Energy Facility Siting Relative to Federal Navigation Projects. Payson R. Whitney, III, P.E.

Transcription

1 Energy Facility Siting Relative to Federal Navigation Projects Payson R. Whitney, III, P.E. Vice President ESS Group, Inc. Environmental Business Council of New England Energy Environment Economy

2 Energy Facility Siting Relative to Federal Navigation Projects Presentation to EBC 7 th Annual Ocean Resource Management Conference UMASS Boston Campus, Boston, MA Payson R. Whitney, III, PE November 1,

3 Introduction A competition is taking place in the waters of the U.S. It pits the USACE and marine interests against energy facility developers. FNP

4 Introduction This competition can be changed from competition to cooperation......if energy facility siting near Federal Navigation Projects is handled correctly.

5 Why the Competition? Energy Developer Perspective Overland routes are too complex - space constraints, costs, local opposition Waterways can provide better options and be more cost effective Photo Credit - Kris Unger/Verdant Power, Inc. Load Centers are often near developed shorelines with FNP s

6 Why the Competition? USACE Perspective USACE is responsible for protecting the FNP s Energy facilities could impede USACE dredging operations Development of one energy facility often leads to others

7 Federal Navigation Projects USACE is charged with maintaining FNP s to the authorized dimensions through dredging. Includes both channels and anchorages Maintains FNPs to project dimensions and depths specified by enabling legislation USACE channel surveys provide channel extents don t rely on NOAA Charts for FNP extents

8 Federal Navigation Project Dimensions Datum (typically MLW or MLLW) Project Depth Project Width

9 Why the Competition? Harbor Pilot s Perspective Navigational impediments Effect on emergency maneuvers Liability for energy facility damage or environmental damage Photo Credit Boston Harbor Pilot Association There have been successes that met the needs of the USACE, the Pilots, and Energy developers

10 Examples of Co-existence Constructed and Operating Bayonne Energy Center Submarine Cable New York Harbor Cross Sound Cable New Haven Harbor Hudson Transmission Project Lower Hudson River Planned Cape Wind Project Nantucket Sound/Hyannis Inner Harbor Free Flow Power Mississippi River NJ Energy Link Raritan Bay Poseidon Project Raritan Bay West Point Project Hudson River

11 Case Study Cross Sound Cable Text Text Text Text Text Text

12 Case Study Cross Sound Cable Submarine Electric Cable New Haven Harbor Installed in 2002 Locations adjacent to FNP rejected by shellfishermen FNP location was last resort for Project Discussions with USACE New England District were key to Project success

13 Case Study Cross Sound Cable Permitted Burial Depth: 6 FT or -48 FT MLLW, whichever is deeper Maintenance dredging event o Coordination between USACE, Contractor, CSCC Planned maintenance dredging in

14 Case Study Bayonne Energy Center

15 Case Study Bayonne Energy Center Submarine Electric Cable New York Harbor Installed in 2011 Most of waterbody is either federal channel or anchorage USACE and Pilots assisted in routing of cable Jet plow and mechanical dredging required for cable install

16 Case Study Bayonne Energy Center Permitted Burial Depth: 8 FT below authorized depth in federal channels 11 FT below present bottom in federal anchorages Ability to move cable and dredge for deeper install if shoaled channel areas funded for maintenance dredging

17 What Made These Work? Respect for each other s perspectives Incorporating USACE and Pilots route suggestions where possible Maintaining dialogue throughout routing, permitting, and construction Acceptance of the following Special Condition

18 What Made These Work? The permittee understands and agrees that, if future operations by the United States require the removal, relocation, or other alteration of the structure or work herein authorized, or if in the opinion of the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative, said structure or work shall cause unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of the navigable waters, the permittee will be required, upon due notice from the Corps of Engineers, to remove, relocate, or alter the structural work of obstructions caused thereby, without expense to the United States. No claim shall be made against the United States on account of any such removal or alteration.

19 Rules for Cooperation Avoidance!! Avoid siting in or adjacent to FNP s when possible Minimize by using perpendicular crossings and crossing near other utilities Site longitudinal cable routings based on waterway characteristics and USACE dredging requirements Maintain open dialogue with USACE, Pilots, USCG Understand District-specific setbacks and burial depths Maximize burial depth wherever possible Facility must move if USACE decides it should be moved

20 Thank You Any Questions?? Payson Whitney, PE ESS Group, Inc. 100 Fifth Avenue, 5 TH Floor Waltham, MA pwhitney@essgroup.com