Finaf Environmental Impact Report (EOEA File Number 8695)
and
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Volume 2 of 3 - Comments and Responses to DEIR/S
Boston Harbor, Massachusetts
Navigation Improvement Project and Berth Dredging Project
June 1995
US Army Corps
of Engineers
New England Division
Massachusetts
Port Authority
Maritime Department
-------
-------
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
(FEIR/S)
Volume 2 of 3
BOSTON HARBOR NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENT DREDGING
AND
BERTH DREDGING PROJECT
RESPONSIBLE LEAD AGENCIES ARE:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Impact Analysis Division
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, Massachusetts 02254
Massachusetts Port Authority
Maritime Department
Boston Fish Pier II
Boston, Massachusetts 02210
FEDERAL COOPERATING AGENCIES:
National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY:
Normandeau Associates Inc.
25 Nashua Road
Bedford, New Hampshire 03310-5500
for the
Massachusetts Port Authority
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, Massachusetts 02254
This joint Federal and State document addresses the impacts
associated with the Congressionally authorized navigation
improvement dredging and disposal of material from the Federal
navigation channel and associated berthing areas in Boston Harbor,
Massachusetts. The Reserved Channel and Mystic River would be
deepened from 35 feet mean low water (MLW) to 40 feet MLW. The
Chelsea Creek would be deepened from 35 feet MLW to 38 feet MLW.
Disposal of the underlying parent material is proposed at the
Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site. Disposal alternatives for the
silt material (maintenance material) overtopping the parent
material are assessed and the preferred alternative selected in
this FEIR/S.
Comments should be sent to Colonel Richardson at the U.S Army
Corps of Engineers and Ms. Trudy Coxe, Secretary, Executive Office
of Environmental Affairs, Commonwealth of Massachusetts by the date
indicated in the transmittal letter. If you would like further
information on this document, Mr. Peter Jackson of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers can be reached at (617) 647-8861 or contact Ms.
Janeen Hansen, Massport, at (617) 973-5355.
-------
-------
BOSTON HARBOR NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS AND
BERTH DREDGING PROJECT
DEIR/S COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSE
-------
-------
COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIR/S
FEDERAL AGENCIES
<,
Fl Office of the Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere,
United States Department of Commerce
F2 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region I
F3 Office of the Secretary, Office of Environmental Policy and
Compliance, United States Department of the Interior
F4 Fish and Wildlife Service, United States Department of the
Interior
F5 National Marine Fisheries service, Northeast Region, United
States Department of Commerce
STATE AGENCIES
S1 Secretary, Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
S2 Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
S3 Department of Envioronmental Protection
S4 Division of Marine Fisheries
S5 Massachusetts Highway Department
S6 Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office
S7 Marine Fisheries Commission
LOCAL AGENCIES AND OFFICES
LI Public Works department, Boston
L2 Boston Redevelopment Authority
L3 Boston Water and Sewer Commission
c
L4 Cape Cod Commission, Executive Director
L5 Cape Cod Commission, Chair
-------
L6 Chelsea Department of Planning and Community Development
L7 City of Everett, Mayor
L8 City of Gloucester, Mayor
L9 Nahant, Board of Selectmen
L10 Nahant, Town Administrator
Lll Swanpscott, Conservation Commission
L12 Swampscott, Board of Selectmen
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS, ADVOCACY GROUPS
El The Boston Harbor Association
E2 Center for Coastal Studies
E3 Center for Maine Conservation
E4 Cetacean Research Unit
E5 Coastal Advocacy Network
E6 Conservation Law Foundation
E7 Green World Inc.
E8 Massachusetts Bays Program
E9 Massachusetts Sierra Club
E10 save the Harbor Save the Bay
Ell Stop the Outfall Pipe (S.T.O.P.)
E12 Nahant SWIM, Inc.
COMMERCIAL
Cl Boston Gas
C2 Boston Harbor Docking Pilots
C3 Boston Pilots
C4 The Boston Shipping Assocation, Inc.
-------
C5 Boston Towing and Transportation Company
C6 John T. Clark and Son
C7 Containership Agency, Inc.
C8 Decorative Specialties International Inc.
C9 LT.O. Corporation of New England
CIO LADS System, Lie
Cl 1 Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association, Lie.
C12 Maesklnc.
CIS F.Mirarchi
C14 Moran Shipping Agencies, Lie
CIS NedUoyd Lines
C16 North Shore Recycled Fibers
C17 P&O Containers
CIS Patterson, Wylde and Co., Inc.
C19 C.H. Powell Company
C20 Rexham
C21 Sea-Land Service, Inc.
C22 Boston Edison
PRIVATE CITIZENS
PI B. Carney
P2 P. Codinha
PS P.F. Murray
LETTERS RECEIVED AFTER THE COMMENT PERIOD
1. P.O. Torkildson, Member of Congress
2. Massachusetts Harbormasters Association (North Shore)
-------
3. F.M. Valenti, Inc. and Association
4. N. Wilson
5. B.Lattimer
6. Coastal Advocacy Network
-------
FEDERAL AGENCIES
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
-------
-------
UNITED aTATES DEPAnTIWIElNTT OP
Off !M of «ho Under Sooroewy for
Oceans and AtmoapH
Washington. D.C. 30830
June 28, 1994
LTC Dwight S. Durham
Acting Division Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, Massachusetts 02254-9149
Dear Colonel Durham:
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
(DBIR/S) for the Boston Harbor Navigation improvement and Berth
Dredging Project. Enclosed are comments from the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), the Stellwagen Bank National Marine
Sanctuary, and the National Ocean Service/Office of Coastal
Resource Management.
NOAA has participated in the planning for this project over
the past few years, including participation on the Advisory
Group, the Sediment Characterization Technical Working Group, and
the Disposal Octions Technical Working Group. We recognise the
need to maintain adequate navigational access to Boston Harbor,
and we acknowledge the potential economic benefits of the
•project.
NOAA is interested in the project from five slightly
different perspectives. First, we are interested in the broad
issue of the overall environmental impacts of the full project on
all living marine resources and their habitat. Second, pursuant
to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, we are _
particularly interested in the potential impacts of the project
(including dredging, vessel traffic, and dredged material
•disposal) on threatened and endangered species in Massachusetts
Bay. Third, we have a specific and unique interest in the
impacts of the project to NOAA's Stellwagen Bank National Marine
Sanctuary. Fourth, we are interested in ensuring the consistency
of the project with the NOAA-approved Coastal Zone Management
Plan for Massachusetts. Finally, ptiggugntto_the Superf und J.aw,.
NOAA has a strong interest in seeing that the project is carried
out in a manner that ensures that NOAA trust resources > are not
adversely affected by the handling of contaminated marine
sediments, in order to minimize the need to pursue natural
resource damage claims in the future. (NOAA may pursue
potentially responsible parties -• owners or operators of
facilities or vessels, or transporters or generators, that
release hazardous substances into the environment -- for the
-------
costs of restoring marine resources that have been adversely
affected by contaminants.)
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please
contact Jonathan Kurland at 508/281-9204. - ;
Sincerely,
Donna Wieting
Acting Director
Ecology and Conservation Office
Enclosure
cc: Trudy Coxe, MEPA, Boston, MA
Ed Woo - EPA, Boston
Vern Lang - USFWS, Concord
Deerin Babb-Brott - MA CZM, Boston
Scotf Cassel - MA EOEA, Boston
Leigh Bridges - MA DMF, Boston
Brad Barr - SBNMS, Plymouth
Cathy Demos - ACOE, Waltham
Pete Jackson - ACOE, Waltham
Tom Bruha - ACOE, Waltham
Pat Fiorelli - NEFMC, Saugus
Janeen Hanson - Massport
Grace Perez - Conservation Law Foundation
Jodi Sugerman - Save the Harbor / Save the Bay
Tim Eichenberg - Center for Marine Conservation
NOAA , ,
F/NE02 - Mantzaris, Beach, Kurlanfl
F/NEO - Jon Rittgers
F/NEC - Jack Pearce
F/NECscl - David Dow
F/HP1 - Jim Burgess
N/ORM3 - Patricia Scott
N/ORCA - John Lindsay
GCNE - Tony Giedt
GCNE - Jack Moakley
10
-------
roposed project includes the removal and disposal of
ximately 1.3 million cubic yards of contaminated silty
ial, 2 million cubic yards of parent material (primarily
n blue clay and gravel), and 132,000 cubic yards of rock.
ystic River Channel and Reserved Channel would be deepened
0 feet mean low.water, Chelsea Creek Channel would be
ned to -38 feet mean low water, and the Massport and private
"areas would be dredged to the depth of their corresponding
s channels. An additional'4.4 million cubic yards of silt
subsequent maintenance dredging of the harbor channels would
nerated over the 50-year life of the project.
nvironmental' impacts of the Boston Harbor navigation project
e separated into several categories: sediment quality,
ing operations, handling and transportation of dredged
ial, disposal operations, disposal site impacts over time,
hanges in vessel traffic as a result of the project. NOAA
ncerned about.potential adverse effects to our. trust
rces within each of. these categories Of impacts. However,
ost significant issues from our standpoint surround the
sal and management of contaminated dredged materials.
concurs with the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's)
usion'that all 1.3 million cubic yards of the silt
tenance) material associated with the project is unsuitable
nconfined open water disposal. Conversely, we disagree with
orps of Engineers' assessment that the silt material from
eserved Channel and from the berth areas of Gulf Oil, Army
Conley Terminal, and the Boston Edison Barge Berth are
ble for unconfined disposal. The sediments in these areas
in elevated levels of PCBs, PAHs, and heavy metals, and
ent testing revealed statistically significant
cumulation of several contaminants and/or significant
lity of test organisms. As we stated in an April 21, 1993
r from .NMFS to the Corps, NOAA believes that the sediments
these areas do not satisfy the Ocean Dumping Criteria for
water disposal.
se such a large volume of material is unsuitable for
[fined open water disposal, a thorough screening and
lation of potential disposal options is an essential
ment of the DEIR/S. NOAA-participated in the disposal
ms screening process, and we agree with the general
•dology used to narrow the range of disposal alternatives.
•er, we are concerned with two aspects of the portrayal of
»sal options in the DEIR/S.
., the use of the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (MBDS) as
:omparative standard for evaluating the .feasibility'of other
isal options is'fundamentally flawed. The MBDS is formally
F1-1
F1-2
13.
-------
f
designated as a disposal site for clean material only (i.e.,
material that satisfies the Ocean Dumping Criteria and is
suitable "for unconfined ocean disposal) . While MBDS would serve
as a sound basis for comparison for the disposal of clean .
material at other sites, MBDS is not presently an option for
disposal of unsuitable (contaminated) material, and thus should
not be used as a starting point against which to judge the costs,
logistics, or environmental impacts of other alternatives for
contaminated material.
Secondly, in our view'the DEIR/S provides an insufficient
analysis of the proposed aquatic disposal sites to allow an
informed 'decision regarding potential environmental impacts.
Based on the information available, it is difficult to determine
the likely effects of disposal (particularly of contaminated
material) on biological resources and habitat quality at the
varibus disposal sites. Substantial additional information is
necessary to characterize the existing environmental conditions
at the proposed aquatic sites before selecting a final
'alternative, and will be critical for evaluating the recovery of
borrow pit sites should they be selected for the project. We
recommend that the Corps and Massport document the.year-round use
of the aquatic sites by fish,-shellfish, and'other organisms, anc
for the Meisburger sites and Spectacle Island CAD/ determine the
relative geologic stability of the areas and evaluate the_
potential for maintaining cap integrity over time. -The Final
EIR/S should include a minimum of one full year of data in
support of these analyses.
We are also concerned that -the DEIR/S does not describe how the
contaminated (silt) material can effectively be separated from
the clean parent material during dredging operations, and thus
how Massport and the Corps can insure that the parent material
will not become contaminated as it is removed. The DEIR/S
suggests that all of the silt material can be removed from the
harbor bottom using a'modified "environmental" bucket, and that
clean parent material could then be removed during a subsequent
pass of the dredge using a standard bucket. In reality, a
substantial fraction of contaminated material will likely remain
on the surface'of the parent material due to hydrated bucket
overflow, sloughing of side slopes, the normal, dynamic movement.
of silt on the harbor bottom from tidal and storm forces, and
sediment resuspension due to vessel traffic and the dredging
itself. As a result, it is highly likely that much of the
dredged parent material, on a barge-load basis, will become
tainted by residual contaminated silt. The Final EIR/S should
evaluate in detail the degree of mixing between sediments during
the dredging process, indluding -an analysis of whether the parent
clays (especially "in the most contaminated portions of the
harbor) may ultimately be unsuitable for unconfined ocean
disposal.
13:
I*-
-------
Executive Summary - Pages ES-6 and ES-7 describe the analysis of
disposal options and' the process used to determine practicability
of disposal alternatives. The text here and the accompanying
chart (Figure ES-3) compare the costs of various disposal "options
for the silty dredged material (i.e., that which is unsuitable
for unrestricted ocean disposal) with the cost for unrestricted
disposal at MBDS. This comparison implies that disposal of the
contaminated material at MBDS is a viable option. We strongly
disagree with this characterization of the disposal options.
Disposal at MBDS -- either confined or unconfined --is not a
viable alternative for the contaminated eilty material from the '
project because (1) MBDS is. designated as a disposal site for
materials that are suitable for unconfined disposal only, and (2)
the efficacy of capping dredged materials at MBDS remains
unproven.
Section 2.2.1 - The discussion of sediment characterization
contains a brief, description of the three tiered evaluation
process, and ends with the'following sentence: "The feasibility
of capping dredged material not meeting the requirements for
unconfined disposal can also be evaluated from the results" [of
the Tier I, II, and III analyses] . A determination of capping
feasibility does depend somewhat on the nature of the material,
but other criteria are equally important, such as the location of
the proposed capping site, its depth, ambient hydrography,
susceptibility to storm-induced erosion, etc. In other words,
dredged material testing is only one step in evaluating the
feasibility of capping contaminated sediments.
Section 2.2.4 - NOAA disagrees with the Corps of Engineers'
assessment that 160,000 cubic yards of silt from the Reserved
Channel and 200,000 cubic yards of silt from the berth areas of
Gulf Oil, Army Base, Conley Terminal, and the Boston Edison Barge
Berth are suitable for unconfined open water disposal. The EPA
has concluded that all of the silt material is unsuitable for
unconfined open water disposal, and NOAA concurs with this
assessment (see EPA's September 9, 1993 letter to the Corps and
NMFS' April 21, 1993 letter to the Corps). The Marine .
'Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (§103c) requires that in
.cases where the EPA disagrees with the' Corps' suitability
determination, the determination of EPA shall prevail. We
recommend clarifying this point in the Final EIR/S.
Section 3.1 - The DEIR/S briefly mentions that various federal
and state agencies have established a goal of developing a. long
term regional dredged material management plan to help address
recurring environmental review problems. Although such a plan
will not be complete and ready "for implementation for the Boston
Harbor dredging project, we recommend that the involved agencies
redouble their efforts to develop such a. plan so that it is in
•3
F1-6
F1-7
F1-8
F1-9
./if.
-------
place for the next maintenance dredging cycle in Boston Harbor.
NOAA ia committed to participating actively in this process.
Section 3.2 - 'The DEIR/S refers to guidance in the June 7, 1991
MSPA Scope stating that-unconfiried ocean disposal of dredged
material at-MBDS is the option against which other alternatives
should be judged. This basis for comparison is appropriate for
clean dredged material, but is not valid for contaminated
materials, which may not be disposed at MBDS either with or
without capping. Using MBDS--'as a standard by which to compare
other disposal options is highly misleading, since it implies
that the lowest attainable cost for disposal is lower than it
realistically is, .and thus that other options are vastly more
expensive and in some cases impracticably so.
This section incorrectly states that "the silt from the Reserved
Channel area was the only material for which a consistent opinion
was not reached" between the Corps and EPA on suitability for
open water dispo.sal. The Corps also disagreed with EPA's (and
NOAA's) opinion that sediments from the berth areas of Gulf Oil,,
Army Base,' Conley Terminal, and the Boston Edison Barge Berth are
unsuitable for open water disposal.
Section 3.3.1 - Land-based disposal alternatives may be worth
considering for a portion of the contaminated material. We
recommend that the Corps and Massport re-examine potential land-
based sites prior to completing the Final EIR/S to determine
whether any .new sites -are available or conditions have changed
regarding the listed sites.
Section 3:3.2 - W« agree that several of the aquatic disposal
alternatives listed are worthy, of serious consideration. Of the
'shoreline facilities, we recommend retaining in the Final EIR/S
the partial and complete fill ' alternatives for Mystic Piers,
Revere Sugar, and Amstar, plus the "shallowing" options for
Little Mystic Channel and Reserved Channel . ' We recommend
including additional details in the Final EIR/S on the proposal
to establish salt marsh vegetation on dredged material as part or
the Reserved Channel alternative. "• .
We also recommend retaining in the Final SIR/S the in-channel and
borrow pit (Spectacle, Island CAD and Meisburger sites 2 and 7)
alternatives. However, substantial ' additional information should
be included in the Final EIR/S regarding the existing habitat use
and value of all three borrow pit sites, as well as the
susceptibility of these sites to erosion from storm waves and
other forces. (See additional comments below regarding the
description of the disposal sites in Attachment 1 to the DEIR/S.^
We are extremely concerned about the discussion -of the
" feasibility of capping .in this section of the DEIR/S, and
particularly the suggestion- 'that the silty sediments from Boston
15
-------
Harbor could be' used for a demonstration project to test the
.effectiveness of capping.- The text in this section states that
"the Corps has successfully demonstrated effective capping at
sites with similar depths [to the Boston Lightship disposal site]
elsewhere in New England." This assertion presumably refers to
the Portland Disposal Site. However, we know of no documentation
regarding successful tests of capping at Portland or any other"
New England disposal site with similar depths. Although capping
has been used successfully at shallower and more sheltered sites
in Long Island Sound, NOAA is not convinced that capping is a
proven technology for the Portland site, or for Boston Lightship.
Moreover, we are strongly opposed to the use of • contaminated'
materials to test the efficacy of capping. Jnstead, we recommend
that the Corps conduct a deep water capping-demonstration project
using clean materials only, marked with a distinct tracer to
allow analysis of the entire disposal process', including cap
placement and integrity over time.
Additionally, we recommend refraining from'disposal activities at
the Boston Lightship site until more detailed Information is
,available regarding the presence, distribution, and extent of
radioactive and other contamination at the site. EPA studies
indicate that some hazardous chemical and radioactive barrels may
•be concentrated in relatively small areas- at the Boston Lightship
site (Keith, et al., 1992; Carey, e£ al., 1992), but it would be
premature to cover the barrels with dredged material until one
can verify their, presence and determine if the barrels pose an
environmental or human health risk. For example, the best
management alternative for these barrels might be in situ
isolation or retrieval.
Section 3.4 - The cost information.for disposal options, which is
displayed in Tables 3-13 through 3-18 and 3-20, provides useful
information, including .the assumptions underlying all
calculations. In Table 3-20 (Cost Estimates for Using Existing
Disposal Sites for Disposal of Silts from BHNIP) we recommend
listing one additional assumption for clarity: the'estimates
assume that capping is a viable technology for use at these
sites, including both environmental and regulatory criteria.
Sections 3.4.1 - 3.4.4 - The .range of disposal options discussed
in these sections comprise a good array of possibilities for the
project. However, in the Final EIR/S we recommend providing a
better discussion of possible combinations of alternatives which
when used together could'meet the disposal needs of the project.
For example, although the land-based sites may be too costly or
impractical for disposal of all of the project materials, they
may be reasonable options for a portion of the material.
We also recommend adding a discussion of the potential use of
dredged material filled geotextile containers in conjunction with
the in-channel, subaqueous, and borrow pit alternatives. This
F1-17
F1-18
F1-19
5 ../(*
-------
technology, which is currently under study by the Corps of
Engineers' Waterways- Experiment Station, could potentially
alleviate water quality problems during disposal and help contain
contaminants at disposal sites (Fowler and Sprague, 1994} .
Section 3.4.4 - 'C3ption D2 would involve disposal of the
contaminated silty material at either MBDS or Boston Lightship
with capping. The text mentions that the proposed project
"overcomes a major stumbling block faced in the past by proposals
for capping at MBDS: availability (or lack thereof) of suitable
capping material." As we stated above, NOAA is strongly opposed
to the use of contaminated materials to test -the viability of
capping, and we recommend conducting a capping demonstration
project at MBDS using clean materials only.
Section 3.5.1 - We recognize that few treatment •technologies for
contaminated sediments have been used beyond small scale tests on
marine dredged materials. Nevertheless, we encourage the Corps
and Massport 'to use a portion of the contaminated material from
this project as a pilot test of promising treatment technologies.
We recommend using the Disposal Options Technical Working Group
as a forum 'to discuss and refine an appropriate test project.
Section 3.5.2 - We recommend that the Final EIR/S provide
additional detail, including a range of specific potential
projects, for beneficial uses of the clean parent material and
rock from the Boston Harbor dredging project. The types of
beneficial uses listed in the DEIR/S are appropriate, with the
exception of cap material for contaminated silts disposed at _ MBDS
or .Boston Lightship (again, we are opposed to a test of capping
using contaminated materials) .
Section 3.6 - The Final BIR/S should explain why the § screening
process of practicability for disposal options used in the DEIR/S
considered costs greater than 4 times that of ocean disposal's
prohibitive. What -is the basis for this standard? How was it
developed? In particular, we are concerned with the use of
unconf ined ocean disposal at MBDS as the basis for cost
comparisons with other alternative's for disposal of -contaminated
materials. Dredged materials that are unsuitable for unconf ined
open water disposal may not be dumped at. MBDS, either with or
without capping, as specified in the regulatory designation for
the site' (EPA, 1993; 40 CFR 228.12). Therefore, the use of
unconfined disposal of contaminated sediments at MBDS as a
comparative standard for evaluating the cost effectiveness of
other disposal alternatives is inappropriate and highly
• misleading since MBDS is not an option for these sediments.
Section S.S.'l - This section indicates that "sites wi*h
costs greater than 4 times and higher, than capping at MBDS, were
considered excessive." This statement appears to be inaccurate,
since the "practicable alternatives" listed all would cost less
II
-------
than four times the cubic yard cost of uneonfined (no capping)
disposal at MBDS, and several of the sites deemed too expensive
(Revere Sugar, Amstar, Mystic Piers, Little Mystic Channel, a-nd
Reserved Channel B) would cost only 1.8 to 2.1 times as much as
confined disposal at MBDS. We recommend.clarifying this" section
in the Final EIR/S. ' Also, as noted above, we believe disposal at
MBDS (with or without capping) should not be used as the. basis
for cost comparisons among alternatives. -
Section 3.6.2.1 - The description of the proposed use of the
Boston Lightship site mentions that capping has- occurred at
similar depths at the Portland, Maine disposal site. The Final
•EIR/S should note that capping is not an accepted management
practice at the Portland site, and its efficacy remains in
question. -
The text states that the Boston Lightship site "is not known to
be biologically unique..." Even if this statement is true, it is
irrelevant for assessing potential environmental impacts from
disposal at the site. Many resources that are not "unique"
nevertheless have substantial value that could be diminished or
lost due to dredged material disposal.
Information from the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries •
indicates that the Boston Lightship site is heavily fished by .the
commercial fishing industry. The Final EIR/S should evaluate the
extent of harvesting activity in this area, as well as any
anticipated impacts to the industry from use. of this site.
•Section 3.6.2.2 - This section states ithat .the only active
breeding population of gray seals (SalichoeruB grrypus) in the
eastern United States is located southwest of Nantucket Island.
Actually, another gray seal pupping ground was identified this
past year .off Mt. Desert Island, Maine.
Sections 3.6.2.1 - 3.6.2.4 - These sections all refer to an
ongoing consultation between NMFS and the Corps, pursuant to
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) , to evaluate the
potential impacts of disposal at MBDS, Boston Lightship,
Meisburger 2, and Meisburger 7 on threatened and endangered
species. NMFS has determined that the Biological Assessment of
potential impacts submitted by the Corps treprinted in Appendix
A-4 of the DEIR/S) is deficient, and that additional information
is needed for NMFS to formulate a Biological Opinion under the
ESA. "The Corps has agreed to provide this information, and
consultation will resume once NMFS receives the requested data.
The DEIR/S .uses the Corps' ADDAMS model to predict no long term
water quality or biological impacts from dumping dredged material
at the offshore sites (MBDS, Boston Lightship, and Meisburgers 2
and 7.) . The resulting risk analysis for biological resources is
somewhat rudimentary and ^confined to the near field area around
-------
the dredged material disposal mound. The Final SIR/S should have
an adequate'baseline of information on the benthie and finfish
resources that, are potentially at risk in both the- near field and
far field areas.. " - :
Use oi the ADDAMS model to predict the transport of sediment-
bound contaminants, and elutriate tests to predict the transfer
of contaminants from the particulate to dissolved phase, appears
to be a crude approximation of reality, given the likelihood of
dissolved organic matter from the Massachusetts Water Resources
Authority outfall influencing the contaminant partitioning at tne
Boston Lightship and Meisburger sites. -Also, event scale
hydrologic transport resulting from storms and riverine peak.
.discharges influence net water mass displacement (and the
transport of fluid dredge spoil plumes) more so than do the mean
current events on which the ADDAMS result are based.
Since most EPA water quality criteria for organic contaminants
are based upon equilibrium partitioning, thus ignoring'food chain
transport and bioaccumulation; it is not clear that the water
quality levels at 'the site boundary after 4 hours are indeed
"safe" if-they approximate the chronic toxicity critical
concentration. For instance,, copper, mercury, and lead, if
methylated by bacteria in the dredge spoils (Gadd, 1933}, have
the potential for bioaecumulation. In this regard if one
examines radionuclide bioconcentration in the environment many
metals appear to bioaccumulate, even though this does not often
occur in bioaecumulation tests conducted in laboratory flasks
(Forstner, 1980)-. • One should not confuse mathematical modelling
simulations and elutriate tests with what will necessarily happen
in the real world, since these models only approximate certain .
aspects of the natural aquatic ecosystem. "
Sections 3.6.2.3 - 3.6.2.5 - In general,"it is difficult to
assess the potential impacts of disposal at the- borrow pit sites
{Meisburger 2, Meisburger 7, and Spectacle Island GAD on fish
stocks ol their habitat because the DEIR/S contains little site- -
specific resource information. The DEIR/S also does not evaluate"!
iS detail'the capability of these sites to resist erosion and
mSintatn a securf cap during storm events. (Additional comments
on the resource information for the various disposa 1 «i|«; are
included below, in reference to Attachment 1 to the DEIR/S.;
-Dr. Gordon Wallace (University of Massachusetts-Boston,
Environmental Sciences Program) has shown that winter flounder
CPleuronectes americanus) from Georges Bank have higher heavy
metal levels in their liver than do the same species from Boston
Harbor, in spite of the much higher heavy metal Concentrations in
the fine grained Boston Harbor sediments compared to the coarse
grained Gorges Bank sediments. -This - seemingly counterintuitive
finding is directly applicable to the discussion of cap in teg rxty
for the borrow pit alternatives, since it may be difficult to
8
/9
it
-------
distinguish "background" heavy metal levels from contamination
due to dredged material disposal. The Final EIR/S should
consider interacting factors including the heavy metal
concentration, bioavailability, metallothionein binding capacity
for heavy metals, and the depuration/clearance rate (Marguenie
and Tent, 1989; Roesijadi, 1992).
Section 3.6.2.5 - The proposed Spectacle Island CAD site is
described as being in an area "having cleaner sediments" but the
text does not identify the. areas to which these sediments were
compared. .
Section 3.7 - The discussion of cumulative impacts from the
project is extremely brief, and restricted primarily to impacts
from disposal operations (disposal of clean material at MBDS and
associated barge traffic). The Final EIR/S should include a more
expansive cumulative impacts assessment to address the effects of
the project in conjunction with other past and reasonably
foreseeable-future actions. Pertinent topics include the -
potential for: increases in the number of vessels using Boston
Harbor and Massachusetts'Bay, increases in the size of vessels
using Boston Harbor and Massachusetts Bay, increases in vessel
collisions with endangered humpback whales (J&egaptera
novaeangiaae) and/or northern right whales (Eubalaezia grlaeialis) ,
and increases in vessel impacts to fishing gear.
Additionally, this section should evaluate cumulative impacts at
the various disposal sites on the benthos, finfish, marine
mammals, and sea turtles. 'In order to increase the ability of
the Corps' Disposal Area Monitoring System program to detect
changes between baseline and dredge spoil disposal periods, the
Corps -needs information on population age and size structure for
finfish (including estimates of age/length at maturity, .growth
rate, sex ratios, etc.), as well as species identification and
numbers, size structure, and seasonal changes in composition for
benthic infaunal invertebrates. Since finfish and benthic
invertebrates vary extensively in space and time, it is necessary
to define what constitutes an ecologically significant > level- of
change, since statistical significance may not be meaningful. _.
Section' 3.10- The Final EIR/S should include a more detailed
explanation of the management measures that, will be used to
minimize fish mortalities during the blasting and removal of
rock. For example, it may be necessary to use electronic fish
finders and/or to station qualified observers in the blasting
area prior to detonation to verify that significant schools of
fish are not present. Another option might be to use
hydroacoustics or other technologies to deter fish from
congregating in the blast area. . ~
The Final EIR/S should also provide a range of specific potential
mitigation projects '(including possible locations and conceptual
-------
plans) for losses of. subtidal habitat -due to the inshore harbor
filling options.
Final seasonal restrictions on dredging and other in-water work,
as well as appropriate operational measures (e.g., use of silt
curtains), should be coordinated with -NMFS and the Massachusetts
Division of Marine Fisheries prior to the commencement of work.
Section 4.1,1 - We concur with the decision to use a modified_
"environmental" bucket to dredge the contaminated silty material.
This equipment should help to reduce turbidity and release of
contaminants at the dredge site.
Section 4.2.2 - -The fourth sentence in this section reads as
follows: "Because much of the silt to be removed from Boston
Harbor is considered unsuitable for unconfined open water
disposal, these sediments will need to be separated from the
suitable or parent material." We recommend changing this
sentence to read: "Because all of the silt..." . • -
.The DEIR/S suggests that all of the contaminated silt material
can be removed from the harbor bottom using a modified
"environmental"' bucket, and that underlying parent material could
then be removed" cleanly during subsequent dredging with a. •
standard bucket. We believe this characterization is inaccurate.
Dredging the silt material, even using a sealed "environmental"
bucket, cannot neatly vacuum all of the contaminated material
from the harbor floor. Instead, due to a variety of interacting
factors,- it is highly likely that a substantial fraction of the
contaminated material will remain on the surface of the parent
clays. Hydrated bucket overflow, sloughing of side slopes, the
normal dynamic movement of silt on the harbor bottom from tidal
and storm forces, and sediment resuapension due to vessel traffic
and the dredging itself will all tend to cause contaminated silt
material to accumulate rapidly on top of the parent material
4uring the silt dredging, even if the top 0.5 feet of parent
material is dredged with the silt as proposed.
NOAA is concerned that much of the parent material, despite its
being uncontaminated while it is in place, may become mixed with
contaminated silts during the dredging operation due to the
•movement of fine sediments on the harbor bottom. As a result, it
is highly likely that a major portion of the dredged parent
material, on a barge-load basis, will become tainted by residual
contaminated silt, and could be rendered unsuitable for
unconfined open water disposal. This concern is especially actite
for parent material in the most "contaminated portions of the
harbor. The Final EIR/S should evaluate this issue in detail,
including the degree of mixing between sediments during the
dredging process, any mitigative measures that might minimize
sediment commingling, and an expanded suitability analysis for
10
-------
open water disposal to reevaluate the parent material in light of
likely commingling with contaminated silts.
Seetiea 4.3.5 - According to the DEIR/S, the dredge contractor
will carry an inspector aboard the tug, and may also use an
electronic "black box" recording device, to verify that open
water disposal takes place at the disposal site buoy. The final
EIR/S should discuss what measures will be used to prevent "short
dumps" or otherwise dumping the dredged materials at a location
other than the prescribed disposal point, and should explain what
contingencies will be taken for disposal during storms, in rough
•eas, etc. • ]
Section 4.5.1 - The DEIR/S tends to underestimate the
bioavailability of heavy metals and their potential for
bioaccumulation by benthic invertebrates and fish. Methylation
of heavy metals increases their bioaccumulation potential {Gadd,
1993). -The heavy metal levels in the pore water are a function
of 'the binding/complexing component concentrations, -hardness,
salinity, dissolved organic carbon concentrations, and the pore
water extraction method utilized. The pore water heavy metal
concentrations appear to be related to the acute toxicity levels
measured in laboratory bioassays (Ankley et al., 1994).
Section 4.S.2 - See the comments above under Section 3.10
regarding mitigation of potential blasting impacts to fish.
Sections 5.1 and 5.2.1 - The summary of pertinent federal
statutes and compliance requirements should reference the
Stellwagen Bank National-Marine Sanctuary provisions of the
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, as amended
(MPRSA) . Specifically, the MPRSA (16 U.S.C. §1434 (e)) states
that "appropriate Federal agencies shall consult with the
Secretary [of Commerce] on proposed agency actions in the
vicinity of the Sanctuary that.may affect sanctuary resources.". _
The-text on the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended
(CZMA), inaccurately reflects the CZMA consistency review
requirements. In accordance with the 1990 amendments to the CZMA
(16 -U.S.C. S1451 et eeq.), the following language should be
included in- the Final EIR/S in lieu of the existing language
contained in the DEIR/S:
. "Each Federal agency activity within or outside the coastal
zone that affects any land or water use or natural resource
of the coastal zone shall be carried out in a manner which
is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the
enforceable policies of the Massachusetts Coastal Zone
Management Program." (See §307 (c) (1) (A) of the- CZMA.)-
Attachment 1 - In general, the DEIR/S does not contain sufficient
information on the use of the proposed aquatic disposal sites toy
11
-------
^
living marine resources. Attachment 1 to the DEIR/S, which _
contains more detailed environmental information than the main
text of the document, presents only a general discussion on
potential uses of the sites by fish, shellfish, and other
organisms. We believe substantial additional data is necessary
to allow an adequate comparisbli between sites, and, for tne
proposed borrow pit sites, to provide a baseline against which to
evaluate recovery after the project is complete.
We recommend that the Corps and Massport gather sufficient data
to document the basic biological characteristics of all the
aquatic sites on a seasonal basis. This documentation should
include site-specific data on use of the sites by fish (both
•pelagic and demersal), shellfish, marine mammals, andJ^6* __.
biota, unfortunately, this type of information may not currently
be available (except perhaps for MBDS), so ne\£xoiosicai /«
investigations may be necessary. Regardless, the f*2aj-BJ*'S -,
should include at least one full year of biological data for all
aquatic sites.
For the proposed borrow pit sites, we also recommend-providing
additional data and analysis on the relative .geologic stability
of each site, including erosion and accretion patterns,
susceptibility to storm induced erosion, and the ability to
maintain cap integrity over time.
Cone IUB i'onB-
In summary, NOAA has many outstanding concerns regarding the
Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement Project, most of wnicn
center on the management of contaminated sediments during
dredging, handling, and disposal,, and over the long te™ **?!€.
selected disposal site(s) . We urge you to seriously con^er ur
general and specific comments on the DEIR/S, and we J°?* f^*3'*
to working with you during the continuing environmental review of
the project. . -
12
-------
References
Ankley, G.T., N.A. Thomas, D. Micro, D.J. Hansen, J.D: Mahony,
W.J. Berry, R-.C. Swartz, -and R.A. Hoke. 1994. Assessing
potential bioavailability of metals in sediments: a proposed
• approach'. Environ. Managem. 18:331-337.
Carey, D.A., D. Keith, J. Schoenherr, and P. Matthias. 1992.
Construction of a regional relational/CIS database in
support of ocean disposal issues in Massachusetts Bay. pp.
491-496 in Oceans 92-Mastering the Oceans Through
Technology; Volume 1; 2EEE 92 CH3217-7.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Public Record of
Decision on the Final Environmental Impact Statement 'for the
Designation of an Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site in
Massachusetts Bay. January 13, 1993. 12pp plus Appendices.
Porstner, U. 1980. Inorganic pollutants, particularly heavy
metals in estuaries, pp.307-348 in Chemistry and
' BiogeoeheTnistry of Estuaries;• by E.Olausson and I. Cato;
.John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.
Fowler, Jack, and C. Joel Sprague. 1994. Dredged Material
Filled Geotextile Containers.' Unpublished (?) .
Geotechnical -Laboratory, U.S. Army Waterways Experiment
Station, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS, 39180-6199. ,
17pp.
Gadd, G.M. 1993. Microbial formation and transformation of
organometallic and organometalloid compounds. FEMS
Microbiol. Rev. 11:297-316. . '
Keith, D.J., G.S. Cook, D.N. Wiley, V. Capone, D.A. Carey, 'and
J.P. Fish. 1992. Target detection and mapping of aquatic
hazardous waste sites in Massachusetts Bay utilizing side
scan sonar, pp. 497-502 in Oceans 92-Mastering the Oceans
Through Technology.' Volume 1: IEEE 92 CH3217-7.
Marquenie, J.M. and L. Tent. 1989. Impact of contaminants
mobilized from sediments upon disposal, pp.510-523 in
• Pollution ef the North Sea-An Assessment ed. by W. Salomons,
E.K. Duursma, B.L. Bayne and U.Forstner; Springer-Verlag.
Roesijadi, G. 1992. Metallothioneins in metal regulation and
toxicity in aquatic animals. Aquatic Toxicol. 22:81-114.
13
-------
Unnumbered Comment
1. 3rd para., 6th sent. - Dredged material from Boston Harbor is not subject to
the Superfund law. Boston Harbor would have to be designated a Superfund site and
placed on the National Priority List to receive Superfund funding. As this has not
happened, natural resource claims would not be applicable.
In addition, the Corps does not believe dredged material is subject to the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Dredged material does not clearly fall
within the RCRA definition of solid waste or hazardous waste. The Clean Water Act
and the Ocean Dumping Act provide the appropriate legal and regulatory regime for
dredged material disposal and these regimes are incompatible with regulation under
RCRA (33 CFR Parts 209, 335-338).
Although the Corps does not believe the material from Boston Harbor is subject to
Superfund or RCRA law, the Corps and Massport are committed to minimizing
damage to marine resources, in a practicable manner. Water quality modelling has
indicated that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the aquatic
environment. Dredged material will be managed to minimize impacts to the environ-
ment
Fl-1
Section 2.2.4 of the DEIR/S states that based on the Tier I-III evaluation
of sediments in the berth areas, "the US ACOE has determined that all maintenance
material (silt), except 160,000 cy from Reserved Channel, and 200,000 cy from the
berth areas of Gulf Barge berth, is unsuitable for unconfined open water disposal.
Conversely, all of the silt material is considered to be unsuitable for unconfined open
water disposal by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency."
Given this USEPA consideration, BHNIP is not considering unconfined areas disposal
as a practicable alternative for any of the silt material at this time.
Fl-2
The Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (MBDS) has been removed from discus-
sion and charts as a point of reference for disposal of the silty dredged material. This
site is not currently available for disposal of silty material until capping or other
technology to immobilize the contaminants has been demonstrated. The currently
viable sites will be used for comparison purposes.
-------
Fl-3
Section 3.6 of the DEIR/S discusses the project team's reluctance to
identify "the single preferred disposal option" in this preliminary document. The
selection of which will be based on several screening criteria identified as Figure 3-2.
Several technical and environmental feasibility parameters are also identified in
Section 3,6 which must be evaluated against each alternative to establish the least
damaging option(s).
As part of the EIS/R evaluation process, comments presented by viewers
indicated that site and/or resource specific studies were required to address unresolved
issues. Results of these studies were integrated into the impact evaluation to further
select suitable and specific disposal alternatives.
These additional studies included lobster and finfish studies, sediment profiles
and benthic biological community sampling which are fully described hi this FEIS/R.
Also, the DEIR/S stated, " Massport and the Corps select MBDS, BLS,
Meisburger 2 or 7 and Spectacle Island CAD as their preferred disposal alternatives.
These sites did not represent "the single preferred disposal option". Based on the
continued inputs of addition data and information, Section 4 of the FEIS/R identifies
In-channel disposal at Mystic River, Chelsea River and the Inner Confluence as the
current preferred disposal alternative.
Fl-4
The silty dredged material will be removed by an environmental mechanical
bucket. The bucket will remove the silty material until it hits the parent material. The
parent material, composed mostly of Boston blue clay, will provide resistance to the
toothless environmental bucket. In this manner the environmental bucket will be able
to remove essentially all of the silty material. A standard mechanical bucket (with
teeth) will be used to remove the parent material. Some silty material from other parts
of the harbor may drift into the navigation channel after the silty material has been
removed and before the dredge has returned to remove the parent material. The
amount of this material is not expected to be significant to change the suitability
characteristic of the parent material.
Fl-5
Dredging of silts will be a distinctly different operation from the
dredging of parent material. The consistency or compaction of the two layers will be
distinguishable by the dredge operator. The parent material will be relatively more
consolidated and therefore harder and more resistant to excavation. The dredge bucket
used for the removal of silts, will penetrate into the parent material, estimated at up to
-------
approximately 6-in, due to the weight of the bucket. Therefore it can be expected that
some of the parent material will be removed during the excavation of the silts. This
anticipated overdredging of the silts will minimize the volume of those materials which
will be taken with the parent material. It can, however, be expected that some silt
material will be "left behind" after dredging of those sediments. Use of currently
available "environmental" buckets, which are capable of producing a relatively uniform
and consistent horizontal cut, will minimize the volume of silts which are missed. It is
highly unlikely that large volumes of silts, sufficient to contaminate the dredged parent
material, will be removed during dredging of the clays.
Fl-6
Again, BHNIP is not considering unconfined ocean disposal as practica-
ble alternative for any of the silt material at this time.
Fl-7
True, it is assumed that if dredged material needs to be capped, the conditions
for an appropriate disposal site will be met. The sentence will be clarified.
Fl-8
Although the Corps and the U.S. EPA disagree on the suitability determination
for some areas in Boston Harbor, as a practical matter, all of the material is being
treated in the EIR/S as unsuitable. This point will be clarified.
Fl-9
The Corps and Massport agree wholeheartedly that a long term management
plan for Boston Harbor and other harbors needs to continue. The Corps and Massport
are committed to working towards a solution for the disposal of contaminated material.
We appreciate the commitment of NOAA to actively participate in this project.
Fl-10
See response to F1-2
Fl-11
This sentence will be corrected. Again, BHNIP is not considering unconfined
ocean disposal as a practicable alternative for any of the silt material at this time.
-------
Fl-12
Section 4.0 of the FEIS/R has re-examined the practicability of land based
disposal alternatives and concludes that Squantum Point provides the most viable land-
based location for disposal of a portion of the contaminated silts, however, no land-
based site was more reasonable than aquatic sites for disposal based on environmental
and practicability criteria. BHNIP was not able to identify any new practicable land
based sites for disposal.
Fl-13
Based on the addition evaluation of disposal area resources (Section 4.2 of the
FEIR), BHNIP currently considers both the Mystic Piers and Revere Sugar as likely
disposal sites, as part of a multiple site/technology approach for disposal. This
multiple site approach will serve to minimize concentrating disposal activities or
effects in any one location or resource type.
BHNIP would suggest establishing appropriate estuarine conditions (e.g.
hydrology, tidal exposure and sediment matrixes) for natural recruitment of typical salt
marsh species in Reserved Channel.
Fl-14
Additional investigations on biological resources at all the potential aquatic
disposal sites were undertaken in fall 1994. This information was reported hi separate
technical documents and hi Attachment 1 of the FEIR/S. These data were used to re-
evaluate the selection of the proposed preferred alternative site for disposal of silt from
the BHNIP.
Fl-15
Responses from agencies and other organizations indicate that using contami-
nated material from Boston Harbor to demonstrate capping will not be considered
likely. Successful capping at Portland has been reported in the DAMOS 1984
Summary and report and draft publications. Suitable silty material from another
project may be used for a capping demonstration at the MBDS. Appropriate agencies
will be invited to give comments on the proposed monitoring plan.
Fl-16
The status of the understanding of the distribution, character and
condition of hazardous materials was considered in the re-evaluation of the disposal
site selection process (Section 4 of the FEIR/S).
-------
Fl-17
As suggested by NMFS, the assumption that capping is a viable technology
from both an environmental and a regulatory perspective has been added to cost
estimates.
Fl-18
Section 3.6 of the DEIR/S clearly stated that it was not the intent of BHNIP to
identify "the single preferred disposal option". Section 4 of the FEIS/R details the
targeted multiple site disposal alternatives which appear to be most practicable.
Fl-19
Geotextile containers are discussed in more detail in Section 3 of the FEIR/S.
The use of these containers would be dependent on whether a disposal operation would
not pass water quality criteria or some other regulatory requirement. In addition the
cost and feasibility of using these containers have not been fully demonstrated for
contaminated silts and would need to be assessed in more detail for each particular
disposal site.
Fl-20
Again, Section 2.0 of the FEIS/R states that the Corps is interested in conduct-
ing a demonstration project for capping in depths of >50m; such a project could occur
using clean non project silts and project parent material. BHNIP is not considering
capping of project silts at either MBDS or BLS at this time.
Fl-21
Silt from the BHNIP will be made available for pilot tests upon request.
Fl-22
Section 3.5 of the FEIS/R detail all practicable potential beneficial uses
and projects for clean parent material and rock from BHNIP.
The BHNIP is not considering disposal of project silts at MBDS and BLS,
therefore capping of contaminated materials at these sites is no longer a practicable
disposal option.
-------
Fl-23
This approach was eliminated in the FEIR/S based on comments by reviewers
(Section 4.0). The current practicability analysis considers direct costs for each
disposal site.
Fl-24
See comment Fl-23
Fl-25
Capping has been successfully conducted at the Portland Disposal Site in
conjunction with dredging of the Federal Channel in 1980. Monitoring has shown
normal recovery of the benthic community.
Fl-26
BLS is not biologically unique, and appears representative of the offshore
environment. This comment was not made to suggest minimal value of the area, only
to suggest that it is typical.
Section 4.2 and Attachment I of the FEIS/R describe biological resources and
fishery usage very similar to the other offshore and inshore sites currently being
considered as potential disposal sites.
Fl-27
Corrected.
Fl-28
Additional information has been provided to NMFS.
Fl-29
Section 4.2 and Attachment I of the FEIS/R present the findings of several
previous and on-going studies; and the results of a project sponsored sampling program
which evaluated the areal biological resources presented within the BHNIP project area
during the Fall 1994. The FEIS/R states that lobster abundance and biomass were
greatest at the offshore stations during the Fall 1994 lobster sampling program (NAI
« "30
-------
1994). BLS was located within the offshore stations along with Meisburger 2 and 7,
and ranked slightly below both Meisburgers, according to these abundance and broman
data. These data are also consistent with MADMF sampling data. A review of
historical data indicate an overall consistency in inshore and offshore finfish communi-
ty structure during the past 10-15 years. Whiter flounder are the most important
demersal fish species throughout the BHNIP project area. Other flatfish significant to
the project area include yellowtail flounder, American dab and windowpane flounders.
In less abundance than the flatfish, cod family appears to be significant, especially in
the offshore area where Atlantic cod, silver and red hake, and pollack were consistent-
ly present in all catch results. Data from our study indicated the abundance of pelagic
fish resources was highest at some inner harbor stations and the offshore stations.
Abundance of pelagic fish resources was lowest at the remaining inner harbor stations
and the outer harbor stations.
Fl-30
Water quality modelling was one of numerous factors taken into account to
evaluated the suitability of the aquatic sites for disposal of silts from the BHNIP
(Section 4 of the FEIR/S). As a result of the reevaluation of the alternatives, the
Boston Lightship and Meisburger sites were found not to be among the least environ-
mentally damaging aquatic alternatives.
Fl-31
Section 4.2 and Attachment I of the FEIS/R present the findings of several
previous and on-going studies; and the results of a project sponsored sampling program
which evaluated areal finfish catch data during the Fall 1994. Again, a review of
historical data indicate an overall consistency in inshore and offshore finfish communi-
ty structure during the past 10-15 years. Whiter flounder are the most important
demersal fish species throughout the BHNIP project area. Other flatfish significant to
the project area include yellowtail flounder, American dab and windowpane flounders.
In less abundance than the flatfish, cod family appears to be significant, especially hi
the offshore area where the Atlantic cod, silver and red hake, and pollack were
consistently present in all catch results. Data from our study indicated that abundance
of pelagic fish resources were highest at some inner harbor stations and the offshore
stations. Abundance of pelagic fish resources was lowest at the remaining inner harbor
stations and the outer harbor stations.
Fl-32
Preliminary evaluations of wave induced bottom velocities (Roberge, 1995)
have shown that relatively frequent storm events will generate bottom velocities
sufficient to resuspend bottom sediments. While these analyses were not exhaustive,
they certainly demonstrate that unprotected deposits of unconfined sediments would be
7 '
-------
resuspended at the Meisburger 2, Meisburger 7, and Spectacle Island CAD. Reference
Section 4.0 and Appendix G of the FEIR/S.
Fl-33
The selection process for the least environmentally damaging alternative for
disposal of silt included evaluation of potential for bioaccumulation during and after
disposal, including the likelihood of catastrophic events causing future dispersion of
the silt.
Fl-34
The description of sediment quality in the vicinity of Spectacle Island CAD has
been clarified in Attachment I.
Fl-35
The discussion on cumulative impacts from the project has been expanded hi
the FEIS/S as suggested. A discussion of vessel traffic on whales is discussed hi the
Biological Assessment. Vessel traffic is not expected to have a significant effect on
whales.
Disposal of dredged material will have a temporary impact on biological
resources in the area. In addition silty material disposed in the nearshore and offshore
areas will be capped, thereby isolating this material from biological resources.
Monitoring would be focused on physical parameters of the disposal site (i.e. cap
integrity).
Attachment I of the FEIS/R details the population, age and size structure of the
area! finfish community and benthic community during the Fall 1994 season. Findings
of which are also consistent with other previous and on-going studies
Fl-36
Section 5.0 of the FEIR/S describes the Dredging Management Plan and
addresses specific mitigation techniques to minimize fish mortality during blasting
operations. These techniques include operation of sonic fish "startle" systems and
installation of other control systems around each blast site. Such systems could include
pneumatic barriers which effectively attenuate the pressure wave generated by the
blast. These systems are proven and effective. In addition, as described in Section
5.2.1.5, Seasonal Limitations, blasting will be seasonally restricted to minimize
2.
«M
-------
exposure of anadromous fish to those operations. The actual mitigation measure will
be defined during the permitting process.
Fl-37
Section 6.0 of the FEIR/S discusses the proposed mitigation approach to
address losses of subtidal habitat. BHNIP commits to investigating compensatory
mitigation , if required. However, as stated in Section 6.4.4, the BHNIP, as designed
and with in-channel disposal, provides significant enhancement of project specific
principal valuable functions (see Appendix K). As such, no compensatory resource
mitigation should be required under either federal or state wetland regulations.
As local sponsor, Massport is willing to work with state resource agencies to
identify resource enhancement opportunities in the Harbor area. As examples, these
can include:
1. Assisting the Metropolitan District Commission (MDC) hi their on-
going efforts in coastal resource restoration hi the Boston Harbor ACECs. The MDC
is currently planning projects at the Rumney Marsh and Neponset River ACECs.
2. Massport is committed to increasing the number of vessel sewage pump-
out facilities hi the Harbor area and will work with the appropriate agencies on
specific details.
3. Massport will also consider coordinating with the Department of
Environmental Management (DEM) to identify potential areas of cooperation and
assistance in DEM resource and facility enhancement projects on Harbor islands.
4. Massport will work with state and local resource agencies to identify
potential resource enhancement options such as supporting the development of an
"urban fishing park" through rehabilitation of water access structures (e.g.,
boat ramp in Little Mystic Channel) to enhance public use and access to functional
recreational fishing areas.
Fl-38
Coordination with NMFS and the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries
has resulted in the environmental restrictions displayed in the FEIR/S.
Fl-39
The referenced sentence has been changed. It should be noted, however, that
for the purposes of identifying sufficient capacity for disposal, the DEIR/S considered
-------
all of the silt to be unsuitable for unconfined open water disposal. The FEIR/S
continues to treat all the silt as unsuitable for unconfined open water disposal.
Fl-40
A fraction of the contaminated silts will likely be resuspended due to any of
several mechanisms. Use of the "environmental" bucket will significantly reduce the
loss of the silts due to bucket overflow, adhesion to the bucket fixtures, and spillage
during bucket haul. Operator sensitivity to minimizing bucket impact velocities,
dragging, and other operational functions will be stressed hi the contract documents
and continuously evaluated by the Project Manager during dredging activities. Un-
skilled operators will be replaced. The environmental bucket is approximately 40 %
lighter per footprint area than conventional clamshell buckets. The footprint area of the
environmental bucket can be approximately 60% larger than conventional buckets with
the same capacity. In addition, the bucket includes a horizontal closing action which
produces a level bottom cut. These features provide an optimum cleanup mode. The
bucket can be fully instrumented, including video cameras, seal alarms, and depth
sensors, to fully monitor performance.
Bottom silts can potentially be resuspended by environmental and vessel
influence. These events are of relatively low frequency. Sediment movement will be
monitored during all phases of the project. Any deposition of such mobile materials
over parent clays which have already been exposed by prior dredging will be identified
and quantified. Any significant quantities could be removed prior to dredging the
parent material. This would minimize commingling of the silt and parent sediments.
Fl-41
The on-board Inspector serves as an agent to the US Army Corps of Engineers.
His purpose on the dump runs is to verify the location of the dredged material
disposal. The coordinates, based upon Loran fixes and/or satellite global positioning
system (GPS), is recorded on the log sheet which is prepared by the Inspector and
submitted to the Project Manager. "Short dumps" will not be allowed as a condition of
the permitted work. Disposal runs will not be performed in weather which will not
allow access to the designated dump buoy site.
Additional information is contained in the Dredged Material Management Plan
described in Section 5.
Fl-42
10
-------
As stated in the EIR/S, documentation showing evidence of significant bioac-
cumulation in finfish is varied and difficult to document. As stated in comment Fl-33,
even in supposedly pristine areas, contamination of finfish was evident.
Fl-43
Corrected.
Fl-44
Attachment I of the FEIS/R present the findings of several previous and on-
going studies which evaluate the periodic and overall state of the Boston Harbor
biological resource. Also, presented are the findings of the Fall 1994 sampling
program for benthic resources, lobster and finfish resources. All studies indicate a
relatively significant (non-statistical) ecological resource .
Fl-45
Substrate conditions at all potential aquatic disposal sites were evaluated using
sediment profile imagery (Attachment I). This technique provides insight into recent
geologic history of the substrate. The susceptibility to various erosional forces was also
evaluated (Appendix G) and considered hi overall site evaluations.
11
-------
OFFICE OF THE
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
S REGION i
$ JOHN F. KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02203-0001
j»
June 27, 1994
Dwight S. Durham
Lt. Colonel, Corps of Engineers
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA 02254-9149 "
Dear Lt. Colonel Durham:
In accordance with our responsibilities under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 309 of the Clean Air
Act, we have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) for the proposed Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement
project (BHNIP).
This project proposes to remove and dispose of approximately 3.3
million cubic yards (mcy) of sediment from the Reserved, Mystic
River, and Chelsea Creek Channels, portions of the Main Ship
Channel, and associated berthing areas in Boston Harbor in order to
increase the navigational efficiency of Boston Harbor for deep
draft vessels. In addition to the above volumes, the Corps will
need to dredge another 4.4 mcy of material from the main channel
for future maintenance over the next 50 years. Recognizing the
importance that this project will have to improving navigational
safety and enhancing the economic potential of Boston's port, EPA's
review of the DEIS focussed on potential environmental impacts that
need to be addressed now to avoid possible future delays. We
appreciate the opportunity to work with the Corps to ensure that
this project is conducted in the most environmentally sound manner
possible.
The DEIS evaluates two sets of alternatives - dredging alternatives
and disposal alternatives for the dredged material. Alternatives
to the proposed dredging include: maintenance dredging only; the
full project (maintenance and improvement dredging) ; a reduced
project (e.g., eliminating portions of the project, such as channel
dredging); a delayed project; and No Action (no maintenance or
improvement dredging) . Alternatives to disposal include a number
of land-based and aquatic-based options, alone and in combination
with each other, however the DEIS identifies the preferred options
to include the full dredging project with disposal at Boston
Lightship (BLS) ; the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (MBDS) ;
Meisburger 2; Meisburger 7; or Spectacle Island Confined Aquatic
Disposal (CAD).
iomments
Based on our review of the DEIS, we believe that the analysis does
not provide the information necessary to fully evaluate the
> Recycl»d/Recyclable
PnnieOwMftSoy/Canoialnx on paper i
contains •: least 75% recycfedtoer
-------
practicability and potential environmental impacts of many of the
disposal site alternatives. We do believe, however, that while
more information is necessary, the analysis indicates that the
In-Channel disposal option is environmentally preferable over the
other options presented. Further, EPA does not consider either
MBDS or BLS to be viable disposal options for contaminated
material and we thus would oppose the issuance of an ocean
dumping permit for disposal and capping of contaminated material
at these sites. Also, this project provides an important
opportunity to investigate promising new dredged material
treatment technologies, to resolve issues surrounding capping in
deep ocean waters, to implement beneficial uses of the clean
dredged material and to demonstrate new types of reuse to enhance
habitat, shorelines, or recreational opportunities. Although
these issues are briefly discussed in the DEIS, the Final EIS
should fully examine and commit to specific actions to implement
these measures. EPA is eager to assist in this regard. Each of
these concerns are summarized below and, along with other
comments, detailed in the Attachment to this letter.
• The Final EIS must present more information on, the site-
specific biological resources present at the proposed dredging
and disposal sites and a more rigorous evaluation and comparison
of the impacts to these resources. Much of this information has
been generated by the MWRA or other researchers as part of
studies conducted for the Boston Harbor cleanup or the Central
Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project, and should be presented in
the Final EIS to provide the public an opportunity to understand
and weigh the potential costs and benefits of disposal options.
Further, we believe the EIS should more thoroughly identify and
evaluate potential mitigation measures at both dredging and
disposal sites. For example, the Final EIS should discuss the
measures to be used to prevent cross-contamination of clean
material, and to ensure that only suitable material is being
disposed of at the MBDS.
• Based on the Ocean Disposal Criteria regulations at 40 C.F.R.
Part 227, EPA believes that all of the surface sediments from the
BHNIP and its associated berthing areas do not meet the discharge
criteria and therefore are not suitable for uncontrolled ocean
disposal. Of the total volume to be dredged, our interpretation
of the data indicates that 1.3 mcy is contaminated with metals,
PAHs, PCBs, and other chemicals and is thus unsuitable for
unconfined open water disposal, as regulated under the Marine
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (33 U.S.C. §§ 1401 er
seq.) (MPRSA). The contaminated material constitutes essentially
thfiaintenance portion of this project, while the remaining two
mcy constitutes the improvement portion. This position is
outlined in our September 9, 1993, letter to Colonel Brink
Miller, which reviews the chemical and biological data and the
relevant regulatory provisions supporting our conclusion (copy
attached).
37
-------
• EPA believes that capping of contaminated dredged material has
not been shown to be an effective, environmentally sound approach
to disposal of contaminated sediments at deep water sites -like the
MBDS or the Boston Lightship Site BLS. Based on this, and
consistent with the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management
certification requirements, EPA's designation of the MBDS for
dredged material disposal prohibits disposal of contaminated
dredged material at the site, with or without capping (58 Fed. Reg.
42496). While the DEIS acknowledges this prohibition, it
identifies disposal and capping of the contaminated materials at
either the MBDS or the BLS as preferred alternatives. The DEIS
also suggests that perhaps the BHNIP's contaminated sediments could
be used as a demonstration project at the MBDS.
EPA does not, believe that dumping-and-capping at the MBDS or BLS,
either as a legitimate disposal option or as a demonstration, is
acceptable. As we have discussed previously, however, we are
happy to participate in a demonstration project at the MBDS to help
settle the scientific uncertainty surrounding this issue, but
maintain that such a project can and should be conducted with
uncontaminated material (perhaps using tracers as appropriate to
track material movement) .
• We believe the near-shore disposal options are more promising,
however, more complete information on the existing biological
resources and the potential environmental impacts that disposal
would have on those resources must be provided to fully evaluate
these options. As mentioned above, based on the information
provided thus far, we believe that the In-Channel alternative has
a number of logistical and environmental advantages over the other
options considered — in particular its small footprint, or total
area of impact, in an area that has already been disturbed by
previous dredging operations. We realize that, as presented, this
alternative does not accommodate disposal of future maintenance
dredging material. We recommend, therefore, that the Final EIS
evaluate alternatives that would combine the In-Channel option with
another option(s) that can accommodate all or portions of the
future maintenance material.
• We also believe the EIS should provide a more rigorous and
thorough examination of alternatives that combine several disposal
options to meet current and future project needs. In our view, the
current analysis fails to fully explore these options or provide
the detail necessary to sharply define and fully evaluate whether
these options are preferable from either an environmental or
practicability standpoint. We further believe it is inappropriate
to dismiss combination alternatives as not practicable based solely
on costs or the inability of any one of the sites to accommodate
the full volume of material. For a dredging project of this
magnitude, we believe that limiting the final list of disposal
options to those that will accommodate the full volume of material
-------
constrains
4
the
analysis of practicable
inappropriately
alternatives. • -
• The Draft EIS discusses the potential for demonstrating some
experimental technologies for dredged material treatment, but- does
not go far enough in realizing the potential this Pr°3jff * Pose s for
demonstrating new techniques for dredged material m an agem «£• *»
we embark on one of the largest dredging projects that New England
hasten we must seize this opportunity to demonstrate creative
anl fnnovaSve technologies and techniques that may_be useful in
the future. We strongly recommend that the Final . EIS .outline »
series of demonstration projects to be conducted, including te*ts
of new technologies such as stabilization and *°d»
projects.
• The Final EIS should also more fully explore the traditional
options for beneficial reuse of the two mcy of uncoijtaf^la^f
material and the 132,000 cy of rock material to be generated by the
B£XP. We recommend that in the Final EIS the Corps Commit to
specific reuse goals for options identified in the Draft EIS,
including highwly construction, landfill cover, construction
aggregate and other commercial reuses.
For the reasons discussed above, EPA- has rated this EIS "EO-2 -
invironmental objections-Insufficient Information" in accordance
with EPA's national rating system, a description of which is
atSched to 4is letter. This rating is bas •* « »^~3TST
of the -preferred disposal options," — excluding the MBDS ajdj^,
whiS ale environmentally unacceptable for contam inated d re dged
material disposal — and our conclusion that the project couia
cause significant environmental impacts that must be avoided and
that additional information is required to fully "••« ™
project's impacts, alternatives, and mitigation. We believe the
concerns we have identified can be resolved and that we can, in the
course of this project, demonstrate new technologies and onions
for dredged material management that will serve us well in the
future. We look forward to working with the Corps to that end.
Please feel free to call me (617/565-3400) or Patience Whitten of
my staff (617/165-3413) if you wish to discuss these comments
further.
Sincerely,
fbhn P. DeVillars
Regional Administrator
-------
Attachment
DETAILED COMMENTS
Dredging; The DEIS states that an environmental bucket will be
used to dredge the contaminated silt material and a standard dredge
will be used to dredge the clay. What method will be used to
determine when it is appropriate to change dredging equipment?
The DEIS acknowledges that the dredge operator will likely pick up
debris of a wide variety. The document discusses briefly steps to
be taken by the dredge operator if he encounters debris that will
not allow the dredge to close properly. The Final EIS should
outline a contingency plan and proper disposal methodology if the
contractor picks up debris (i.e. unidentified 55 gallon drums,
etc.) inappropriate for the designated disposal site.
The DEIS states that blasting of rock material will be done, but
does not discuss potential strategies such as timing restrictions,
bubble curtains or other techniques that could be instituted to
minimize fish mortality. If these techniques are not being
considered, please provide an explanation as to why they are not.
Depending on which disposal option is selected, the Corps has
suggested eelgrass and saltmarsh planting as mitigation. EPA
recommends that in that instance, the Corps convene a panel of
experts to provide suggestions on the specifics of any such
planting efforts. This is currently being done for an eelgrass
planting project in Narragansett Bay to much benefit.
suitability Determination: As stated in our September 9, 1993
letter to Colonel Brink Miller, EPA believes that all of the
surface sediments from the BHNIP and its associated berthing areas
are not suitable for uncontrolled ocean disposal under the Ocean
Disposal Criteria regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 227. We reiterate
those comments here.
The Corps characterizes the testing of materials for acceptability
for ocean dumping as "not clearcut" owing to the need to interpret
"ecological significance" of biological test results (DEIS, p. 3-
5). While we agree that there is a great need for better
understanding of the effects of pollution on complex coastal and
marine ecosystems, EPA found numerous"concerns with the biological
test data for the maintenance material from the project leading us
to conclude that it was not suitable for ocean dumping (see
attached letter). The sediments from the federal Reserved Channel,
however, are insufficiently described to allow for a sound
determination of suitability because of the high detection limits
achieved for organic contaminants. EPA repeats its recommendation
that additional bioaccumulation testing be conducted for these
sediments in order to assess compliance with EPA's Ocean Dumping
-------
Criteria ("ODC"). EPA recommends that the Final EIS rank the
contamination levels of the sediments to be dredged from different
areas of the project, discuss any uncertainties in the ranking and
explain the level of contamination and type of potential impacts
that lead to an unsuitability determination.
Also note that the DEIS seems to confuse EPA's and the Army Corps'
positions on the suitability of materials of uncontrolled ocean
disposal. On page 2-14 the DEIS recognizes that EPA and the Corps
have interpreted the test results differently for the Army Base
berths, Conley Terminals, Boston Edison Barge Berth, and Gulf Oil,
however, a later statement suggests that the material from the
Reserved Channel is the only material for which a consistent
opinion was not reached (DEIS, p. 3-5). We share this confusion
given what seems to be a change in position for the Corps as
regards the sediments to be dredged from the Army Base Berths. At
a meeting in Portland, Oregon (minutes attached to the
aforementioned letter) it was EPA's understanding that the Corps
had agreed that the Army Base Berths were not suitable for ocean
dumping because of the significant amphipod mortality exhibited in
the toxicity tests (disposal of dredged material exhibiting
significant toxicity is not authorized under the MPRSA and EPA's
ODC regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 227).
Since the alternatives analysis presented in the DEIS is based on
the Corps' interpretation of the test data, EPA requests that the
Corps seek alternatives (other than disposal-and-capping at either
the MBDS or the BLS) for the dredged material determined to be
unsuitable for ocean disposal by EPA. Section 103 (c) of the MPRSA
specifically states that w.. .In any case in which the Administrator
disagrees with the determination of the Secretary as to the
compliance with the criteria established pursuant to section 102 (a)
relating to the effects of the dumping or with the restrictions
established pursuant to section 102 (c), relating to critical areas,
the determination of the Administrator shall prevail....11
Moreover, Section 504(c)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1992 amended this section to make written concurrence from EPA
a mandatory requirement prior to permit issuance.
Disposal Alternatives
The DEIS evaluates a number of upland, nearshore, and aquatic
disposal sites as a possible disposal solution(s) for the Boston
Harbor dredged material. These options were evaluated for both
their practicability and their feasibility based on various
screening criteria. In phase one of a three-phased screening
process, the number of potential options were reduced from 326 to
24 sites. Using these 24 sites, the DEIS evaluates potential
combinations of land-based and aquatic-based options, based on the
understanding that few sites are large enough to accommodate the
full volume of proposed dredged material. Ultimately, the DEIS
identifies five disposal options, all aquatic-based, as the
-------
"preferred" set of options. We have a number of concerns with
regard to the overall analysis and the elimination of various
disposal options, as follows.
Preferred Alternatives: The five options identified in the DEIS as
the "preferred alternatives" - BLS; MBDS; Meisburger 2; Meisburger
7; and Spectacle Island CAD - are part of a larger set of options
considered practicable by the Corps and evaluated in the DEIS
(these other practicable sites include In-Channel Sites; Little
Mystic Channel; Reserved Channel; Amstar; Mystic Piers; and Revere
Sugar).
Overall, we believe the DEIS does not provide the information
necessary to fully evaluate the potential environmental impacts of
the practicable disposal options. Further, with regard to the
preferred options in particular, we are concerned that these sites
have been too narrowly evaluated based on whether they can
individually accommodate the full volume of proposed dredged
material. The DEIS states that other constraints, including
environmental and social impacts, were factored into the final
choice of preferred options, but it is unclear how they were used.
For example, the DEIS states (p. ES-3) that combining more than one
site would cost at least $10 million more than using any one full
capacity site. The DEIS does not, however, provide cost projection
data to validate this assertion. Since it is not at all obvious
that multiple disposal site options, whether on land or in the
water, would always cost more than any single site, the Final EIS
should explain the assumptions and calculations that go into the
cost comparisons and conclusions.
Finally, we believe the decision to advance only those options that
can accommodate the full volume of material skews the alternatives
analysis and compounds the difficulty of objectively comparing
disposal options. Our more specific comments on the Preferred .
Alternatives are as follows. J
In-Channel Disposal (ICD^; While a number of concerns remain about
the feasibility of this disposal option, based on the information
presented, we believe that this alternative has a number of
logistical and environmental advantages over other options
considered that make it the most promising solution.
In-channel disposal sites have the advantage of minimizing the
footprint or total area of impact. Additionally, resources in
these areas will already be impacted due to the dredging, so
disposal activities will be affecting a disturbed community versus
an undisturbed biological community at some other disposal site.
Furthermore, these channels will be used for heavy shipping traffic
in the future so they will already be subject to environmental
degradation.
-------
8
The DEIS states, however, that the In-Channel alternative cannot
accommodate all the silt from the BHNIP. The reasons for this need
to be explained, the amount of silt left over needs to be
Quantified, and alternatives for this material need to be
evaluated. While, according to the DEIS, we understand that, as
envisioned, this alternative does not accommodate disposal of
future maintenance material, we believe the FEIS should evaluate
whether another option(s) could be combined with this alternative
so as to meet all or portions of the future maintencince
requirements.
MSDS and Boston Lightship; The DEIS is unclear about potential use
of the MBDS or BLS for contaminated material disposal. According
to the DEIS, use of the MBDS is being considered only for the two
mcy of "clean" material and only after first evaluating potential
beneficial uses of the dredged sediment. While use of the MBDS
with capping is discussed in relation the disposal of the
contaminated silt, the DEIS . acknowledges that this option is
H not implementable at this time..." (DEIS, p. 3-11) based on
judgements by EPA and the MCZM that such use as proposed is
prohibited without a demonstration of its effectiveness. Later,
however, the DEIS does seem to-indicate a desire to conduct a
demonstration project to test the efficacy of capping at the MBDS
(DEIS, p. 3-11), perhaps utilizing the entire 1.3 mcy of
contaminated material.
Dumping of dredged material outside the territorial sea baseline is
subject to the MPRSA and EPA's ODC regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part
227 Two of the Corps' alternative sites, the MBDS and the BLS,
are located in MPRSA-regulated waters. EPA believes that dumping-
and-capping has not been shown to be an effective, environmentally
sound approach to disposal of contaminated sediments at such
relatively deep water sites. Additionally, for the MBDS, the
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management (MCZM) certified the MBDS
designation with the condition that no contaminated sediments be
dumped at the site, at least until capping was proven effective.
Accordingly, EPA's designation included this restriction and, thus,
dumping-and-capping of contaminated sediments is currently
prohibited at the site.
We know of no instances where capping has been successfully
demonstrated at depths similar to the MBDS or BLS elsewhere in New
England, as is claimed in the DEIS (DEIS, p. 3-11). The deepest
sites where disposal-and-capping has shown to be effective are the
New London Disposal Site (NLDS) and the Central Long Island Sound
Disposal Site (CLISDS), where depths average 70 feet. We are aware
that the Corps believes that capping is effective at the Portland
Disposal Site (where depths average 140 feet) but have not seen
such studies despite asking for them on numerous occasions. &iven
that there is generally greater dispersion with increasing depths,
EPA believes that the studies at the NLDS and the CLISDS are
inconclusive in demonstrating the effectiveness of capping at the
-------
MBDS and the BLS, where depths average 300 feet and 200 feet,
respectively.
The DEIS fails to disclose the scientific and public controversy
surrounding both the technical feasibility and legality of dumping-
and-capping contaminated sediments. In designating the MBDS for
dredged material disposal, EPA received many public comments
opposing any disposal of contaminated dredged material at the site,
with or without capping. Capping at such a site was regarded by
commentors as infeasible or, at best, unproven. Commentors noted
that the proximity of the MBDS to the western edge of the
Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary provides further
justification for taking a conservative approach to proposals to
dump-and-cap contaminated sediments. The view that capping is
unlikely to be effective at a deep water site, or is at least
unproven, is also repeatedly reflected in the comments of other
federal and state agencies and members of the public that have been
submitted on the BHNIP (DEIS, Appendix A-3).
While the BLS is not as near to the Sanctuary, we believe the
technical concerns regarding the feasibility of capping at the. BLS
to be virtually identical to those for the MBDS (see 9-27-91 letter
to Corps). At BLS, however, these concerns are heightened by
unknowns about the locations of drums of industrial and radioactive
waste; a productive winter flounder fishery; its location within a
major traffic lane; and the need to go through an EPA-approved site
designation process. Based on our experience with the MBDS
designation, such a process would surely be lengthy, controversial,
and expensive.1
Finally, regarding a demonstration project, we do not believe that
the disposal of 1.3 mcy of contaminated silt from the BHNIP is an
appropriate vehicle with which to test the effectiveness of capping
in a deep ocean environment. We concur, however, and have stated
previously that a demonstration project - using dredged material
that meets the requirements of the ODC - would be useful to help
resolve the uncertainties of this disposal technique and we stand
ready to assist the Corps in its design and implementation.
1 While the technical concerns are sufficient reason for EPA
to oppose dumping-and-capping of contaminated sediments at the MBDS
or the BLS, there are also legal issues. Whether the MPRSA and
EPA's ODC regulations simply forbid the dumping of any dredged
materials that fail the biological tests, regardless of proposals
to cap the materials, has been a matter of some controversy. EPA
is presently evaluating this legal issue to develop a definitive
agency position on it, but since we presently would oppose dumping
and capping at the two proposed MPRSA-regulated sites on technical
grounds, it is not critical that we resolve this legal issue in
order to respond to the proposed BHNIP alternatives.
-------
10
It should also be noted that a proposal to dump contaminated
sediments (i.e., unsuitable for ocean disposal) at the MBDS, with
or without capping, would clearly trigger the requirement of formal
coordination with the Secretary of Commerce regarding potential
effects on the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary as
provided for in the October 1992 amendments to Section 304 of the
MPRSA (DEIS, p. 3-31). See Sections 2104 (d) and 2202 (e) of the
National Marine Sanctuaries Program Amendments Act of 1992 (P.L.
102-587). Such a proposal would also require EPA to modify the
MBDS site designation, which is currently limited to disposal of
dredged material meeting the requirements of the MPRSA and its
accompanying regulations. This would require initiation of a
formal rulemaking process, and MCZM certification of the
modification. Finally, the National Marine Fisheries Service, in
an April 19, 1993 letter, has indicated that it believes dumping-
and-capping at the MBDS has not been shown to be effective, .and
that such an alternative should be dropped, or further formal
consultation and analysis will be needed under the Endangered
Species Act regarding potential effects of such an action on
endangered species and their habitat.
Aquatic Disposal Alternatives Governed by Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act: In general, near-shore, relatively shallow water offers
more controlled conditions that are more conducive to effective
capping. There has been notable experience with capping in such
waters, some of it successful and some of it unsuccessful. Some
failed caps at the Central Long Island Sound Disposal Site have
exhibited significant mortality, incomplete covering of the
contaminated material, partial diffusion of contaminants,
bioaccumulation in biota recolonizing the cap, and significant
erosion of the cap from hurricanes.
We believe the DEIS should discuss in detail both the failures and
the successes in capping experiments so that the public may
accurately assess the efficacy of capping. Given the uncertainty
of capping, we would require detailed resource information and
impact analysis before approving use of any of these potential
sites.
Decisions regarding sites landward of the territorial sea are
subject to the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines found
in EPA regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 230. Dumping-and-capping
contaminated sediments are not per se barred in such waters, but
the 404(b)(l) Guidelines' alternatives analysis tests and
environmental impact criteria must be satisfied.
Combination Alternatives; We believe the combination alternatives
analysis fails to provide the detail necessary to sharply define
and fully evaluate either the practicability or the environmental
impacts of these alternatives as disposal options. In particular,
we believe this discussion presents numerous conclusions about
logistics, cost, and other constraints that are unsupported by the
>H
-------
11
analysis and that the basis for these conclusions need to be more
thoroughly documented in the Final EIS. While these instances are
too numerous to cite, the following example is illustrative.
With regard to Option A3, a land-based alternative, the DEIS states
that "(significant drawbacks include long-term management of three
sites along with attendant costs....and on-site and neighborhood
impacts from constructing the facilities and transporting up to
55,000 truckloads of silt to the sites." (DEIS, p. 3-13). No
analysis is provided, however, of what long-term management entails
and we are thus unable to evaluate whether such a requirement is
preferable over the environmental or other impacts associated with
other disposal options. '
In addition, while on its face, the truck traffic projected seems
potentially significant, no analysis is provided of what the actual
impacts may be (e.g., impact on roadways, disruption of normal
traffic patterns, alternative routes that may have less social and
environmental impacts, air quality impacts).
Finally, while in some instances the DEIS states that alternatives
to truck transport exist (e.g., barging is feasible for Option A3) ,
it does not fully evaluate those alternatives. We believe the
analysis should identify what alternatives to truck transport
exist, such as rail or barge, and what their relative environmental
and social impacts would be.
Beneficial Usest We believe the DEIS provides an insufficient
analysis of the potential beneficial uses of the projected two mcy
of clean, "parent" material and 132,000 cy of rock. Failure to do
this does not meet requirements under NEPA to fully evaluate such
options. Statements such as "Each option assumes that dredged
parent material and rock will be used for beneficial uses to the
maximum extent possible and that these uses will be identified and
expanded throughout the EIR/S process" are inadequate under NEPA
because they ignore requirements to fully disclose potential
impacts, both positive and negative, and fully inform the public
and allow for public input before a decision is finalized.
As the DEIS acknowledges, the significant volume of clean sediment
from the BHNIP provides a rare opportunity to realize beneficial
uses. The DEIS falls far short, however, of what is required under
NEPA to fully examine such options.
Treatment Technologies - While it is evident from the analysis in
the DEIS that treatment technology cannot, at this time, provide a
practical solution to the disposal of the BHNIP's contaminated
dredged material, we believe this project does provide an
opportunity to conduct a demonstration project that may begin to
resolve some of the outstanding issues that such methods as these
present. In particular, the Corps should investigate the use of
-------
12
geotextile bags to isolate the contaminated dredged material;
solidification; and incineration to create construction aggregate.
CEQ regulations define indirect impacts as those effects that are
".... caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed
in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable.11 Indirect
impacts include "—.growth-indueing effects and other effects
related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population
density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and
other natural systems, including ecosystems." (40 CFR, Sec.
1508.8(b))
A cumulative impact is "....the impact on the environment which
results from the incremental impact of the action when added to
other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions
regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person
undertakes such other actions." (40 CFR, Sec. 1508.7)
The DEIS states that the purpose of the BHNIP is to "....increase
navigational efficiency and safety of Boston Harbor for present
types of deep drafted vessels that are currently transiting the
project area." (DEIS, p. 1-2) We believe the analysis also clearly
indicates an underlying project purpose, which is to bring Boston
Harbor up to the future operational standards of a major U.S.
shipping port by dredging beyond maintenance depths to accommodate
the future class of deep-draft, double-hulled tankers. The DEIS in
fact states, "....not dredging the Port may mean not being able to
attract new shipping business. The ability to bring in additional
shipping lines with large container ships and frequent schedules is
important for the future growth of the Port." (DEIS, p. 1-4)
Given this, we believe the DEIS does not adequately identify or
evaluate the indirect and cumulative impacts that will likely
result from the changes in type, volume, and frequency of shipping
traffic. In particular, we believe the EIS should more fully
evaluate the potential impacts to the Port and related
infrastructure (e.g., inland transportation networks that may be
effected, such as rail or trucking; off-loading and storage
facilities) from the potential increase in both volume and
frequency of shipping traffic. This analysis should include the
relationship, if any, between the potential changes in shipping
traffic and the proposed "inland port," which is an already partly
operating venture (on an interim basis) between the Port of Boston
and Fort Devens in Ayer, Massachusetts. (This should include, for
example, whether the change in shipping traffic will stimulate
development at the inland port. If so, this should be identified,
along with potential impacts from induced growth at the inland
port).
-------
13
Further, this analysis should examine the potential impacts to
biological resources, especially endangered species, in
Massachusetts Bay and Boston Harbor from the change in vessel
traffic, as well as the relationship between any increase in vessel
traffic and the likelihood of spills (fuel oil, ect.)-
-------
POLICY AND PROCEDURES
SUMMARY OF RATING DEFINITIONS
AND FOLLOW UP ACTION
Environmental Impact of the Action
LO-Lack of Objections . . . ..,.
The EPA review has not identified any potential environmental impacts recurring substantive changes to me
proposal. The review may have. disclosed opportunities for application of mitigation measures thai could
be accomplished with no more than minor changes to the proposal.
The EPA review las identified environmental impact that should be avoided in order to fully protect the
environment. Corrective measures may require changes to the preferred
mitigation measures that can reduce the environmental impact. EPA would like
to reduce these impacts.
EO-Environmental Objections . . „„„;**
The EPA review has identified significant environmental impacts that must be avoided in order to provide
adequate protection for the environment. Corrective measures may require substantial changes to tne
preferred alternative or consideration of some other project alternative (including the no action alternate
or a new alternative). EPA intends to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts.
EU-Environmentally Unsatisfactory ,«,„,, *,«„*«,
7776 EPA review has identified adverse environmental impacts that are of sufficient magnitude that tney are
unsatisfactory from the standpoint of public health or welfare or environmental quality. EPA intends to WOK
with the lead agency to reduce these impacts. If the potential unsatisfactory impacts are not corrected ai
* final EIS stage, this potential will be recommended for referral to the CEO.
Impact statement
Category 1— Adequate _/
EPA believes that draft EIS adequately sets forth the environmental impact(s)ofthe preferred alternatives ana
those of the alternatives reasonably available to the project or action. No further analysis or data collection
is necessary, but the reviewer may suggest the addition of clarifying language or information.
Category 2-lnsufficient Information .
7776 draft EIS does not contain sufficient information for EPA to full assess environmental impacts tna< snouic
be avoided in order to fully protect the environment, or the EPA reviewer has identified new reasonably
available alternatives that are within the spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which could
reduce the environmental impacts of the action. The identified additional information, data, analyzes or
discussion should be included in the final EIS.
Category 3-lnadequate . . . .
EPA does not believe that the draft EIS adequately assesses potentially significant environmental impacts
of the action, or the EPA reviewer has identified new. reasonably available alternatives that are outside oi
the spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which should be analyzed in order to reduce the
potentially significant environmental impacts. EPA believes that the identified additional information, data,
analyses, or discussion are of such a magnitude that they should have full public review at a draft stage.
EPA does not believe that the draft EIS is adequate for the purpose of the NEPS and or/ Section 309 review^
and thus should be formally revised and made available for public comment in a supplemental or revised
draft EIS. On the basis of the potential significant impacts involved, this proposal could be a candidate for
referral to the CEQ.
IJ1
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION I
J.F. KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING. BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS 02203-2211
September 9, 1993
Colonel Brink Miller
Division Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
New England Division
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA 02254-9149
Re: Boston Harbor Dredging x
Dear Colonel Miller:
In response to our meeting of June 17, 1993, this letter presents in writing EPA's concerns
regarding the federal and non-federal portions of the Boston Harbor dredging project.
To date, our agencies have agreed that 1.8 million cubic yards of native marine clays and
bedrock is suitable for ocean disposal. We have also agreed that 440,000 cubic yards of
surface sediments from Prolerized, Distrigas, Moran, Mystic Piers, North Jetty, Eastern
Minerals, the Mystic River, and the Chelsea River are unsuitable for ocean disposal at the
Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site ("MBDS").
This letter therefore focuses on the remaining 163,200 cubic yards of surface dredged
material (Reserved Channel, 100.000; Army Base Berths, 31,200: Conley Terminals.
23,500; Gulf Oil, 4.900; Boston Edison Barge Berth. 3,600). EPA need's to have reasonable
assurance that disposal of a particular dredged material will not cause a significant
undesirable effect, or else such material cannot be approved for dumping in the ocean in
accordance with the applicable regulations. EPA has assessed the tissue residue data in
accordance with the Green Book bioaccumulation evaluative factors. . Our detailed technical
rationale in light of the regulations, national guidance, and supporting scientific evidence car.
be found in Attachment A. These analyses have raised a number of serious concerns abou:
the suitability of these sediments for ocean disposal at the MBDS under the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act and the federal regulations at 40 CFR §§ 227.6,
227.13, and 227.27. Therefore, given the magnitude of our concerns, EPA recommends that
the Corps focus their efforts on thoroughly exploring alternative methods of disposal for the
sediments in question. EPA remains willing to participate in future meetings and discussions
regarding our analysis or additional information.
As agreed at our meeting of June 17, 1993, representatives of our respective headquarters,
regional, and research offices have met to discuss the areas where our views differ on the
Boston Harbor project. Our understanding of the results of the meeting is as follows: 1) we
agreed that the amphipod mortality data from the Army Base Berths renders those sediments^ *j_:«.
PBINTE: ON BEC»C-I-
-------
unsuitable for ocean disposal at the MBDS; and 2) that we did not reach complete agreement
regarding the bioaccumulation issues. The first item indicates that EPA and the Corps have
now agreed, in effect, that the Army Base Berth sediments cannot be dumped at the MBDS
because of the amphipod toxicity from exposure to them. Although we did not reach total
agreement in interpreting the bioaccumulation data, EPA believes that significant concerns
regarding the data from the other three Massport berthing areas and the Reserved Channel
were raised by a number of EPA and Corps participants. It was evident that a number of
participants believed that a suitability determination could not be made on the existing
bioaccumulation data from the Reserved Channel and retesting should be required if the
ocean disposal option for the surface sediments is still pursued. EPA's summary of this
meeting is included in Attachment B.
As added evidence to support our concerns, EPA .has also estimated effects to human health
from the consumption of seafood from the MBDS feeding on benthos exposed to the four
Massport berthing areas in question. This conservative assessment is consistent with the risk
assessment approach used in several EPA programs. Our preliminary assessment indicates
that disposal of the surface sediments from the Army Base Berths. Conley Terminals, Gulf
Oil. and the Boston Edison Barge Berth could pose unacceptable cancer risks to human
health. This information indicated another reason to be concerned regarding the suitability
for ocean dumping. An explanation of our risk assessment can be found in Attachment C.
We understand that the COE is currently preparing an Environmental Impact
Report/Environmental Impact Statement ("EIR/EIS") in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act for the Boston Harbor dredging project. EPA recognizes thai
determining suitability of dredged material for ocean dumping is relevant to the EIS/EIR's
evaluation of reasonable disposal alternatives for the dredged material. EPA has beer,
actively working with the COE during the preparation of the EIS/EIR. as part of an
interagency workgroup, to help identify potential disposal options to be examined in the
EIS/EIR. It is apparent through our participation on the workgroup that alternatives other
than disposal at the MBDS may be viable. We look forward to the opportunity to reviev.
and comment on the full analysis in the EIS/EIR once complete.
In summary, EPA and the COE have agreed that the surface sediments from the Army Base
Berths are unsuitable for ocean dumping at the MBDS. EPA also believes that a significant
number of concerns regarding -Gulf Oil, Conley Terminals, and the Boston Edison Barge
Berth have been raised to recommend that alternatives for disposal - other than ocean
dumping at the MBDS - should be investigated. If ocean dumping is pursued for the surface
sediments of the federal portion of the Reserved Channel, EPA believes that the sediments
need to be further characterized. In particular, we believe that additional bioaccumulation
testing is needed.
At the meeting between EPA and the COE in Portland, Oregon, the COE's Waterways
Experiment Station offered to host an additional meeting among our agency experts to further
discuss interpretation of the Massport and Reserved Channel data. We are prepared to meet
with you and look forward to coordinating with you on this project and to attaining a
-------
mutually' acceptable solution to the disposal issue. Please do not hesitate to contact
Kymberlee Keckler of my staff at (617) 565-4432 should you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Paul G. Keough. Acting
Regional Administrator
Attachments
cc: Thomas Fredette. USACOE, Waltham. MA
John Catena. NMFS. Gloucester, MA
Vern Lang.' USFWS. Concord, NH
Judith Pederson. MCZM, Boston, MA
-------
REFERENCES
Biddinger, G.R., and Gloss, S.P. 1984. The importance of trophic transfer in the
bioaccumulation of chemical contaminants in aquatic ecosystems. Residue Rev.
91:104-130.
Clarke, Joan. Alfreda Gibson and Robert Engler. March 1987. Regulatory Identification of
Hydrocarbon Contaminants in Dredged Material. Environmental Effects of Dredgir.g.
Technical Notes. U.S. Army Ensineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburs,
MS.
Dexter, Robert and Jay Field. September 1989. A Discussion of Sediment PCB Target
Levels for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms. Seattle, WA.
Field, L. Jay and Robert N. Dexter. January 1988. A Discussion of PCB Target Levels in
Aquatic Sediments. Seattle. WA.
Kay, S.H. 1984. Potential for biomagnification of contaminants within marine and freshwater
food webs. Tech. Rep. D-84-7, U.S. Army Ensineer Waterways Experiment Station.
Vicksburg, MS.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). September 1989. Assessing Human
Health Risks from Chemically Contaminated Fish and Shellfish: A Guidance Manual.
U.S. EPA Office of Marine and Estuarine^Protection, Office of Water Regulations
and Standards. Washington. DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. September 1989. Guidance Manual: Bedded
Sediment Bioaccumulation Tests. Newport. OR.
U.S. Environmental Protection Asencv and U.S. Arrnv Corps of Ensineers. February 1991.
» * « I W *
Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal (Testing Manual).
Washington. DC.
-------
ATTACHMENT A
-------
A. ANALYSIS OF MASSPORT BERTHING AREAS
I. Summary of the Biological Testing
Eight of the Massport berthing areas were subjected to the biological tests prescribed in the
national and regional testing protocols. Of the original eighteen, three were already
determined to be unsuitable for ocean disposal without further testing (Prolerized, Distrigas,
and Revere Sugar), five no longer pursued ocean disposal as an alternative (BMIP Piers"s &.
6, Boston Edison Intake, MBTA Power Plant. East Boston Pier 3, and East Boston Pier 5).
and two groups of wo berthing areas were combined for one test (Conley Terminal Berths
11 to 13 was composited with Conley Terminal Berths 14 & 15; Boston Army Base Berths 1
to 3 were composited with Boston Army Base Berths 4 to 9). These sediments were assessed
for their potential to cause toxicity, either mortality or bioaccumulation, if disposed at the
MBDS.
All of the berthing areas exhibited at least 90 % survival in both the clams and the worms-.
All of the berthing areas exhibited statistically significant differences between the dredged
material and the reference material for the.amphipod bioassay. Mystic Piers, Moran
Terminals, North Jetty. Eastern Minerals, and the Army Base Berths all exhibited greater
than 20% mortality over the reference sediment in the amphipod, Ampelisca abdita,
stipulated in both the national and regional testing protocols. Gulf Oil, Conley, and the
Boston Edison Barge Berth did not exhibit greater than 20 % mortality over the reference
sediment in the amphipod.
All of the test sediments exhibited statistically significant bioaccumulanon over reference of
either metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons ("PAHs"), or polychlorinated biphenyls
("PCBs") (varying degrees of each) in either the clam, Macoma nasuta, or the polych'aete
worm. Nereis virens. Seven of the sixteen PAHs tested were carcinogenic (prohibited from
ocean disposal in other than trace amounts per 40 CFR § 227.6(a)(5)).
II. Detailed Description of the Bioaccumulation Assessment
EPA evaluated the biological test data from the Massport project in light of the eight factors
listed in the Green Book (EPA/COE, 1991) in order to evaluate compliance with the
Limiting Permissible Concentration- (40 CFR Pan 227) criteria regarding acceptability for
ocean disposal. The eight factors are listed on page 6-6 of the Green Book and summarized
below. A brief description of how this factor was used in making a determination regarding
acceptability for ocean disposal of the four berthing areas in question (Gulf Oil, Army Bases.
Conley terminals, Boston Edison Barge Berth) follows each of the factors.
• Number and the phylogenetic diversify of the species in which bioaccumulation from
dredged material is statistically greater than bioaccumulation from the reference material
Berthing areas that exhibited bioaccumulation in both the clams and the worms were
of greater concern (e.g., Gulf Oil, Army Base Berths, and the Boston Edison Barge
Berth).
-------
• Toxicological importance of and the number of contaminants for'which bioaccumulation
from dredged material is statistically greater than bioaccumulation from the reference
material
All of the berthing areas exhibited statistically significant bioaccumulation of at least
five chemicals in at least one species. " -
Contaminants prohibited in other than trace amounts (e.g., cadmium, mercurv
organohalogens, carcinogens, oil) were also assessed (40 CFR § 227.6). All'four of
these berthing areas were contaminated with carcinogenic compounds and
contaminants that are likely to bioaccumulate (and persist) in the marine environment
Gult Oil, the Army Bases, and the Boston Edison Barge Berth exhibited
bioaccumulation of mercury in the.ivorms. Conley Terminals exhibited
bioaccumulation of mercury in the clams. Cadmium was not detected in the test
organisms from any berth. PCBs were detected in the clams from Gulf Oil and the
Army Berths and in both clams and worms in the Boston Edison Barge Berth.
The levels of PCBs in the tissues of both the clam and the worm indicate the poterr.iai
lor chronic effects in fish feeding on the benthos. Adverse effects from PCS
exposure were exhibited at residue levels as low as 0.1 mH/ks (Field, et aL, 1988).
These effects included egg mortality and reproductive failure." Based'upon a food '
chain multiplier approach developed by EPA's Duluth laboratory, tissue residues in
demersal fish are projected to be three-fold higher than in the benthos. Assuming that
steady-state PCB residues in the clam and worm were not underestimated in the 28-
day test, the PCB bioaccumulation data (clams exposed to sediments from Gulf Oil
Army Base Berths, and Conley; and both clams and worms from the Boston Edison
Barge Berth) suggest that fish feeding off the benthos exposed to rhese sediments
could experience chronic effects from PCB residues alone.
• Propensity for the contaminants with statistical^ significant bioaccumulation to biomasnir.-
within aquatic food webs " "
Sediments exhibiting the presence jjf PCBs.. chlorinated pesticides, or methyl mercurv
were considered to have the potential to biomagnify (Biddinger and Gloss. *1984; Kay.
1984). Chlorinated pesticides were not detected in the sediments, and therefore'not"
measured in the tissues. Mercury was measured as total mercury, and as discussed
above, was detected in the worms from Gulf Oil, the Army Bases, -and the Boston
Edison Barge Berth; and clams from Conley Terminals. PCBs were detected in the
. clams from Gulf Oil and the Army Berths and in both clams and worms in the Bosto-
Edison Barge Berth.
• Magnitude by which bioaccumulation from the dredged material exceeds bioaccumulation
from the reference material
All of the levels of individual PAH compounds in the tissues were below 80
pans per billion ("ppb") and were less than an order of magnitude higher that
the detection limits achieved (20 ppb). Because the concentrations of each of
the PAHs in the reference material was less than the detection limit, the
magnitude of the bioaccumulation over reference was difficult to judse. EPA
-------
considered "statistical significance of effects at the 95 percent confidence
level" (40 CFR §227.6(c)) between the detection limit and the concentration
detected in the dredged material to indicate a level of concern. EPA believes
that the levels of PAHs in the sediments could exert adverse ecological-impacts
during long-term exposures or through interactions with other classes, of -
contaminants.
• Magnitude oftoxicity and number and phylogenetic diversity of species exhibiting greater
mortality in the dredged material than in the reference material
All of the berthing areas exhibited statistically significant differences between the
dredged material and the reference material for the amphipod (Ampeiisca abdita)
bioassay. The Army Base Berths exhibited greater than 20% mortality over the
reference sediment in the amphipod, stipulated in both the national and regional
testing protocols. Gulf Oil, Conley, and the Boston Edison Barge Berth did not
exhibit greater than 20% mortality over the reference sediment in the amphipod.
• Magnitude by which contaminants whose bioaccumulation from the dredged material
exceeds that from the reference material also exceed the concentrations found in comparable
species living in the vicinity of the proposed disposal site
Data from organisms in the vicinity of the MBDS that are similar to those
organisms used-in the bioaccumulation tests are not available. As a result, this
factor was not able to be considered in the analysis.
HE. Data Discrepancies
Sediment chemical concentrations were remeasured in the sediments used for the biological
tests to determine if the chemical concentrations were consistent with those detected during
Tier II. We note that the PAH concentrations from the Conley Terminals and the PCB
. concentrations from the Boston Edison Barge Berth were below the original range measured
during the Tier II. Since PAHs and PCBs were major "contaminants of concern", EPA
questions whether the bioaccumulation tests from Conley Terminals and the Boston Edison
Barge Berth areas accurately represent the sediment quality and its potential to cause toxicity.
including bioaccumulation, in the organisms present in the environs of the MBDS. EPA is
aware that the statistical analysis performed by Wade Research, Inc. indicated that the
sediments used for the Conley Terminal bioaccumulaiion test were representative of the
sediments measured during Tier II. EPA's environmental research laboratory in
Narragansett, RI has reviewed this analysis and believes that the statistical methods used are
not appropriate. Given the substantial variability In Boston Harbor sediments, this
information heightens EPA's concern regarding disposal of these sediments.
IV. Summary
EPA and the COE have agreed that the surface sediments from the Army Base Berths are
unsuitable for ocean dumping at the MBDS. EPA also believes that a substantial number of
concerns regarding Gulf Oil, Conley Terminals, and the Boston Edison Barge Berth have
£•(,
-------
been raised to recommend that alternatives for disposal - other than ocean dumping at the
MBDS - should be investigated. c
B. ANALYSIS OF FEDERAL RESERVED CHANNEL
EPA provided letters to the Corps regarding EPA's suitability determination and testins
recommendations for ocean disposal of the Reserved Channel sediments on June 1~> 1991
August 4, 1992, and May 27, 1993.
I. Toxicity Assessment
EPA believes that the original (1990) amphipod tests conducted for the Reserved Channel
which indicated statistically significant differences from the reference sediment and greater
than 20% mortality than in the reference sediment may be considered questionable because of
the extended holding time of the sediments (John Scott, personal communication). Based on
the results of two subsequent tests on sediments near the same site. EPA concurs that the
whole sediment toxicity requirements meet the LPC for this pan of the project.
II. Bioaccumulation Assessment
EPA has stated that the detection limits'achieved "for PAHs were much higher than those
jointly recommended by EPA and the COE in the regional testing protocol. Since these
detection limits were at concentrations several orders of magnitude over those jointly
recommended by EPA and the COE? it is possible that any bioaccumulation could have beer.
concealed. As a result, EPA believes that the sediments from the Reserved Channel are
inadequately characterized. Dredged material that is insufficiently described cannot be
approved for ocean dumping under any circumstances per 40 CFR § 227.5(c). Until ne-.v
bioaccumulation testing is conducted, EPA cannot make a determination regarding
acceptability for ocean dumping.
-------
ATTACHMENT B
-------
SUMMARY OF JUNE 23, 1993 MEETING
REGARDING BOSTON HARBOR
PORTLAND, OREGON
EPA and the Corps met at the national ocean disposal coordinator's meeting in Portland,
Oregon to discuss the federal and non-federal portions of the Boston Harbor dredeinE
project. The list of attendees included: EPA HQ (Craig Vogt, John Lishman. Dave=
Redford, Catherine Crane, Tom Chase); EPA Region I (Dave Tomey, Kymberlee Keckler):
EPA's national ocean dumping expert from Region III (Bill Muir); E'PA ORD (Norm
Rubinstein)] Corps HQ (Joe Wilson, Dave Mathis); Corps NED (Tom Fredette); and Corps
WES (Tom Wright, Bob Engler, Tom Dillon). Keckier provided copies of .the data.
The discussion started with agency interpretation of toxicity data. Fredette stated that the
Green book does not provide clear guidance when there is toxicity in only one of three
species tested (i.e., toxicity in the amphipod, but no toxicity in the clam or worm). Keckler
stated that the clams and worms were appropriate species for bioaccumulation, but not
toxicity. Therefore, toxicity exhibited in one species, the amphipod. is sufficient information
to declare the material unsuitable for ocean dumping. Wright and Engler concurred with
Keckler for the toxicity data from the Army Base Berths. Wright stated that the new 404
inland manual does not list the clam and worm as toxicity organisms because we have
learned something since the Green book was published. Interpretation of toxicity data in this
manner enabled EPA and the Corps to declare the Army Base Berths unsuitable for ocean
dumping. Wright, Engler, and Redford all agreed that the Green book should be revised to
reflect this.
Regarding bioaccumulation, Keckler stated that her interpretation of the ocean dumping
regulations was that if there is not 'sufficient information to provide reasonable assurance that
disposal of the material will not cause an adverse effect, it cannot be disposed. Rubinstein
and Dillon stated that there is not much information concerning what level of contaminants in
the tissues elicits an effect in an organism. Most people agreed that there is a need for 1) a
manual to use in interpreting the results and 2) more research on tissue residues.
Rubinstein read from a memo by Henry Lee of EPA ORD in Newport. Oregon that showed
the levels of PCBs in the tissues from several berths are projected to cause reproductive
impairment in fish. Adverse effects from PCB exposure were exhibited at residue levels as
low as 0.1 mg/kg (Field, et al., 1988). The likely effect would be reduced egg survival or
similar reproductive impairment. The clam bioaccumulation data from Gulf Oil, Army Base
Berths and Conley Terminals, and the clam and worm bioaccumulation data from the Boston
Edison Barge Berths suggest that fish feeding off the benthos exposed to these sediments
could experience chronic effects from PCB residues alone. Rubinstein further explained that
a food chain multiplier approach developed by EPA's Duluth laboratory was applied to the
bioaccumulation data. Specifically, tissue residues in demersal fish are projected to be three-
fold higher than in the benthos. These projections could be underestimated if steady-state
PCB residues in the clam and worm were underestimated in the 28-day test.
-------
Muir and Keckler explained that, using the 8 factors in the Green book guidance for
interpreting bioaccumulation data, a series of concerns (e.g., uptake of several contaminants.
uptake of toxicologically important chemicals, uptake in both species in all berths except
Conley, etc.) about the test results could lead to the conclusion that we should not. allow the
surface dredged material from Gulf Oil, Army Base Berths, Conley Terminals, and the
Boston Edison Barge Berths to be disposed in the ocean.
Keckler explained that the Reserved Channel was determined to be unsuitable for ocean
dumping because of 1) toxicity in one test and 2) the very high detection limits for PAHs in
the tissue measurements could have concealed any bioaccumulation. Muir stated that these
_ high detection limits renders the Reserved Channel sediments to be inadequately
characterized, which prohibits them from ocean disposal per 40 CFR § 227. 5(c).
Keckler indicated that a quick calculation of human health risk assessment showed that ail of
the sediments could pose a cancer risk to human health.
Joe Wilson from Corps HQ stated that EPA's position regarding dredged material suitability
for ocean dumping prevails and that the Corps should not be proponents of dredging projects,
only administrators of the program. Keckler explained that Region I is in the process of
evaluating alternatives and that alternatives (other than ocean dumping) for this material may
exist. Keckler also explained that Stellwagen Bank has been recently designated as a
National Marine Sanctuary and that conditions of only clean dredged material disposal have
been placed on the MBDS designation. EPA's actions on this project will therefore be
closely watched.
Monte Greges from the Corps NY District stated very strongly that the New England
Division should be looking for alternatives for all of the material first, and only seek ocean
disposal if there are no other alternatives. Greges did not see the need for EPA to write its
letter regarding suitability until the Boston Harbor EIS is out. Keckler stated that the
regulations also direct proponents of ocean dumping to evaluate alternatives to ocean
dumping first.
There was insufficient time to continue. discussions regarding both the EPA, Region I and the
Corps NED approaches. Bob Engler from WES stated that WES's review had only beer, a
"cursory" one. Engler offered to pay travel to reconvene the group after everyone has had a
chance to evaluate the data in detail.
-------
ATTACHMENT C
-------
INCREASED CANCER RISKS TO HUMAN HEALTH FROM THE
CONSUMPTION OF CONTAMINATED SEAFOOD
FROM MBDS IF MASSPORT SEDIMENTS ARE DUMPED
Risk assessments are typically used to help make regulatory risk management
decisions concerning the appropriate course of action to protect human health from exposure
to toxic substances. In a risk assessment, the chemicals of concern are identified, the rate of
exposure to populations of concern are estimated, the potential toxicological responses to
various doses of the chemicals are determined, and the potential risks of adverse health
effects_ based on .dose-response data- and exposure data are estimated. The resulting numbers
represent a potential upper-bound likelihood of adverse health effects.
Cancer risks are expressed in terms of predicted additional cases of cancer in an
exposed population over a lifetime. For example, 2.7 additional cancer cases in 100,000
individuals would be expressed as 2.7 x 10"5. Various EPA regulatory programs define
acceptable risk differently, with levels of acceptable risk ransins from a level of risk of 1 in
10,000 (10-*) to 1 in 1,000.000
The risk assessment procedure for seafood consumption consists of determining the
dose of a chemical that a human would be exposed to during a lifetime, based oh a certain
consumption rate of seafood with observed tissue levels, and predicting the likelihood of
adverse health effects from this dose, based on EPA toxicity values. EPA developed
guidelines for performing risk assessments and issued a guidance manual entitled Assessing
Human Health Risks from Chemically Contaminated Fish and Shellfish (USEPA, 1989).
EPA evaluated potential human health risks associated with consumption of seafood harvested
from the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site ("MBDS") as pan of its review of the Massport
bioaccumulation data using this methodology. EPA used the 28-day bioaccumulation data
from Conley Terminals, Army Base Berths, Gulf Oil, and the Boston Edison Barge Berth in
its risk assessment calculations. EPA is concerned that disposal of surface dredged material
at the MBDS could pose unacceptable cancer risks to public health. EPA also estimated the
potential for effects other than cancer and-did not. identify any non-cancer risks. The
methods and results of EPA' s. health risk assessment are discussed below.
Fish may accumulate toxic chemicals in their tissues through several routes of
exposure to contaminants, including absorption through the water column, sediment contact.
or by consumption of contaminated prey. Since EPA only had data for clams and worms
exposed to the dredged material, EPA estimated what the tissue concentrations in fish would
be if they were to feed on clams and worms exposed to Massport sediments. EPA assumed
that polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons ("PAHs") would be accumulated in fish to the same
level achieved in clams and worms and polychlorinated biphenyls ("PCBs") would be
accumulated to a higher level (Kay, 1984). EPA assumed that the benthos are a trophic level
of 2 and a demersal fish feeding on them would have a trophic level of 3. Based on a food
chain multiplier approach developed by EPA's Duluth laboratory, tissue residues in trophic:
step trophic level 3 are projected to be three-fold higher than in trophic level 2 for a
compound with an octanol- water partitioning coefficient of 6 (estimate for PCBs). EPA
-------
therefore multiplied the PCB concentration in the clam and worm tissue by 3 in order to
estimate the PCB tissue concentration in fish feeding on them.
EPA assumed that the tissue residues measured in the 28-day test were representative
of steady-state conditions. It is possible that the levels of contaminants in the test" organisms
would be higher if the exposure period was longer. This would tend to underestimate the
risks calculations.
Average values for fish and shellfish consumption for the U.S. population generally
range from 6.5 to 20.4 g/day (USEPA, 1989). Estimates of potential risks were made for
the average New England consumer for each species. For this risk assessment, EPA used
the. lower bound consumption rate of 6.5 grams per day of seafood harvested from the
MBDS. Although 6.5 grams per day may be high for consumption of seafood from the
MBDS, EPA found that even incidental exposure to MBDS seafood could pose unacceptable
health risks if Massport sediments were to.be disposed. EPA found that ineestion of seafood
at a consumption rate as low as 0.014 grams per day, or approximately one meal in 29
years, could result in a 1 x 10'6 cancer risk. •
Benzo(a)pyrene is the only PAH compound that currently has a carcinogenic potency
factor affiliated with it. EPA recognizes that the other six carcinogenic PAHs^lso pose a
risk of developing cancer. However, since these compounds do not currently have a
carcinogenic potency factor associated with them, EPA applied the carcinogenicity potency
factor for benzo(a)pyrene, the most potent PAH compound, to the total of toe seven
carcinogenic PAHs measured. This methodology is consistent with current EPA policy.
EPA's cancer risk estimates from both benzo(a)pyrene alone and the sum of the seven'
carcinogenic PAHs are presented in Table 1.
EPA's calculations for cancer risk indicate that the risk associated with the
consumption of seafood harvested from the MBDS if Massport sediments were to be disposed
exceeds values within the acceptable range. The results of the cancer risk estimates are
presented in Table 1. The standard assumptions that were made include: i) exposure over a
70 year lifetime, ii) average human body weight of 70 kilograms, and iii) 100% of all of the
chemicals ingested are absorbed. The increased cancer risks calculated ranged from 1.4 x
10*5 to 4.6 x 10"4. These risk estimates indicate that consumption of seafood harvested from
the MBDS if Massport sediments were to-be disposed could pose unacceptable cancer risks.
Unacceptable non-cancer risks from eating seafood harvested at the MBDS were not
detected.
-------
EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS
Increased Cancer Risk = Dose x Cancer Potency Factor
Dose = [Tissue concentration x Consumption Rate]/Average Body Weight
Example for carcinogenic PAHs in worms from the Coniey Terminals:
= (0.144 mg/kg)(6.5 g/day)(7.3 kg/mg-day)/(70 kg)(1000 g/kg)
__ f 9.8 x 1Q± - - ' ' - "
Example for PCBs in clams from the Army Base Berths:
= (0.052 mg/kg)(3)(6.5 g/day)(7.7 kg/mg-day)/(70 kg)(1000 g/kg;
= 1.1 x 10J
-------
c/;
I
i
z
r-
b:'
c/:
U
vt
C
r~i
S
H s
r-1 ^J
5T ""^
ec S
c^ <
w: Z
^ c
~ Si
< «=
U r-
IS
a
ea
i
3
C j=
«; t:
<§£
V
I
?
C
v;
C
I
X
VC
cc
X
C
C
x
T
X
oc
0
X
c
X
cK
X
r-i
r-'
X
rr
x
•^C
x
tN
•T
C
X
fN
O
x
X
oo
SJ
E S
fi£ CU,
"
-
-------
F2-1
Additional investigations on biological resources at all the potential disposal
sites were undertaken in fall 1994. This information was reported in separate technical
documents and summarized in Attachment 1 of the FEIR/S. These data were used to
reevaluate the selection of the proposed preferred alternative site for the disposal of silt
from the BHNIP.
F2-2
Section 5 of the FEIR/S describes proposed means to mitigate for impacts of
the dredging and disposal of silt from the BHNIP. This presentation includes methods
to avoid and minimize potential impacts and suggests possible compensatory mitigation
for unavoidable adverse impacts. Many of the techniques and guidelines for avoiding
and minimizing impacts are specified ha the Dredge Management Plan (Section 5 of
the FEIR/S) and will become part of the dredging contract specifications.
,F2-3
For the purposes of identifying sufficient disposal site capacity for the surface
material (silt) to be dredged from Boston Harbor, the DEIR/S considered all silt to be
unsuitable for unconfined open water disposal. This interpretation is carried through
into the FEIR/S.
F2-4
The FEIR/S does not select the MBDS or BLS for disposal of the silt to be
dredged for the BHNIP, therefore, capping is not an issue at these sites.
F2-5
As indicated hi response to comment F2-1, additional biological investigations
were conducted in the In-channel locations in the fall of 1994. These studies were
used hi the reevaluation of the site selection process for the FEIR/S.
F2-6
The site selection process has been reevaluated in the FEIR/S (Section 4.0) to
separate the issues of "environmental damage" and "practicability" more clearly. In
other words, the least environmentally damaging alternative(s) have been identified
based on spatial and temporal impacts (nearfield and farfield) and risk of failure to
isolate the contaminated sediments permanently prior to evaluating practicability.
12
(el
-------
Practicability includes capacity, cost, amount of structural engineering required, and
ability to permit within the desired timeframe of the proposed project. Alternatives
were screened based on both environmental and practicability criteria.
F2-7
Except for a few potential technologies, such as geotextile containers, few can
accommodate the large volume of dredged material removed from the harbor and at a
cost that is practicable. The Corps and Massport will consider accommodating new
demonstration projects (Section 2.0), where authorized and feasible. However, the
Clean Water Act 404 (b) (1) guidelines do not encourage the filling of the aquatic
environment for recreational opportunities.
F2-8
Massport and the ACOE are committed to making dredged materials available
for beneficial uses if economically feasible and practical to do so. As stated hi Section
3.5 of the FEIR/S, potential commercial uses for the uncontaminated clay, gravel and
rock material have been considered as alternative beneficial uses. The clay material
could be utilized for landfill cover material while the gravel and rock material could
be used for construction aggregate or fill. The major limitation to committing to a
specific beneficial use disposal options at this time is the varying market demand for
these materials. The local demand for clay, gravel and rock for construction purposes
and landfill cover may be partially satisfied by the generation of such materials form
the CA/T project which are expected to be available concurrently. The BHNIP FEIS
explores the options of making clay available to landfills beyond the expected CA/T
delivery range. The options for use of construction aggregate are also discussed hi
greater detail.
A portion of the rock will be used to enhance areas susceptible to erosion from
ship turning in the navigation channels. The remaining rock will be used for fish
enhancement habitat at the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (MBDS).
F2-9
Dredging of the silts vs. dredging of the parent material will be distinct
operations. During the silt dredging operations, a small amount of parent material will
be removed due to overdredging. The consistencies of the two materials are visually
and mechanically distinguishable. The dredge operator will sense by resistance to the
bucket "bite" and to bucket closure the location of the sediment interface. Coincidental
hydrographic surveys will verify digging depth and location to enable comparison with
geotechnical records. When the operator experience and survey data indicate that the
parent level has been reached, the dredging equipment will be changed. The silt from
13
-------
an entire designated area or cell will be completely removed before the parent material
equipment will be utilized.
F2-10
Trash and unknown materials such as drums will be handled and controlled in
accordance with the contingency operations described in Section 5.8.2.2, Trash and
Debris Management, of the FEIR/S.
F2-11
All techniques to minimize fish mortality due to the proposed blasting opera-
tions have and will be considered. As noted in Section 5.0 of the FEIR/S, seasonal;
restrictions on blasting will be observed. Other mitigation procedures will include
employing fish "startle" devices.
F2-12
General concepts for compensatory mitigation are discussed hi Section 6.0 of
the FEIR/S. Detailed plans for compensatory mitigation will be developed during the
permitting phase of the BHNIP and will involve close coordination with the appropri-
ate agencies.
F2-13
See response to comment F2-3. Material from Reserved Channel and the berth
areas (Army Base, Conley Terminal, Boston Edison, and Gulf Oil) are considered
sufficiently characterized and suitable for unconfined open water disposal by the
Corps. This statement has been corrected hi the Final EIR/S.
F2-14
As indicated in responses to comments F2-1 and F2-6, additional studies have
been conducted to aid in the revaluation of the potential disposal sites. The process
of selecting the least environmentally damaging alternative has been more clearly
distinguished from the process of identifying practicable alternatives in the FEIR/S
than the DEIR/S. The possibility of using multiple sites to attain the needed capacity
has not been excluded in the analysis of environmental impacts.
14
-------
F2-15
The revised alternatives analysis separates the evaluation of environmental
impacts and practicability criteria (Section 4). Therefore, the sites are compared on
the basis of their environmental effects without regard to capacity, allowing the
identification of the "least environmentally damaging alternatives" for the disposal of
contaminated silts hi general. Capacity is considered to be a practicability criterion.
F2-16
Subsequent to publication of the DEIR/S, the Corps reevaluated the capacity of
the In-channel options. They determined that by expanding the footprint (while still
remaining within the boundaries of the federal channels) and increasing the depth, the
capacity of the in-channel alternative is substantially higher than originally thought.
The In-channel alternative assessed in the FEIR/S represents the larger design.
Unnumbered Comment
17. page 9, 3rd para., last sentence - This sentence has been clarified. If a
capping demonstration could prove the efficacy of capping then the entire 1.3 million
c.y. of silt could be disposed at MBDS. Since tune for a demonstration project is not
available for the improvement dredging, disposal at the MBDS is not viable.
Unnumbered Comment
18. page 9, last para. - Studies conducted by SAIC have indicated the efficacy
of capping at the Portland Disposal Site. These studies are available for review.
F2-17
The Corps and Massport are and have been very much aware of public and
agency concerns regarding capping at the MBDS. MBDS was not considered for silt
disposal for the BHNIP hi the FEIR/S. Capping at the preferred disposal site is
discussed in Section 5.0.
F2-18
See response to Comments F2-4 and F2-17. Should BLS become a selected
option the BHNIP will coordinate with EPA regarding the proported drums of
industrial and radioactive waste at this site. Disposal of dredged material at this site to
cover these drums may benefit the environment of this area. The EPA should play an
active role hi researching the locations and environmental status of any hazardous
15
Iff
-------
materials at the BLS to determine whether it would be best to leave as is, remove, or
cover hi place.
NED believes that a site designation process is not necessary if there is not an
U.S. EPA designated disposal site in the area. Since MBDS is not currently available
for the disposal of unsuitable material, no site designation requirement is necessary, as
long as the site meets MPRSA requirements (40 CFR 228.4 (e)(2).
F2-19
The Corps is investigating the use of clean silty material from another dredging
project to demonstrate capping at the MBDS. This and other demonstration opportuni-
ties depend on the availability of suitable project material, authority and funding for
monitoring.
F2-20
The manager of the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary received a
copy of the Draft EIR/S. His comments were incorporated into a NOAA response.
F2-21
A draft biological assessment has been submitted to the National Marine
Fisheries Service for review. As a capping demonstration project can not performed in
time for the improvement dredging project, the biological assessment will drop the
capping alternative at the MBDS.
F2-22
As a capping demonstration project cannot be performed in tune for the
navigation improvement project, this alternative will dropped for the silt material. A
capping demonstration project may go forward to address questions for future mainte-
nance of the navigation channels. At that time, appropriate agencies will be brought
forward to discuss the parameters of a demonstration project.
F2-23
The disposal site alternatives analysis thoroughly evaluates environmental
impacts of all sites.
16
-------
F2-24
In the DEIR/S, the impacts and practicability of using individual disposal sites
was discussed. The discussion of combination alternatives was based on the premise
that the impacts and practicability of using a site would be the same whether the site
was used by itself or in combination with one or more other sites.
F2-25
Impacts and practicability of using land-based disposal sites (Option A3) were
Devaluated in the FEIR/S (Section 4.0).
F2-26
If the entire quantity of dredged material was allowed to air dry in cells, then
approximately 30 truck trips per day for 275 weeks or over 5 years (5 days a week 8-5
daytime hours, 3750 cycles/day) would be required to dispose of the silty material at
an upland site. Additional noise, congestion and ah- quality impacts would be experi-
enced with land based disposal. Coordination with local communities to minimise
truck traffic impact on local traffic would occur if a land based disposal site were
selected as the preferred disposal site.
Disposal sites with possible barge access are described in the draft and final
EIR/S. The only upland site with barge access would be Squatum Point; a channel
would need to be dredged to provide this access. Impacts from barge access are also
described.
F2-27
See response to comment F2-8.
F2-28
The Corps may investigate the use of geotextile bags at other projects for
dredged material. Coordination with appropriate agencies would occur, as appropriate.
F2-29
The statement of project purpose is partially correct, in that future vessels will
require deeper drafts. However, numerous port users have indicated that existing
channel clearances are insufficient for their efficient operations. Letters from numer-
ous port users stating difficulties they have experienced waiting for tides to gain access
17
-------
to the inner harbor are included in this volume (see letters under the Commercial
category). Therefore, it is more correctly stated that the purpose of the improvement
dredging in Boston Harbor is to bring the facilities up to current competitive standards.
The purpose of the project is restated in Section of the FEIR/S.
F2-30
EPA suggests that dredging could have far-reaching implications for port
terminals and for inland transportation because of the change in the type, frequency
and volume of traffic calling on the Port of Boston.
In 1994, 53% of containers arrived in the Port of Boston by container vessels
calling on the Port directly, while 40% arrived via barges from New York, and 7% by
trucks over land. At present, most of the container ships arriving in the Port of Boston
are either light-loaded or enter the harbor on the high tide due to the insufficient
depths in the navigation channel and at berths. The BHNIP will enable the existing
container ships to operate regardless of tide conditions. This should facilitate schedul-
ing and make the Port of Boston more attractive to shipping lines.
With regard to type of traffic, the harbor dredging might increase the percent-
age of containers traveling on container ships to the Port of Boston compared to that
coming by barge from New York. But the number of vessels bringing cargo is low
enough so the shift in type would hardly be perceptible. At the present tune, three
overseas container vessels call on the Port of Boston weekly. In addition, a barge
service calls twice a week from New York.
As for frequency of vessel calls, if the container trade remains more or less
stable, showing no significant growth after the dredging is completed, fewer direct
calls by large, fully loaded vessels would suffice to deliver the same amount of cargo.
If there is a steady 3% or more growth in the amount of containerized cargo moving
through the Port of Boston, there could be an increase hi container ships arriving in
the Port, but this increase is unlikely to trigger more than one or two additional
container ship calls per week. Therefore, the BHNIP will not significantly alter the
type of vessel, the number or the frequency of calls in the Port of Boston.
As for the transport of petroleum products, the BHNIP will enable the existing
fleet of Chelsea-class tankers to transit the Harbor more safely. Currently, these
tankers must frequently wait for tidal navigation. This poses special problems hi
winter months when the daylight hours, which are useful for navigating the bends hi
the waterway, are short. However, double-hulled tankers have recently been mandated
for new tankers carrying petroleum. The new tankers will have the carrying capacity
of the old tankers, but will draw more than the standard tankers because of the double-
hull and will be wider. These tankers, as stated hi the response to F2-29, will not be
able to call at the existing facilities upstream of the Harbor tunnels. Lightering is
unlikely to be eliminated even with the BHNIP because of the double-hull requirement
and because the demand for petroleum products in the region continues to grow.
18
-------
The BHNIP will not dramatically change operations in the Port of Boston.
Vessel traffic will continue to include a mix of large container ships, barges and
tankers. The volume of cargo will not change sigiiificantly as a result of dredging sine
cargo volume depends on more than channel depth. The Massachusetts Port Authority
(Massport) has been continuously upgrading its container handling facilities to provide
"state of the art" off-loading and storage at Moran and Conley Terminals. Therefore,
dredging need not trigger landside improvements at Moran and Conley Terminals.
Inland transportation improvements have long been the subject of planning and
investment. The Seaport Access System, which is part of the Central Artery/Tunnel
Project will result hi more direct and convenient connections for trucks between port
terminals and the regional highway network. At the same time, through State and
Massport effort, infrastructure changes to accommodate double-stacked trains are being
promoted. This latter effort is separate from the dredging project. It is designed to
encourage shippers to use the Port of Boston.
EPA asks if the proposed dredging will result in the expansion of the "inland
port" facility at Fort Devens, thereby causing environmental impacts in the surrounding
communities. In short, no. Expansion at "Port Devens" will be more a function of the
success of the referenced effort to accommodate "double-stacked" trains.
In 1994, only 3% of all containers handled in the Port of Boston were moved
by rail. Of those containers, less than one third moved by rail between Moran
Terminal and Ayer or beyond, with the rest going between Conley Terminal and
inland destinations via Conrail. The containers going through he "inland port" facility
represented only 1% of the total container trade in the Port of Boston. It is unlikely
that this situation will change with the dredging of the harbor. The rail route via Ayer
is convenient for export cargo from New England and Canada, which represents only a
small portion of the total cargo handled by the Port.
Boston's imports substantially exceed the export cargo reflecting the nature of
industry int he region. The New England textile and shoe industries which traditional-
ly exported high volume cargo through the Port have given way to industries produc-
ing low volume, high value cargo which is now shipped by air. The current ex-
port/import balance is expected to continue hi the future regardless of the impact of
dredging. Thus Fort Devens is not going to become a major distribution facility as a
result of dredging in the Port of Boston. Growth at Fort Devens will be a function of
the increase hi import cargoes being carried by rail from Moran Terminal. This would
be totally separate from any dredging under the BHNIP.
F2-31
The biological assessment of the EIR/S includes a discussion of future vessel
traffic on threatened and endangered species.
19
-------
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Office of Environmental Polity and Compliance
40Ji Arlsmic Avenue - Room 142
Boston. .Ma.MJchu<.«« 022!0-3334
REF: ER 94/0393
June 20, 1994
Colonel Brink P. Miller
Division Engineer
U.S. Array Corps of Engineers
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA 02254
Dear Colonel Miller:
This is in response to your April 20, 1994 joint notice with MassPort.
requesting comments on the draft environmental impact report/statement.
(DEIR/S) for the Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement and Berth Dredging'
Project (ER 94/0393).
General Comments:
MassPort and the Corps have attempted to satisfy the procedural requirements
of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Massachusetts;
Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) in a combined environmental document. This
has been done successfully in the past on major projects such as the Central
Artery/Tunnel (193/90) project. However, in this instance, some basic NEPA
procedural standards have been integrated with MEPA requirements resulting
in questionable compliance with NEPA regulations. The Massachusetts environ-
mental standards appear to be controlling in portions of this joint
NEPA/MEPA document and may explain some of the procedural irregularity
concerning which alternative, no action or the Massachusetts Bay Disposal
Site (MBDS), is the standard of comparison.
A "rigorous" analysis of design alternatives as contemplated under Section
1502.14 of NEPA is not provided in Section 2 of the DEIR/S. The DEIR/S does
not contain sufficient information on the physical, chemical and biological
resources of the' identified aquatic disposal sites to differentiate the
environmentally acceptable sites from the unacceptable sites. Additional
information is needed on most aquatic sites before informed decisions can be
made about environmental acceptability.
Specific Comments:
Section 2 of the DEIR/S is inadequate in terms of the selection,
presentation and analysis of design alternatives. The purpose of an EIS is
not limited to assessing environmental impacts, but it must also serve to
"inform decision makers and the public of the reasonable alternatives which
would avoid or minimize adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the human
environment" (40 CFR Section 1502.1). Only three actual design alternatives
are presented; the "full project/preferred alternative, and two variations
on the "no action" alternative, which include no action/maintenance
dredging, and no action/no maintenance. The "reduced project" and "delayed
project" alternatives are not presented as actions in and of themselves, ^but
as consequences or scenarios' under which variations to the full project
might occur. ' /-» ^
75
-------
-2-
!
-------
-3-
REF: ER 94/0393
DEIR/S should adopt a consistent approach to the evaluation of future
maintenance dredging. Since future maintenance dredging was considered with
the No Action alternative, it should be considered with the build
alternatives also. An evaluation of the build alternatives with- future
maintenance dredging and disposal would provide a more realistic projection
of the environmental 'consequences of implementing the Congressionally
authorized project. Of the 376 disposal sites evaluated, only MBDS and
Boston Lightship Disposal Site (BIDS) have excess capacity to handle
improvement and 50-year maintenance dredging needs (DEER/S Table 3-22a).
An apparent conflict seems to exist between NEPA and MEPA regulations
concerning which alternative is the standard of comparison by which other
alternatives are measured. According to Question 3 of the Forty Most Asked
NEPA Questions (46 FR 18027), "This analysis (no action) provides a
benchmark, enabling decision makers to compare the magnitude of
environmental effects of action alternatives." However, on page 3-5 of the
DEIR/S the following statement appears: "As .stated in the MEPA scope, ocean
disposal is the preferred disposal option for uncontaminated marine
sediments of acceptable quality and is the option against which other
alternatives should be judged." In fact, this latter case seems to be the
prevailing view in this DEIR/S because the two ocean disposal sites, MBDS
and BIDS, are used as the standards of comparison for the other alternatives
including no action. No action is only included under design alternatives
(Chapter 2). It is not included under the disposal site alternative
analysis (Chapter 3).
The disposal site screening process described in Chapter 3 was an effective
method of eliminating potential disposal sites from further consideration.
A universe of 376 potential sites in Phase I were pared down to a short list
of 24 sites and one treatment technique (solidification) in Phase III.
While we are in general agreement with the Corps and MassPort that many of
the sites were not reasonable, we also believe that some reasonable sites
were dropped from further consideration and that several sites carried as
reasonable alternatives, should have been dropped in Phase I or II
screening. We also- believe that all reasonable disposal sites have not been
identified nor evaluated. This is especially true for the aquatic sites
which cannot be identified nor evaluated as conveniently as terrestrial
sites. The universe of 376 disposal sites only contained 21 aquatic sites
• which demonstrates the inherent numerical inequity in the site selection and
evaluation process.
The Rowes Quarry site was dropped from further consideration during Phase _ II
screening. Rowes Quarry and other quarries received considerable discussion
as the DEIR/S intimates on page 3-5. Unfortunately, the document fails to
divulge that the EPA found the Rowes Quarry site to be an environmentally
satisfactory disposal site for residuals from the MWRA facility at Deer
Island. This finding was published in the March 30, 1990 Record of Decision
for the MWRA Residuals Management EIS. This DEIR/S does not provide a
convincing argument to demonstrate that Rowes Quarry or other similar
quarries are not reasonable containment sites for the contaminated
maintenance dredge material. The information on pages 3-5 and E-14
indicates that the quarries were dropped as reasonable sites because
Massport did not want to disrupt existing businesses or use Eminent Domain
authority to acquire the property. None of these reasons would appear to be
fatal flaws eliminating these or other sites from the list of reasonable
alternatives because these same impediments existed during the MWRA process.
77
-------
-4-
REF: ER 94/0393
Several shoreline landfill sites such as Reserved Channel and Little Mystic
Channel were carried forward as reasonable alternatives despite the fact
that Boston Harbor estuary has long .ago exceeded the significant degradation
threshold for filling and creating fastland in intertidal and subtidal
habitat. Over 3,000 acres of intertidal and subtidal habitat have been
filled to create fastland and several hundred additional acres have been
degraded by dredging. Against this background of environmental degradation,
additional shoreline landfill projects should not be considered reasonable
alternatives since they would likely be precluded by Clean Water Act and
other regulations. It appears that several of these in harbor shoreline
sites were chosen because they are depositional areas containing Category II
or III sediments and, if filled above MHW, could be used for future
commercial purposes. Most depositional "areas in Boston Harbor contain
Category II or III sediments, hence this is not a valid reason for filling
these sites. Additionally, as Boston Harbor water quality improves in the
future, the natural sedimentation patterns will sequester these Class II and
III sediments with cleaner material.
The list of preferred alternatives was ultimately pared down from the short
list, of alternatives by capacity and cost constraints. Economics (cost) was
the major determinative factor for developing the final list of preferred
disposal alternatives (DEIR/S pg. 3-25). These five preferred disposal
sites—MBDS, BIDS, Meisberger 2 or 7, and Spectacle Island CAD—all have
similar cost estimates.
Unfortunately, spatial and temporal information on living resources at the
preferred sites and the other reasonable aquatic sites was not used to
develop and refine the list of potential sites nor the list of preferred
sites. This critical information simply does not exist except possibly for
the MBDS. Therefore, the environmental acceptability of Spectacle Island
CAD, Meisberger 2 or 7, Boston Lightship, and other reasonable aquatic sites
has not been demonstrated. Additional data is needed to identify what the
spatial and temporal characteristics of living resources are at each of
these sites on a seasonal basis before any determination can be made that
these are environmentally acceptable as disposal sites. Existing uses need
to be determined at the Section 404 sites to insure that these uses can and
will be protected in accordance with the State antidegradation policy if
used for disposal purposes. The full disclosure provisions of NEPA cannot
be complied with in the absence of the spatial and temporal data on living
resources at these preferred and other reasonable sites.
During the planning process for this project and the formal designation
process for the MBDS, considerable attention was focused on dredging,
transport, and disposal of contaminated sediments at offshore disposal
sites. Many of these concerns about contaminated sediments were expressed
in scoping comments provided by PWS for this DEIR/S. The questions raised
about mass balance, chemical and physical changes to contaminants in
sediments from the undisturbed state until disposal, percentage of fine
grained material and contaminant load dispersed during disposal, ability of
cohesive parent material (blue clay) to cap fine grained unconsolidated
material, details of dredge management plans and other scoping issues remain
unanswered and unresolved in this DEIR/S.
Recent research by the Waterways Experiment Station with the use of large,
barge size, geotextile containers may provide the Corps/Massport with an
additional treatment technology alternative for the disposal of the
F3-8
F3-9
F3-10
F3-11
-------
-5-
REF: ER 94/0393
contaminated maintenance material. However, the DEER/S eliminated all
treatment technologies except solidification from the short list o±
alternatives. If the Corps/Massport intend to pursue the use of geotextile
containers as a treatment technology option at one or more of the listed
sites, a supplemental ECR/S will need to be prepared which evaluates this;
technology and the expected environmental effects at the various disposal
sites. Shis new technology appears to have the potential to address many at
the longstanding concerns identified in the preceding paragraph about open_
water disposal of contaminated material.
•Conclusions
We recommend that the Corps and MassPort initiate biological investigations
of the preferred and other reasonable disposal sites to identify the
temporal and- spatial characteristics of the living resources at each site.
Ihis should include data -for all seasons for at least a one-year period.
While the biological investigators are underway, the Corps should address
each of the other outstanding issues raised by the FWS/DOI during ^the
scoping and review process, including new innovative treatment technologies.
After the requested data has been collected, demonstrations conducted, and
other information gaps have been filled, the Corps should publish all of the
information in a supplemental DETR/S so that interested parties have the
opportunity to review and comment on the substantive issues identified
during the review of the draft statement.
Sincerely,
Andrew L. Raddant
Acting Regional Environmental Officer
-------
F3-1
The no action alternative and the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (MBDS)
alternative involve two different assumptions. The no action alternative assumes the
project would not be built but maintenance of the navigation channels would continue
or no project and no maintenance would occur. MBDS was used as a comparison for
dredged material disposal alternatives. MEPA requested the use of MBDS as a
standard for comparison.
F3-2
Additional benthic, lobster, and finfish data has been collected for the disposal
sites. This information is included in the final EIR/S.
F3-3
The proposed project is the Congressionally authorized project, based on the
1988 feasibility study. The reader may refer to this report and Environmental Assess-
ment prepared by the Corps in 1988 for a more detailed analysis of the various
channel depths and alignments investigated during the feasibility study. The "reduced
project" and "delayed project" alternatives are within the range of reasonable alterna-
tives to be evaluated under NEPA. As stated in the draft and final EIR/S, a tributary
channel could be dropped from consideration if its economic benefit to cost ratio drops
below 1:1. A tributary channel would not be dropped as a potential alternative
otherwise, unless some other factor, such as a bridge replacement in Chelsea, delays
construction.
A brief discussion on relocating the active port terminals to the main ship
channel is discussed hi Section 2.0. This alternative would have a significant impact
on the amount of dredged material and capital to relocate the port activity and its
supporting infrastructure.
F3-4
If maintenance dredging does not occur within ten years, ship traffic in Boston
Harbor will continue to be forced to account for tidal delays. This will be happening
concurrently with regulations effecting vessel design such as the double hull require-
ment for tankers. The combination of delays and cost of constructing vessels capable
of use in 33 - 35 foot channels will undoubtedly be passed on to consumers in the
form of higher prices particularly for home heating oil. Shoaling is currently affecting
ships transiting Boston Harbor due to the need for maintenance dredging in the Mystic
River and Chelsea Creek.
20
-------
An Environmental Impact Statement is being prepared for the Providence River
maintenance dredging project. The U.S. Coast Guard has determined that restrictions
on vessel drafts, one way traffic and communication does not impose an economic
impact for the Providence port. The EIS will perform a needs analysis to determine if
the Coast Guard rule has an impact. No maintenance dredging will be performed if
there is no need. Future conditions will also be evaluated to assess when dredging
may need to occur if there is no maintenance dredging now. It also needs to be
recognized that the Providence River Harbor is used mostly by oil tankers while
Boston Harbor is used by container ships and oil vessels. The benefit to cost ratio for
Boston Harbor has determined that their is an economic benefit to deepen the port.
This analysis implies that the current navigation channels are not optimal for Boston
Harbor.
F3-5
The final EIR/S evaluates disposal sites for future maintenance hi Section 4.
F3-6
The No Action alternative was discussed in Section 2.1 in the DEIR/S as well
as the environmental impacts and benefits. A No Action alternative is not possible for
disposal site selection if a project alternative is considered. The navigation improve-
ment project can not go forward without a disposal site. This would bring the project
back to a No Action alternative. The Final EIR/S does use the MBDS as a disposal
site for the parent material. However, other uses for the material, such as landfill
cover, have been pursued and are discussed hi the FEIR/S. The MBDS is no longer
used as the standard of comparison for the silty material.
F3-7
The selection of disposal sites was based on available information. The number
of upland vs. aquatic sites is based on what is available for disposal site alternatives.
While there may be disagreements over the designation of fatal flaws hi the DEIR
disposal site selection process, socioeconomic impacts are a consideration, and
Massport remains reluctant to acquire an active business (such as Rowes Quarry)
through eminent domain. Additional issues have been identified which make Rowes
Quarry and otiier upland disposal sites impracticable, including compliance with the
current waste disposal facility siting requirements and permitting process, and the cost
and technical difficulty of dewatering the sediments sufficiently for transport. In
addition the site would need to be lined to prevent groundwater contamination. These
costs and engineering considerations were not discussed hi the Record of Decision for
the MWRA Residuals Management EIS. In addition the site would need to be lined to
prevent groundwater contamination. These costs and engineering considerations were
not discussed hi the Record of Decision for the MWRA Residuals Management EIS.
21
-------
F3-8
The shoreline sites were evaluated for two different disposal scenarios: partial
fill, in which the site would continue to be tidally submerged; and fill to fastland, in
which the site would be filled above the tideline. While recognizing the historical loss
of aquatic habitat in Boston Harbor, the project feels that these scenarios fit within the
definition of Designated Port Area, as provided by the state in its Wetlands Protection
Act. Therefore, both scenarios were reexamined in the FEIR/S (Section 4). The
partial-fill scenario was found to be among the least environmentally damaging
alternatives. Because of the permanent loss of aquatic habitat that would be caused by
the fastland scenario, however, this option was not found to be among the least
environmentally damaging alternatives.
F3-9
Additional investigations on biological resources at all the potential aquatic
disposal sites were undertaken in fall 1994. This information was reported in separate
technical documents and in Attachment 1 of the FEIR/S. These data were used to
reevaluate the selection of the proposed preferred alternative site for the disposal of silt
from the BHNIP. There were data available on benthic resources for many of the
potential disposal sites from other surveys, including a survey conducted by Massport
in April 1993. These results were reported in the DEIR/S and were used for compari-
sons to the fall 1994 data.
F3-10 .
Disposal of contaminated sediment at MBDS will not occur for the navigation
improvement project. A demonstration at the MBDS may occur to illustrate the
effectiveness of capping. Coordination with other agencies would occur before a
demonstration project was initiated. Many of the issues discussed in this comment will
be addressed during the pre-demonstration meetings.
F3-11
The BHNIP team has investigated the potential use of geotextile bags for
sequestering contaminated silts. While it appears that this technology might have some
promise for the future, tests to date have indicated that large-scale use would be
problematic. The physical integrity of high-volume bags, as would be necessary for a
project the size of the BHNIP, has not been proven.
22
-------
F3-12
As indicated in response to comment F3-9, additional biological investigations
have been conducted. No response to SEIR/S request.
23
-------
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WDLDLJFE SERVICE
New England Held Offices
22 Bridge Street, Unit #1
Concord, New Hampshire 03301-4986
June 17, 1994
REF: 1992-00844
UTC Dwight Durham
Acting Division Engineer
U.S. Amy Corps of Engineers
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA. 02254
Dear Colonel Durham:
SiX?ssv-«fS£
General Cuimients *
I
the^unacceptable sites. Additional '"S^^Se *5t environmental
an
adequate administrative record for
Specific Comments:,
roain ship channel vaterfront. Act^J PJ^ ^_ s^p channel waterfront is.
foot MLW tritutary channels and the -40 foot ^^ SSpose. -Die EIR/S
not beii^ utilized for it* ?r9E^fS^tS?Srt SSls to the sain
should evaluate relocation of ^Jf^g^^S add^-Sl expense and
and dredge niaterial disposal.
-------
-2-
The no action alternative, with and without _ ^_
evaluated as part of the project design analysis. This section .
2 of the EER/S provides a brief discussion of some of the consequences of
not dredging Boston Harbor in the present context. The ««^vs?l£f<£*
attempt to oUitify the no action analysis, nor is the analysis bcttandcwn
by future target year scenarios such as 2005, 2015, 2025, etc. LOJcewise,
™^IJ3^£S
impact of its rule--imposing draft limitations and one way teafficwas
minimal. This is in sharp contrast to a statement on page 2-1 oe me ius/s»
which states "Not maintaining the channels to authorized depths
Harbor to a minor port unable to accommodate deeper drarc ^
and petroleum tankers." These contrasting views from agencies with
=_tion responsibilities help demonstrate the shortcomings in t~e
evaluation of the no action alternative. —
The build alternatives (Full Project, Reduced Project and Delayed Action) do
not evaluate maintenance dredging as an alternative action in rne sa_e
Sshion as is done for No Action. This is an important issue because futare
maintenance dredging and disposal could have major consequences for tte
identification, evaluation and selection of alternative disposal sites as
well as overall project viability. The maintenance dredge
Boston Harbor channels and berths is contaminated with to
organics and is not acceptable for unrestricted open water _
ETR/S should adopt a consistent approach to the evaluation
maintenance dredging. Since future maintenance dredging was
the No Action alternative, it should be considered with
alternatives also. An evaluation of the build alternatives^
maintenance dredging and disposal would provide a more real
of the environmental consequences of implementing the
authorized project. Of the 376 disposal sites evaluated,
Boston Lightship Disposal Site (BIDS) have ^cesLJ=afa5,, , -
improvement and 50-year maintenance dredging needs (EER/S Table 3 ^
the
list
Die disposal site screening process described in-Chapter 3 was an J
meth^ofeliminating potential disposal sites from f^?1^^0"2
A universe of 376 potential sites in Phase I were pared down to
of^4 sites and onTtreatment technique (solidif ^^
While we are in general agreement with the Corps and ^
the sites were not reasonable, we also believe that same reasonable sites
were dropped from further consideration and that several sites carried as
reasonable alternatives, should have been dropped ^..pte^Ina?heE
screening. We also believe that all reasonable disposal sites have not been
identified nor evaluated. This is especially true f«v. ^
which cannot be identified nor evaluated as o"**01^^ ."
sites. The universe of 376 disposal sites only contained 21
which demonstrates the inherent numerical inequity in the site selection <-nd
evaluation process.
95
it-f
-------
-3-
The Rowes Quarry site was dropped from further consideration during Phase_II
screening. Rowes Quarry and other quarries received considerable discussion
as the DEIR/S intimates on page 3-5. Unfortunately, the document fails to
divulge that the EPA found the Rcwes Quarry site to be an environmentally
satisfactory disposal site for residuals from the MWPA facility at _ Deer
Island This finding was published in the March 30, 1990 Record of Decision
for the MWRA Residuals Management EIS. This ETR/S does not provide a
convincing argument to demonstrate that Rowes Quarry or other similar
quarries are not reasonable containment sites for the contaminated
maintenance dredge material. The information on pages 3-5 and E-14
indicates that the quarries were dropped as reasonable sites because
Massport did not want to disrupt existing businesses or use Enunent. Domain
authority to acquire the property. None of these reasons would appear to be
fatal flaws eliminating these or other sites from the list of reasonable
alternatives because these £*™> impediments existed during the MWRA. process ._
Several shoreline landfill sites such as Reserved Channel and Little Mystic
Channel were carried forward as reasonable alternatives despite the fact
that Boston Harbor estuary has long ago exceeded the significant degradation
threshold for filling and creating fastland in intertidal and subtidal
habitat. Over 3,000 acres of intertidal and subtidal habitat have been
filled to create fastland and several hundred additional acres have been
degraded by dredging. Against this background of environmental degradation,
additional shoreline landf in projects should not be considered reasonable
alternatives since they would likely be precluded by Clean Water Act and
other regulations. It appears that several of these in harbor shoreline
sites were chosen because they are depositional areas containing Category U
or III sediments and, if fined above MHW, could be used for future
commercial purposes. Most depositional areas in Boston Harbor contain
Category II or HI sediments, hence this is not a valid reason for fining
these sites. Additionally, as Boston Harbor water quality improves in the
future, the natural sedimentation patterns win sequester these Class H and
III sediments with cleaner material. ^
The list of preferred alternatives was ultimately pared down from the short
list of alternatives by capacity and cost constraints. Economics (cost) was
the major determinative factor for developing the final list of preferred
disposal alternatives (DEIR/S pg. 3-25) . These, five f^^*?????*
sites— MBDS, BLDS, Meisberger 2 or 7, and Spectacle Island CAD— an have
similar cost estimates.
r—
Unfortunately, spatial and temporal information on living resources at the.
preferred sites and the other reasonable aquatic sites was not used to
develop and refine the list of potential sites nor the list of preferred
sites. This critical information simply does not exist except possibly for
the MBDS. Therefore, the environmental acceptability of Spectacle Island
CAD Meisberger 2 or 7, Boston Lightship, and other reasonable aquatic sites
has not been demonstrated. Additional data is needed to identify what the
spatial and temporal characteristics of living resources are at each of
these sites on a seasonal basis before any determination can be made that
these are environmentally acceptable as disposal sites. Existing uses need
to be determined at the Section 404 sites to insure that these uses can and
will be protected in accordance with the State antidegradation policy if
used for disposal purposes. The full disclosure provisions of NEPA cannot
be complied with in the absence of the spatial and temporal data on living
resources at these preferred and other reasonable sites.
-------
-4-
During the planning process for this project and the formal designation
process for the MBDS, considerable attention was focused on dredging,
transport, and disposal of contaminated sediments at offshore disposal
sites. Many of these concerns about contaminated sediments were expressed
in scoping comments provided by IWS for this EIF/S. The questions raised
about mass balance, chemical and physical changes to contaminants in
sediments from the undisturbed state until disposal, percentage of fine
grained material and contaminant load dispersed during disposal, ability of
cohesive parent material (blue clay) to cap fine grained unconsolidated
material, details of dredge management plans and other scoping issues remain
unanswered and unresolved in this DEER/S.
Recent research by the Waterways Experiment Station with, the use of large,
barge size, geotextile containers may provide the Corps/Massport with an
additional treatment technology alternative for the disposal of the
contaminated maintenance material. However, the DETR/S eliminated all
treatment technologies except solidification from the short list of
alternatives. If the Corps/Massport intend to pursue the use of geotextile
containers as a treatment technology option at one or more of the J^f?^1
sites, a supplemental EER/S will need to be prepared which evaluates this
technology and the expected environmental effects at the various disposal
sites. This new technology appears to have the potential to address many of
the longstanding concerns identified in the preceding paragraph about open
water disposal of contaminated material.
Conclusions
We recommend that the Corps and MassPort initiate biological investigations"
of the preferred and other reasonable disposal sites to identify rae
temporal and spatial characteristics of the living resources at each site.
This should include data for all seasons for at least a one-year period..
While the biological investigators are underway, the Corps should address
each of the other outstanding issues raised by the FWS during tie scopirg
and review process, including new innovative treatment technologies. After
the requested data has been collected, demonstrations conducted, and other
information gaps have been filled, the Corps should publish all of the
information in a supplemental DETR/S so that interested parties; have the
opportunity to review and comment on the substantive issues identified
during the review of the draft statement. We believe this information arid
process" is necessary before the least environmentally damaging practicable
alternative can be identified and selected.
Questions concerning these comments should be directed to Mr. Vern Lang of
this office at 603-225-1411.
Sincerely yours,
Gordon E. Beckett
Supervisor
New England Field Offices
-------
-5-
CC: Reading File
P. Jackson, NED
Ed Wbo, EPA
C. Ifentzaris, NMFS
N. Faramelli, MassPort
L. Bridges, MA EMF
ES: VLang: jd: 6-17-94:603-225-1411
-------
F4-1
Additional investigations on biological resources at all the potential aquatic
disposal sites were undertaken in fall 1994. This information was reported in separate
technical documents and in Attachment 1 of the FEIR/S. These data were used to re-
evaluate the selection of the proposed preferred alternative site for disposal of silt from
the BHNIP.
F4-2
The Department of Interior notes that some of the land abutting deep channels
ha Boston's Inner Harbor has been converted to uses unrelated to Port operations. The
Department suggests that converting these parcels back to port terminal use might be
more cost-effective than the proposed dredging. It is true that some of the former port
terminal locations served by deep channels have been converted to other land uses.
However, relocation of active port terminals to these sites is not readily achievable
because of the rigorous regulatory process that such relocation would trigger. There
are environmental regulations in place which protect the residents and businesses near
those deep water facilities. In addition, relocation of place which protect the residents
and businesses near those deep water facilities. In addition, relocation of port termi-
nals would require infrastructure including backland and roadway connections to the
regional highway system. This would entail years for permitting, land assembly, and
right-of-way takings alone.
The controversy generated by the proposed land use change could entail
litigation delaying project implementation indefinitely. Further, several communities
along Boston Harbor have carefully developed plans to enable the general public to
enjoy the waterfront as a precious recreational resource. While these plans, such as
the Municipal Harbor Plan of the City of Boston, recognize the importance of preserv-
ing portions of the coastline for maritime industry, they also have zoning hi place that
would require change to support the relocation of port facilities. This would require
months, if not years, to accomplish. The combined effect of environmental regula-
tions, infrastructure requirements and the rezoning process will likely preclude
relocation to port facilities as a viable alternative to the dredging currently proposed.
F4-3
If maintenance dredging does not occur within ten years, ship traffic hi Boston
Harbor will continue to be forced to account for tidal delays. This will be happening
concurrently with regulations effecting vessel design such as the double hull require-
ment for tankers. The combination of delays and cost of constructing vessels capable
of use hi 33 - 35 foot channels will undoubtedly be passed on to consumers in the
24
-------
form of higher prices particularly for home heating oil. Shoaling is currently affecting
ships transiting Boston Harbor due to the need for maintenance dredging in the Mystic
River and Chelsea Creek.
An Environmental Impact Statement is being prepared for the Providence River
maintenance dredging project. The U.S. Coast Guard has determined that restrictions
on vessel drafts, one way traffic and communication does not impose an economic
impact for the Providence port. The EIS will perform a needs analysis to determine if
the Coast Guard rule has an impact. No maintenance dredging will be performed if
there is no need. Future conditions will also be evaluated to assess when dredging
may need to occur if there is no maintenance dredging now. It also needs to be
recognized that the Providence River Harbor is used mostly by oil tankers while
Boston Harbor is used by container ships and oil vessels. The benefit to cost ratio for
Boston Harbor has determined that their is an economic benefit to deepen the port.
This analysis implies that the current navigation channels are not optimal for Boston
Harbor.
F4-4
The final EIR/S evaluates disposal sites for future maintenance hi Section 4.
F4-5
The site screening process was reviewed for the FEIR/S and it was concluded
that the criteria used were appropriate for defining the shortlist of potential disposal
sites that was described in the DEIR/S. The Working Group process that took place
during the preparation of the DEIR/S was one mechanism used to identify sites that
should be examined. Every site that was suggested during this process was given due
consideration by the project. The difference in the numbers of aquatic versus terrestri-
al sites that were initially examined reflects the difficulty hi procuring basic site
information, not a prejudice on the part of the project. We believe that the sites
identified are reflective of what could be available and are a suitable representation of
the impacts that could be experienced under the proposed project.
The status of Rowes Quarry was reevaluated for the FEIR/S. While there may
be disagreements over the designation of fatal flaws in the DEIR/S disposal site
selection process, socioeconomic impacts are a consideration, and Massport remains
reluctant to acquire an active business (such as Rowes Quarry) through eminent
domain.Alth.ough it is recognized that it is technically feasible to use Rowes Quarry, or
other quarries, for disposal of contaminated materials, it is not a permitable activity
under the state solid waste regulations. Therefore, this disposal option is not a
practicable solution for the BHNIP.
25
-------
F4-6
The shoreline sites were evaluated for two different disposal scenarios: partial
fill, in which the site would continue to be tidally submerged; and fill to fastland, in
which the site would be filled above the tideline. While recognizing the historical loss
of aquatic habitat in Boston Harbor, the project feels that these scenarios fit within the
definition of Designated Port Area, as provided by the state in its Wetlands Protection
Act Therefore, both scenarios were reexamined hi the FEIR/S (Section 4). The
partial-fill scenario was found to be among the least environmentally damaging
alternatives. Because of the permanent loss of aquatic habitat that would be caused by
the fastland scenario, however, this option was not found to be among the least
environmentally damaging alternatives.
F4-7
Additional investigations on biological resources at all the potential aquatic
disposal sites were undertaken hi fall 1994. This information was reported in separate
technical documents and in Attachment 1 of the FEIR/S. These data were used to
reevaluate the selection of the proposed preferred alternative site for the disposal of silt
from the BHNIP. There were data available on benthic resources for many of the
potential disposal sites from other surveys, including a survey conducted by Massport
hi April 1993. These results were reported in the DEIR/S and were used for compari-
sons to the fall 1994 data.
F4-8
Disposal of contaminated sediment at MBDS will not occur for the navigation
improvement project. A demonstration at the MBDS may occur to illustrate the
effectiveness of capping. Coordination with other agencies would occur before a
demonstration project was initiated. Many of the issues discussed in this comment will
be addressed during the pre-demonstration meetings.
F4-9
The BHNIP team has investigated the potential use of geotextile bags for
sequestering contaminated' silts. While it appears that this technology might have some
promise for the future, tests to date have indicated that large-scale use would be
problematic. The physical integrity of high-volume bags, as would be necessary for a
project the size of the BHNIP, has not been proven.
26
-------
F4-10
As indicated in response to comments F4-1 and F4-7, additional site investiga-
tions were conducted in fall 1994. Results were used to augment the disposal site
selection analysis (Section 4).
27
-------
APR-.19-94 TUE 14:33 N«FS HPRD FAX NO. 15082819301
P. 01
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Northeast Region
One Blackburn Drive
Gloucester, MA 01930
APR I9I994
Colonel Brink P. Killer
Division Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA 02254-9149
Dear -Col. Miller:
We have reviewed the Corps1 Biological Assessment of potential
impacts to threatened and endangered species from the disposal of
dredged material from the Boston Harbor Navigation improvement
Project. The National Marine Fisheries Service has determined,
pursuant to 50 CPR Part 4 02. 14 (f), that additional information is
needed for us to formulate a Biological Opinion under Section
7 (a) (2) of the Endangered Species Act.
The Corps1 Biological Assessment includes a discussion of the
disposal of contaminated sediments at the Massachusetts Bay
Disposal Site (MBDS) and three additional offshore sites. The
dredged material in question, silty sediment from future
maintenance dredging of Boston Harbor/ is considered unsuitable
for unconfined ocean disposal. MBDS is designated for disposal
of "clean" material (suitable for unconfined ocean disposal)
only. However, the Corps proposes to dispose of the silty Boston
Harbor material at MBDS with capping, the rationale being that
disposal of contaminated material with capping may be allowed in
the future if capping can be proven to be viable at MBDS.
The Biological Assessment provides scant justification for its
conclusion that capping can be used successfully at MBDS or other
offshore sites, and therefore that disposal of contaminated
materials with capping would not jeopardize the continued
existence of listed species. The document states that "the Corps
has technical evidence that capping can work at MBDS, based on — .
previous experience," yet it does not discuss or cite this
evidence. Similarly, the Biological Assessment does not discuss
the efficacy of capping under the environmental conditions
present at MBDS, including waters up to 100 meters deep. The
document also does not address the possible cumulative effects of
specific contaminants from this and other projects (e.g., the
MWRA sewage outfall) on listed species, nor does it substantiate
the , conclusion that capping at MBDS or other offshore sites would
eliminate the potential for contaminants to bioaccumulate or
transfer through the food chain. Finally, the . Biological
Assessment does not specify the anticipated volume of material
(clean or contaminated) proposed for future maintenance dredging.
-------
F5-1
Additional information has been sent to the National Marine Fisheries Service
to help formulate a Biological Opinion.
F5-2
Capping silty material at the MBDS for the navigation improvement project has
been eliminated as an alternative for BHNIP.
F5-3
Refer to comment F5-2.
F5-4
Refer to comment 75-2.
F5-5
These figures are in the EIR/S. They will be included in the Biological
Assessment.
F5-6
Refer to comment F5-2.
F5-7
The Corps will send a Biological Assessment which eliminates the disposal of
contaminated material at the MBDS.
28
0,5
-------
APR-.19-94 TUE 14:33
NHFS HPRD
FAX NO. 15082819301
P. 02
Because of the deficiencies in the Biological Assessment, we
request that the Corps provide additional data and analysis to
help us determine the extent'of potential impacts from the
project to listed species. Specifically, NMFS, the Environmental
Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts have all recommended in the past
that the Corps conduct a capping demonstration project at MBOS
using clean materials marked with a distinct signature to allow
analysis of the entire disposal process, including cap placement
and integrity over time. Without this type of in situ study-
using clean material, the environmental feasibility of confined
ocean disposal at MBDS will likely remain in question.
We recommend that the corps either agree to extend formal
consultation until this data is available, or drop capping at
offshore sites from further consideration (and revise the
Biological Assessment accordingly) until the questions
surrounding the feasibility of capping are resolved. Extension
of the consultation period for more than 60 days would require
the consent of the applicant for the non-federal portion of the
project. Alternatively, if the Corps elects not to extend
consultation or modify the proposed project, NMFS will issue a
Biological Opinion using the best scientific and commercial data
available, including a conservative presumption that capping at _
MBDS would not be successful.
Please inform us at your earliest convenience as to how the Corps
would like to proceed with this consultation. If you have any
questions in the interim, please contact me, or your staff may
contact Chris Mantzaris, Acting Chief of my Habitat and Protected
Resources Division, at 508/281-9346.
Sincerely,
Allen E. Peterson, Jr.
Acting Regional Director
cc: John DeVillars, EPA Regional Administrator
Ron Lambertson, USFWS Regional Director
Trudy Coxe, Massachusetts Secretary of Environmental Affairs
Janeen Hansen, Massachusetts Port Authority
-------
STATE AGENCIES
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
-------
iii.il !<
'Ill
-------
WILLJAM F. WELD
GOVERNOR
ARGEO PAUL CELLUCCI
• LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
TRUDY COXE '
SECRETARY
June 30, 1994
TeU (617)727-9800
Fax: (617) 727-2754
CERTIFICATE OF THE SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
ON THE :
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT LOCATION
EOEA NUMBER
PROJECT PROPONENT
DATE NOTICED IN MONITOR
Bos-ton Harbor Navigation Improvement
Project and Berth Dredging Project
Boston
8695
Massport
April 25, 1994
The Secretary of Environmental Affairs hereby determines
that the Draft Environmental Impact Report submitted on the above
project adequately and properly complies with the Massachusetts
Environmental Policy Act (G. L. c. 30, s. 61-62H) and with its
implementing regulations (301 CMR 11.00).
Introduction _
The Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement and Berth Dredging
project (BHNIP) is a major infrastructure betterment project that
has been linked to this region's economic vitality. The proposed
dredging project will help facilitate the movement of goods by
improving navigational efficiency and safety, and minimizing
double-hauling of cargos in the 47 square mile Port of Boston,
which handles more than 25 million tons of cargo, worth more than
seven billion dollars annually.
The BHNIP includes deepening of two areas in the Main Ship
Channel (the Inner Confluence and the mouth of the Reserved
Channel) and dredging of three tributary channels (the Reserved
Channel, the Mystic River Channel, and the Chelsea Creek
Channel). Approximately 3.4 million cubic yards (c.y.) of marine
sediment needs to be dredged, including 1.32 million c.y. of
unconsolidated silty material that lies above 2.02 million c.y.
-------
EOEA. #8€95
DEIR Certificate
June 30, 1994
of 'uncontaminated clay material and 0.132 million c.y* of rocfc,
Boston Harbor was last dredged in -1S83. The P^oj^t has two
proponents; Xassport and the U.S. Army Corps of &iguie«r* *^,«..i
rusACOEi Accordingly, the documents revieved are both a federal
0?f ft InviroSental Impact Statement (DEIS) and a state 'Draft
Environmental Impact Report £IR) . The project is scheduled to
begin early in 199*. . .
• The DSIR points out an overriding problem vith dredging
»W^e£ts including the BHNIP: »(t)he lacfc of suitable disposal,
ll?lr^llives hSvf !sic) delayed port improvements not^only in .Hew
InglSS *£. nafioniide.1- Recognizing this, I ^v. mj
-------
DEZR .Certificate
.June 30, 1994
The Draft.Environmental Impact Report » These goals
can be divided into four discrete tasks, including: (1) -
reconsideration of certain criteria used to identify practicable
alternatives arid, depending on the result, revisions to the. list
of disposal option alternatives; (2) comparative analysis of
environmental impacts of the disposal option alternatives; (3)
more detailed analysis of the preferred alternative (s>,
contingency alternative, and least impact alternative; and <4)
development of a Dredging Management and Monitoring Plan. Later
sections of this Certificate provide specific guidance on these
tasks. .
standards for disposal at the KBDS.
3
-------
EOEA #S695
DEIS. Certificate
June 30,
The DEIR/DEIS indicates that the final selection of a
preferred disposal option(s) yill be made based upon agency and
public comments. The consents, however, indicate, that there is
not yet sufficient analysis of the potential environmental
impacts of all of the disposal option alternatives at this point
to support selection of disposal options and demonstra t.e that
they are both environmentally sound and consistent vith the other
project requirements. Moreover, reconsidering and reapplying the
screening criteria could result in an expansion of the list of
IrSctiSlle sites. Consequently, the FSI* "Jftjg;?1^ .
Additional information about several. °* tt« diS2°KL.f2H0?,v '
alternatives .{See "Practicable Alternatives" and -Potentially
SacScabie Alternatives" belov) to ensure a truly comparative
analysis of impacts at as consistent a level of detail as
possible. . :
• • The Final. EIR must explain clearly hov the. fnar ste "
selection »rocess was accomplished. The criteria, applied and the
Witt selection process should be discussed in sufficient detail
loal!SStre5ie1e^tf independently confirm that the selection
has been based on the established criteria and that the criteria
used are defensible. ' : . .
The report must also provide a more inTdepth; ana lysis of the
ill impacts of the preferred .altemative(s)-> and possibly
alter?llivJs? vSch are idescf ibed in ther Preferred Disposal
W
comments and in this Certificate.
and-Monitoring Plan.
••: ' Taking into consideration the ^eadth of the^requggents
for the FSIR, it may become necessary to «£*« SLlf^heFEXR '
SoniSring%lSngcoSd be developed as P«%«£ *%« **G™*
installment (or afterwards).' The comment from the
"cotltal Zone Management Agency (SCZM) plains how
1p treated in the F2IR and SFSIR, respectively. ,
- - c
-------
OZIR Certificate
June 30, 1S94
While this two step final review process is not an absolute
.requirement, it aay be the best way to ensure that a more
complete understanding of the alternatives and their
environmental impacts will be developed before the preferred
.alternatives are selected, and also to help the agencies reach
consensus sooner, rather than later* This approach may also
minimize the possibility of proceeding too far vith an
.alternative that may ultimately be"'unacceptable or infeasible.
In short, I believe this approach will provide the most
'predictability and efficiency*" ...
Pesar.jption
. . 'Characterization and quantification of the sediments is an
•-essential requirement of the proposed dredging project.
•Understanding what this project 'is. yill establish basic
.requirements of the disposal site.! 'According to the DZIR, the
quantities of sediment affect the duration of dredging, the
•duration of the turbidity plume, the amount of habitat affected/ 1
'•and the duration of interference vith navigation. As part of the
comparative analysis of the alternatives, the FZIR should provide
a better understanding of the .impacts and explain the differences
between the alternatives. •*
Through the SIR review it wili-. be important to Xeep track of
.the changes in volumes of contaminated materials or those
. considered to be unsuitable for open ocean disposal, because of
the critical balance that must be achieved between environmental
impacts and project cost in the disposal site selection process. -
The larger issue of finding a disposal site for this project and ^
•the future maintenance dredging .required by this project has been
confronted in the DEER. Future -mafrxfcenance dredging over the 50
year life of the project has been estimated at $.2 million c.y. .
of silt, exclusive of dredging that: will be required for the
berthing areas.. While the proponent, agencies have not made it a
goal of this project to find a disposal alternative(s) that will
accommodate both present and future .dredging volumes, the DEiR
:has identified and considered potentially practicable
alternatives for the future dredge, disposal requirements. To the
extent that it is possible,, the future maintenance dredging and
disposal needs should be taken into account in the FSZR analysis
of disposal alternatives. , . -
According to Kassport and the'^SACOE, the estimated volumes
of dredged materials should not change significantly from the
estimates in the DEIR. Even so, the proposed project has been
/or
oft
-------
r
BOEA
•DEX5
..: ' June 3O, id94
Modified somewhat from the project "described in /the Environmental
Notification Form (ENF) and., according to the DEIR, -It is
anticipated that a number of these minor reductions and possible
'enlargements to the project will occur as the design is
finalised.- -Originally, about 23 berths were to btf dredged
•/about 0.8 million c-y!) In Appendix C, Table 1, IS berths are
novlisted for dredging, with a. total of about 570,-796 c.y.- of
material.- Has the DEIR accounted.for the maximum volumes of
sediments from the berthing areas?-
-" * -Furthermore, the DEK, Oiyisioh of Waterways has recommended
that the channel modifications, identified in Appendix D should be
Scorporated into the project. What increase in volumes yould
•—?ulP There is also a possibility that the dredge profile in
1 cK^iaea CreS could be expanded*if the Chelsea Street Bridge
rSlaSed S She city of Boston..:-;According to the DEIR, -There
•interest in reviewing the navigation channel to consider
and deepening to accommodate larger vessels." xr
tsossible estimates of the increase .in dredged sediment volume
should be provided in the FEIR. By providing this information,
ft may be possible to avoid a separate Notice «* **2«* **«*•
review. Would it be necessary to r^test the sediments for an
expansion of the Chelsea cree* dredge? : :
^^ • . ru" • . , .
" The project proposal includes^ 0.5 foot overdredge, ^ij«
•
SvSdredge in terms of project volumes and impacts.
according to
the
With 301 CMR 11.17.
cover 15 sites
-------
JEOSA
D21R
:: J\in« 30, 1994
.- The marine.sediaent characterization vas based :on a •
>4«r^S «vaSation of the materials to determine the acceptability
^ii^^J »fiS^larly for in-haarbor and coastal containment
sediment, P5^1?^1***!,,^ VfiVeover. for these alternatives it
time. . . .
fi'j
.
• For upland reuse disposai, D» regulations and policies may
require additional analysis.
d SS:3"i
-------
EOZA #8695
DEIR-
'June 30, 1994
•include shoreline facilities, subaqueous depressions,, borrow
pits, in-channel trenches, and open, water disposal sites. The
•OEXR has thus provided a useful model that may be applicable to
other dredging projects. That being' said, this review would. b«
less than rigorous if it die .riot raise questions about the
criteria, the process of selecting among options, and the results
of that process. .. .. • • ...
•'/ potentially practicable sites/-evaluated against'the
screening criteria, were eliminated based on either .a failure to
neet the minimua of 200,000 c.y. capacity and/or the comparative
cost;'exceeding 4 tines the cos.t per"cubic yard as compared to
ocean disposal . Based .on comments received, these
screening criteria need to be reconsidered. •
. in the-select ion of the preferred disposal alternatives,
sites vith capacities less than 200,000 c.y. were .dropped.
However, as^he DEP and the KC3K comments point out, some of the
Sbleline filling and bul*heading alternatives could P°j;i*ly.
Seet this criterion when the volume between mean low water and
Setn Sgh v5er or fast land is included. These alternatives
Slsb appearto^be promising because the wetlands resource
pelforllnce standards are less restrictive in a ^*«g~i****
in which a nuabir of these sites are located. Therefore,
shoSd reSnlider- those alternatives that would meet the
volume reCTuirenents by the creation of new land.
?? theFSIR should reconsider whether this is the
lover limit for-the disposal needs of the project, .
- cost is a key screening criterion in the disposal
screening analysil. sites with disposal costs greater.
SSetthl costof capping at the Kassachusetts Bay Disposal
WW) verf considered excessive {p. 3-2 S) However, as. has been.
pointed out in the DEP comment, there may be a more _*Pg>°
basis for establishing baseline costs. Specifically;, the
S!a!?y*£^
ifSS SS>? fs could
?LuS in a SlSf icaltly different conclusion as to which
options are prlcticable. The FBIR must address this, issue.
"": To address these issues, the potentially practicable sites 1
i»ust-be reconsidered in the FEIR. • -41
8
-------
-19S4 13:27 FROH HRSSPORT
iu
EOEA #8695
P£2R Certificate
June 30, 1994
Alternatives
-, ,* »
yielded a short
site screening.steps outlined in th* W* Jj*™
of "practicable" alternatives, which have
.t, *{a)re available and capable
takincr into consideration cost, ^existing
and" logistics in light ctf overall project purposes"
(CFR 230:iO (a)(2». >. ':(
project .
hazardous, mat^ia^a^/or^oactlvevaste^^^ ^^ :,
coamenters have «V**'Md s*' because" of the -
s
unsure about the Y^i;ii«Lblv^e concluded that the public has
X* can the Massachusetts Bay
as-
further. .
S:2T tSST—SE—"Fir
J03
-------
EOEi #2655
DEIR. 'Certificate
sites, the in^channel trenched cog-er options, 'the
30, 1994
Spectacle
Island CAD, the-Boston Lightship si€e, the MBpS yith capping, and
. the'JauiJcheading' opt ions.. •' ; ',';•' j
.' Generally, the FZXR analysis oil; .the site specific impacts at
the disposal site alternatives"should expand the; understanding of
the potential for habitat loss 'or alteration, water .quality
degradation, migration of contaminants from the disposal site, .
and land based impacts on traffic, the built environment, and
land, use* •
•'••.'•• ' *racticabl« ait^raativts
".""V* "The six practicable alteraatr^ax identified : in the DBIR all
have" sufficient: capacity to accept the total volume .of dredged
material, except for the .in-channei»i:trench and coyer .
'alternative. -This alternative "was »ot carried forward as a
.preferred Alternative because, it vis' determined tip have.
insufficient capacity. However;, there is sufficient public
interest in this alternative to warrant further consideration.
-All of the. disposal alternatives propose to release the
contaminated silts f roa barges .and iihen cover those Isediments
vith uncontaminated parent material';yhich is primarily. Boston
Blue Clay. The difference in properties between these two
classes of sediments raises questions relating to the technical
feasibility of covering adequately the f iner-graihed and less
consolidated silt materials with cohesive, dense .clays. In
'addition, what period is required to' ensure that .the silts have
•settled and hov vill that be factored into the project design?
To what extent vill- the crude operation of dumping clay
destabilize and displace the silts? How will this be addressed
in the project 'design? The FSIR.should provide documentation to
deal with these questions and to support the plan that is
proposed. " .
* • *
Massachusetts' -Bay Disposal site.
• ." .'-Although, t&is is the only officially designated dredged
material disposal site under consideration, there are certain
"conditions for. dredged material at the MBDS that will affect the
BHNIP proposal to dispose of the contaminated materials at this
site, specifically, contaminated materials must be capped or
covered with suitable dredged materials and, before that can
-10
-------
June 30', 1994
approved, a pilot project mustpbe undertaken to demo'nstrate' tho
feasibility of the capping 'tecfiniqu*: at the '
The comments indicate that this: alternative is yidely
disfavored, and many have suggested Vthat it be dropped "
altogether. Although I aa ncVaaJding that recommendation at this
point, because or the potential utility of a pilot study in
addressing some of the acre difficult, generic, a'nd '"unanswered
questions about dredged material disposal, this alternative does
not appear to be promising. ' • - •' • : • . •
If Massport and the CSACOfc pursue a pilot or demonstration
'study of capping at the KBDS, a proposed scope for that effort
aust be prepared and circulated for -'comment to those who
participated in the -Working Group and also to the commenters
listed at. the close of this Certificate. ; : s
fiestas Lightship
! -s:-?-.
. Capping has been-proposed- at tfife Lightship, a's. well as: the
KBDS. However, the feasibility of Capping at the Boston
Lightship site, vita depths of about: SO meters appears to be
questionable and needs to' be •demonstrated, if this alternative is
•pursued. There is evidence that the: rate of sediment transport
may be significant during severe sto» events, with a 1*5 year
frequency, in the vicinity of the Boston Lightship site. This
•raises questions about the long term ^effectiveness of capping due
to erosion, impacts. ' r~-" ; . -
. .'• • if this alternative -is pursued-jr :the FBIR must,- at a minimum,
provide documentation and dataT'fromComparable capping projects
to support the proposed plan' (see also the HCZK comment) and
expand on the analysis 4n the referenced study to provide more
information about the effects and feasibility of capping at the
Lightship site. The FEZR should also consider whether there are
ways to design the project so as to.Censure that the contaminated
sediments would be isolated. • Kitigation measures,' contingencies,
and monitoring could also- be- considered to demonstrate long term
stability of the capped dredged, material. An assessment of
potential impacts should be provided, assuming (1) that the
project succeeds as proposed and, (2) conversely, that the
Chimin Chian, 9aen-^Wateg- Disposal and capping of
Contaminated Dredged Kater^-al at; '-the Boston Liqhtsfrftj^ Site
(n.p. :n.p. ,n.d.) • •••-.-.
-------
f
20S& #8695
DEIR Certificate
June 30t, 1394
project is net. successful,., i.e.. contaminants are-hot isolated at
the disposal site. What contingencies can be incorporated in the
project design for scenario (1)?
While the. Boston Lightship site may hold some promise
because or the potential to use the" dredged materials as * cover
over contaminated areas where hazardous materials/or radioactive
wastes were disposed decades ago, this opportunity is off-set by
concerns about impacts to the marine environment; these concerns
will need to be dealt with in the FEIR. Specifically, the area
supports commercially important fisheries resources, which would
be adversely impacted by the. selection of this disposal -
alternative, if this alternative is pursued, a thorough analysis
of potential impacts to these resources will be required.
comments from KC2K and others can be of assistance in providing
scoping guidance. In addition, a detailed scope of work must be
developed by the proponents in consultation with the WG and EOEA
agencies. Such a scope should include a bathymetric survey of
the existing vaste materials, in order to optimize the
environmental benefit* of capping waste materials at the proposed
site* 'It will also be necessary to pinpoint a specific location
where it will be possible to minimize harm to marine resources*
The comment from the Division of karine Fisheries indicates that
comprehensive .benthic and contaminant studies should also be
done* ' . •. '• .-'.-'.
£&*C&a&nel, Treach and cover ."-• - *
• '. .* - • . *
The option, to dispose of .contaminated* materials within^
channels that have been overdredged and then backfilled and-
capped with uncontaminated parent materials has been well
received, in concept. However, the logistics arid ;technical
feasibility of accomplishing this alternative are quite complex,
and there appears to be significant opportunity for damage to the.
environment. • __ j
The multiple steps, which include dredging of contaminated and
parent material*, stockpiling of those sediments :m order to
Sequentially dispose of the contaminated silts to ensure
isolation of these sediments will require exacting precision .Ln
the dredging operations and careful timing to avoid environmental
Impacts. Realistically, the analysis of this alternative should
probably factor in a certain degree of environmental fjmage in
acknowledgement that this alternative will be difficult to
accomplish without impacts. Is there a point at which the
12
-------
EOEA
0EIR- Certificat*
30, 1994
potential impacts of this alternative would be unacceptable? Hov
will potential -impacts be mitdgated>:- * • i • •'- '
* • • " "*•••""*,
• -: iapacts of barge tra'ffic'.qn existing boat traffic in the '
harbor also need to be considered, opportunities !to aanase the
project so. as to minimize navigation conflicts should be
explored. • • : .
.,. .'.;'Tf this alternative is" pursued^' a aore detailed scope of
•work/ including a aore in-depth assessaent of impacts"will need
tM.be developed. The WG would, be a reasonable forun for
addressing the scope issues. . .State agencies will as'sist by
providing guidance as well. . *
'*•''. .-
Spectacle Island c&D "X '_."_- .
. '. This disposal alternative is a'.Shallow subtidal borrow pit.
Based on the comments from EO2A agencies, this alternative should
•not. .be carried "forward. Due to the 'shallow depths of the site,
storm-wave impacts to harbor resources is a significant concern.
There is also a potential for impacts to the seawall and dike
being constructed as part of the. Centx*1 Artery landfill closure
project at .Spectacle Island. "She artificial reef project could
also be iapacted by this disposal alternative.
J
Sites
and
.' Two areas, off Deer Island'-havei^een proposed .-as borrow" pit
disposal sites. This alternative would require dredging at the
site to create the borrow pit/ reuse or disposal of the silts/
sand and gravel froa the site, 'disposal of contaminated aateriais
•in -the pit, • and covering of those materials with, .uncontaainated
parent material. Based on the preliminary information, this
alternative is considered promising, A borrow pit appears to
offer an effective way of isolating .contaminated .sediments.
Moreover, the sites are shallow, enough to* allow controlled
.placement of the materials/ but deep enough to reduce erosional
effects. This option would provide sand and gravel aateriais
that could be used to renourish beaches, and ultimately the site
would be restored to pre-exis.ting conditions.
: . .However, the Division of Marine Fisheries has serious
concerns about the acceptability of. 'these alternatives because of
likely impacts on fisheries. " That agency is concerned that these
13
-------
#8695
DEI* certificate
•June 301 1994
alternatives have been carried" forward because of- the lack >.ef
fisheries samp.ling data in th« area,. Therefore, impacts on
marine resource* must be evaluated, in the-FEIR, including the
effects on ground fish and commercial lobster ing. Xcrexdetail€:d
information vill be required if this alternative is. pursued, as
explained in tbe Division of Marine Fisheries comment. What
mitigation options~~are available to minimize damage to fisheries
resources? . :'
The comment from the Kczk also, lays out the Issues that vill
need to be addressed more fully in.,the FEXR, if this alternative
is selected. Existing information on-borrow pits, additional
site data, and borrow pit design, ctiteria should be developed to
better assess the feasibility of this alternative. % Environmental
impacts should be assessed, furthermore, the scoping guidance
given above for analysing impacts to resource areas at the Boston
Lightship site should also be .used..for the borrow pit sites. The
FEIR must also -consider the potential effects on the KWRA ocean
outfall system and the monitoring program for that system.
Potentially Practicable alternative*
-------
EOEA #8695
DZZR
; June 30, 1994
conditions, the dredged materials would be acceptable for
specific uses. The requirements for daily cover material .were
only provided for the Fitchburg/Westminster and
Plainville/Laidlaw landfills. ' Are there ether landfills that
could accept -this material?
The CCR landfill site was .screened out. Given that :recent
Notice of Project Change filings wiifch KSPA indicate that there
are'.-plans to extend the life of the landfill, this alternative
may be worth reconsidering. Hbre information is needed on the
wrentham site/ as.veil. • -. , • :
""'••". - " r~' ' •' •
Dewatering options and .di&watering sites must be studied in
greater detail in the FSIR. .Details, on a dewatering .facility iat
Kystic Pier or .the North Jetty.should be provided. An assessment
of dewaterizig .technologies should focus on demonstrating that the
material will be acceptable for reuse in landfills. \The impacts
of increased truck traffic in the traffic corridor serving the
dewater site should be analyzed also. In addition, the F£ZR •
should address how the applicable irater quality standards (314
CUR 3.OO) will be net.
Castly, if aonofills or landfiil cover alternatives are to
be.pursued further, more site specific information will be
required and a scope of work will need to be developed. The WG
and EOEA agencies should be included in that scoping process.
S1-42
aad Filling
-------
EOEA /3695
DEXR. Certificate
f
30, 1994
c
' . • The DSP regulatory requirements" for construction arid use o£
this type of site are being reconsidered and will probably be
changed in the. Comprehensive Dredging Regulations that are being
developed by DSP. Until that time, however, as tine DEP comment"
points out, off-site disposal of dredged material^, not at a 2 IS
site'or an existing solid waste landfill would be regulated under
Beneficial Use Determination procedures and the Division of Solid
Waste Management siting and plan approval process. With respect:
to the latter, siting requirements are quite rigorous.
.. The potential impacts of disposal of contaminated materials
nearshere must"be addressed. In addition, neighborhood impacts,
Including odor, noise, and traffic, "must also be Assessed. In
areas outside DPAs, consideration should be given to land use
opportunities for created land that would improve the quality of
life "in affected neighborhoods. The environmental equity issue
must be addressed, where applicable* .
•An analysis of the potential impacts to fisheries, including
anadrombus fish runs in the Mystic River, and bentihic environment:
due to changes in the tidal prism, flushing and water quality
should also be provided in the FSIR* Further, as = noted in the
DEIR, 'inshore alternatives such as this will require-mitigation
to minimize the turbidity pluae. An .analysis of the pluae before
and after mitigation should be supplied in the next' report.
If this alternative is selected, more detailed Study will fee
required as indicated in the comment*. Again, a scope for that
study must be developed with agency guidance. • .. •
" Two alternatives were not identified in the »EIR under the
category of nearshore filling and butfcheading. They.are: Fort
Point'Channel, the upper -reach, whic&-may become u;aore
attractive alternative.^* a result-of potential changes to the
Third Harbor Tunnel project in this area; and Conley Terminal, in
areas where vork may be proposed under the .pier decking. These
two 'alternatives appear to warrant further consideration and
analysis of impacts for the disposal "of contaminated dredged
materials. • .:
•i
.Innovative Treataent Technologies •;"..
* ' • '.*':. •
• "While significant questions need'to be answered, innovative
technologies hold promise, especially for highly contaminated.
sediments, for "stabilization of contaminants, and for volume
16 ...
-------
EOEA #3655
DEIR Certificate
/June 30, 1994
reduction of dredged materials. : Thus, potentially practicable
treatment technologies should be pursued further in the FEIR a
-the following recommendation frba the MCZM should be advanced,
"The FEIR-should identify a practicable remedial technology that
can be implemented as at least a demonstration project. The
USACOE and Kassport should work closely with commonwealth
agencies to identify a funding mechanism to support this element
of the SHNIP." . .
Alternatives
' In developing the disposal options, volume, sediment
quality, environmental impact, and practicability were
considered. Many of the disposal options described (p. 3-11
through 3-17) included more than one disposal site alternative.
However/ as it turned out, when the disposal options were
screened further, based on capacity, environmental benefits, and
cost, only one disposal option with multiple disposal sites was
deemed to be a "practicable alternative*.
•. There is considerable support among the SOS& agencies for
reuse of the materials in landfills', new land creation, and
innovative technologies. These additional disposal option
alternatives must be reconsidered in -the FEIR to determine
•whether they meet the criteria established for "practicable
alternatives." Specifically, the information provided in the 0£P
comment about potential landfill, capacity and additional reuse
opportunities should be used in the reconsideration of Option XI.
The shoreline containment areas in Option Bl, and possibly Option
BS, .should also be reconsidered because evidence has been
provided that there may be sufficient capacity at the shoreline
sites, for disposal of significant volumes of dredged material.
with respect to the Land-Based Aquatic Combinations under option
category *c«, it is unclear whether a combination of landfills
and aquatic shoreline sites would now meet the criteria
established for "practicable sites." While I am not advocating
the Inclusion of many additional sites, I believe that various
combinations of disposal alternatives may offer flexibility 'and
new disposal option combinations may present themselves, which
achieve the necessary cost benefit requirements while satisfying
environmental protection standards.. For this reason, it may
ultimately be wiser to carry forward an alternative (s) in this
^category into at least the final screening step. The FEIR should
address this issue.
17
-------
EQEA.
DEIR Certificate
30, 1994
Preferred Disposal option •'•"'"• ':
. If the preferred disposal option selected has :not been
ranked as. having the "least environmental impacts" from among the
final list of "practicable alternatives", then the FEIR must
carry forward, for comparative analysis purposes, both the
preferred and the "least environmental impact alternative." To
the extent possible, the FEIR-.must, itlso show that the impacts of
the preferred option will not be greater than the impacts of the
"least environmental impact alternative,11 taking into account
mitigation measures and any potential environmental benefits of
the- chosen plan. . :.
'It may also be prudent "to carry forward a back- up
alternative disposal option plan. To a great extent* the
decision to do so would be. based on the significance of the
outstanding issues following further assessment of the disposal
option alternatives. . :
• *
For the disposal option plan selected, a Drtfft Section 61
Finding should be provided to show that the impacts1 of the.chosen
alternative(s) will be addressed in the project design, in dredge
management, or through mitigation/ and damage to the environment
will be minimized to the greatest extent feasible.
Management aneLJfonitorineLJPlan
The DE1R .indicates (SS-5) that •• procedures will : be developed
in. greater detail for the preferred disposal alternative once rthe
'type and location of the preferred :site(s) is identified. Ther;
Plan must demonstrate that impacts .to the environment from the
dredging project will be avoided and minimized. The comment from.-
the MCZK should provide guidance for addressing this issue. That
comment also considers the requirements of a monitoring plan that
should be .included in the FEXR. . ' ,
impacts on Water Quality
* The following issues should'be..'considered in the FEIR in
order to demonstrate that the project design, and dredge
management techniques will be utilized to minimise water quality
impacts: . '. ...
- .' 18
-------
EOEA #8695
DEIR Certificate
June 30, 1994
o The rigorous turbidity controls identifie
-------
C
EOZX #8695
DEIR. Certificat«
SO, 1994
is
coamentary.
SSSi^'SiSft.'SLiaS'S.SS gMT"!*?
the confluence alon
-------
£Q£A #8695
OEIR Cert if icate
.June 30, 1994
page 4-9. There appear* to b« an error because" silt or
day fractions are measured at; less than .06." mm and. so
are sand particles.
DATE
Comments received:
Coxe/ Secretary
5/17/94
5/12/94
5/16/94
5/17/94
5/18/94
5/17/94
5/19/94
5/19/34
5/23/94
5/26/94
5/19/94
5/26/94
6/1/94
6/13/94
6/13/94
6/14/94
6/14/94
6/15/94
6/15/94
6715/94
6/16/94
6/17/94
6/17/94
6/17/94
6/20/94
6/20/94
6/20/94
6/20/94
6/21/94
6/21/94
6/21/94
%6/21/94
6/21/94
6/21/94
6/21/94
6/21/94
International Longshoremen ' s Association
North Shor« Recycled Fibers
. Rexham
City of Everett, Office of the Mayor
Cape Cod Commission
Frank Kirarchi
Containership Agency, Inc.
X.T.o. Corporation of Hev England
Boston Water and Sever Coamission
Jeffrey Hopkins
Dr. Paul r. Hurray
•Decorative Specialties International Inc.
-Marine Fisheries Coaaission
C. H. Powell Coapany
Boston Harbor Docking Pilots
• Boston Toving and Transportation Company
Kaersx Inc
Hedlloyd Lines
>&o containers
Bev Carney
Patterson, Wylde 4 Co. , inc.
Sea-Land •-'.-.
- Town of svampsoott, conservation Coaiaission
' Nahant SWIH, Inc.
Tovn of Mahant, Board of Selectmen
.-LADS System, Inc.
Boston Redevelopment Authority
Massachusetts Highway Department, CA/T
<5reenWorld Inc.
Massachusetts Bays "Program
. S.T.O.F.
Massachusetts Sierra Club
Center for Marine Conservation
Coastal Advocacy Network
CLP
Save the Barber/Save -the Bay
Dl
TT'd Z'SZL ZL.7 £2= t S
:Tt
-------
#8695
DEIR Certificate
June 30, 1994
c
620/94
6/11/94
P : bcsdr edg. dei
TC/SB/nb
•John T.. Clark and Son
Cetacean Research
22
T £
01
3«" i J-' CtSW i
-------
Sl-1
The BHNIP DEIR/S team appreciates the EOEA commendation for the
Working Group process utilized for this project.
Sl-2
The criteria used to identify practicable alternatives were reexamined for the
FEIR/S.
Sl-3
The comparison of environmental impacts of the potential disposal sites was
separated, in the alternatives analysis (Section 4.0), from the practicability analysis to
emphasize more clearly the logic behind the site selection process. Additional data on
environmental conditions at these sites was collected and incorporated into the
analysis.
Sl-4
The preferred alternative is the same as the least impact alternative and is fully
described hi the FEIR/S.
Sl-5
A detailed Dredge Management and Monitoring Plan, specific to the preferred
alternative, is presented in Section 5.0 of the FEIR/S.
Sl-6
The comparison of environmental impacts associated with the use of each of
the potential disposal sites has been expanded in the FEIR/S and provides sufficient
grounds for making the determination of the least environmentally damaging alterna-
tive.
Sl-7
The screening criteria used to develop the shortlist of sites in the DEIR/S were
reconsidered and found to be appropriate for this purpose. The analysis of the
shortlisted sites was altered by separating consideration of environmental impacts and
practicability factors. The least environmentally damaging alternatives were identified
before practicability criteria were applied.
1
-------
Sl-8
The alternatives analysis, Section 4 of the FEIR/S, provides sufficient detail to
follow the logic of and reach the same conclusion as the site selection process.
Sl-9
The restructuring of the alternatives analysis provides more detail on the
environmental impacts of each of the disposal alternatives.
Sl-10
No alternatives for reuse of contaminated sediments have been found to be
environmentally acceptable.
Sl-11
A detailed Dredge Management and Monitoring Plan is presented in Section 5
of the FEIR/S.
Sl-12
The BHNIP consulted extensively with the federal and state resource and
regulatory agencies during the development of the FEIR/S. The team believes that this
process was successful in clarifying questions that the agencies had regarding the
project and enabled us to develop a document that provides sufficient information for
the selection of the preferred alternative. We believe that it will not be necessary to
conduct additional environmental regulatory review after the FEIR/S.
Sl-13
Alternative project designs are discussed in the FEIR/S.
tff
Sl-14
The FEIR/S has assumed that all silts to be dredged during the BHNIP are
unsuitable for open ocean disposal. The schedule for completion of the FEIR/S has
resulted in an approximately one-year delay in projected startup. As a result, we
anticipate that natural sedimentation patterns will accumulate additional material
(contaminated) in the channels. This additional volume has been accounted for in the
-------
designed disposal site capacity. It is not expected that this additional volume would
have a detectable effect on the environmental impacts of dredging or disposal.
Sl-15
The volume of material that could be maintenance dredged from the berthing
areas over the 50 years following the BHNIP can be estimated by the historic mainte-
nance dredging frequency for Boston Harbor. The volume of maintenance dredging
estimated to be required from the berth areas during the next 50 years is approximately
1.2 m cy.
Sl-16
The volume of sediments (combined parent and maintenance material) expected
to be dredged from the 18 berth areas was calculated based on existing hydrographic
surveys available during the DEIS development period. These estimates assumed the
silt material would be entirely removed along with an overdredge of 0.5 feet into the
underlying parent material. Therefore, the silt portion may have been a slight overesti-
mation at the time this data was calculated. However, due to continuing siltation in
the dredge areas until the time when actual dredging occurs, there will be some
additional material; the resultant quantities should be fairly close to the estimates
provided in the DEIR.
An additional factor the DEIR does not account for is the reduced dredge
volumes of berth areas that may be dredged before the BHNIP. For example, the
recent Moran terminal dredging (approximately 10,000 cubic yards) and possible
dredging at Eastern Minerals and Gulf Oil would reduce the total estimated silt volume
for the BHNIP slightly.
The volume of parent material to be dredged from the berth areas will not
change over time and is felt to be an accurate estimate.
The amount of silty material to be dredged from the project includes the berth
areas. Berths to be dredged are described in Section 2.2.3 and summarized hi Table 2-
7. The volumes shown in the DEIR/S for the Federal channel were based on 1983
surveys. These volumes accounted for the changes in channel layout at the Inner
Confluence. This includes the extra dredging at the south end of the Inner Confluence
and the deletion of dredging near the McArdle Bridge on the East Boston side;
shortening of the Mystic Channel by Boston Edison and easing the transition into the
narrower channel by Exxon, and reducing the size of the area being dredged hi front
of the Army Pier and increasing the size of the notch across the Reserved Channel
mouth.
-------
Sl-17
The 0.5 foot over dredge should not be confused with the standard practice of
overdepth dredging. The meaning of the 0.5 foot was to allow a volume of parent
material that may inadvertently be included in the bucket as the silt is being removed.
This parent material will be mixed in with the silt and deposited with the silt. Silt
disposal alternatives must allow capacity for this extra material. The traditional
allowable overdepth of two feet hi parent material and three feet in rock are included
in the proposed project quantities.
Sl-18
Section 4.0 of the final EIR/S discusses the disposal option for maintenance
dredging only.
Sl-19
All of the silty material has been considered unacceptable for unconfined open
water disposal. Disposal of the silty material would only occur if it can be isolated
from more pristine areas.
Sl-20
The alternatives analysis in the FEIR/S has been restructured to evaluate the
shortlisted sites on the basis of environmental impacts to select the least environmen-
tally damaging alternatives. After this process, practicability criteria were applied to
the sites. All sites were evaluated not only for their suitability for disposal of BHNIP
sediments, but also for unidentified future projects. While capacity has an effect on
the suitability of sites for the BHNIP, it may be less of a factor for other projects.
Therefore, the use of this criterion was modified for the analysis hi the FEIR/S.
The suitability of the shoreline sites, as well as all other shortlisted sites, was
reconsidered. While each of the shoreline sites evaluated lies within or directly
adjacent to the State's Designated Port Areas, federal agencies do not agree that this
designation enables them to make an exemption to the "no net loss" agreement
established relative to the 404(b)(l) guidelines. The alternatives analysis rated
permanent losses of aquatic habitat as more severe than temporary losses. Coupled
with other, indirect, impacts, the fill-to-fastland scenarios were found not to be among
titie least environmentally damaging alternatives. In addition to the environmental
effects, the costs of this scenario would be higher than many other alternatives, and the
period of time required to realize productive real estate value of the newly created land
would be lengthy.
-------
Sl-21
Section 4.0 evaluates the potential disposal sites based on numerous environ-
mental and practicability criteria. Cost was one criterion, but it was not used alone to
determine the preferred alternative.
Sl-22
As indicated in previous responses, the disposal site alternatives analysis has
been restructured in the FEIR/S (Section 4).
Sl-23
In accordance with this comment, the disposal site alternatives analysis has
been restructured to provide a clear separation between environmental and practicabili-
ty criteria.
Sl-24
The referenced issues are covered in Attachment 1 and Section 4 (Disposal Site
Alternatives Analysis) in the FEIR/S.
Sl-25
The in-channel disposal alternative has been redesigned, based on information
on subbottom conditions, so that it can accommodate the entire volume of silt pro-
posed for dredging from the BHNIP.
Sl-26
The in-channel disposal site will use a sand cap. This will eliminate concerns
expressed by agencies over the use of a clay cap on silty material.
Sl-27
Disposal of future maintenance material with capping at MBDS will be
considered. Discussion is underway to determine if clean silty material from another
project would be suitable for a demonstration project. Appropriate agencies would be
contacted for comment prior to demonstration.
ft*
-------
Sl-28
A demonstration project would not necessarily be tied to this project. All
appropriate agencies would be contacted for comment on the proposed demonstration
project
Sl-29
This alternative has been dropped as a preferred alternative based on review of
envkonmental and practicability criteria.
Sl-30
Additional biological investigations were conducted at the Boston Lightship site
during the fall of 1994. The project did not do additional work locating and quantify-
ing existing waste material at the site because the EPA is in the process of doing that.
This information was used to reanalyze the suitability of this site for disposal of
dredged materials.
Sl-31
Reevaluation of the potential aquatic disposal sites indicates that the in-channel
disposal option would be among the least environmentally damaging alternatives. The
description of this alternative has been clarified in the FEIR/S. MEPA's expressed
concern regarding stockpiling of sediments during this process appears to be a
misunderstanding. Careful coordination of the construction will be required, but it is
readily possible to minimize the duration of stockpiling. In particular, stockpiling
would not occur landside, but "would be restricted to barge storage. The FEIR/S
describes the impacts associated with this disposal option.
The reader should refer to the Dredged Material Management Plan for a
detailed analysis of the operational procedures for in-channel disposal. All dredging
and disposal activities will have some impact to the environment. However impacts to
the environment will be temporary and cease when construction is completed.
Disposal impacts for the in-channel alternative would be minimized as the dredged
material would be returned to the environment it was taken from. No significant
biological resources are expected to be impacted with this alternative. An environmen-
tal window has been established to minimize impacts to anadromous finfish in the
Mystic River. Mitigation may be required if water quality impacts are anticipated.
The Dredged Material Management Plan discusses potential operational mitigation
techniques.
-------
Sl-32
Dredge production rates are expected to generate two barges per day per dredge
transiting the harbor channels. The rug captains will be in radio contact with the
larger vessels entering or leaving the harbor and little impact is expected from the
movement of barges.
Sl-33
Additional biological investigations were conducted at the in-channel locations
during the fall of 1994. This information was used in the reevaluation of disposal site
alternatives.
Sl-34
The issues raised in this comment on the Spectacle Island CAD site have been
thoroughly addressed in the FEIR/S.
Sl-35
Additional biological investigations were conducted at the Meisburger sites
during the fall of 1994. Results were used in the reevaluation of the disposal site
alternatives analysis. These sites were determined not to be among the least environ-
mentally damaging alternatives. The project considers the avoidance of impact to
Massachusetts' fishing industry to be a high priority.
Sl-36
The issues raised in this comment have been addressed in the FEIR/S (Section
4 and Attachment 1).
Sl-37
The disposal site alternatives analysis (Section 4) has been restructured to
separate the evaluation of environmental impacts from practicability issues.
Sl-38
The chemical and physical characteristics of the dredged material samples have
been compared to the DEP requirements for soil reuse at lined landfills (Bureau of
Waste Prevention Interim Policy #BWP-94-037 - Reuse and Disposal of Contaminated
-------
Soils at Landfills') and for capping materials (310CMR 19.000 Solid Waste Manage-
ment Regulations and Landfill Technical Guidance Manual). While silt samples from
some of the dredge sites may meet the chemical criteria for reuse at landfills, other
samples exceed the allowable limits for PCBs, Arsenic, and/or TPH and dewatering
sediments to meet the standard of no free draining liquid is currently impracticable.
Landfills have been dropped from consideration for disposal or reuse of silt material in
the Alternatives analysis (Section 4.0). Clay is better suited to beneficial uses as
landfill capping material, and this option is discussed in the FEIS. Several planned
demonstration projects may provide a wider variety of disposal options for future
maintenance dredging. These are discussed hi the FEIS,
Sl-39
See response to comment SI-38.
Sl-40
The reuse or disposal of dredged silt from the BHNIP at landfills for daily
cover, contouring material, or disposal has been eliminated from consideration due
primarily to the impracticability of dewatering the quantities of material expected to be
generated. Dewatering issues along with current site permitting requirements have led
to the elimination of other upland sites, including Wrentham-495 from further consid-
eration as practicable alternatives for the BHNIP.
Sl-41
The dewatering of the dredged materials would only be required if upland
disposal or if the treatment of the dredged materials is required prior to it's disposal.
The dewatering would be performed on land depending upon the volume of dredged
material produced daily and the availability of land and/or barges. Section 4.0 and
Appendix I discuss proposed dewatering operations.
Sl-42
See response to comment Sl-40.
Sl-43
The alternative of filling shoreline sites to fastland has been reconsidered in the
FEIR/S (Section 4). Under the Clean Water Act 404 (b)(l) guidelines, impacts must
be avoided first, then minimized. As there are other available alternatives, creating
-------
fast land has been determined not to be among the least environmentally damaging
alternatives.
Sl-44
Thank you for your guidance on regulatory procedures for evaluating the
shoreline sites.
Sl-45
Section 4.0 and Attachment 1 of the EIR/S addresses these impacts. Dewater-
ing would occur in areas closest to the harbor. Port areas would be considered first.
Sl-46
The issues raised in this comment have been addressed in Section 4 and
Attachment 1 of the FEIR/S. Biological resources of the shoreline sites were investi-
gated in fall 1994, in response to this and similar comments. An environmental
window has been established to minimize impacts to anadromous finfish in the Mystic
River.
Sl-47
Thank you for suggesting additional potential disposal sites. Fort Point
Channel was evaluated and eliminated during the preparation of the DEIR/S, partially
because of its inaccessibility for barges. Despite changes in the Central Artery project,
this area continues to be inaccessible. In addition, there are concerns about the effect
this disposal would have on the structural integrity of the area. The area on Conley
Terminal was found to be unsuitable for the proposed operation.
Sl-48
In response to several of the comments on the DEIR, MASSPORT and the
Army Corps of Engineers developed a survey questionnaire to send to treatment
technology and disposal companies which could be contracted to handle, treat and or
dispose of the contaminated dredged materials (Appendix D). The survey utilized a
format originally developed by the USEPA and the Army Corps of Engineers as part
of the Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) Program
(Averitt 1990). The survey included questions on the effectiveness, implementability
and the cost of the technology for the treatment or disposal of contaminated dredged
materials.
-------
Thirteen completed questionnaires were received in response to the 37 sent.
Results of this survey are detailed in Appendix D and summarized in Section 3. In the
future Massport and the Corps will, where feasible, implement new technology that is
practicable for dredged material. There is no new technology that can be applied to
the BHNIP that is practicable.
Sl-49
Landfills, new land creation and innovative technologies were re-evaluated in
the FEIR/S (Sections 3.0 and 4.0).
Sl-50
The least environmental damaging alternative is the preferred alternative.
Sl-51
A Draft Section 61 Finding addressing the issues raised in this comment is
included with the FEIR/S.
Sl-52
Refer to Section 5.0 of the final EIR/S for the Dredged Material Management
Plan.
Sl-53
The Dredged Material Management Plan in Section 5.0 of the final EIR/S
describes the turbidity controls during dredging and disposal. The Cable Arm is a
brand name. Corps contracting procedures make it difficult to specify a brand name
product when other options are available. We can, however, specify certain perfor-
mance standards to be met by any equipment used in the dredging of silty material.
Sl-54
No other significant resources in the harbor warrant timing considerations. No
delays which would cause the dredging to occur during the environmental restriction is
anticipated. If this were to occur, then coordination with the appropriate agencies
would occur.
10
-------
A scenario for dredge sequencing has been prepared to demonstrate the
complexity of scheduling demands such as environmental restrictions will have on the
proposed project. Both the Mystic River and the Inner Confluence are anticipated to
be associated with dredging restrictions. The likelihood of delays causing dredge
operations to be pushed into the restricted period is open to chance. However, since
dredging will be taking place for about 18 months it is more likely the dredge will be
relocated to the Chelsea or Reserved Channel if more than about a week of extension
was required. A possible contingency for work required during the time restriction
would be to confine work limits to only one side of the Mystic River or Inner
Confluence.
Sl-55
There are several systems available that could be used to reduce fisheries
impacts. This issue is discussed in the Dredging Management Plan (Section 5.0).
Sl-56
Impacts from odor are discussed in Section 5.0 and Attachment 1 of the final
EIR/S. Dewatering is not required for the preferred plan. Temporary barge storage
will be of a short duration (5 days) and will occur infrequently.
Sl-57
Mechanical dewatering of the dredged sediments has been considered for at
least a portion of the material. Volume reduction and dewatering is effective when the
material can be disposed at upland facilities or has a commercial or beneficial upland
use. Upland disposal has not been identified as the preferred and least environmentally
damaging alternative. As a result, mechanical dewatering and subsequent upland
disposal has been considered as a contingency for sediments which could not be
placed at the in-water sites.
Sl-58
The preferred alternative, in-channel, would have minimal damage to the
environment.
Sl-59
The proposed dredging project is described in Section 2 of the FEIR/S.
11
-------
Sl-60
TCDD, the most toxic congener, was not detected in any of the Boston Harbor
sediment samples analyzed for this project. The congeners that were foundin detect-
able concentrations are not considered to occur at levels of concern to the marine
environment.
Sl-61
Three berth areas were not included hi the sediment testing program along with
the 15 berths described hi the DEIR. Those three locations are figured into the
benefit/cost analyses since it has been determined that those facilities could benefit
from the Federal channel deepening if it occurs. However, the three areas either don't
require dredging at this time or the facility operators did not wish to be part of the
BHNIP program. Therefore it was not deemed necessary or feasible to characterize
those locations.
Sl-62
The superscripts 2 and 3 indicate that the concentration of the indicated
parameter was hi category II or III under the Massachusetts classification of sediments
for open-water disposal.
Sl-63
The prefix "J" means that the compound was present in trace amounts. The
concentration listed is an estimated value.
Sl-64
Cost for mobilization includes getting the necessary equipment and materials to
the disposal site and finalizing site preparation plans.
12
/3o
-------
MASSACHUSETTS WATER RESOURCES AUTHORITY
Charlestown Navy Yard
100 First Avenue
Boston, Massachusetts 021 29
Tci.
June 21, 1994
Colonel Brink P. Miller
Division Engineer
Department of the Army
New England Division, Corps of Engineers
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, Massachusetts 02254-9149
Re: Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
Dear Colonel Miller,
The Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) has
reviewed the above referenced draft document, and offers the
following comments. Comments are presented by location, and
pertain to both the dredging and disposal aspects of the project.
Chelsea River
Please note that the MWRA Waterworks Division maintains the
following pipelines in the Chelsea River, between the McArdle
Bridge and the Chelsea Street Bridge:
Facility
Section 8, LSPL,
42" pipe in tunnel
Section 38, LSPL,
36" pipe in tunnel
Section 38, LSPL,
36" pipe encased in
concrete
Grade
Top
39'
of Tunnel
below MLW
Top of Tunnel
35' below MLW
Top of concrete
encasement, 43'
below MLW
Location
About 800' east
of McArdle Bridge
About 100' west of
Chelsea Street
Bridge
About 200 feet west
of Chelsea Street
Bridge
Massport and/or the ACOE must submit to the MWRA any
dredging plans for work which may impact these structures. Plans
should be submitted to James Gillis, MWRA Waterworks Division.
In addition, note that any work within MWRA easements
requires a Section 8M Permit. Inquiries regarding permitting
requirements may be mades to Owen McGarrahan, MWRA Waterworks
131
-------
June 21, 1994
Page 2
Division, at (617) 242-6000, ext. 4626.
Chelsea Creek
The MWRA maintains a number of sewer siphons in a relatively
small area of Chelsea Creek. Two 60-rinch siphons connect the
I.N. Caruso Pump Station with the Chelsea Screen House and the
Chelsea Headworks. The siphons are located 60 feet below the low
water mark (MDC datum 38.47). One siphon carries dry weather
flow from the Revere Extension and Chelsea Branch Sewer; the
other carries storm overflow from the Headworks to the Caruso
Station.
The Caruso Station has no gates to shut down the siphons,
which enter directly into the station's wet well. Therefore, if
for any reason a siphon breaks, there is no way to stop sea water
from entering the station.
Meisburger 2 & Meisburger 7
As the DEIR/S states, Meisburger 2 is located at
42° 23.7' N, 70° 50.2' W., and Meisburger 7 is located at
42° 20.7' N, 70° 47.7' W. The coordinates for the diffuser area
for the MWRA's Deer Island Outfall are as follows:
R2 Diffuser: 42° 23.3' N, 70° 46.8' W
R55 diffuser: 42° 23.1' N, 70° 48.2' W
The Meisburger 2 site is therefore located approximately 1.2
miles west of the diffuser area, and the Meisburger 7 site 1.2
miles to the south.
Because of this proximity to the outfall diffuser area, the
Authority is concerned that the use of these sites will impact
the MWRA's monitoring program near the outfall. The sites are
within the nearfield depositional zone of the outfall, and it
will be very difficult to distinguish between outfall impacts and
dredge disposal impacts. In addition, the Meisburger sites are
reasonably clean, and it does not appear to be good environmental
policy to perturb them. The Authority recommends using in-harbor
sites for borrow pits so that existing dirty sites could be
cleaned up.
J
-------
June 21, 1994
Page 3
Little Mystic Channel and Reserved Channel
In compliance with the court-ordered schedule for Boston
Harbor, the Authority is currently developing Combined Sewer
Overflow (CSO) Control Alternatives as part of an overall
Wastewater System Master Plan. Based on extensive data
collection and system characterization in conjunction with
development of a detailed system model, the Authority has
developed a number of alternatives for CSO Control. A
recommended plan for CSO Control will be submitted to the court
in draft form in September 1994, and will be finalized by
December, 1994.
, Two of the potential disposal areas identified in the draft
EIR/S (Little Mystic Channel and the Reserved Channel) are the
sites of active CSOs. Accordingly, any work proposed within the
Little Mystic Channel or the Reserved Channel should be closely
coordinated with the Authority's CSO Control.planning for those
areas. However, since a number of the CSO Control alternatives
are being addressed on a very site specific basis, coordination
with the MWRA should be maintained regarding any in-channel
disposal locations.
Revere Sugar and Amstar
The Amstar site is adjacent to the Revere Sugar site, which
is currently leased by the MWRA for the transportation of workers
to Deer Island for the Boston Harbor Project. The Authority is
aware of the potential conflict between this use and its possible
use as a disposal site, and is in negotiations with Massport to
reevaluate the lease termination date.
Everett site
Note that the Everett Site is immediately adjacent to the
MWRA's New Charlestown Pump Station, which is a contaminated site
being investigated under Chapter 2IE. In order to ensure that
possible disposal activities do not result in a release from the
site or in any way impede future remediation, any use of this
location must be closely coordinated with MWRA and DEP.
Subag E
Although the Subaq E site lies near the path of ferries
carrying MWRA construction personnel to Deer Island, it appears
133
-------
June 21, 1994
Page 4
to be located outside of the channel, and so will not impact
ferry traffic.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DEIR/S. If
I can be of any assistance in clarifying these comments, please
call me at (617) 242-0230, ext. 4335.
Very Truly Yours
Mark Radville
Project Manager,
Environmental Management
cc: M. Debbie
L. Lataille
N. Kurtz
R. Trubiano
M. Connor
J. Gillis
M. White
M. Connolly
T. Coxe, MEPA
J. Hansen, Massport
S. Lipman, DEP/DWPC
-------
S2-1
The Corps will continue to work closely with MWRA on plans to dredge the
channel on Chelsea River. Close coordination should be maintained with the City of
Boston, Public Works Department, regarding their replacement of the Chelsea Street
Bridge - which may impact the utilities in that area.
S2-2
During preparation of plans and specifications for the project, MWRA will be
informed of progress. Permit inquires will be made with the MWRA to keep all
parties aware of proposed plans. However, it is understood that if utilities are to be
relocated then a Section 8M permit is moot.
S2-3
The two 60-inch sewer siphons appear to be outside of the proposed dredging.
Coordination with MWRA should alert specification writers to any potential problems.
S2-4
The potential use of the Meisburger sites for the disposal of dredged materials
has been reevaluated in the FEIR/S (Section 4). Compared to other sites being
considered for this project, these sites are not among the least environmentally
damaging alternatives for the BNHIP. Their use may be reconsidered hi the future at
which point further coordination with MWRA would be appropriate.
S2-5
In-channel disposal is not being proposed for either the Little Mystic Channel
or Reserved Channel. Continued coordination with MWRA regarding in-channel
disposal locations will consist of providing the FEIR/S for comment.
S2-6
Because of its limited capacity, costs for partially filling 1he Amstar site are
higher than other, more preferred shoreline sites (e.g. Little Mystic Channel). It is
unlikely that the Amstar site will be used for disposal of sediments hi the near future.
13
125
-------
S2-7
The Everett site was not selected as a preferred alternative for disposal of silts
from the BHNIP.
S2-8
The Subaqueous E site is currently used as a local channel. Use of the site
would cause the MWRA ferry to deviate to the south from its existing route; bypassing
the lower middle shoal and then turning into the western edge of the President Roads
Anchorage.
14
-------
William F. Weld
Govimof
Trudy Coxa
S*cratwy. EOEA
Thomas B. Power*
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Department of
Environmental Protection
June 21, 1994
Massport/ACOE
Draft EIR/S, EOEA No. 8695
Boston Harbor Navigation
Improvement and Berth
Dredging Project
Trudy Coxe, Secretary Re:
Massachusetts Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, MA 02202
and
Brink P. Miller
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA 02254
?
Dear Ms. Coxe and Mr. MiZler:
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement for
the Boston Harbor, Massachusetts, Navigation Improvement Project
and Berth Dredging Project (EOEA File Number 8695) and this
correspondence includes DEP's consolidated comments on the two
volume April 1994 document. This correspondence consists of four
sections: the first section (1) includes regulatory and policy
comments; section (2) includes a listing of major comments;
section (3) includes supplemental page-by-page comments; and
section (4) includes miscellaneous comments.
Initially, DEP would like to indicate that it fully supports
the project goal of deepening and then maintaining the various
channels throughout Boston Harbor and also increasing the depth of
various berth in the harbor. The ability of the Port of Boston to
handle the larger cargo and fuel vessels is critical to the overall
economic well being of the entire Metropolitan Boston area and the
standard of living of its residents. In this regard DEP, in
cooperation with its sister agencies within the Massachusetts
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA), has embarked on
On* Winter Street • Boston, Ma*sachu»etts 02108
FAX (617) 556-1049 • T«tephon« (617) 282-5500
/37
-------
a regulatory development process to prepare and issue comprehensive
dredging regulations, with specific emphasis on reuse and disposal
of contaminated dredged materials. Unfortunately, this process has
only recently been actively initiated and DEP does not expect to
have final regulations in-place before early/mid 1995. It is DEP_s
understanding that Massport's proposed schedule for the EIR/S is
for the Final EIR/S to be filed with MEPA by the end of 1994, but
that actual initiation of dredging activities may not begin until
1996. Assuming this schedule is correct, DEP will not have its new
regulations promulgated before submission of the Final EIR/S, but
they should be in-place during project permitting and will
certainly be in-place prior to actual dredging operations. In this
regard, DEP will not be able to definitely indicate during the
project EIR/S phase all of the regulatory requirements for dredged
materials reuse/disposal but we will provide Massport, ACOE and
MEPA with as much guidance as possible regarding the likely path(s)
that the regulations will travel. DEP will provide periodic
updates to the parties and will be requesting that Massport arid
ACOE actively participate in the regulatory development process.
As indicated earlier, section (1) of this correspondence will deal
with regulatory/policy issues and in this section we will attempt
to provide information regarding both the existing regulatory
framework and possible future procedures.
Section 1. Regulatory and Policy Issues
During the past six months a number of regulatory and policy
actions have been taken by DEP which directly affect the
reuse/disposal of dredged sediments. On October 1, J-99?, me
Revised Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP) at 310 CMR 40.000 took
effect which resulted in major changes to how sites contaminated
with Oil and Hazardous Materials (OHM) are assessed and cleaned-up.
One major element was the development of Reportable Concentrations
(RC) and Cleanup Standards. These regulations are implemented oy
DEP's Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup (BWSC) and under the current
regulations BWSC would be the lead DEP agency for regulating all
activities related to contaminated sediments if deemed to be pare
of a 21E spill/release or at an existing 21E site. In addition,
under the existing regulations the placement of contaminated
dredged materials on an upland area might result in the upland area
being deemed a potential 21E site if relevant RC's or Cleanup
Standards are exceeded. This regulatory situation is expected to
be rectified in 1994 when DEP issues additional revisions to 310
CMR 40.0000, since it is DEP's intention to include an exemption to
tiie 21E regulations for dredged spoils reuse/disposal which are
adequately regulated by another section of DEP. The Comprehensive
Dredging Regulations currently being developed would be_ that
alternative regulatory procedure. This would not affect BWSC s
regulatory control over dredged spoils taken from or placed onto an
existing 2IE designated site. Under this situation there would be
joint reviews and coordination by both BWSC and DEP's Bureau of
Resource .Protection (BRP) , which will implement the Comprehensive
-------
Dredging Regulations. Appended as Attachment No. 1 is an excerpt
from 310 CMR 40.0000 which describes soil categories, and Cleanup
Standards. " ' •
In addition, on April 21, 1994, DEP issued Interim Remediation
Waste Management Policy for Petroleum Contaminated Soils. fWSC-94-
400 (Attachment No. 2) which delineates the management practices
for reuse, recycling, disposal, storage, and transport of petroleum
contaminated soils. At the same time, DEP issued Interim Policy
#BWP-94-037 (attachment No. 3) titled Reuse and Disposal of
Contaminated Soils at Landfills. This Policy is enforced by DEP's
Division of Solid Waste Management (DSWM) which would regulate
dredged sediments proposed to be reused or disposed at
Massachusetts permitted solid waste landfills. Policy fBWP-94-037
provides guidance on DEP's requirements, standards and approvals
for testing, transport and reuse or disposal of contaminated soils
or dredged sediments at permitted landfills.
DSWM:
The following activities will reguire prior approval from the
Reuse at lined landfills of contaminated soils and
sediments that exceed the Table 1 (next page) contaminant
levels or do not meet the Landfill Operation
Retirements, delineated in Section 6.0 of the Policy.
Reuse of contaminated soils and sediments at unlined
landfills.
• Disposal of contaminated soils and sediments at lined or
unlined landfills.
The transportation of contaminated sediments not handled under
2IE through the use of a Bill of Lading must be transported via a
Material Shipping Record (MSR) signed by a Qualified Environmental
Professional, if the materials are going to a DEP-regulated
landfill for reuse or disposal.
For use/disposal at landfills, sediments cannot have any "free
draining liquid" as determined by EPA Method 9095 (a.k.a. Paint
Filler Test) .
The policy also sets up a hierarchy of reuse/disposal
alternatives, and in this regard contaminated sediments cannot be
disposed of in a DSWM regulated landfill if a "feasible alternative
exists that involves reuse, recycle, destruction, and/or
detoxification of such soils". It is incumbent upon the project
applicant to submit acceptable documentation to DEP.
A Landfill - Minor Modification. BWP SW 22 permit or other
approval by DSWM must be obtained prior to landfill reuse of any
contaminated soils or sediments which:
-------
BUREAU OF WASTE PREVENTION
POLICY * BWP-94-037
TABLE 1
ALLOWABLE CONTAMINANT LEVELS FOR SOIL REUSE AT LINED LANDFILLS'
^4^^i:^QSXJ^XKXK^ ^ z$k ^
Total Arsenic
Total Cadmium
Total Chromium .
Total Lead
Total Mercury
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH)
Total PCBs*
Total PAHs'
Total VOCsr
Conductivity1 Oanhos/cm)
Listed or Characteristic Hazardous Waste
(TCLF")
•? %«. J*, f •. Sff "" % V «A A, fS- ; •, v ,
3$fc^t^**^j*^#
40
80
1,000
2,000
10
5,000
< 2
100
10
4,000
none
NOTES:
a Table 1 is reproduced in policy ifWSC-94-400.
b Cootamfaaal concentrations are in mg/k«, dry weight. Other contaminants are as noted.
e Lfeed tadfilb hare a DEP approTed, functioaine Hner with leachate aOtx&at aad are operated in
Masacbnsetts DEP regulations and poBdes. The criteria apply to reme of soils at fined landfiUs at da«j
iBtemediate corer, and pre-cap contouring materiaL
note that the methods specified in footnotes d, e, aad f indicate the nairerse of chemfcak to be a4deil
the total csnceotratioas for these dasMS of innlimliiMlr This PoBcy does not spedfy what
to qoantify these ~-*«~*™.-** For exaapfe, Method 8IM defines tibe 1st of chemicah to be
total PAHs. Howerer, Methods 8270 or 8250 mxj be a»ed to qoanttfy PAH fcreli.
la
ii,
kiv
d Total concentrations of por/chiorinated ttphenyk fisted m EPA Method 8080.
__. « j » •>_._^ • W>A md'»ithnrf S14tt
£ TotftI copcrntrmitSpps of polymictey ATMBUKDC BvoFOCnViKHmt ntco ^B is* A IWCUHM* •*!«*•
f Total concentration of volatile organic compoonds ficted in EPA Method 8240 or eqinvafeat.
g Far soth or sediments which may be expected to be com^m ele^nted NaQ (e^. fedtoentt from marine ewiroa»
• road-cab stockpile affected soils).
a TCLP «—*fa-cshould be performed formetab or orgaafc compoM.
Gail Hanson, January 12,1993.
Page 2 of 8
U-ZI,
-------
1) fail to meet criteria in Table 1; or
2) fail to meet the requirements in Section 6,0, landfill
Operation'Requirements, of Policy BWP-94-037; of
3) contain concentrations of oil or hazardous materials for
which no threshold is specified in Table 1.
Only uncontaminated soils will be allowed for cover and
grading purposes at unlined landfills, unless the landfill owner or
operator requests and DEP approves an application for Landfill -
Minor Modification. BWP SW22 or other DEP approval is granted.
Such an application would need to be submitted to the applicable
DEP Regional Office with analytical soils data and landfill site
data sufficient for DEP to make a determination.
A Special Waste Determination (BWP SW 14 or BWP SW 31) or
other approval by DSWM must be obtained prior to disposal of
contaminated soils.
DEP's Division of Hazardous Materials fDHM) would regulate
under C.21C and 310 CMR 30.000 any sediments deemed to be a
hazardous waste f unless the sediments are elements of the work
being performed by BWSC as part of a 21E regulated , action.
Sediment could be deemed a hazardous waste by either being a
Characteristic Waste (exceeds Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP) criteria) or being a Listed Hazardous Waste.
I
The determination that sediments are a Hazardous Waste would
substantially complicate removal/disposal and would result in major
increases in project costs, since there are currently no hazardous
waste disposal facilities in Massachusetts.
Disposal off-the-site of the dredging operations, but not at
a 2IE site or DSWM landfill is the activity for which there
currently is no well defined DEP jurisdiction. Historically, DSWM
has processed proposals for reuse of mildly contaminated sediments
utilizing its Beneficial Use Determination procedures at 310 CMR
19.060, if the reuse plan conforms to the requirements included in
these regulations. In addition, by default, it was assumed that
any other proposal would require siting and plan approval under
DSWM at 310 CMR 16.000 and 19.000. DEP does not believe that this
current practice is the appropriate regulatory solution and as a
result the Comprehensive Dredging Regulations will specifically
delineate the siting and permit procedures for such disposal.
Section 2, Ma*1or Comments
(1) The document discussed the possibility of disposal of dredged
materials at solid waste landfills. Please be aware that DEP
Interim Policy * BWP-94-037 states that before DEP will
141
-------
(3)
(4)
consider allowing disposal of soil/sediments,, the options of
reuse, recycle, destruction, and/or detoxication must have
been considere4 and determined to be infeasible. In the past,
large quantities of contaminated dredged spoils have not been
disposed of at landfills, with the majority being utilized as
grading material or intermediate cover. This is not only due
to DEP's requirements that reuse options are preferable, but
due to the limited amount of landfill capacity in the
Commonwealth and the need to maintain this available capacity
for disposal of municipal solid waste and resource recovery
ash. DEP's most recent solid waste master plan and related
planning documents indicate that during the project's
anticipated dredging period, there would not be available
capacity for even a substantial portions of the 1.3± MCY of
sediments without, significant negative impacts on capacity for
landfill disposal of Municipal Solid Waste.
Page 2-5, Section 2.1.4: DEP concurs with the statement,
"Each tributary channel can therefore be treated as a separate
project or any combination with other project tributaries."
In this regard, DEP believes it is appropriate for the Final
EIR/S to consider in greater detail the options of spoils
disposal from a particular area into the adjacent
bulkhead/nearshore alternative. An example is to dispose of
all of the spoils from the Inner Confluence/Mystic River area
(approximately 500,000 c.y.) into the Little Mystic Channel
Site. If this site is filled to form "fast" land, ^ it may be
capable of handling the entire 500,000 c.y. of spoils.
Page 2.9. Section 2.2.2.1: The DEIR/S refers to data from a
1983 Sasaki Associates report which indicates that in several
areas to be dredged there are considerable quantities of gas,
predominately CO2, CH4 and H2S. This could result in
considerable odor problems during excavation, dewatering (if
necessary) , and transportation/disposal to upland sites. If
dewatering or upland disposal are to be recommended, the Final
EIR/S will need to address potential odor problems.
Page 3-12. Section 3.4.1; The report assumed as part of the
disposal assessment that dewatering and compaction would only
reduce the 1.3 MCY of as-excavated spoils to its 1.1 MCY in-
situ volume. The assumptions of dewatering efficiency are not
indicated in the report but DEP questions the 1.1 MCY
estimate. DEP would anticipate that mechanical dewatering
(see DEIR/S, page 3-17, Section 3.5.1) could result in
significantly better solids production, thereby reducing the
volume of sediments requiring final disposal to well below 1 . 1
MCY. This issue has major implications for the efficacy of
certain reuse/disposal options, particularly nearshore
bulkheading or upland landfilling. The Final EIR/S must fully
address "this issue.
-------
A i-elated issue which also needs to be more fully addressed in
the FEIR/S is an assessment of dredged spoils dewatering
technologies. _. This assessment should not only review the
basic technologies but analyze the siting and operation of
such facilities. Issues of concern include: how to get the
dredged spoils to the dewatering facilities (on land or
possibly a barge) ; how to deal with sidestreams (i.e.
pressate/centrate) ; and nature and extent of conditioning
chemicals required to obtain proper solids capture.
It would be useful for -the FEIR/S to refer to and discuss the
results of full scale projects at which a dewatering
technology was utilized.
(5) Page 3-24. 1st column: Massport should indicate its rationale
for choosing a site cutoff of 200,000 c.y. The determination
of site capacity is based on filling to MLW without taking
into account the potential for additional capacity if a site
is filled to MHW or to form "fast" land. This entire issue
should be discussed in greater detail in the Final EIR/S.
(6) Page 3-24 and 3-25: DEP is concerned about the determination
that options with a benefit to cost ratio less than 1:1 are
not feasible and should not be assessed further. DEP
understands that ACOE may be required to meet such specific
ratios, whether or not they are realistic or feasible, but we
question whether the options analysis should be based on such
an arbitrary criteria. If it is determined that an option
with a 1 to 1.3 ratio has significant environmental and public
health benefits over a 1 to 1 option, there should be a
process to allow for such an option to continue to be assessed
while financial alternatives are considered (i.e. option of
obtaining an exemption to the ratio or have non-federal
participating agency, such as Massport, pay an additional
share of the project costs to bring the federally eligible
costs ratio up to 1:1).
(7) Page 3-25. 1st column. 1st full paragraph: DEP questions the
screening process criteria whereby options with costs in
excess of four times that of ocean disposal at the MBDS are
deemed "prohibitive", particularly since the MBDS option used
as the base case appears to be for unconfined ocean disposal
(see Figure ES-3), a situation everyone agrees is not legal.
At a minimum, confined ocean disposal should be used as the
base case.
Using the unconfined disposal costs results in all of the
shoreline sites being deemed "limited by cost", and placed on
the lower level "potentially practicable alternative" list.
DEP believes that at a minimum, costs alone should not be
utilized to place these sites on a lower tier list.
/
S3-1
-------
(8) Page 3—28, Proposed Use/Impacts: The report states that
capping has occurred at a depth of 50 meters at a .Portland,
Maine site". The technical feasibility of such actions is a
critical issue* and the Final EIR/S should include^ detailed
documentation relative to the Portland, Maine Project. If
this information is not provided to DEP during the EIR
process, DEP will not be able to assess and indicate to MEPA
the technical feasibility of such options. DEP will require
the submission of this information during its permitting
phase, but it would be beneficial to all concerned if this
data is submitted now and not wait until the permitting phase.
(9) Page 4-6. Section 4.3.2t
a) The Final EIR/S should provide more documentation to
support the statement, "Disposal of parent material at
these sites [subaqueous depressions and borrow pits] does
not require containment."
b) The report states that material dredged from the borrow
pits may have commercial value or would be disposed at an
ocean disposal site. This assumes all excavate is
uncontaminated. Applicant would need to assess the
surficial sediments to verify this assumption. If
material is not acceptable for ocean disposal, the
disposal of this sediment could result in a significant
cost increase for the option and timing impacts. Is
there any information currently available relative to t3tie
contaminant concentrations in these surficial sediments?
If yes, this information should be included in Final
EIR/S. If not, at some point in time (prior to^permit
issuance), this information will need to be obtained.
(10) Page 4-8. Section 4.3.5; The report states that at open water
sites, a three foot clay cap can be placed over the mound of
silty material. DEP questions the technical feasibility of
such a procedure. How will a "highly cohesive" clay be placed
on top of a more fluid silt material without the denser clay
sinking through the silt? Additional documentation should be
included in the Final EIR/S showing how unconf ined silt mounds
can be capped with clay dropped from a barge.
(11) It is DEP's understanding that the CA/T Project will be filing
a Project Change with MEPA relative to the activities MHD
expects to perform within the Fort Point Channel as part of
the installation of its tunnel box. DEP anticipates that this
Project Change will include additional temporary and possibly
permanent filling within the channel, which may make the
option of spoils disposal into Fort Point Channel more
attractive and cost effective. DEP believes that once MHD
files ±ts Project Change Massport should reassess - the
-------
8
feasibility of spoils disposal in Fort Point Channel, based
upon that new plan, and report the results . of that
reassessment in the FEIR/S.
(12) a) Relative to the use of the two Meisburger Sites, DEP is
concerned about the adverse impact to the current
baseline development and future operational monitoring
for the MWRA ocean outfall, the sites being a couple of
miles off either side of the outfall diffuser. MWRA, in
coordination with an Interagency Effluent Outfall
Monitoring Task Force, developed a multi-year monitoring
plan, the collection of data starting in 1992. It
appears that a number of the existing nearfield benthic,
clostridium sewage traces, and nutrient/hydrography
stations are located in, or directly adjacent to the
Meisburger sites (Attachment No. 4), and use of either of
the sites could result in impacts to the monitoring plan,
the extent of that impact not being possible to determine
at this time. It is DEP's understanding that MWRA will
be providing MEPA with comments which will address this
issue in greater detail. If either of these sites are
carried forward into the FEIR/S stage, Massport should be
required to assess the likely and potential impacts to
MWRA's monitoring program and develop mitigation measures
if appropriate.
b) Another issue of concern to DEP, which also relates to
MWRA activities, is how the use of various sites, such as
Little Mystic River, might impact MWRA's Combined Sewer
Overflows (CSO) Program activities; both its Short-term
System Optimization Plan and Long-term CSO Control
Strategy. Filling of a number of the potential sites
would result in impacts to existing CSO discharge pipes
(i.e. may need to extent discharge line or redirect
flow) . This is not to say that all interactions would
necessarily result in adverse impacts. It is possible
that filling of an area might fit well into a specific
CSO recommendation for removal or redirection of the CSO
discharge. Again, it will be important for Massport to
maintain close coordination with MWRA and report its-
findings in the FEIR/S.
Section 3, Specific Comments
(1) Pace 2-8, Section 2.2:
The current Water Quality
Classification for those portions of Boston Harbor in this
project area is SB and not SC (revised in 1990).
(2) Page 2-10, right column: The report indicates that acetone
was found in all samples at relatively high concentrations and
that one possible reason was due to lab contamination. The
report does not indicate whether acetone was also found in
1*15
-------
trip or lab blanks, yet this type of information was utilized
later to explain the presence of the pesticide endrin
aldehyde. 'Both the acetone and endrin aldehyde issues need to
be discussed in greater detail.
(3) Tables 2-4 and 2-6: Units need to be added.
(4) Table 2-8: The table heading states that it includes "Mass
DEP Classification Levels", yet the information was not
included. Either the information should be included or the
heading revised.
(5) Table 2-10; The table indicates than mean values of PCB's for
Berth Sediments at Distrigas, North Jetty, Prolerized and
Revere Sugar are all greater than 2.0 mg/Kg. This is
important in that DEP's recently released Interim Policy fBWP-
94-037 (attachment No. 3) includes a maximum concentration for
PCB's of 2.0 for use as daily cover at lined landfill, unless
the landfill obtains a "Minor Modification" from DEP. Based
upon recent determinations by EPA (appended as attachment
No.5) regarding reuse/disposal of PCS contaminated materials
relative to TSCA requirements [Section 6(e)(2)], it is
questionable whether approval could be obtained to reuse or
dispose of spoils with PCB concentrations greater than 2.0
mg/Kg.
(6) Page 2-10, Section 2.2.2.2;
a) Discussion mentions "Level III", as "a concentration
similar to the MA DEP Category III (Table 2-5)". MA DEP
has not yet designated "Level III Concentrations for
PAHs". In the future, DEP is likely to include PAHs at
this level into its regulations, but to date this has not
taken place. ;
b) Discussions of pesticides says concentrations of x,y, and
z were below detection limits. It would be useful to
relate this to toxicity (i.e., does this mean there is no
risk of benthic toxicity at these detection levels?)
(7) Page 3-6, top of page; In the sediment/site matching section,
the report states, "It was assumed that there were no sediment
quality thresholds necessary for in-harbor containment...".
Please be aware that DEP intends to consider inclusion ^ of
maximum contaminant limits into its Comprehensive Dredging
Regulations if it is determined necessary to keep risks of
containment failure acceptable.
(8) Page 3-6. paragraph 3; The report assumes that contaminated
sites could not accept other waste materials prior to
remediation. It is possible that placement of the sediments
on these sites could be an element of the remediation process, h
-------
10
There seemed to be too little differentiation of contamination
types in these sections (i.e. physical vs. chemical and levels
of chemical contamination). Contaminated sediments going for
ocean disposal are not necessarily "contaminated" when put on
the land. .—
(9) Page 3-7. Landfills;
(a) The option of use of the spoils as grading material was
not included, nor was intermediate cover. Final cover
would be the most valuable use if the clay sediments can
be segregated from other material. It is stated that 114
of the 122 landfills open in 1993 will be closed by 1996.
Based on information generated as a result of the Hynes
Bill since 1993, more landfills may remain open into the
1996 to 1998 time-span. Some of these landfills may be
looking for material to get to grade prior to the time
that they do close and this option should be considered
in the FEIR/S. —
(b) The first paragraph discusses the need for spoils to be"
mixed with clean material to comply with DEP's regulatory
thresholds for daily cover (as indicated in Table 3-3).
The information included in Table 3-3 is actually
outdated and should be replaced with the information
included in Table 1 of DEP's Interim Policy IBWP-94-037
(attachment No. 3). The numbers in Table 3-3 are the
criteria which were developed by DEP in 1992 specifically
for excavate for the Central Artery/Tunnel Project. You
will notice that Interim Policy fBWP-94-037 does not
include any specific criteria for unlined landfills but
the criteria for use at lined landfills is significantly
higher for a number of contaminants. —
(c) DEP believes that the option of reuse of mildly
contaminated spoils as daily or intermediate cover and
grading material at landfills in Massachusetts should be
continued forward into the FEIR/S. The efficacy of such
an option will depend in part on the assessment of I
dewatering technologies. -J
(10) Page 3-7 and 3-8: TCLP regulatory levels is the incorrect!
terminology to utilize. The levels relate to total bulk!
concentrationsf and not TCLP results.
In addition, the 50 c.y./day figure for Plainville/Laidlaw]
should in fact be 5_p_p_ c.y./day (please see Table 3-7).
(11) Page 3-g; Discussion regarding the amount of material which!
could be accepted by a landfill is confusing. This is the"
amount which can be used at a landfill on any given day. The|
material atust be used within 90 days of coming to a site;
m '
-------
11
therefore, it appears that the total volume which can be
brought to a site for daily cover could be up to 90 times the
stated amount. This issue needs clarification.
(12) Page 3-8, Landfills; The benefit of using landfills for
disposal of marine sediments is said to be "...weighted
against the constraint of competing uses for a limited
• resource". It is unclear what is meant by "limited resource".
Are the landfills the resource or the marine sediments?
(13) Page 3.8. Section 3.3.2 and-Page 3-9. 2nd full paragraph; DEP
agrees with the statement that disposal of sediment at
shoreline sites would result in an environmental benefit by
capping the existing contaminated sediments at those sites.
DEP would consider this a significant secondary project .
benefit, and will take this into account in its overall
project review. J
(14) Page 3-9. Section 3.3.2;
a) It would be helpful to present areas and depths for the j
Subaqueous B and E sites.
b) There needs to be a better plan showing Winthrop Site J
location.
c) Discussions of ADDAMS model results for Winthrop Site
should mention if it is chronic or^acute criterion that
plume contaminants exceed by two times.
d) The report should explain what the federal standard is
with respect to using ADDAMS model results, i.e., what
water quality values are considered acceptable within
what area and time.
e) It would also be helpful to the reader for the
information from the biological assessment (Appendix A-4,
p.8) concerning the conservative assumptions made running
the ADDAMS model, to be included in the body of the
report to put the findings into perspective.
(15) Page 3-10;
a) The report states that modeling results for the Spectacle
Island CAD Site indicate that water quality criteria will
be reached in approximately four hours. The report
should indicate with isoplaths this area within which
water quality criteria would be exceeded.
b) The report states that the Meisburger sites both "support
high benthic productivity and fisheries resources are
relatively abundant." In the Final EIR/S Massport should
-------
12
attempt to quantify this situation and indicate whether
either site has unusual or unique resources that would
differentiate it from other "productive .fishery
resources-?1 within Massachusetts Bay.
c) Based upon recent comments from fishery agencies, it is
unclear whether the CA/T artificial fish reef will
actually be placed in this vicinity.
d) Relative to In-channel and Borrow Pits, where will the
sediments dredged to create these disposal sites be
stored? Will it be possible to keep clean and dirty
sediments segregated if the plan is to alternately dig a
cell and bury the contaminated sediments repeatedly?
(16) Page 3-12, Section 3.4.1: The report should not
refer to TCLP results, but total bulk contaminants.
(17) Page 3-12. Land-Based Options fA) : Here, as in other places
in the report, TCLP is used incorrectly. In addition, mixing
is not likely to be needed in most cases. Again, the 1,000
cy/day does not include any stockpile ability at the landfill.
On page 3-13, the figure of 8,000 cy/day for each of two
dredges over a 100 day period does not appear to account for
the time it will take to dewater the sediments.
(18) Page 3-13; The tipping fee of $28-$70/cy in Table 3-13 does
not seem to differentiate between disposal and use as daily
cover, grading material, intermediate cover or capping
material. Also, use of the dewatering costs based on the
Moran Terminal project alone may not be typical.
(19) Page 3-21, 2nd column: The figure of 50 c.y. for shortlisted
sites is incorrect and should be 500.
(20) Page 3-23: The estimated 108 landfill closings prior to 1995
is extremely high. For example, in the past 3^ years less
than 10 landfills per year have closed on average.
(21) Page 3—28 Section 3.6.2, Description of Possible Disposal
Sites — Boston Light Ship:
a) . Does more recent benthic assessment information exist II
than the 1977-79 data included in the report? J1
b) Was the ADDAMS model run using parameters for bottom jj
water (below the thermocline)?
(22) Page 3-29: Early assessment by the Board of Underwater"
Archeological Resources of the sensitivity of the Boston
Lightship Site is critical to determining the potential use of
-------
13
this site. Massport should attempt to obtain an initial
determination for inclusion into the FEIR/S.
(23) Page 3-33, Section 3.6.2.3, Meisburaer-2;
a) Does ACOE experience include placing a cap on silty
contaminated sediment in 98 (ave) to 105 (max) feet of
water as exists at Meisburger-2? If yes, documentation
should be included in Final EIR/S.
b) How could Meisburger-2 sand/gravel be used beneficially
as beach nourishment if it has a one foot cover of silt
on it? Is silt contaminated and how would it be
separated?
(24) Page 3-37, Section 3 . 6.2.4 , Meisburcrer-7:
a)
A description of the use of "rigorous turbidity controls"
indicated in the report during disposal of contaminated
sediment at this site should be included in document.
b) Does this site also presently have a one foot layer of
silt as does Meisburger-2?
iff
(25) Page 3-55, Section 3.10. Mitigation;
a) DEP has information about a very clean environmental
dredge bucket used in, Great Lakes Cleanup by Canada
(Cable Arm 100E) . Use of this unit should be discussed
in FEIR.
b) Will dredging not be halted for winter flounder spawning? Jj
Revise landfill category criteria per' prior Tl
(26.) Table 3-3;
comments.
(27) Pacre 4-2;
a) Report states that a 15 cy bucket was assumed to be
utilized. This sounds reasonable for removal of parent
material, but DEP questions whether such a ^large
"environmental bucket" for removal of the contaminated
silts is available.
b) For rock blasting mitigation may be required, as was used
by MHD during blasting for the Third Harbor Tunnel.
(28) Page 4-4, 2nd column, top paragraph; DEP questions the
approveability of "holding the environmental bucket above the
water surface to decant water off the top of the load." This
. ISO
-------
14
J
issue should' be discussed further in the Final EIR/S.
(29) Page 4-10:- DEP does not consider a COD of 80,509 ppm a
"moderate value".
(30) Page 4-14; Is the assumption that dredging work will proceed
24 hours a day reasonable?
(31) Page 5-1, Regulatory Compliance:
(a) The initial item is incorrect. The main solid waste
statutes and regulations are c.lll §150A and 310 CMR
16.000 and 19.000,and not 21H.
(b) Relative to the Waterways Regulation Program, c.91,
c.21A, s.14 and 310 CMR 9.00, certain activities within
the port of Boston undertaken by the Massachusetts Port
Authority do not require individual written approvals
from the Waterways Program. The transport or disposal of
dredged materials outside the port would require the
review and approval of the program. In addition, should
a disposal option be ultimately selected that would fill
presently flowed tidelands and confine the material
behind bulkheads, the future use of the site must be
dedicated to a water-dependent-industrial use for
Massport to qualify for the exemption from licensing as
provided by 310 CMR 9.03(3).
(32) Page 5-2;
a) Relative to the Mass. Wetlands Protection Act, this
statute is regulated jointly by local conservation
commissions and DEP's Division of Wetlands and Waterways
Regulation.
b) Relative to Safe Drinking Water Act, the concern for
adverse impacts to water supplies includes more than just
Sole Source Aquifers. The other major regulatory issue
is that landfills are not allowed to be placed in Zone 1
or II's of public water supplies, jurisdiction being with
DEP.
(33) Page Al-30: Plainville Sanitary Landfill, etc. - The TPH
levels and the liquid levels need to be updated as per Policy
IBWP-94-037 for all landfills considered. The chloride
considerations are addressed in the policy by testing for 1
conductivity on the extract of the dredged sediments. J
Section f4> Miscellaneous Comments
(1) Relative to the ability of the ADDAMS Model to correctly
1
/'SI
-------
15
predict water quality impacts, if this model was used to
predict impacts from the Black Rock Harbor, Connecticut
sediment disposal at the Central Long Island Sound Disposal
Site, this information should be included as an appendix to
the Final EIR/S. DEP is particularly interested in this
project, due to the fact that actual measured results during
this dumping operation concluded that 20 to 30% of the solids
and 40 to 70% of the contaminants were dispersed to the water
column.
(2) In general it was unclear to DEP why only 3 lined landfills
and one unlined landfill were chosen out of the hundreds of
active and inactive landfills in the Commonwealth. When the
report narrows the selection down to these 4 landfills and
then states that there isn't adequate capacity, the reasoning
is confusing. The report also states that long term
maintenance of clay caps is a reason to reject using the
dredged clay as capping material, yet this would not likely be
a responsibility of the Project, as the responsibility goes to
the landfill owner.
(3) Relative to the option oftconstruction and operation of a new
lined sediment monofill at the Wrentham-495 Site, substantial
additional site specific information would need to be obtained
and provided to DEP before the agency could determine whether
such a facility at this specific site would be acceptable to
.the agency. This additional information would include at a
minimum: (1) a thorough hydrogeologic assessment of the site;
(2) an analysis of whether the facility could be constructed
and operated without filling or adversely impacting wetland
resources on or adjacent to the site; (3) an assessment of
potential impacts to residential areas near the site or along
the truck route(s); (4) analysis of public and private water
supplies in the impact area, etc.
If Massport decides to proceed forward with on-site assessment
of the Wrentham Site, a draft scope of services should be
prepared by Massport's consultant and submitted to DEP for
review and comment prior to any on-site activities being
initiated.
««
(4) Modeling experts from DEP's Division of Water Pollution
Control and Office of Watershed Management have been requested
to review the ADDAMS Model developed and utilized by ACOE to
assess water quality impacts due to in-water disposal of
contaminated sediments. Unfortunately, this review has not
yet been completed by DEP to allow for comments to be
incorporated into DEIR/S review. As soon as this review is
completed, and if any questions or concerns are raised, DEP
will provide this information to Massport and ACOE so that
they can be addressed in the Final EIR/S. Copies of any such
comments will also • be provided to MEPA and other relevant
/SI
-------
16
agencies.
Conclusion
Staff from DEP- will be available to work with Massport, ACOE
and their various consultants to not only review and discuss
DEP procedural and technical comments, but would be willing to
participate on a working group to discuss how DEP's
regulations, policies and procedures interface with those of
other applicable federal, state and local agencies.
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding
this correspondence.
Very truly yours,
Steven G. Lipman, P.E.
Boston Harbor Coordinator
SGL/wp: miller.2
cc: Norm Farrameli, Massport
Joel Hartley, DEP/DSWM
Carl Dierker, John Simpson, Mitch Ziencina
Bob Golledge, DEP/DWWR -
Judy Perry, Marcia Sherman, Dave Ferris, DWP/DWPC
Beth Nicklas, Pam Harvey, DEP/OGC
Nancy Baker, EOEA/MEPA
Scott Cassel, EOEA
Leigh Bridges and Brad Chase, DMF
Margaret Brady and Deerin Babb-Brott (CZM)
Peter Smith, Leslie Lewis, Eugene Cavanaugh, and
Richard Thibedeau (DEM)
/53
-------
S3-1
The need for permitting these activities has been considered hi evaluating
various disposal options for the BHNIP.
S3-2
These regulatory requirements have been included in the evaluation of these
disposal options.
S3-3
Please see response to comment S3-2.
S3-4
Please see response to comment S3-2.
S3-5
Please see response to comment S3-2.
S3-6
Bulk sediment analyses and TCLP testing indicate that the dredged materials do
not meet-the criteria for classification of hazardous waste.
S3-7
Options for the upland disposal of the contaminated dredge materials would
include the construction of disposal facilities (inland or coastal) or the utilization of
existing landfills. The construction of a monofill for the disposal of the contaminated
dredge material would require the permitting of the facility through the DSWM. As
the DSWM has commented, current solid and hazardous waste regulations may not
address the concerns associated with dredged material. It is our understanding that the
DSWM is currently developing the Comprehensive Dredging Regulations which would
establish the siting and plan approval process for upland disposal of these materials.
The anticipated date of the promulgation of these regulations is the Summer of 1996.
The BNHIP, therefore, has had to depend on existing regulations to evaluate upland
options.
-------
S3-8
Thank you for your guidance oh this issue^ The options of reuse, recycle,
destruction and detoxification have been investigated. None of the landfill dispos-
al/reuse options for silt are practicable relative to the alternative disposal options which
have been carried forward in the FEIS.
S3-9
The FEIR/S has developed the concept that sediments from a particular
tributary be disposed as close as possible to the source. In the preferred alternative,
in-channel disposal, all sediments dredged from the Mystic Channel and berths would
be disposed hi the Mystic; all sediments from the Chelsea Channel and berths would
be disposed hi the Chelsea; and, all sediments from the Inner Confluence would be
disposed hi the Inner Confluence. The sediments from the Reserved Channel and
berths would be the only ones transported away from the dredging site. They would
be disposed hi the Chelsea. Although still considered to be too contaminated for
unconfined open water disposal, the Reserved Channel sediments have lower contami-
nant loads than the Chelsea, so they will not compromise the environmental conditions
at that site. Use of the in-channel trench alternative would avoid the loss of aquatic
habitat that would be incurred with creation of fastland at Little Mystic Channel.
S3-10
The preferred disposal alternative does not include upland sites; therefore,
dewatering will not be needed for the BNHIP.
S3-11
See response to Comment S5-2 regarding reduced sediment volume with upland
dewatering.lt may be possible to reduce the dewatered sediment volume by a factor of
greater than 20%.However,the DEIR assumed a conservative volume to ensure that
there would be no question of the adequacy of disposal capacity for the disposal
alternatives remaining for consideration.
Dewatering as envisioned at the time the DEIR/S was written was to use ah
drying rather than mechanical means. Comments from the Central Artery/Third
Harbor Tunnel staff have indicated that a greater volume reduction should be expected.
Appendix I of the FEIR/S addresses both air drying and mechanical means of dewater-
ing.
16
I $5
-------
S3-12
Dewatering techniques are discussed in Appendix I of the FEIR/S.
S3-13
In the DEIR/S, the project team sought to avoid the permanent loss of any
aquatic habitat through disposal of dredged materials. Therefore, the fastland scenarios
were found not be among the most promising alternatives, regardless of their capacity.
Site capacity has been eliminated as a practicability criterion.
S3-14
The benefit to cost ratio is necessary to determine the feasibility of the
navigation improvement project. This ratio refers to the dredging and disposal of the
parent material. Silt material disposal follows the operation and maintenance regula-
tions, which does not follow a strict benefit to cost ratio. Maintenance material (silt)
is to be disposed of in the least costly manner that meets environmental regulations
and engineering requirements.
S3-15
The base cost against which disposal options are measured has been revised to
that of the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative. The FEIR/S section
describing the selection of the preferred alternative has been restructured to separate
environmental and practicability considerations. In Section 4, the least environmental-
ly damaging alternatives are identified prior to application of criteria related to cost,
logistics and capacity.
S3-16
The Corps may, at a later date, demonstrate capping at the MBDS.
S3-17
The DEIR/S statement about disposal of parent material for subaqueous
depression and borrow pit disposal needs clarification. Since the parent material is
considered to be clean and suitable for "unconfined" open water disposal there is little
concern about its affects on the surrounding environment. However, disposal of the
parent material must still be conducted in a manner that does not physically affect
ecologically sensitive areas outside of the disposal site. The FEIR/S concluded that
parent material not designated for beneficial use would be disposed at the MBDS.
17
/5C,
-------
S3-18
The offshore borrow pit option has currently been eliminated from further
consideration due to significant resources (shellfish and finfish). Therefore, it is not
considered to be necessary to develop a sediment chemistry database for those areas at
this time. If this option becomes feasible hi the future for the BHNIP the chemical
composition of proposed borrow material will be determined and evaluated regarding
its disposal.
S3-19
Capping over a disposal mound is not proposed in the FEIR/S.
S3-20
Accessibility for barges would continue to be a problem with the Fort Point
Channel.
S3-21
The Meisburger sites, along with all of the DEIR/S shortlisted sites were
reevaluated in the FEIR/S. In addition to concerns about interference with the MWRA
monitoring program, biological data collected hi fall 1994 confirms the fact that these
areas support productive benthic communities and high densities of lobsters. It was
determined that the Meisburger sites would not be among the least environmentally
damaging alternatives for disposal of silts from the BHNIP.
S3-22
Massport received a letter dated June 21, 1994 commenting on the DEIR/S
from MWRA. Mr. Mark Radville (Project Manager, Environmental Management)
indicated that a final CSO control plan would be completed hi December of 1994.
Mr. Radville noted specifically which MWRA facilities would be affected by dredging
and disposal activities, and noted that coordination between Massport and MWRA was
important, since some CSO alternatives are being addressed on a site-specific basis.
MWRA will be informed of project plans but as currently envisioned dredging and
disposal operations should not impact CSO's.
S3-23
The text of the FEIR/S has been revised to reflect the correct Water Quality
Classification of Boston Inner Harbor.
18
/S7
-------
S3-24
Acetone was also found in the MBDS reference sample.
S3-25
The units for parameter concentrations for Table 2-4 is ppm, and for Table 2-6
is ppb as noted at the beginning of each table.
S3-26
The Massachusetts DEP Classification Levels are provided on Table 2-8 as
stated on the header. The levels are provided just to the right of each parameter as 1,11
or III.
S3-27
Based upon a review of the USEPA letter dated December 22, 1993, no
sediments having detectable concentrations of PCBs could be transported to asphalt
batch plants for thermal processing and commercial use. If insufficient volume exists
for the in channel disposal of all of the contaminated sediments, alternative disposal
options will have to be considered. Potentially, sediments having PCB concentrations
less than 2.0 mg/Kg could be reused at lined landfills. Sediments having PCB
concentrations greater than 2.0 mg/Kg could be treated to remove the PCBs for
disposal (burial for stabilized waste or incineration) or separated (solvent extraction)
from the highly contaminated sediments and disposed of in bulk at a hazardous waste
disposal facility.
S3-28
It is acknowledged that MADEP has not yet officially designated PAH levels
into its regulations. This is the primary reason for the DEIR/S in stating that the levels
established for the BHNIP are similar to the Massachusetts categories, the only
difference being the PAH levels that were established for the BHNIP.
S3-29
Concentrations below detectionlimits are considered to be below levels that
would be of concern regarding toxicity to benthic life.
19
ISt
-------
S3-30
At the time of publication of the FEIR/S, the DEP's Comprehensive Dredging
Regulations have not been completed and were not available for review by this project.
S3-31
The referenced paragraph states that "...areas that have received other waste
materials are not always suitable for disposal facility development without remediation
first" (emphasis added). The Woburn site is, hi fact, a discontinued landfill where
disposal of silts from the BHNIP would facilitate the final closure. Table 3-4 in the
DEIR/S applies the regulatory criteria (Table 3-3, DEIR/S) for contaminant levels
suitable for disposal in different environments.
S3-32
The potential use of dredge spoils as landfill grading material or final cover has
been evaluated hi the FEIS. Please see response to comment S3-27.
S3-33
Thank you for this guidance. Please see the response to comment S3-27.
S3-34
Please see the response to comment S3-27. The dewatering issue is discussed
further in the FEIR/S.
S3-35
The text has been modified to include the current soil contaminant levels for
reuse at landfills and the correct terminology.
S3-36
The error has been noted. The text and tables describing landfill capacity and
impact analysis in the DEIR/S have been replaced hi the FEIR/S with a new discussion
describing the rationale for eliminating landfills from further consideration.
20
-------
S3-37
See response to comment S3-36.
S3-38
The "limited responses" statement in the DEIS refers to landfill disposal
capacity.
S3-39
The FEIR/S continues to consider capping existing contaminated sediments at
shoreline sites to be a benefit.
S3-40
Areas and depths for Subaqueous B and E are referenced in Section 4 and
Attachment 1.
S3-41
The Winthrop Harbor site has been dropped from the evaluation because of the
likelihood of significant environmental impacts associated with its use for disposal.
S3-42
The ADDAMS model used the chronic criterion of 2.9 ppb for estimating the
plume for copper in the vicinity of the Winthrop Harbor site.
S3-43
The structure of the ADDAMS model used for all sites modeled in the DEIR/S
was based on its historical application to the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site
(MBDS). Since the MBDS lies beyond the three mile limit, disposal activities are
regulated by the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) of 1972.
Under the MPRSA, water column impacts due to disposal operations are evaluated
according to EPA water quality and toxicity criteria, with allowances made for initial
mixing. The mixing zone is defined in 40 CFR 227.29, as follows:
(a) Initial mixing is defined to be that dispersion or diffusion of liquid, sus-
pended particulate, and solid phases of a waste which occurs within four hours after
21
-------
dumping. The limiting permissible concentration shall not exceed beyond the bound-
aries of the disposal site during initial mixing, and shall not be exceeded at any point
in the marine environment after initial mixing.
The "limiting permissible concentration" of the liquid phase is defined,
according to 40 CFR 227.27(a)(l), as
That concentration of a constituent -which, after allowance for initial mixing as
provided in Section 227.29, does not exceed applicable marine -water quality criteria.
"Applicable marine water quality criteria" are defined in Section 227.31 as
... the criteria given for marine -waters in the EPA publication "Quality Criteria
for Water" as published in 1976 and amended by subsequent supplements or addition.
Therefore, water column impacts at Subaqueous E were evaluated by compar-
ing the predicted concentration of copper (the most conservative parameter) in the
water column, over the disposal site footprint and beyond, over the four hour initial
mixing period following a 1000 cy disposal event to the EPA criterion for copper.
Since the Subaqueous sites are within the three mile limit, they fall under the jurisdic-
tion of Section 401 of the Clean Water Act Should these sites be selected in the final
analysis, the Massachusetts DEP would have to determine the standards to be met in
order to obtain water quality certification. Additional water quality modelling was
conducted for the FEIR/S (Appendix F) using additional parameters. At this time,
however, the Subaqueous sites are no longer under consideration as the project's
LEDPA choice.
S3-44
Appendix F on water quality modeling provides graphics depicting isopleths
showing where water quality violations would occur during disposal activities at
Spectacle Island.
S3-45
Data have been provided in the FEIR/S that quantify fisheries and benthic
resources at the Meisburger sites.
S3-46
Because it has not yet been determined where the CA/T artificial reef will be
deployed, the BHNIP FEIR/S assumed that it would be located hi Sculpin Ledge
Channel, the most recent site under discussion.
22
ILl
-------
S3-47
Refer to the Dredged Material Management Plan in Section 5.0 of the final
EIR/S. The dredging and disposal operations are described in Section 5.4.1, Dredging
and Disposal Sequencing, of the FEIR/S. Silts will be temporarily stored in scows
while the in-channel cells are being excavated. Once a cell is available to receive
dredged silts, the material stored in the scows will be dumped. "Clean" and "dirty"
sediments will be segregated by loads. Loading of scows will not typically alternate
from silt to parent material. Typically, scows used for silts will be maintained for that
purpose and scows used for parent material will be dedicated to that material.
S3-48
Based upon a review of Interim Policy #BWP-94-037, the reuse and disposal of
contaminated soils at landfills is limited by the concentration of several organic and
inorganic contaminants. Bulk (total) concentration-standards have been established for
arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), poly-
chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) and conductivity. In addition, no listed or characteristic
hazardous wastes may be present in the material. The presence of characteristic
hazardous waste in the contaminated material must be tested for using the Toxic
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). For the sediment samples collected by
Normandeau Associates in 1993, only chromium and lead were detected in concentra-
tions which exceed the bulk soil limits. These samples were further analyzed using the
TCLP. Neither chromium or lead were found in the leachate at concentrations which
exceeded the standards. Thus, mixing of the contaminated sediments with clean
material to meet the regulatory standard for characteristic hazardous wastes would not
be required.
The proposed production value of 8,000 cy/d over a 100 day period (total of
800,000 cy) does not include the time required for dewatering. The time required for
dewatering will be dependent upon the dewatering method selected. Mechanical
dewatering may require hours while passive dewatering may require a day to several
days. If passive dewatering is selected the production schedule would be lengthened
and may allow for the use of a greater amount of the dredge materials as cover or
grading materials at landfills.
S3-49
Tipping fees are no longer directly factored into disposal alternative costs. The
current project plan is to make clay available for landfills at one or more stockpiling
locations located beyond the expected Central Artery/Tunnel project clay distribution
radius. The estimated costs to landfills of loading, transport, stockpiling, and grading
clay from the source were weighed against the costs of obtaining cover material
23
-------
elsewhere to determine a market radius for this clay. Dewatering costs were assessed
for an alternative dewatering technology and considered in the alternatives analysis.
S3-50
See response to comment S3-36.
S3-51
The number of landfills potentially willing to obtain final cover material
generated by the BHNIP has been reevaluated based on information provided by the
DEP. The quantity of clay generated by in-channel disposal is estimated to be
approximately 1.3 to 2.0 million cubic yards, depending on disposal option, an
increase over other disposal options.
S3-52
The DEIR/S describes the only known available benthic information for the
BLS area. Recognizing the limited data for this area,the BHNIP recently conducted a
benthic reconnaissance of the area in fall 1994 to evaluate the existing conditions and
proposed impacts. Results are reported in Appendix E.
S3-53
The ADDAMS model was run on average conditions.
S3-54
Although BLS is not currently considered a preferred disposal site, BHNIP has
followed up with the Board of Underwater Archeological Resources (BUAR) to
identify potentially sensitive historic resources.
In summary, BUAR identified 48 site which they consider to be potential sub-
merged Cultural resources within the study site which fully encompassed the BLS site.
The vessel types and their percent representation on the list include:
Vessel Type
Mud scow
Barge
Schooner
Tug
Percentage of List
2
21
15
17
24
-------
Dredge
Yacht
Lighter
Trawler
Gasoline Boat
Brig
Freighter
Eagle Boat
Cargo
Passenger (small)
Patrol
Bark
Steamer (passenger)
Unknown
4
2
4
6
4
2
6
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
BUAR also stated that the database search may not have uncovered all losses or
purposeful abandonments in the area, and that BHNIP should conduct a more intensive
literature search to further identify significant resources, should Boston Lightship be
reconsidered as a BHNIP disposal site.
S3-55
Capping has occurred ha approximately 240 feet of water at the Portland
Disposal Site. Silty material has been capped with silt/clay and sand at this disposal
site.
S3-56
Section 2.4.3.1 of Attachment 1 hi the DEIR/S, describes the sediments as
being made up of coarse sand and gravel (42%); boulder covered drumlins (23%); fine
grained sediments (6%); and mud, sand, and gravel (29%). Information collected on
the surface substrate conditions using sediment profile imagery at all the potential
aquatic disposal sites in fall 1994 indicates that there are many areas of exposed sand
and gravel at the Meisburger sites.
314 CMR 9.03 identifies only Category One, Type A materials suitable for
beach replenishment. Category One, Type A materials are low in levels of metals,
silts and clays, water, volatile constituents and oils and greases. No chemical analyses
have been conducted on this material to date.
Further analyses would need to be conducted to clearly establish what percent-
age of the Meisburger 2 materials, and also which specific areas of borrow materials
may be suited for future beneficial uses. At this time, beach nourishment is only
considered as a potential use. As also stated in this FEIPv/S, Meisburger 2 is not
25
-------
presently considered a preferred disposal site for the currently proposed BHNIP
activities.
S3-57
Refer to the Dredged Material Management Plan (Section 5.0).
"Rigorous turbidity controls" refer to the deployment of silt curtains and/or
other equipment around the disposal site. Silt curtains, used as turbidity barriers, can
be used to physically control fine-grained materials that are suspended in the water
column during the disposal activities. These curtains are impervious, floating barriers
that extend vertically from the water surface to a specified depth. The depth of the
curtain can be varied. The primary purpose of the curtain is to reduce turbidity in the
water column outside of the area bounded by the curtain. It is not intended to retain
fluidized sediments or to contain the suspended solids, but to influence local flow
patterns so that sediment laden flows are restricted to the near channel bottom and
forced to exit under the curtain or settle on the bottom.
S3-58
See response to comment S3-56.
S3-59
The BHNIP EIR/S team appreciates the information on the Cable Arm 100E
"environmental" bucket. The FEIR/S includes a discussion of this and other similar
devices and its potential suitability in controlling sediment suspension during dredging.
It is beyond the control of the ACOE to specify any particular make of equipment
such as that mentioned by DEP. However, it is planned to require the dredging
contractor to utilize an environmental bucket of similar capabilities for the BHNIP.
S3-60
Dredging will not occur in the Mystic River and Inner Confluence to avoid the
anadromous finfish spawning period. This time frame overlaps the winter flounder
spawning period.
S3-61
The landfill discussion and tables have been revised.
26
/ts
-------
S3-62
The "environmental" bucket is available in a broad range of sizes. A number of
dredging contractors currently have buckets of 15-CY capacity or greater. Projects
have been performed, utilizing 15-CY Cable Arm*™) buckets, by Powers Marine in
Bremerton, WA, Dutra Dredging Co. in Oakland, CA, Wood-Hawkins Dredging hi
Jacksonville, FL, and Norfolk Dredging Co. of Chesapeake, VA recently added a 15-
CY "environmental" bucket to its fleet. These buckets are readily available.
A 15 cy bucket was assumed to estimate production rates. Recent experience
with an environmental bucket at Moran Terminal indicates contractors may modify an
existing bucket to meet performance standards. Additionally, large (22-26 cy) buckets
are being manufactured by the Cable Arm Clamshell company.
S3-63
The BHNIP will consider utilization of techniques to minimize impacts on fish
during blasting operations. The mitigation required by the MHD for the Third Harbor
Tunnel consisted of a startle-system.
S3-64
Decanting of free water from the top of the loaded bucket sihould be mini-
mized. The "environmental" bucket is most effective by filling the bucket during the
cut and minimizing the volume of free-water that is captured in the bucket.
Decanting the bucket prior to placing its load into a scow is not required for
the proposed in-channel disposal alternative. The concern of excess water in the scow
was related to a dewatering operation.
S3-65
We concur.
S3-66
Most contractors with dredge plants of the size necessary for the Boston Harbor
Navigation Improvement project will work 24 hours/day unless specifications indicate
otherwise. At the present time, no known reason exists to limit the contractor's hours
of operation.
27
-------
S3-67
Thank your for the information.
S3-68
The BHNIP team will discuss this issue with the Division of Wetlands and
Waterways during the permitting process.
S3-69
The text has been revised to clarify this point.
S3-70
This information was taken into account during the revised alternatives
analysis.
S3-71
Please see response to S3-27. Conductivity was not measured hi sediment
samples. Conductivity and water content may be limiting parameters for sediment
transport and/or reuse at any landfill.
S3-72
There are no known published studies that conclude that 20 to 30% of solids
are lost to the water column during dredged material disposal activities at the Central
Long Island Sound Disposal Site. The study cited by DEP relates to differences hi
sediment chemistry between the dredge and disposal areas and are not relevant to
water quality impacts.
S3-73
The landfill disposal/beneficial use options were re-evaluated for the FEIS..
The text includes an assessment of the clay characteristics important to landfill
capping.
28
-------
S3-74
The difficulty of dewatering sediments adequately for upland transport and
disposal, as well as current disposal siting requirements were among the factors
resulting in the selection of in-channel disposal, rather than an upland disposal site
(including Wrentham-495) as the preferred alternative.
S3-75
The BHNIP team has met with the state and federal resource and regulatory
agencies to discuss water quality modelling and other issues since the DEIR/S. The
assumptions and results of preliminary water quality models have been presented to
these agencies and the team has received guidance from them on additional models to
prepare. The information presented in Appendix F reflects these discussions.
29
-------
a£ isvlaxine' ^c^Ae^te^
PHILIP G. COATES
DIRECTOR
"
727-31 S
June 20, 1994
Colonel Brink P. Miller
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Northeast Division
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA 02254
ear Colonel Miller,
RE: EOEA File #8695
The following are the Division's comments on the Boston Harbor
Navigation Improvement Project. These comments center on the
potential adverse impacts on marine fishery resources.
First, it should be noted that the Division does not oppose the
Navigation Improvement dredging, but we are concerned about the
marine disposal of contaminated sediments and their potential for
adversely affecting the fishery resources and fishing operations.
We have no objection to clean spoil disposal at the Mass Bay
Disposal Site and we would support contaminated and clean spoil
disposal at landfill sites.
We are strongly opposed to spoil disposal at the Boston Lightship
Ground and at Meisburger Sites #2 and #7 because of fishery
impacts. It should be noted that the only reason that the two
Meisburger sites were carried forward into final site selection was
because there was no existing fish or shellfish sampling data in
either of these two locations. In discussing these sites with the
fishing industry all three sites are heavily fished for groundfish
and lobster. The EIR provides no assurance that materials will be
contained at any of these three offshore disposal sites. Similarly,
there is likely to be considerable uptake of contaminants by the
fishery resources during the one and one half year period that
spoils are left exposed and open to the environment. There will be
interference. with fishing operations at all three sites.
It is the Division's strong recommendation that if any or all of
the sites are carried forward to a final EIR, a separate
supplemental EIR should be required to fully examine the physical
oceanography, hydrography, contamination and biology of the sites.
Physical oceanography and hydrography studies should at a minimum
-------
Page II/Secretary Coxe
examine at least one annual cycle of bottom and ™id;w;tjr currents
at the site for speed and direction. Supplemental oceanographic
studies may be necessary if information currently being collected
bythe MWRA is not sufficient for these locations._ Comprhensive
benthic and contaminant studies at all offshore sites should be
requisite prior to any site selection. Similarly,_ detailed fish
sampling inventories should be done at all three sites seasonally
for at least two years. Further, if either the Meisburger sites
are the preferred alternatives it is our recommendation that a
formal site designation process be required from both the state and
federal perspective before the sites could be utilized for
contaminated spoil disposal. This process would be similar to the
process by which the Cape Cod Disposal Site was designated.
Based on information developed by the Central Artery it would
appear that the Spectacle Island CAD would not be suitable for
spbil disposal because it is both an erosional and dispersal site.
The Division is strongly opposed to Spectacle Island CAD.
The in-channel sites at the confluence of the Mystic River and
Chelsea Creek has been suggested for disposal through the Process
of over dredging. These sites however, are not without Problems
First, there is no assurance that the cover material would not
displace some'of the contaminated spoils. Secondly, the stockpiling
of Contaminated spoils during the dredging process on either side
of the Channel would present contamination problems to anadromous
fish runs in the Mystic River and possibly the Charles River. .Both
the Mystic and Charles Rivers support large runs of alewives
blueback herring, and rainbow smelt. The Charles *^er *^«b!!r*
herrinq run is one of the largest in Massachusetts Bay. There are
nS knSwn anadromous fish runs in the Chelsea River We recommend
that if the in-channel sites are carried forward into a final EIR
that silt curtains be required as a mitigating measure at all times
and that the period for dredging be restricted so as not . to
interfere with these important anadromous fish runs. This Period
of restriction - should run from February 15th to June jOth.
Similarly, the proposed blasting of rock should not be conducted
upstream of the MBTA Tunnel from February 15th to June 30th_ The
fish startle device employed by the Central Artery/Third Harbor
Tunnel blasting operations should be deployed routinely for all
blasting events connected with this dredging project. It should
also be noted that blasting during the summer period could affect
menhaden, and striped bass. The fish startle device shjould be
utilized to avoid mortality of these species. These problems have
to be addressed in either the final or supplemental EIR if the site
is to be carried forward.
The Division has no objections at this time based
information to disposal of contaminated spoil in the Little Mystic
Channel, the Reserve Channel and possibly, although not mentioned,
the upper end of the Fort Point Channel. Like the Little Mystic
/7C
-------
Page Ill/Secretary Coxe ;
Channel and the Reserve Channel, the Fort Point Channel should be
investigated for possible disposal of contaminated spoils. The
Little Mystic Channel and Reserve Channel sites were proposed to be
filled only to mean low water. Because of existing contamination
at these sites it would be far preferable if these sites could be
bulkheaded and filled to grade to make fast land for marine
industrial purposes rather than just filling to mean low water.
The Amstar, Mystic Piers, and Revere Sugar are all highly
contaminated and the Division would have no objections to filling
these sites based on current information as long as they were
bulkheaded and the contamination could not escape. The subaquaeous,
sites B and E and the Winthrop Harbor burrow pit site are not in
the Division's view suitable for disposal of either clean or
contaminated spoils. Winthrop Harbor has been shown to be a highly
productive nursery and spawning area for winter flounder, lobster
and smelt (Chase, 1993) . The subaquaeous sites B and E are highly
utilized by lobster fishermen and are exposed to severe storm
action and are highly productive marine resource areas.
It should be noted that the Foul Area and Mass Bay Disposal Site
were closed to the disposal of contaminated spoils because of a
possibility of contamination, uptake and dispersal affecting marine
resources. If this deep water site is closed for this purpose, it
makes less sense to dispose of contaminated spoil in shallow water
sites where marine productivity is much greater and the
interference from fishing operations is also much greater than
would occur at the Foul Area. Moreover, there could be greater
dispersal problems with shallow water inshore sites than would.
occur at the offshore deeper water sites. Massport has done little
in the EIR to provide any specific impact information on either the
fishery resources or the fishing industry in any of the shallow
water sites proposed. There has been no discussion in the EIR of
the possibility or the potential for a public health fishery
closure at any of these offshore sites which might be required if
the fishery resources were contaminated to the extent where FDA
action levels were met or exceeded. This potential for any fishery
closure and mitigation for such closure should be fully documented^
in the final EIR.
The Division is pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the
Draft EIR and we hope that the project can be accomplished with
minimal or no impact on the marine fishery resources of the
Commonwealth.
Sincerely yours,
Philip G. Coates
Director
-------
S4-1
Additional data on biological resources at the offshore sites were developed in
fall 1994. The results confirm that there are significant fisheries resources (primarily
lobsters) and productive benthic communities at these sites. These sites were found
not to be among the least environmentally damaging alternatives in Section 4 of the
FEIR/S.
S4-2
Additional investigations on biological resources and substrate conditions at all
the potential aquatic disposal sites were undertaken in fall 1994. This information was
reported in separate technical documents that were distributed to the agencies for
review. The results are also reported in Attachment 1 of the FEIR/S and were used in
the reevaluation of alternative disposal site selection.
Disposal will occur in Boston Inner Harbor which is protected from storms.
Adequate current and tidal information is currently available to determine that disposal
of dredged material in-channel will stay in the same area. No supplemental EIR/S is
needed.
S4-3
Neither of the Meisburger sites was found to be among the least environmental-
ly damaging alternatives.
S4-4
The Spectacle Island CAD site was not found to be among the least environ-
mentally damaging alternatives.
S4-5
While it is agreed that handling the dredged silt has the potential to impact
biological resources in the inner harbor, it is important to remember that the sediments
proposed for disposal have been residing in this environment. Passage of ships causes
resuspension of silts on a daily basis.
The Dredge Management Plan (Section 5) provides details on the disposal
operation. Apparently the DEIR/S was unclear on the necessity to stockpile sediments
while the disposal cells are prepared. Under the in-channel scenario, silts would be
stored on barges not the shoreline or underwater and the lag time between initial
dredging and disposal would be on the order of a week. Once the initial cells were
30
-------
constructed, the silts usually would be disposed immediately. The Dredged Manage-
ment Plan also discusses the merits of various methods for containing the disposal
operations.
A sand cap would be used to isolate the silty material from the surrounding
silty material. Research and State and Federal agencies have concurred that a sand cap
would not displace the silty material. An environmental window has been proposed
for anadromous fish in the draft and final EIR/S.
S4-6
The methods to prevent fish mortalities from blasting are presented in the
Dredge Management Plan (Section 5).
S4-7
The shoreline sites cited in this comment have been included in the FEIR/S,
with the exception of the Fort Point Channel. Fort Point Channel is not easily
accessible by barge and, therefore, unsuitable for this use. The disposal site alterna-
tives analysis concluded that partial filling of shoreline sites was among the least
environmentally damaging alternatives.
S4-8
The disposal site alternatives analysis (Section 4) concluded that the Subaque-
ous B and E sites were not among the least environmentally damaging alternatives.
S4-9
The effects on existing biological resources at and near the potential aquatic
disposal sites are described in Attachment 1 and used to compare the environmental
risks of silt disposal at these sites in Section 4.
The Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site has been designated by EPA as a dredged
material disposal site. Until capping or other management technique has been shown
to sequester contaminants, no disposal of dredged material can occur at the MBDS.
We agree that disposal of dredged material in an area designated for dredged material
disposal and where previous disposal has occurred would minimize impacts from
dredged material disposal.
31
113
-------
S4-10
Biological data, including fisheries resources, on each of the potential aquatic
disposal sites are presented in Attachment 1.
S4-11
None of the offshore sites was found to be among the least environmentally
damaging alternatives.
32
I If
-------
Massachusetts Highway Department
Central Artery/Tunnel
June 20, 1994
Colonel Miller
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, Massachusetts 02254
RE: Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Report for Boston Harbor
Navigation^jjjroKpvement and Berth Dredging Projects
Dear Colonel Miller:
Enclosed are the Massachusetts Highway Department's Central
Artery/Tunnel (CA/T) Project comments on the US Army Corps of
Engineers and Massachusetts Port Authority (joint proponents) Draft
Environmental Impact Statement/Report (DEIS/R) for proposed
Navigation Improvement and Berth Dredging Projects (BHNIP). The
CA/T Project and the BHNIP team have benefitted from ongoing close
coordination over the past year. We expect to continue to work
with the BHNIP team in relationship to the CA/T Project immersed
tube tunnel, Spectacle Island, and artificial reef construction
activities.
The DEIS/R briefly discusses interfaces with these CA/T Project
activities in various sections of the document. Continued close
coordination of the proposed BHNIP work with the CA/T Project will
be required to ensure that CA/T Project costs are not increased,
construction schedules are not delayed, and the Project's ability
to meet Project commitments is not adversely affected by the BHNIP.
If you have any questions, please call Mr. Ronald Killian, CA/T
Project Manager of Environmental Procedures and Permits, at 951-
6467.
Sincerely,
MASSACHUSETTS HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
Peter
Proj ectdDirector
.PMZ/EWI/nmm
AL-1.3
094-1970
Attachment
cc: R. Killian
Massachusetts Port Authority, Maritime Department, Boston, MA
G. Kelly, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waltham, MA
775
One South Station
Boston
Massachusetts
02110
Phone 617-951-6000
Fax 617-951-0897
-------
Colonel Miller
094-1970
ATTACHMENT
Massachusetts Highway Department's Central Artery/Tunnel Project
comments on EOEA #8695 Massachusetts Port Authority and US Army
Corps of Engineers Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement for
proposed Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement and Berth Dredging
Proj ects
Interface of Central Artery/Tunnel Project and Boston Harbor
Navigation Improvement and Berth Dredging Projects
The proposed Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement and Berth
Dredging Projects (BHNIP) would deepen two areas in Boston Harbor's
Main Ship Channel, the Inner Confluence and the mouth of the
Reserved Channel, and three tributary channels, the Reserved
Channel, the Mystic River, and the Chelsea Creek Channel. The
deepening would improve the channels and berthing facilities with
the aim of allowing the Boston region to remain competitive in a
global market. The Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement
(Draft EIR/S) estimates that the BHNIP will have a duration of 18
months and recommends commencement of the work in 1996 with
completion in 1998.
The Massachusetts Highway Department's (MHD) Central Artery/Tunnel
(CA/T) Project is, in part, being constructed in Boston Harbor.
Construction activities in the Harbor include the Project's Third
Harbor Tunnel (an immersed tube tunnel) and materials disposal and
mitigation measures at Spectacle Island. While the Third Harbor
Tunnel has been placed and backfilled, barging of material to
Spectacle Island is expected to continue through 1996.
Construction activities on Spectacle Island will continue for some
time after that, which include capping the landfill and developing
a park. In connection with this work, a seawall cind dike will be
constructed, utility lines will be located between Spectacle and
Long Islands, and an artificial reef is proposed to be constructed
(in 1996) in the Sculpin Ledge Channel between Spectacle and Long
Islands.
Executive Summary
*• .' .
1. Page ES-2, Sediment Characterization
Page ES-2 states that the BHNIP will result in approximately 1.3
million cubic yards (cy) of silt requiring disposal, and that this
quantity includes a post-dredging estimated expansion factor of
-------
20%._ This statement should be clarified to indicate as set out in
Section 3.4, that the expansion factor is expected for aquatic
disposal options. Page 3-12 states that for land-based options, it
was assumed that dewatering and compaction would reduce the silt
volume nearly to its in-situ estimate of approximately i.i million
cy. As an informational note, the CA/T Project's experience with
construction of the Third Harbor Tunnel found silt material, when
deposited on land, to have a shrinkage factor of approximately 20%.
2. Page ES-5 and ES-6, Other Actions
Draft EIR/S pages ES-5 and ES-6 indicate that the MHD expects that
placement of the Third Harbor Tunnel excavate at Spectacle Island
will be complete in 1995. As indicated above, barging of material
to Spectacle Island is expected to continue through 1996, and
construction activities will continue for some time after that.
Section 3.0, Disposal Site Alternatives Analysis
The Draft EIR/S identifies as one of the preferred disposal
alternatives, a Controlled Area Disposal (CAD) site in the area
immediately east of Spectacle Island. The Spectacle Island CAD
would be created by dredging a 22- to 50-acre disposal pit in a
shallow, subtidal flat area along the eastern side of the island,
then filling the pit with silty sediments from the harbor dredging
project, and finally capping it with some of the removed native
material. Excess native material will be disposed of at the
Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site or transported elsewhere for
beneficial reuse.
At the time the Spectacle Island CAD work is anticipated, the CA/T
Project site preparation work for landfill closure on Spectacle
Island will be nearing completion, including the seawall and dike
construction. Any excavation activities in the Spectacle Island
CAD must be carried out to minimize impact to the stability of
these structures. An evaluation should be done of the changes in
wave run-up on Spectacle Island due to the excavation of the
Spectacle Island CAD. In particular, the effects of wave run-up on
the CA/T Project's seawall and Spectacle Island beach nourishment
work should be evaluated. In addition, the health effects of
Spectacle Island CAD sediment washing up on the Spectacle Island's
southern beach (a planned bathing beach) should be evaluated.
Utility ^lines will be located between Spectacle Island and Long
Island in the vicinity of the Spectacle Island CAD (see attached
Figure A). Care must be taken not to disturb these facilities.
Potential Impacts on the Artificial Reef y-
The artificial reef to be constructed by the CA/T Project as part
of Spectacle Island mitigation will be located in the Sculpin Ledge
Channel between Spectacle Island and Long Island, in the same
S5-3
S5-4
777
-------
general area as the Spectacle Island CAD (see attached Figure A) . -
As currently planned, the closest point within the. area sited for
the artificial reef would be approximately 100 to 200 yards from
the Spectacle Island CAD. Any activity at the Spectacle. Island
CAD, including excavation, placement of dredged material, or
capping, must be performed in a manner that will not impact the
structural integrity or performance of the artificial reef modules,
or decrease its potential as a fisheries resource area.
Based on the Draft EIR/S, we are particularly concerned with the
potential impacts of total suspended solids (TSS) from the
Spectacle Island CAD, which could affect the reef performance.
High concentrations of TSS in the water column could affect the
development of the desired blue mussel fouling community on the
artificial reef, by interfering with the spawning and filter
feeding processes of these organisms.
Page 3-39 of the Draft EIR/S states that, based on disposal silt
plume modeling, suspended solids concentrations generated by the
CAD activities should be low (<30 mg/L). The historic range of TSS
levels in Boston Harbor has been 8-188 mg/L. If TSS levels from
the Spectacle Island CAD can be maintained below 30 mg/L, then we
would anticipate no significant impacts to the artificial reef.
TSS Sources and Control Measures
Our concerns with regard to minimizing TSS impacts to the
artificial reef from the Spectacle Island CAD center on: 1) the
timing of CAD construction and operations; and 2) the BHNIP
materials handling techniques.
Construction of the Spectacle Island CAD could affect the proposed
artificial reef if the construction dredging takes place during (or
shortly after) deployment of the reef modules, and if the dredging
creates heavy TSS plumes. Use of silt curtains and a closed dredge
bucket during CAD construction may help to minimize the TSS plumes;
however, it is not known how effective these control measures could
be should there be a minimum of 100- to 200-yards between the two
proj ects.
Operation (and closure) of the Spectacle Island CAD also could
affect the proposed artificial reef. We therefore request that the
BHNIP team be required to conduct a siting study which addresses
possible impacts of the CAD operations to the Project's artificial
reef and the Spectacle Island dike and seawalls. Disposal of fine-
grained sediments from the BHNIP over a 1-1/2 year period could
create high TSS levels in the water column.
We request that the BHNIP minimize TSS impacts in Sculpin Ledge
Channel through the use of adequate control measures during
construction and operation of the Spectacle Island CAD. TSS
control measures during operation and closure of the CAD could
-------
include use of silt curtains and restrictions on the timing of
disposal operations to avoid periods of maximum ebb and flood
tides. To further ensure protection of the reef and of other
aquatic resources in Sculpin Ledge Channel, the BHNIP. should
include a TSS monitoring program, with specified exceedance
criteria, reporting' requirements, and contingency plans.
Section 4.0, Dredging Management Plan
1. Noise Impacts
Section 4.0 gives an overview of the potential environmental
impacts of the dredging operations and likely mitigation measures
to be employed (Page 4-1). Potential noise impacts and likely
mitigation measures are not discussed. Dredging areas will be in
close proximity to buildings, especially dredging areas in the
Reserve Channel, Mystic River, Chelsea River, and along the East
Boston waterfront. Residential housing areas and a school
(sensitive noise receptors) are located along the East Boston
waterfront. In addition, the Squantum Point Disposal Site is
adjacent to a large condominium complex and recreational area.
Potential noise impacts need to be identified, and mitigation
measures committed to for any expected significant noise impacts.
2. Subsection 4.1.1, Mechanical Dredge Plant
Subsection 4.1.1 of the Draft EIR/S states that a modified, or
environmental, bucket is planned to be used when dredging the silt
sediments. The subsection also indicates that a scow size range of
2-3,000 cy is assumed. While scows range between 4 and 5,000 ton
capacity (4,000 tons roughly correlates to 2-3,000 cy), depending
on the disposal option, bin barges may be required. Bin barges are
used when mechanical removal of material from the barge is
expected, and a typical bin barge holds only approximately 1,200
cy. Thus, if bin barges are used, there would be more barge
traffic than indicated, which should be considered.
BHNIP barging operations that overlap the CA/T Project barging
operations must be carefully coordinated to minimize impacts on
commercial and recreational traffic in the area.
3. Rock Blasting
According to the Draft EIR/S (Page 4-4), rock is expected to be
encountered at the mouth of the Reserved Channel, in the Inner
Confluence and in the Mystic River Channel. Rock blasting is
expected to be required to remove the rock. The blasting, in
particular any such activity planned at the mouth of the Reserved
Channel, should be reviewed by the CA/T Project to ensure that the
integrity of the Third Harbor Tunnel is maintained.
S5-7
S5-8
-------
S5-1
The preferred disposal alternative, in-channel, will not interfere with CA/T
operations.
S5-2
A 20% expansion factor was used to accommodate dredged material placed hi
upland sites. Additional analysis of dewatering has led to the conclusion that it is
possible to reduce the volume capacity at upland sites to the in-situ volumes at the
expense of time or mechanical dewatering. The FEIR/S discusses the dewatering
process and costs in Section 4.0 and Appendix I.
S5-3
The references to MHD's construction schedule at Spectacle Island have been
revised to reflect this information.
S5-4
Modification of typical wave run-up at the Spectacle Island site would not be
anticipated because the plan calls for pre-construction depths to be recreated following
placement of the dredged materials. A relatively broad reach between the upland side
of the proposed CAD facility and the existing shoreline of Spectacle Island would be
maintained. During construction of the CAD, it would be possible for waves which
would normally break at or seaward of the offshore edge of the CAD to propagate
towards the Island in an unbroken state; the deeper water within the excavation would
support longer period waves which would normally break offshore of the site. Howev-
er, these waves would clearly break as they passed over the restricted existing depths
shoreward of the proposed site. Some modest increase in wave run-up could be
expected, but no serious threat would be posed to a properly designed seawall. A
modest and temporary change to the local wave climatology could impact the beach
nourishment work, depending upon the depth to which this nourishment will be
extended.
The Spectacle Island CAD was not selected as the preferred disposal alternative
for the BHNIP, although it may be reconsidered for future maintenance.
ffl
33
-------
S5-5
The likelihood of interfering with the CA/T's artificial reef in Sculpin Ledge
Channel was evaluated for both the Spectacle Island and Subaqueous B alternatives.
S5-6
The Massachusetts Highway Department, Central Artery/Tunnel recommenda-
tions for TSS control measures will be taken under advisement and considered fully
should the associated construction and disposal activities go forward at Spectacle
Island. Please keep in mind, however, that "closed" dredge buckets do not necessarily
assure that low TSS levels will result. Experience has shown that properly vented
"environmental" buckets, operated by an experienced and skilled dredge operator can
be much more effective than a closed bucket.
See response to Comment S5-5. Predicted water quality effects are described
hi Appendix F. Note, however, that the Spectacle Island CAD was not selected as the
preferred alternative (Section 4.0) for the BHNIP silt.
S5-7
Noise impacts are discussed in Section 5.0 of the final EIR/S. No significant
noise impacts are expected from the dredging and disposal of dredged material.
S5-8
It is not anticipated that bin barges will be typically used at this site. Bottom
dump scows will be the preferred method of disposal.
The DEIR (subsection 4.1.1) recognizes the potential need for barge sizes
smaller than the 2-3,000 cy scow which would be used for ocean disposal. Smaller
barges such as 1,200 cy bin barges will most likely be used if mechanical removal of
the dredged material is expected. The number of trips using barges this size would
increase proportionally. While barging operations currently envisioned are on the
order of four barges per day, they will be coordinated among the harbor's commercial
users via marine radio. Negative impacts on recreational traffic will be nainimized as
much as possible but cannot be prevented entirely.
The BHNIP will involve rock blasting in the vicinity of the Main Ship Channel
near the mouth of the Reserve Channel, based on the current dredging plan. Due to the
close proximity of this area to the Third Harbor Tunnel the blasting plan will be
coordinated with the CA/T Project to ensure the integrity of the tunnel is maintained.
34
-------
S5-9
Review of blasting plans by CA/T staff is welcomed due to their recent
experience in the harbor.
35
IVO
-------
COASTAL ZONE
MANAGEMENT
To:
From:
Date:
Re:
MEMORANDUM
Jan Reitsma, Director, MEPA UnitM, //'
Margaret M. Brady, Director, C24et«U' •L
June 7, 1994 '
EOEA # 8695 Boston Harbor
Dredging (BHNIP) ; Boston
Navigation Improvement
The Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management (MCZM) Office has
completed its review of the above-referenced Draft Environmental
Impact Report -(DEIR), noticed in the Environmental Monitor dated
May 10, 1994, and has the following comments.
Project Description
The BHNIP proposes to improvement dredge approximately 3,300,000
cubic yards (cy) of material from three tributary channels (Mystic
River, Chelsea Creek and the Reserved Channel) and twelve berth
areas (see DEIR p. ES-1) in Boston Harbor. The Mystic River and
Reserved Channel will be dredged to -40 mean low water (mlw),
Chelsea Creek to -38 mlw; the berth areas will be dredged to the
depth of the channel on which they rely for access. The US Army
Corps of Engineers (USAGE) is the project proponent for the
improvement work in the channels; the Massachusetts Port Authority
(Massport) is the local sponsor for the improvement work, the sole
proponent for Massport berths, and the project coordinator for the
private berths. The purpose of the project is to increase the
controlling depths in the harbor to accommodate the container
ships, bulk carriers and tankers that service the New England
region through the port of Boston.
Of the total project volume, 1,300,000 cy is silty, unconsolidated
material that overlies approximately 2,000,000 cy of cohesive
Boston blue clay. An additional 132,000 cy of rock will be blasted
from the main ship channel. Notwithstanding their potential
beneficial use, the clay and rock are suitable for unconfined
disposal at the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (MBDS). Because
the silts are predominantly anthropogenic, they contain moderate to
high levels of contaminants typical of an urban port, and are not
suitable for unconfined ocean disposal. (It is important to note
that the disposal of dredged material is governed not by the
numerical value of a. given contaminant in a sample, but rather by
\
-------
an evaluation of the potential biological effects of that material
as evidenced by test organisms. Biological testing of Boston-
Harbor sediments indicates that the potential bioeffects of the
material on marine organisms vary by site; that is, the levels of
contaminants in Boston "Harbor are not distributed evenly. See
Sediment Characterization, below, for further discussion.)
In addition to the volumes of material to be dredged by the
immediate project, an estimated 5,800,000 cy of silts will need to
be removed over the fifty-year life of the project, including
4,400,000 cy from the main ship channel and 1,800,000 cy from the
tributaries,. The DEIR has properly incorporated these volumes into
the evaluation of potential disposal sites, and review of the DEIR
and the selection of a preferred alternative should be based on the"
total volume of ^,100,000 cy of material unsuitable for unconfined
ocean disposal.
The disposal of the contaminated sediments from this project
present numerous challenges at both the policy and regulatory
levels. While the EOEA agencies have agreed conceptually on the
utility of alternative disposal methods, for this and previous
projects, the BHNIP represents the first major application of these
alternative disposal methods in Commonwealth waters.
It is therefore possible that the disposal alternative (s)
preferable to MCZM and/or the EOEA line agencies will not agree
with the "preferred alternative" as identified by the USAGE. To
determine the preferred alternative the USAGE applies the "federal
standard," which identifies the most appropriate disposal site as
that which is the least costly alternative consistent with sound
engineering practices and which meets the environmental standards
of either the Clean Water Act or the Ocean Dumping Act. The costs
associated with disposal of material at the USAGE preferred
alternative set a ceiling of funding above which the non-federal
participant (Massport) must bear all additional costs. Depending
on the outcome of the MEPA process, disposal expenses above the
USAGE ceiling may be significant.
Regulatory revision and/or advances in the -development or
application of alternative disposal technologies may modify or
obviate contemporary disposal techniques. However, planning
efforts cannot reasonably anticipate the potential reduction or
elimination of the need for disposal sites as identified in the
DEIR. MCZM review of the DEIR is therefore based on the
application of the "best available technology" standard.
WWB*q
To encourage the continued technical evolution of that standard]
MCZM recommends that the BHNIP incorporate a demonstration of
innovative disposal technology. See Innovative Technology, below]
for further discussion.
-------
Given the potential emergence in this project of what has, in the
past, proved to be a divisive situation, we encourage both the
• USAGE and the regulatory agencies to approach the comments and
do.recta.on resulting from MEPA review of this preliminary document
with an appreciation that both the regulatory oversight of natural
resources and the technology of dredged material disposal are in
transition, moving towards better identification of resources and
potential impacts and more precise methods of handling dredged
material. A project of this magnitude offers significant potential
as a laboratory of sorts with benefits to regional and perhaps
national resource management efforts, and warrants some latitude in
the application of traditional formulae.
Comments
MCZM offers the following comments on several elements of the DEIR,
including the MEPA process, MCZM jurisdiction, sediment
characterization, the alternatives analysis, innovative
technologies, the dredging management plan, and management and
monitoring of the disposal sites.
MEPA Process
While the DEIR presents sufficient information to generally
identify preferable disposal alternatives, additional information
that more accurately and consistently characterizes the resources
present at the proposed disposal sites and the potential impacts to
them, is necessary. MCZM therefore recommends that the FEIR
provide sufficient information for reviewers to make a quantitative
distinction among the proposed disposal site alternatives
identified in the DEIR as "practicable," as well as those
additional sites identified in our comments, below.
In addition, MC2ja__rgguires detailed information to evaluate the"
potential impacts to the coastal zone of disposal of contaminated
sediments at the specific site(s) to be identified by the proponent
as the preferred alternative. While it has been proposed that the
evaluation of a disposal site for the BHNIP silts should proceed
under the assumption that disposal at that site will be a one-time
activity and should thus be subject to less conservative standards
than those applicable to a site that will experience continual use,
e.g., the Cape Cod Disposal Site, MCZM does not agree. The
preferred alternatives identified in the DEIR have been selected
largely because they will accommodate material from future
maintenance work in Boston harbor; the site ultimately selected
will, in other words, experience continual use. Furthermore, it is
entirely possible that once a site has been permitted for use by
the BHNIP, it may prove to be the most practicable site for the
disposal of material from unrelated projects.
n
«
-------
KCZM has consistently required a minimum of one year of baseline
data by which to evaluate the proposed ocean disposal of dredged
material, in the interest of evaluating seasonal variations in
community structures, fisheries resources, wave and current
regimes, and the long-term depositional nature of the site. MCZM
.will therefore require that the proponent produce a SupplementaT
EIR (SEIR) to address the issues specific to the site(s) ultimately
selected, e.g., one year baseline data, discussion of impacts to
resources at a specific site, and a plan for management and
monitoring of operations, in order to complete our federal
consistency review. .
MCZM believes that this approach serves the purposes of both the
EOEA agencies and the proponent: An SEIR based on one year of data
(see Attachment l) should provide sufficient information for the
agencies to evaluate the potential impacts to immediate and
regional resources given a specific project configuration, and will
also allow the proponent to address significant regulatory concerns
prior to permitting.
MCZM Jurisdiction
The DEIR states in Section 5.1, Regulatory Compliance, that under
the provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA),
the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program
conducts reviews of all proposed federal projects, and
other projects requiring federal permits, within the
coastal zone to determine their consistency with
applicable CZM regulatory (13) and non-regulatory (14)
policies. [DEIR p.5-1; emphasis added]
That statement is inaccurate. The CZMA, as amended in 1990, states
at Section 307 (c)(1)(A) that
[e]ach Federal agency activity within or outside the
coastal zone that affects any land or water use or
natural resource of the coastal zone shall be carried out
in a manner which is consistent to the maximum extent
practicable with the enforceable program policies of
approved State management programs. *** [16 U.S.C. 1451
See the MEPA Scope, EOEA #3692, May 1, 1980 (initial scope
for the designation of the Cape Cod Disposal Site for which MCZM
was the proponent) ; MCZM comments on the Gurnet Point site
(proposed disposal site for dredged material from Duxbury harbor),
November 9, 1988; and MCZM comments on the proposed USAGE
maintenance and improvement dredging of the approaches to Hyannis
harbor, dated March 22, 1994.
-------
et sag./ emphasis added]
The USAGE and Massport should therefore be aware that they are
required to file a federal consistency determination that addresses
the impacts of both the dredging and the disposal of dredged
material at.any marine site(s) ultimately selected for this project
irrespective of the relationship of the disposal site to the
territorial waters of the Commonwealth. Please note that federal
action on the BHNIP is contingent upon receipt of a concurrence
from this office.
MCZM will review the BHNIP for consistency with Policies 3, 4, 5,
13 and 19. Policy 6 will apply • if the Meisburger sites are
selected. (See Attachment 3 for MCZM Policies.)
Sediment Characterization
MCZM commends Massport on their commitment to obtaining
scientifically valid data regarding sediment characterization and
biological testing to determine suitability. The historical data
sheets on the use of each berthing area were of value in evaluating
and interpreting data subsequently collected for sediment analyses.
MCZM concurs with Massport and the USAGE that the Boston blue clay
and rock material are suitable for ocean disposal at the
Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site. Massport and the USAGE propose
that while the majority of the silts (approximately 1.1 million cy)
are unsuitable for unconfined ocean disposal, 360,000 cy of
material from the Reserved Channel, Gulf Oil, Army Base and Conley
Terminal is suitable for unconfined ocean disposal. MCZM does not
agree and concurs with the US Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) that the total 360,000 cy from these areas are not suitable
for unconfined ocean disposal.
See • the MCZM consistency certification of the US
Environmental Protection Agency's site designation of the MBDS,
dated November 13, 1992. See MBDS, page 7, for further discussion.
The upland ' disposal of dredged material outside the inland
delineation of the coastal zone generally does not fall under MCZM
jurisdiction, providing it does not affect land uses or resources
of the coastal zone. MCZM will assert jurisdiction over activities
related to the upland disposal of dredged material that take place
within the coastal zone e.g., dewatering facilities, staging areas,
transportation routing. MCZM jurisdiction over the upland disposal
of dredged material within the coastal zone 'is contingent upon the
nature of the federal permits required .for the activity.
-------
The basis for determining suitability is prescribed by the federal
protocols, Green Book, (Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for
Ocean disposal (Testing Manual), USEPA/USACE, 1991, Washington,
D.C.). The Green Book establishes several criteria by which to
evaluate the results of the tests that measure toxicity or
mortality and/or bioaccumulation of contaminants in selected
organism tissues. These criteria include applying traditionally
accepted methods for statistically determining differences in
tissue residues of metals and organic chemicals such as polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) ,
evaluation of the degree of response (e.g. magnitudes of toxicity,
number of species, involved, magnitude of difference, numbers of
contaminants demonstrating significant differences, toxicity of
compounds and the propensity for biomagnification within food
webs) . Based on the results of the tests, one or more of these
criteria have been demonstrated for the silty portion of the
Reserved Channel and berthing areas.
Specifically, the berthing area toxicity test results demonstrated
mortality of amphipods at all sites exceeded mortality to amphipods
exposed to reference (clean) sediments by more than 20%, the end
point determined by Green Book protocol (Tables 6 and 7 and 12 ,
EIR, 1994) . Similarly, at each site one or more metals and one or
more PAHs and/ or PCBs showed significant bioaccumulation in one or
both species in bioaccumulation tests at the 95% or higher level of
certainty. In other words, more than one category of chemicals
measured in tissues (metal or organic compound) were statistically
significantly higher than tissue residue levels of organisms
exposed to reference sediments in the two species used for the
tests .
••^B
Interpreting data from the Reserved Channel is more difficult
because early chemical analyses did not meet the appropriate
detection limits. The presentation of information in the EIR/S is
indecipherable. However, from other USAGE documents, one of the
two toxicity tests showed significant toxicity whereas the other
test was inconclusive. In addition, significant bioaccumulation of
chromium and lead in tissue residues from organisms exposed to
sediments from two locations in the Reserved Channel showed
significant uptake. Organic chemical analyses cannot be
interpreted because the detection limits were not acceptable.
Based on the application of the Green Book criteria to the results
of the toxicity tests and the significant bioaccumulation of two
metals, these sediments are not suitable for unconfined ocean
disposal. _
Alternatives Analysis
The following comments are presented in four sections: The first is
MCZM's comments on the sufficiency 'of the alternatives
Jff
-------
analysis/site screening process; the second is our analysis of the
"potentially practicable" sites [Table ES-lb] and the "alternatives
not found practicable" [Table ES-lc]; the third is our analysis of
S™,"PraCt:LCablelt SiteS [Table E5-1*]; and the fourth discusses
MCZM's preferred alternatives for the disposal of the silts.
lives Analysis/Site Screening Process
The USAGE and Massport, with input from an advisory group
representing a broad spectrum of interests, have engaged in an
exhaustive screening process to identify potentially suitable
disposal sites for the dredged material not suitable for unconfined
ocean disposal. For the purposes of examining a sizable universe
of potential sites and screening them down to a manageable number,
MCZM believes that the criteria applied to, and the conclusions
reached by, the site screening process articulated in the DEIR
reasonably narrow the universe of alternatives to those sites that
can most practically provide for the environmentally responsible
disposal of contaminated sediments.
However, MCZM believes that the DEIR, in determining the finaT
allocation of sites as either "practicable," "potentially
practicable," or "not.. .practicable," has in some cases either
ignored or arbitrarily applied criteria that are discussed in the
DEIR. It should be further noted that the DEIR does identify the
proponent's preferred alternatives outright, and with greater
specificity than in Table ES-la: At page 3-25 the statement is made
that
[in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act
the proponents] "select the...[MBDSJ, the Boston
Lightship, Meisburger sites 2 or 7, and Spectacle Island
CAD as their preferred alternatives."
Thus we are presented a DEIR which on the one hand goes to great
lengths to justify or eliminate potentially practicable sites,
while it simultaneously identifies the preferred alter native (s) as
a foregone conclusion. Further review of the alternatives in the
FEIR as discussed below should therefore be predicated on a more
careful and accurate representation of costs and environmental
impacts than those presented in the DEIR.
If the proponents take the concluding language of the
Executive Summary seriously, and the statement that the "[f]inal
selection of a preferred disposal option will be made based upon
public comments received on this DEIR/S" does indeed control, the
identification of preferred alternatives in the FEIR must be
expanded from those identified for the purposes of NEPA on page 3-
25 to include those that are recommended by the Commonwealth and/or
which meet the proponents' own screening criteria at page 3-26.
Otherwise, the evaluation/screening process is a moot concern and
-------
Tables ES-lb & Ic
Page 3-26 of the DEIR presents a six-strep "practicability
screening" for the final twenty-four sites under consideration. In
summary, the steps include an analysis of:
1. Habitat loss/ impact to resource function;
2. Water quality impacts;
3. Socioeconomic impacts;
4. 200,000 cubic yard minimum capacity;
5 . Cost greater than four times capping at the MBDS deemed
excessive [4 x $18 — $72]; and
6. Potential to accommodate future maintenance material.
•*•!.•
MCZM believes that the 200,000 cy minimum capacity is an arbitrary
figure: Neither Amstar, the Mystic Piers, nor Revere Sugar would
qualify individually .under that threshold, but they offer a
cumulative capacity of at least 311,000 cy'and may thus provide one
element of. a disposal site "mix."
Similarly; the cost and capacity criteria appear to be applied
arbitrarily: Three of the six least expensive alternatives fail the
total-volume capacity test (in-channel, Meisburger 2 and Spectacle
Island CAD), while, conversely, Tables ES-lb and Ic contain sites
that meet the 200,000 cy capacity test and the $72/cy test, but
which are not elevated to the final list.
No rationale is given, for example, for the exclusion from the
final list of the Little Mystic site, which, at $33/cy, a capacity
of 303,000 cy, and the benefit of Designated Port Area (DPA)
status appears to meet the criteria by which, say, the in-channel
alternative was judged. If the Little Mystic were filled to a
greater depth than proposed in the DEIR, £t could offer significant
potential as an in-harbor disposal site.
we ought to have been evaluating the USAGE preferred alternatives,
exclusively, from the outset.
Regulations governing DPAs under that Wetlands Protection Act
(WPA) at 310 CMR 10.26 lower the performance standards to which the
project will be held for some resource areas.
<~ of
6The DEIR states at page 3-27 that the bulkheading and filling
[a]11 aquatic shoreline sites [will mean] that existing
sub-tidal habitat is lost to fast land if the sites are
filled to capacity. Due to the permanent loss of
• sub-tidal habitat in the total fill option only the
partial fill option, which provide for the establishment
of intertidal habitat, was selected as potentially
practicable.
8
-------
Additionally, the Wrentham site, with a capacity of almost 800,000
cy and an estimated cost well below the $72/cy threshold, warrants
further consideration. Siting issues aside, the logistics of
dewatering and transporting that volume of material for the
immediate project may prove too onerous in light of other
alternatives. However, a site with that potential capacity could
provide a cost-effective disposal site fpr two or three or more
future maintenance cycles: As volume per cycle decreases,
dewatering and transportation effort decreases and capital costs
are amortized over a greater period.
Carrying a monofill site forward is important to address two
uncertainties: First,.it is possible—unlikely, but possible—that
testing for a future maintenance or improvement project in the
metro-Boston area could identify contamination so egregious that
permitted monofill would be the only disposal alternative. (See,
for example, the National Park Service site at the Charlestown Navy
Yard with PAH counts in the thousands of parts per million.) More
likely is a scenario in which the regulations governing the
disposal of dredged material are revised to more narrowly proscribe
the disposal alternatives available; in that case, having the
groundwork already complete for an upland site would be of enormous
benefit to a project proponent facing any kind of timeline.
• The FEIR should carry forward the filling of piers and secondary
waterways as practicable alternatives. If the FEIR selects an
aquatic site as the preferred alternative, it should demonstrate
that the environmental impacts of such disposal are not greater
than those associated with filling in-harbor areas.
• The FEIR should therefore discuss the potential impacts of
filling piers and secondary waterways on the Boston Harbor
environment, under both a partial and total build-out scenario.
The analysis should include impacts to the tidal
prism/flushing/water quality, impacts to fisheries/benthos, and
impacts to land use (see next) .
• The FEIR should address Designated Port Area (DPA)/Chapter 91
issues with greater specificity in regard to these areas. If, for
example, filling the Little Mystic was to be seriously pursued, and
given the requirement under the DPA regulations that fast land
would be available only for waterdependent industrial uses, could
Massport benefit by having land available on which to expand Moran
terminal operations? How do the proposed revisions to the DPA
However, note that the permanent loss of sub-tidal habitat in
a DPA is not necessarily precluded under the WPA regulations, ibid.
Further, benefits accrued from, or mitigation for impacts to, in-
harbor fill may render these sites practicable from a regulatory
perspective.
-------
r
regulations affect this alternative?
J
^FEIR should address the benefits and costs of the Wrentham
monofill site as one element of the disposal mix for future
maintenance needs.
• The FEIR should assess the potential use of the silts as landfill
closure and/or daily cover material within the Commonwealth. This
should include an evaluation of total potential capacity and the
timing of landfill closures vis a vis the BHNIP schedule. The
proponent should work closely with the MA Department of
Environmental Protection to assess the utility of upland disposal
for this project. ,
Practicable Sites
MBDS
The unconfined or confined disposal of sediments that fail
biological testing at the MBDS is prohibited under the terms of the
USEPA's site designation, which imposes the restriction that
Disposal shall be limited to dredged material which meets
the requirements of the [Marine Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act] and its accompanying regulations.
Disposal-and-capping [is] prohibited at the MBDS until
its efficacy can be effectively demonstrated. [58 FR
42496]
Additionally, as noted above, the Commonwealth concurred with the
prohibition on capping through the MCZM consistency determination
on the final site designation. Under the CZMA, modifying the site
designation to permit a demonstration project or to remove the
prohibition on capping would constitute a federal activity subject
to federal consistency.
• The FEIR should discuss the regulatory framework that governs
disposal of contaminated sediments in MPRSA waters under the Ocean
pumping Act, with particular emphasis on 40 CFR 227.6(f) and (g) as
it applies to this site.
• If the FEIR identifies this site as the preferred alternative,
MCZM will request that an SEIR be developed that identifies and
addresses USEPA and MCZM criteria for a demonstration project.
Boston Lightship
The Lightship site is shallower than the MBDS ("ISO feet v. "300
feet) but it has not been demonstrated to MCZM that capping has
been successfully carried out at these depths. Anecdotal evidence
suggests that the site is susceptible to winter storms which result
in the movement of large volumes of surficial sediments. [MWRA,
' ' • 10
-------
pers. comm.] The MA Division of Marine Fisheries has stated that
the Lightship site is an important fisheries resource.
While the Lightship is not currently permitted as a disposal site,""
it is a historical disposal site for dredged material, construction
debris, industrial material and low-level radioactive waste.
[USEPA, ±990] The remedial effect of disposal at this site
(capping, in effect, the existing sources of contamination) has
been discussed as a potential benefit that may balance the short-
term impact of disposal on the fisheries resource. In order to
make such a management decision, the agencies need a survey of the
Lightship area that is detailed to the point of providing the
number and contents of units of anthropogenic waste, e.g.,
canisters or coffins, per given area. With that information some
general criteria could be established: for example, at 10 units per
acre the environmental benefits might outweigh the costs, but at 4
units per acre they might not. —
• ,The FEIR should provide a bathymetric survey of the Lightship
site at a level of detail sufficient to identify the location and
general nature of anthropogenic waste.
• MCZM will require the proponent to provide one year of baseline
data for the Lightship site, to be evaluated in a Draft SEIR (see
Attachment 1) .
• If the FEIR does identify the Lightship as the preferred
alternative, the SEIR should address, in addition to the baseline
data, technical issues specific to capping at the. site. On review
of the FEIR MCZM may, following discussion with the state and
federal agencies, require that the SEIR incorporate a demonstration
project.
• The FEIR should include data from the USAGE that substantiates
that the USAGE has the technical proficiency to cap material at
these depths. Documentation of capping at shallower depths that is
applicable to this site and this depth is not accessible. Peer
review of USAGE data will assist in the definition and
interpretation of "successful" capping. —
• The FEIR should discuss the regulatory framework that governs
disposal of contaminated sediments in MPRSA waters under the Ocean
Dumping Act, with particular emphasis on 40 CFR 227.6(f) and (g) as
it applies to this site.
• The FEIR should assess the potential for, or conditions required
to induce, catastrophic failure of the disposal site after project
completion. Include an assessment of projected impacts to the
local and regional environment.
11
-------
Borrow Pits (Meisburger 2(7)
The prospective borrow pits (#2 and #7) are located approximately
7 and 8 miles off Deer Island, respectively, roughly bracketing the
MWRA outfall pipe in 80 to 100 feet of water. (Note that the
borrow pits do not yet exist. They have been identified as areas
that potentially contain significant and recoverable volumes of
sand and gravel.) Silty material overlying sand and gravel
resources would be removed and either stockpiled or disposed at the
MBDS, the sand and gravel would be removed and put to beneficial
use, the BHNIP silts would be placed in the pit and capped with
clay and sand. On. completion of the project the artificial
substrate would resemble original conditions. The borrow pits are
characterized in the DEIR as having capacities of between 780,000
cy and 4,600,000 cy for #2 and 6,100,000+ cy for #7.
• MCZM will require the proponent to provide one year of baseline
data for the Meisburger sites, to be evaluated in a Draft SEIR (see
Attachment 1).
• The USAGE has done a fair amount of conceptual work with borrow
pits and some field testing. The FEIR should collate existing
information on this disposal alternative and discuss both borrow
pit technology in general and the literature's application to this
project in particular in greater technical detail.
• The FEIR should include a technical evaluation of geotextile
encapsulation of dredged material prior to disposal, as has been
recently evaluated by the USAGE Waterways Experiment Station.
• If the FEIR does identify the borrow pits as the preferred
alternative, the SEIR should address technical issues specific to
borrow pit disposal. On review of the FEIR MCZM may, following
discussion with the state and federal agencies, require that the
SEIR incorporate a demonstration project.
•••••
• The FEIR should determine, through physical sampling of the
proposed sites, first, whether . the areas are predominantly
characterized by a sand or sand/gravel substrate; and second, what'
the areal and volumetric dimensions of the proposed borrow pits
actually are.
• Once those dimensions are established, the FEIR should address
the impacts of the proposed borrow pit to the physical resources of
the area in which it will be located. For example, will the borrow
pit encompass the total area identified as containing recoverable
sand and gravel resources? What amount of the resource will be
rendered unavailable by siting a borrow pit in that resource? What
will be the dimensions of an exclusion zone around the borrow pit
itself?
12
-------
ocean surface-
exclusion distance from pit?
ocean bottom-
borrow pit
volume of resource lost?
• The FEIR should assess the potential for, or conditions required
to induce, catastrophic failure of the disposal site after project
completion. Include an assessment of projected impacts to the
local and regional environment.
In-channel Trench and Cover
Under _this alternative the tributary channels themselves serve as
the disposal site. The silts would be dredged from the channels
and be stockpiled in reserve. The underlying clay would then be
dredged deeper than required for navigation, and a portion of that
material would be stockpiled. The silts would then be replaced in
the depression and capped with the clay held in reserve. Trench
and cover would provide approximately 60% of the capacity of the
current project and no capacity for future maintenance work.
This alternative is conceptually attractive because it has the"
benefit of localizing impacts in the area already most heavily
affected by contamination, and of not transporting those impacts to
another area. However, MCZM has serious concerns about the
practicability of this alternative given the logistics it would
entail. It appears to MCZM that further evaluation of this
alternative relies on the answer to the question: Given the
multiple opportunities for impacts (double handling the material,
relying on the close coordination of dredging and disposal, an
operational area the footprint, by definition, of the working
watersheet, the high potential for transport of sediments off-site
.given current speed and the volumetric exchange of water at each
tidal cycle) are the sum of the potential impacts from this
disposal technique mitigated by the location in which they occur?
MCZM does ^ not believe that this alternative merits further
consideration as a disposal option for the current project. It may
be appropriate to consider as one element of a disposal mix for
future maintenance work.
• The FEIR should discuss this alternative in greater detail if it"
is carried forward as a potential site for future maintenance
material. _
13
-------
Spectacle Island CAD
This alternative would entail the removal of between 600,000 cy and
1,450,000 cy of material from a shallow subtidal flat immediately
east of Spectacle Island. The site is located in depths of -4 to
-15 feet mlw, with average depths of -9 mlw. In all other respects
it is similar to the borrow pit alternative discussed above.
MCZM has serious concerns about the viability of this alternative.
While the shallow water location does give it a decided advantage
in terms of accurately placing the dredged material and the cap, it
also .appears to combine the worst aspects of borrow pits and
capping by its susceptibility to storm-wave activity and the
resultant heightened potential for impacts to outer harbor
resources. In addition, information provided by the MA Department
of Environmental Protection indicates that the site may not be
geologically suited to a major excavate-and-fill operation.
MCZM does not believe that the CAD alternative merits further
consideration as a disposal option for either the current project
or for future maintenance work. —
MCZM Preferred Alternatives
MCZM presents these alternatives as a preliminary ranking of
alternatives based on information from the pre~MEPA workgroups,
review of existing literature, discussions with the proponent, and
review of the DEIR. MCZM's preferred alternatives as here
identified are likely to be influenced in degree, if not in
substance, by information developed by the FEIR. (For example, if
information developed on the cumulative environmental impacts of
filling piers and secondary waterways indicates unacceptable
impacts not compensated for by benefits or mitigation, MCZM would
recommend that these alternatives be dropped from consideration.)
^^«
Based on our program plan and enforceable program policies, MCZM|s
preferred alternative for the disposal of contaminated sediments is
upland disposal, because this approach minimizes the impacts of
dredging and disposal on the resources of the coastal zone to the
greatest degree possible. MCZM's analysis of the practicability of
this alternative will rely on information developed by, and for,
the MADEP Bureau of Solid Waste Management. Please see MADEP's
comments for guidance. We recognize that the volume--and
concomitant expense—of material to be generated from the immediate
project and from future maintenance work may preclude upland
disposal for at least the 1,300,000 cy at immediate issue. —
^•••H
MCZM's second preferred alternative is a combination of filled
piers and fill of the Little Mystic and/or the Reserved Channel.
As noted above, we request that the proponents investigate the
feasibility of these sites and the impacts of their use on the
Boston Harbor environment in greater detail. We recognize that
14
-------
cost,
*ay alS° be realistically precluded by logistics,
ironmental impacts * f |
MCZM's third preferred alternative are the Meisburger borrow ^^
#2 and #7. Borrow pit disposal potentially offers a range of
management benefits. Depths at the sites are shallow enough to
allow for the accurate placement of material, and deep enough to
minimize the erosional potential of storm-wave currents; borrow pit
configuration conceptually provides an effective physical means of
sequestering both the dredged material and the contaminants
therein; impacts to ambient resources are (relatively) temporary;
and post-disposal site conditions can be designed to replicat4
original conditions. As an additional benefit, the Meisburger
sites potentially afford the communities along the North and South
shore with a source of much needed material for shore
enhancement/protection projects currently under design. . MCZM
believes that the Meisburger sites potentially represent the most
practicable alternative for disposal of sediments from the BHNIP.
•IMBM
.Innovative Technologies
• The FEIR should identify a practicable remedial technology that!
can be implemented as at least a demonstration project. A
demonstration of remedial disposal technology may be an appropriate
element ^ of a mitigation package, and should be included in that
discussion at the appropriate time. The USAGE and Massport should
work closely with Commonwealth agencies to identify a funding
mechanism to support this element of the BHNIP.
.Dredging Management Plan
As required by the MEPA scope, the DEIR presents a management plan
tor the dredging and disposal of dredged material. Because the
DEIR cannot, before a final disposal site(s) has been selected,
address the technical relationships between dredging and disposal,
the plan as presented is necessarily generic.
Note: The management plan may be more appropriately incorporated in
the SEIR, where it can be crafted to reflect the specific elements
of site conditions and design. See Attachment 1, #5 and #6.
• The management plan in the FEIR should be very specific, and!
should address, as appropriate to the site ultimately selected: 1}
the technical and operational relationships between the dredging '
and the disposal site; 2) a discussion of the criteria by which to
determine the need for interim capping; 3) a detailed calendar
schedule that illustrates how long it will take to accomplish given
tasks; 4) what resource protection windows will control operations
and how they will be met; 5) how the selected alternatives address
future maintenance needs, and any operational requirements that
15
-------
future use of a given site will impose on use of that site for the
immediate project (sequential use of a borrow pit, over multiple
maintenance cycles, for example); 6) how disposal will be monitored
to ensure the integrity of the disposal capability of the site,
with contingency plans sufficient to address unexpected problems
encountered with disposal (evidence of significant volumes of
material outside disposal site boundaries, for example). —
• The FEIR should address, in consultation with the USEPA, the
regulatory status of the disposal site. If an aquatic site is
selected—and particularly if it is selected for the express
purpose of accommodating all future maintenance material—will the
site be required to be formally designated as an active disposal
site? Will projects not related to the BHNIP have access to the
site?
Monitoring Plan
A monitoring plan for the disposal site constitutes an integral
aspect of the project.
• The FEIR should identify a technical protocol for monitoring the
disposal site(s). The FEIR should identify a monitoring committee
composed of representatives from the state and federal agencies and
user groups to evaluate monitoring data and advise the USAGE on
management i s sues.
• The FEIR should identify the source of funding for ongoing
monitoring and remedial actions at the disposal site(s) , if
necessary. __J
The proposed project is subject to MCZM federal consistency review;
the issues identified above will be evaluated during that review.
For further information on this process, please contact Jane W.
Mead, MCZM Project Review Coordinator, at 617-727-9530 x.418.
MMB/DBB
'cc: Patricia Scott, OCRM
Peter Jackson, USAGE
Cathy Demos, USAGE
Karen Kirk-Adams, USAGE
Janeen Hansen, Massport
Norman Faramelli, Massport
John Simpson, MADEP Waterways
Steve Lipman, MADEP Commissioner's Office
Judy Perry, DEP/DWPC
Eugene Cavanaugh, DEM/Waterways
Leigh Bridges, MADMF
Brad Chase, MADMF
Chris Mantzeris, NMFS
16
-------
Jon Kurland, NMFS
Ed Woo, USEPA
Kymberlee Keckler, USEPA
Phil Colorusso, USEPA
Ed Reiner, USEPA
Vernon Lang, US Fish & Wildlife
Brad Barr, Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary
City of Boston Environmental Department
Towns of Chelsea. Charlestown, Nahant, Hull, Winthrop, Itecre,
Lynn
Conservation Law Foundation
Save the Harbor/Save the Bay
Cape Cod Commission
Diane Gould, Massachusetts Bays Program
17
-------
Attachment 1
Baseline Data .Required for SEIR
• For coastal or ocean sites, MCZM requires that the proponent
provide one year of baseline data, to include:
1. Physical and geological oceanography
1
-Currents, surface and bottom, both ambient and storm-induced;J
-Hydrography, including water column characteristics;
—Wave regime, particularly considering the potential for
sediment reworking under storm conditions; and j
-Regional geology and sediment characteristics.
2. Chemical oceanography "~ I
—Chemical analysis of the sediments;
-bioaccumulation analysis of resident species, e.gr.,
polychaetes.
3. Biological environment
-Community structure within the area to be affected
-General discussion of planktonic community
-Fish and other nektonic species
-Coastal birds
-Marine mammals and turtles
—Rare or endangered species
4. Socioeconomic information
-Impacts to fisheries
-Impacts to human health
-Beneficial use of existing resources, e.g., sand and gravel;
remedial benefits of sequestering existing contaminants,
e.g., canisters at the Lightship.
5. Dredging and disposal management information —
-Technical and operational relationships between the dredging
and disposal site;
-Detailed calendar schedule that illustrates how long it will
take to accomplish given tasks;
-What resource protection windows will control operations and
how they will be met;
-How the selected alternatives address future maintenance
needs, and any operational requirements that future use of a
given site will impose on that site for the immediate
18
-------
project, e.g., sequential use of a borrow pit, over multiple
maintenance cycles;
-Monitoring and contingency planning for disposal operations.7
6. Disposal site monitoring plan
-Transport of contaminants off site;
-Transport of material off site;
-Stability of cap or mound.
S6-39
The Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS)
for the Use of Subaqueous Borrow Pits... [in] New York - New Jersey,
USAGE NYD, 1988, draws on the work of Irish and Bokuniewicz (1988)
and Bokuniewicz et. al. (1986) to provide management guidelines for
borrow pit disposal. See Attachment 2 for an example of a disposal
management process that integrates disposal monitoring and
contingency planning.
While not directly applicable, this could also serve as a model for
monitoring/management of a capping operation.
19
-------
Attachment 2
tit*
jfera of th«
•deposit froa
Jt.-.e previous
-;i snallovast
• t«r b« within
3 f»«t of as*i*nt
«•• floor or
5 f**t
ri»?
!• aouad within
••• floor or witbin
5
jcritica.1 VOIUM
op,r«tion
divert te
H*» 100.OOO
eenaition *urv«y?
««• bar?*
Position?
su«p«nd
Operations
or Dlv«rt te
Mud Bump
-------
Attachment 3
HCZM Program Policies
Regulatory Policies
Policy .1.
Protect ecologically significant resources areas (salt
marshes, shellfish beds, dunes, beaches barrier beaches, and
salt ponds) for their contributions to marine.productivity and
value as natural habitats and storm buffers.
Policy 2.
Protect complexes of marine, resource areas of unique
productivity (Areas of Preservation of Restoration
(APRs)/Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs));
ensure that activities in or impacting such complexes are
designed and carried out to minimize adverse effects on marine
productivity, habitat values, water quality, and storm
buffering of the entire complex.
Policy 3.
Support attainment of the national water quality goals for all
waters of the coastal zone through coordination with existing
water quality planning and management agencies. Ensure that
all activities endorsed by CZM in its policies are consistent
with federal and state effluent limitations and water quality
standards.
Policy 4.
Condition construction in water bodies and contiguous land
areas to minimize interference with water circulation and
sediment transport and to preserve water quality and marine
productivity. Approve permits for flood or erosion control
projects only when it has been determined that there will be
no significant adverse effects on the project site or adjacent
or downcoast areas.
Policy 5.
Ensure that dredging and disposal of dredged material minimize
adverse effects on water quality, physical processes, marine
productivity and public health.
Policy 6.
Accommodate off-shore sand and gravel mining needs in areas
and in ways that will not adversely affect marine resources
and navigation.
Policy 7.
Encourage the location of maritime commerce and development in
segments of urban waterfronts designated as port areas.
Within these areas, prevent the exclusion- of maritime-
dependent industrial uses that require the use of lands
subject to tidelands licenses.
-------
Policy 8.
For coastally-dependent energy facilities, consider siting in
alternative coastal location. For non-coastally-dependent
energy facilities, consider siting in areas outside of the
coastal zones. Weigh the environmental and safety impacts of
locating proposed energy facilities at alternative sites.
Policy 9(a).
Accommodate exploration, development and production of
offshore oil and gas resources while minimising impacts on the
marine environment, especially on fisheries, water quality and
wildlife, and on the recreational values of the coast, and
minimize conflicts with other maritime dependent uses of
coastal waters and lands. Encourage maritime-dependent
facilities serving supply, support or transfer functions to
locate in existing developed ports.
Policy 9(b).
Evaluate indigenous or alternative sources of energy (coal,
wind, solar and tidal power) and offshore mining to minimize
adverse impacts .on the marine environment, especially with
respect to fisheries, water quality, and wildlife, and on the
recreational values of the coast.
Policy 10.
All development must conform to existing applicable state and
federal requirements governing subsurface waster discharges,
sources of air and water pollution and protection of inland
wetlands.
Policy 11.
Protect designated scenic rivers in the coastal zone. Support
designation of areas for preservation or restoration as "sign
free areas."
Policy 12.
Review proposed developments in or near designated or
registered historic districts or sites to ensure that federal,
state, and private actions requiring a state permit respect
their preservation intent and minimize potential adverse
impacts.
Policy 13.
Review developments proposed near existing public recreation
sites in order to minimize their adverse impacts.
NQn-ReenJlatory Policies
Policy 14.
Encourage and assist commercial fisheries research and
development, restoration and management of fishery resources,
development of extensive and intensive aquaculture, and
-------
enhancement of anadromous fisheries, initiated at local, state
and federal levels.
Policy 15.
Ensure that state and federally funded public works projects
proposed for location within the 100 year coastal flood plan
will:
(a) not exacerbate existing hazards or damage natural
buffers?
(b) be reasonable safe from flood and erosion related
damage; and
(c) not promote growth and development in damage prone or
buffer areas, especially in undeveloped areas of APRs.
Policy 16.
Encourage acquisition of undeveloped hazard prone areas
conservation or recreation use, and provide technical
assistance for hazard area zoning and mitigation of erosion
problems.
Policy 17.
Provide funding for protection from tidal flooding and
erosion, emphasizing the use of non-structural measures where
feasible.
Policy 18. .
Encourage, through technical assistance and review of publicly
funded development, compatibility of proposed development with
local community character and scenic resources.
Policy 19.
Promote the widest possible public benefit from channel
dredging, ensuring that designated ports and developed harbors
are given highest priority in the allocation of federal and
state dredging funds. Ensure that this dredging is consistent
with marine environmental policies.
Policy 20.
Encourage, through technical and financial assistance,
• expansion of water-dependent uses in designated ports and
developed harbors, redevelopment of urban waterfronts, and
expansion of visual access.
Policy 21.
Improve public access to coastal recreation facilities, and
alleviate auto traffic and parking problems through
improvements in public transportation. Link existing coastal
recreation sites to each other or to nearby coastal inland
facilities via trails for bicyclists, hikers and equestrians
and via rivers for boaters.
Policy 22.
Increase capacity of existing recreation areas by facilitating
multiple use and by improving management, maintenance and
-------
public support facilities. Resolve conflicting uses whenever
possible through improved management rather than through
exclusion of uses.
Policy 23.
Provide technical assistance to developers of private
recreational facilities and sties that increase public access
to the shoreline.
Policy 24.
Expand existing recreational, facilities and acquire and
develop new public areas for coastal recreational activities.
Give highest priority to expansion or new acquisitions in
regions of high need or where site availability is now
limited. Assure that both transportation access and the
recreational facilities are compatible with social and
environmental characteristics of surrounding communities.
Policy 25.
Encourage energy conservation and the use of alternative
sources such as solar and wind power in order to assist in
meeting the energy needs of the Commonwealth.
Policy 26.
Ensure that state and federally funded transportation and
wastewater projects primarily serve existing developed areas,
assigning highest priority to projects which meet the needs of
urban community development centers. j
Policy 27.
Encourage the revitalization and enhancement of existing
development centers in the coastal zone through technical
assistance and federal and state financial support for
residential, commercial and industrial development.
-------
S6-1
Future maintenance dredging heeds were considered in the evaluation of
potential disposal sites.
S6-2
The Army Corps is continuing testing of the suitability of geotextile bags for
disposal of contaminated sediments.
S6-3
Additional data on biological resources at the potential aquatic disposal sites
were collected in fall 1994 and incorporated into the revised disposal site alternatives
analysis. This analysis was restructured to separate the environmental impacts and
practicability components. Section 4 of the FEIR/S provides a logical comparison of
the potential disposal sites that will enable the reviewer to identify the least environ-
mentally damaging practicable alternative readily.
S6-4
use.
Reevaluation of potential disposal sites includes the issue of repeated future
S6-5
We apologize for the unintentionally misleading statement regarding MCZM's
jurisdiction in the DEIR/S and we fully understand that MCZM concurrence is
required for both the dredging and aquatic disposal of sediments from this project. We
also understand that activities in terrestrial areas within the coastal zone (e.g. dewater-
ing, stockpiling, disposal) would also be subject to MCZM's review.
S6-6
The DEIR/S team acknowledges CZM's response that the Boston blue clay and
rock material are suitable for disposal at the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (MBDS).
As discussed hi the DEIR/S, parent material not utilized for beneficial purposes would
be disposed at the MBDS.
The DEIR/S team acknowledges the difference of opinion between EPA and
the Corps on the suitability of disposal of silt material from certain areas (Reserved
Channel (Conley, Army Base and Federal Channel) and Chelsea River (Gulf Oil) for
36
-------
disposal at MBDS. This difference of opinion is beyond the scope of this document
and as such cannot be resolved at this level. However, the DEIR does evaluate the
option of disposal of the above described sediments at sites other than MBDS; this
ensures there will be suitable location for disposal of all project material.
S6-7
The disposal site alternatives analysis has been restructured to separate environ-
mental and practicability issues (Section 4). This presentation more clearly distin-
guishes the application of the selection criteria than hi the DEIR/S.
S6-8
The revised disposal site alternatives analysis eliminates the 200,000 cy
minimum capacity. Sites are compared on numerous environmental and practicability
issues.
The state regulations regarding Designated Port Areas and the "no net loss"
policy of the 404(b)(l) guidelines are hi conflict with each other when applied to the
fastland scenario for the shoreline sites. The benefits of capping existing contaminated
sediments within the disposal sites would be accrued by either the partial-fill or the
fastland scenario. The partial-fill scenario would avoid the permanent loss of aquatic
habitat although it could be more susceptible to structural failure than the fastland
scenario. It was determined that the envkonmental impacts associated with the
fastland scenario would be greater than with the partial fill scenario, when the individ-
ual sites are evaluated. The unit costs would be lower and the capacity higher for the
fastland scenario, thereby making the fastland scenario more practicable. Because
federal regulations focus on selection of the least environmentally damaging alterna-
tive, the project believes that the fastland scenario would not be permittable at this
level since other alternatives are available.
S6-9
The partial-fill and fastland scenarios were thoroughly analyzed in the FEIR/S
disposal site alternatives analysis(Section 4), including evaluation of the impacts listed
in this comment. The regulations governing Designated Port Areas were reviewed hi
regard to this application. A severe limitation on the suitability of the fastland
scenario is the fact that these areas would not be available as useable land for years
following their closure as disposal sites unless they were decked .over, with appropriate
structural support for the proposed use. This would add substantial costs to the project
(or future site user) that would be unrealistic without considering other options for
increasing port facilities or making existing layouts more efficient.
37
-------
Clean Water Act 404 guidelines require avoidance of aquatic impacts if other
practicable alternatives are available.
S6-10
See response to comment S6-8.
S6-11
The chemical and physical characteristics of the dredged material samples have
been compared to the DEP requirements for soil reuse at lined landfills (Bureau of
Waste Prevention Interim Policy #BWP-94-037 - Reuse and Disposal of Contaminated
Soils at Landfills) and for capping materials (310CMR 19.000 Solid Waste Manage-
ment Regulations and Landfill Technical Guidance Manual). While silt samples from
some of the dredge sites may meet the chemical criteria for reuse at landfills, other
samples exceed the allowable limits for PCBs, Arsenic, and/or TPH and dewatering
sediments to meet the standard of no free draining liquid is currently impracticable.
Clay is better suited to beneficial uses as landfill capping material, and this option is
discussed hi the FEIR/S. Several planned demonstration projects may provide a wider
variety of disposal options for future maintenance dredging. These are discussed hi
the FEIR/S.
S6-12
The MBDS is not considered for disposal of BHNIP silts hi the FEIR/S.
S6-13
The MBDS has not been identified as the preferred alternative for disposal of
silt from the BHNIP. However, it is considered to be the preferred alternative for
disposal of parent material that is not used beneficially.
S6-14
The USEPA has been funding efforts to locate and characterize the previously
disposed materials at the Boston Lightship. Biological investigations in the fall of
1994 by the BHNIP team indicated that this site supports a diverse and abundant fauna
hi its current conditions. The disposal site alternatives analysis concluded that this site
is not among the least environmentally damaging alternatives.
38
-------
S6-15
See response to comment S6-14.
S6-16
See response to Comment S6-14.
S6-17
See response to Comment S6-14.
S6-18
The likelihood and effects of failure of the Boston Lightship site (and all other
aquatic sites considered for this project) has been evaluated in Section 4 and Attach-
ment 1 oftheFEIR/S.
S6-19
Biological investigations were carried out at the Meisburger sites during fall of
1994. Results from these surveys were included in the reevaluation of the suitability
of the potential aquatic disposal sites for disposal of silts from the BHNIP.
S6-20
The Corps of Engineers, in particular the New York Division, has studies and
experience with borrow pit engineering. This infbrmation would be used if a borrow
pit site were to be selected for disposal of dredged material.
S6-21
The current status of the investigations on the suitability of geotextile bags for
disposal of silts sediments is presented in the FEIR/S.
S6-22
The reevaluation of the alternative aquatic disposal sites concluded that the
Meisburger sites were not among the least environmentally damaging alternatives.
39
-------
Borrow pits may be used as disposal site for future maintenance disposal sites.
If these sites are selected, then coordination with appropriate agencies will be initiated.
S6-23
The physical character of the surficial material at the Meisburger sites was
characterized in the fall of 1994 using sediment profile imagery. Because of the
potential severity of the environmental consequences of using these sites, no addition
effort has been made to quantify the recoverable sand and gravel resources.
S6-24
The likelihood and effects of failure of the Meisburger disposal sites has been
discussed in Section 4 and Attachment 1 of the FEIR/S.
S6-25
The MCZM recommendation not to pursue the In-channel Trench and Cover
alternative is acknowledged. The concerns expressed by MCZM on impacts during
sediment handling and disposal have been examined in more detail for the FEIR/S.
Particular emphasis has been placed on evaluating the potential environmental risks of
the various activities that will occur (i.e. contaminant impacts during the time of
dredging, material handling, rehandling and subsequent disposal and covering opera-
tions). The estimated impacts are discussed in detail in Section 4.0 and Attachment 1
of the FEIR/S.
The BHNIP team believes that the potential shortcomings of the in-channel
disposal alternative have been thoroughly documented in the FEIR/S. Although this
alternative would require extensive coordination in order to minimize environmental
damage, is can be accomplished using proven techniques, as is indicated in the Dredge
Management Plan (Section 5). Several of the concerns that MCZM cites in this
comment are of much lower magnitude than this comment suggests. The silts would
not be double handled; storage (in barges) would be necessary for a short period at the
beginning of the project until the first cells are constructed. After that, dredged silts
would generally be disposed within a day of being dredged. It would be possible to
isolate the disposal area using silt curtains or a pneumatic barrier, therefore, the risk of
transport of sediments from the site is no greater than any other tidally-driven aquatic
site. The reference to tidal exchange is unclear because all of the potential aquatic
sites would be affected by tidal currents. These concerns are addressed in various
sections of the FEIR/S.
It is felt that this disposal alternative has a great potential for implementation
with minimal short and longterm impacts. Therefore, this alternative is being recom-
mended for the BHNIP.
40 2.H
-------
S6-26
See response to Comment S6-25.
S6-27
The suitability of the Spectacle Island CAD site was reevaluated in the FEIR/S.
It was concluded that, due to its rich biological conditions and exposed physical
condition, this site was not among the least environmentally damaging alternatives.
S6-28
The BHNIP team concurs that upland disposal of dredged materials could
rninirnize environmental consequences to aquatic resources and the coastal zone.
Several land-based sites were identified in the FEIR/S that could be developed for this
purpose. However, it is difficult to compare and contrast environmental impacts of
dissimilar environments (i.e., aquatic versus terrestrial). Therefore, differentiating
between these types of sites must also rely on practicability considerations, including
the need for dewatering and double handling. Both upland and aquatic sites were
considered as among the least environmentally damaging alternatives.
S6-29
The partial fill and fastland scenarios for the shoreline sites have been reevalu-
ated in the FEIR/S.
S6-30
The suitability of the Meisburger sites has been reevaluated hi the disposal site
alternatives analysis hi the FEIR/S (Section 4).
S6-31
While significant questions need to be answered, innovative technologies hold
promise, especially for highly contaminated sediments, for stabilization of contami-
nants, and for volume reduction of dredged materials. Thus, potentially practicable
treatment technologies should be pursued further hi the FEIR and the following
recommendation from the MCZM should be advanced, "The FEIR should identify a
practicable remedial technology that can be implemented as at least a demonstration
project. The USACOE and Massport should work closely with Commonwealth
agencies to identify a funding mechanism to support this element of the BHNIP".
41
-------
In response to several of the comments on the DEIR, MASSPORT and the
Army Corps of Engineers developed a survey questionnaire to send| to treatment
technology and disposal companies which could Be contracted to handle, treat and or
dispose of the contaminated dredged materials. The survey utilized1 a format originally
developed by the USEPA and the Army Corps of Engineers as part| of the Assessment
and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) Program (Avisritt 1990). The
survey included questions on the effectiveness, implementahility and the cost of the
technology for the treatment or disposal of contaminated dredged materials.
i
!
Results are presented in Appendix D and Section 3.0 of the iFEIR/S.
S6-32
The Dredging Management Plan is presented in Section 5.0 |of the FEIR/S.
The FEIR/S includes as much specific information, relevant jto the Dredging
Management Plan and specific aspects of managing the project, as possible. The
dredging and disposal inter-relationship is discussed in Sections 5.2 and 5.3. No
discussion of interim capping is presented or anticipated. Capping qf the disposed silts
will be performed after each cell is filled with silt. The FEIR/S presents a proposed
project schedule in Section 5.2.3.3. Dredging and blasting operations will be restricted
as noted in Section 5.2.1.5. the capacity of the in-channel disposal cells will likely be
fully utilized by the proposed activities. It is not anticipated that future maintenance
dredging activities will be able to utilize these disposal cells. Monitoring issues are
described in Section 5.2.2.1. ;
S6-33 i
i
I
All sites inside the territorial sea baseline are evaluated under Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act. These sites are not required to be designated^ by U.S. EPA.
Other project which may wish to use the site would have to do an independent
evaluation. !
S6-34 i
The FEIR/S dredged management plan establishes the basis for a technical
protocol for monitoring the disposal site(s) that will be utilized for the BHNIP. The
actual monitoring plan is expected to become fully developed duririg the permit
application processes in cooperation with the regulatory agencies.
:
The Corps' DAMOS program provides a majority of the funding for monitor-
ing open water dredged material disposal sites. Remedial actions wbuld generally fall
under the responsible party. '
42
2/3
-------
S6-35
Physical oceanographic issues of all aquatic disposal sites are discussed in
Section 4.0, Attachment 1 and Appendix G of the FEIR/S.
S6-36
1.
Chemical data on the sediments are presented, where available, hi Attachment
S6-37
Biological characteristics of the sites are discussed hi Section 4.0, Attachment 1
and Appendix E of the FEIR/S.
S6-38
Socioeconomic impacts, were considered hi evaluating potential disposal sites
(Section 4.0; Attachment 1).
S6-39
See Section 5.0 of the FEIR/S.
43
-------
of
jl/lalvne
tt SPaltvnolaM
-------
scenario, the actual cost of disposal at the Mass Bay Disposal Site
could be far greater than other alternatives. The contamination of
and loss of a valuable food source for the Commonwealth has an __
inestimable cost.
••^•^
It is also our opinion that the process of capping the dredge material
is basically ineffectual and unproved. The process itself may cause
additional re-suspension of dredge material toxins. In water disposal
and capping tests within Boston Harbor have already proven to be
dismal failures. —
This Commission has as its primary responsibility the regulatory
authority to protect and enhance the all the finfish and shellfish
resources of the Commonwealth. In our opinion the use of any
Massachusetts at sea disposal site for the contaminated BHNIP
dredge materials does not adequately protect 'the long term health of
our already over stressed resources.
We strongly urge you to investigate other potential disposal methods.
The risk of negatively impacting our valuable marine resources is too
great to use any at sea disposal site.
rely,
Colin M. Cunningh
Chairman
cc: Senator John Kerry
Senator Edward Kennedy
Congressman Gerry Studds
Congressman Peter Torkildsen
Mr. John DeVillars, EPA
-------
S7-1
The disposal site alternatives analysis has been restructured in the FEIR/S so
that environmental and practicability issues are more clearly distinguishable (Section
4). Potential for biological exposure to contaminants was one of the criteria used in
this analysis. The conclusion of this analysis is that the in-channel and partial-fill
shoreline scenarios are the least environmentally damaging aquatic alternatives. No
sites in Massachusetts Bay are being proposed for disposal of BHNIP silts. In regard
to the last sentence in this comment, the estimate for material loss is based on
historical records of disposal operations and is accepted as accurate by the industry.
S7-2
The MBDS is not being considered for the disposal of sediments found to be
unsuitable for unconfmed open water disposal through chemical, physical or biological
testing.
S7-3
There have not been any dredged material disposal and capping hi Boston
Harbor.
44
-------
-------
LOCAL AGENCIES AND OFFICES
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
-------
I
I'll"
Ill II
III I I II 111 111
(11
i IK
( 111
-------
Thomas M. Menino, Mayor
Mr Charles P. Buckley
Vice President, Engineering
Boston Gas Company .
201 Kivermoor Street
West Roxbury, Massachusetts 02132
February 15, 1994
Dear Mr. Buckley: •
RE: NEW CHELSEA STRKET BRIDGE OVER CHELSEA CRF.FK"
Over a number of years, discussions have taken place with government agencies, utility
companies and abutters concerning the eventual replacement of the Chelsea St. Bridge and
proposed dredging of Chelsea Creek. Since one of the key utilities which could be impacted is
the gas line under Chelsea Creek, this letter is intended to provide you with current information
on the project.
In 1992, the U.S. Coast Guard issued an Order To Alter the Chelsea St. bridge to the
City ^of Boston to correct an unreasonable obstruction to navigation. The City was directed to
provide a moveable span with an unobstructed horizontal clearance of 380 feet which is
obviously predicated on a proposed widening of the present 95 foot Chelsea Creek channel. In
early 1993, the City requested Qualifications for design services from engineering firms and
short-listed three firms for further consideration pending funding availability. In late 1993, the
U.S. Coast Guard notified the City mat funding authorization for design was approved and the
City is currently accepting proposals from the previously short-listed engineering firms. It is
expected that design of the new Chelsea St. facility will-be underway in 1994.
Should you have any .questions on the above information or have any issues which you
feel need to be addressed during the bridge design phase, please can Peter'Scarpignato of my
staff at 625-4968. Thank you for your cooperation.
L1-1
sry Truly Yours,
JFC/PS/jjf
JOSEPJE): F. CASAZzA M
Commissioner of Public Works
y
:3S3
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT / Boston City Hall / City Hall Plaza 02201
Joseph F. Casazza, Commissioner, 635-4900
Robert P. Mehecan. Executive Secretary, 635-4S01 *Oy Q
FAX 635-7499 '' C^l 7
-------
Ll-1
Since February 15, 1994, the Corps and Massport have coordinated project
activities with all involved utility owners and with the City of Boston and the U.S.
Coast Guard on the proposed replacement of the Chelsea Street Bridge.
-------
JUN 1 6 1334
Boston
Redevelopment
Authority
Thomas M. Menino, Mayo-
Clarence J. Jones, Chairman
Man'sa Logo, Doctor
Secretary Trudy Coxe
Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs
MEPA Unit
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, MA 02202
Colonel Brink P. Miller
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA 02254
Dear Secretary Coxe and Colonel Miller:
Re: Boston Harbor, Massachusetts Navigation Improvement
and Berth Dredging Project fEOEA #8695)
Pursuant to regulations implementing the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act
(301 CMR 11.00) and the National Environmental Policy Act (42 USC 4321 et seg,),
the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) has reviewed the Draft Environmental
Impact Report/Statement for the above-referenced project and would like to submit the
following comments.
The proposed Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement and Berth Dredging Project
encompasses the deepening of the tributary channels (Reserved Channel, Mystic
River Channel, and Chelsea Creek Channel) and two areas in the Main Ship Channel
(Inner Confluence and the mouth of the Reserved Channel) to provide sufficient ship
maneuvering area for the deepened channels and the dredging of associated berthing
areas along these channels. The channels will be deepened to -40 ft. MLW (except
Chelsea Creek, to -38 ft. MLW) to allow greater use of the hitherto underutilized
Entrance Channel and Main Ship Channel and to accommodate the newer generation
of deeper draft ships. The project will be carried out by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and by Massport, the local sponsor of the project. Approximately 1.3
million cubic yards (cy) of silt, 2 million cy of parent material (primarily Boston Blue
Clay), and 130,000 cy of rock will be removed.
One City Hall Square
Boston. MA 02201-1007
Tel (617)722-4300
Fax (617) 367-5916
Eqxol Opportunity/
A?>rrr.attve Azticr. Emplsye.-
Equci Housing Opportunity
-------
Disposal of the underlying parent material is proposed at the Massachusetts Bay
Disposal Site. For the overtopping, contaminated sift material, several disposal
alternatives are identified, all of which involve aquatic sites within Boston Harbor or
Massachusetts Bay, including in-channel locations. During the course of the study, a
considerable number of additional disposal sites, both land-based and aquatic, were
evaluated, but most were eliminated from consideration for environmental, cost, or
other reasons.
Overview
The proposed navigation improvement and dredging project is essential in order to
maintain the economic viability of Boston Harbor. The greatest challenge of this
project is the proper disposal of the over one million cubic yards of silt which is
substantially contaminated with high levels of heavy metals, PCBs, and PAHs, thus
precluding unconfined ocean disposal, the traditional approach for the disposal of
dredge spoils. Tests undertaken during the preparation of this Draft E1R/EIS to
characterize the extent of contamination have revealed levels higher than those known
to have an adverse effect on marine organisms. Therefore, the application of proper
dredging techniques as well as the appropriate disposal of these polluted sediments is
vital to ensure the protection of the harbor's marine resources and the preservation of
the improving quality of the harbor's waters.
With respect to the extent of the proposed navigation improvements, it would appear ~|
that the recommendations of the Shiphandling Simulation Study (or at least most of
them) have been incorporated into the project (one example is the expansion of the
-40 foot MLW dredging in the Main Ship Channel just south of the Inner Confluence).
This should be more specifically confirmed in the Final E1R/E1S.
Preferred Disposal Options
The-six preferred practicable alternatives for the disposal of the contaminated silts
include the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (with capping), Boston Lightship (also
with capping), Meisburger 2 and 7, Spectacle Island CAD, and capping in-place in
trenches within the tributary channels to be dredged.
Currently, the disposal of contaminated dredged material, with or without capping, is
prohibited of the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (MBDS), until such time as capping
can be shown to the effective. In spite of the fact that the Corps appears to believe
that capping at the MBDS can be successful, too many uncertainties remain, including
the feasibility of capping at the great depth of the MBDS. Another important
consideration is the proximity of the MBDS to the Steliwagen Bank National Marine
Sanctuary, which is visited by numerous endangered and threatened marine species.
Therefore, until capping can be shown definitely to be effective, we are opposed to
any disposal of unsuitable silt material at the MBDS.
SLTR/132/061594/2
-------
Similarly, we are opposed at this time to the dumping of contaminated sediments at
the Boston Lightship site, even with capping. The waters around this site are heavily
used by commercial fishermen, and dumping activities could severely impact
commercial fishing activities which already are suffering major economic pressures.
Further, radioactive wastes previously were disposed of in the area, and the -impact of
dumping on these wastes is not known. Consequently, we do not feel that Boston
Lightship would be an appropriate site for disposal.
Due to interpretation differences (Appendix G, pp G-2-G-3), the Corps believes that
the silt material from a number of berthing areas to be suitable for unconfined open
water disposal, whereas the EPA disagrees. To be conservative, the EPA
determination should be followed and none of the silt material should be disposed of
at the MBDS or at Boston Lightship.
••
We do believe that the best and most environmentally-beneficial option of the
identified preferred alternatives would be in-channel disposal at the dredging sites.
This would allow the sediment essentially to remain where it is found, but be capped
by the underlying parent material. With this option, the impacts of dredging and
disposal would be contained at the dredging site, and no impacts would need to occur
at one or more off-site locations. Extra care would need to be taken to minimize to
the maximum extent possible turbidity and the dispersion of sediment, since most of
the dredging and disposal would take place at the same location. We recognize that
in-channel disposal would accommodate only a little over half the 1.3 million cubic
yards of silt material requiring disposal. For the residual, we recommend disposal at
either Meisburger 2 or Meisburger 7, with capping with clean material.
We further recommend that whenever possible, and when not required for capping
purposes, the project proponents use the clean dredged materials for beneficial reuse
(e.g.. landfill closure) rather than disposing them at the Massachusetts Bay Disposal
Site.
New Technologies
We also encourage the investigation of new technologies for the remediation of
contaminated sediments. Studies by the EPA and the Corps of Engineers in the
Great Lakes region and elsewhere have demonstrated the technical effectiveness of
some new technologies, some of which may be applicable to the Boston Harbor
sediments. The feasibility of using any existing or new technologies developed
abroad, in Europe or Asia, also should be explored. While the cost of treatment
technologies may be higher than the selected disposal alternatives, they are
comparable with some of the shoreline disposal options considered by Massport/Corps
to be potentially practicable. Future costs could be considerably less as the
technologies are further developed. Their applicability to future maintenance dredging
needs, therefore, should be kept open for consideration and possible implementation. _
SLTR/132/061594/3
-------
Lona-Term Maintenance Dredging
In addition to addressing the disposal needs of the navigation improvement and berth
dredging project, the DEIR/DEIS also addressed the disposition of future maintenance
material from the deepened channels over a 50-year project life. It is estimated that
4.4 million cy of material would be dredged and would consist primarily of silt. For
purposes of the disposal alternatives analyses, it was assumed that the material could
contain elevated levels of contaminants and thus would require disposition in a
confined site. For the disposal of the maintenance dredging material, the project
proponents determined that a number of additional sites (in addition to the six
preferred alternatives) would be potentially practicable alternatives, including several
shoreline sites in Chariestown and South Boston and lined landfills. Treatment
technologies also were considered feasible.
The shoreline sites include the Amstar, Little Mystic Channel, Mystic Piers, and
Revere Sugar sites in Chariestown and the Reserved Channel (on the inner side of
the Summer Street Bridge) in South Boston. The sites would be either filled (with
capping) to equal the elevation of the adjacent land or be converted into a subtidal salt
marsh area. While these sites may be appropriate for consideration as disposal
areas, we strongly feel that only clean sediments should be deposited at these sites.
Because of the proximity of several of the sites to residential and other sensitive uses,
as well as legitimate neighborhood concerns and perceptions, we would be opposed
to the disposal of any contaminated sediments at these locations, even with capping.
Although the environmental impacts of disposal at these shoreline sites are evaluated
in this DEIR/DEIS, actual disposal at one or more of these sites will require several
permit reviews, including Chapter 91 Waterways License, CZM consistency review,
and an Order of Conditions from the Boston Conservation Commission, among others.
Notwithstanding, we would recommend that when a decision is made in the future to
use a particular site (or sites) for disposal, a Notice of Project Change be filed with the
MEPA Office (and any similar notification be filed by the Corps) to determine whether,
in the light of any changes in environmental conditions or other factors, any further
environmental review would be necessary.
With regard to specific sites under consideration, we note that in the discussion of the
Little Mystic Channel (pp 3-41 ff and Attachment 1, pp A1-51ff) there is no specific
mention of the several sensitive receptors adjacent to the proposed disposal site,
including the Charles Newtowne public housing project, a City of Boston playground,
and the Chariestown High School recreational field. (The proposed future use of this
site for the disposal of possibly contaminated sediments also raises the issue of
environmental equity, since a low-income public housing development is located
adjacent to the proposed disposal area.)
SLTR/132/061594/4
s"*»*
-------
Public Participation
We also feel that it is extremely important, and essential, that prior to the selection
and use of any shoreline site, there be adequate notification to and review with the
affected community. The Corps and Massport must ensure that there be full/and
comprehensive public participation in the selection process and that all affected
parties, and particularly neighboring residents, have ample opportunity to express their
concerns and that these concerns be properly addressed. This community review
must be undertaken as early in the evaluation process as possible. To date, we are
not aware that any contact has been made with any of the communities near any of
these sites.
Cost/Benefit Analysis
Cost estimates of the various options may not be entirely valid or realistic, since
certain non-Federal costs (e.g.. acquisition costs of lands for disposal, costs of
construction of disposal sites) are not included. Similarly, in-channel disposal does not
include the disposal costs of the remaining parent material. While limiting costs of the
Federal share may be necessary to determine the cost/benefit ratio for Federal
funding purpose, the other costs must be borne by the local sponsor. For a realistic
comparison of the options, total costs should be compared in the evaluation.
Furthermore, the costs of potential environmental harm and remediation, such as the
contamination of seafood and clean-up expenses from the disposal of containments
into the marine waters, and the likely effects of the dredging/disposal on other
segments of the economy, such as recreation (e.g.. whalewatching) and commercial
fishing, also should be factored into the cost/benefit analysis.
One specific comment with regard to cost/site selection. The screening process of
practicability determined that costs in excess of 4 times that of ocean disposal would
be prohibitive. According to Figure ES-3, all of the Chariestown and South Boston
shoreline sites have cost ratios greater than this threshold. However, these same
sites also are listed in Table ES-1b as potentially practicable for future harbor
maintenance disposal needs (and the Little Mystic Channel also for this dredging
project). This apparent discrepancy should be clarified in the Final EIR/EIS.
Dredging Operations
The avoidance of adverse environmental impacts, particularly on marine resources, is
of utmost importance in the implementation of this navigation improvement and berth
dredging project. Extreme care will need to be taken to minimize environmental
disruption, especially the resuspension and release of contaminants into the marine
waters. Problems such as those which occurred at the recent dredging by Massport
at the Moran Terminal must not be tolerated. The most environmentally effective
equipment for dredging and disposal must be used and this equipment must be
operated properly by project personnel with adequate training. Further, we believe
SLTR/132/061594/5
-------
that it is essential that an independent observer be present at each work site to
confirm that the work is being properly performed and that permit requirements are
being met at all times. This observer should have the authority to stop further work if
a violation is seen, until the violation is corrected.
The blasting of the bedrock has the potential for extensive mortality of fish and I
invertebrates. While this impact is identified (pg. 4-12), no mitigation measures are '
proposed to limit the potential extent of the kills. Means are available to keep fish
from the blasting area (e.g., the use of behavioral stimuli such as strobe lights, electri
fields; and bubble curtains, and physical barriers such as nets, steel mesh, and silt
curtains). Appropriate mitigation measures should be described in the FEIR/FEIS and
specific commitments made to employ such measures.
Noise and odor impacts also will occur from the dredging activities, and could
adversely impact residential areas located near the dredging operations. Again,
appropriate mitigation must be committed to by the project proponents. In addition,
there is no recognition of the odor impacts from disposal at a shoreline site (such as
Little Mystic Channel). The foul smell of the dredged material could adversely affect
adjacent residences and other sensitive receptors and must be evaluated and
mitigated.
Conclusion
The preparation of this Draft EIR/EIS has involved an extensive sediment sampling
and testing program to characterize the material to be dredged as well as a
comprehensive disposal alternatives analysis screening process to identify appropriate
and practicable options for the disposal of the silt material, the parent material and
rock, and the future maintenance material. To assist the Corps and Massport in the
design and planning of these studies and the environmental evaluation, a public
advisory process involving key agencies and interest groups (but lacking community
representation) was established and meetings were held throughout the course of the
study. Through this process, a considerable number of issues were reviewed and
resolved prior to the submission of the Draft EIR/EIS. We believe that on the whole
this has been a highly successful procedure. Nonetheless, a number of issues do
remain for further resolution, which we have detailed above. We therefore anticipate
continued cooperation with the Corps and Massport as this project further develops
and look forward to reviewing the Final EIR/EIS document.
Sincerely, .
Jnan DeLorey
Assistant Director for Economic foevelopment
cc: Norman Faramelli, Massport (Environmental)
Janeen Hansen, Massport (Maritime)
SLTR/132/061594/6
-------
L2-1
The preferred project design incorporates most of the recommendations from
the ship handling simulation study.
L2-2
The MBDS is not being considered for the disposal of sediments found to be
unsuitable for unconfined open water disposal through chemical, physical or biological
testing. Because of the restriction placed on the MBDS, no disposal at the MBDS will
occur until the efficacy of capping or other management technique has been demon-
strated.
L2-3
The use of the Boston Lightship for disposal of contaminated sediments was
reevaluated in the FEIR/S (Section 4). It was not found to be among the least
environmentally damaging alternatives.
L2-4
Although the difference in interpretation regarding the suitability of certain
sediments for unconfined open water disposal was discussed in the DEIR/S, all silt to
be dredged for the BHNIP was considered in the DEIR/S to be unsuitable for the
purposes of identifying sufficient disposal capacity. The FEIR/S continues to consider
all silt from this project to be unsuitable for unconfined open water disposal.
L2-5
The reevaluation of aquatic disposal sites concluded that the in-channel disposal
option was one of the least environmentally damaging alternatives. This alternative
has been redesigned based on subbottom geological conditions so that it is capable of
containing the entire quantity of silt to be dredged in the BHNIP. There is currently
no proposal to dispose of BHNIP silt at either of the Meisburger sites.
L2-6
The BHNIP team agrees that beneficial use of the parent material is more
desirable than disposal at the MBDS. The suitability of this material for landfill
closure is discussed hi Section 3.0.
-------
L2-7
The BHNIP team is in agreement that innovative treatment and dredging
technologies be considered to the fullest practicable extent (Section 3.0 and Appendix
D). The future refinement of existing innovative treatment technologies and introduc-
tion of new concepts could be applied to future maintenance dredging activities in
Boston Harbor. This would be particularly important if the costs for treatment become
lower with further technological development. For this reason sediment remediation
holds a promising future.
Exploitation of new dredging technologies will be a high priority in the
planning and implementation of future maintenance dredging projects. The proposed
current activities will employ the most effective, proven, and cost effective techniques
available.
L2-8
The chemical quality of the shoreline sites under consideration for disposal of
dredged silt is similar to that of the adjacent water body, the areas proposed for
dredging. Partially filling these sites with silt from nearby areas and then capping
them would not compromise the existing ecological conditions. The pier sites are
surrounded by maritime uses. Although these sites were found to be among the least
environmentally damaging, none were selected as the preferred alternative.
L2-9
Any future maintenance dredging would require an independent environmental
review process. The purpose of discussing future maintenance activities in this
document are to insure that foreseeable cumulative impacts are accounted for.
L2-10
While it is true that there are sensitive receptors including housing and recre-
ational areas adjacent to Little Mystic Channel, this site was not found to be the Least
Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative. Therefore, there is no impact on
environmental equity.
L2-11
NAI, Several notices and public meetings were held during and after the release
of the draft EIR/S for public comment. Section 1.0 of the final EIR/S describes the
public process.
-------
L2-12
Cost estimates for the various disposal sites include the cost of construction of
disposal sites. Land acquisition costs are not included because their variability. Land
acquisition costs would increase the unit cost of an upland disposal site from $1 to $10
or more. Parent material is anticipated to go to the MBDS for all alternatives so that
would not alter the cost significantly between alternatives. Total costs were used for
comparing alternatives.
L2-13
The Corps is required to follow strict policy guidelines on determining the
cost/benefit ratio for a civil works project. Impacts to the environment (except for
mitigation costs) and the recreational industry, if any, are not included. However the
purpose of an EIR/S is to address those concerns and discuss the impacts from various
alternatives, so that an informed decision is made regarding dredged material disposal.
Proper management techniques would be employed to avoid losses to fishing and
whale watching businesses.
L2-14
The cost analysis presented in the DEIR/S was based on comparison to disposal
at the MBDS. The cost analysis in the FEIR/S is based on comparison to the cost of
the least environmentally damaging alternative. This is further described in Section 4.
L2-15
The BHNIP preparation team agrees with this comment. The experience gained
from the Moran Terminal dredging project (as well as from others) is valuable in
recognizing potential problems that may be encountered during the BHNIP. This is
particularly applicable to the dredging of contaminated silt where the risk of environ-
mental impacts is greatest. Consequently, the BHNIP dredge management plan will
include dredging contractor requirements relating to operator training, This training
will emphasize appropriate dredging techniques involving contaminated sediments to
minimize environmental impacts as well as compliance with permit conditions. The
Dredge Management Plan is discussed in detail in Section 5.0.
However, due to legal liabilities, the Corps can not allow an independent
observer on board a dredge with authority to stop dredging. Observers may inspect
the dredging and disposal operations. If there is a concern during construction, it can
be brought to the attention of the Corps inspector who will take the necessary action.
.1
-------
L2-16
The Dredge Management Plan discusses measures to protect fish during
blasting.
L2-17
Odor issues are addressed in Section 5.8.3.3 of the FEIR/S.
-------
Boston Water and
Sewer Commission
425 Summer Street
Boston, MA 02210-1700
617-330-9400
Fax 617-330-5167
May 23, 1994
Secretary Trudy Coxe
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
20th Floor
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, MA 02202
Attention: MEPA Unit
Re: Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement and Berth Dredging
Project, DEIR, EOEA #8695
Dear Secretary Coxe:
The Boston Water and Sewer Commission has reviewed the Draft
Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Boston Harbor
Navigation Improvement and Berth Dredging Project. This project
consists of dredging of three tributary channels (the Mystic
River Channel, the Reserved Channel and the Chelsea Creek
Channel) and two areas in the Main Ship Channel (Inner Confluence
and the mouth of the Reserved Channel) . Twelve berth areas and
one intake structure will also be dredged as part of the project.
Massport and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are undertaking
this project to deepen the channels and berthing areas for
improved navigation.
The project also involves the disposal of approximately 3.5
million cubic yards of sediments removed as part of the proposed
Improvement Project, and the disposal of 4.4 million cubic yards
of sediments which will be removed from the channels as part of
ongoing maintenance over the next 50 years. Removal of sediments
from the channels for maintenance purposes will be required
regardless of whether the Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement
Project is approved.
Of the total 7.9 million cubic yards of sediments to be
removed for both projects, about 5.7 million cubic yards are
believed to be•contaminated.
£31
-------
Six alternatives for the disposal of the sediments are
identified in the DEIR with the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site
(MBDS), the Boston Lightship, Meisburger sites 2 or 7, and
Spectacle Island CAD identified as the preferred disposal
alternatives.
The Commission has the following comments regarding the
proposed Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement Project:
1. The pre-dredge utility survey should include an inventory of
all the Commission's CSOs and storm drain outlets in the
vicinity of the proposed dredging. Detailed plans which
show the location of the proposed dredging and blasting in
the vicinity of the Commission's CSO or storm drain outlets
should be provided to the Commission. The proponent should
also provide the Commission with a written discussion as to
how the CSO and storm drain outlets will be protected from
damage or obstruction during dredging and blasting. .
2. Selection of any one of the preferred alternatives
(Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site, the Boston Lightship,
Meisburger sites 2 or 7, and Spectacle Island CAD) for the
disposal of the dredged sediments will have no impact on
BWSC facilities. However, should the Little Mystic Channel
or Reserved Channel Aquatic Shoreline sediment disposal
alternatives be selected, several CSOs and/or storm drains
will have to be relocated or diverted. In the event that
one or both of these alternatives is selected, the project
proponent will be responsible for all aspects relating to
the relocation and/or diversion of any Commission owned
outlet. In addition, detailed construction plans for the
relocation and/or diversion of any Commission owned outlet
must be provided to the Commission for review and approval
prior to construction. The relocation or diversion of any
Commission outlet must be constructed in accordance with the
Commission's Sewer Use and Site Plan requirements.
3. Relocation of MWRA facilities will be required as part of
the proposed project. These include relocation of a water
tunnel across the lower Chelsea River and relocation of two
water tunnels' and a sewer siphon across the upper Chelsea
River. Copies of the proposed relocation/ construction
plans should be provided to the Commission for review prior
to construction.
4. The Final EIR should include a discussion of how and where
the dewatering of the dredged sediments is to take place.
J
-------
The information indicated above should be provided to the
Commission before commencing work.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project.
ohn P. Sullivan, Jr., P.E,
Chief Engineer
JPS/AK/ak
cc: B. Miller, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
L. Blank, BWSC
S. Shea, BWSC
J. Foley, BWSC
R. Mertens, BRA
R. Kobayashi, MWRA
£.33
-------
L3-1
A coordination meeting with MWRA was held and correspondence was
initiated to identify MWRA crossings, permit requirement schedules and construction
activities. Close coordination between BWSC and Massport will ensure that the
BWSC facilities will receive adequate protection during dredging, blasting and disposal
operations.
L3-2
The preferred disposal alternative for the BHNIP, In-channel, will avoid filling
shoreline areas and, so, will not impact CSOs or storm sewers.
L3-3
A coordination meeting with MWRA was held and correspondence was
initiated to identify MWRA crossings, permit requirement schedules and construction
activities.
L3-4
Dewatering is discussed in Section 4.0 and Appendix 1 of the DEIR/S.
-------
CAPE COD COMMISSION
3225 MAIN STREET
P.O. Box 226
BARNSTABLE, MA 02630
£08-362-3828
FAX: 508-362-3136
May 18,1994
Brink P. Miller, Colonel
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, Massachusetts 02254
Dear Colonel Miller:
The staff of the Cape Cod Commission, a regional landuse planning and
regulatory agency serving the 15 towns of Barnstable County, have reviewed the
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement (DIER/S) for the Boston Harbor
Navigation Improvement and Berth Dredging Project, and offer the following
comments for your consideration.
The Commission staff believes it is important to make navigational
improvements to Boston Harbor that will help to ensure safe passage of marine
vessel traffic. This is particularly important given the fact that much of New
England's petroleum supply is shipped into and out of the Port of Boston. At the
same time, the project should be conducted in an environmentally sound manner,
and the disposal location for the dredged material should be chosen based primarily
on the environmental costs and benefits.
The Commission staff believes that the dredged materials from the Boston
Harbor project, almost one-half of which have been identified as being
contaminated silts, should be disposed of in-harbor or as close to the harbor as
possible. This will decrease the possibility of transporting contaminants into the
larger Massachusetts and Cape Cod bays system. The bays support resources of
national and state significance, not the least of which is the federally designated
Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. The conservation and management
of these resources should not be compromised by the Boston Harbor project.
At the present time, neither the federal or state environmental agencies have
factual information on the stability of capped contaminated sediments in
oceanographically dynamic sites. For these reasons, the Commission staff
recommends that the Massachusetts Bays Disposal Site (MBDS) and the Boston
Lightship site be dropped from further consideration for disposal of dredged
materials from the Boston Harbor project.
The Commission staff recommends that the Army Corps of Engineers and
L4-1
-------
MASSPORT more fully evaluate the in-harbor and near harbor disposal options.
The staff recommends that the final EIR/S evaluate the options of contained
nearshore disposal sites, as well as more fully evaluate the use of near harbor
borrow pits as a disposal option for contaminated materials from Boston Harbor.
The Commission staff recommends that the federal and state regulatory agencies
work cooperatively on identifying the legal and policy issues which need to be
addressed to allow one or more contained disposal sites within Boston Harbor.
Finally, the Cape Cod Commission staff recommends that the final EIR/S
include an analysis of the management/monitoring needs for the preferred disposal
sites. This information is needed to fully evaluate the environmental costs and
benefits of each of the alternatives.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment at this public meeting. _ If you
have any questions concerning these comments, please contact Commission stall
member Patricia Hughes.
Sincerely,
Armando J. Carbonell
Executive Director
cc
County Commissioners
Cape Cod Commission
Assembly of Delegates
Cape Cod Legislative Delegation
Congressman Gerry Studds
Senator Edward Kennedy
Senator John Kerry
Trudy Coxe, Secretary, EOEA
Kymberlee Keckler, EPA
Peg Brady, MCZM
-------
L4-1
The alternative disposal locations that were found to be among the least
environmentally damaging included upland locations and locations within Boston inner
harbor in the FEIR/S (Section 4). In-channel disposal was identified as the preferred
alternative.
L4-2
Neither the MBDS nor the Boston Lightship has been identified as the pre-
ferred alternative for disposal of silts dredged during the BHNIP. Either site could be
reconsidered for future projects if capping is demonstrated to be effective in these
water depths.
L4-3
In the reevaluation of potential disposal sites, the in-channel and the partial-fill
shoreline scenarios were found to be the least environmentally damaging aquatic
alternatives (Section 4) and the In-channel alternative was identified as the preferred
alternative.
L4-4
Section 5.7, Long Term Monitoring of Disposal Sites, addresses the monitoring
needs of the preferred disposal site.
-------
CAPE COD COMMISSION
3225 MAIN STREET
P.O. Box 226
BARNSTABLE, MA 02630
508-362-3828
FAX: 508-362-3136
June 3,1994
Brink P. Miller, Colonel
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, Massachusetts 02254
Dear Colonel Miller:
The Cape Cod Coastal Resources Committee, comprised of a representative
from each of the 15 Cape Cod towns and from relevant county and federal resource
management agencies, and advisory to the Barnstable County Commissioners and
the Cape Cod Commission, would like to offer the following comments for your
consideration regarding the Boston Harbor Navigational Improvement Project.
Two years ago, the Committee urged the Cape Cod Commission to oppose
the designation of the Massachusetts Bays Disposal Site (MBDS) due to its potential
use for the disposal of contaminated dredged materials. In an October 1992 letter to
the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office, the Commission said, " The
combination of the number of Boston Harbor projects, political pressures to expedite
permitting and reduce the costs for projects, and historic use and violations at the
site provide no assurances, in our opinion, that contaminated materials will be
prohibited from the MBDS." We are therefore very concerned that now, in 1994, the
Army Corps of Engineers has proposed this offshore site as a preferred alternative
for the disposal of contaminated dredged materials from the Boston Harbor project.
The Committee supports the proposal to make navigational improvements
to Boston Harbor to ensure safe passage of marine traffic entering and exiting the
harbor. The Committee recognizes the importance of environmental safety in the
transport of materials, in particular chemicals and petroleum products. At the same
time, the Committee believes this project should be conducted in an
environmentally sound manner, and the disposal location for the dredged material
should be chosen based primarily on the environmental costs and benefits.
The Committee opposes the disposal of dredged materials from the Boston
Harbor project, almost one-half of which have been identified as being
contaminated silts, at the Massachusetts Bays Disposal Site or the Boston Lightship.
The Committee believes that the materials should be disposed of in-harbor or as
dose to the harbor as possible. Doing this will decrease the possibility of
-------
transporting contaminants into the larger Massachusetts and Cape Cod bays system.
The bays support resources of national and state significance/ in particular the
Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. The conservation and management
of these resources should not be compromised by the Boston Harbor dredging
project.
The Committee recommends that the Army Corps of Engineers and
MASSPORT more fully evaluate the in-harbor and near harbor disposal options.
The Committee recommends that the final EIR/S evaluate the options of contained
nearshore disposal sites, as well as more fully evaluate the use of near harbor
borrow pits as a disposal option for contaminated materials from Boston Harbor. _J
In addition, the Committee urges the mandated federal and state regulatory
agencies to work cooperatively on identifying the legal and policy issues which need
to be addressed to allow one or more contained disposal sites within Boston Harbor.
These include the application of the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act and the
state tidelands licensing authority under Chapter 91 of Massachusetts General Law.
The Committe believes it is important to address this issues now, to avoid revisiting I
them in the future when considering either a new, or maintenance dredging
project.
Thank you for considering these comments.
Sincerely,
Mark Zivan
Chair
cc:
County Commissioners
Cape Cod Commission
Assembly of Delegates
Cape Cod Legislative Delegation
Congressman Gerry Studds
Senator Edward Kennedy
Senator John Kerry
Trudy Coxe, Secretary, EOEA
Kymberlee Keckler, EPA
Peg Brady, MCZM
Center for Coastal Studies
Association for the Preservation of Cape Cod
-------
L5-1
The alternative disposal locations that were found to be among the least
environmentally damaging included upland locations and locations within Boston inner
harbor in the FEIR/S (Section 4). The FEIR/S does not propose the disposal of silts at
MBDS or BLS from the BHNIP.
L5-2
As stated in response to comment L5-1, the in-channel and shoreline (partial
fill) sites were found to be the least environmentally damaging aquatic sites. The
borrow pit sites were all found to support substantial biological resources and were,
therefore, considered to be less desirable alternatives. Details regarding this analysis
are included hi Section 4.
L5-3
The BHNIP team has worked closely with regulatory agencies during the
development of the FEIR/S to ensure that legal and policy issues were properly
addressed.
8
-------
1 lie v-/i£y of
June 28, 1994
Brink P. Miller, Colonel
Corps of Engineers
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA 02254
Dear Ms Coxe,
Re: DEIR/DEIS Boston Harbor, Massachusetts
Navigation Improvement Project & Berth
Dredging Project, EOEA 8695
The City of Chelsea is appreciative of the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental
Report/Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Boston Harbor and Berth Dredging
Projects. The City is aware of the important role that Boston Harbor and shipping play in the
region's economy and is pleased to play a role in planning for the proposed projects.
We have reviewed the DEER, and have comments relating to. the public participation process, the
potential blasting at the inner confluence, and the impact of the project on land based traffic. Our
comments are as follows:
Public Participation Process
The City was not fully included in the public participation process. The DEIR indicates that an
advisory committeee was established in 1992 to aid in the preparation of the report. A number of
organizations were invited to participate, including the City of Boston; however, the City of
(Sielsea was not included on the invitation list. This oversight is confusing because it conflicts
directly with Massport's stated reason for establishing the advisory committee, which is stated in
the DEIR as follows: '
Chelsea Department of Planning and Community Development
Robert J. Luongo, Executive Director
City Hall, 500 Broadway, Chelsea, Massachusetts 02150 • Telephone: (617) 889-8233, Fax: (617) 889-8357
-------
Brink P. Miller
June 28, 1994
Page Two
"Massport recognized that large projects which may impact the public can no longer be
accomplished unilaterally There was a consensus that the success of the project depended
on involving key groups effectively. ... Key parties needed to be identified which either had
a stake in the outcome (regulatory agencies, environmental groups, and harbor users), or
could provide useful information to Massport, its consultants and the Corps. Effective
involvement of these parties required that they be consulted early, that they be provided
timely information on the progress of the project, and that they have the opportunity to
present diverse points of view."
The report indicates that several sites in the City were considered for disposal of the dredged
material, that dredging will occur within the City's boundaries, and that a permit will be required
from the Chelsea Conservation Commission. It appears that Chelsea is very much a 'key party' in
this project.
The City has a duty and an interest in participating in all projects that affects the community or its
residents. We would very much like to be more fully involved in the advisory committee for this
project.
Blasting
The DEIR indicates that there will be blasting in the Inner Confluence for rock removal; however,
the impact of this blasting on shipping or land based structures is not analyzed. A water taxi
operates out of Chelsea from O'Malley Park/Admiral's Hill with connections to Charlestown, the
North End, Downtown Boston, Long Wharf and the airport. The impacts of the blasting on the
water taxi, other shipping activities, and on land based structures should be addressed in the
report, with appropriate mitigation measures described in detail.
Chelsea Department of Planning and Community Development
Robert]. Luongo, Executive Director
City Hall, 500 Broadway, Chelsea, Massachusetts 02150 • Telephone: (617) 889-8233, Fax: (617) 889-8357
-------
Brink P. Miller
June 28, 1994
Page Three
Impact on Land Based Traffic
The report addresses the impact of the dredging on water activities only. There is little discussion f
of the potential impacts on land side activities. For example, the DEIR.indicates that the project
will cause delays to shipping traffic; however, there is no assessment of the impact on land based
traffic. There is no indication in the report if the movement of the dredging ships and barges will
require opening of the Chelsea Street and McArdle Bridges. These bridges carry a significant
amount of traffic between Chelsea, the North Shore and Logan Airport: frequent opening/closing
of the bridges will have a significant impact on traffic'in Chelsea and East Boston, causing traffic
delays and negatively impacting the regional economy. This issue should be addressed in the
report with appropriate mitigation measures discussed in detail.
The City also wishes to reiterate a statement made earlier in the review process that we would be
opposed to movement of the dredged material by truck on the City's streets. Chelsea is a densely
developed city that faces severe impacts from heavy vehicles. We wish to avoid any potential
impacts from trucking of dredged material.
The City is eager to work with the Commonwealth and the Army Corps of Engineers on this
project and to be involved with the environmental review. If you have any questions or seek
clarification of the statements made in this letter, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
John W. DePriest, AICP
Project Manager, Traffic & Transportation
Cy: Trudy Coxe
Chelsea Department of Planning and Community Development
Robert J. Luongo, Executive Director
City Hall, 500 Broadway, Chelsea, Massachusetts 02150 • Telephone: (617) 889-8233, Fax: (617) 889-8357
-------
L6-1
The Advisory Committee, Working Group and public participation process for
the BHNIP is discussed in Section 1.0 and Appendices B and C.
L6-2
Blasting would occur during a short period of time on an infrequent basis.
Prior to blasting, warnings would be given to other boats in the area. Several minutes
would be needed between the warnings and the blast when all boat traffic would be
stopped in the area. The blasting schedule is anticipated to work around the ferry
schedule. No impacts to land based structures is expected. However, a pre-blast and
post-blast inventory will be conducted by the contractor who would be responsible for
any damages.
L6-3
The following is an example of the anticipated opening and closing of the
Chelsea Street and McArdle Bridges. Additional detail can be found in Appendix J.
The Chelsea Street Bridge is anticipated to open and close four times a day for the
first month of construction. The following month and 1/2 the bridge is anticipated to
open and close eight times a day. No bridge activity is expected for the next six
months. The following three months both the Chelsea Street and McArdle Bridges
would open and close four times a day. The last two months only the McArdle Bridge
is expected to open and close four times a day.
As the bridge openings can occur within a 24 hour period, impacts to traffic are
expected to be minimal and temporary.
-------
of ^Eirerett, 3HasseicfjusEifs
©fftrc nf ifyc 3Hagor
PATRICK R. SCHEMA
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
CITY HALL 02149
(617) 394-2270
May 17, 1994
Brink P. Miller, Colonel, Corps of Engineers
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA 02254
Dear Colonel Miller:
Having reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report/State-
ment including a draft evaluation of compliance with section 404
(b) (1) of the Clean Water Act, for the Boston Harbor, Massachu-
setts Navigation Improvement and Berth Dredging Project, I would
like to make the following comments.
" "' Given the alternatives presented in the study, it would
appear the Everett site would be one of the least desirable. As
stated the cost would be over 10 times the cost of using uncon-
fined ocean space, in fact, only two land sites would be more
costly, Plainville and Fitchburg/Westminster. The capacity which
is only 55,000 cubic yards hardly makes a contribution to the
overall cubic yardage needed.
I am also concerned with the environmental impact on our
shoreline and its affect on marine resources as indicated in
table 3-7 and the significant and lasting impacts as projected
in table 3-6.
Lastly, I am concerned with the impact this project might
have on several potential projects in that area. The rehabilita-
tion of the Monsanto site for general development, proposed up-
grading of the shoreline for recreation use by governmental
agencies and the general development of that section of Everett
for retail and light industry.
-------
Page 2
Ms. Trudy Coxe
I will appreciate your making note of my' comments on the
Everett site and will make myself available for further dis-
cussion should you feel it appropriate in the future.
Sincer
JRMibf
-------
L7-1
The Everett site was not selected as the preferred alternative for disposal of
silts from the BHNIP (Section 4.0).
L7-2
See response to comment L7-1.
L7-3
See response to comment L7-1.
10
-------
CITY OF GLOUCESTER
GLOUCESTER • MASSACHUSETTS • 01930
Office of the Mayor
Brink P. Miller
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
Division Engineer
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, Massachusetts 02254-9149
June 3. 1994
ear Coionel Miller,
I am writing relative to the Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement Project. I wish to be
recorded in opposition to the proposed dump sites for the disposal of contaminated dredge
spoil from Boston Harbor,
As the Mayor of a major fishing port. I am fully aware of the necessity of harbor dredging in
order to facilitate the needs of the port in its day to day functions. My concerns however, are on
the potential permanent damage to the resource and its habitat. The sites as proposed, MBDS.
the Boston Lightship, Meisburger2, Meisburger 7, and Spectacle Island CAD, are in an area
where a great many lobster traps are set and a great deal of harvesting for both fish and lobster
is prosecuted.
The ongoing effort to dean Boston Harbor and the ocean would indeed be set back by the
proposed dumping of these contaminants. There is an urgent need to protect our environment
and not expose our marine life to this danger that would have adverse effects on the echo
system. There appears to be too little concern for the important fisheries in the Bay State.
especially in view of all the recent happenings in the New England Fishery.
I would urge the powers to be, to reconsider the proposal and seek a better alternative.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond on the proposal.
Sincerely.
•4 AU.— \
Bruce H. Tobey
Mayor
-------
L8-1
The BHNIP team developed equivalent resource data for each of the potential
aquatic disposal sites for evaluation in the FEIR/S. The results of these investigations
concur with your observation for the Boston Lightship, Meisburger 2 and Meisburger
7. While there was little lobstering activity in the vicinity of Spectacle Island CAD,
there was evidence of substantial biological activity. The reevaluation of potential
aquatic disposal sites concluded that the in-channel and partial-fill shoreline scenarios
were the least environmentally damaging aquatic alternatives (Section 4).
n
-------
TOWN OF NAHANT, MASSACHUSETTS
OFFICE OF THE
Board of Selectmen
BOARD OF HEALTH - PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CEMETERY COMMISSIONERS
RKJWUJI.LOMBAXD VKZCHARMAK
Robert JlMcIlvecn
TELEPHONE (61?) 5S1-CC3
FAX (617) 593-03-1
dune 3. 1994
Brink P. Miller, Colonel
Corps of Engineers
Division of Engineers
424 Trapelo Road
Waitham, MA 02254-9149
re
Impact Analysis Division
Planning Directorate
Boston Harbor Navigation
Improvement Project and
Berth Dredging Project
Dear Colonel Miller:
The Town of Nahant has received a copy of the Public
Notice concerning the above-named project to dredge Boston
Harbor. According to the notice, any person who has an
interest that may be affected by this dredging and disposal
may request a public hearing. On behalf of the Town of Nahant
we are requesting a public hearing on the proposed project.
In particular, the Town is greatly concerned about the
proposed dumping area for the dredged material. According to
the Public Notice one of the proposed disposal sites is
directly off the shores of Nahant, in particular, Meisburger
2. The Town is concerned that tidal movement and currents
will carry the dredged material from Boston Harbor within the
confines of Nahant's territorial waters. We are all aware
that Boston Harbor is one to the most, polluted harbors in the
Northeast even though at the present time the harbor is
undergoing a vast project to clear up the polluted waters.
Nahant certainly does not want someone else's trash dumped on
its doorstep which would affect the ecological balance of the
fish and plant life of its waters.
Accordingly, Nahant requests a public hearing on this
proposed project.
o
GT~
Town of Nahant
Board of Selectmen
Robert N. Forman, Chairman
RRR
-------
L9-1
Environmental impacts and practicability of using the alternative disposal sites
were re-evaluated in the FEIR/S (Section 4.0). The Meisburger sites are no longer
being considered for disposal of silts from the BHNIP.
L9-2
A public hearing was held hi the Town Hall hi Nahant on July 28, 1994.
12
TOWN OF NAHANT. MASSACHUSETTS O19O8
Certified Return Receipt
Office of the Town Administrator
Michael C. Wood
(617)581-9927
June 1,1994
Brink P. Miller
Colonel, Army Corps of Engineers
Division Engineer
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA 02254-9149
Dear Colonel Miller:
I am responding on behalf of the Nahant Board of Selectmen relative to the Public
Notice dated May 13, 1994, entitled "Boston Harbor, Boston, Massachusetts Navigation
Improvement Project and Berth Dredging Project. "
The Town of Nahant requests a public hearing in accordance with this public
notice. The Town was not directly notified of this project, and has not been advised of its
impact. As such, we did not have appropriate notice to attend the scheduled public
hearings of May 17 and 19.
The Town of Nahant requests to be directly notified, through its Board of
Selectmen, of any and all projects involving Boston harbor and related waterways.
Nahant is a community on the North Shore surrounded by water. Any project initiated in
this vicinity may affect our community.
Obviously, the depositing of materials taken from Boston harbor or its related
waterways as outlined in the aforementioned public notice may have an impact on our
town, and we would like to learn what the project entails and its potential repercussions.
We look forward to your favorable response to our request for a presentation and
public hearing.
Very truly yours,
Michael C. Wood
Town Administrator
MCW/sev
cc: Board of Selectmen
SWIM
Conservation Commission
-------
L10-1
A public hearing was held in the Town Hall in Nahant on July 28, 1994.
L10-2
The Corps will notify the Nahant Board of Selectmen of future dredging
projects that could affect the community.
£53
13
-------
f
JDie 'Eaton ai
QJcrmmtssum
'Eiihu Ihotnmon AbminUJrjrticm JJuilbutg
, JHassachuaetis 01907
L11
June 17, 1994
Ms. Jansen Hansen, Project Manager-Maritime
Massachusetts Port Authority
Re: BOSTON HARBOR NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENT
AND BERTH DREDGING PROJECT #MEPA8695
HlH
Dear Ms. Hansen
This Commission has been alerted to the
above-named project. By unanimous vote of the Commission
we wish to be recorded as unalterably opposed to the
use of site Meisburger 2 as a dumping area, as it is
only about 5 miles off the coast of Swampscott.
Scientific tests have shown that dredging
material for Boston Harbor contains certain types of
contaminants which would have a potential biological
impact on these waters.
Please keep us informed of any further
developments regarding this project.
Yours truly,
awrence Picariello, Chairman
cc. Swampscott Board of Selectmen
Swampscott Board of Public Works
Representative Douglas Petersen
Senator Walter Boverini
Ms. Trudy Coxe, Secretary
Executive Office Environmental Affairs
\.
-------
Lll-1
The reevaluation of the potential disposal sites in the FEIR/S concluded that the
Meisburger 2 site would not be the preferred alternative for disposal of BHNIP silts
(Section 4).
14
-------
(kifim of
OFFICE OF THE
Urnrrfl of jkiedmen
L12
ELIHU THOMSON ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
SWAMPSCOTT. MASSACHUSETTS 01907
Robert W. Murphy, Chairman
Daniel U. SantanelJo. Vice Chairman
Janet N- Baker
Douglas F. Allen
Peter J. Cassidy
June 20, 1994
Patricia E. George
Administrative Assistant
(617)596-8850
FAX (617) 596-8851
Brink P. Miller, Colonel
Army Corps of Engineers
New Englarid Division
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA 02154
Dear Colonel Miller:
. The Board of Selectmen is extremely concerned about the detrimental effect
the Boston Harbor Dredging Project may have on the seaside community of
Swampscott. _
In order for us to understand every aspect of this project, particularly the
possible dumping of hazardous waste at the proposed dump site referred to as
"Seisburger Two", we must be provided with all pertinent information as soon as_
possible. _
We believe that a public hearing on this matter is in order and wish to be
directly notified of the date, time and location of the public hearing so that aJlj
interested parties may attend.
We look forward to receiving this important information from you and thank
you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
BOARD OF SELECTMEN
W
Chairman
RWM/pg
cc Representative Douglas W. Petersen
Congressman Peter Torkildsen
Harbor Advisory Committee
SWIM President William Coffey
-------
L12-1
Environmental impacts and practicability of using the alternative disposal sites
were re-evaluated in the FEIR/S (Section 4.0). The Meisburger 2 site is no longer
being considered for disposal of silts from the BHNIP.
L12-2
Swampscott participated in the public hearing in Nahant on July 28, 1994.
15
£-57
-------
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL AND ADVOCACY GROUPS
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
-------
•in i nil in i in
111 id II Ill
111 H llllllllk
I
!!!!
111
|li (I Ill UNI III 1 |i I II
in n ill
nil in
III l|l
I
•(ill
lllllll
lilllll
I" I
lllllll
I.!1!,!
-------
the boston harbor association
for o clean, olive and accessible Boston Harbor
374 Congress Street
Suite 609
Boston. MA 02210-1807
Telephone (617) 482-1722
Fax (617) 482-9750
21 June 1994
Colonel Brink P. Miller
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA 02254-9149
DeapCx>lonel Miller:
The Boston Harbor Association is a non-profit, public interest group
founded in 1973 to promote a clean, alive, and accessible Boston
Harbor. TBHA was the first public interest group in the early 1970s
to call for the clean up of Boston Harbor, and has closely monitored
the clean up project for many years.
TBHA supports an alive and accessible Boston Harbor: alive with
people enjoying the harbor (hopefully in the not-too-distant future
with thousands of people swimming in the Harbor) as well as an
active working Port.
More than 17 million tons of cargo come through the Port of Boston
each year. Eighty percent of the cargo which comes through the Port
are petroleum products, and more than 30,000 cars move through
the Port's terminals. Clearly, an active, viable working Port is key to
the economic vitality of the region.
Given the size of modern tankers, the Boston Harbor Navigation
Improvement Project and Berth Dredging Project is needed so that
basic goods such as food, fuel, and transport can continue to come
through the Port of Boston. In addition, the Navigation Improvement
- Project is needed to allow Boston to remain competitive with other
7 ports in the country, and to continue as a source of jobs for the
region.
©
-------
TBHA has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report/ ;
Statement for the Boston Navigation Improvement and Berth
Dredging Project and offers the following comments:
First, TBHA believes that this project can and must be done in an
environmentally sensitive manner. Proper dredging techniques as
well as the appropriate disposal of dredged materials need to be
incorporated into the project.
Our reading of the Draft Environmental Impact Report/ Statement as
well as our participation on the Dredging Advisory Committee and in
the 17 May 1994 Public Meeting indicate that Massport and the
Army Corps of Engineers, the project proponents, intend to
incorporate environmental standards and controls into the project. __
^—«^^™
Second, additional attention must be given to new disposal and
remediation alternatives. In other parts of the country, alternative
technologies have been developed which have been effective in the
remediation of contaminated sediments. We commend Massport for
its efforts to explore the possible use of these alternatives, and
encourage them to continue to do so.
Consistent with this, the "Green Ports" legislation recently filed in
Congress provides funding for communities to incorporate alternative
technologies into their dredging operations, and we urge continued
support for passage of this legislation this session.
Moreover, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency needs to
provide leadership in helping to examine alternative technologies
and in helping to develop regional solutions, to dredge disposal. _
Third, the Draft EIR/S lists several practicable alternatives for
- .disposal. We make the following observations:
Unconfined ocean dumping of contaminated sediments, a historic
practice for which we are paying the price environmentally, is no
longer permitted. The Draft EIR/S recognizes this reality.
-------
Disposal of contaminated sediments at the Mass Bay Disposal Site,
even with capping, may pose environmental problems, given the
depth of the site. Additional analysis and monitoring would be
needed before the permitting agencies would allow MBDS to be used
for contaminated sediments. Realistically, this option appears more
feasible for future harbor maintenance.
Based on the information we have reviewed, clean sediments appear
appropriate for disposal at the Mass Bay Disposal Site.
The Boston lightship site had previously been used for the disposal
of radioactive wastes. TBHA urges further study of the radioactivity
of the site before it is considered as a disposal site for this project.
TBHA urges that additional analysis occur of Meisburger 2 and 7,
specifically of the impacts to fish and shellfish. The Final EIR/S
should include additional information on impacts to the fishing and
shellfish industries.
TBHA urges further study of the Combined In-Channel locations ,
such as Chelsea Creek, Inner Confluence, and Mystic River In-
Channel. A major concern related to this option is how existing ship
traffic will be accommodated at these tributaries, which are actively.
used by ships. The Final EIR/S needs to clearly explain how ship
traffic will be maintained during disposal operations. -—J
The Final EIR/S should address the land-based impacts of the
preferred option, such as traffic impacts from bridge openings and
closings, and land-based dredge material disposal. We urge that the
Final EIR/S provide specific measures on how the project proponent
will handle both land and water side impacts.
Fourth, Massport, one of the project proponents, has had recent
experience with dredging at Moran Terminal. It found that the
environmental clamshell bucket required by the Boston Conservation
Commission was not as effective as hoped due to the large number
of piles and amount of debris caught in the bucket, preventing it
from closing tightly. We support Massport's efforts to develop a
-------
contingency plan to deal with this problem. Also, the development
of performance standards for dredging, rather than specifying
dredge equipment type, may be more appropriate for incorporation
in permits and orders of conditions. j
Fifth, TBHA supports the concept of an independent observer to
monitor the dredging operation. Other major project proponents
such as the Central Artery Project and the MWRA contribute to the
cost of hiring independent observers within the City of Boston's
Environment Department to monitor compliance with permit
conditions, and we urge Massport to do likewise.
In closing, we reiterate our strong support for the Boston Harbor
. Navigational Project, and look forward to receiving the additional
information requested above in the Final EIR/S.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Vivien-XT"
Executive Director
VL: pr
-------
El-1
A detailed Dredge Management and Monitoring Plan that identifies the procedures
necessary to minimize environmental impacts during both dredging and disposal is presented in
Section 5 of the FEIR/S.
El-2
Treatment technologies are discussed in Section 3.0 and Appendix D of the FEIR/S.
The Corps is willing to look into practicable technological alternatives for the disposal of
contaminated dredged material, when appropriate funding is available. We will continue to
work with the U.S. EPA on these new technologies.
EI-3
The BHNIP is not considering disposal of silts at MBDS to be feasible for the current
project. Any future use of that site for such materials would require prior demonstration of
successful capping. Where feasible, the Corps will investigate capping and other management
techniques for the MBDS site.
El-4
BLS has not been selected as the preferred alternative for the BHNIP. Any future
proposals for using BLS for disposal would require coordination with EPA regarding the
proported drums of industrial and radioactive waste at this site. Disposal of dredged material at
this site to cover these drums may benefit the environment of this area. The EPA should play
an active role in researching the locations and environmental status of any hazardous materials
at the BLS to determine whether it would be best to leave as is, remove, or cover in place.
El-5
The fisheries resources of the Meisburger sites were investigated and incorporated into
the alternatives analysis. It was determined that other disposal alternatives exist that would
have less environmental impact (Section 4).
El-6
Please refer to the Dredged Material Management Plan in Section 5.0 of the final
EIR/S. During the dredging and in-channel operations, normal harbor traffic will be
maintained to the maximum extent possible. The proposed in-channel disposal operations will
not obstruct the entire channel width at any location within the project. Partial obstruction will
be unavoidable. Proper Notification to Mariners will be issued through the US Coast Guard
and all construction equipment, including dredges, scows and tugs, will display internationally
recognized signals. Vessels will be directed away from active dredging and disposal sites into
unobstructed sections of the active channel. The dredges will likely be required to move to
-------
allow larger vessels to pass regardless of the disposal alternative. In-channel disposal
operations can be worked around vessel movements since it is not required that a scow remain
on location for a lengthy period of time.
El-7
The proposed disposal alternatives will have little impact on land based activities.
However, bridge openings on the Chelsea River will increase to accommodate tug and scow
cycles. The in-channel alternative would require additional scow traffic to transport of
dredged material from the Reserved Channel to the Chelsea River and Mystic River.
El-8
The FEIR/S, Section 5.0 Dredging Management Plan and paragraph 5.8.2.2, Trash and
Debris Management, describe specific contingencies for trash and debris which may be
encountered. It is anticipated that specific minimum performance criteria will be incorporated
into the conditions of the permits.
El-9
An independent observer present on board the dredge would not be allowed to control
the contract work. However, there may be a measure of liability for the contractor by
allowing an independent observer on board that is out of the control of the Corps. Any
problems observed can be reported to the Corps inspector who will determine the proper
action to be taken. A Corps inspector would be responsible for permit compliance.
-------
CENTER FOR COASTAL STUDIES
A Private Non-Profit Organization for Research, Education and Conservation in the Coastal & Manne Environments
59 Commercial Street • P. O. Box 1036 • Provincetown. Massachusetts 02657 • Telephone: (503) 437-5622
18Mavl994
William C. Scully
Deputy Division Engineer
US Army Corps of Engineers
New England Division
424 Trapelo Rd.
Waltham. MA 02254
Stephen P. Tocco
Executive Director &CEO
Massachusetts Port Authority
Maritime Department
Boston Fish Pier II
Boston, MA 02210
Statement for the May 19,1994 Public Meeting
Hyannis, Ma
Gentlemen,
Thank you for holding this meeting on Gape Cod and for the opportunity to comment the Draft
EIS/EIR for the Boston Harbor, MA Navigation Improvement Project and Berth Dredging Project.
As I anticipate submitting a more complete letter of comment on this project, please accept the
following brief observations from my initial review of the document.
I suppose I will echo the concerns of many here tonight by voicing opposition to the disposal of
contaminated sediments derived from this project at the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site. I would
also caution against the disposal of any dredged materials within the Boston Lightship Area until the
EPA and other federal agencies have completed the assessment of past disposal of hazardous and
low-level radioactive wastes in Massachusetts Bay. As a member of the EPA's Advisory Committee
on Waste Disposal in Massachusetts Bays, I am not satisfied that this effort was ever completed in a
satisfactory manner.
ANALYSIS OF DISPOSAL SITE ALTERNATIVES (CHAPTERS)
Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (MBDS)
The final designation of the MBDS prohibited the disposal of contaminated sediments, due in part to
the depths at the site and its close proximity to the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary.
Early on, the Stellwagen Bank Coalition Steering Committee, of which I am a member, supported
gjving NOAA oversight over all disposal activities and the authority to certify (condition or deny)
permits to insure that there would be no destruction, loss, or injury to Sanctuary resources. Since
the designation process resulted in a re-location of the MBDS, no portion of it falls within the
Sanctuary boundaries. However, its dose proximity has resulted in the MBDS being defined as an
a
-------
Impact Category I Site (under ODA), which will require limitations on the use of the site, as necessary
D reduce the impacts to acceptable levels.
Thus, as a Category I site, NOAA has the authority to certify disposal permits in order to avoid
potential harm to Sanctuary resources. We recommend that they use this authority to the fullest
extent to review the current project.
According to the ESA Section 7 Consultation (November 7,1991) on the designation of the MBDS,
the National Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS) determined that "the final designation of the MBDS
wfll not jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species _. However,
disposal activities associated with the MBDS may adversely effect some of these species." Their
conservation recommendations at the time included the placement of NMFS-approved observers on
board disposal vessels and the collection of reliable ambient water quality data for the MBDS,
determination of toxin tissue levels in live, free-ranging endangered species, and the evaluation of
the long-term behavior of sediments disposed of at the MBDS. The Section 7 Consultation did not
evaluate the issue of capping at the site, presumably because the designation prohibited the disposal
of contaminated sediment at the MBDS.
Based on these conditions affecting the MBDS, ft is my opinion that it does not qualify as feasible
alternative for the disposal of contaminated dredged materials, and should not be considered as such
in the EIS process.
Meisburber Sites —
lie borrow pits at both sites 2 and 7 appear to be attractive options for disposal of contaminated
adiments, given the concerns at the MBDS and Boston Lightship sites. Both of the Meisburger sites
appear to be located roughly three miles from the proposed MWRA outfall diffusers. I am concerned
that their proximity to proposed outfall may influence the ability of these sites to be monitored
properly in the future. The MWRA's current outfall monitoring program has shown some
constituents of the current effluent discharges are detectable above expected background levels at the
proposed outfall location, gjving rise to the concern here that contamination of these two sites by the
new outfall may make it difficult to determine the success of capping of contaminated sediments.
The EIS should evaluate the potential degradation (cross-contamination?) of the sedimentary
environment and benthic resources at these sites from the prosed outfall.
OTHER COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS/R ~~
Note: The Gulf of Maine population of harbor porpoise, Fhocoenaphocoena, may be designated as
threatened under the ESA by July, 1994. This species is common in in Massachusetts and Cape Cod
Bays in late winter through early spring and is known to accumulate some synthetic organic
contaminants.
The MBDS is an important feeding area for some species of endangered cetaceans, particular for
juvenile humpback whales.
Confined ocean disposal, also called "capping", of contaminated materials is still under
consideration by NMFS, USFWS, COE, EPA and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to determine
Hs environmental feasibility as a management alternative at the MBDS. Until such time as
-------
iclusive tests prove the effectiveness of this technology at the site, it should not be considered as
an alternative for the Boston Harbor Project.
SHI
Russell A. DeConti
Director of Conservation
-------
E2-1
MBDS is not being considered as a feasible alternative for disposal of silts from the
improvement and berth dredging project. If capping is demonstrated to confine contaminated
sediments successfully in the future, this site could be considered for future projects, including
the maintenance of Boston Harbor.
E2-2
Biological investigations conducted at all potential aquatic disposal sites in fall 1994
demonstrated the high degree of biological activity at these sites. It was concluded that other
sites could be used for disposal with less environmental damage (see Section 4).
E2-3
This species is also discussed in the Biological Assessment for this project.
E2-4
A Biological Assessment was prepared for this project to discuss any impacts that may
occur to threatened and endangered species in the area of MBDS.
E2-5
MBDS is not considered to be a feasible alternative for the disposal of silts from the
BHNEP in the FEffi/S.
-------
Center for Marine Conservation
June 27, 1994
Brink P. Miller .
;Colonel, Corps of Engineers
U.S. Army Corps' of Engineers
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA • 02254
Re: Comments of the Center for Marine Conservation on the Draft
Environmental Impact Report/Statement (DEIR/S) for the Boston Harbor,
Massachusetts Navigation Improvement and Berth Dredging Project (57 FR 27762,
June 22, 1992) • • •
Dear Colonel Miller: . . .
The Center for Marine Conservation (CMC) submits the attached comments on
the dredging and disposal of material from the three tributary channels in Boston
Harbor and the associated berthing areas.
Although we do not oppose the project goal of improved navigation for
Boston Harbor, CMC believes that the selection as a preferred alternative for
disposal of dredged materials, including contaminated materials with capping, of
the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (MBDS): (1) fails to adequately consider~
the potential serious threats to the adjoining Stellwagen Bank National Marine_
Sanctuary as required by the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA); (2)
violates the consistency requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)_
and is inconsistent with the designation of the site; (3) does not sufficiently
develop alternatives to the MBDS for disposing of contaminated sediments as_
required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) ; (4) • does not
adequately protect threatened and endangered species and marine mammals -as
required by the Endangered Species Act: (ESA); and (5) poses a danger to human"
health due to the potential contamination by toxins of commercial fishing stocks.
CMC therefore requests that the DEIR/S be revised to comply with these-
requirements, indicate that the MBDS is not. the preferred alternative for the
disposal of contaminated sediments, and adequately develop less harmful
alternatives. These concerns and requests are more fully discussed in the
attached comments.
E3-!
E3-2
E3-3
E3-4
E3-5
Thank you for your consideration.
//?/.
Jack/Sbbel. / ^ f
Director, Habitat Conservation
cc: The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy
_ The.Honorable John F. Kerry
& •; The Honorable Gerry E; Studds
~ The Honorable Ron Brown
The Honorable Carol Browner
Judy Pederson, MCZM
Francesca Cava, NOAA
Trudy Coxe, Mass. OEA
Margaret/M. Lytle ' A
Associate Counsel ^
1 725 DeSales Street, NW, Ste. 500
Washington, D.C. 20036' (202)429-5609 Telefax (202) 872-0619
__
» « Printed on 100% post-consumer, unbleached, recycled papa
-------
Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact
Report /Statement (DEIR/S) for the Boston Harbor,
Massachusetts Navigation Improvement and Berth Dredging
Project (57 FR 27762, June 22, 1992)
Submitted by the
Center for Marine Conservation
June 21 , 1994
The Center for Marine Conservation (CMC) submits the following
comments to the Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) and the
United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE) concerning the Draft
Environmental Impact Report /Statement (DEIR/S) for the Boston
Harbor, Massachusetts Navigation Improvement and Berth Dredging
Project.
Massport and COE, in this DEIR/S, outline plans for dredging
major shipping lanes and berths in Boston Harbor and options for
disposing of 3.5 million cubic yards of clean and highly
contaminated sediments from that dredging. They also identify
potential disposal sites for about 4.4 million cubic yards of
contaminated sediments from future maintenance dredging. Massport
and COE have selected the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (MBDS) as
a preferred disposal alternative for contaminated sediments from
the proposed dredging project and the future maintenance dredging,
with the intent of capping these sediments with clean sediments.
CMC believes that the selection as a preferred alternative for
disposal of all dredged materials, including contaminated
materials, of the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (MBDS): _ (1)
fails to adequately consider the potential threats to the adjoining
Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary as is required by the
National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA)1; (2) violates the
consistency requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
and is inconsistent with the designation of the site; (3) does
not sufficiently develop alternatives to the MBDS for disposing of
contaminated sediments as required by the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA)3; (4) does not adequately protect _ threatened
endangered species and marine mammals as is required by the
*16 USC §§ 1431-1445.
216 USC § 1456(c).
342 USC §§ 4321-4335.
£70
-------
Endangered Species Act (ESA)4; and (5) poses a danger to human
health due to the potential contamination by toxins of commercial
fishing stocks. CMC therefore requests that the DEIR/S be-revised
to comply with these requirements, indicate that the MBDS is not
the preferred alternative for the disposal of contaminated
sediments, and adequately develop less harmful alternatives.
ta
FAILURE TO CONSIDER POTENTIAL THREATS TO STELLWAGEN BANK NATIONAL
MARINE SANCTUARY AS REQUIRED BY THE NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARIES ACT
Stellwagen Bank was designated as a national marine sanctuary
on November 4, 19925. Stellwagen Bank is a uniquely configured,
nutrient-rich area that supports a diverse fish, invertebrate, and
whale population. Stellwagen Bank is one of three Atlantic areas
critical to migrating humpback, minke, right, and fin whales. The
area also contains rich commercial; fisheries6. Unfortunately, of
the five sites detailed in the DEIR/S, MBDS is the closest to
Stellwagen Bank and its precious marine resources. Disposal of
contaminated sediments at MBDS, no matter what technology is used,
threatens the very rare and special characteristics that make
Stellwagen Bank valuable as a Marine Sanctuary.
The National Marine Sanctuaries Act requires formal
consultation with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) for federal agency actions which may effect
marine sanctuaries, including the effect of dumping of contaminated
sediment and capping it. Amendments to the Act adopted in 1992
require that "federal agency actions internal or external to a
national marine sanctuary ... likely to destroy, cause the loss of,
or injure any sanctuary resources are subject to consultation with
the Secretary [of Commerce] . "7 The federal agency must provide to
the Secretary of Commerce a written statement describing the
potential effects of its action on sanctuary resources. If the
Secretary finds that the action is likely to injure a sanctuary
resource, the Secretary must recommend reasonable and prudent
alternatives to which the agency must respond, and such
alternatives may include conduct of the action elsewhere. The
DEIR/S does not reflect that any such consultation with NOAA took
place in regard to the decision to dump dredge material near
Stellwagen Bank.
416 USC §§ 1531-1543.
Sf-"-
5Pub. L. tto. 102-587, § 2202 (a) , 106 Stat . 5048, Nov. 4, 1992,
codified at 16 USC § 1433 note. ! . .
6Eldredge, Maureen. "Stellwagen Bank: New England's First
Sanctuary", Oceanus . Vol. 36, No. 3, p. 72, Fall 93.
716 USC § 1433 note.
-------
Furthermore, the National Marine Sanctuaries Act also
authorizes NOAA to adopt management plans that prohibit the
disposal of dredged material if deemed necessary to -protect
sanctuary resources8. In regard to Stellwagen Bank, NOAA has
'adopted regulations that prohibit the disposal of dredged material
both within the sanctuary and outside it if the materials may
"subsequently enter the sanctuary" and/or injure sanctuary
resources or qualities9. NOAA has the authority to require terms
and conditions necessary to protect sanctuary resources . The
failure of Massport and COE to consult on the record with NOAA on
the proposed disposal of contaminated sediments in an area
adioining a national marine sanctuary circumvents the protection of
these regulations, and violates the National Marine Sanctuary Act
Title III, leaving Stellwagen Bank without adequate protection.
The need for consultation is manifest in this case. Dumping
sediments that are contaminated with PCBs, PAHs, heavy metals and
other toxic substances at MBDS could seriously damage water
duality, and marine life at Stellwagen Bank. Toxic contaminants
may cause undesirable biological effects to organisms in the
environment. Further, toxic contaminants may also accumulate in
living marine resources at levels that pose a threat to human
consumers of these resources. These potential threats are not
given adequate consideration in the DEIR/S.
Serious concerns over the disposal of contaminated sediments
'and the use of capping were expressed by the Massachusetts Coastal
Zone Management Office (MCZM) and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) during the process of designating MBDS. Prior to
selecting the MBDS as the preferred alternative Massport and the
COE must conduct formal consultation with NOAA and the State of
Massachusetts regarding the potentially dangerous effects of
disposing of contaminated sediments at MBDS. The final rule
designating MBDS states " ... EPA's EIS made clear that only
materials that satisfied EPA's ocean dumping criteria could be
disposed at the MBDS in accordance with Section 103(c) of the
MPRSA, 33 U.S.C. 1413(c) based on current information EPA did
not accept that the environment could effectively be protected from
contaminated dredged material by trying to cap the material on the
ocean floor at a site such as the MBDS." Important concerns by the
EPA and others in regard to capping technology and feasibility are
still unanswered.
While Massport and COE claim that the threats from
icontaminated sediments can be overcome by the use of capping, this
816 USC § 1434(b); 15 CFR § 922(a)(8).
915 CFR § 940.5(a)(2).
1015 CFR §§ 940.5 (f) & (g) , and § 940.10.
-------
4
is an unproven and controversial technology. We are especially
concerned about the fate of the fine grained fraction.of dumped
sediments which are the most likely to miss the targeted site and
to which contaminants readily adhere. We would like to see more
analysis of the percentage of contaminants likely not to be covered
by capping.
The final rule designating MBDS stated that disposal and
capping of unsuitable materials at MBDS is prohibited until its
efficacy .can be effectively demonstrated. COE has failed to
provide any convincing evidence of such effectiveness. The
discussion of capping at Appendix G of the DEIR/S fails to
adequately address concerns over the technology. It is admitted in
the discussion that fine particles are the most likely to disperse
widely, and are also the most likely to be contaminated. The
issues of suspension and resuspension of sediments is "not resolved
completely" (DEIR/S G-17). Another concern involves the statement
that in cases where remediation of the capped area is necessary, it
could take months to accomplish (DEIR/S G-16). Use of capping is
particularly risky at MBDS because the depth of the water makes
dispersal uncertain. Previous COE experience with capping involved
shallower, calmer waters, with less rocky bottoms. These specific
issues bring out only a few of the concerns regarding capping. Due
to the lack of demonstrated safety and effectiveness of the
technology, the DEIR/S must be revised to eliminate the MBDS as the
preferred alternative for the disposal of contaminated sediments.
VIOLATION OF THE CONSISTENCY REQUIREMENTS OF THE COASTAL ZONE
MANAGEMENT ACT
The MCZM stated during the designation of MBDS that the
disposal of contaminated sediments, under any circumstances, would
not be consistent with MCZM policies11. All federal agency
activities, whether in or outside the coastal zone, are subject to
the consistency requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act.
The Act provides:
Each Federal agency activity within or outside the coastal
zone that affects any land or water use or natural resource of
the coastal zone shall be carried out in a manner which is
consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the
E3-1
12
enforceable policies of approved State management programs
%n addition to these requirements, the Act also provides that "Any
-Federal agency which shall undertake any development project in the
"Letter from Jeffrey R. Benoit, Director, MCZM, to Julie
Belaga, Regional Administrator, EPA, dated November 13, 1992.
1216 USC § 1456 (c) (1)
£73
-------
coastal zone of a state shall insure that the project is ...
consistent with ... approved State management programs."13 Federal
agency activities and development projects are subject to state
consistency review if they are located in or effect the coastal
zone. COE and EPA activities under the Ocean Dumping Act14
including the disposal of sediments from dredging activity at MBDS
are definitely subject to the consistency requirements of the
CZMA15.
The Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office has
determined that only the disposal of clean dredged material at MBDS
is consistent with the state's program, and that disposal of
contaminated material, even if capped, is prohibited16. Any action
by COE contrary to this consistency determination, such as
selection of MBDS for the disposal of contaminated sediments under
•any circumstances, including capping, would violate the CZMA17.
As the disposal of contaminated materials and the use of capping at
MBDS are clearly not consistent with the state's management plan,
the DEIR/S must be revised to eliminate those options from the list
of preferred alternatives.
DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES FOR THE DISPOSAL OF CONTAMINATED
SEDIMENTS AS REQUIRED BY NEPA
The object of NEPA is to incorporate conscientious
consideration of environmental aspects of proposed actions in the
decision-making processes of federal agencies. NEPA clearly
requires that federal agencies discuss in detail alternatives to a
proposed action in an EIS, so that a decision-maker can consider
them along with the proposed action in determining a course of
action18. Agencies are required to explore and evaluate all
reasonable alternatives, and devote substantial treatment to each
1316 USC § 1456 (c) (2) .
1433 USC §§ 1401 et seq. (1988) .
15Howorth, Laura S. "U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Ocean
Dredging Policy and its Relationship with the Coastal Zone
Management Act", Our Coastal Experience: Assessing the Past,
Confronting the Future. The Coastal Society, 1993.
~ "Letter from Jeffrey R. Benoit, Director, MCZM; to Julie
Belaga, Regional Administrator, EPA, dated November 13, .1992 . [See
also note 11] .
"See note 11.
1842 USC § 4332(2) (c) (iii) .
-------
reasonable alternative19. The examination of alternatives must go
beyond merely justifying decisions already made20. Mas.sport and
COE have failed to explore sufficient alternatives to /dumping
contaminated sediments at MBDS. All of the preferred alternatives
involve ocean dumping within a fairly restricted area of
Massachusetts Bay. Land disposal and other options were dismissed
as preferred options solely on the basis of cost.
This undue emphasis on the costs of disposal constitutes an
inadequate examination of alternatives. Economic arguments for
open ocean disposal do not adequately consider the potential
environmental damage and related costs of disposing of significant
amounts of highly toxic contaminated sediments. The COE must
adequately consider the cost of damage to marine habitat and
resources; such as costs to the fishing industry, and to tourism
(e.g. whale watching) .
The DEIR/S inappropriately uses the cost of unconfined
disposal of dredge material as the basis for their economic
comparisons of alternatives, even though such disposal involving
contaminated sediments is not permitted. Additionally, as the
DEIR/S itself acknowledges, caps may have to be replaced every one
to four years due to storm damage, entailing additional expense.
The DEIR/S should be revised to consider the cost of confined
disposal, in order to provide a more realistic and balanced picture
of costs involved in disposing of material at MBDS.
PROTECTION OF THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES AS REQUIRED BY ESA
There are a number of species protected by the ESA which may
occur in the disposal area. They include: humpback whale, fin
whale, northern right whale, sei whale, blue whale, leatherback sea
turtle (endangered), loggerhead sea turtle (threatened), and Gulf
of Maine harbor porpoise (proposed as threatened.) In addition to
the endangered/threatened species themselves, prey species for
endangered whales have been spotted within the two mile
circumference of MBDS, increasing the likelihood of the whales
entering the area. Under Section 7 of the ESA, federal agencies
are prohibited from taking actions that adversely impact endangered
•or threatened species. Specifically, federal agencies_must "...
insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such
agency ... is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
any endangered species or threatened species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such
"40 CFR § 1502.14.
2040 CFR § 1502.11
-------
species "21 The disposal of contaminated sediments in an area
frequented by endangered and threatened species has an obvious
potential to cause the species serious harm (e.g. direct exposure
to contaminants, habitat degradation, decline in water quality, and
entrainment of prey.) The DEIR/S reflects inadequate consideration
by Massport and COE of the potential effect of their actions on
such species.
The biological assessment conducted by the COE concluded that
there would be no adverse impact on endangered and threatened
species within MBDS from the disposal of contaminated material
controlled by capping. However, it was admittedly based on the
Biological Assessment and Technical Appendices prepared by
Massachusetts Department of Public Works and the COE for the
Federal Highway Administrations Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel
Project (CA/T), which was alleged to have similar impacts. The
CA/T assessment however, never discussed the potential effects of
capping contaminated sediments. The failure to give sufficient
consideration to the possible effects of capping is a serious
deficiency in the COE biological assessment.
Furthermore, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) did
not concur with the COE determination. NMFS felt that the
assessment left a number of concerns unanswered, including: the
efficacy of capping under the environmental conditions present at
MBDS (including waters up to 100 meters deep) ; the possible
cumulative effects of specific contaminants from this and other
projects on listed species; and the potential for contaminants to
bioaccumulate or transfer through the food chain22. NMFS concluded
that additional information was necessary for the formulation of a
biological opinion under Section 7 (a)(2) of the Endangered Species
Act.
NMFS then recommended that COE either agree to extend formal
consultation until sufficient data (including an in situ study of
cap placement over time using clean material) is available, or drop
capping at offshore sites from further consideration. _ Any action
contrary to this recommendation would be a violation of the
Endangered Species Act. This is an additional reason that disposal
of contaminants at MBDS should be dropped as one of the preferred
alternatives.
CONTAMINATION OF COMMERCIAL FISHING STOCKS
2116 USC § 1536.
22Letter from Allen E. Peterson, Jr., Acting Regional Director,
NMFS, to Colonel Brink P. Miller, Division Engineer, COE, dated
April 19, 1994.
-------
8
The DEIR/S does not give adequate consideration to the
potential consequences of dumping contaminated materials -in or.near
active fishing grounds. Red and silver hake are abundant,
commercially important seasonal migrants in the MBDS area, along
with flounder and grey sole. The transfer of contaminants through
the food chain is an acknowledged'health risk.
In expressing concerns over the Boston Harbor project, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stated their assessment of
the effects on human health from the consumption of seafood from
MBDS exposed to contaminated sediments indicated that "disposal of
the surface sediments ... could pose unacceptable cancer risks to
human health."23 EPA found that even incidental exposure of
contaminated sediments to MBDS seafood could pose unacceptable
health risks.24 EPA's calculations: for cancer risk associated with
the consumption of seafood harvested from the MBDS if Massport
sediments were to be disposed exceeds values within the acceptable
range.25 The DEIR/S must be revised to reflect consideration of
the potential public health risk involved in disposing of
contaminated sediments at MBDS.
For the foregoing reasons we request that the DEIR/S be revised to
comply with the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, the Coastal Zone
Management Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the
Endangered Species Act and to reflect public health concerns; to
indicate that the MBDS is not the preferred' alternative for the
disposal of contaminated sediments; and to adequately develop less
harmful alternatives.
Respectfully Submitted.
Jack/ Sobel /
Director, Habitat Conservation
Ma:£garet M. Lytle"/)
Associate Counsel ^
23Letter from Paul G. Keough, Acting Regional Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency to Colonel Brink Miller, Division
Engineer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, dated September 9, 1993.
24Id., Appendix C.
25Ibid.
-------
E3-1
The disposal site alternatives analysis has been reevaluated for the FEIR/S (Section 4).
The MBDS is not considered to be a suitable site for the disposal of contaminated silts from
the BHNIP. It could be considered for future maintenance material only if capping is
successfully demonstrated to provide long-term isolation of these sediments from the
environment in waters of similar depths.
The Corps has submitted a Biological Assessment to the NOAA, National Marine
Fisheries Service regarding disposal of dredged material at the MBDS. The Biological
Assessment does not anticipate significant impacts to threatened and endangered species at
Stellwagen Bank. NMFS coordinates these activities with the manager of Stellwagen Bank
National Marine Sanctuary. Any proposed capping demonstration at the MBDS would be
coordinated with the appropriate agencies.
E3-2
Any proposed capping demonstration or project at the MBDS would be coordinated
with the MCZM office to determine consistency with their policies on a case-by-case basis.
E3-3
Over 200 alternatives were initially examined for the disposal of dredged material. A
systematic tiered system was used to narrow the list of alternatives to a reasonable number for
analysis. MBDS was selected as one of several alternatives for the disposal of silty dredged
material in the DEffi/S (although it was eliminated in the FEIR/S). This certainly complies
with the intent of NEPA. In addition, cost (or practicability) is recognized in NEPA and other
regulations affecting dredged material disposal as a means of comparing alternatives. An
accurate environmental cost from disposal of silty dredged material, if any, is impossible to
analyze. The purpose of an EIR/S is document environmental impacts from various
alternatives so that managers can make an informed decision on selection of an alternative.
E3-4
The final Biological Assessment will drop capping contaminated sediments at MBDS
as an alternative.
E3-5
The risk assessment conducted by U.S. EPA was based on very conservative estimates
because of the lack of information needed to make a more accurate assessment. U.S. EPA's
MBDS site designation EIS concluded that disposal of dredged material at the MBDS has not
and is not likely to cause significant impact to aquatic resources. This is after many years of
disposal of dredged material from Boston Harbor and other urban harbors.
-------
APPENDIX B
2399S/R4.XS 1/31/97(2:46 PM)*PT/6
-------
in in i 1 innin i 11 inngnlii n
III II | (III Illl I 111 II N i (III
in ill i I ill i II III i nil
111 i I ill
11 !
I III I Illl Illl I 111 Illl
I fiipiiiiiiiihii'iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii'hiiiiiiiiiii'i1 f".'.,,';"/ "»ii,l liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiii'.iijiiiii.uiii'i "uf iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!"':'iKii «' , iiii«i£ii! s'1
| ilLii'iailllliilllfllESiE;,'!111 Illpfllll':• i";!11!!•;:'„'!' tBblJIii il!i;i!,!1!ll!!1,! ,;i Bliii'M,:!.!i,i,,,,""ffj !™ :"' mttR '', If ffi!1!,'"' .'''''i,11"111:!!1!;'!,:!"1!":^"'!!1!"''!;'^!!.!!!]!,11' ill'1:!.!!!! '•,llf'.'lf f*1,1!!':1!11!1" "it|l!J^^ ijAaiiNjiS'iiiili'iiii'iii'lt.''/!!*111!!!1111 • 'lij^iiiiiliiliiilll'i'lnl!!1-''!,1,'! iWW'11, '«:' ii!1:!1!11!1!'i'i'li1, '»!;;:'!:!,• i:!"' • ' '/i1, ,:,'„ iil1"!'
•l l!!liyi!:'i«1!:;1n!iliK!i!lniiilU'i|l,nliti!l|i!lll 'iiiE'iip! " >„! lililllili1!,,!1'!!1:! ,:i,i,i|i,ili!i,i i,:*, "ifr?:!';;: i|i,! iillllllf ,,,rS'S^ • < ', i, "il'"i'''i!',i, ill1 ,iH',i NK "S';1:!!!,!;!"'1!11:?!1!"-'!1;'Ji,:11.;; , 'j'L'.ini,: iijiWiXT', Pi'.iliilrm1''frSSuni Pll^l^K^^ :U!lil!&^^^^ i , I,:''-,"!' , i;:,:1'1:,:.,''.,!'.," , ' :<•'! P
" ir ,, ' i< i innini i ii ',ii,,r,i; „ " < , I'l ill 'ilmi,, t , • • < in r i Ii, i,»ii» «i, niili ,i ',',1111,1,, ,,il,' ni „ • , < ,,iii'f ,i|,, i <• ,,, iiiilli, i|'i I V " ill , , n, ,„ < « M, „ „ „ • , l n",
IV'ilnlS'inni'!',, inniniiiilhl Pint "It1!! .ilPdnnfnjhli'j,',!1!1 Ini,'"*!!!!*;:!;;;''!,"1 Jn;,, l''l||!ji|jl!,ji, f'^'lfrifvSsilfV;!1,!,;^ I*!!!!:,!;;!*;1'; "''lii!!,!1!1'',,;! f^'yf II1! ijAiiiiiPfl^JiiPllli^t:'1^ !| 'KlL 1J '*•• >:ll,>l'i!"!, I'! 'f^f': >!l "Ii"!"!' I1'!! i;!,"!:,,1:1'!1:'", ' ^"'ElSJiPin,',,';: '" !•! if"!1 ">i:"!!'«: :ifi i ,' :', I'!'', :,!i', ' , "t:,'}
iinii in, [,' iiiiiiiTPiiiiii!!,in,"i"i,|i,i,,i,,i,i'iii:i!iiijiP: "in ''im ,„, iiiiiijiilijiii, , 'Hti'it, cnii, ,i,iii ''iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiini'Tiihiiiii1 liiii'iiiinr,' jijuiiniiiiiniiii ,,ii,' ,"ii i,iiii,ii;i ii,, n,1,1111,, »',ii sti"^'",^^^:'''^'!!!.;)!'1 iiiiiii'ihHiiiiiJiiiiiiMin1 iim,iii iinJMii, iffiniiii,1!1, ,1': i : 1,1* ..'''pi'iiij1,! n "r, iLiiiJiii,1,!'!; ,, |MI ,,;' i, , ,:, ,''•," ,,i,iii'', 11,,,- ,1,1',, , IM ,, •
asiSi:,,:," • ii1,,,; in, in • i, y f" :::rm /!,/ •,',: * i, ,,diiiiiiiiii||i|ii i:' n • ininiiiiii i, '* 71>"", 'si'siac!11" s VK n FSMI • 11 liai1,,!1 niiini1' ,Mi n yi tn i, „ 'IT • i ni!:1!1!! "'jhi:: ''Pn!!:,a' ''xipin s'lini1!11'yiii ffjx ,,i • tnn i; i •'»,',',«,, 10IJ.V!!!,;" \ ni n; nnn;,, i1'"' i • f,; PI .I'liiaii/ini1',',,; ,, i n :• .'ip1, ,„ > 11, •' i 'i.' i, " <; •>, •,;,",, n • , . i; «
| iiili: iiiiiiii liiiniiiiiiiiipi iiili 'niiiiiii^ iiii!l'i,('':' fvm': Hi"','' m" • : ,:!'ii'' 1 P1 •'' :''l ' iijiiN' 4' i' i":i!," ii:1 '• "„: i i '''!"• :<"' ,i i <:: 'I' i"!!1 « ,'t i i"'
'i i nn, li:, i,; l < M >, nillllllllfilll'' Inw I! l ..PPi,,,,!,,!"'!'!'! Ii iliii ii!,p'i „ I luliii m.ii' ' ' ,i!,i 11 "Illliilllill jjjlpll ri il'l |ll'P!li» II'i ,,»l liljli', J li'lliJUlliii' 'I'nil'iliii In ,l,nl|| lii! illin,' iiPiiillilliPillli'li11 IP1' ji'ii ' :iin",,i"i "il1 ' in I, inilmi iSVi' IIP lilPP'inilldl iliir Pi I Phi,,'!: P|i« li|,l Jm l|i|iiil|i,,',|i ''' d>' libiiln'milii'lui, II'V l,,,ii, llul, i1; 'f |i 'i:>lni'"li >, ;J|'; i ,,,iiiliil,iiip!i:,|i,i, "K i ' |,' ' «| ,».' I11 ' !' 'i ,1, !,!', iJI' , ' , n'i : ii
, ,;;:;;,;!,,-|:: •,: -;:;;;;;,,,;,;;;:;, ,,,;;', ;•:, ,, ,;,, „,, ;„,,;, „,,,, •;, ,;• ,,, ,;,,,; , ill|;||,||:|;|;|,,,,, „;,,;,,"" ,:;,;',:, „„,,,,,;, ;;,;,;,;',;",;,;:,,;,;;,,„;,;,„;, ,„!,,!::,:,:,,,;;;;;;! ,,;;„„;• • • „;;, „ ,„;,,;;:, ,,;„;;,; ..m;,;,;', i;;::,::|!j,i, ,::,„ • ;,;,;',;,,;; ,,,:,:,;;::;;,;,,;;,! i i,|1;;;,,,,:,i::,:,,„:,;,;;,,:;, ;,„:;, ;,,,i;,, ,;,,;,;,;,, - ,, „$$$•,;;;;;, ,,, , :, ,,„;„,,,;: ,,„,,,;:,', ,„;;;" ,' „,,,",„„,
iHviipL'iii'ipi'in,;,,,:!;,^ ' , i ,'ii1' i' - , ; • , ',!,• JSP •• • , ,
;:::p :'.".'.:.::::::.: :: :,"' ::: :::;:\,::::::;::::::::;::',: :::•..:: :;:,..; ±;:; :: :„:; ,;:;:,' :.: .' ... ', ' "
,,,„,,, ,. „,, „ , ,, ,. ,,„ ... , „„, „ ,,„,,. . ..
I :„;,„; , I! ; ;,; I,,/ ; : , , '. ; /.JjjjjJ ; ; ; ; , ' - v I! ;,:„;,„;,: [, ,;„;„,„„;„„ \ 'L; ;,;,, , ,„ ::;,„;,,,:; \ ( ,
i -J;;^^^ ^i;-;i ;• i ;;;"";;•• ;;•;; i1-;:;;• -'—" -Jjafl; '!; ;:n;'";; I I"";;1"j';;j"; ITJIIJ;; ""''"il|ii|' ;•„: i[' ; ;"";•"*' g^iini^niiij^^^
-------
E3-6
The MBDS is not being proposed for the disposal of silts from the BHNIP. Capping
would, not occur at the MBDS until a demonstration to prove its efficacy has been completed.
E3-7
The cost comparison for the disposal alternatives has been based on the cost for the
least environmentally damaging alternative, in-channel disposal in the FEIR/S.
-------
Cetacean Research Unit
Col. Brink Miller
Division Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
424 Trapelo Rd.
Waltham, MA C2254-SI4S
June 11, 1SS4
Dear Col. Kille
Me thank you for the
to offer
:ne
the la:
» f ^ v-, r*
. e, oa^t-
.nee red
nque
he
roxi;
Project.
project .
•"he Cetacean Research Unit (CRU) is a non-profit orga
emphasizing research and conservation on whales ana marine
InSland For the past 15 years, our work has centerea on
Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary ?« h£e c>?;^:
databases or the natural resources of that area i~ ex-s.e..
c?e«" woreciate why the location is so special for enaa
whales and" a mvriad of marine life. It is Because of tna.
nature that we" feel extreme care must be taken _in use of t
Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (MEDS), locates in c:ose ?
the Bank and its marine resources.
T 4. ^e sta-t by saying that we are not opposed to the creasi
t^e ha-bor cer se. We realize and appreciate the importance o=
c^rc-c?a^ traffic in Boston harbor to the area's economy r.owev
Sr£lso~Uel that it must be done in the safest, way possible for
environment. For years the harbor 's sediments ,*»ve oeer. <=^--
from a myriad of abuses and much of the arecgea ir,etert«.: espec-a
the su-face silts, contain toxic levels of certain ppiiU-a...s. ^
Because of this, e.xtreme care must be taken when botn arecging ,n
harbor and. especially, disposing of those sediments.
The DEIS is inconsistent in its. classification of the surfac
s^*s In most places, they are classified as contaminated ma.e.
We'a^ee Si?h this classification, but feel it neecs to oe extenc
throu^out the document. As contaminated sediments it wou, a oe_
illegal to dump them at the disposa, site. Wnen the EPA oes:g..^
that site for open ocean disposal, they stipulates it was on.y re
"clean" sediments.
ges'
car.
''.it" t;o
ng *•
e
e
ia.s
ed
P. O. Box 159 • Gloucester MA 0193O • 508 281-6351
A non-profit organization emphasizing whale research and education
-------
In several cases in the DEIS there is a recognition that
be impossible to dump the surface silts at the MBDS without a
clean spoils placed over theft. Before this can be considered.
demonstration of effective capping at that site needs to take ?
In order to be considered an "effective" cap, both the-amount o:
coverage and the integrity of the cap would need to be shown in
short run and over a prolonged period of time (at least a numbe:
years). Given that the schedule for the BHNIP calls for faster
than that, we feel that such a demonstration is unfeasible fo
project.
it would
"cap" of
a
lace.
action
this
there is little reason to believe that a cap can be
the deep waters of the MBDS, which are typically over 20C
Further,
effective in
feet. In the one capping demonstration attempted in the early iSSO's,
no effective caps were created at the site. Given the swirling
currents and mid-water turbulence at MBDS, one could only expect a
wide spreading of any sediments dumped at that area. The suggestion
in the DEIS that a cap would be maintained by careful positioning of
the dumping barge is naive and laughable; daily variation in tidal
states and wind conditions would obviously cause sediments dumped or.
the same spot to disperse in different directions.
We feel the most insidious suggestion contained in the DEIS is
using the sediments from the BHNIP itself in order to test capping. A
capping demonstration must take place using clean, marked sediments
capped by other clean sediments with a different marker; the idea of
using the surface silts as any part of a capping test only risks
environmental disaster if and when the cap is shown to fail. .—
Why do we need to worry so much about dumping contaminated
sediments at the MBDS? Contaminants such as PCS's, which are
prominent in the surface silts, have extremely long half.-lives in
water. Further, as they go up the food chain, they bio-accumulate
potentially leading to dramatic exposure levels in the marine life
the area. According to one recent report, PCB levels at the M3DS
quadrupled since 198C. Since much marine life, including marir.e
mammals, are particularly vulnerable to toxicant exposure, particu
care must be taken to minimize this exposure. This exposure car. t.
place through two means. Fin whales, humpbacks, and right whales
all shown to use the area near the MBDS in some frequency, as
demonstrated by the plots from our data presented in the SPA's Sec
7 consultation (Appendix in Volume 2). Further/ prey exposed to t
chemicals can leave the area and move to Stellwagen Bank, one of t
most important areas for endangered whales in the northeast.
We -strongly feel that dumping of contaminated surface silts,
_any other contaminated sediments, should not be allowed or even
Considered at the MBDS. We encourage you to delete any and all
reference to this possibility from the Final EIS.
We also feel that the dumping of toxic sediments in the open
ocean is a situation which is less than ideal. We support using
upland disposal or disposing of the sediments in an already
contaminated part of the inner harbor, where marine wildlife are not
likely to be affected. While we realize these options cost mere in
the economic analysis of dumping presented in the DEIS, that analysis
does not take into account the costs to fishermen or whale watchers of
having reduced levels of marine life in the area, or the non-.^. .
.lave
1 ar
a>ie
are
or
-------
quantifiable costs to the environment which could result from sucr.
actions.
While we are resigned to the dumping of non-toxic sediments at
the MBDS (although we have felt all along that no dumping should take
place at that site), we feel that rigorous testing of ail-dumping ^ ^
materials must take t>lace. The ocean works in a series of fine-sca.e
micro-habitats, and it is not safe to assume that even those seciments
in close r>roximity to clean sediments are, themselves, clean.
Further, even "clean" sediments can impact the ecosystem, since tney
are by no means pristine, and non-toxic levels can be accumu-i atec
through the food chain.
Finally, we feel that it is important that care be taken in the
actual dredging process. Much material is spilled during the crecging
•orocess, resulting in re-suspension of toxins. Because tidai fiusr.ing_
of the harbor takes place on a regular basis, this also offers tne
opportunity for introduction of toxins to the Massachusetts Bay
system." We would suggest that performance standards be set for
dredging operations, especially in the percentage of dredgec materia.
landed in the barge.
In order to insure compliance with both disposal and dredging
requirements, we ask that an independent contractor oversee anc
monitor all chases of the BHXIP. This contractor should a.so ccna^ct
training sessions for all dredge and barge operators, tnrcugr. wr.icr.—
environmental requirements are detailed fcr operators.
Inconsistencies in past disposal operations necessitate sucr.
independent review.
Finally, we note one omission from the DEIS. The designation of
the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary by Congress requires
that all activities, which have the potential to effect sanctuary
»-*esources take place in consultation with the sanctuary manager, ir. _
th-=s case Mr. Brad Barr. We note that there is no reference to sucr.
consultation taking place, nor is there reference to them being sent s
cony of the DEIS fcr comment. This consultation process siicuic. necin
immediately.
We hope that you find these comments helpful. We lock fcrwsra '
insurinc that the harbor is dredged to the point which insures a
viable economy fcr the New England region, while insuring protection
fcr New England's valuable marine resources.
Sincerely,
Has on WejUrtJt-c"h
i rect 03
-------
E4-1
The FEIR/S considered all silts from the BHNIP to be unsuitable for unconfined open
water disposal.
E4-2
Capping would not occur at the MBDS until a demonstration to prove its. efficacy has
been completed. MBDS was selected as a disposal site because of its deep depths and low
energy level. Research (DAMOS) has shown that the material disposed at the MBDS forms a
mound, currents have minimal effect on sediment as it falls through the water column. A
capping demonstration would be discussed with appropriate agencies before it was initiated.
E4-3
DAMOS research has shown, as well as the U.S. EPA MBDS site designation EIS,
that the site does not cause a significant affect to the marine environments. The EIS did not
find significant PCB concern at the MBDS.
The disposal site alternatives analysis has been reevaluated for the FEIR/S (Section 4).
The MBDS is not considered to be a suitable site for the disposal of contaminated silts from
the BHNIP. It could be considered for future maintenance material if capping is successfully
demonstrated to provide long-term isolation of these sediments from the environment in waters
of similar depths.
E4-4
The silt portion of the dredged materials is considered unsuitable for unconfined ocean
disposal. The preferred option is now in-channel disposal, which is considered the least
environmentally damaging practicable alternative.
E4-5
We acknowledge that the CRU accepts the decision to allow the clean parent material
to be dredged for the BHNIP with disposal at MBDS. This material has been tested and has
lower concentrations of parameters of interest than ambient conditions in Massachusetts Bay.
Therefore, its disposal at MBDS should pose no chemical threat to the surrounding ocean
environment.
E4-6
Precautions will be used to minimize environmental impact to Boston Harbor. The
proposed dredging and disposal activities will be performed in accordance with any conditions
established by the permit documents. Please refer to the Dredged Material Management Plan
-------
(Section 5.0) and the rest of the FEIR/S, including the model studies. Also, contaminants are
attached to sediments and do not easily go into solution.
E4-7
Observers may be allowed on board but can not control the operation. The concern
for the Corps is an issue of contract control. The Corps cannot allow dredging contractors to
take orders from others without approval of the Contracting Officer. The Corps inspector on
board can be made aware of any violations. Pre-construction meetings are held regularly with
new dredging contractors. At these meetings environmental permit compliance will be
emphasized.
The FEIR/S has recognized the importance of operator qualifications to the successful
completion of the proposed work. Section 5.8.2.1, Operator Qualifications, addresses the
specific environmentally sensitive procedures which will require exceptional operator skills.
E4-8
The manager of the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary has received a copy
of the DEIR/S. Coordination occurs through the National Marine Fisheries Service.
-------
COASTAL ADVOCACY NETWORK
c/o Massachusetts Bays Program. 100 Cambridge Street. Room 2006.
Boston, MA 02202. yHone: l-800-W7-BAYS.;iu::'.6l7} 727-2734
June 21. 1994
RECEIVED
<4UN 2 1 1994
MEPA
Trudy Coxe. Secretary
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
MEPA Unit
100 Cambridge Streu
Boston, MA 02202
Brink P. Miller. Colonel
U.S. Army Corps of Eng? - ::
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA 02254
Dear Secretary Coxe and Ce.cnsl Miller,
The Coastal Advocacy Network, consisting of local or regional environmental advocacy and
educational non-governmenta! organizations, is dedicated to the protection and celebration of the
marine and coastal resources of Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays. We are writing to express our
common concerns about the draft environmental impact statement/report (DEIS/R) submitted by
Massport and the Army Corps of Engineers for the Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement Project
and Berth Dredging Project (BHNIP).
Our major issues regarding the BHNIP are around the dredging process itself, and the handling and
disposal of sediments, many of which are contaminated with heavy metals, PCBs, PAHs and other
toxic materials.
The Dredging Process
From experiences at Moran Terminal, we learned the dredging process can be very messy. When
debris prevented the clamshell dredge from closing properly, sediments spilled into Boston Harbor.
' We would like to see the entire dredging process monitored by an impartial observer with the
authority to bait dredging that is in violation of permit conditions or otherwise environmentally
dangerous. Also, we would like contingency language placed in any contracts for dredging and
disposal which would require work to halt should problems occur. Also, we would like to see
performance standards for dredging put into the Dredging Management Plan (Section 4.0) rather
than descriptions of equipment and methods. This would ensure a clean and safe dredging process.
fH Handling and Disposal of Contaminated pediments
First, in regard to sediment characterization, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has found that all
maintenance materials (silt), except 160,000 cy from Reserved Channel, and 200,000 cy from berth
areas of Gulf Ofl. Army Base, Conley terminal, and the Edison Barge berth, is unsuitable for
unconfined open water disposal. The U.S. EPA has conversely found that aH. sflt material is
unsuitable for unconfmed open water disposal. It is our opinion that the sediment chemistry and
Th« vww.of th» Couul Advocacr-Necwork do not o«co»*njy npraMnc the** of tfa* «MMcbu»«a» B«y» Program.
'ft
-------
bioaccumulation test results indicate that none of the silts are suitable for open water disposal.
J
r
We are absolutely opposed to any open water disposal - including disposal in borrow pits
of contaminated sediments. We would like to see a portion of the contaminated dredge spoils set
aside for a pilot project that would test the efficacy of alternative technologies in reducing toxiciry
of contaminated sediments. GeneraDy, we would like to see clean sediment used beneficially to
uperade habitats and already contaminated areas, wherever possible. Our goal is to minimize damage
to and exposure of contaminated sediments to the marine environment as much as possible. To that
end. we cannot support any of the preferred disposal alternatives delineated by Massport and the
Corps in the DEIS/R. Therefore, we TTOVId like the final impact statement to reexamine tV
"potentially practicable" disposal alternatives, especially the "shoreline" and "in-channel"
options. —
In addition, we have the following specific "-omments:
- We absolutely will not suppoii ai/y disposal option which would require a waiver
from Section 103(d) of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
(MPRSA), or any other legal waiver. It is currently illegal to dump contaminated
sediments at the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (MBDS) without a waiver. The
Coastal Advocacy Network is particularly concerned about this potential
option and will not under any circumstances condone disposal of
contaminated sediments at the MBDS - including capping with clean
sediments. We oppose any pilot project at this location. The MBDS is adjacent to
the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary, one of our most important natural
resources in Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays and must be protected.
- At this point, the DEIS/R is unclear in its description of the MBDS as a disposal
alternative. At some points it describes the MBDS as a preferred alternative for both
clean and contaminated sediments and at other points it does not. The final impact
statement must be very clear in its prohibition of disposal of contaminated sediments
at the MBDS.
- Disposal sites of both clean and contaminated sediments must be carefully
monitored by an impartial observer(s) with contingency plans, should problems occur.
The costs of this monitoring are not factored into the cosUbenefits analysis of the
disposal options. These costs must be considered in the final impact statement.
- In addition, the costs of using certain disposal alternatives to other resource users
(i.e. fishermen, lobstermen) were not considered in the discussion of disposal
alternatives. These costs should be considered-in the final impact statement.
- The disposal site(s) chosen for the Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement Project
must not be used for future maintenance dredging and other regional dredging
projects until the sediment quality and environmental impact of those projects are
analyzed.
Lastly, Massport and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should be conscious of the other projects
and problems in Boston Harbor in their planning and in their preparation of the final impact
statement. These include: the Harbor Clean-up and the proximity of the sewage outfall to the
-------
proposed sites, tbe Central Artery Tunnel project, the recent designation of SteUwagen Bank as a
National Marine Sanctuary, the existence of highly contaminated - and sometimes radioactive -- 'hot
spots." and a very strained fisheries situation. All of these will affect, and be affected by, the dredging
project. Massport and the Corps should work closely with other affected panics, and the
organizations in the Coastal Advocacy Network, to devise creative solutions to deal with contaminated
sediments that will benefit Boston Harbor as both a natural and an economic resource.
Thank you for the opportunity to make these comments. We look forward to reviewing the final
impact statement.
•
-------
E5-1
Observers may be allowed on board but can not control the operation. The concern
for the Corps is an issue of contract control. The Corps cannot allow dredging contractors to
take orders from others without approval of the Contracting Officer. The Corps inspector on
board can be made aware of any violations. Pre-construction meetings are held regularly with
new dredging contractors. At these meetings environmental permit compliance will be
emphasized.
The FEIR/S has recognized the importance of operator qualifications to the successful
completion of the proposed work. Section 5.8.2.1, Operator Qualifications, addresses the
specific environmentally sensitive procedures which will require exceptional operator skills.
E5-2
The FEIR/S considered all silts from the BHNIP to be unsuitable for unconfined open
water disposal.
E5-3
The silt portion of the dredged materials is considered unsuitable for unconfined ocean
disposal. The preferred option is now in-channel disposal, which is considered the least
environmentally damaging practicable alternative. Thank you for your comment. A dredge
material disposal pilot project is addressed in the FEIS/S., and beneficial use of clean dredged
material is also described.
E5-4
The disposal site alternatives analysis has been reevaluated for the FEIR/S (Section 4).
The MBDS is not considered to be a suitable site for the disposal of contaminated silts from
the BHNIP. It could be considered for future maintenance material if capping is successfully
demonstrated to provide long-term isolation of these sediments from the environment in waters
of similar depths.
E5-5
See response to comment E5-4. MBDS is being considered the preferred alternative
for the disposal of any parent material (clay) that is not used for landfill closure.
E5-6
Observers may be allowed on board but can not control the operation. The concern
for the Corps is an issue of contract control. The Corps cannot allow dredging contractors to
take orders from others without approval of the Contracting Officer. The Corps inspector on
board can be made aware of any violations. Pre-construction meetings are held regularly with
-------
new dredging contractors. At these meetings environmental permit compliance will be
emphasized.
E5-7
The impact to resource users was considered in the disposal site alternatives analysis
(Section 4).
E5-8
All dredging projects are always analyzed for sediment quality and environmental
impacts to ensure compliance with appropriate environmental regulations.
E5-9
The Corps has met with staff from the CA/T and MWRA projects. Massport and the
Corps have also met with several resource groups after the release of the draft EIR/S. These
included lobsterman and fisherman groups.
-------
CLF
Conservation Law Foundation
22 June 1994
Brink P. Miller, Colonel
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA 02254
RE: Draft Environmental Report/Statement for the Boston Harbor Navigation
Improvement and Berth Dredging Project
Dear Colonel Miller:
The Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) would like to thank the U.S.. Army Corps
of Engineers (Corps) for the opportunity to comment on the above-referenced Draft
• Environmental Impact Report/Statement (EIR/S) for the proposed Boston Harbor Navigation
Improvement and Berth Dredging Project (BHNIP).
Co-sponsored by the Corps and the state port authority (Massport), the BHNIP entails
the maintenance and improvement dredging of nearly three million cubic yards of (cy) silt,
clay and rock from federal navigation channels and non-federal berthing areas within Boston
Harbor. Thirty-eight percent of the total material to be dredged is substantially contaminated
with metals, PCBs and PAHs.
While CLF is not opposed to maintaining the commercial viability of Boston Harbor,
we are concerned that a project of the scope of BHNIP could have serious deleterious effects
not only on harbor biota, but also on the larger Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays system.
In addition, CLF believes that, improperly disposed, the large quantity of BHNIP
contaminated sediments poses a human health threat, through the potential contamination of
seafood.
We therefore request that the Corps ensure that all phases of this project be conducted
in a manner that:
o is verifiably environmentally sound
o maximizes mitigation and beneficial use, and
o addresses the potential long-term effects of disposal
-------
Conservation Law Foundation
Before proceeding with our specific comments on the EIR/S, CLF would like to thank
both the Corps and Massport for your efforts to maintain open channels of communication
regarding this project with environmental advocacy and other non-governmental
organizations. Including these groups on the Advisory Committee, and inviting Save the
Harbor/Save the Bay and CLF to present our views "officially" at the public comment
sessions, sends a positive message fo the public about both of your organizations. Early
involvement also enables questions and concerns to be heard earlier in the process, an
obvious advantage when planning a major project such as this one.
Our specific comments appear below.
Extent of Contamination
It is our opinion that the sediment chemistry and bioaccumulation test results indicate
none of the silts should be considered suitable for open ocean disposal under the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) and accompanying regulations. We
therefore support the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) findings on this issue.
The high spatial variability of contamination within the harbor, as evidenced in this and
previous testing, combined with the imprecise nature of the dredging process make it
additionally imperative that attempts to differentiate levels of contamination in the silt be
avoided. (Such attempts, by necessity, would need to be accompanied by additional testing
at the time of dredging to verify that what is actually dredged does not exceed the expected
contamination levels.)
The Boston Harbor silts are substantially more contaminated than the underlying clay. I
Again, since the proposed alternative dredging technologies are not "surgical" in nature, it is
vital that any dredging, of silts close to the clay parent material include overdredging of at
least one to two feet of clay. The six inches recommended in the EIR/S (Sect. 3.4) is i
insufficient to ensure that all the silts are dredged and that none are mixed with the clay and |
subsequently disposed of inappropriately.
The EIR/S acknowledges that there is a difference of opinion between the Corps and
EPA regarding the suitability for open ocean disposal of 360,000 cy of silt from the
Reserved Channel and some berthing areas. In fact, the EIR/S contradicts itself on what is
actually in dispute. (See Sections 2.2.4 and 3.2.)
) PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Conservation Law Foundation
Both sections, as well as Appendix G, are in conflict with a letter from the EPA to
the Corps, dated September 9, 1993, which states that:
o there was agreement among Corps and EPA staff that the Army Base Berths were
unsuitable for unconfined ocean disposal, and,
p a total of 132,000 cy (including material from the Reserved Channel, Conley
Terminal, Gulf Oil, and Boston Edison Barge Berth) were still in dispute regarding
their suitability
Discrepancies such as these should be explained and reconciled in the final EIR/S.
Training and Methodology —
Recent experience at the Moran Terminal highlighted the need for improved training
on the part of'the dredging contractor(s), something that should be addressed in the EIR/S.
Dredge operators and other project personnel will be dealing with'contaminated materials.
Permits should require that project personnel be properly trained and have a thorough
understanding of the environmental permit requirements relevant to each employee's function
prior to beeinning work. Training and permits should also address specific practices, such as
avoiding dragging a dredge over harbor sediments and reducing the speed at which the
bucket fs raised and lowered through the water column, that can lessen environmental
disruption. —-
Dredging Equipment —
CLF finds Section 4.1 of the EIR/S, the rationale for the selection of the
recommended dredging method, to be inadequate. Although some possible criteria for
comparing different types of dredging equipment are listed, no detailed comparison is
actually made. The selection of the mechanical dredge as the single solution for this project
is apparently arrived at through an incomplete, qualitative analysis.
CLF believes that within reasonable economic parameters, dredging equipment should
be selected based on its ability to effectively minimize resuspension and release of
contaminants into the marine environment, not simply on its easy availability. We urge the
Corps to require a more in-depth analysis of the possible dredging technologies; and to
include specific equipment requirements and explicit performance criteria in Corps-permits.
I PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Conservation Law Foundation
Even the EIR/S recommendation to use a "modified, environmental, bucket" is too
generic. More specific performance specifications should be included in the document,
including more thorough design and performance characteristics. The Cable Arm 100E,
manufactured by L.B. Tanker Inc. of Pickering, Ontario, is one possible candidate for an
environmental clamshell dredge. This dredge has been extensively studied by Environment
Canada as part of its Great Lakes program, and was found to be not only useful for dealing
with contaminated sediments, but also economical. A sensor on the Cable Arm 100E notifies
the operator of incomplete bucket closure, and a compressible seal around the mouth can
accommodate small debris without letting sediments escape. Furthermore, its basic shape
and light weight are geared to minimize extraneous physical impact to the bottom and
resulting sediment resuspension.
The existence of pneumatic dredges is not mentioned in Section 4 of the EIR/S. Yet,
they have been extensively and successfully used in Europe and Japan to remove
contaminated sediments. Pneumatic dredges have a major advantage over hydraulic dredges:
the dredged material is much closer to the sediment's in situ density. (The high water
content resulting from hydraulic dredging is listed in the EIR/S as a major reason for
discounting this type of dredge.) Papers published by the Center for Dredging Studies at
Texas A&M University classify "oozer"-type pneumatic pumps as having significantly higher
productivity than a modified (environmental) clamshell dredge, while maintaining low
sediment resuspension. A more thorough analysis of other dredging technologies, such as
the "oozer" dredge, must be included in the Final EIR/S. __
Verification
Past dredging projects, including but not limited to the Moran Terminal dredging,
have encountered difficulties in successfully meeting permit conditions aimed at protecting
environmental resources. For example, when testing different types of dredges in the mid-
1980's, the Corps identified a tendency for dredge operators to overload the receiving scow
in order to maximize economic benefits. In theory, this may be prohibited by permit
requirements. In practice, due to lack of training, perceived need for expediency or other
reasons, overloading has happened and has led to the release of contaminants back into the
water column.
Another example is the practice known as "short-dumping," or releasing a load of
dredged material from a barge before reaching the designated disposal site. In the past, this
was regularly witnessed by area fishermen. The Corps inspector program, whereby a
Corps-certified observer accompanies barges to a disposal site, has been a step in the right
direction. However, it is our understanding that under this program, the observer is paid
directly by the dredging contractor.
I PRIMED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Conservation Law Foundation
CLF believes there should be a trained, impartial observer not only during all
disposal operations, but also during dredging, blasting, dewatering, and other project
activities.- The observer must:
o be knowledgeable about dredging, disposal, threatened or endangered species and
marine mammals that frequent the area, and navigation
o be familiar with all applicable local', state, and federal permits, orders of conditions,
etc., especially environmental protection and mitigation requirements
o have the authority to halt dredging or disposal that is in violation of permit conditions
or otherwise environmentally dangerous, and notify the relevant agency(ies)
o be the employee of an independent entity, i.e., one that is not a project .proponent (the
proponent may ultimately be responsible for observer costs, but the hiring and payroll
of observers should be handled by a separate entity)
We also support the recommendation in Section 4.3.5 that in addition to an obseryer,
an electronic recording device be employed to confirm the location of the scow at disposal
time. • ~~
Disposal Sites
*«™
CLF does not support the use of any of the five preferred disposal alternatives listed
in the Executive Summary of the EIR/S. We urge that the Corps require the use of disposal
options that best facilitate the' confinement of contaminants and that are near-shore or upland,
rather than in Massachusetts Bay.
We believe the list of possible combinations of disposal sites hi the document should
include a more in-depth and quantitative description of the process and assumptions used to
arrive at the set of combinations listed in Section 3.4 of the EIR/S. What other combinations
were examined and why were they discarded, specifically? The brief description of the
factors considered is inadequate. Other statements need to be more fully described as well.
For example, how was the minimum additional $10 million cost for using multiple disposal
sites rather than a single site arrived at? __
Any disposal site used as part of the BHNIP, whether it be land-based or aqueous,
should be actively managed and monitored both short- and long-term to ensure that the
contaminants remain confined. We believe that the cost of monitoring is far outweighed by
I PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Conservation Law Foundation
the potential for damage to the marine ecosystem, fishing, recreation, and public health, if
monitoring and site management is inadequate.
CLF urges the Corps to require that a long-term monitoring plan, and contingency
planning in case of contaminant release, be included as part of the Final EIR/S. An added
benefit of monitoring is that providing valuable information on the performance of the site(s)
may make it easier to choose sites and disposal methods in future -dredging projects. _
Use of sites that are already contaminated are of particular interest to CLF, as
capping with clean sediments should have a positive effect on the locale. In addition, sites
between piers or in small channels lend themselves not only to the confinement of dredged
sediments, but also to the use of mitigation techniques such as silt curtains (assuming other
factors, e.g., currents, are appropriate). It is unfortunate that shoreline facilities (such as
Mystic Pier and Amstar) alone are.insufficient to contain all the silty material. CLF
nevertheless encourages the further study of these sites for a portion of the silty material.
In-Channel disposal (the only alternative besides the preferred disposal alternatives
listed as "practicable"), and some of the "potentially practicable" options, such as subtidal
disposal at Little Mystic Channel, are attractive disposal possibilities.
We have questions about these sites, however. For example, the EIR/S mentions the
resuspension resulting from effects such as "prop wash" on existing contaminated sediments
in the harbor. Yet, to what extent will ship traffic, currents and storms affect the capping
material at the In-Channel site? This issue (and, indeed, a more in-depth characterization of
all "potentially practicable" sites) should be more fully addressed prior to making the final
disposal choices. The analysis and rationale should be included in the Final EIR/S.
The geotextile bags briefly mentioned in the EIR/S may be useful in reducing the
dispersal of contaminants during aqueous disposal. We view these bags as a possible
additional environmental safeguard, and suggest that this topic be further explored.
Due to the state's-solid waste crisis, landfill use should be limited to daily cover or
final closure material (see "Beneficial Use," below). In addition, the Moran Terminal
dewatering problems need to be fully understood and appropriate steps should be taken to
ensure that future dewatering efforts are not similarly hindered.
Although listed as a "potentially practicable alternative," the use of treatment
technologies is discounted due mainly to the cost involved with treating the large volume of
material in this project. We strongly suggest that the Corps and Massport demonstrate
I PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Conservation Law Foundation
national leadership in this area by using one or more of these technologies (some of which
may not have been listed in the EIR/S) on a portion of the contaminated materials. Such a
relatively small-scale experience would no doubt be useful in future dredging projects.
In general, disposal that will result in the mounding of sediments on the ocean bottom
is not an acceptable solution. Maintaining the original bathymetry and restoring the native
surficial materials should help keep capping material in place, if a site is depositional. Open
ocean disposal implies some uncertainty about exactly where the sediments will end up. The
wide area (referred to by the Corps as an "apron") of sediments common around a disposal
mound can require unexpectedly large quantities of capping material for total coverage.
Finally, this form of disposal has the highest potential for the cap and underlying
contaminants to be eroded over time.
CLF is strongly opposed to the dumping of contaminated sediments at the Mass. Bay
Disposal Site (MBDS), with or without capping. We would actively oppose a request by the
Corps for a waiver under Section 103(d) of the Marine, Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act to proceed with disposal of contaminated sediments at the MBDS.
Both the EPA and the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office (CZM) have
made it clear that contaminated sediments should not be disposed of at the MBDS. The
EPA's formal site designation for MBDS clearly states that, until capping is -adequately
demonstrated at the site, no contaminated sediments are to be dumped there. (Any proposed
demonstration program would have to be carefully planned and undergo extensive agency and
public review; the length of time required to complete such a program precludes
consideration for this project.)
There are many inconsistencies throughout the EIR/S regarding the MBDS and how it
is being viewed by project proponents. One example: If there must be a demonstration of
capping at MBDS prior to any disposal of contaminated materials, and the timeframe to
accomplish this makes it essentially impossible to use the site for the BHNIP (Section 3.3.2),
why is MBDS one of the "practicable" and preferred alternatives for BHNIP silt (See Table
ES-la)?
Capping, or covering contaminated sediments with a layer of clean sediments, has
been used in the U.S. with mixed results. Although the Corps is very supportive of capping.
some caps created in the early 1980's have not yet fully recolonized, indicating the possible
long-term migration of contaminants. Recent experience at the Mud Dump Site in the New
York/New Jersey area further confirms that Corps expectations and projections regarding the
fate of ocean-disposed sediments, are unrealistic. Instead of the expected one million cubic
I PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Conservation Law Foundation
yards of capping material, a total of 2.5 million cy was actually required to cover the
contaminated sediments, which were spread over a much wider area than the Corps had
predicted.
The depth (approximately 100 meters) of the MBDS makes it a particularly poor
candidate for capping. There is no substantial experience with capping at these depths.
Successfully predicting where the sediments and capping material will end up will prove even
more difficult than in New York. The large scale of the project means that, even under the
best of circumstances, contaminated sediments would be exposed to the marine environment
of Stellwagen Basin for long periods of time. This is not the sort of chance we are willing to
take with Massachusetts Bay, especially given its location adjacent to the Stellwagen Bank
National Marine Sanctuary, its importance to the region's fishermen, and the fact that the
area is frequented by a number of threatened and endangered species.
In addition to capping, the Corps has stated that, generally, approximately 5% of
ocean-disposed sediments will not reach the bottom, but will be dispersed in the water
column. For the BHNIP, this amounts to an additional load to Massachusetts Bay waters of
at least 65,000 cy of contaminated sediments if ocean disposal is used. We believe the
atypical depths of the MBDS may result in an even higher load, as additional sediments
remain in the water column. =
One of the other "preferred alternatives" in the EIR/S is Boston Lightship (BL). BL
is not currently a designated disposal site. Its waters are heavily used by commercial
fishermen. In addition, radioactive and other wastes have .previously been dumped in the
area, although a thorough mapping of the wastes has not been completed. Use of the BL site
for BHNIP disposal would be irresponsible, given the lack of data on the location and extent
of present contamination. Once the area is better understood, disposal of sediments at BL
may be a way to confine the contaminants already in place.
Like the other "preferred" sites (besides the Spectacle Island CAD), the Meisburger 2
and 7 sites are relatively far from shore. The disposal of contaminated sediments at these
locations would pose a significant increase in the loading of contaminants to Massachusetts
Bay should there be any problems with the cap, particularly since the surface areas involved
are large. The sites are also very close to the MWRA outfall. Since the outfall location was
chosen for its ability to disperse effluent, the selection of such nearby sites for dredged
material disposal is questionable. In. addition, both projects may find it more difficult .to
interpret the results of monitoring efforts. .
~l
I PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Conservation Law Foundation
The Spectacle Island CAD area is also used by fishermen and lobstermen. According
to a paper by Harley Knebel at USGS, Wood's Hole, the area immediately to the east of
Spectacle Island, where disposal is proposed, appears to be erosional in nature. The shallow
(~ 9-foot) waters at the site are also susceptible to tidal and storm activity. This is especially
of concern because of the relatively large surface area proposed for disposal (probably -45
acres). Should a problem occur with migration of contaminants, exposure of these
substances to aquatic life could be substantial.
Mitigation
The BHNIP EIR/S does not adequately address mitigation and assumes that the only
impacts of this project are short-term and ephemeral. We disagree. While the navigation
improvement project is commercially critical to the Port of Boston, the project does preclude
or compromise a number of uses of these waters that might flourish in the absence of
commercial traffic. Moreover, continued utilization of Boston Harbor for commercial
traffic, as well as spills and accidents associated with marine cargo .shipment and distribution
will result in new contaminant burdens for marine sediments in the harbor that will need to —-
be managed in the future. Finally, there will be unavoidable short-term losses associated
with the dredging process itself, including a potential for additional human exposure to
resuspended pollutants through fish or direct skin contact. Besides the mitigation measures
suggested elsewhere in these comments, we ask that the following points be considered.
CLF supports the suggestion hi the EIR/S that any existing tidal or subtidal habitat
that is lost as a result of inshore filling associated with the project be replaced on a 2 to 1
basis and managed until it is reestablished.
We make two additional suggestions that should be incorporated into this project in
order to mitigate the unavoidable short- and long-term impacts from the BHNIP.
First, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Massachusetts Port Authority, and Corps
should investigate environmental dredging of contaminated sediments in areas that are outside
the boundaries, but adjacent to, the BHNIP. The Corps is authorized under the Water
Resources Development Act of 1992 to Underwrite this work with a 50% federal cost share.
The upper reaches of the Chelsea River and some of the areas of the Mystic River
receive extensive public use, both with direct contact from children using these waters for
swimming and play and indirectly through fish consumption. An effort should be made to
determine the extent of contamination in these areas, and a mitigation project should be
developed and carried out that removes contamination and possibly even encourages
I PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Conservation Law Foundation
10
recreational use. Such an effort would be a meaningful exchange for the poor communities
that are forced to find their recreational and fishing opportunities in these contaminated
waters. J—
The second mitigation measure we suggest is also forward-looking and relates to
source control. Massport is not only the port authority, but also one of the principal
property owners in the harbor area. Massport should develop a non-point source control
program that covers its properties as well as the private terminals that are being served by
this project.
The control of pollutants from Deer Island will represent a substantial contribution to
reducing future contamination problems but needs to be combined with a non-point source
control program on pollution from port terminals and Massport properties. This mitigation
measure will not only reduce the level of contamination that we experience in the future but
also increase the life of the disposal facilities that are developed for this project. _
Beneficial Use
b^M.
CLF applauds the suggestion in the EIR/S to put dredged sediments to beneficial use.
However, substantial work needs to be done to turn this theory into practice. We
recommend that, if they have not already done so, the Corps, Massport and representatives
from the state Executive Office for Environmental Affairs immediately begin formal
discussions to help identify and contact communities and sites that could benefit from clean
dredged materials. State agencies such as the Department of Environmental Protection and
the CZM office are the best candidates for a much-needed beneficial use "clearinghouse,"
and this project is an excellent place to start.
!
With 114 out of 122 landfills in Massachusetts scheduled to close by 1996 (Section
3.3.1), one possibility that should be studied is the use of project clay and silts not only as
daily cover, but also as final closure material.
Planning related to beneficial use should be completed prior to the release of the Final
EIR/S, and specific recommendations should be included in the document.
Cost/Benefit Calculations
CLF believes that federal and local sponsor cost-benefit analyses undertaken as pan of
this project should be realistic, and should be included in the EIR/S. Costs such as
reimbursement to fishermen for lost opportunity and equipment damage as well as potential
I PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Conservation Law Foundation
11
environmental harm including monitoring of disposal sites, clean-up expenses from leakage
of contaminants into marine waters or the contamination of seafood, and its likely effects on
other segments of the economy should be factored into the cost-benefit calculations.
Current cost estimates in the EIR/S, especially-for relatively distant sites such as
MBDS, BL and the Meisburger 2 and 7, improperly underestimate the true cost associated
with disposal at these sites by failing to include monitoring and management costs. (MBDS
receives some monitoring under the DAMOS program, although these efforts may not be
sufficient for the long term management of disposed BHNIP sediments.)
CLF is also interested in understanding on a more quantitative basis the benefits of
this project for the regional economy and for the local sponsor. Section 4.5.5 of the EIR/S
touches on this topic too briefly. A detailed analysis is essential when weighing the
environmental versus economic factors of the project.
Massport officials have said that no additional vessel traffic will result from the
BHNIP The EIR/S states that the volume of cargo through the harbor is not expected to
increase due to this project. In the past, when asked about the possible financial losses due
to current harbor conditions, the "passing over" of Boston Harbor by an undetermined
number of ships was mentioned. To our knowledge, however, details have not been made
publicly available. How much additional revenue to the regional economy and to Massport
will result from the project? Conversely, how many dollars will be lost yearly if BHMP is
not implemented, or is delayed? What are the costs of "lightering" and how often does it
occur now? A large organization such as Massport must have produced an assessment of
costs and benefits in order to justify the project internally. This information should be
included in the EIR/S.
Public Participation/Community Issues |
The Corps and Massport must ensure that all stakeholders, (e.g., fishermen,
community representatives) are encouraged and have ample opportunity to state their
concerns regarding the BHNIP- and that their concerns are properly addressed during
project planning and implementation.
Conclusion
CLF sees the BHNIP not as an isolated project, but as part of a larger .question that
must be addressed at state, regional and federal levels: the management of contaminated
sediments. The problem of how to safely dispose of dredged contaminated sediments has no
easy solutions at the present time. This makes dredging projects such as BHNIP more
I PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Conservation Law Foundation
12
complicated than they might otherwise be. Nevertheless, until improved treatment
technologies are in wide use, it will be the responsibility of state and federal agencies to
ensure that existing environmental laws and regulations related to contaminated sediments are
adhered to. .
We thank you again for the opportunity to submit these comments.
Sincerely,
Grace I. Perez
• Science Fellow
Peter Shelley
Senior Attorney
I PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
E6-1
Massport and the Corps have taken the conservative approach that all of the silt will
be treated as unsuitable for unconfmed open water disposal.
E6-2
As discussed in the DEIR (pg 4-6) the silt dredging will be conducted with a modified
(environmental) bucket having small or no teeth. This type of equipment is necessary to
optimize the containment of silt during the dredging process. This equipment is very effective
in removing silt and other unconsolidated material but is not capable of penetrating underlying
clay to any appreciable depth. For this reason the DEIR states that the silt portion of the
dredging will cut no more than approximately 6 inches into the underlying clay. This dredge
method will effectively remove the more contaminated silt and expose the cleaner clay, sand
and rock which will be removed by other equipment and methods more suitable to those
materials. Overdredging the silt into clay by one to two feet (as suggested by CLF) will not be
possible using a "silt" dredge bucket. Additionally, since the clay is uncontaminated, it would
not be prudent to include any large amounts of clay to the silt volume due to the expected
high costs of disposal of the silt fraction for the BHNIP.
E6-3
The FEIR/S considers all silt from the BHNIP to be unsuitable for unconfined open
water disposal.
E6-4
The BHNIP EIR/S preparation team agrees with this comment. The experience gained
from the Moran Terminal dredging project (as well as from others) is valuable in recognizing
potential problems that may be encountered during the BHNIP. This is particularly applicable
to the dredging of contaminated silt where the risk of environmental impacts is greatest.
Please refer to the Dredged Material Management Plan (Section 5.0) for detail on the dredging
and disposal operation. Experienced dredge contractors are likely to bid a large project such
as the BHNIP. Environmental conditions will be discussed with the dredging contractor
during the pre-construction meeting.
E6-5
See response to E6-4. The DEIR/S discusses the three commonly used type of
dredges - hopper, hydraulic and mechanical. Other types of dredges, such as the pneumatic
dredges, have limited production capacity and/or experimental and not proven for a large job
such as the BHNIP. These types of dredged are unfamiliar to the majority of contractors and
would not be considered the primary dredge.
10
-------
E6-6
The use of a Corps inspector on board the dredge decreases the risk of overloading
and "short-dumping". No known cases of "short-dumping" are known to have occurred in
several years. As the preferred disposal alternative is in-channel, concerns about "short-
dumping" are no longer a problem. A trained impartial observer would be allowed to notify
the Corps inspector of a violation but would not have the authority to control dredging and
disposal operations. The Corps can not fund observers other than a Corps inspector. Agencies
or groups interested in having an independent observer would be required to hire the person or
accept volunteers. All observers may be required to undergo training in order to board
equipment. Electronic recording device would not be needed if the material is staying in-
channel.
E6-7
The disposal site alternatives analysis presented in Section 4.0 of the FEIR/S concludes
that In-channel disposal is the preferred alternative.
E6-8
The revised disposal site alternatives analysis is presented in Section 4.0 of the FEIR/S
and includes a discussion of combinations of sites.
E6-9
The Corps's DAMOS program, would monitor the disposal site for physical,
biological, and chemical parameters, as needed. Coordination with other agencies would
occur, as appropriate. Contingency plans are part of the Dredged Material Disposal Plan in
Section 5.0 of the final EIR/S.
E6-10
The revised disposal site alternatives analysis (FEIR/S Section 4) concludes that, of the
aquatic sites, the in-channel and the partial-fill shoreline scenarios are the least
environmentally damaging. The upland disposal alternatives are also among the least
environmentally damaging.
E6-11
The potential for resuspension of sediments after disposal at each of the potential
aquatic disposal sites has been analyzed (Appendices F and G, Attachment 1 and Section 4)
for the FEIR/S.
11
-------
E6-12
The BHNIP team has reviewed available information on the use of geotextile bags for
disposal of contaminated sediments. At this time, there continue to be structural problems
with the use of bags that are large enough to be used efficiently for a project of this
magnitude. We have worked closely with regulatory agencies to identify other control
methods that would minimize release of the silts to the environment during and after disposal.
After further research, geotextile bags may prove to be effective for this purpose in the future.
E6-13
Policy BWP-94-037, Reuse and Disposal of Contaminated Soils at Landfills, makes
disposal of dredged material in landfills unacceptable if reuse, recycling, destruction or
detoxification are feasible alternatives. The impracticability of dewatering 1.32 million cubic
yards of silty dredged material for reuse as daily cover or contouring material (or transport as
waste) has resulted in the elimination of landfill reuse options. However, beneficial uses of
the clean dredged material is presented in the FEIR/S.
E6-14
The Corps Boston Harbor project funds can not be used for a demonstration project.
However the Corps is committed to moving forward in resolving issues surrounding the
disposal of contaminated material. Refer to Section 3.0 of the FEIR/S for discussion of
treatment technologies investigated.
E6-15
The disposal site alternatives analysis has been re-evaluated for the FEIR/S (Section
4). The MBDS is not considered to be a suitable site for the disposal of contaminated silts
from the BHNIP. It could be considered for future maintenance material only if capping is
successfully demonstrated to provide long-term isolation of these sediments from the
environment in waters of similar depths. .
E6-16
The U.S. EPA site designation study for the MBDS did not predict a level higher than
5% of the material leaving the site. Studies conducted for the MWRA and Mass Bays
Program show that this material is minor component of the Mass Bays system. Since MBDS
is not being considered for disposal of the silt to be dredged for the BHNIP, the amount of silt
potentially lost to the water column during disposal is not an issue.
E6-17
Boston Lightship has not been selected as the preferred alternative for disposal of silt
from the BHNIP (Section 4.0, FEIR/S). Any future use would require coordination with EPA
regarding the proported drums of industrial and radioactive waste at this site. Disposal of
12
-------
dredged material at this site to cover these drums may benefit the environment of this area.
The EPA should play an active role in researching the locations and environmental status of
any hazardous materials at the BLS to determine whether it would be best to leave as is,
remove, or cover in place.
E6-18
choice.
The Meisburger sites are no longer under consideration as the project's LEDPA
E6-19
The biological resources and the physical environment at the Spectacle Island CAD
site were reexamined for the FEIR/S. The revised disposal site alternatives analysis (Section
4) concluded that this site was not the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative
for disposal of the BHNIP silt.
E6-20
Mitigation is discussed in Sections 5 and 6 of the FEIR/S. The project is not
anticipated to change the number of ships coming into the harbor.
CLF asserts that the continued commercial shipping in Boston Harbor will result in
additional marine contamination because of spills and accidents. CLF further suggests that
there are other uses of the Harbor that are compromised by the current commercial shipping.
It is important to note that there have been no major spills in Boston Harbor in part because of
the vigilance of the Coast Guard, harbor pilots, and Harbor advocacy groups. In addition in
over five years, there has not been a spill resulting from collision (per USCG Boston-Marine
Safety Office). It is also important to recognize that spills occur not just from tankers and
container ships, but also smaller vessels including tugboats, barges and fishing boats and
recreational craft. These latter vessels would continue to use the Harbor even if no BHNIP
were undertaken. The region will continue to need petroleum products which are most
shipped over the water. Lightering and use of barges will continue in Boston Harbor if there
is no maintenance dredging. Thus, the Harbor is not necessarily saved from spills by virtue of
closing it to larger vessels. Further, closing the Harbor to commercial shipping, other than
petroleum products, could diminish the efforts of Harbor advocacy groups which currently
benefit from the resources and ideas of port operators.
E6-21
Water quality models showing the distribution of contaminants during the dredging
process are presented in Appendix F. It is unlikely that contaminants released from the
operations will exceed chronic -water quality criteria. Therefore, effects of exposure to biota
would be undetectable.
13
-------
E6-22
In-channel disposal has been identified (Section 4.0) as the Least Environmentally
Damaging Practicable Alternative, as well as the preferred alternative.
The phrasing of this comment appears to exaggerate the DEIR/S commitment to
mitigation. Nowhere in the DEER/S does it suggest that BHNIP proposes to replace any lost
tidal or subtidal habitat on a 2 to 1 basis. What is does state in Section 3.10 is "Loss of
subtidal or intertidal habitat could be replaced with intertidal habitat, salt marsh or eelgrass
plantings."
BHNIP commits to investigating compensatory mitigation , if required. However, as
stated in Section 6.4.4, the BHNIP, as designed and with in-channel disposal, provides
significant enhancement of project specific principal valuable functions (see Appendix K). As
such, no compensatory resource mitigation should be required under either federal or state
wetland regulations.
As local sponsor, Massport is willing to work with state resource agencies to identify
resource enhancement opportunities in the Harbor area. As examples, these can include:
1. Assisting the Metropolitan District Commission (MDC) in their on-going
efforts in coastal resource restoration in the Boston Harbor ACECs. The MDC is currently
planning projects at the Rumney Marsh and Neponset River ACECs.
2. Massport is committed to increasing the number of vessel sewage pump-out
facilities in the Harbor area and will work with the appropriate agencies on specific details.
3. Massport will also consider coordinating with the Department of
Environmental Management (DEM) to identify potential areas of cooperation and assistance in
DEM resource and facility enhancement projects on Harbor islands.
4. Massport will work with state and local resource agencies to identify potential
resource enhancement options such as supporting the development of an "urban fishing park"
through rehabilitation of water access structures (e.g., boat ramp in Little Mystic Channel) to
enhance public use and access to functional recreational fishing areas.
E6-23
Although the Corps has the authority to participate in environmental dredging, this
program has not been well funded. The Corps supports environmental dredging of
contaminated sediments outside the channel limits. As there have been many concerns
regarding the disposal of contaminated sediment from the dredging of Boston Harbor, it may
be prudent to continue coordination with the Commonwealth agencies and other groups to
resolve when, how, and where disposal of contaminated sediments can occur, considering the
large amount of dredged material this would generate. Also the sources of pollution to the
harbor would need to be reduced to make this program effective. This may be possible in the
future when a containment site for contaminated sediments is available. In addition, this
program would require a cost-sharing partner willing to provide the other 50% of the cost of
this study.
14
-------
E6-24
Source control is an important aspect of reducing the contaminant load to Boston
Harbor. Several mechanisms are currently in place to address this issue. As noted by the
CLF, the upgrade of the Deer Island facilities will continue to substantially improve water
quality in Boston Harbor. The following table, summarizing information contained in Alber
and Chan (1994; MWRA Report 94-1) indicates that even though discharge of the sludge has
ceased, the MWRA outfall is still the major source of most of Boston Harbor's contaminant
load:
PERCENT CONTRIBUTION OF VARIOUS SOURCES
TO THE BOSTON HARBOR CONTAMINANT LOAD
Source
MWRA Effluent
CSO Flow
Stoimwater
Logan Airport
Tributaries*
Atmospheric
Groundwater
Other NPDES
Flow
39
<1
2
<1
48
8
3
<1
Cu
84
1
3
1
7
1
2
<1
Pb
63
7
ND
ND
23
6
1
ND
Zn
78
2
11
1
4
2
1
<1
PAH1
94
<1
<1
1
5
<1
ND
ND
PAH 2
31
1
7
ND
59
2
ND
ND
PAH 3
29
3
22
ND
36
11
ND
ND
N
89
<1
1
<1
7
2
1
ND
P
94
<1
1
<1
4
<1
<1
ND
BOD5
91
1
1
1
7
ND
ND
ND
TSS
88
2
2
<1
9
ND
ND
<1
Above the Charles River and Amelia Earhart Dams.
ND = No Data
PAH 1 = 2-methylnaphthalene
PAH 2 = pyrene
PAH 3 = benzo(a)pyrene
Alber and Chan (1994) conclude with the following comments:
Despite the above reductions, effluent discharged from MWRA plants are still a major
source of all conventional contaminants, metals, and nutrients examined. The exception is
individual PAH compounds, -which have large runoff and non-point sources. The next big
change in contaminant loading to the Harbor will come once the treatment plant outfall is
moved. When the new effluent outfall tunnel is completed, the amount of contaminants
entering the Harbor will decrease dramatically. This should result in a major improvement in
the water quality of Boston Harbor.
15
-------
Boston Edison, a project beneficiary, is the only other NPDES permitted discharge
directly entering the Harbor. Massport and other project beneficiaries are presumably
accounted for in the CSO estimates, since if they discharged stormwater directly to the Harbor
they would have an NPDES permit. Plans currently underway by MWRA to address CSOs
(Short-term System Optimization Plan and Long-term CSO Control Strategy) should also
contribute to source reductions over time. Under the Clean Water Act (40 CFR 122.26),
stormwater discharges to CSOs (or municipal sanitary systems) do not require a NPDES
permit However, these discharges may be subject to pretreatment requirements if the system
operator (MWRA) requires them.
E6-25
The Department of Environmental Protection has been invaluable in providing
regulatory information, technical data, and guidance to identify specific beneficial uses of
dredged material generated by BHNIP and other projects. The practicable beneficial uses
identified for this project are described in the FEIR/S.
E6-26
In-channel disposal should result in no loss of any fisherman's equipment or
livelihood. As the material will be placed in the same area, no additional impact is
anticipated, based on water quality modelling.
E6-27
CLF asks about the financial gains or losses sustained with and without dredging.
There are assumptions which must be incorporated in any answer to this question. If one
assumes that the dredging will be completed in 1998, and that the benefits of the dredging will
be reflected after that date, then the starting point for calculating benefits is the cargo forecast
to move through the Port in 1998. Massport projects cargo tonnage in 1998 to be 1,514,200
tons which yields about $1.73 billion in economic value to the region including 13,000 jobs.
If one assumes that dredging facilitates ships' transit in the Harbor and that tonnage grows 3%
per year, the total new cargo volume will be over 245,000 tons at the end of five years.
Massport calculates that the value of each ton of cargo to the region is over $1120. At the
end of five years, the economic benefit of the additional tonnage will be $275 million (dollars
are not discounted).
Alternatively, if the BHNIP does not go forward, large container ships will have
increasing difficulty transiting the Port of Boston. It is important to note that even barges will
have difficulty transiting the Harbor under the No-Build option since barges are getting wider
and deeper. Thus, barging is not the solution for bringing containerized cargo into a Harbor
with insufficient draft. Further, the need to transfer cargo to barges and the slower travel time
for barges is a deterrent to shipping containers in this manner. News of the No-Build decision
in Boston Harbor will affect the decisions of shipping lines and shippers, and will likely
decrease the volume of cargo coming into the Port. Once the decline in tonnage begins, it will
continue to the detriment of Port operations. Using the 1998 base year with tonnage of
1,514,200 as a base, and assuming a tonnage decline of 5% annually, the total tonnage
16
-------
reduction by 2003 would be 342,569. This represents $392 million in economic benefit lost to
the region. Thus the decision to dredge, and allow today's fleet of container ships to transit
Boston Harbor easily, or not to dredge and reduce the cargo moving through the Port of
Boston has economic consequences ranging from a benefit of $275 million to a lost
opportunity of $392 million over a five year period from 1999 through 2003. This is for
containerized cargo alone.
CLF further asks about the cost of lightering. The latter is impossible to quantify
because the information is privileged. Each company has its own method of assessing costs.
Thus, Massport cannot total the figures given by individual companies to identify a "port"
lightering cost, since the figure given by each company may include more than the pure cost
to lighter.
Massport projects that the gross revenues accruing to the Authority from 245,000
additional tons of cargo moving through the Port over the same five year period will be
approximately $3.5 million.
E6-28
Several meetings were held with lobsterman and fishermen to obtain their views on the
project. These concerns are displayed in Appendix B of the final EIR/S.
17
-------
C
GreenWorld Inc.
Suite 193
510 Commonwealth Avenue
Boston. MA 022 15
REQUEST FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL EIR/EIS ON VESSEL IMPACT ON \\ HALES IN
REG ARD I TO THE MEPA REVIEW OF THE BOSTON HARBOR NAVIGATION
' PROJECT (EOE A
TO- '
Trudy Coxe. Secretary
Executive Office Of Environmental Affairs
100 Cambridge Street
Boston. MA 02202
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR/EIS
PROJECT (EOEA # 9865 )
June 20,1994
. BOSTON HARBOR NAVIGATION
RE:
DATE:
Trudy.
Having reviewed the Draft EIR/EIS on the proposal by Massachusetts Port Authority and
the Army Cor|s of Engineers to deepen the present ship channels m Boston Harbor, and to make_
otheVnavigatSn improvements, I discovered a major error of omission in the scope of the
revkw The WA/ACOE completely failed to review the environmental impact of the very thmg
Sanhe p^j« "being done to accommodate - ship traffic into and out of Boston Harbor.
Ship traffic has a devastating impact on the marine environment Ship collisions routinely
kill endangered marine wildlife. Pollution from the discharging of plastic matenal and debris
from sS seais a major source of coastal pollution. The number one cause of death for the
worid's most endangered species of whale - the Northern Right whale - is ship stnkes. Yet.
the DEIR/DEIS fails completely to even attempt to address this issue. _
A review of the environmental impact of any project can be divided into two areas of
potential impact; the effects of the construction (or alteration) of a ^™»«g* g£en S"e
and then the Ions term consequence of the existence of that physical feature Therefore, the
Svi^nSalS^of the construction of a dam consists of a review of the construction of not
only the dam itself but also a review of the effects on the environment of the operation ot the
dam and the creation of a massive lake behind it.
*••-:'
' Concernins the
, the building of the "dam" (the dredging of ship
"no one ever told us that an analysis of sh.p traffic was to be included.
-------
The survival of the Northern Right whale is now in question. The elimination of ship
strikes on this species may be the only thins that can prevent an otherwise imminent extinction
for this species of whales. All ship traffic into or out of Boston Harbor either crosses'areas that
have been proposed to be designated as critical habitat for the Northern Right whale (publication
of the final rule in the Federal Register is imminent) by the National Marine Fisheries Service or
other areas that are within the Stellwagon's Bank Marine Sanctuary. The United States is the
world's number one whale killing nation, mostly because of kills caused by ship traffic in U. S.
coastal waters.
There is no simple solution to the failure to include an analysis of the impact of ship
traffic supported by this project on the marine environment and on species of endangered marine
wildlife. A complete analysis — and consideration of mitigation measures — would be extenshe
and generate a document equal to the present DEIR/DEIS. The very subject would have to be
scoped out to make sure it would be adequately addressed. Areas of impact should include strikes
on marine wildlife, chemical pollution from vessels, adequacy of law enforcement, plastic
pollution from ships, chances of accidents (e. g. oil spills in Massachusetts Bay), etc..
Therefore. I request that a supplemental EIR/EIS be done of the impact on the marine
environment of the vessel traffic resulting from this project. I request that you recall your scoping
committee and have it prepare a scope on the effects of vessel impacts for a supplemental
EIR/EIS. I requests that the MPA/ACOE be then given the scope and requested to prepare a draft
supplemental EIR/EIS on the impact of vessel traffic resulting from the Boston Harbor
Navigation Project. ~~
' The death of a single Northern Right whale has been determined by the federal Northern
Right whale recovery team to be unacceptable. Unless the MPA/ACOE figure a way to insure
that no ship going into or coming out of Boston Harbor will ever again kill a Northern Right
whale. Northern Right whales will be absolutely threatened with extinction by this project. If the
MPA/ACOE refuse'to properly review and find a way to eliminate this threat, no federal court
will allow them to hold any federal or state permit to conduct this project.
This request has been made under the provision of the Massachusetts Administrative
Procedures Act and regulations adopted to implement it. Your formal reply in writing is expected
and required by statute. We wish to be informed of every meeting conducted to review and make
decisions on this petition.
I await your reply. '
Strafern
National Campaign Director
-------
E7-1
The proposed project is not expected to increase ship traffic into and out of Boston
Harbor. The purpose of the project is to reduce tidal delays ships currently experience in
Boston Harbor. Additional comments on ship traffic are discussed in the Biological
Assessment for this project.
E7-2
The purpose of the project is not intended to increase ship traffic into and out of
Boston Harbor. A scope to determine increased ship traffic would not be appropriate. A
supplemental EIR/S is not needed for this purpose. The EIR/S and Biological Assessment do
discuss impacts from the increased ship traffic out to the MBDS to dispose of clean parent
material.
18
3/2-
-------
MASSACHUSETTS BAYS PROGRAM
100 Cambridge Street, Room 2006, Boston, Massachusetts 02202 (617) 727-9530 fax (617) 727-2754
June 21, 1994
Brink P. Miller, Colonel
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA 02254
Colonel Miller,
The primary goal of the Massachusetts Bays Program (MBP) - a state, federal, and local partnership -is to maximize
protection of the marine environment Therefore, the MBP can only support those activities of the Boston Harbor
Navigation Improvement Project (BHNIP) which meet that goal.
Since extensive dredging will disrupt water quality in the harbor through increased turbidity and by triggering the
release of contaminants which have accumulated in marine sediments, the MBP can only support this project if
appropriate technologies are used to minimise the impacts from those sources, e.g. silt curtains and sealed dredginj
buckets. The DEIR/S should adequately examine these and other technologies which would minimize the impa<
both the project area and at the preferred disposal sites on both water quality and the marine biota and habitat
je MBP also recommends that the project provide for monitoring of the bays ecosystem to ensure that there are
no long term adverse impacts on the above resources. '•
Use of the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (MBDS) for the dredged spoil raises concerns, as welL The U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have determined that at least 603,200 cubic yards
of surface sediments in the project area are not acceptable for unconfined ocean disposal; and the estimated extent
of contamination ranges from 25 to 40 percent To date, evidence has not been presented to show that capping tlTj
material wfll work at the depth of the MBDS. If a pilot project is to be conducted at the MBDS to demonstrate"
the feasibility of deep water capping, it must be done by capping clean sediment with clean sediment The bays
ecosystem is a fragile resource and must not be used as an experiment If capping of clean sediment cannot be done,
the MBP must oppose the MBDS as a disposal option. '- _
Other specific recommendations relating to the BHNIP and to disposal options are being developed by our
Management Committee as part of the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP). We will
submit them to you later this summer.
Thank you for your time and consideration of these concerns. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me
at (617) 727-9530 x406.
Sincerely,
''iane M. Gould, PhD
xecutrve Director
cc: Carol Kilbride, USEPA
Cathy Demos, USACOE
The Massachusetts Bavs Proeram is soonsored bvthe Massachusetts Executive Office of Envirnnmpntal Affairs through the Coastal Zone Management Office
-------
E8-1
The FEIR/S has identified specific proven technologies which will effectively
minimize impacts to the water quality and marine habitat. Section 5.0, Dredging Management
Plan, of the FEIR/S describes specific equipment and operating techniques to minimize
impacts to the aquatic environment. In addition, it is noted that the construction operations,
specifically dredging and disposal, will be required to meet certain minimum environmental
criteria which will be incorporated into the conditions of the project permits. Water quality
modelling has indicated that there will not be significant water quality violations from the
dredging and disposal of dredged material in Boston Harbor. Refer to Appendix F for
additional water quality information.
E8-2
The MBDS is not considered in the FEIR/S to be a suitable location for disposal of
silts from the BHNIP. If a capping demonstration is conducted, it will use clean silts.
19
-------
MASSACHUSETTS SIERRA CLUB
3 Tov Street Boston Massachusetts 02108 (617) 227-5339 fax (617) 742-8646"
June 27, 1994
Brink P. Miller, Colonel
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA 02254 :
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement for the Boston Harbor Navigation
Improvement Project
*-*-' /
Dear Colonel Miller:
We are writing to submit our comments on the above referenced DEIR/S for the proposed Boston
Harbor Navigation Improvement and Berth Dredging Project (BHNIP). We have divided our
comments into several areas of concern for items covered in the Draft EIR/S. In addition, for
reasons stated below, we are calling for a Supplemental EIR/S, to examine in more detail, specific
late appearing options and other topics not adequately reviewed in the Draft EIR/S.
1. PURPOSE OF THE BHNIP
The Sierra Club questions whether the project purpose as stated in the Draft EIS will in fact be
achieved by the proposed dredging.
The Draft EIS states that the purpose of the BHNIP project is "to increase the navigational
efficiency and safety of Boston Harbor for present types of deep drafted vessel traffic that are
currently transiting the project area." It identifies the need for a depth of 40 feet mean low water to
accommodate deep draft navigation. It asserts that the use of larger vessels for shipping reduces
transportation costs, but that under current conditions in the harbor, these cost reductions are not
fully realized because the vessels "either incur tidal delay, have to be lightered or are light loaded"
(p. 1-3). According to the DEIS, these factors "discourage many ships from calling directly on the
Port of Boston" (page 1-4). The document cites specific examples of ships that schedule arrivals
around the tide, or which do not call on Boston loaded to jthe maximum capacity.
TWDEIS asserts that completion of the BHNIP will enable the utilization of "largervessels which
wfll transit the harbor during a wider range of tidal stages." The project is also designed to
accommodate the use of double-hull tankers as required by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and to
accommodate increase in the number of size and container ships which is projected for the Port of
Boston in the future (p. 1-3).
-------
Before incoming ships reach the Main Channel or the tributary channels (areas where the
improvements are proposed), they must pass through the North Channel. This channel is
characterized by rocky shoals, frequent easterly swells, a depth of 40 feet at mean low water and a
20 degree left turn at the entrance, near Finn's ledge.
Larger ships require greater clearances under the vessel when turning. Any contact with the rocky
bottom of the North Channel is likely to result in an accident, possibly a spill in open water which
would be very difficult to contain or mitigate. In addition, when the port inside of Deer Island is
dredged to the standards proposed in the BHNIP, there will be more pressure for ships to enter
and traverse the North Channel under marginal conditions.
Unfortunately, the Draft EIS omits any discussion of the present conditions in the North Channel
and fails to consider critical questions. To what extent do those conditions currently restrict the
size of ships entering and the depth at which they can enter? Will there still be a need to schedule
arrivals around tidal cycles? Will ships still have to be light loaded to traverse the North Channel
even after the dredging in the Main and tributary channels is completed? Can larger ships than are
presently using the Port of Boston and double huU tankers safely use the North Channel?
Failure to consider future implications of the North Channel conditions could result in the
expenditure of millions of dollars of public funds for a project that will not fulfill the stated
purpose, i.e., to increase navigational efficiency by avoiding tidal delays, avoiding light loading and
enabling the use of larger vessels.
In order to avoid an indefensible waste of public money with potential damage to the environment
resulting as well, this project should NOT PROCEED until a Supplementary EIS has been
prepared which fully considers conditions in the North Channel and their implications on
navigational efficiency. Any improvements that would be needed in the North Channel must be
included in the project and especially in the cost/benefit analysis for the BHNIP.
2. COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND IMPACTS —
The cost/benefit analysis in the DEIS does not take into account environmental costs relating to
public health issues or specific long term impacts to marine habitat and aquatic resources. The
analysis gives precedence to costs over environmental impacts, without proper analysis of the
latter. Adverse impacts and potential environmental harm caused by the dredging are not
considered and costs to other resource users not included in the disposal alternatives, such as
fishermen, lobsterman, aquaculture, and tourism, should be included the SEIS. In addition the
economic impacts of the wastes on these and other resource users should also be included in the
overall cost of the project.
The DEIS itself admits that the cost of the preferred disposal options must demonstrate at least a
l^Lbenefit-to-cost ratio to qualify for federal funding. The costs of restoring lost resources are not
factored into this calculation, so there is unfortunately a predetermined limit on the price tag for
disposal options that is unrelated to minimum needs to protect natural resources.
-------
3. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES
In the Draft EIS, the Army Corps of Engineers and Massport have identified several "Preferred
Alternatives:" the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site, the Boston Lightship site, an area off of.
Spectacle Island, and the Meisburger Sites 2 and 7. All of these are open water sites. Massport
has indicated that it will consider a sixth alternative, disposal of the contaminated material in one of
the inner channels. The open water sites have clearly been chosen as the "preferred alternatives"
because they are among the least costly.
The value of the resources that are jeopardized by the open water disposal option have been
ignored. Sufficient information about the long term fate of contaminated material disposed of in
open water is not available at this time to justify placing the aquatic resources of Massachusetts bay
at further risk. The promise of long term monitoring does not insure that future commitment or
ability will exist to take remedial action if problems are detected at these disposal sites. Therefore
we strongly urge that the resources of Massachusetts Bay and Boston harbor not be jeopardized to
begin with. _
Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site:
It is bewildering that the Corps and Massport would even list the Massachusetts Bay site, since the
Environmental Protection Agency has clearly prohibited disposal of contaminated material with
capping unless and until it is shown that capping can isolate contaminated material from the
benthic community. To address EPA's questions about the efficacy of capping, the DEIS cites the
"Addam's Model Results" found in Appendix F. This model was used to "look at the short-term
fate of dredged material." Model predictions about the short-term fate of dredged material do not
satisfy concerns about what happens to capped disposal material over periods of many years. It
should also be noted that capping has never occurred at the depth of 80 to 100 meters; the studies
cited by the Corps of capping at the Portland site and in New York Harbor may have little
relevance to disposal at the Massachusetts Bay site.
We are further opposed to any disposal at the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site because of its
proximity to Stellwagen Bank. Marine mammals, including the endangered northern right whale,
migrate annually to this sight to feed, and to nurse their young, and are therefore dependent on the
ecological vitality of this region.
Use of the Massachusetts Bay disposal site for contaminated sediments is illegal without a waiver.
We would vehemently oppose the issuance of such a waiver.
Boston Lightship
Boston Lightship is about 9 nautical miles from Stellwagen Bank. It is reported to be a productive
fishery area inhabited by cod, sole, yellowtail, flounder and whiting, as well as lobster and
quahogs. Endangered whales and possibly endangered turtles are believed to frequent the area as
transients. The concerns about the fate of material disposed of in open water over long periods of
1$me apply to this site as well. Because of the potential damage to fish, shellfish and endangered
species the Sierra Club believes that choice of the Boston Lightship site would violate the Section
404 (b)(l) Guidelines under the Clean Water ACL Other less environmentally damaging
alternatives exist which offer a practicable solution to disposal of the dredged material.
Meisburger Sites 2 and 7
3J7
-------
Rounder and cod fisheries also exist within the vicinity of the two Meisburger sites, as well as
productive lobster beds. These valuable areas should not be placed at risk by the possibility of
migration of contaminants from dredge disposal. Again, because other less environmentally
damaging alternatives exist, use of either of the Meisburger sites would violate the 404(b)(l).
Guidelines.
gpectacle Island . .
Lobster fishing occurs in the area between Spectacle and Long Islands. In addition it is critical to
note that a containment facility is being constructed on the island to remediate the landfill and
dispose of material from the Central Artery project The integrity of the containment area is
already plagued with problems of slumping and subsiding of waste materials, and nearby dredging
could exacerbate this instability. Because of the potential damage to the lobster fishery and other
aquatic resources in this area, this site does not qualify under the Section 404(b)(l) Guidelines.
The Sierra Club believes that none of these "preferred alternatives" are environmentally sound
choices.
4. IN-CHANNEL DISPOSAL
The only dredge methodology considered is described as longitudinally segmented, as the channel
is dredged, with some temporary initial storage of sediments in barges (Vol I, page 4-7). The
alternative exists, but was not covered adequately in the DEIS, to dredge the channel deep enough
to provide space for berth sediments as well as channel sediments. This only shows up in the
document as a late appearing option (Vol n Table E-18).
Considering that the proposed Conditions/Impacts (Vol I, page 3-40) of in-channel dredging
appears to have a more acceptable environmental impact analysis, we urge that the Corps and
Massport should prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement which provides more
in-depth analysis of options other than open water disposal including in-channel and shoreline
disposal options.
The Sierra Club believes that this option merits more in depth analysis.
5. SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION
The U.S. Army Corps and the EPA have different findings for characterization of contaminated
sediments. The Sierra Club supports the EPA's findings mat all silt material is contaminated and
must be disposed of properly. We urge Massport and the Corps to consider all silty material to be
dredged as "unsuitable". The Sierra Club objects to any rectification of contaminated material
as suitable, by mixing, matching, or any other methods. —
&, DREDGING PROCESSES
Based on past experiences, the Sierra Club feels the dredging process should be carefully
monitored and methodology and techniques used should be covered more thoroughly in the SEIS.
At the Moran Terminal dredging last winter, the environmental "bucket" often did not close
properly on the way up due to debris on the bottom and trash in the sediments. We would like to
see the entire dredging process monitored by an impartial observer and contingency language
-------
placed in any contracts for dredging and disposal which would require work to halt should
problems occur. Also, we would like to see performance standards for dredging put into the
Dredging Management Plan in addition to the descriptions of equipment and methods. Also
missing is pre-qualification of dredging contract bidders. .
7. FUTURE RE-SEDIMENTATION
Silt from future Maintenance dredging will continue to be a problem. The SEIS should develop a
50 year plan that examines more thoroughly what causes re-sedimentation, and how it can be
prevented. The source of most sediments MIGHT be the beaches found under many docks, and
holes in bulkheads. These beaches and bulkheads are strongly washed by waves caused by wakes,
which wash sediments into the berths and channels. The wakes are very intense during the boating
season. Also, CSOs and various other drains into the harbor may have no grit retention
chambers. We urge Massport and the Corps to work towards elimination of sources of
contamination in Boston Harbor so that future dredge wastes can be disposed of more safely and
economically. —
8. CONCLUSIONS
Because of the reasons stated above the Sierra Club believes that a Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement must be prepared and circulated for public comment for this project If
conditions in the North Channel are not considered and addressed, millions of dollars of public
money may be wasted on a project which does not even fulfill its stated goals. In addition, the
project may result in significant environmental damage since none of the Preferred Alternatives
identified by Massport represent environmentally sound solutions for disposal of dredge material.
Circulation of a Supplemental EIS is necessary so that other alternatives can be reexamined and
commented upon. We urge the Office of Environmental Affairs to reject all of the Preferred
Alternatives, and to require a Supplemental EIS for the Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement
Project.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Respectfully submitted by the Massachusetts Sierra Club.
-------
E9-1
Discussions with shippers during preparation of the Feasibility Report indicated that
additional underkeel clearance was not required to transit the North Broad sound channel;
project benefits are based on shippers actual operating practices. They represent the difference
in transportation costs with and without improvements. The 1988 Feasibility Report found
that improvements to the north Broad Sound channel were not economically justified. The
North channel is maintained at -40 feet MLW. With the BHNIP, vessels will have safe 40
foot access from deep water to the terminals in the Mystic, and Reserved channels and 38 feet
in the Chelsea River channel. For additional information, please refer to the 1988 Main
Report and Appendix 1 of the Feasibility Report.
E9-2
The disposal site alternatives analysis (Section 4.0) has been revised to separate
environmental and practicability issues more clearly. The selection of the preferred alternative
focussed on the sites that had the lowest potential for environmental impacts. To determine
the cost/benefit ratio, strict criteria are used to determine Federal participation in a navigation
improvement project. This criteria does not include the environmental costs, except for
mitigation costs. However, the purpose of the EIR/S is to discuss the environmental impacts
for each disposal alternative so that an informed decision can be made in selecting the
appropriate disposal site for the silly material. All of the impacts would be temporary. Also,
the 1:1 ratio refers to the parent material (improvement project), the silty material is
considered a maintenance project for a project already authorized. Benefit/cost ratios are not
performed for maintenance projects.
E9-3
The disposal site alternatives analysis had been reevaluated for the FEIR/S (Section 4).
The offshore sites were determined not to be among the least environmentally damaging
alternatives and are no longer being considered as options for the current project.
E9-4
See response to comment E9-3.
E9-5
See response to comment E9-3.
20
-------
E9-6
See response to comment E9-3.
E9-7
In the revised disposal site alternatives analysis, the Spectacle Island CAD site was not
selected as the preferred alternative for the silts from the BHNIP.
E9-8 i
In-channel disposal was discussed in both the alternatives analysis (Vol. I) and
Attachment 1 of the DEIR/S. It has been reexamined, along with all other potential disposal
sites, in a revised alternatives analysis (Section 4 of the FEIR/S) and was determined to be the
least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA).
E9-9
i
Both the DEIR/S and the FEIR/S assessed the selection of appropriate disposal sites
for the BHNIP silt assuming that all the silt was unsuitable for unconfined open water
disposal.
E9-10
A Dredged Material Management Plan is discussed in Section 5.0 of the final EIR/S.
Pre-qualification is the "exception to the rule" in Corps contracting procedures. Typically a
project is open to bids from all contractors. Before a contract is awarded, the apparent low
bidder is examined to determine his capability to be "responsive" to the specifications. This
typical procedure is intended to allow more competition yet still provide scrutiny of a
contractor prior to award.
The Massachusetts Sierra Club believes that there should be an impartial observer not
only during all disposal operations, but also during dredging, blasting, dewatering, and other
project activities. As noted in the FEIR/S, the Corps does not typically fund this type of
activity although it does contract with a dredge inspection firm which verifies disposal
locations. Independent observers can be accommodated, but the independent observer can only
alert the Corps inspector of any perceived permit violations. However, only the Contracting
Officer can modify or halt dredging and disposal operations.
The FEIR/S, Section 5.0, Dredging Management Plan, discusses specific equipment
and operational contingencies. Section 5.8.2.2, Trash and Debris, discusses specific
contingencies for potential problems related to those factors. In addition, it is noted that the
construction operations, specifically dredging and disposal, will be required to meet certain
minimum environmental criteria which will be incorporated into the conditions of the project
permits.
21
-331
-------
E9-11
Future maintenance dredging disposal needs are discussed in Sections 2.0 and 4.0 of
the FEIR/S.
22
•3X2.
-------
E10
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
BETH NICHOLSON
Chairperson
BETSY JOHNSON
President
ROBMOIR
Vice President
PETER SHELLEY. ESQ.
Treasurer/Clerk
NANCY ANDERSON
RICH DELANEY
JOHNDINGA
= FINDLAY
.-OSTER
SHEILA LYNCH
ROBERT SPENCER
NANETTE TERRY
MARGIE TYRE
HONORARY DIRECTORS
PAUL GARRITY. ESQ.
Honorary Chairperson
WILLIAM B. GOLDEN. ESQ.
IAN MENZIES
STAFF
BRUCE BERMAN
BayWarch Director
JANEY KEOUGH
Operations Manager
JODISUQERMAN
Policy Director
Save the Harbor
Save the Bay
Founded 1986
June 28, 1994
Brink P. Miller •
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA 02254
Dear Colonel Miller:
Save the Harbor/Save the Bay (SHSB) is a non-profit, citizen-based
organization dedicated to the protection and promotion of Boston Harbor
and Massachusetts Bay. We are writing to express our concerns about the
draft environmental impact statement/report (DEIS/R) submitted by
Massport and the Army Corps of Engineers for the Boston Harbor
Navigation Improvement Project and Berth Dredging Project (BHNIP).
Our major issues regarding the BHNIP concern the dredging process itself,
and the handling and disposal of sediments, many of which are
contaminated with heavy metals, PCBs, PAHs and other toxic materials.
The Dredging Process
From experiences at Moran Terminal, we learned the dredging process can
be very messy. When debris prevented the clamshell dredge from closing
properly, sediments spilled into Boston Harbor. We would like to see the
entire dredging process monitored by an impartial observer with the
authority to halt dredging that is in violation of permit conditions or
otherwise environmentally dangerous. Also, we would like contingency
language placed in any contracts for dredging and disposal which would
require work to halt should problems occur. Finally, we would like to see
performance standards for dredging put into the Dredging Management
Plan (Section 4.0) rather than descriptions of equipment and methods. This
would help ensure a cleaner and safer dredging process. _
Disposal and Future Dredging Projects _
On page 1-5 of the DEIS/R, one of the three interests associated with
efficient port operations which this project is designed to serve is listed
as, "Identify potential disposal options to serve future long-term
maintenance requirements to meet regional needs including Boston
Harbor." Page 3.1 states, "... future maintenance of the channels is closely
linked to the BHNIP, therefore, the; disposal alternative analysis also
identified alternatives that could be useful for future dredging." Save the
Harbor/Save the Bay wants to ensure that the disposal site(s) chosen for
the Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement Project (approximately 2:9
million cubic yards of material - 1.1 cubic yards of which are
contaminated) shall not be used for future maintenance dredging
(according to this DEIS/R, future maintenance dredging could produce as
25 WEST STREET, FOURTH FLOOR • BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02111 -TELEPHONE: (617) 451-2860 • FAX: (617) 451-O496 ©
-------
much as 6.2 million cubic yards of contaminated dredge spoil over the next
fifty years) and other regional dredging projects until the sediment quality
and environmental impact for those projects are analyzed with time for
public comment. We would like this stipulation to be very clear in the final
impact statement. -
Sediment Characterization
First, the exact amount of material being dredged-up as a result of this
project is unclear in DEIS/R. In some places the DEIS/R states that, in total,
2.9 million cubic yards will be dredged, in others, the document says 3.5
million cubic yards will be dredged. SHSB would like the final impact
statement to be clear in regards to the amount of dredged material this
project will produce.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has found that all maintenance material
(silt), except 160,000 cy from Reserved Channel, and 200,000 cy from the
berth areas of Gulf Oil, Army Base, Conley terminal, and the Edison Barge
berth is unsuitable for unconfined open water disposal. The U.S. EPA has
conversely found that all silt material is unsuitable for unconfined open
water disposal. We support the EPA's findings and oppose unconfined
ocean disposal of any silt material.
Disposal Alternative Analysis
The MEPA scope for the DEIS/R identified ocean disposal at Massachusetts
Bay Disposal Site (MBDS) as the preferred disposal option for marine
sediments of acceptable quality from the dredging projects and the
alternative against which other alternatives would be judged. We believe
that using the MBDS as a basis for comparison of all disposal options, for
both clean and contaminated sediments, skews the analysis as it is illegal,
without a waiver, to dump contaminated sediments at this site. W e
absolutely will not support any disposal option which would
require a waiver from Section 103(d) of the Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA), or any other legal
waiver. Therefore, disposal options suitable for contaminated sediments
should be compared against each other in the final impact statement, not
against the MBDS. —-
The DEIS/R does not provide a full costing of disposal alternatives.
Environmental costs, such as habitat damage or contamination, are not
included. Also, disposal sites of both clean and contaminated sediments
must be carefully monitored by impartial observers with contingency
plans should problems occur. This is particularly important at the MBDS,
where it is likely that clean parent material will be disposed. The MBDS is
adjacent to the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary, one of our
most important natural resources in Massachusetts Bay and must be
protected. The costs of this monitoring are not factored into the
cost/benefits analysis of the disposal options. These costs must be
-------
considered in the final impact statement.
In addition, the costs to other resource users of using certain disposal
alternatives (i.e. Fishermen, Lobstermen) were not considered in the
discussion of disposal alternatives. These costs should be considered in the
final impact statement.
Although cost/benefit analysis is not required in the EIR, the Certificate of
the Secretary of Environmental Affairs on the Environmental Notification
Form (EOEA #8695) for this project states, "... the cost/benefit issue appears
to be germane to agencies' decisions with respect to this dredging and
disposal project," and the regulations (301 CMR 11.01 (4)) provide for it.
Lastly, given the constantly increasing pressures on the resources of
Massachusetts Bay, we would like the final impact statement to analyze
cumulative impacts. In particular, higher levels of contaminants
introduced into the system through ' dredging projects (both BHNIP and the
Central Artery Third Tunnel Project), non-point sources of runoff, and the
MWRA outfall, for instance, should be addressed in concert.
Disposal Options
We are absolutely opposed to any open ocean disposal of contaminated
sediments. We would like to see a portion of the contaminated dredge
spoils set aside for a pilot project that would test the efficacy of alternative
technologies in reducing toxicity of contaminated sediments. Generally,
we would like to see clean sediment used beneficially to upgrade habitats
and already contaminated areas wherever possible. Our goal is to minimize
damage to and exposure of contaminated sediments to the marine
environment as much as possible. To that end, we have problems with
each of the preferred disposal alternatives delineated by Massport and the
Corps in the DEIS/R. Therefore, we would like the final impact statement to
look more closely at the "potentially practicable" disposal alternatives.
i . .
In addition, we have specific comments about several of the
"preferred alternatives":
• It is currently illegal to dump contaminated sediments at the
Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (MBDS) without a legal waiver. Save
the Harbor/Save the Bay is particularly concerned about this
potential option and will ;not, under any circumstance,
condone disposal of contaminated sediments at the MBDS
including capping with clean; sediments. We • oppose any pilot
project at the MBDS which would test the efficacy of capping
contaminated sediments at this location. At this point, the DEIS/R is
unclear in its description of the MBDS as a disposal alternative. At
some points it describes the MBDS as a preferred alternative for both
clean and contaminated sediments and at other points it does not.
The final impact statement must be very clear in its prohibition of
E10
-------
disposal of contaminated sediments at the MBDS. In addition,
Massport and the Corps should be working closely with Brad Barr,
manager of the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary,
regarding any disposal of clean sediment (parent material) that
might occur at the MBDS.
Save the Harbor/Save the Bay will not support disposal of clean or
contaminated sediments at the Boston Lightship area until the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency completes a thorough study of the
extent and location of radioactive barrels in the area. It is possible,
once the location of radioactive ban-els is known, that disposal of
clean sediment at the site could prove beneficial. However, in
addition to location of radioactive barrels, a study on how they will
• be affected by disposal of sediments must also be completed.
~l
~1
Both of the Meisburger sites (#2 and #7) listed as preferred
alternatives are adjacent to the MWRA outfall. That site was chosen
for the outfall because of the strong cross-currents and potential for
"mixing." It seems these sites would not be stable enough for
disposal of contaminated sediments. In addition, using these sites
might complicate the outfall monitoring.
Massport and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should be conscious of the
other projects and problems in Boston Harbor in their planning and in
their preparation of the final impact statement. These include: the Harbor
Clean-up, the Central Artery Tunnel project, the recent designation of
Stellwagen Bank as a National Marine Sanctuary, the existence of highly
contaminated ~ and sometimes radioactive — "hot spots," and a very
strained fisheries situation. All of these will affect, and be affected by, the
dredging project. Massport and the Corps should continue to work closely
with other affected parties to devise creative solutions to deal with
contaminated sediments that will benefit Boston Harbor as both a natural
and economic resource. Save the Harbor/Save the Bay is committed to
working with Massport and the Corps throughout this process.
Lastly, although Save the Harbor/Save the Bay supports the maintenance
dredging of Boston Harbor's shipping lanes and berths to perserve the
port's economic vitality, we would not support any dredging that would
open Boston Harbor to "super-tankers."
Thank you for the opportunity to make these comments. We look forward to
reviewing the final impact statement.
Jodi Sugennan
Policy Director
-------
E10-1
Save the Harbor Save the Bay believes that there should be an impartial observer not
only during all disposal operations, but also during dredging, blasting, dewatering, and other
project activities. As noted in the FEIR/S, the Corps does not typically fund this type of
activity although it does contract with a dredge inspection firm which verifies disposal
locations. Independent observers can be accommodated, but the independent observer can only
alert the Corps inspector of any perceived permit violations. However, only the Contracting
Officer can modify or halt dredging and disposal operations.
The FEIR/S, Section 5.0, Dredging Management Plan, discusses specific equipment
and operational contingencies. Section 5.8.2.2, Trash and Debris, discusses specific
contingencies for potential problems related to those factors. In addition, it is noted that the
construction operations, specifically dredging and disposal, will be required to meet certain
minimum environmental criteria which will be incorporated into the conditions of the project
permits.
E10-2
Although the FEIR/S identifies disposal sites that would potentially be suitable for
disposal of contaminated sediments from future projects, future disposal could not take place
without following appropriate permitting procedures, including testing of sediment quality.
E10-3
Inconsistencies in the DEIR stated amounts of material to be dredged have been
corrected for the FEIR/S. The expected silt volume is approximately 1.1 million cubic yards
(mcy) and parent material volume 2.1 mcy. Because the dredging process tends to expand the
silt, the disposal site may need to accommodate up to 1.3 mcy. Table 2-6 in the FEIR/S
shows the breakdown of these volumes.
E10-4
Both the DEIR/S and FEIR/S considered all BHNIP silt to be unsuitable for
unconfined open water disposal for the purposes of identifying sufficient disposal capacity.
E10-5
The MBDS is not considered for the disposal of silts from the BHNIP in the FEIR/S.
E10-6
It is very difficult to estimate the environmental damage, if any, from a particular
disposal option. Management plans to reduce or minimize costs to fisherman can be
implemented, such as marking disposal traffic lanes. Disposal barges will be manned by a
23
-------
Corps inspector familiar with NMFS guidelines for vessel traffic. A detailed Dredge
Management Plan is included in the FEIR/S (Section 5.0).
E10-7
As the silty sediments will be staying within Boston Harbor, no cumulative impact to
Massachusetts Bay is expected.
E10-8
The potential disposal sites were reevaluated in the FEIR/S. It was determined that the
in-channel, partial-fill shoreline, and upland alternatives were the least environmentally
damaging alternatives. Parent material will be made available for closure of municipal
landfills. Rock will be used for armoring confined disposal sites.
E10-9
The MBDS is not being considered for disposal of silts from the BHNIP.
The Corps has not ruled out a demonstration project to test capping efficacy at the
MBDS to evaluate potential future use of this site for silt disposal. Coordination with
appropriate agencies would occur prior to initiation of a project.
E10-10
Boston Lightship is not proposed for disposal of BHNIP silt in the FEIR/S (Section
4.0). Should interest in this site arise in the future, its use will require coordination with EPA
regarding the proported drums of industrial and radioactive waste at this site. Disposal of
dredged material at this site to cover these drums may benefit the environment of this area.
The EPA should play an active role in researching the locations and environmental status of
any hazardous materials at the BLS to determine whether it would be best to leave as is,
remove, or cover in place.
E10-11
Neither Meisburger site was selected as the preferred alternative for disposal of BHNIP
silt in the FEIR/S (Section 4.0).
E10-12
Massport and the Corps are very much aware of other significant projects occurring in
out proposed project area. We have been and continue to work closely with the staff of these
agencies.
24
-------
E10-13
The purpose of the proposed project is to reduce tidal delays for ships currently using
Boston Harbor. Deepening the tributary channels may allow larger ships to transit Boston
Harbor, but would not be deep enough for "super-tankers". Also the tunnel crossings and
turns limit the use of "super-tankers" in Boston Harbor.
25,
-------
06/23/1994 18:35 5087B01036
STOP
PAGE 02
E11
S. T. O. P.
(Stop the Outfall Pipe)
530 Main Street
West Dennis, MA 02670
(508) 394-8964 * (5O8) 385-4209
Colonel Miller
U.S. Array Corps of Engineers
Impact Analysis Si^Lsion
•4"2~4"" Trap's lo'Road
Waltham, Massachusetts 02254
Dear Colonel Miller:
Stop The Outfall Pipe welcomes the opportunity to
comment on the DEIR/S for the Boston Harbor Dredging Project.
Though we are not opposed to the dredging project, we are
greatly concerned by a number of suggestions and proposals
found throughout the DEIR/S, particularly concerning the
disposal of dredge spoils. Below you will find a list of our
concerns:
* Under no circumstances should the MBDS or the two
Meisburger sites be considered-suitable sites for an_y.
contaminated spoils, today or in the future. Capping
should not be considered, a mitigation measure as it is
not a proven technology, particularly given the depth
of these sites. .
The proximity of these sites to the many
endangered species that live on Stellwagen Bank and
Stellwagen's stature as a National Sanctuary are of
particular concern to our organi2ation. In addition,
we have many concerns about the cumulative impacts the
dredge spoils will have with all of the other uses,
past and future, to which this area of the Bay .is host
These include but are not limited to the proposed
outfall discharge from the 43 municipalities
surrounding Boston and the existence 'of the barrels
found in and around the "foul area,"
species
Given their proximity to the many endangered
that live on Stellwagen Bank and Stellwagen's
stature as a National Sanctuary, even disposal of clean
sediments at these sites should require the strictest
oversight by the State as well as the National Marine
Fisheries Service and NOAA.
i
-------
10:35
5037581835
STOP
PAGE Q3
Determination of the "cleanliness" of the
sediments to be disposed of should be made by an
outside,.independent group of overseers who apply the
strictest, most consistent standards possible. Based
on past testing, it appears that none of the silty
material to be dredged is suitable for unconfined ocean
disposal. We would strongly oppose any attempt to
reciassify thes.e materials.
Section 4,5.1 of this document dwells on studies
which imply that various groups of pollutants are not
as great a threat to biological systems as previously
believed. We would suggest that much of this research
was performed by those invested in current dredging
technology and remind the State and the ACOE of the
many studies which suggest that, to the contrary, these
16xTcsT"se"f TousTy impair many biological functions in
marine ecosystems.
One such study, "Pollution .and Development
Abnormalities of Atlantic Fishes," (released by the
National Marine Fisheries Service in 1991) indicates
that chromosomal abnormalities brought on by many of
these toxics may account for significant amounts of
larval mortalities in the fisheries which thrive in
Massachusetts Bay. '" . —
Throughout this document, reference is made to the
"economic benefits" that will be derived from the
dredging project and, in fact, maintaining the Harbor
as a viable shipping port is important. But to
consider only those immediate costs incurred by the
dredging without considering its long-term impacts on
natural resources, environmental integrity, and human
health is to be "penny-wise and pound-foolish."
The cost of $18.00 per cubic yard for disposal of
silt at the MBDS is one of the lowest costs cited in
this document, yet it does not reflect the potential
harm to other'industries and ecosystems from the
-bioaccumulat ive toxics at this site.
and EPA should redraft the economic
which decisions of this nature are made
reflect their long-term impacts on the
1
col lection of
The ACOE
formulas upon
to accurately
marine environment. -
We would urge the State, the Army Corps, and the
Environmental Protection Agency to consider upland
areas of disposal where monitoring and oversight would
be most easily and efficiently accomplished. Though
the '"cost" of this type of site appears quite high, it
must be weighed against long term monitoring costs
(much more easily done then any ocean site monitoring)
and long term costs to other economies including that
of the fishing and shell fishing industries through
-------
06/28/1994 10:35 5087601036
STOP
PAGE 04
1
* If upland disposal is discarded, we would then
urge the State, ACOE and EPA to consider those sites
closest to shore and preferably within Boston Harbor.
These areas are already subject to past and future
accumulation of questionable sediments and due to their
shallow nature are most easily monitored.
* It would seem imperative, with the valuable -
resources of Boston Harbor and Massachusetts Bay being
placed at risk, that innovative treatment and dredging
technologies would'be the truly economical solution to
the problems of dredging and disposal. Again, though
the "cost" of these types of technologies appear quite
high on the surface, they must be weighed against long
term monitoring costs and long term costs to other
economies including that of the fishing and
shellfishing industries through contamination, lo.s_t _
habitat* e'tc.
* We urge that these agencies be compelled to
implement a monitoring plan during disposal and
afterward which would require strict and independent
oversight. Regardless of disposal options and sites
these activities require continual management and
possible remediation. —I
In conclusion, we would hope that the Army Corps applies
the highest possible standards to this as well as other
activities being proposed for Massachusetts Bay. We hope the
federal agencies in charge of the project recognize that the
"least expensive" alternatives are often only least expensive
in the short term: the potential for'future expense and
degradation should be of utmost consideration. Under the
proposed formulas, a "cost-effective" solution today might
mean an expensive remediation project or reduced economic
benefit from the Bays in the future. We hope that the State
and Federal overseers of this project will develop more
effective cost analysis formulas which accurately reflect
these concerns.
c
Sincerely,
Mary E. Loebig,
(508)385-4209 /
Cochair w
(508)398-7632
-------
Ell-1
Capping has been proven in Long Island Sound in depths similar to the Meisburger
sites. There are several reports published by the Corps on the success of these projects.
Capping of silts at the MBDS will not be used for this project.
Ell-2
Agencies have had the opportunity to comment on the proposed project. MBDS is an
EPA designated dredged material disposal site. Only the clean parent material will be
disposed at the MBDS.
Ell-3
The sediment testing for the BHNIP was conducted as part of the Sediment Character-
ization Work Group. This group, involving most major regulatory agencies and many
environmental interest groups who played a very; active role in establishing high quality
standards for all aspects of the sediment sampling and testing. The resultant data are felt to be
of excellent quality and very representative of the material requiring dredging. Virtually every
commenter to the DEIR/S agrees that the parent material to be dredged for this project is
shown to be clean by the test results.
We acknowledge S.T.O.P.S opinion that none of the silt to be dredged is suitable for
unconfmed disposal. Both the DEIR/S and FEIR/S treated BHNIP silt as unsuitable for
unconfined open water disposal for purposes of selecting a disposal site.
Ell-4
The disposal site selection process considered impacts to biological
resources.
Ell-5
The Corps has specific guidelines in which to evaluate whether there is a Federal
interest in participating in a navigation improvement project. The environmental impacts are
evaluated in NEPA documents such as this EIS. All of the impacts from the proposed project
are expected to be temporary. No significant long-term impacts are anticipated.
Ell-6
Monitoring issues were considered during selection of the final preferred alternative.
The "ease" of monitoring the integrity of landfill sediment disposal facilities may be out-
weighed by the difficulty of ascribing any "leakage" to one particular waste generator, thereby
making all generators potentially responsible for any future landfill integrity problems. The
monitoring plan associated with the preferred alternative is described in the FEIR/S.
26
333
-------
Ell-7
The revised alternatives analysis for disposal of silts from the BHNIP concluded that
in-channel disposal was the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (Section 4).
Ell-8
Innovative treatment and dredging technologies are considered for the BHNIP in
Section 3.0 and Appendix D of the FEIR/S.
Ell-9
S.T.CXP.urges the sponsoring agencies to utilize an impartial observer during all
disposal operations. As noted in the FEER/S, the Corps does not typically fund this type of
independent activity although it does contract with a dredge inspection firm which verifies
disposal locations. Independent observers can be accommodated, but the independent observer
can only alert the Corps inspector of any perceived permit violations. However, only the
Contracting Officer can modify or halt dredging and disposal operations.
Section 5.7, Long Term Monitoring of Disposal Sites, addresses the monitoring needs
of the preferred disposal site.
27
-------
Nahant SWIM, Inc.
Safer Waters in Massachusetts
June 8, 1994
Colonel Brink P. Miller
Division Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA 02254-9149
Dear Colonel Miller:
Re: Boston Harbor, Boston Massachusetts
Navigation Improvement Project
and Berth Dredging Project
The worst possible place to dump contaminated sediments from the oily depths of Boston"
Harbor - laden with heavy metals, PCBs and PAHs - is the location between Nahant and the
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) sewage outfall. The North Shore will soon be
the recipient of wastewater from the entire MWRA area, and although we were promised second;
treatment, it is controversial and questionable whether full secondary treatment will actually occur,
because of the economic situation. At best, even if secondary treatment is eventually provided
approximately 550 million gallons of partially treated sewage will be discharged from the outfall
between 1995 and 1999, at the same time the dredging spoils would be disposed of. The synergistic
effect of partially treated sewage plus dredging spoils needs to be addressed by the Corps. We are
talking large quantities of waste: the MWRA sewage outfall is as big as the Callahan Tunnel, and
the dredged material's bulk is as large as the Prudential Building. _
Nahant, Saugus, Lynn and Swampscott have already constructed our own secondary
treatment plant, but we cannot protect oiir communities if both MWRA sewage and
contaminated dredged material from Boston Harbor are dumped on the North Shore.
Both "Meisburger Two" (North Shore) and "Meisburger Seven" (South Shore) are"
outstanding fishing and lobstering locations, as is the area around the Boston Lightship. The Foul
Area (Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site) is much too close both to the North Shore and to Stellwagen
Bank National Marine Sanctuary. There should be no dumping at sea. SWIM objects vehemently
to disposing of contaminated sediments in clean ocean. Massachusetts Bay is prime lobster habitat:
according to the Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association, "Approximately 6.5 million of the 9.5
million pounds of lobsters harvested in the Massachusetts territorial waters and just beyond come
from the general area from just below Gloucester, South through outer Boston Harbor and dowj
^along the Northern section of the South Shore."
Your Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (DEIR/S) say™
that no endangered species will be affected. Just because lobsters are not yet endangered does not
mean that we should dump silt, especially contaminated silt, on their habitat. Finfish may not be
endangered, but they are depleted, and their habitat should not be further harmed. The sediments
to be dredged and dumped include "arsenic, chromium, lead and zinc...", "PCB's...", "PAH's...",
and "acetone..." (DEIR/S, pp. 2-10).
SWIM, c/o Northeastern University Marine Science Center, East Point, Nahant, MA 01908
Phone: C6171 581-0075 or (6VT) 581-1424
-------
The DEIR/S points out that at Meisburger Two, "Any discernible currents are tidal" (p 3
33). This means that the pollution from Chelsea Creek, Mystic River, and Boston Harbor will b
brought towards shore. There is a multimillion dollar value both to the ocean front real estate an
to the tourist industry on the North Shore. Moreover, millions of people (many of whom come b
public transportation, which is readily available) use the beautiful beaches of Nahant, Lynn, Revere
Swampscott, and Marblehead. Also nearby are Egg Rock (the Henry Cabot Lodge bird sanctuary),
and the new Lodge Park now being developed in Nahant.
The MWRA outfall and Meisburger Two are also close to the seawater intake o£the
Northeastern University Marine Science Center, a major marine biological research station.
seawater is vital to the experiments being performed along the coast, in the water, and in the
seawater tanks in the laboratory.
The area of Meisburger Two is right in the middle of the lobster fisheries and is habitat nol
only for lobsters but for any migratory species, including bluefish, herring, and pollack; the area
also is important for recruitment for fisheries (personal communication, Dr. Joseph Ayers, Director,!
Northeastern University Marine Science Center, Nahant).
Your biological assessment found that the survival of clams in the Mystic River was 44%,
and there was an "exceedance of 20% threshold for amphipods at all proposed dredging locations."
We are talking here adult animals that are relatively resistant to death from (though no
contamination from) pollution. What about animals less resistant, that cannot live in Boston Harbo
now? What about the increased concentration of pollutants in animals higher on the food chain?
What about larval forms and juveniles, which are known to be more vulnerable to pollutants?
"The development of marine offspring generally takes place in seawater, " according to Dr.
Jan Pechenik of the Tufts University Department of Biology (Hazardous Waste 1(2): 273-282
1984). "Most species have free-living developmental stage, termed a larva, which spends up tc
several months swimming in the water prior to its metamorphosis to adult morphology and habitat
These developmental stages are particularly vulnerable to water-soluble pollutants, due to a hig?
ratio of exposed surface area to body volume. Larvae are approximately ten times more sensitiy
to a given pollutant than are the juvenile and adult stages of the same species. Substan*«
developmental mortality results from low-level exposures in the range of parts per billion to p;
per million for a variety of pollutants.
"Sublethal effects have also been well-documented for a number of developing marine
animals. Low levels of pollutants interfere with cleavage and morphogenesis in echinoderms
arthropods, and fishes. Changes in developmental rate may be one of the most sensitive and reliable
indicators of toxicity. Depression of growth rates by direct exposure in water-soluble pollutants has
been documented for larvae of marine gastropods, bivalves, crustaceans, and fishes. Moreover,
stressed adults may produce larvae which develop at abnormally slow rates." -
Contaminating prime Massachusetts Bay fishing and lobstering area would also mean
contaminating the people who eat fish and lobster. Silts that now pollute Boston Harbor would alsfi
harm pollute Massachusetts Bay. As for the possibilities of successfully dumping, then capping, the
site in Massachusetts Bay, the technology is simply not that sophisticated, and the process ol
dredging would stir up contaminants in Boston Harbor.
-------
The DEIR/S says, "...the volume of cargo would not be projected to increase due to this
project..." (ES-4). The value of deepened the channels from 35 feet to 38 or 40 feet seems dubious.
SWIM would prefer to see maintenance dredging, not dredging of three to five feet of highly]
contaminated Chelsea Creek, Mystic River, and Boston Harbor channel. Dredging projects have!
typically been unjustified in most of New England: an excellent example is the New HavenJ
Connecticut, harbor, which was dredged with no increased'economic viability of the New Haven
harbor.
SWIM requests a public hearing to give us an opportunity to defend Massachusetts Bay and
to inform you in more detail about the animals living off the Nahant Shore. Do not permit one
environmental disaster to create another.
Sincerely yours,
Polly Bradley, SWIM
-------
E12-1
The revised alternatives analysis for disposal of silts from the BHNIP concluded that
the In-channel alternative was the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative
(Section 4).
E12-2
E12-3
See response to comment El2-1.
The Meisburger 2 site will not be utilized as a disposal facility for this project.
E12-4
The Meisburger sites are not proposed for disposal of the BHNIP silts in the FEIR/S
(Section 4.0).
E12-5
See response to comment E12-4.
E12-6
The bioassay and bioaccumulation testing for the BHNIP was conducted in accordance
with procedures established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of
Engineers to evaluate suitability for disposal of dredged material in the ocean. These protocols
were developed to standardize the specific testing and evaluation methods used for assessing
disposal impacts. The protocol development took into consideration the various marine species
available for testing, then: sensitivity to contaminants, bioaccumulation ability, as well as other
factors. The regulatory agencies have determined that the marine crustacean amphipod is an
appropriate sensitive species for evaluating acute toxicity for ocean disposal.
It is important to understand that the Ocean Dumping testing procedures are intended
to evaluate the impacts of disposal, not the dredging impacts. The bioaccumulation testing is
used to evaluate acceptable body burden levels (sublethal) in the immediate disposal area for
indigenous species as well as the various food chain consumers of the "impacted" organisms.
The bioassay testing conducted for the BHNIP used the whole sediment phase of the
proposed dredged material since this phase represents the majority of material at the disposal
site over the long term.
28
-------
E12-7
See response to comment E12-4.
E12-8
The Corps has extensive experience with capping dredged material which is
documented in several DAMOS reports.
E12-9
An economic analysis was conducted, and updated, to verify that there is a Federal
interest in deepening Boston Harbor. As a matter of fact, it is the maintenance material (silt)
that is contaminated which needs to be removed first before the deeper layer of clean parent
material can be removed. Removing only the maintenance material will not solve the problem
of silt (maintenance) material disposal. Your statement that most dredging projects in New
England are not justified does not appear to have any substance. For the past 30 years, all
navigation improvement projects are required to have a benefitcost analysis to confirm that
there is a Federal interest in building a particular project. Included in this analysis is an
evaluation of the need and cost for maintenance dredging of the proposed project for the
economic life of the project. Such is the example of New Haven Harbor which is a vital and
critical harbor for New England.
E12-10
A public hearing was held in Nahant on July 28, 1994.
29
-33?
-------
-------
COMMERCIAL INTERESTS
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
-------
'iiiii'ijni hi i liiiliiiiiiiiipiiSiViiiiiiixiiiipV! iiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiihiiii, < iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiir Hwa ii'iiiiiiliiiiiiiiii i<, iiii'iiliiiiiiiffiiiiiiiiiTRiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiii'iii'v'Viiiii'liiiiiHPH«JiiiiiiHiiiip iliiKiUiiiinKJiiiiJivii'iiiiiKi.iiiiTiii.iiSSiw^ iliiiirjiiiiiii'iiiinii 'siii'Siiiiniiiiirv liiii'iiiAiiiiiiiiBiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiniii.1. iii'iikliiiiliiilii'iiiiiiii,' i, • i'» d iit' >i'»iiii i!,1; '«'«• a1 < T ' i • i«: v:' '
: • , , " :'in
,„! i, i" zz", ,i zz,""",,", ^ijiiiiiii'iizi'""! ,1 zzz z,""... ~".. ~:. z",i zzijE1 r 'z' i,
.
"•' ""i, • HI' ,; M; ''•, • " • • " •., • I-1!!!,:,: ' • • , , • ,
-
ji!ii!!ii;!i!!y!!lii;:i!!iiii;iiiliillill!;ii tf:
llliillli'i^^ lllllllllllllllllini.iJi'liillllll'I'liilliillJilllll!!
iaiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiKiiiiiiiiiiiiliillliiiiiiiiN^ niK'niniijigiii! - '
nwwi'WPiin'i'^ ii:»iiiii|Uli igii
' •"'!!''!!'"";! |! "I '"!""'""! ' 1'"1""'' "' J • I"!1'"]''" "'! '!
hill III
iJiiiiiiiEitiiiiiiijIiili iijiiiii!!ii:i:!,i!ii!jii!;;iiii'ii!iisi»!!!iigiii!iii»i!i^ ^w^WQwyftwtWM*..
n ppppi Piiiiiraiiipiiiiiiiipiniii,: iiiiiiiiiiPiiiiiliiiii raii'H 'PMP'PPIPIIIIIPIIUPI ppupHpiTPtPinpiPppp"! HIIHIIIFIP 'i;!!,: tni ni'ppiiiii'iiriii i ;i niiipniiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiniPil'F'iB! n PPP m\KR 't f
1'UI «#' ! i4ffif'; •'•«'! \\", „;'"; i, i * i „, !''" I ;,l,
piini !i'iiiiiiF'ii,iiii inppnPi iiigiiiiiiEiiiii'iiiiEiiiiiiiiiiiiipiiPiiiiiiiiniii iiiiiiiiPiiiiPiiiiiiiiiiiHi'i'liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiPfHiii'Vi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiplipiiiE'iiPiiiiiiUiiiiii; iivniiPinii'iiiiniii" ^PI <\ ^i!
i:9:ii|:::|ji:::^
-------
Bostongas
Boston Gas Company
201 Rhcermoor Street
Boston. Massachusetts 02132
Telephone (617) 3234210
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
.424 Trapeio Road
Waltham, MA 02254-9149
Attn: Coione! Brink P. Miller
June 15,1994
Dear Colonel Miller
Boston Gas has reviewed your Public Notice dated May 13,1994 concerning"
your proposed Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement Project.
We have a 24" steel, concrete encased gas line crossing the Chelsea River near
and southwest of the Chelsea Street Bridge, that is the only feed to the 10,000
residents of East Boston and the Massachusetts Port Authority's Logan Airport.
The minimum elevation of our 24" line is - 40.3'
We have received a letter from the City of Boston dated February 15,1994, cop}
enclosed, that they are planning to replace the existing Chelsea Street Bridge
which has a 95' span with a new structure that has a 380' span.
Do you have any plans to widen the channel in this area?
Ensuring the safety and continued service of this line are of the utmost concern
to Boston Gas.
I would appreciate it if you would keep me abreast of the progress and any
changes to this project I may be reached at (617) 723-5512 extension 4247.
r B. Landin
sns Engineer
Very truly yours,
«L
Bostongas
201 Wvemwor Street \
West Roxeury. MA 02132
(617) 723-5512 Ext. 4247
FAX: (617) 323-9808
Walte^g. Landin
Operations Engineer
-------
Cl-1
At this time the Corps of Engineers has no plans to widen the channel in the vicinity
of the Chelsea Street Bridge. However, if the City of Boston proceeds to replace the bridge,
the Federal channel will likely be widened to remove the current width restriction. The
location and alignment of the new bridge will determine the geometry of the channel modifica-
tions.
-------
Boston Harbor Docking Pilots
36 New St.
East Boston, Ma. 02128
13 June, 1994
Col. Brink P. Miller
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
424 Trapello Rd.
Waltham, Ma. 02254
ear Col. Miller:
My colleagues and I would like ito express strong support for the
Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement and Berth Dredging Project. Swift
approval is urgently needed in order for Boston to retain its ability
to serve the needs of today's ocean-going ships.
Due to economies of scale and advances in technology, larger sized
ships are becoming the standard.
Often sharing space among two or more shipping companies due to the
tremendous investment required to build and operate, these vessels
carry much more cargo, at significantly deeper drafts, than their
smaller predecessors. :
Such ships operate on tight schedules where timing is critical
terms of berth availability and longshore labor commitments.
in
Moreover, dependable on-time delivery is one of the prime inducements
the containership lines offer in; order to attract shippers to use
their particular service. In the highly competitive world of liner
shipping, these attributes are taken for granted by the customer.
If a port cannot accommodate the needs of the steamship companies tc
get in and out of port without any delay caused by waiting for
sufficient tide to safely float their ships, the port will inevitably
sufler the loss of this business with all of the attendant economic
dislocations. '
As docking pilots, our task is to guide these huge vessels into an
out of their berths using the assistance of tugboats provided by th
Boston Towing and Transportation Company.
At the increasingly deeper' drafts now common, we are being required t
handle ships with less and less under-keel clearance in order to get
them in and out without tidal delays.
At best, this makes the ships less maneuverable and reduces the margir
of safety inherent in having more water between the bottom of the ship
and the harbor floor. It also causes a great dea-1 more turbulence due
to increased pressure between the ship's hull and the bottom,
resulting in widespread resuspension of bottom silts.
-------
The worst case scenario is much less palatable.
There have been numerous instances where, faced with delays of up to
nine or "ten hours, made even less acceptable by the fact that
resulting dockings may occur during hours when longshore labor must be
hired at premium rates, the shipowner has opted to bypass the Port of
Boston entirely, proceed to the next scheduled port . and ship the
Boston cargo by truck.
Neither the containership company nor the Chipper or consignee of the
cargo consider the resulting delays and increased costs acceptable
Both will soon find other, more dependable ways of meeting their goals
of on-time, predictable shipment of goods.
Tankers are subject to similar delays and restrictions. They cope with
the situation by lightering cargo to barges in the anchorage or
unloading part of their cargo elsewhere before coming to Boston, in
order to reduce their draft.
The result is increased transits of vessels along the coast and within
the harbor and additional transfer of petroleum products, increasing
the costs of these products to all of us who drive an automobile, heat
our homes and offices, or turn on an electric light or appliance.
Additionally, we are required to accept the statistical inevitability
that multiplying the number of such evolutions increases the risk of
an accident.
All of the above considerations point to the not-so-subtle conclusion
that there are some genuine benefits to the environment to be realized
by going forward with the dredging of Boston Harbor.
Clearly, Boston's ability to continue as a legitimate port of call
with the wherewithal to sustain the needs of modern ocean-borne
commerce is at risk.
The threat to our economic survival is not several years down the
road, but right now!
Without dredging, Boston will cease to exist as a viable commercial
seaport.
Sincerely yours,
The Bpston Harbor Docking Pilots
Captain David P. Galman
Senior Docking Pilot
-------
C2-1
Thank you for expressing your support of the BHNIP. The information you have
included is useful in demonstrating the need for the project.
-------
BOSTON PILOTS, Pier 1, S. Bremen Street, East Boston. MA 02128, 617-569-4500
June 08, 1994
Colonel Brink P. Miller
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
424 Trapelo Road
JJlWaltham, MA 02254eet
VI Dear Colonel Miller:
Historically,, the Port of Boston has been one of the major""
shipping ports on the East coast. It retains that
prominence to this day.
However, as the vessels plying the oceans throughout the
world get larger and deeper, Boston becomes 1-ess attractive
as a deep water port. There are currently many vessels
engaged in trade between Europe and the United State that
can't call on Boston because of draft limitations.
It is absolutely imperative that if Boston wishes to remain
a major East coast shipping port, the navigable channels anc
selected berths must be dredged to accommodate deeper draft]
vessels.
To this end, the Boston Pilots wholeheartedly endorse the
Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement and Berth Dredging
Project as jointly proposed by the Massachusetts Port
Authority and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Without this dredging, it is safe to say that the number of
ships utilizing the port will decrease over the next few
years. Obviously, with a decrease in the number of vessel
movements comes a decrease in the number of people employed
to service these ships, including the Boston Pilots and the
pilot vessel crews. __
•We strongly urge you to support the dredging of Boston
Harbor.
Sincerely,
A. G. Whittemore
Representative
-------
C3-1
Thank you for expressing your support of the &HNIP.
3
-------
The BOSTON SHIPPING ASSOCIATION, Inc.
Cterlestown Navy Yard, 33 Third Awue, Suite 1. Boston, MA 02129-4515
Te/ephoue (617) 242-3303, FAX (617) 242-
-------
C4-1
Thank you for expressing your support of the BHNIP.
BV?
-------
BOSTON TOWING S TRANSPORTATION COMPANY
r
14 June, 1994
Secretary Trudy Coxe
Mass. Executive Office
of Environmental Affairs
MEPA Unit
100 Cambncce St.
Boston, Ma. 02202
Dear Secretary Coxe:
Cur company operates a
JUH
flee-- of tugboats
derived from these sectors is roughly equal.
ntiv the future of the Port of Boston is in Deo?arcv due
smaller predecessors
snLoer whoie customers demand punctual delivery of gooes in or.e.
contoi the high cost of excessive inventories.
high tide.
ship's next port of call.
.Given the business constraints aescribea above
-" JSHh.
This would seriously impaot our
*
Boston.
. Jnd"
TON. MASSACHUSETTS 02128 1617) 56~-9WC
: TUGBOATSSOSTO* MX- 6.7
-------
The same holds true for countless other businesses serving the per:
Including stevedores, repair services, fuel suppliers, stear.sr.:
agencies, etc.
It is a certainty that any further delay in dredging will relegate
Boston to the status of a backwater port as shipping lines abar.d:
direct service through our ocean freight terminals in favor of nc:
cost-effective and time-saving alternatives.
Dredging will have a number of benefits for the environment also.
Deepening the channels will reduce significantly the amount of si:
disturbed by the passage of deeply laden ships travelling very cio:
to the bottom. Also, ' removing the contaminated silt from the ma:
channels throughout the harbor by dredging and safely disposing^ of :
through capping or other methods,: will remove, once and for all, t:
presence of'these materials in areas where human activity and seafcc
harvesting are most adversely impacted. This is due to the fact th;
the upstream sources of the most harmful pollutants have already bei
eliminated, and new ones, thanks to our enhanced awareness of t:
dangers they present, will not be, allowed to take their place.
We really are making progress in, cleaning up the harbor, and the fa:
of the matter is that dredging will actually contribute to t:
furtherance of this goal. —
Therefore,we hope your office will take a balanced view of the overall
issue, and act in such a way as to support the timely approval of this
long overdue project before it is too late to rescue the port from tr.e
effects of the commercial obsolescence that is already beginning to
have a negative impact.
Sincerely yours.
Bos
tation Company
Jonathan C.'Wales
-------
C5-1
Thank you for expressing your support of the BHNIP. The information you have
included is useful in demonstrating the need for the project.
C5-2
The BHNIP team concurs that the removal of contaminated silts from portions of
Boston Harbor will contribute to the cleanup of the harbor. Although input of contaminants
has been decreased substantially, the dredging and sequestering of silts will result in "clean"
harbor bottom only temporarily because the remaining silts present in the rest of the harbor
would eventually be transported into the channels and berths (i.e., areas where there is ship
activity that is capable of disturbing the bottom). However, the dredging and isolation of the
contaminated sediments that is proposed for the BHNIP will result in a net reduction of the
mass of contaminants that are in the harbor.
-------
JOHN T. CLARK AND SON
Contract Stevedores and Marine Terminal Operator^
BOSTON FISH-PIER, WEST BUILDING, SUITE 301. BOSTON. MA 02210 • 617-330-7810 FAX 617-345-0574
555 MARKET STREET, PORTSMOUTH, NH 03801 • 603-431-8500 FAX 603-427-0771
June 20, 1994
Colonel Miller
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, Mass. 02254
Re: Dredging Boston Harbor
Dear Colonel Miller:
Our company is engaged in maritime commerce and (a) (represents steamship
lines that call at the Port of Boston) (calls at the Port of Boston) (b)
(to ship goods) (for passenger cruises) to and from the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts and New England.
For over twenty years the subject of dredging Boston Harbor has been
studied by various Federal and State agencies and to date the channels have
not been dredged.
The Massachusetts Port Authority and the U.S. Army corps of Engineers have
filed a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and a Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement Pro-
ject and Berth Dredging Project.
We urge you to approve a permit to allow the dredging project to begin as
soon as possible. Recently container ships have bypassed the Port because
the draft was insufficient at low water.
Any further delays to the project will cause harm to the economic stability
of the Port and affect our business and jobs.
Sincerely,
JOHN T. CLARK AND SON OF BOSTON, INC.
William P. Horohoe
President
WPH/mf
. \
-------
C6-1
Thank you for expressing your support of the BHNIP.
-------
420 fifth Avenue, New York. NY 10018-2702
TEL (212) 764-4800 • FAX (212) 764-8592
May 19, 1994
Brink P. Miller, Colonel
Corps of Engineers
U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers
424 Trapelo Road
Whaltham, MA 02254
Dear Colonel Miller:
Containership Agency, Inc. through our subsidiary Peabody & Lane has maintained an
agency representation for containerized shipping in the port of Boston since we were
organized in 1971. For the past 23 years we have represented many major Principals in
the hner trades connecting Boston with almost all the major trading areas of the world.
Our mam-Principal, Mediterranean Shipping Company 55
Sincerely yours,
Containership Agency, Inc.
As agents
Nicola Arena, President
-------
C7-1
Thank you for expressing your support of the BHNIP. The information you have
included is useful in demonstrating the need for the project.
-------
May 26, 1994
Colonel Brink P. Miller
Corps of Engineers
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
424 Trapelo Road
, MA 02254 '
Decoratire
Specialties
International
' Inrorjtorated
Dear Colonel Mill
ier:
I am wnting in regards to the Boston HarKor Navigalion Improvement and Berth Dredging Project
Our Company Decorative Specialties International, Inc. (DSI) exports to numerous locations
around the world via the port of Boston, We ship nearly 25 full shipments and at least 200 LCL
shipments per year. At the present time, our export husiness represents in excess of 18% of our gross
sales. *
I don't douht that the environmentally concerned citizens of Massachusetts and the surrounding area
should he conscious of the issues of the dredging project. The Massport and the Corps of Engineers
are project partners and there is an ohvious commitment to safely and cost effectively dispose of the
contaminated portion of the sediment.
New England has lost and seems to continue to he losing johs and manufacturing husinesses We
are attempting to dig-ourselves out of the recession. To many of us the only untapped markets where
we can increase our husiness is overseas. Please do not lose sight of the importance the port of
Boston has to the entire New England economic health and future growth
J community is moving towards more deep draft vessels it is Boston s
N to mandate whatever is required to accommodate those vessels. The over 9000 joh*
directly or indirectly tied to the Port of Boston are a very small portion of the economic impact you
may he risking in fighting or stopping this project.
I petition you to do the right thing for your state and region - protect our environment hut do not
lose sight of what will keep us economically strong. With proper procedures and guidance, I am sure
the project can he handled with care.
Director of Sales & Marketing
Pacific Rim
357
1 Canal Street South H«.
-------
C8-1
Thank you for expressing your support of the BHNIP. The information you have
included is useful in demonstrating the need for the project.
-------
P.O. BOX 65
SOUTH BOSTON. MA 02127
TEL. (617) 695-2920
FAX (617)695-2919
May 19, 1994
Brink P. Miller, Colonel
Corps of Engineers
U.S. Corps of Engineers
425 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA 02254
Dear Colonel Miller,
I'm writing to express an opinion on behalf of the company that I
represent, I.T.O. of New England and its employees in support of
choosing a prudent dredging and disposal plan for Boston Harbor and
Massachusetts Bay.
This company and its corporate ancestor have been providing
stevedoring services for ocean carriers and jobs for local residents
in Boston for more than seventy years. Unless the dredging dilemma
can be solved soon, I believe that Boston will lose its status as a
credible major seaport. As this happens I can foresee our business
and its employment opportunities disappearing.
Vessels currently handling containers in the port are prevented from
Sai;inf at a11 Sta9es of the tide. We need to provide a minimum depth
of 40 feet in the main and tributary channels and at the container
berths. Some vessel calls have already been aborted because the
timetables of the modern containership fleet doesn't allow any slack
tor idle time while waiting for the tide to change. Draft limits will
become more severe in the future as the harbor continues to silt up
and larger vessels are built. Unless we put ourselves in position to
nandle the traffic that is moving, it is obvious that the traffic
won't come.our way.
These are conditions and facts that must be dealt with immediately
Ocean carriers which are current users of the port have already been
forced to divert their ships. Unless, we can provide the depth of
water that vessels require we shall force them to plan their future
calls elsewhere.
3s;
-------
-2-
with the reality of current civilization.
I plead for timely approval and implementation ot the Harbor
cost effective disposal measures
Very Truly Yours,
Arthur J. Boyle
Senior Vice President
-------
C9-1
i
Thank you for expressing your support of the BHNIP. The information you have
included is useful in demonstrating the need for the project.
367
-------
C10
June 20, 1994
LAPS SYSTBM, INC.
810 - 3rd Avenue, Suite 408
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 382-0388
FAX (206) 382-0268
Colonel Brink P. Miller
Division Engineer
US Army Corps of Engineers
New England Division
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA 02254-9149
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
Navigation Improvement Project and Berth Dredging Project
Boston Harbor, Massachusetts
April 1994
tear Colonel Miller:
Following are comments to the DEIR/DEIS referenced above and jointly issued by the U.S^
Army Corps of Engineers and Massachusetts Port Authority. Our OTBJCTS are focused
on innovative treatment technologies and their assessment in the DEIR/DElb.
We believe that overall handling of the alternatives analysis in the DEIR/DEIS is adequate
provided the eventual decision is made to dispose of the sediment designated as
contaminated in a confined aquatic disposal (CAD) site as identified by the preferred
alternative. However, should a determination be made that the contaminated sediment
cannot be disposed of in this manner, then many of the initial screening requirements which
eliminated a variety of treatment technologies and disposal options, need to be reevaluated.
Effectively, unless this is done, the project as a whole may be in jeopardy.
On page 2-7 of the DEIR/DEIS, it is indicated that the three major factors to differentiate
the project alternatives are:
4 quantities to be dredged
4 areas to be maintained or improved
4 timing
A fourth factor, also of great concern is cost.
The CAD alternative is able to efficiently handle the entire quantity of contaminated
sediment, is the most time efficient of the alternatives, and is the least costly option short
of open water unconfined disposal. All other options will take greater time and cost more
to implement.
-------
June 20, 1994
LADS SYSTEM, INC
Assuming that all of the contaminated sediment will not be approved for CAD, the project
needs to be evaluated in terms of higher costs, greater time periods to complete, and what
is possible. Because of the difficulties associated with contaminated sediment disposal,
alternatives to consider may include:
4 Smaller overall project in contaminated sediment area.
4 Greater length of time to process/treat contaminated sediment. The
additional time period required to implement a treatment technology relative
to not being able to dredge an area at all and the associated impact on ship
traffic needs in that area need to be balanced.
4 Use of control options and/or treatment technologies which will allow'
dredging operations during the fish closure periods, such as silt curtains.
4 Reanalysis of the overall project costs and cost sharing among local authorities
for treatment and disposal. .
The DEIR/DEIS currently has a construction schedule based upon dredging all the silt,
placing it in the ocean, then dredging the native sediment under the silt and using that as
capping material. Total time to complete the project is approximately 1.5 years. Removing
the silt is the critical path to completing the dredging. However, if only a portion of the silt
requires treatment, then that portion could be removed from the critical path and a longer
construction period allowed for treatment.
In evaluating treatment technologies, a reasonable estimate of the volume needing treatment
and the time available to complete the treatment should be the basis of the screening
criteria. To effectively evaluate treatment technologies, a project specific request for
proposals should be issued. Available data in the literature on most treatment technologies
is not adequate to evaluate and select a procedure for a specific project. The information
is too general in nature.
A significant issue regarding implementing treatment technologies for contaminated
sediment is the potential cost. The sediment characterization studies, to date, have been
very general with a ratio of approximately 4(5,000 cubic yard (cy) per composite sample
which was chemically analyzed. More definitive sampling, on tie order of 4,000 cy per
sample, evaluating depth and location of contaminated sediment has high potential to
further reduce the volume of sediment treatment. Percentage reduction of the treatment
volume of less than 5% would easily pay for any additional sampling and analysis efforts by
the reduced treatment/disposal costs for those sediment determined to be suitable for open
water disposal. ~~
363
-------
June 20, 1994
LADS SYSTEM, INC.
Finally LADS System, Inc. is a thermal remediation process for contaminated silry
sediment. LADS is very interested in being considered for this project tf confined ocean
disposal is politically or environmentally unacceptable for disposal of a portion of the Boston
Harbor contaminated silly sediment.
Sincerely,
Jancy L/Case, PE
President
-------
C10-1
The alternatives analysis presented in Section 4 of the FEIR/S concluded that it is
feasible to isolate the silts dredged during the BHNIP by overdeepening several channel areas
and capping the disposed material.
MAS SPORT and the Army Corps of Engineers requested information on technologies
for the handling, pre-treatment and treatment of the contaminated dredge materials from over
thirty companies of which thirteen companies responded. The results of the treatment
technology survey are presented in Section 3.0 and Appendix D.
C10-2
The contaminated silts will be placed at designated in-channel sites. It is currently
projected that these facilities in the Mystic River, Chelsea River, and Inner Confluence
channels will accept all of the silt material. Treatment of the silts is not anticipated. Section
5.0, Dredging Management Plan, of the FEIR/S describes specific control techniques which
will be employed.
C10-3
The BHNEP EIR/S team appreciates this comment by LADS. In our interest in having
the best possible information on the potential treatment technologies we recently conducted a
survey of several known treatment companies. The responses were very helpful in refining the
technologies and associated costs that would be applicable to the BHNIP.
At this time no further sediment sampling and testing is planned for the BHNIP. It is
felt that sufficient sediment chemistry exists to evaluate the various treatment technologies still
under consideration.
The BHNIP sediment test results show the proposed silts to be dredged from the berth
areas are chemically heterogeneous. These sediments are affected by a variety of harborwide
contaminant inputs, many of which are non-point sources. Our experience with sediments of
this nature indicates that a moderate increase in the number of samples would not substantially
reduce the amount of material that would require treatment. Furthermore, all silt material is
considered to be unsuitable for unconfined open w:ater disposal. Therefore, additional testing of
the silt will not lead to any increase in the amount of sediment suitable for this disposal
alternative.
-------
Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association, Inc.
8 OTIS PLACE. P O BOX 600
SCITUATE MA 0?066-0006
TEL (61?) 545-69FW
FAX (61 ?i r>45 ~83T
C11
May 18,1994
Brink P. Miller
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
Division Engineer
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA 02254-9149
Re: Boston Harbor, Boston Massachusetts
Navigation Improvement Project
and
Berth Dredging Project
Dear Colonel Miller:
The Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association, which represents the majority of lobster
fishermen in this State, opposes the use of the proposed at sea dump sites for the disposal
of the contaminated dredge spoil from inner Boston Harbor.
While we understand the need for the deepening of the waters of the Port, and we are not
opposed to the project, we can not support disposal of this admittedly contaminated
material into the waters where hundreds of fishermen earn their living. The sites as
proposed, the MBDS, the Boston Lightship, Meisburger 2, Meisburger 1, and Spectacle
Island CAD, are at or near where lobster fishermen set their traps.
Approximately 6.5 million of the 9.5 million pounds of lobsters harvested in the
Massachusetts territorial waters and just beyond come from the general area fromjust
below Gloucester, South through outer Boston Harbor and down along the Northern
section of the South Shore. There is heavy fishing activity all through these areas and the
proposed sites lie within these general perimeters. Should this material, once dumped,
become exposed to the open ocean bottom or to current flows it could adversely affect the
quality of fte marine environment in this whole area and possibly even further to the North
and South. If this marine environment is in turn adulterated by the contaminates trom
these dredge spoils, it could damage the high quality product that these fishermen land.
(Statistics based on 1992 Mass. Lobster Fishery - Division of Marine Fisheries)
Recently the lobsters from this general area were found to be of good quality and free of
any harmful levels of contaminates. We need to protect this marine environment and the
lobsters and other sea life from becoming exposed to harmful elements. We consider the
contaminates in this particular dredged material to be harmful elements.
There has been an ongoing effort by everyone to clean up Boston Harbor and the ocean as
well in order to provide clean waters, and a healthy habitat for the marine resources we
have. We do not understand why, now in the heat of an admittedly desirable project
contaminated sludge which is buried under the surface of parts of the inner harbor should
be excavated and dumped on our efforts to improve our environment. Even if it were to be
-------
Brink P. Miller
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
Division Engineer
May 18,1994
Page 2
capped, or bagged for containment, the risks of its possible release are still too great. j
The disruption of fishing activity in these areas as you have referred to on page ES-5,
Column 2, Paragraph 1 of the Executive Summary is also unacceptable to the fishermen in
the area.
Rather than taking a chance that this project could undo the efforts and expense already
expended to clean the area of any contaminates, we would hope that a little more money
might be spent to properly dispose of this dredged material.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this important issue and we stand ready to
discuss this matter further with you.
; Very truly yours,
WAA/med
cc: Senator Edward M. Kennedy
Senator John Kerry
Congressman Gerry Studds
John DeVillas, EPA Regional Director
, William A. Adler
Executive Director
-------
Cll-1
The alternatives analysis presented in Section 4 of the FEIR/S concludes that the in-
channel disposal is the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative for disposal of
silts from the BHNIP.
Cll-2
The contaminated sediments currently reside on the surface of the harbor bottom and
are not buried. By capping these sediments in the Mystic, Chelsea and Inner Confluence
portions of the channels, the BHNIP will keep the contaminated sediments as close to the
source as possible and isolate them from potential future exposure to biota. The Dredge
Management and Monitoring Plan (Section 5) describes the precautions that are being planned
to ensure that risks to the environment are minimized.
Cll-3
By restricting disposal activities to the inner harbor, the BHNIP will minimize
interference with fishing activities. Disposal will occur in the same area where dredging
occurs; the two processes will be simultaneous.
11
-------
C J. w i
MAERSK INC.
MAERSK
C12
June 14, 1994
Colonel Miller
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA 02254
Re: Dredging Boston Harbor
Dear Colonel Miller: j
Our company is engaged in maritime commerce and as an international
transportation company has ships that call at the Port of Boston.
For over twenty years the subject of dredging Boston Harbor has been
studied by various Federal and State agencies and to date the
channels have not been dredged.
The Massachusetts Port Authority and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers have filed a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and
a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Boston Harbor
Navigation Improvement Project and Berth Dredging Project.
We urge you to approve a permit to allow the dredging project to
begin as soon as possible. Recently container ships have bypassed
the Port because the draft was insufficient at low water.
Any further delays to the project will cause harm to the economic
stability of the Port and affect our business and jobs.
Sincerely,
Michael R. Walsh
Regional General Manager
Suite 260, Edgewater Park, 401 Edgewater Place, Wakefield, MA 01880, USA
Telephone: 617-246-8211. Telex: Graphnet 3767534. Telecopier: 617-246-2906.
-------
C12-1
Thank you for expressing your support of the BHNIP.
useful in demonstrating the need for the project.
The information you have included is
12
-------
C13
Comments of Frank .Mirarchi i
Boston Harbor 'Dredgi nq Project-Draft EIS
May 17, 1994
My name is Frank Mirarchi.
Scituate, MA, 02066.
I an a full tine commercial
operate the F V Christopher
Scituate
I reside: at 67 Creel man Drive,
f isherrien.
Andrew a 60
Presently I
font st^rn
ovui :
an environmental ly responsiblt? fashion.
My specific comments comprise two categories: 1. Dispersal of
toxic substances into the marine ecosystem and 2. Obstruct • .;
advisories is the toxicity of the harbor sediments in which the?..-
1s. due] 1 .
Once toxj<; subst&n<~-r*> enter the food choir, they are impossible
to eradicate. For example, taking of lobsters-, shellfish, and
bottom fish from waiters in and adjac-?ni to New Bedford H.--«rl-.->r
is still prohibited over twenty y^ars after the disposal of PCI'
contaminated wv^st e was stopped.
T am greatly concerned that the problems of Boston Harbor nay
be spread into the Mass Bay Ecosystem by the sediment susperjH i«-r
caused by dredging and by the unconfined ocean dispos.il of
contaminated spoil. For this reason I urge employment <->f th:-
best available technology in minimizing the suspension and
dispersal of sediment during dredging. I oppose any un«.-onf
disposal of contaminated sediment irrespective of location.
If a site for disposal of clean material is considered I ur«jt= i- <>ij
to work closely with commercial fishermen's associations in tlv-
process of final selection.
Inadvertent obstruction of the seabed by debris such as riound^ <'^\_
clay, rocks, and pilings is inevitable no mattt-r hou carfully
the project is supervised. It is important to minimize 1 he
economic
ma t e r i a 1
loss and safety risks inflicted on fisherman by this
"377
-------
A number of fishing associations including, but not limited
to, Mass Inshore Dr.-igocrnien' s" Assoc ., Moss Gi 1 Inet.t er ' s Assr.c.,
Mass Lobsternen' s Assoc., and th-- Glc>ucester 3nsh'">re Fishermen'
Assoc. would bo pleased to evaluate- any proposed site on the-
basis of its importance to fishing. I urge you to actively
solicit and carefully consider these- cor.ments.
Thank you.
-------
C13-1
The proposed project does not proposfe to utilize any unconfined ocean sites for disposal of
contaminated dredged materials. The best available technologies, as described in Section 5.6 of the
FEIR/S, will be employed to minimize suspension and potential dispersal of dredged materials. Dredged
silts will be placed at in-channel disposal facilities and capped following placement. Parent material will
be transported and dumped at the MBDS.
C13-2
The MBDS was designated as a disposal site for "clean" dredged materials as the culmination
of an extensive designation process conducted by the USEPA. Any dredged material from the BHNIP
that is considered suitable for unconfmed open water disposal would be permittable for disposal at
MBDS. The FEIR/S discusses potential beneficial uses of this clean material that would be considered a
higher priority than disposal at MBDS, if practicable.
C13-3
Any disposal of dredged material from the BHNIP at the MBDS would be conducted in
accordance with the regulations governing that activity. These regulations are geared towards defining
and controlling the size of the area at MBDS actually affected by disposal.
C13-4
We appreciate your interest and concerns about the BHNIP. The FEIR/S is available for public
review.
13
-------
MORAN SHIPPING AGENCIES, INC.
451 D Street, Suite 814 Boston, Mass. 02210
Telephone: (617) 443-0616 Fax: (617) 443-0730
Cable: MORANCO-BSN Telex: 298808
AN MTI COMPANY
Offices from Maine to Texas
June 13, 1994
Colonel Miller
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA 02254
C14
Re: Dredging Boston Harbor
bear Colonel Miller:
Our company is engaged in maritime commerce and
represents many steamship lines, tanker vessels
and their charterers, owners that call at the Port
of Boston. For over twenty years the subject of
dredging Boston Harbor has been studied by various
Federal and State agencies and to date the channels
have not been dredged.
The Massachusetts Port Authority and the U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers have filed a Draft Environmental
Impact Report (DEIR) and a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement(DEIS) for the Boston Harbor Navigation
Improvement Project and Berth Dredging Project.
We urge you to approve a permit to allow the dredging
project to begin as soon as possible. Recently
container vessels have bypassed the port because the
draft was insufficient at low water.
Any further delays to the project will cause harm to
the economic stability of the Port and affect our
business and jobs.
Very truly yours,
MorXt*' Shippi#$ Agencies, Inc.
Ge
Dexter
Manager
RD/s
cc - File
-------
ci4-i ;
Thank you for expressing your .support of the BHNIP. The information you have included is
useful in demonstrating the need for the project.
14
-------
•••'-
North East Area
Boston Office
Nedlloyd Lines (U.S.A.) Corp
451 D Street. Suite 804A
Boston, Massachusetts 02210
Telephone: (617) 737-1515
Telexfax: (617) 737-1919
Nedlloyd
Lines
Region Directorate
North America
C15
June 15, 1994
Colonel Miller
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
424 Trapello Road
Waltham, MA 02254
IRE: DREDGING BOSTON HARBOR
Dear Colonel Miller:
Nedlloyd Lines is engaged in maritime commerce and calls at the Port of Boston.'
For over twenty years the subject of dredging Boston Harbor has been studied
by various Federal and State agencies and to date the channels have not been
dredged.
The Massachusetts Port Authority and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have filed^
a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) for the Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement Project and Berth
Dredging Project.
We urge you to approve a permit to allow the dredging project to begin as soon
as possible. Recently our containerships have bypasses the Port because the
draft was insufficient at low water.
Any further delays to the project will cause harm to the economic stability of
the Port of Boston and affect our business and jobs.
Sincerely,
NEDLLOYD LINES USA CORP.
Paul Gaudes
Manager, Port Operations
Nedlloyd
Nedlloyd Lines is
a company of the
Royal Nedlloyd Group
-------
C15-1
Thank you for expressing your support of the BHNIP. The information you have included is
useful in demonstrating the need for the project.
15
-------
North Shore Recycled Fibers
THE
NEWA
GROUP
S3 Jefferson Avenue
P.O. Box 3007
Salem. MA 01970
617/289-9400
FAX50a744-S857
TELEX 595955
May 12, 1994
A Newark Group. Inc. Company
Products from Recycled Fibers
C16
Brink P. Miller, Colonel
Corps of Engineers
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham,MA 02254
Dear Colonel Miller:
I am writing to strongly support the continued dredging of the Boston Harbor. As a local
business, we rely heavily on the movement of goods in and out of Boston Harbor. It is
essential'to our business and the continued existence of our company to keep the Harbor
as viable as possible.
Currently, because of the inability of the Harbor to accept some of the larger deep draft
vessels that are calling on ports today, we have to barge our goods to New York for
shipment from that port. Not only is this an added expense that we must incur, but we
also have to play second when trying to get the proper equipment, i.e. containers, to do
our shipments.
As you are aware, paper related products comprise approximately 40% of the activities
being exported from the Port of Boston. The number of jobs would be in the hundreds if
people were displaced, as companies seek alternative means to move their cargo, such as
trucks out of New England, or by train to the West Coast because of the additional
expense of barging.
It is essential for our company to have the flexibility to continue shipping to Europe and
the Far East via the Port of Boston, and to do so on a competitive basis with other larger
East Coast Ports.
-------
May 12, 1994
Page 2 of2
I strongly urge you to actively support the Boston Harbor navigation improvement and
berth dredging project, and I thank you for your attention to this project.
Sincerely,
NORTH SHORE RECYCLED FIBERS
A Newark Group Inc., Co.
J
Robert F.
Vice President
RFHrlmm
37?
-------
r
C16-1
Thank you for expressing your support of the BHNIP. The information you have included is
useful in demonstrating the need for the project.
16
-------
'&O Containers
C17
June 15, 1994
Colonel Miller
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, Ma 02254 ;
Re: Dredging Boston Harbor
Dear Colonel Miller:
Our company is engaged in maritime commerce and calls at the Port
of Boston to ship goods to and from the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts and New England.
Our containerships, which call Boston each week, have recently
had to bypass Boston due to draft restrictions. As recently as
today, the arrival of the vessel was restricted to arrive during
high tide. New England companies ibenefit because our ships make
Boston the first inbound port of call (provides an excellent
transit time)." In light of this the ship arrives at Boston fully
loaded with a deep draft. It is thus imperative that the
dredging be performed so that our ^ships can continue to serve the
New England region on a direct call basis. If the dredging is
not performed there will be possible bypasses in which New
England cargo will be discharged in Newark, NJ and moved to
Boston via barge. This "feeder" service will reduce labor hours
at Boston, incur additional transportation expenses and delay New
England'bound cargo for an additional 5 days!
: i
The Massachusetts Port Authority and the U.S. Army Corps of |
Engineers have filed a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) j
and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Boston
Harbor Navigation Improvement Project and Berth Dredging Project.
For over twenty years the subject ,of dredging Boston Harbor has
been studied by various Federal and State agencies and to date
the channels have not been dredged.
We strongly urge you to approve a permit
project to begin as soon as possible.
to allow the dredging
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Merkel
P&O Containers - Boston, Ma
Containers, Ltd.
ne Boston Fish Pier, West Building 2, Suite 305, Boston, Massachusetts 02210
nelephone: (617) 428-6035 Telex: 130126 Telefax: (617) 737-9978 _
egistered Office: Beagle House, Braham Street. London, El SEP Regfctered Number: 984922 England v J Y /
P&O Group
-------
C17-1
Thank you for expressing your support of the BHNIP.
useful in demonstrating the need for the project.
The information you have included is
7
-------
C18
June 16, 1994
PATTERSON, WYLDE& CO., IN
Agents and Brokers - F.M.C. No. 2
The Boston Fish Pier - West Bldg. #2. Suite 2
Boston, Massachusetts 022
Phone: (617) 428-6000 - FAX (617) 737-95
Cable: PATWYL • TLX 940E
Ms. Trudy Coxe, Secretary
Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
1C0 Cambridge Street
Boston, MA €2202 :
Dear Ms. Coxes
For over. 100 years our company has been representing many of the various types
of ships engaged in'international transportation and calling at the Port of
Boston. . •
We can well remember the years when the depth of water in the harbor was not an
issue and, with the exception of some tankers, vessels could arrive and depart
without waiting for the tide. Today's vessels, however, are much larger and
require greater depth of water in order to navigate safely.
Container vessels cannot afford to "wait for the tide," and if such conditions
occur, those -vessels will by-pass the port, which has in fact already occurred.
The Port of Boston and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts cannot afford to lose
this type of activity and business; and, if we are to remain a "World Class
Port, the harbor must be dredged.
The Massachusetts Port Authority and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have filed
a Draft Environmental Impact Report and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for the Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement and Berth Dredging Project.
We urge you to approve a permit to allow the dredging project to begin as soon
as possible. Any further delay in this already longstanding issue will only
cause damage to the economy of the Commonwealth and harm to the many businesses
and work opportunities related to waterbourne transportation.
Sincerely,
PATTERSON,
, INC.
A. R. Pq
Executive Vice president/
Treasurer
ARP/mg
cc.- Colonel Brink Miller
- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
_ ^
-------
r
C18-1
Thank you for expressing your support of the BHNIP. The information you have included is
useful in demonstrating the need for the project.
18
-------
Offices in:
Telephone
508-535-7073
FAX
508-535-7028
ATLANTA, GA
LOS ANGELES, CA
NORFOLK, VA
BALTIMORE, MD
MIAMI; FL
SAVANNAH, GA
CHARLESTON. SC
NEW ORLEANS, LA
SEATTLE, WA
GREER SC
NEW YORK, NY
ST. LOUIS, MO
C. H. POWELL COMPANY
F.M.C. No. 176
INTERNATIONAL FREIGHT FORWARDERS AND CUSTOM HOUSE BROKERS
1 INTERCONTINENTAL WAY, PEABODY, MA 01960
C19
Colonel Miller
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA 02254
13 June, 1994
Re: Dredging Boston Harbor
Dear Colonel Miller,
C. H. Powell Company is engaged in maritime commerce, in its capacity as an international
frieght forwarder and customs broker. The ability of steamship lines to call directly at the Port of
Boston is of vital interest to our company, and to our customers.
For over twenty years the subject of dredging Boston Harbor has been studied by various federal
and state agencies. To date, the channels have not been dredged.
The Massachusetts Port Authority and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers have filed a Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the
Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement Project and Berth Dredging Project
We urge you to approve a permit to allow the dredging project to begin as soon as possible.
Recently container ships have bypassed the Port because the draft was insufficient at low water.
Any further delays to the project will cause harm to the economic stability of the Port and affect
our business and jobs. —
Sincerely,
C. H. POWELL COMPANY
David E. Powell
PRESIDENT'S "E" AWARD
EXCELLENCE IN EXPORTS
-------
C19-1
Thank you for expressing your support of the BHNIP. The information you have included is
useful in demonstrating the need for the project.
19
-------
C20
REXHAM
REXHAM INC
P.O. Box 811
South Hadley, MA 01075-OSH
Fax 413 539-5221
Telephone 413 539-5210
May 16, 1994
Brink P. Miller, Colonel
Corps of Engineers :
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham,Ma 02254 :
Dear Colonel Miller,
I am writing in regards to the Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement and Berth Dredging
Project. I represent a business who exports exclusively through the port of Boston. Annually
we ship nearly 50 containers and at least 100 LCL shipments. This business represents nearly
15% of our $100MM+ gross sales and our committed growth is nearly all in our international
markets. By the end of 1994 we will have a European Distribution Center to service our new
markets on the continent and will be supplying inventory to that DC over Boston. My point
being, Boston as a viable port is crucial to our business now and will be even more in the future.
I don't doubt that the environmentally concerned citizens of Massachusetts and the surrounding
area should be conscious of the issues of the dredging project. The Massport and the Corps of
Engineers are project partners and there is an obvious commitment to safely and cost effectively •
dispose of the contaminated portion of the sediment. '
New England has lost and seems to continue to be losing jobs and manufacturing businesses.
We are attempting to dig ourselves out of the recession. To many of us the only untapped
markets where we can increase our business is overseas. Please do not loss sight of the
importance the port of Boston has to the entire New England economic health and future growth.
If the international shipping community is moving towards more deep draft vessels it is Boston's
OBLIGATION to mandate what ever is required to accommodate those vessels. The over 9000
jobs directly or indirectly tied to the Port of Boston are a very small portion of the economic
impact you may be risking in fighting or stopping this project.
I petition you to do the right thing for your state land region - protect our environment but do
not lose sight of what will keep us economically strong. With proper procedures and guidance
I am sure the project can be handled with care.
•M
Respectfully, A,
Marge Patterson
Transportation Administrator
6*7
-------
C20-1
Thank you for expressing your support of the BHNIP. The information you have
included is useful in demonstrating the need for the project.
20
-------
C21
Sea-Land Service, Inc.
Berth 11
P.W Conley Marine Facility
South. Boston, Massachusetts 02127
(617) 269-5840
(617) 268-2962 (Fax)
June 17,1994
Colonel Miller
U.S. Army Corps, of Engineers
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA 02254
RE: Dredging Boston Harbor
i
Dear Colonel Miller:
Our company currently operates 950' container vessels which call directly at the Port of
Boston from north Europe. This weekly service has been in existence for over 7 years
and has become an integral part of the waterfront economy.
On many occasions we have had to pay thousands of dollars in additional labor costs
while waiting for a high tide to dock our vessel. On at least one occasion we had to
bypass the Port of Boston because our schedule did not allow us to wait for a high tide.
These additional expenses and delays restrict our ability to do business in Boston and
have a wide ranging impact on businesses throughout New England.
The Massachusetts Port Authority and the U.S. Army Corps, of Engineers have filed a
Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and a Draft Environmental impact Statement
(DEIS) for the Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement Project and Berth Dredging
Project. We urge you to approve a permit to;allow the dredging project to begin as
soon as possible.
Further delays to the project will cause harm to the economic stability of the Port and
possibly jeopardize our direct service from Europe into Boston.
Sincerely,
SEA-LAND SERVICE, INC.
DAS/klm
Derrick A. Shirley
Port Manager
-------
C21-1
Thank you for expressing your support of the BHNIP. The information you have
included is useful in demonstrating the need for the project.
»i
-------
BOSTON EDISON
800 Boylston Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02199
C22
June 28, 1994
Brink P. Miller
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA 02254
Dear Colonel Miller: ,
On behalf of Boston Edison Company (BECO), I submit comments on the Boston Harbor MA
Navigation Improvement Project and Berth Dredging Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement of
April, 1994. Our concerns essentially are for the integrity of buried cables, bulkheads, and cooling water
intake during the dredging phase, and for the integrity of buried cables and overhead transmission lines
should the disposal of dredge material be on BECO property.
I also attach a copy of my March 28, 1988 comment letter on the Draft Feasibility and Environmental
Assessment for deepening existing navigation channels in the Mystic and Chelsea Rivers and the Reserved
Channel in that potential adverse impacts on Company facilities described for the Reserved Channel,
Mystic River channel and Chelsea River remain essentially the same.
DEIS:
Figure 1-lb Boston Harbor Locus Map - Expansion of the President Roads Anchorage NNE-ward could
approach the undersea 115 kv cable originating from K Street Substation and extending the length of the
Reserved Channel across to Deer Island. In that location, the cable is buried 15' below the sea floor. A
Key Plan and a Plan and Profile plotting the cable route and indicating depth of burial are attached. The ,
cable route deviated from a straight path in order to avoid the submerged obstruction indicated on the J
profile.
Figure 2-3 Navigation Improvement Project - Mystic River and Figure 2-6 Location of Federal Channel
and berth area dredging. The westward extent of Mystic Channel deepening differs on these two figures ^
at the bridge along Alford Street adjacent to BECO's Mystic Station. A map of Everett is therefore
attached which indicates the path of our utility tunnel, with four pipe cables crossing under the Mystic J
River from Station 250 (Mystic Station) paralleling the bridge. -1
!•- *
Also shown on the Everett map are cables crossing Chemical Lane and passing thereafter toward Dexter
Street. Cables also cross BECO property bordering Chemical Lane proceeding under the Mystic River
due west into East Somerville.
C22-
5f/
-------
Page 2
June 28,1994
BOSTON EDISON
2.5 Chelsen Cr**k Upstrear* ~
Street Bridze - We have a distribution cable for Logan
International Airport crossing in the vicinity of Cabot Paint.
Efa»«. 3-7 J^catio^^Pn^ial Disoo^nJ ^ites Extensively FvalnatedandFi91lre A1-1Genial
Boston map.
7-3 Site M"T fnr Potential
* ~ Evereti~ indudes SOme 35 aCT6S °f BEC° ^^
crossed by cables to and from Mystic Station as shown on the previous Everett map.
FfrT.^ A M v<» a^, fnr Paienad! P*r™»/ **' - Woburn - "• indicating "power fines", involves
BECO transmission^ of Way #14 and Right of Way #9 as shown on attached schema^ Our mam
concernisthatanyin™^
i a transmission corridor/Right of Way, have additional safety issues as well. .
inl Disposal Sif* - Ouincv - <™ (toptantum Point) was, until recently,
BECO property taken by eminent domain for an MWRA parking facility/ferry service during Deer Island
construction work.
Additional Concerns:
Reserved Channel and Mystic River dredging projects have the potential also for adver ^impacting 1
cooling water intake at New Boston Station and Mystic Station, respectively. Adverse mp** orfce
structural integrity of the bulkheads at the two stations is also a consideration we bring to the Corps
attention.
As I indicated to you at the May 17th public meeting at the O'Neill Federal Building, we appreckte this
o^pormmty to comment on the DEIS and would be happy to meet with the Corps or do a field walk-
over, should you feel it necessary.
Should there be any questions, I can be reached at 424-2975.
Very truly yours,
Lillian N. Morgenstern, Ph.D.
Principal Environmental Planner
Attachments
-------
-------
CM
r*.
l
Q
o
'I
Ti
§i
S'
i . B5
H
I
I
L_J
$
TT
(Nl-AQ) 3Nli H31VW
•T—T
(HI*)
SIA
w
!
Ill
ii
3 I
si
Jl i.
-
1
e
iiil
I
*• «n
* **•
I
3NH
k
-------
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
BY
CHKD. BY
DATE
DATE
SUBJECT..
SHEET NO. . .OF.
JOB NO
At fif
7% -^ /,
/W
->•
Sid
Wood pete- */i/7\
. 2 -
-------
BY
CHKD. BY,
.. ..DATE
DATE
SUBJECT..
SHEET NO.
JOB NO
.OF..
•WicA>/ /*?"*<
\\Wilmir
Bt/^/trt '-> 70
- 3, 8
O %
X
250 '-
s.<
13.
-------
BOSTON EDISON
800 Boylston Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02199
March 28, 1988
Division Engineer
New England Division
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA 02254-9149
Dear Colonel Rhen:
!
On behalf of Boston Edison Company, I submit comments on the Draft Feasibility
Report and Environmental Assessment for deepening existing navigation channels
in the Mystic and Chelsea Rivers and the Reserved Channel. I congratulate you
in the thoroughness and clarity of the draft report and thank you for the
opportunity to review the proposed modifications. We would welcome an
opportunity to meet with your staff as the project proceeds and to provide you
with details you may require.
I would in the interim offer the following specific comments on your
Recommended Plan of Improvement as they impact or have the potential to impact
the Company.
1. Reserved Channel. South Boston, southside:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
On a copy of report Figure 34, Ihave indicated the approximate
dividing line between existing Boston Edison Company property and
our east boundary neighbor, the MBTA.
Also indicated on that figure is an area in front of the New Boston
Station screenwell structure, last dredged in 1976, which the Company
has under consideration for future dredging. We would hope that the
area could be considered in concert with your dredging. A 1974 plan
and cross sections are attached. :
The Company also has a utility tunnel extending approximately
northward from the New Boston Station adjacent to the "L" Street
Bridge.
The report references Boston Edison Company, as a "Beneficiary" and
recommends that the south side of the channel be narrowed by some
15'±. As is planned for the northside, we would anticipate
consideration of the structural integrity of bulkheads on the
southside as well prior to dredging to 40' depth and of any deepening
of berthing areas.
Enclosed also is a plan indicating two proposed cable routes from the
New Boston Station (on JHsT'Street) out to Deer IslajQjlto provide
power for MWRA construction activities in aJ£Wtl99lTtimeframe.
3-7?
-------
Colonel Rhen
March 28, 1988
Page 2
BOSTON EDISON
2. Mvstic River Channel:
a) On a copy of report Figure 34, I have indicated on the north_side of
the river that Boston Edison property now includes that portion
marked as "Belcher Petroleum".
b) From the Mystic Station, a utility tunnel containing lines 250-517
and 329-511 is indicated approximately parallel to the Maiden
Bridge. A larger plan is available which provides more detail of the
area. Lines 250-516, 329-510, 211-514 and a spare pipe are in the
Mystic River.
c) Boston Edison's Mystic Station outfall canal structure is presently
under consideration for some repair/maintenance work. If the -40'
MLW deepening of the river is bounded by the Federal Channel line,
the present structure is considered to be sound. It is unclear
presently what effect a berth deepening of -40 MLW right up to that
bulkhead would have however.
3. Chelsea River:
a) The report (page 60) references Company cables in need of burying 200
+ 300' downstream of the Chelsea St. Bridge.
b) Page 60 also references sixteen five-inch electrical conduits 2,800'
+ upstream of the McArdle Bridge. Those are Boston Edison conduits
but it is not clear that they would not be impacted by a deepening to
-40' MLW.
4. Wevmouth Fore River:
a) This week the Company issued a Request for Proposal for the
revitalization of our Edgar Generating Station on the Weymouth Fore
River opposite the former Quincy Shipyard. It is anticipated that
reuse of the Edgar site for up to 600 MW of power will be proposed
over the next three to four months. I have enclosed two drawings:
one a closeup of the site and the second indicating its location
relative to Nantasket Roads.
b) The question I would raise is whether you have any plans to deepen
the Weymouth Fore River in view of the reuse of the Quincy Shipyard
by the MWRA? We would be interested in any plans for deepening the
river between the Fore River Bridge and Nantasket Roads.
In conclusion, thank you for this opportunity to comment on your
recommendations for Boston Harbor. As your proposed project becomes
finalized, we would welcome the opportunity to discuss details regarding our
utilities and generating station waterfront structures. I can be reached at
424-2975 should you have any questions.
Lillian N. Morgenstern, Ph.D.
Principal Environmental Planner
-------
C22-1
Expansion of president Roads Anchorage in the NEE direction is not presently
contemplated. Figure 1-lb (DEIR/S) is misleading in that it shows the original outline of the
anchorage and a 700-foot wide extension authorized in 1946 and constructed in the late 1950's.
C22-2
Figures 2-la and 2-3 show the correct channel limits.
C22-3
Cables shown on the map for Everett are not within the proposed dredging area.
C22-4
The Design Memorandum which will be prepared after the FEIR/S contains a section on
utilities. This information has been incorporated into that document
C22-5
These Everett and Cabot Paint sites are not preferred disposal alternatives. The cable
crossings will be noted if these sites are proposed for future use.
C22-6
(see response to C22-5)
C22-7
No work is proposed for the Woburn site under the "power lines". Equipment would use
existing roads if this site was used in the future.
C22-8
Care will be taken to limit turbidity during dredging and disposal operations. It may be
necessary to dredge only during the portion of the tidal cycle which directs any plume away from
the intakes. Water quality modeling has shown that project operations will not violate water quality
standards.
Bulkhead integrity was examined with respect to deepening of the Federal channel. Results
of our investigations indicate no significant loads are to be placed on the adjacent bulkheads.
22
-------
-------
PRIVATE CITIZENS
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
-------
™!™ri!J!!!!™
!~™ I!!'!!'"!!!"!!!!!!,!,!!!!::;!!'!!"
Uliii'iBlljli lllljljljjjlljlilllillllllii i11, i| i,il Illlii,,:, I' illijii J|i|!l'i""i 1! 'I ulili l!i, iMIii.i mil: Ililli
IIHII||iiRililF<;i|||| IllllllllllllllliniiiJIiiiili!:,; .aflliJiiailii!! JliiBa? i! >!m 'A K !Q» •!!, ill '•,, „', IV,, "ftil n, ..H., i| '!J'.' Wll' '•> i,'!',!"!,'ll!!lii'":!'"W If 'f, 'i11!'!" IffllUS' JHUllplllilDii' (:i\M\MK\ PI
illU! il!l!l:!iililli!i!ll!lli!l!ll!iil illlkllllill flllllliai^ Ill
iaiaiiiii ii iiiiiijjiii!iil||!i!'" laaiiiiiiiiaiaiiiaiaiiaiiiK iiiihiiiiiiiJIiitiiLiiniiiiiiiijiiiijijiilpSiiii'iiiiii'']!! iiiiaaiailliaaN aiia I iII|Kiiiiaiii: iii' \ i' Hi,!!!11 'ia,! "fSa ii'aiaa'! r laal'' ii
M'tis,ailz''liiiin'!iiiii'i!iii!i!|i!i!!!h i'iiiilliiiiiiiiiriii.!
f ;-' •• : •>: : • •
I'ifi !iiliii;:i::f'M:i:i«i^ IM^^^^
I'i'v'iM:111!!!1" ''I' ' "iSJ1 fill! iini'iinii iri '
Ji!!',!l,1!,•!!'!:/?!. :|l""1' , 'lli!1'!'H!f •! i:1*!!!^
;;:;„ , k:::r;;r ~ :::
!' iitaiinlihiiiiiiiiillilnaii!! iiiiipniHi;1'1;!;! la*:; aiiT1: a u,!«- tt\m\\t' < fJ < .f11 •'»"\ ?K •"''' : i(i '•'. ^ 11«': iinulu,? i uliiiiiir; filiiiiiniinii n;1!1!!
ailllailiiiai!!:1 i;|ai!aii!!ai!iaia "a"; aS I1 a!1 :; ai"1 i' a i1" 'I, Slaaiiia Ilialaiiiiiiiia aiiiiii!i|i!l:!iliiiiaia!'!ii
„; ;„„;; ;; ,;ilni ;„ ;; i,,;^;,;,,,,;; ililin; ;„;;,,; ;,; ^ a
alea||Ba|aa^ a, aiMa 41.a jaa^aiaaaa.;: : jjiji , ; ;,,< :a i , a ,, / iia, /Maaa a aiaaa! aaaa.! i1;:;;
-------
15 June 1994
Brink P. Miller, Colonel
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, Massachusetts 02254
Trudy Coxe, Executive Secretary
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02202
Dear Colonel Miller and Secretary Coxe:
RE: Draft Impact
Statement
DEIS dated
April 1994
RE: MEPA Unit
Draft Report
EOEA File
No. 8695
Requirements mandate that any activity having significant, effect
upon the environment be supported by data is gathered in- one
place and necessary to make a decision, including complex factors
outside the authorities scope. ', The Draft joint Federal and
State document and process to address impacts associated with
the proposed Boston Harbor, and ! Berth, Navigation Improvement
Dredging Projects (B-NIP) are both INADEQUATE and NOT PRACTICAL.
Policy acts also mandate that the public must "be informed of
the significance of the environment and the problems involved.
The repeal of a prohibition on capping is a significant problem.
No one, not even a branch of the government, is ever above the
law. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must respond,
judge violations, and actively police anti-pollution rules and
supplemental federal administrative regulations. The more
complicated the nature of the determinations to be made, the
longer the period of investigation'' and deliberation required.
I DEMAND an E.IS be initiated immediately regarding all aspects
of capping at the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site' (I shall use
the terms "MBDS" and "Stellwagen Basin" and "the preferred
alternative" interchangeably throughout my comments herein).
Capping is prohibited at MBDS. This prohibition was the product
of administrative experience, appreciation of the complexities
of the problem, realization of statutory policies and responsible
treatment of the uncontested facts.There can be no 100% efficient
physical isolation of all contaminated, unclean materials from
B-NIP. Capping at the Basin is not a "potential" flaw in B-NIP's
proposal, it is a fatal flaw. Proponents and reviewers may have
placed at risk the proposal's entire scoping and consistency.
Capping was prohibited in EPA's MBDS designation Record of
Decision (1/13/93) which "...expressly bars the disposal of
(such) contaminated materials, even if they were to be capped..."
(p 10). EPA questioned the viability and efficacy of capping
at MBDS when it enacted the prohibition. Mass Coastal Zone
Management concurred. These proposed dredging documents are
legal challenges not only to that MBDS designation but also
-------
r
INADEQUATE/NOT PRACTICAL
p. 2 of 6
to designation of the Stellwagen National Marine Sanctuary (NMS).
MBDS has been used with and remains the marker for comparing
all other practical B-NIP alternatives. However, when exception
from an administrative regulation or existing prohibition is
sought, the moving party has the burden of proof ana the cost
of going forward to bear. COE's-specific responses to Disposal
and capping at the Basin is presented in Appendix G ('G for
"Generic?") yet viability and prohibition repeal are downplayed.
Prohibition repeal has not been clearly and simply presented
in documents, press reports or at public informational meetings.
Instead, capping off Portland, Maine at a water depth of 50
meters and in deeper, waters off the Pacific coast and Long Island
Constitute "new data." Despite unspecified "modeling" a single
reference in Ms. Lynch's comments (p. A-2-9) suggests that a
COE experiment to cap FAILED near the Basin and that the
sediments ended up in different areas (something about a toggle
buoy failing to remain tight and taut in deep waters...). I
don't believe reasonable consideration has been given yet to
the duration, intensity and quality/quantity issues of B-NIP.
While COE and MassPort may be confident and more than willing
to experimentally test in Class SA waters adjacent to a NMS,
costs are relative in a migratory endangered species corridor.
January 1993, upon formal MBDS designation, EPA's Belaga and
EOEA's Tierney set prerequisite for repeal of prohibitions on
hazardous dumping and subsequent capping at MBDS. Other agencies
were meant to be party to legal prohibited uses challenge. When
need appears to outweigh due process and potential environmental
consequences then public review/comment can be deemed reasonable^
"Since 1974, approximately 3 million cubic yards (mcy) of
trials have been placed at MBDS. Since 1977, MBDS has been
used exclusively for dredged materials disposal. B-NIP proposes:
1.1 mcy of contaminated materials
2 mcy of "parent" or underlying materials
4.4 mcy fbjcinvfuture project dredge maintenance
for a conservative estimate of 7.5 mcy. When will MBDS capacity
be exceeded? When is a Basin no longer a basin? Does MBDS
have COE's "unlimited capacity as long as there is sufficient
capping material" for this a single yet massive input of known
spoils proposed over the next 3-10 years? Are mega-projects
(B-NIP, CA/T) why we designated a regional dredge disposal site?___
«^^——
Boston, but especially the Inner, Harbor is an active sink trap
for particle reactive components. There are significant
accumulations of PCBs, PAHs, cadmium, chromium, lead and otner
heavy metals (along with oil and other "constituents of
concern"). Top sediments show lower concentration of metals
than the overlying water columns. Is there a diffusive flux
into the harbors' sediments? Does accumulation of excess carbon
-------
INADEQUATE/NOT PRACTICAL
p. 3 of 6
and nutrients drive the redox potential at several hund5e<* h°t
spots within these highly oxic areas proposed to be dredged?
scores of CSOs empty, factories line the shoreline. The sediments
have been ^ oxygen depleted for .100 to 200 years. Upon the
introduction of oxygen and aromatic PAHs, even in massive debris
fields, new metabolic conditions have occurred. In situ ,
bioremediation of sediments have been successful despite the
extent of systematic degradation. At the Charles town Naval
Shipyard, where PAHs concentrate idue to overly-treated creosote
wood pilings, micro-organisms that eat carbon have flourished.. I
Whv aren't there specific references to cleaning sediments BEFORE
dredging and disposal? Per cubic yard cost estimates should
be based on remedial actions on site and driven by the resource.
m
MPRSA Title I made it unlawful after 31 Dec 1991 for dumping
or transport for the purposes of dumping industrial waste without
a permit. Will ALL proposed dredging materials, including clean
"parent" (never before dredged) materials, be CONTINUALLY tested
up to disposal? What is the likelihood of known contaminated
upper sediments and silt of Boston's harbors shifting, shoalling,
settling, eroding, becoming shaken out of buckets, resuspending
and migrating onto "clean" underlying materials during operations
,or in the interim? Why won't all capping materials be marginal? _J
>
At a proposed dredging rate of 2-8 barges daily, 8-12 hours
to load and tow, over l£-2 years, is it reasonable to anticipate
more than 4,000 barges to an off-shore site? How much time
(in days, weeks, months, seasons, and years) will pass between
-the first shipment of spoils to full capping? Based on B-NIP's
proposed: quality/quantity; location/duration; technology/costs;
every barge possesses high/less high degrees of hazardous spoils.
What could happen to the integrity not only of the product, but
the permanent structure COE proposes to build at MBDS? What
will be the backgrounds, expertise and authority of these COE
inspectors on proposed MBDS trips? Who monitors, confirms and
can make adjustments to operations or the MBDS taut-wire moorea
buoy? Why no monitoring during and around the descent phase? —
The US Coast Guard (CG) regulates all vessel traffic control,
navigational and shipping activities, vessel design, construction
and operation, and is responsible for. minimizing the likelihood
of accidents, conducting routine vessel inspections and must
ensure safe working conditions ,are maintained onboard ships
and barges. In addition, when harmful discharges do take place
and in response to The National Contingency Plan for the removal
of hazardous substance discharges (40 CFR Part 300), the CG,
in cooperation with EPA, administers The Plan and the clean-up,
CG personnel must investigate all reported offshore spills and
supervise all clean-up operations including the hiring of private
contractors when response is not prompt, and it is the CG that
retains final authority over clean-up procedures and equipment.
\S
-------
r
INADEQUATE/NOT PRACTICAL
p. 4 of 6
Taking into account that the CG may be court-ordered to shut
down shipping into Boston Harbor until CG funds and mounts
effective monitoring programs, estimated at $5 million annually,
to enforce national laws protecting endangered whales and other
Sanctuary resources, does anyone see an expanded role for CG
in proposed dredging, transport, disposal, capping & monitoring?^
^
MBDS is an Impact Category I Site. MBDS still remains a site
of unknown contamination. Chemical, nuclear, munitions,' and
dredged disposal has occurred in 'varied containment. Coffins
of radioactive containment, ringers * are only blips on modeling
side scans. DAMOS/ADDAMS didn't do continuous coverage of the
whole bay floor only reconnaissance surveys. The burden of proof
is NOW on discharger(s) to show that area resources will not
be further damaged. Before a permit is issued and in compliance
with 40 CFR 228.10, who will vigorously pursue and encourage
the best available management practices to minimize even
relatively small impacts to an Impact Category I Site? What
are the boundaries and buffer zones to Impact Category I Sites? _
'MBDS is established over a two-nautical-mile-diaraeter circle.
The Basin touches slightly at a point the NMS. Rather than
a holistic approach, NOAA appears to be reactive about threats
to" the deepest part of Mass Bay and the Stellwagen System. This
general area has also been called the Foul (not Fowl) area and/or
Marblehead, which is 10 miles to shore. The preferred alternative
terminates in Class SA waters, adjacent to an outstanding area
of national and regional importance. Water and habitat quality
at this Basin affects the Bank. This is an ecosystem that has
maintained its integrity for at least the last .13,000 years.
The Basin is surrounded by continental shelf, banks and ledges.
Water depths at MBDS average 90 meters plus and shrinking. While
the Basin possess deeper waters, the coastal shelf does not.
Even relatively small impacts could produce significant changes
to internal waves, currents and other Sanctuary resources and
qualities. The eastern slope of the Basin is incredibly pristine.
Sand is the predominant sediment of the Bank and surrounding
areas. Sand on top of clayey-silt covers most of Stellwagen
Basin and is mixed by currents with fine-grained materials.
Bottom currents carry fine sediments which are then reworked
in patches with coarse grains that are the result of area erosion
of exposed substrate. Deposition is on-going. Fine sediments
don't build up. They appear only temporary. Most deposition
is available to be resuspended in the currents and water columns.
The Basin's sediments are the System's source of clean detritus
and change. However, in the center of the Stellwagen Basin,
sandy cover gives way to sand-silt-clay bordering clayey silt.
^•^M
Capping may be impossible to attain, establish or repair. The
technical capability to cap soft, unconsolidated materials with
-------
INADEQUATE/NOT PRACTICAL
p. 5 of 6
Boston blue clay has not been- clearly shown to be viable. The
structural properties needed to support and form dense cohesive
material, especially considering the contamination matrix, may
not create a permanent capping barrier. Rock blasted from B-HIP
may sink to the Basin area's firm substrate. The most severely
contaminated spoils won't go down first (private berthing dredges
not in sequence; soft surficial. materials dispersed over larger
than anticipated areas; concentrations not solely a function
of dilution). Attempted capping could further disturb what was
last disposed^ in 1983 and could again move spoils beyond the
site boundaries. Estimated 3-5% lost during descent phase is
the unaccounted for dissolved containment fraction of the most
hazardous "constituents of concern" possibly in the nation.
Capping presents risks and a high failure potential that needs
to be fully disclosed publicly, hopefully in a separate EIS/R.
The Merrimac River is the dominant source of fresh water tothe
Basin. Direction is in a rugged pattern driven by tides, depth,
cooling at the surface/ and a mean westerly wind. Severe weather
events, and I'm not referring to Hurricane Gloria, have a higher
occurrence probability than we have recently experienced. We're
overdue 100-250-500-year storms. Normal circulation is
influenced by all these factors until an established current
is hit. Counterclockwise surface currents flow over the system.
Does MassPort, their contractors or COE proposed any volume
or weather or seasonal restrictions regarding the proposed
dredging, transport, disposal, capping and monitoring operations?
Why doesn't this information exist in the DEIR/S for this bench
marker alternative? Don't we need relevant background information
to achieve any reasonable combination of logistics, technology
and cost within the given time constraints and regulatory mazes?
I would like to comment on the. Boston Lightship/Industrial Waste
Site's fine grained substrate to be borrow pitted and Messburger
Sites 2 and 7 being near impossible to model and monitor but
it would be premature to prejudge cumulative impacts of the
proposed MWRA outfall dispersal system so near to these sites.
The "rainy day" introduction of nearly a billion gallons of
fresh water to the salinity levels and currents there, near-site
impacts to levels of pre-treatment achieved at Deer Island prior
to discharge start-up at the mile-long "submerged killing fields"
from MWRA's own "constituents of concern," and what monitoring'
and mitigation will be judged necessary and in place still
remains to be seen. (Will you join me in pressing for the long
overdue permit application process and public review?)
Please give me reasons why Boston doesn't deserve another island
monument to "transport not treatment" waste management practices.
I have concerns about MassPort. To whom is MassPort responsive?
P1-9
-------
INADEQUATE/NOT PRACTICAL
p. 6 of 6
I can support dredging and disposal alternatives for B-NIP that
include: sediment bio-remediation (fullest extent achievable)
prior to public and private dredging; no barges (How do Truitt
barges operate? Got pictures?) of "unclean spoils" but nearby
placement and capping at shallow depths; reusing and recycling
underlying materials in already degraded (Class SB and Class
SC waters) marine environments; suction technology to dredge;
silt screens in place for all phases of operations; beneficial
uses of underlying substrate for sea walls/slope stabilization
in areas prone to erosion and estimated in proposed maintenance;
use of MBDS only for low-volume, clean materials following both
in-depth report and publicly-released-for-review MOUs with EPA,
Commerce/NOAA/Sanctuary Management and the CG; and proactive,
beefed-up, safety standards for transports to and from Boston.
I'm a little concerned that what's proposed for federal channelT
and private/public berths may not be deep enough. Too many
container vessels, LNG ships, and oil tankers calling Boston
in 1991 were well over 900 feet in length. They draw as much
as 41 feet yet there were no accidents or grounding upon turning.
The navigational realities of fully loaded double-hulled vessels
expected 1995-96 could make the proposed dredge depths inadequate
before it even finishes review. The proposed B-NIP bottom will
be a little deeper, a whole lot harder, and bigger will come.
Are any high-risk cargo restrictions planned to follow B-NIP?
There are reasons to believe the spoils will be contaminated
and unable to satisfy exclusion criteria (Tier I data review).
There is potential at MBDS for Toxicity/Bio-accumulation as
capping at 90 meters is at best experimental but logistically
•can't not be impacts to the marine ecosystem (Tiers -II & III).
Because capping is viable in shallow water and shallow water s
located within an economically/operationally feasible distance,
prohibitions for incompatible uses exist and should exist in
sensitive areas, this consistency review is incomplete "and
lacking. Because time limits to COE actions exist, and it is
naive to think that we can keep pollution at bay or make changes
later, the preferred alternative is NOT PRACTICAL as presented.
Please reserve and present copies of any new EIS/Rs-or relative
documents, any Supplemental EIS//R, the Final EIS/R, Consistency
Reviews, MOUs, and the ROD for my review and comment. Thanks!
NEWS BRIEFS
P.S.
Bev Carney
38 Longview Drive
Orleans, MA 02653
Comment on Boston project invited today
HYANNIS - A public meet-
ng J»"d workshop to discuss
he, aosed improvements to
Sosiua Harbor •will begin at
:3Q bjn. today at the Tara
•lyannis Hotel.
Offered by the Army Corps of
Engineers and the Massachu-
-erts Port Authority, the meet-
ng is designed to give the pub-
The workshop will include a
presentation on the major fea-
tures of the improvement pro-
ject and a forum where com-
ments may be made. Recess
will be held between 4 and 6
Really wanted to attend the Cape
public meeting of 19 May but
Demos never called back (16 May
0937 hours at (617) 647-8257).
Thought the repeal at the Basin
would have been significant to
Cape Codders but unable to make
needed reservations (see attached)
THURSDAY, MAY"
particular time may be made by
-------
Pl-l
Use of MBDS for silt dredged from the ERNEF* is not proposed in the FEIR/S.
Disposal of sediments considered unsuitable for unconfined open water disposal at MBDS
could be considered in the future only if capping is successfully demonstrated.
Pl-2
Your comment points to a need for a regional disposal site that can accommodate the
disposal of contaminated dredged material in a safe manner. Support for a regional disposal
site is needed.
Pl-3
Due to the volume of material contaminated, the types of contaminants present and the
proposed project schedule the in-situ bioremediation of the silt material is not a viable option.
Based upon a recent review of existing bioremediation technologies, as part of the Assessment
and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) Program, the USEPA has concluded that
"because of the complexity of the sediment-water ecosystem; the difficulties in controlling
physical and chemical, as well as biological, processes in the sediment, and the need to adjust
environmental conditions for various stages of the biodegradation process; limited effectiveness
has been demonstrated for in-situ bioremediation" (USEPA 1994). In addition, in-situ
bioremediation is not effective in treating the inorganic contaminants present in the Boston
Harbor sediments.
Pl-4
Section 3.0 and Appendix D in the final EIR/S discusses the effectiveness of treatment
technologies. Factors considered for the various technologies include how fast the dredged
material can be processed, what contaminants are removed and to what levels, cost and
availability.
Pl-5
Dredged material is not regulated as industrial waste. This project is not proposing to
discharge industrial waste in ocean waters nor any other location. This project is exclusively to
dredge and dispose of same material. There is no plan to continually test the clean parent
material. This material has remained in its present condition since glacial times and is not
expected to become contaminated from continued accumulation of surficial silt. The dredging
of overlying silt will be conducted so as not to disturb the parent material before its removal.
Refer to Section 5.0 for details on the Dredge Management Plan. Therefore, upon its removal,
the parent material will be clean for capping and other beneficial uses.
-------
Pl-6
Approximately 1.6 million cubic yards of parent material will be disposed during the
navigation improvement project at the MBDS. The average barge will carry between 3,000 to
12,000 cy of parent material per day to the MBDS. That means between about 130 and 530
trips would be made during construction of the project, not 4,000 trips. Only clean parent
material will be disposed at the MBDS. Disposal of the clean parent material could actually
help cap other material previously disposed at the MBDS.
There is no permanent structure proposed at the MBDS. The Corps of Engineers will
hire an independent dredge inspector to assure accurate placement of the dredged material.
The Corps determines the placement of the taut-wire moored buoy. No monitoring of the
MBDS site is needed as the material is clean, previously undisturbed parent material.
Pl-7
The Coast Guard currently oversees harbor safety practices. There is a direct role
related to blasting safety and seaworthiness of the tugs and scows. An expanded role of the
Coast Guard related to dredging is not foreseen. Also, dredged material from Boston Harbor
is not classified as hazardous material.
Pl-8
The reader should refer to the U.S. EPA's site designation of the MBDS for additional
information.
Pl-9
No disposal of unsuitable material will occur at the MBDS for this project.
Pl-10
Severe weather events, regardless of the global position of the source, are relatively
predictable by today's sophisticated equipment and meteorological modeling. The dredging
contractor will be required to develop an Accident Prevention and site Emergency Plan as part
of the required preliminary submittals for performing this work. This plan, as noted in Section
5.8.3.1, Weather Related Issues, will include specific actions to be taken in the event of severe
weather. Tug captains will make the decision whether to transport parent material into
Massachusetts Bay during inclement weather. Dredging operations will not occur if the
weather is too severe. Also, no dredging or disposal will occur during restricted periods in the
Mystic River and Inner Confluence.
-------
Pl-ll
Information on the susceptibility of the potential aquatic disposal sites to storms (and
the resulting wave generated bottom currents) is included in Appendix G and was used in the
comparison of the aquatic alternatives (Section 4)..
Pl-12
The DEIR/S did not propose to construct a. borrow pit at the Boston Lightship.
Neither the Boston Lightship nor the Meisburger sites was identified as the preferred disposal
alternative for the BHNIP.
Pl-13
Because the Meisburger sites were found not to be the preferred alternative for
disposal of silts from the BHNIP, this project will not interfere with the monitoring of the
MWRA outfall.
Pl-14
The BHNIP is not proposing to create an island for disposal of dredged materials.
Pl-15
Massport has reviewed and responded to all comments received on the BHNIP.
Pl-16
The selection of the in-channel alternative provides the least disruptive, most
environmentally benign scenario for disposal of silts dredged from Boston Harbor. The Dredge
Management and Monitoring Plan (Section 5) provides details on the techniques that are being
proposed to control both the dredging and disposal phases of the project. The feasibility of
bio-remediation has been examined, but it would be impracticable for this project, particularly
in situ, as the commenter suggests. The proposed disposal plan would not eliminate barges
but it would minimize their movements in the harbor. Clay is being provided to municipalities
for closure of landfills. Any not used for this purpose would be disposed at the MBDS. The
MBDS has been designated as dredged material disposal site for material suitable for
unconfined open water disposal, like the parent material from Boston Harbor. No MOU's
between agencies are needed. The EIR/S acts as vehicle for public comment. Information has
been reviewed on several suction technology dredges such as the XETEX Corporations Eddy
Pump. Specifications are expected to require contractors to meet certain production
requirements. If these requirements can be meet with a suction technology then it will be
considered. The Corps always requires appropriate safety standards for dredging and disposal
operations.
-------
Pl-17
The 1988 Feasibility Report examined deeper channels but they were not economically
justified at that time. A new study to examine all or a part of Boston Harbor would have to
be requested by a local sponsor.
-------
PAUL P. CODINHA
70 FRIEND STREET
GLOUCESTER, MA. 01930
DAYS: (617) 274-4304 EVES: (508) 283-8886
5TH ESSEX STATE REPRESENTATIVE CANDIDATE
JUNE 16, 1994
Ms. Janeen Hanson, Project Mgr. for Dredging
% Massachusetts Port Authority
Atlantic Ave.
Boston, MA. 02101 . :
Dear Ms. Hanson:
This letter is to publicly voice my opposition to the proposed dumping of about 1 million
cubic yards of contaminated material from Boston Harbor ( near one of the state's most
productive lobster fishery areas ).
After reading the article by David Olson in the June 9th issue of the Gloucester Daily
Times, I think its tune for the citizens of Essex, Gloucester, and Rockport to ban together
in opposition to such detrimental measures which could potentially affect the future of our
area's fishermen and their families, not to mention the health, economy, and environment
of the Cape Ann community. We have been bleissed with the beauty of the ocean, and its
up to us to keep it clean for its marine life and preserve our resources for future
generations.
There must be other alternatives that could be explored that would not have such a
devastating effect on our community and its quality of life. I would appreciate setting a
meeting for the Cape Ann citizens to express their concerns in my district since none was
arranged hi the past. I look forward to hearing from you .
Sincerely yours,
P2-1
Paul P. Codinha
5th Essex State Representative
Candidate
-------
Paul P. Codinha
5th Essex State Representative
Candidate
CC: Mr. William Adler, Mass. Lobstermeris Assoc.
Mr. Tom Bruha, Corp of Engineers *£&=>
Mr. Philip Coates, Dir. Mass. Marine Fisheries
Mr. Thomas Biggins, Mass. Dept. of Environmental Protection
Letter to the Editor, Gloucester Daily Times
-------
P2-1
The revised alternatives analysis (Section 4.0) has concluded that the in-channel,
partial-fill shoreline and upland sites are the least environmentally damaging alternatives for
disposal of silt from the BHNIP. Any of these alternatives would minimize impacts to the
lobster fishery.
4/5
-------
Dr. Paul F. Murray
P.O. Box2107
Osterville, Ma. 02655
(508) 428 - 7807
Fax (508) 428 - 8404
Ms. Trudy Coxe, Secretary
Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
MEPA Unit
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, MA 02202 May 19, 1994
re: Boston Harbor Dredging
Dear Ms. Coxe:
I attended the public meeting on May 19, 1994 in Hyannis, MA, and spoke about the lack of
sufficient background material for the public to make an informed decision or to ask relevant
questions based on the executive summary of the draft environmental impact report/statement
*hat was provided.
The Corps of Engineers representative provided me with a copy of the two volume
environmental impact report that gives a great deal of information that was not covered in the
brief presentations made at the public meeting.
The basic public policy issue appears to me to be "Where and how should the 1.3 million cubic
yards of contaminated silt materials be disposed of to minimize environmental risks at a
reasonable cost?"
Having an extensive background as an international developer of real estate projects and
based on an analysis of the information provided in the reports furnished, I have come to the
conclusion that the contaminated materials should be disposed of in a trench in
the little Mystic channel and the westerly portion of the Mystic River not being
deepened to 40 feet.
While this alternative is slightly more costly, there are advantages that make this the most
environmentally sound alternative in my judgment. Some advantages of this alternative are:
1. Moving contaminated material out of the inner harbor runs the risk of spills and
contamination of unintended areas containing marine life,
2. Ocean disposal in the outer harbor has the potential of creating future problems, if
contaminated materials escape into the water and effect the marine life, and
-------
3. The clean material, over excavated to make room for the contaminated material, may
be put to good use in environmentally sound locations, such as clean fill to
extend land areas, barriers for beach erosion, and possible commercial or other
environmentally sound uses.
iis placement of contaminated material should be at a depth to allow for future dredging to a
|epth of 40 feet to avoid conflicts with unknown future needs. Any material not accommodated
[n site in the inner harbor should be capped in a location not subject to excessive currents,
lost likely at Spectacle Island.
suggestion of the Conservative Law Foundation bf an independent observer with powers
stop work is an unnecessary, potentially costly, and dangerous precedence.
ie future maintenance dredging of 4.4 million cubic yards of contaminated material over the
lext 50 years should be evaluated over time. Perhaps environmentally and economically
[ound alternatives will be available, such as: chemical treatment and other locations for
jisposal. ;
-*,
5 a tax payer, I was disturbed to see that it takes six:years of planning and considerable cost
get this necessary project underway. Let's hope you can finalize this environmental impact
sport soon and start construction. No solution will satisfy everyone who has an interest.
lake your best judgment.
P3-2
P3-3
:ncerely,
)r. Paul F. Murray
Brink P. Miller
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA 02254
-------
P3-1
The BHNIP team concurs that in-channel disposal is an alternative that would
minimize impacts to the environment, although we believe that using **£""*?& * be
is preferable to expanding into areas not proposed for dredging. Hie
alternative incorporates extra depth to protect the silts from future maintenance
>. parent material (primarily Boston blue clay) will be made available for closure
of municipal landfills.
P3-2
Only the Corps of Engineers contracting officer or her representative can control the
contractor's work. Independent observers can identify potential violations to Hie Corps
inspector on-site.
P3-3
Future maintenance dredging will have to follow applicable ^vironmental regulations
at that time. Tie EIR/S attempts to predict an area that may be acceptable for future
maintenance dredged material disposal.
-------
LETTERS RECEIVED AFTER THE COMMENT PERIOD
-------
-------
ETS& G. 7QHK2LDSSM
I 6TH DISTRICT. MASSACHUSETTS
ARMED SERVICES
COMMITTEE -
SMALL BUSINESS
COMMITTEE
MERCHANT MARINE
AND FISHERIES
COMMITTEE
Congress of tfje Hmteb
of &epre*entatt&e$
August 17, 1994
T2C CANNCN SUU.DING
WASHINGTON. DC 2OS15
\2C2) 22S-8O2O
70 WASHINGTON STREET
SALEM, MA O197O
(508)741-1600
156 BROAO STBCET. SUITE 106
LYNN. MA 01901
(617)599-2424
160 MAIN STREET
HAVERMILL. MA 01830
(508)521-0111
61 CENTER STREET
BURLINGTON. MA 01803
(617)273-4400
The Honorable William F. Weld
Office of the Governor
State House
Boston, MA 02133
Dear
I am writing at the request of Safe Waters in Massachusetts (SWIM) whose members I
have been working with on an important environmental issue facing the Northshore.
As you may be aware, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is planning to perform
maintenance dredging to deepen a navigation channel in Boston Harbor. The dredging project
should be a positive step toward increasing commercial shipping into the harbor which will help
boost the Massachusetts economy. -. • .
The issue that SWIM and many others are concerned with is the proposal to dump the
dredged material off the coast of the Northshore at an ocean site known as "Meisberger 2."
According to the information I have been provided, Meisberger 2 is a prime lobster habitat and
especially an area where juvenile lobsters develop. SWIM has access to research .performed by
scientists from Northeastern University which illustrates that the dredge material has a toxic
effect on lobsters. This information was presented to the Corps of Engineers at a public hearing
on Thursday, July 28, in Nahant.
It is my understanding that the Corps of Engineers performed a "Biological Assessment"
while studying the Meisberger 2 proposal which tested the effect of the ocean dumping on
"threatened and endangered species." However, as the Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association
pointed'out, just because lobsters are neither threatened nor endangered, does not mean we
should pursue a disposal alternative that would harm the existing and future lobster population.
I know you are aware of the incredible challenges currently facing the commercial fishing
and lobster industries in Massachusetts. Now is certainly not the time for the state and federal
governments to be imposing additional hardship on these industries. As a member of the House
Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee I am very concerned about the quality of marine life
and the future of the fishing industry.
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Governor Weld,
August 17, 1994
Page 2 of 2
As with most federal projects of this scope, the Corps of Engineers cannot begin work
without some form of consent from the proper state agencies. While I do not want to do
anything to prevent or delay the dredging of Boston Harbor, I would like to make sure that
members of SWIM and other concerned citizens have the opportunity to provide information to
state officials with jurisdiction over this matter prior to any decision being made.
I would like to request that someone from your staff look into this matter further. If any
agencies are planning public meetings or hearings on this issue I would appreciate being
informed so that I can pass the information on to members of SWIM and others. If you have
any questions regarding 'this issue please feel free to contact me.
Very truly
PjETER G. TORKILDSEN
lember of Congress
PGT/maa
cc: Mayor Patrick McManus, Lynn
Colonel Earle C. Richardson, Corps of Engineers
Nahant Board of Selectmen
.Swampscott Board of Selectmen
Safe Waters in Massachusetts (SWIM)
-------
•%&
ASSOCIATION
(North Shore;
CF:
November 2, 1994
Pete Jackson
PAD
Ms. Trudy Coxe, Secretary
Massachusetts Executive Office
of Environmental Affairs
MEPA Unit
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, MA 02202
Subj ect:
Dear Ms. Coxe:
Boston Harbor, Massachusetts Navigation
Improvement and Berth Dredging Project
At its meeting of November 1, 1994, -the North Shore
Harbormaster's Association reviewed circumstances surrounding the
disposal of dredged material associated with the subject project
at sea, particularly at a site called Meisburger Two. Following
protracted and detailed discussion, the association voted
unanimously to strenuously urge your own and other involved
agencies not to dump Boston's contaminated dredging spoils in
North Shore waters especially where the MWRA sewage outfall will
soon be located. Indeed, we correspond to request that your
agency and others make certain that this dredged material is not
disposed off our shores. ;
We are particularly concerned about ;the potential effect on North
Shore harbors and on the fishermen and lobstermen who operate
their small businesses from those harbors. Dr. Joseph Ayers,
Interim Director of the Northeastern University Marine Center,
has outlined the devastating effect jthat dumping of polluted
dredging spoils could have on the survival of young lobsters at
Meisburger Two (the area known locally as Rosie's hole). Already
\
-------
the fishing and lobstering industries are in trouble. If we
intentionally damage and pollute the habitat where fish and
lobster grow, the situation will only get worse.
No studies have been done of the combined effects of sewage and
dredging spoils disposed of so close together and it therefore
will be impossible to monitor pollution from either because each
will blame the other for any violations. Now, the Massachusetts
Water Resources Authority is talking of not completing secondary
treatment and MWRA is also talking about placing an oil tanker
terminal offshore, somewhere in the vicinity of the sewage
outfall and the Meisburger Two site. This would constitute a
"triple Whammy" which could deliver the final blow to our fragile
coastal environment where many earn their living, where tourists
pay to visit, and where we and our children live, play, and swim.
We urge you to work for the following goals:
1. That Meisburger Two be eliminated as a
possible dumping site for dredging spoils.
2. That no contaminated materials of any kind be
dumped anywhere at sea.
3 . That before any plans to pollute go forward,
scientific studies be accomplished to
determine the combined effects of dredging,
sewage disposal, and oil spills from tankers.
4. That genuine solutions be found reducing
pollution at its source, treating waste
materials properly, and ultimately developing
alternative forms of energy to reduce
dependence upon fossile fuels.
It does not make sense to clean a dirty place such as Boston
Harbor by polluting a clean place such as Massachusetts Bay.
Very truly yours,
North Shore Harbormasters Association
Joseph Dunn
President
-------
P.S. Harbormasters and Assistant Harbormasters of communities
from Salisbury to Winthrop and all cities and towns in
between comprise the membership of the North Shore
Harbormasters Association. •
cc: Brink P. Miller
Colonel, Corps, of Engineers
U.S. Army Corps, of Engineers
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA 02254
National Marine Fisheries Service
One Blackburn Drive •
Gloucester, MA 01930-2298
-------
F/W
F. M. VALENTI, INCORPORATED & ASSOCIATES
ESTABLISHED IN 19(
Colonel Brink P. Miller September 15,1994
Division Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA 02254-9149
Dear Colonel Miller,
I'm sure that you've seen the enclosed effort by the Nahant SWIM group. I am also
certain you are aware of the plight that faces all ocean front communities, so I won't
bore you with redundant pleas to do what is right. It is painfully obvious that one can
not clean house by sweeping the dirt under the carpet nor can one take polluted
material from the harbor and dump it into the bay. This course of action will pollute the
bay and, because of its proximity, find its way back to all the shores and the harbor too.
Please do your best to ensure that the officials of the Commonwealth aren't accused of
being so foolish as to spiUn the wind or shovel silt against the tide.
If there are no landfills that can use the dredged materials, the least that could be done
is to take the contaminants out a couple of hundred miles. This wider dispersion would
do considerably less damage to the environment than that anticipated in the confined
area closer to shore. Too often Massachusetts has taken the short term view, only to
pay exponentially later on. If you take the right steps up front, you and we the voters
won't suffer the consequences later on.
The citizens of this environment will be watching and your actions will be rewarded at
the polls. :
Sincerely yours,
FranValenti
ps: The Japanese built an airport in Osaka Bay with landfill material. Boston's back
bay was built on landfill. Surely there is some future endeavor that could benefit from
this fill, polluted of not. Don't you politicians plan any further ahead than the next
election? How about Logan Airport? Won't that facility need to expand in the future?
Where does all of the "study money" go? Pork barrels me thinks!
1 SAUNDERS LEDGE • NAHANT, MA 01908-1692 • (617) 592-5300
-------
RECEIVED
5EP i 9 i;D
-------
*
-------
COASTAL ADVOCACY NETWORK
c/o Massachusetts Bays Pro-am, 100 Cambridge Street, Room 2006,
Boston, MA 02202, phone: 1-8(XM47-BAYS, jax:(617) 727-2754
March 31, 1995 ;
Brink P. Miller, Colonel
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA 02254 ;
Dear Colonel Miller,
We are writing because of a concern among our membership regarding the ongoing possibility of
ocean disposal of contaminated sediments from the Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement
Project into Massachusetts Bay. We know that our opinion about this was expressed to you
thoroughly during the comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Review process, and
our early indications suggest that you were listening to what we had to say. We hope that proves
to be the case when the Final statement is released.
However, we are concerned that there has not been enough thought given to the potential
cumulative impact that may result, should ocean disposal of contaminated sediments occur,
especially in light of the increased toxicant burdens placed on the Massachusetts Bay system by
the extended MWRA outfall pipe (now scheduled to begin operation in 1997). We feel that if
these two major potential ecosystem impacts start in such close proximity to each other, more
thought and attention should be given to the combined effects of the two projects. Undoubtedly,
this would take place through a study modelling all 'aspects of these projects, but with special
attention to their effect on the biota of the system.
While we realize that such a study may be time-consuming, we feel it is vital to step cautiously
before exposing this important area to additional risks. The waters of Massachusetts Bay are used
by many commercially and recreationally important ;fish and shellfish, and by numerous
endangered species. These resources are too valuable to treat lightly, both for their inherent
worthiness and their commercial importance to the region.
We also want to take this opportunity to thank the| Army Corps for the openness with which this
project has proceeded to this point. We appreciate being invited to participate in the working
groups, and look forward to continuing to work with the Army Corps as this project moves to
fruition.
Sincerely,
Mason Weinrich, Chair :
Coastal Advocacy Network: :
Susan Nickerson, Assoc. for the Preservation of Cape Cod
Mason Weinrich, Cetacean Research Unit
The views of the Coastal Advocacy Network do not necessarily represent those of the Massachusetts Bays Program.
-------
Bob Loring, Clean Water Action
Peter Shelley, Conservation Law Foundation
Robert Buchsbaum, Mass. Audubon Society
Paul Burns, MassPIRG
Roger Stern, Massachusetts Bay Marine Studies Consortium
Jonathan Kaledin, National Water Education/Funding Council
Polly Bradley, Safer Waters In Massachusetts
Jodi Sugerman, Save the Harbor/Save the Bay
Mary Loebig, Stop The Outfall Pipe
cc: Secretary Trudy Coxe, EOEA
Doug MacDonald, MWRA Executive Director
Ralph Cox, MassPort, Maritime Director
Diane Gould, MBP Executive Director
------- |