

"

"

#

"

#

United States Waters

Canadian WatersSeabrook Station

(345 kV)

Salem Harbor Substation

TewksburySubstation 22

Point LepreauNuclearFacility

ScituateHolbrook

Substation

Auburn Street Substation

Weymouth

Yarmouth

Gloucester

Mystic Substation

Brayton PointSubstation (345kV)

Lynn

Pilgrim NuclearStation (345 kV)

Coleson Cove Substation

Connecticut

Vermont

Maine

NewHampshire

Massachusetts

RhodeIsland

New York

logos

Atlantic Link Project New Brunswick to Plymouth, Massachusetts

On-Site and Off-site Alternatives

Source Info:VHB; MassGIS, NOAA, ESRI

i 0 35 7017.5 Miles

September 01, 2017\\N

HBED

ATA\

gislib

\Portl

andO

ffice\5

5057

.01\Pr

oject\

MEPA

_Rev

iew_Fi

gures

\Atta

chme

ntC_O

n-Sit

e and

Off-

Site A

lterna

tives.

mxd

US/CANADIAN BORDER

Preferred Landing Point (US)# Preferred Landing Point (Canada)

Potential Landing Points (US)# Potential Landing Points (Canada)" Key Substation Location with 345 kV (US)

Preferred RouteAlternative Route

Stellwagen National Marine SanctuaryStellwagan Designated Habitat Research AreaRhode Island Ocean Special Area Management Plan (Ocean SAMP) BoundaryNorth Atlantic Right Whale Critical Habitat

Massachusetts Ocean SanctuaryCoastal States JurisdictionUS Federal Waters (Territorial Sea)New England State BoundariesUS/Canadian Border

NOTE: Cable alignment is conceptual and subject to change based on further engineering design.

Attachment C

Attachment E: ENF Distribution List

Attachment D: ENF Distribution List

Attachment D: ENF Distribution List

ENF Distribution List In accordance with the MEPA regulations at 301 CMR 11.16(2), the Company is distributing/circulating this Environmental Notification Form (ENF) for the Atlantic Link Project to the public agencies and commenters listed below.

Notice of the availability of this ENF will be published in the September 20, 2017, edition of The Environmental Monitor, initiating a 20-day public comment period that will end on or about October 10, 2017.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts Secretary Matthew A. Beaton (two copies) Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) Attn: MEPA Office 100 Cambridge Street, 9th floor, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114

DEP/Southeastern Regional Office Attn: MEPA Coordinator 20 Riverside Drive Lakeville, MA 02347

MassDOT Public/Private Development Unit 10 Park Plaza Boston, MA 02116

Attachment D: ENF Distribution List

MassDOT District #5 Attn: MEPA Coordinator Box 111 1000 County Street Taunton, MA 02780

Massachusetts Historical Commission The MA Archives Building 220 Morrissey Boulevard Boston, MA 02125

Coastal Zone Management Attn: Project Review Coordinator 251 Causeway Street, Suite 800 Boston, MA 02114

Division of Marine Fisheries (South Shore) Attn: Environmental Reviewer 1213 Purchase Street - 3rd Floor New Bedford, MA 02740-6694

Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife 1 Rabbit Hill Road, Westborough, MA 01581

Energy Facilities Siting Board Attn: MEPA Coordinator One South Station Boston, MA 02110

Department of Energy Resources Attn: MEPA Coordinator 100 Cambridge Street, 10th floor Boston, MA 02114

Old Colony Planning Council 70 School Street Brockton, MA 02401-4097

Town of Plymouth Plymouth Board of Selectmen 11 Lincoln St. Plymouth, MA 02360

Plymouth Planning Board 11 Lincoln St. Plymouth, MA 02360

Attachment D: ENF Distribution List

Plymouth Conservation Commission 11 Lincoln St. Plymouth, MA 02360

Plymouth Board of Health 11 Lincoln St. Plymouth, MA 02360

Attachment D: ENF Distribution List