Boston Harbor, Massachusetts, Navigation Improvement Project and Berth Dredging Project, Final Environmental Impact Report (EOEA File Number 8695) and Final Environmental Impact Statement Volume 3 of 3


final Environmental Impact Report (EOEA Pile Number §695)
and
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Volume 3 of 3 - Appendix
Boston Harbor, Massachusetts
Navigation Improvement Project and Berth Dredging Project
June199S
 US Army Corps                         Massachusetts
 of Engineers                          Port Authority
 New England Division                       Maritime Department

-------
                              FINAL
    ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
                             (FEIR/S)
                          Volume 3 of 3

          BOSTON HARBOR NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENT DREDGING
                               AND
                     BERTH  DREDGING PROJECT
                 RESPONSIBLE LEAD AGENCIES ARE:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers         Massachusetts Port Authority
Impact Analysis Division             Maritime Department
424 Trapelo Road                     Boston Fish Pier II
Waltham, Massachusetts  02254        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.           U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
25 Nashua Road                       424 Trapelo Road
Bedford, New Hampshire  03310-5500  Waltham, Massachusetts  02254
        for the
Massachusetts Port Authority


     This joint Federal  and State document addresses the impacts
associated   with  the   Congress ionally  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 F1IR/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.

-------
                     TABLE OF CONTENTS

                           Appendix
                         Volume 3 of 3
Appendices:

   A.  SECRETARIES CERTIFICATE

   B.  TRANSCRIPTS OF PUBLIC HEARINGS AND MEETINGS

   C.  LIST OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND WORKING GROUP MEMBERS

   D.  TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

   E.  OCTOBER 1994 SAMPLING REPORTS

    Task 1 - Benthic Studies
    Task 2 - Lobster Sampling
    Task 3 - Finfish Sampling and description

   F.  WATER QUALITY MODELING REPORT

   G.  PROPWASH VELOCITY CALCULATIONS

   H.  CA/T LANDFILL  CAPPING PROGRAM APPLICATION

   I.  DREDGED MATERIAL DEWATERING STUDY

   J.  IN-CHANNEL DISPOSAL OPTION SEQUENCING

   K.  PRINCIPAL VALUABLE FUNCTIONS EVALUATION

-------
APPENDIX A - SECRETARY'S CERTIFICATE

-------
L1JAMF.WELD                        J^n® 30, 1994
 GOVERNOR
OPAULCELLUCCI                                                   Tel: (617)727-9800
 ™CCC                                                   Fax (617)727-2754
rRUDY COXE
 SECRETARY
        CERTIFICATE OF THE SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
                                ON THE
                  DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
  PROJECT NAME             : Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement
                             Project and Berth Dredging Project
  PROJECT LOCATION         : Boston
  EOEA NUMBER              : 8695
  PROJECT PROPONENT        : Massport
  DATE NOTICED IN MONITOR  : 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 #8695               DEIR Certificate           June 30, 1994
of uncontaminated clay material and 0.132 million c.y. of rock.
Boston Harbor was last dredged in 1983.  The project has two
proponents: Mas sport and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACOE).  Accordingly, the documents reviewed are both a federal
Draft Environmental Impact- Statement (DEIS) and a state Draft
.Environmental Impact Report (DEIR).  The project is scheduled to
begin early in 1996.

     The DEIR points out an overriding problem with dredging
projects, including the BHNIP: "(t)he lack of suitable disposal
alternatives have (sic) delayed port improvements not only in New
England but nationwide.11  Recognizing this, I have made dredging
issues a priority within the Executive Office of Environmental
Affairs and my staff are developing a long-term management plan
for dredging, .dredged material reuse and disposal in the
Commonwealth.  There is a concerted and ongoing effort among the
EOEA sister agencies to work with Massport and the USACOE by
providing guidance and technical support on the BHNIP dredging
project during the HEP A review.

     Finding acceptable reuse opportunities and disposal areas
for 3.4 million c.y. of marine sediments from the BHNIP - plus
the 50 year maintenance dredging requirement for an additional
1.8 million from the tributaries and 4.4 million c.y. from the
improvement project - is an enormous undertaking.    This is
illustrated by the fact that the volumes of the BHNIP alone would
fill a football field to the height of about 1725 feet, or the
equivalent of a 120 story building.  The problem is compounded
because a significant portion of the sediment is considered
contaminated and will require special handling and disposal to
ensure that the potential to damage the environment during the
dredging operations and at the disposal site is minimized.
       The actual  volumes  are lower than the expansion volumes,
which have been described; they are as follows: 1.1 million c.y. of
contaminated silt,  1.68 million  c.y.  of parent or uncontaminated
material, 88,000 c.y. of rock.

       No estimates were provided for the -future dredge volumes
from the berthing areas.

      To simplify the magnitude of the problem somewhat, the scope
requirements have assumed, and this Certificate still assumes, that
it is acceptable to dispose of uncontaminated  dredged material not
earmarked for beneficial use at the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site
(MBDS).   The  2 million c.y. of  clay  material meets the existing
                            5

-------
EOEA #8695               DEIR Certificate            June 30, 1994
     The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)/Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) has already proved to be a
useful resource document and has facilitated many thoughtful
comments from agencies and the public.  The report has fostered a
high level of cooperation among the divergent interests
represented in the comments, which has yielded a productive
dialogue that will enhance sound decision-making concerning the
reuse and disposal alternatives.  The DEIR also helps to define
the direction of the FEIR/FEIS, the Section 61 Finding, and
permitting processes.  Although this first review step has taken
three years, significant progress has been made..

     The "Working Group (WG) participation process established by
Massport has contributed to the success of the DEIR/DEIS.
Through the efforts of the WG participants, the site
identification and selection process has proceeded in an open and
balanced forum.  I commend Massport and the USACOE for this
process and ask that the Working Group be reengaged during the
preparation of the FEIR.   This group will provide valuable
technical assistance and guidance with permitting issues.
Overall, the WG will continue to be a useful resource in
answering questions, and developing and reviewing information and
possibly scopes for potential pilot or demonstration projects.


FEIR Review Process

     The goals for the FEIR are twofold.  First, the report must
provide additional information to describe the practicable
disposal alternatives and their potential impacts more completely
and at a consistent level of detail.  Second, it will be
necessary to expand upon the analysis of the environmental
impacts of the preferred disposal alternative(s).  These goals
can be divided into four discrete tasks, including: (1)
reconsideration of certain criteria used to identify practicable
alternatives and, 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 MBDS.

                                3

-------
EOEA #8695               DEIR Certificate           June 30, 1994
     The DEIR/DEIS indicates that the final selection of a
preferred disposal option(s) will be made based upon agency and
public comments.  The comments, 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 demonstrate that
they are both environmentally sound and consistent with the other
project requirements.  Moreover, reconsidering and reapplying the
screening criteria could result in an expansion of the list of
practicable sites.  Consequently, the FEZR must provide
additional information about several of the disposal option
alternatives (See "Practicable Alternatives" and "Potentially
Practicable Alternatives" below) to ensure a truly comparative
analysis of impacts at as consistent a level of detail as
possible.

     The Final EIR must explain clearly how the final site
selection process was accomplished.  The criteria applied and the
site selection process should be discussed in sufficient detail
to allow the reviewer to 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 in-depth analysis of the
potential impacts of the preferred alternative(s), and possibly
other alternatives, which are described in the Preferred Disposal
Option section of this Certificate.  It must be shown that
environmentally acceptable solutions for the reuse and disposal
of contaminated sediments are being proposed.  Lastly, the FEIR
needs to address the outstanding issues identified in the
comments and in this Certificate concerning a Dredging Management
and Monitoring Plan.

     Taking into consideration the breadth of the requirements
for the FEZR, it may become necessary to divide the remaining
impact analysis and review in two phases.  For example, the FEIR
could provide information about all of the disposal option
alternatives, the final screening analysis, and identification of
a preferred disposal alternative.   A Supplemental FEIR
(SF1IR)/Section 61 Finding could then evaluate the preferred
alternative in greater detail and a Dredging Management and
Monitoring Plan could be developed as part of this second
installment (or afterwards).  The comment from the Massachusetts
Coastal Zone Management Agency (MCZM) explains how issues could
be treated in the FEIR and SFEIR, respectively.

-------
1OEA #8695               DEIR Certificate            June 30, 1994
     While this two step final review process is not an absolute
requirement, it may 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 with an
alternative that may ultimately be unacceptable or infeasible.
In short, I believe this approach will provide the most
predictability and efficiency.


Project Description

     Characterization and quantification of the sediments is an
essential requirement of the proposed dredging project.
Understanding what this project is will establish basic
requirements of the disposal site.  According to the DEIR, the
quantities of sediment affect the duration of dredging, the
duration of the turbidity plume, the amount of habitat affected,
and the duration of interference with navigation.  As part of the
comparative analysis of the alternatives, the FEIR should provide
a better understanding of the impacts and explain the differences
between the alternatives.

     Through the EIR review it will be important to keep 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 DEIR.  Future maintenance dredging over the 50
year life of the project has been estimated at 6.2 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 FEIR analysis
of disposal alternatives.

     According to Mas sport and the USACOE, the estimated volumes
of dredged materials should not change significantly from the
estimates in the DEIR.  Even so, the proposed project has been

-------
EOEA #8695               DEIR Certificate            June 30, 1994
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
finalized."  Originally; about 29 berths were to.be dredged
.(about 0.8 million c.y.)  In Appendix C, Table 1, 18 berths are
now listed 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 DEM, Division of Waterways has recommended
that the channel modifications identified in Appendix D should be
incorporated into the project.  What increase in volumes would
result?  There is also a possibility that the dredge profile in
the Chelsea Creek could be expanded if the Chelsea Street Bridge
is replaced by the City of Boston.  According to the DEIR, "There
is an interest in reviewing the navigation channel to consider
widening and deepening to accommodate larger vessels."  If
possible, estimates of the increase in dredged sediment volume
should be provided in the FEIR.  By providing this information,
it may be possible to avoid a separate Notice of Project Change
review.  Would it be necessary to retest the sediments for an
expansion of the Chelsea Creek dredge?

     The project proposal includes a 0.5 foot overdredge, while
many other projects plan for a 1 foot overdredge.  The FEIR must
demonstrate why a lesser depth is acceptable.  If this is not
possible, the FEIR must evaluate the implications of increasing
overdredge in terms of project volumes and impacts.

     Lastly, according to the DEIR, the project description could
be changed to maintenance dredging only (excluding the deepening
of the navigation channels in the Mystic River, Chelsea Creek and
Reserved Channel), if for some reason it was decided not to
proceed with the improvement dredging.  The DEIR has not
considered this alternative in any detail, however.
Consequently, many questions are left open relating to matching
the reduced project to a disposal site.  Because this is not the
primary plan, further analysis can be deferred at this time.
Should this alternative be pursued at a later date, it will
require the filing of a Notice of Project Change, in accordance
with 301 CMR 11.17.
       The DEIR  reports both 15 and  18  berth areas.   It is not
clear which number of berths is accurate.  However, testing appears
to cover 15 sites.

-------
EOEA #8695               DEIR Certificate           June 30, 1994
Sediment Characterization

     The marine sediment characterization was based on a three
tiered evaluation of the materials to determine the acceptability
of the dredged materials for open water disposal.  Regulatory.
thresholds, based on sediment criteria, have not been established
for in-harbor or coastal containment.  Therefore, in the absence
of separate, scientifically-based sediment criteria for disposal
in coastal areas (including borrow pits, in-channel trench-and-
cover, and filling and bulkheading for the creation of new (fast)
land, the testing protocols for open water disposal have been
used.  These protocols, as more fully described in the DEIR and
MCZM comment, are acceptable for the purposes of this MEPA
review.  However, throughout the planning and decision-making, a
conservative approach should be taken with respect to
environmental protection to provide for the possibility that, at
some point, more stringent sediment puality standards could be
establistseaf for nearshore locations.   Consistent with that
approach, and with the recommendations of MCZM, EPA and others,
all of thefsilt material should be considered contaminated
sediment, particularly for in-harbor and coastal containment
disposal site alternatives.  Moreover, for these alternatives it
must be shown clearly that the disposed materials will be
isolated from the ambient environment, that water quality would
be acceptable, and that these conditions can be maintained over
time.      "
Disposal Site Screening

     Overall, the initial phase of the screening analysis has
accomplished its objectives, the screening criteria appear to
have been applied evenly and there is no apparent bias for or
against any of the practicable disposal alternatives in the text.
Moreover, the universe of sites evaluated was broad and
representative; land-based sites including inland, coastal and
landfill sites were considered as well as aquatic sites, which
       The DEP comment indicates  that maximum contaminant limits
will be considered in the development of the Comprehensive Dredging
Regulations in  order  to keep  risks of containment failure  at a
minimum.

       For upland reuse disposal,  DEP regulations and policies may
require additional analysis.

-------
 EOEA #8695              DEIR certificate           June 30,  1994
 include shoreline facilities, subaqueous depressions,  borrow
 pits,  in-channel trenches,  and open water disposal sites.   The
 DEIR has thus provided a useful model that may be applicable to
 other  dredging projects.  That being said, this review would be
 less than rigorous if it did not 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
 meet the minimum of 200,ooo c.y.  capacity and/or the comparative
 cost exceeding 4 times the cost per cubic yard as compared to
 ocean  disposal (ES-7).   Based on comments received,  these
 screening criteria need to be reconsidered.

     In the selection of the preferred disposal alternatives,
 sites  with capacities less than 200,000 c.y. were dropped.
 However,  as the DEP and the MCZM comments point out, some  of the
 shoreline filling and bulkheading alternatives could possibly
 meet this criterion when the volume between mean low water and
 mean high water or fast land is included.  These alternatives
 also appear to be promising because the wetlands resource
 performance standards are less restrictive in  a Designated Port
 Area,  in which a number of these sites are located.  Therefore,
 the FEIR should reconsider those alternatives  that would meet the
 minimal volume requirements by the creation of new land.
 Alternatively, the FEIR should reconsider whether this is  the
 appropriate lower limit for the disposal needs of the  project.

     Cost is a key screening criterion in the  disposal site
 screening analysis.   Sites with disposal costs greater than four
 times  the .cost of capping at the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site
 (MBDS)  were considered excessive (p.  3-26).  However,  as has been
 pointed out in the DEP comment, there may be a more appropriate
 basis  for establishing baseline costs.   Specifically,  the  DEP
 recommends that the cost standard should be based on a
 potentially acceptable disposal option (rather than the
 unacceptable unconfined ocean disposal option  used in  the  chart
 or confined ocean disposal option used in the  text).   This could
 result in a significantly different conclusion as to which
 options are practicable.  The FEIR must address this issue.

     To address these issues, the potentially  practicable  sites
 must be reconsidered in the FEIR.
                                 8

-------
EOEA #8695              DEIR Certificate            «June 30, 3,994
Disposal Site Alternatives

     The disposal site screening steps outlined in the DEIR have
yielded a short, list of "practicable11 alternatives, which have
been defined as alternatives that, "(a)re available and capable
of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing
technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes**
(CFR 230.10 (a)(2)).

     The key objective of the EIR review process is to ensure
that the environmental impacts of the project will be avoided or
minimized to the greatest degree possible.  So as the FEIR
proceeds; the focus should be on a comparative analysis of
potential environmental damage among the practicable alternatives
(including alternatives that may yet be deemed practicable in
accordance with comments) that yields a preferred disposal
alternative which will have minimal effects on the environment.

     Several clear directives have emerged from the public
comments with respect to the disposal options under consideration
for contaminated sediments.  Overall, these comments offer
guidance in developing goals for arriving at an environmentally
acceptable solution for the disposal of the sediments from this
project.

     The public has generally ranked highly the disposal options
that will return the contaminated sediments to less pristine
environments,  near the point of origin, most notably the in—
channel trench and cover option.  There is also an interest in
pursuing the alternative of using dredged sediments to cover
benthic areas that have been impacted by the disposal of oil and
hazardous materials and/or radioactive waste.  However, the
commenters have expressed caution about the Boston Lightship
alternative, a known site for waste disposal, because of the
difficulty in locating the barrels or clusters of barrels.
Regarding open ocean areas supporting rich commercial fisheries
and undisturbed marine habitats, commenters ranged from being
unsure about the viability of those alternatives to outright .
opposition.  It can reasonably be concluded that the public has
rated those alternatives low.  Regarding the Massachusetts Bay
Disposal Site (MBDS), the only designated disposal site, there
was strong sentiment that this alternative should not be pursued
further.

     The discussion that follows summarizes the concerns of the
EOEA agencies with respect to the practicable alternatives
identified in the Draft EIR, including: the Heisburger #2 and #7

-------
EOEA #8695               DEIR Certificate           June 30, 1994
sites, the in-channel trench and cover options, the Spectacle
Island CAD, the Boston Lightship site, the MBDS with capping,- and
the bulkheading options.

     Generally, the FEIR analysis of 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.
                    Practicable Alternatives

     The six practicable alternatives identified in the DEIR all
have sufficient capacity to accept the total volume of dredged
material, except for the in-channel, trench and cover
alternative.  This alternative was not carried forward as a
preferred alternative because it was determined to 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 from barges and then cover those sediments
with uncontaminated parent material which 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 finer-grained and less
consolidated silt materials with cohesive, dense clays.  In
addition, what period is required to ensure that the silts have
settled and how will that be factored into the project design?
To what extent will the crude operation of dumping clay
destabilize and displace the silts?  How will this be addressed
in the project design?  The FEIR should provide documentation to
deal with .these questions and to support the plan that is
proposed.


Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site

     Although this 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 be

                               10

-------
EOEA #8695               DEIR Certificate           June 30, 1994
approved, a pilot project must be undertaken to demonstrate the
feasibility of the capping technique at the MBDS.

     The comments indicate that this alternative is widely
disfavored, and many have suggested that it be dropped
altogether.  Although I am not making that recommendation at this
point, because of the potential utility of a pilot study in
addressing some of the more difficult, generic, and unanswered
questions about dredged material disposal, this alternative does
not appear to be promising.

     If Massport and the USACOE pursue a pilot or demonstration
study of capping at the MBDS, a proposed scope for that effort
must 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.


Boston Lightship

     Capping has been proposed at the Lightship, as well as the
MBDS.  However, the feasibility of capping at the Boston
Lightship site, with depths of about 50 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 storm 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.

     If this alternative is pursued, the FEIR must, at a minimum,
provide documentation and data from comparable capping projects
to support the proposed plan (see also the MCZM comment) and
expand on the analysis in the referenced study to provide more
information about the effects and feasibility of capping at the
Lightship site.  The FEIR should also consider whether there are
ways to design the project so as to ensure that the contaminated
sediments would be isolated.  Mitigation 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,   Open—Water   Disposal  and  Capping  of
Contaminated  Dredged  Material  at  the  Boston  Lightship  Site
(n.p.:n.p.,n.d.)
                                11

-------
EOEA #8695               DEIR Certificate           June 30, 1994
project is not successful, i.e. contaminants are not isolated at
the disposal site.  What contingencies can be incorporated in the
project design for scenario  (2)?

     While the Boston Lightship site may hold some promise
because of the potential to use the dredged materials as a 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 MCZM 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 waste materials, in order to optimize the
environmental benefits 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 Marine Fisheries indicates that
comprehensive benthic and contaminant studies should also be
done.
Jn-CJbanne 1, Trench and Cover

     The option to dispose of contaminated materials within
channels that have been over dredged and then backfilled and
capped with uncontaminated parent materials has been well
received, in concept.  However, the logistics and technical
feasibility of accomplishing this alternative are quite complex,
and there appears to be significant opportunity for damage to the
environment.

The multiple steps, which include dredging of contaminated and
parent materials, stockpiling of those sediments in order to
sequentially dispose of the contaminated silts to ensure
isolation of these sediments will require exacting precision in
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 damage in
acknowledgement that this alternative will be difficult to
accomplish without impacts.  Is there a point at which the

                                12

-------
EOEA #8695               DEIR Certificate            June 30, 1994
potential impacts of this alternative would be unacceptable?  How
will potential impacts be mitigated?

     Impacts of .barge traffic on existing boat traffic in the
harbor also need to be considered. Opportunities to manage the
project so as to minimize navigation conflicts should be
explored.

     If this alternative is pursued, a more detailed scope of
work, including a more in-depth assessment of impacts will need
to be developed.  The WG would be a reasonable forum for
addressing the scope issues.  State agencies will assist by
providing guidance as well.


Spectacle Island CAD

     This disposal alternative is a shallow subtidal borrow pit.
Based on the comments from EOEA 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 Central Artery landfill closure
project at Spectacle Island.  The artificial reef project could
also be impacted by this disposal alternative.
Meisburger Sites $2 and #7

     Two areas off Deer Island have been 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 from the site, disposal of contaminated materials
in the pit, and covering of those materials with uncontaminated
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 materials
that could be used to renourish beaches, and ultimately the site
would be restored to pre-existing 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

-------
EOEA #8695               DEIR Certificate           June 30, 1994
alternatives have been carried forward because of "the lack of
fisheries sampling data in the area.  Therefore, impacts on
marine resources must: be evaluated in the FEIR, including the
effects on ground, fish and commercial lobster ing.  More detailed
information will be required if this • alternative.is pursued, as
explained in the Division of Marine Fisheries comment.  What
mitigation options are available to minimize damage to fisheries
resources?

     The comment from the MCZM also lays out the issues that will
need to be addressed more fully in the FEIR, if this alternative
is selected.  Existing information on borrow pits, additional
site data, and borrow pit design criteria should be developed to
better assess the feasibility of this alternative.  Environmental
impacts should be assessed.  Furthermore, the scoping guidance
given above for analyzing 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 MWRA ocean
outfall system and the monitoring program for that system.
              Potentially Practicable Alternatives
                (for future maintenance dredging)

     As explained earlier in this Certificate, the screening
criteria need to be reconsidered.  As a result, certain
alternatives may have to be reclassified from potentially
practicable to practicable.  The FEIR should address this issue
fully.


Landfills

     It is the opinion of the DEP that the landfill alternative
scenario which involves use of dredged material for grading,
daily cover, and/or capping (in accordance with approved closure
plans) should be carried forward.  As indicated in the DEP
comment, "Contaminated sediments going for ocean disposal are not
necessarily "contaminated" when put on the land11  under current
DEP guidelines.

     The DEIR also acknowledges that the benefits of using marine
sediments at landfills are relatively high.  However, it also
indicates that the dredged material would only be suitable as
daily cover if mixed with clean materials (p. 3-7).  Based on the
DEP comment, the FEIR should reconsider whether, and under what

                                14

-------
EOEA #8695               DEIR Certificate            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 other landfills that
could accept this material?

     The GCR landfill site was screened out.  Given that recent
Notice of Project Change filings with HEPA indicate that there
are plans to extend the life of the landfill, this alternative
may be worth reconsidering.  More information is needed on the
Wrentham site, as well.

     Dewatering options and dewatering sites must be studied in
greater detail in the FUR.  Details on a dewatering facility at
Mystic Pier or the North Jetty should be provided.  An assessment
of dewatering 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 FEIR
should address how the applicable water quality standards (314
CMR 3.00} will be met.

     Lastly, if monofills or landfill 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.


Bulkheading and Filling of Shoreline Sites

     The alternative of filling and bulkheading 'to create new
(fast) land may be promising.  Although yet to be confirmed in a
revised screening, it appears that if the total fill alternative
was considered for the Little Mystic and Reserved Channel, these
disposal alternatives would have sufficient capacity to
accommodate significant volumes of dredged material and the costs
associated with these sites could potentially be offset.  These
alternatives should, therefore, be reconsidered and compared with
others in the FEIR.
       The DEP comment indicates that there is uncertainty whether
sediments with PCB levels greater than 2 ppm would be approved for
daily cover.

     9 The estimate for the Plainville/Laidlaw landfill should be
500 c.y./day according to the DEP comment.

                                15.

-------
EOEA #8§95               DEIR Certificate           June 30, 1994
     The DEP regulatory requirements for construction and use of
this type of site are being reconsidered and will probably be
changed in the Comprehensive Dredging Regulations that are being
developed by DEP,  Until that time, however, as the DEP comment
points out., off-site disposal of dredged materials not at a 2 IE
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
nearshore 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
anadromous fish runs in the Mystic River, and benthic environment
due to changes in the tidal prism, flushing and water quality
should also be provided in the FEIR.  Further, as noted in the
DEIR,  inshore alternatives such as this will require mitigation
to minimize the turbidity plume.  An analysis of the plume before
and after mitigation should be supplied in the next report.

     If this alternative is selected, more detailed study will be
required as indicated in the comments.  Again, a scope for that
study must be developed with agency guidance.

     Two alternatives were not identified in the DEIR under the
category of nearshore filling and bulkheading.  They are: Fort
Point Channel, the upper reach, which may become a more
attractive alternative as a result of potential changes to the
Third Harbor Tunnel project in this area; and Conley Terminal, in
areas where work 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.
Innovative Treatment 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 #8695               D1IR Certificate           June 30, 1994
reduction of dredged materials.  Thus, potentially practicable
treatment technologies should be pursued further in 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."
Disposal Option 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 alternative11.

     There is considerable support among the EOEA 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 DEP
comment about potential landfill capacity and additional reuse
opportunities should be used in the reconsideration of Option Al.
The shoreline containment areas in Option Bl, and possibly Option
B5, 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
                                                                        A

-------
EOEA #8695               DEIR Certificate           ^une 30, 1994
Preferred Disposal_Qption

     If the preferred disposal option selected has not been
ranked as having, the "least environmental impacts11 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 also show that the impacts of
the preferred option will not be greater than the impacts of the
"least environmental impact alternative," 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 Draft Section 61
Finding should be provided to show that the impacts 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.
Dredging Management and Monitoring Plan

     The DEIR indicates (ES-5) that procedures will be developed
in greater detail for the preferred disposal alternative once the
type and location of the preferred site(s) is identified.  The
Plan must demonstrate that impacts to the environment from the
dredging project will be avoided and minimized.  The comment from
the HCZH should provide guidance for addressing this issue.  That
comment also considers the requirements of a monitoring plan that
should be included in the FEIR.
     Dredging 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 minimize water quality
impacts;

                                18

-------
EOEA #8695               DEIR Certificate            June 30, 1994
     o The rigorous turbidity controls identified for the
     Meisburger borrow pit sites should be explained in
     greater detail.

     o Consideration should be given to a clamshell dredge
     bucket (Cable Arm 100E) that has been shown to control
     turbidity during dredging effectively.


     Dredging Impacts on Marine Environment

     The FEIR should examine the timing of the dredge more
closely with respect to sensitive fish reproductive and juvenile
growth periods.  Is dredging of the Mystic Channel the only area
that will be subject to restricted time periods?  What problems
cause scheduling delays, and what is the likelihood that these
delays could cause the dredge operations to be pushed into the
restriction period?  Are there contingencies available?

     To minimize the blasting impacts on fisheries resources,
consideration should be given to the "startle system" which has
been used successfully in Boston Harbor.


     Dewatering and Handling Issues

     The following issues need to be addressed as part of the
dredging management plan:

     o The potential odor problems during excavation,
     dewatering, handling/transporting, and disposal; and

     o The opportunity to reduce the volume of material for
     reuse/disposal by means of mechanical dewatering
     techniques; if the volumes can be reduced as indicated
     in the DEP comment, it is possible that some disposal
     alternatives could become more viable or attractive.
Cost

     The cost data for the disposal option alternatives should be
expanded in the FEIR to include environmental costs.
Consideration should be given to, at least, the cost associated
                                19

-------
EOEA #8695              DEIR Certificate            June 30,  1994
with a loss or temporary loss of resource areas,  mitigation
costs, and monitoring costs.  The environmental costs associated
with the preferred disposal option plan(s),  any back-up plan,  and
the Vleast environmental impact alternative" should be compared
in the FEIR. "          '             •       •
Supplemental Comments

     The following is item-by-item commentary.
     Figure 2-2.  The text (2-3) states that the southern
     channel limit would be relocated inward by 32  feet from
     the confluence along Conley Terminal.   However,  the
     figure seems to show this area as part of the  dredge.
     This figure could be clearer.

     page 2-10. The Tier II,  Federal Channel Sediment
     Testing Program results found total Hepta-
     cholorodibenzo dioxins and total Octa-chlorodibenzo
     dioxins above detection limits.  Although dioxins are
     known carcinogens, the only conclusion drawn was that
     these compounds are not considered "as toxic"  as other
     dioxin compounds.  Relative toxicity without background
     data on the range of toxic effects is  meaningless. This
     concern should be addressed in the FEIR.

     page 2-11. There appears to be some discrepancy between
     the number of berthing sites that were tested  (15) and
     the number of berthing sites identified as part of the
     proposed dredging project  (18).  If the plan is to
     dredge 18 berths, why wasn't sampling  and testing done
     at all of the berthing sites?
     Table 2-4. The table should include a legend to explain
     that the superscripts 2 and 3, which are given with
     bulk sediment data, refer to Category II and III
     sediments.

     Table 2-6. Likewise, the prefix 'J1 to the PAH data
     should have been in the legend for lay persons
     reviewing the document.

     page 3-12. How is the "cost for mobilization" defined?

                                20

-------
EOEA #8695
          DEIR Certificate
June 30, 1994
     page 4-9. There appears to be an error because  silt or
     clay fractions are measured at less than  .06 mm and so
     are sand particles.
  June 30. 1994
     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
5/19/94
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
6/15/94
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
6/21/9^
International Longshoremen's Association
North Shore Recycled Fibers
Rexham
City of Everett, Office of the Mayor
Cape Cod Commission
Frank Hirarchi
Containership Agency, Inc.
I.T.O. Corporation of New England
Boston Water and Sewer Commission
Jeffrey Hopkins
Dr. Paul F. Murray
Decorative Specialties International Inc.
Marine Fisheries Commission
C. H. Powell company
Boston Harbor Docking Pilots
Boston Towing and Transportation Company
Maersk Inc
Nedlloyd Lines
P&O Containers
Bev Carney
Patterson, Wylde & Co., Inc.
Sea-Land
Town of Swampscott, Conservation Commission
Nahant SWIM, Inc.
Town of Nahant, Board of Selectmen
LADS System, Inc.
Boston Redevelopment Authority
Massachusetts Highway Department, CA/T
GreenWorld Inc.
Massachusetts Bays Program
S.T.O.P.
Massachusetts Sierra Club
Center for Marine Conservation
Coastal Advocacy Network
CLF
Save the Harbor/Save the Bay
Coastal Zone Management
                 21.

-------
EOEA #8695               DEIR certificate            June 30, 1994
Late Comments:

6/20/94        John T. Clark and Son
6/11/94        Cetacean Research Unit

P:bosdredg.dei
TC/NB/nb
                                22

                               26

-------
APPENDIX B - TRANSCRIPTS OF PUBLIC HEARINGS AND MEETINGS

-------

-------
                              APPENDIX B
           Transcripts  of  Official Public  Hearings and Meetings

O'Neil Federal Building, Boston, Mass. - May 17,1994, 1:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.
Tara Hyannis Hotel, Hyannis,  Mass. - May 19, 1994, 1:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.
Nahant Town Hall, Nahant, Mass. - July 28,1994, 7:00 p.m.

-------

-------
 In The Matter Of:
  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers N. E, Division &
         Massachusetts Port Authority
                May 17, 1994
               BPA REPORTING
           295 DEVONSHIRE STREET
             BOSTON, MA 02110
                (617) 423-0500

             Original File mayl7mpa,btb, 234 Pages

Word Index included with this Min-U-Scripts
                   C5*C.

-------

-------
u.». Army <_*>rps ot Engineers N. E. Division &
Massachusetts Port Authority
                                                                        May IT, 1994
                                Page 1
   U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
    NEW ENGLAND DIVISION
     424 Trapelo Road
  WaJtham, Massachusetts 02254-9149
        and
   MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY
    Transaporlion Building
      10ParkPiaza
   Boston, Massachusetts 02116
BOSTON HARBOR NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
   PUBLIC MEETING » WORKSHOP
    1:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.
    Tuesday, May 17,1994
  Auditorium, O'Neill Federal Building
     10 Causeway Street
     Boston, Massachusetts
        and
    1:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.
    Thursday, May 19,1994
     Tara II Ballroom
     Tata Hyannis Hotel
      Wast End Circle
     Hyannis, Massachusetts
       INDEX
 May 17, 1994, O'Neill Federal Building
Introduction
  Larry Rosenberg           5
Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement
Project Overview
  Colnel Brink P. Milter        9
  Ralph Cox           14
  Pete Jackson          24
MassPort Role In Boston Harbor Navigation
improvement Project
  Janeen Hansen          36
Role ol Public Interest Groups
  Joan LeBtane, Save the Habor/Save  39
    the Bay
  Braes Perez, Conservation Law   71
    Foundation
Public Comment
  Alfred E. Frizelli        87
    Boston Shipping Assoc. Inc.
  William E. Robinson        90
    Mass. Lobstermen's Assoc.
  William a McMamim        94
    International Longshoremen's Assoc.
  Mason Walnrieh         86
    Cetacean Research Unit
  jayWennemer           105
    Manomat Observatory
  Vivton U            107
    Hie Boston Harbor Assoc.
  Bruce Herman           115
    SH/S3 Baywateh
  Capl A. Ross Pope         119
    Patterson, Wylde & Co., Inc.
Overall Approach to trie Draft Environmental
Impact Statement, National Environmental
Policy Act, NEPA, Overview
  • Catharine Demos          124
      INDEX (Continued)
 Mass port Approach to Massachusetts
 Environmental Impact Report
   Norman Faramelli         130
 Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act,
 MEPA, Overview
   Nancy Baker           13S
 Panel Discussion and Questions     136
 Evening Session           1SS
 Public Comments
   MexStraham           156
     Green World
   John Lewis           162
     Sierra Club
   Thomas LoGrande         167
     Gloucester Fishermen's Wives
 Formal Presentations        174
 Public Comments
   David Leveffle          175
   Angela SanMppo         178
     Gloucester Fishermen's Wives
   AlexGwelinkel          183
     Innovotech Assoc.
 Open Discussion           184


        INDEX
                                Page 2
                                 PageS
Page 4
May 19,1994, Tarn Hyannis Hotel & Resort
Introduction
  Larry Rosenberg         202
Formal Presentations         202
Public Comments
  Dennis Finn          202
    Cape Cod Commlsston
  Wayne Bergeron         205
    Boys Legal Fund
  Dr. Paul Atmumry        209
  Dorothy Klersteae        211
  William Adler         212
Panel Discussion          217
Open Discussion           217
Evening Session
Formal Presentations         225
Public Comments
  Mary loebig          225
    Slop The Outfall Pipe
  EddtaGoodstein         231
    Stop The Outfall Pipe
                                Pages
HI MR, ROSENBERG: Our workshop m
tables are open.The Corps and Massport
is to is] the rear of the room. Save the
Harbor/Save the Hi Bay and the Conser-
vation Law Foundation to my [5] left.The
federal   agencies*  and  the  state  {6\
agencies' table is to my right. And they'll
be  in more than happy to answer any
questions about any m information you
may need. The formal proceedings [9]
will start at 1:00 o'clock.
[io] (Off the record.)
(in MR. ROSENBERG: Good afternoon.
to] I'd like to welcome you here today
to the O'Neill im Federal Center for this
jointly sponsored  public [HI meeting
and workshop to discuss the draft [15]
environment  impact  statement  and
report on the [16] Boston Harbor Naviga-
tion Improvement Project.
117] I'd also like to thank you for [isj
involving yourself in this process. We're
[191 hosting these workshops and public
meetings here  1201 and in  Hyannis to
listen to your comments, to mi  under-
stand your concerns and provide you an
[22j opportunity to formally appear on
the record 1231 should you care to do so.
This workshop is [24] yours.	
                                Page 6
[i] I do  ask that during the  formal pj
discussion  period, which  we've  just
entered, that Bl you hold your questions
until the end of each HI presentation, at
which time you will be heard.
[Si The rules tonight are fairly [6] simple.
If you've got a question, ask it.  If m
you've got something to say, say it. If you
wish [8] to go on the record, please. And
lastly, if you [9i want to involve yourself
in this process, not no] just today but in
the future, talk to any member mi at
these tables sitting around the edge on
some [12] of these panels, and they will
help you get usi involed.
(HI These tables are hosted by  the (isi
Corps of Engineers, MassPort in the rear;
several insi federal agencies to my right;
the  Commonwealth  of   [i?i  Mas-
sachusetts also to my right,* and two of
the us] many public interest groups that
are involved in 119] this project, Save the
Harbor/Save the Bay and 1201 Conserva-
tion Law Foundation, to my left.
[2i] We've all been working together 1221
for over the past year to get to where we
are 123] today. Now we need your help.
Yes, thank you [24] very much for com-
ing.	
                               ___
HI I'd like to go through the agenda 121
for just one moment. We're going to start
off 13! with an opening statement and an
overview of the HJ  project by Colonel
Brink  Miller, the Commander isj and
Division Engineer of the New England
Division (61 of the Corps of Engineers.
He'll be followed by m Mr. Ralph Cox,
Director of Maritime for [8] Massport.
And then our Project Officer at the [9]
Corps, Mr. Peter Jackson, will explain
the  [io] project in detail. He'll be fol-
lowed by [ii] Ms. Janeen Hansen from
MassPort,  who  is   their 1121  Project
Manager.
IB] We will then go into the various twi
roles of the public interest groups and
how they [is] feel about the process and
where they stand on iiei the process,and
we'll start off with Ms.Joan IITI LeBlanc
from Save the Harbor/Save the Bay, [is]
followed by Ms. Grace Perez from Con-
servation Law [19] Foundation.
(20]  Following  that we will  ask [21:
Catherine Demos to come up, and she's
our Project 1221 Officer for the environ-
mental impact  statement  123] for the
Corps, and she will give you a brief 124]
overview of that and the NEPA require-
ments and
                                Pages
uj the statutes. She'll be  followed by,
Norm, I )2] hope I pronounce the name
right, Norman [31 Faramelli, who works
at MassPort and is very [4] involved in
this process. We will then hear from isj
Ms. Nancy Baker who works for the
Commonwealth of [61 Massachusetts.
And then we'll have a small panel m
discussion with Norm and Catherine,
and they will m discuss what's next and
where we're going.
19] This evening we will have a wrapup
[io] discussion with members of all the
workshop mi tables.
[12] Once again, I would like to thank [131
you all for coming night.
[M] First, I'd like to introduce tisj Colonel
Brink Miller, the Division Engineer, U.S.
[i6]  Army  Corps  of  Engineers,  New
England. He assumed inj command of
the New England Division on July 7, [isj
1992. He  manages the Corps' respon-
sibility in [19] the 6-state New England
area. He supervises a [201 work force of
over 600 and an annual budget of 1211
approximately $170 million.	^^
 BPA REPORTING C6l7)423-0500
                   Min-lI-Script®?
                                                              Page 1 - Page 8

-------
May 17,1994
                      U.S. Army Corps of Engineers N. E. Division &
                                         Massachusetts Port Authority
122) He came to New England following
a 123) 3-year assignment as Commander
and District [24] Engineer for our Galves-
ton, Texas DIstrict.He
                             Pages
l\] was on the staff of the U.S. Army
Command and 121 General Staff College
at Fort Lcavenworth wheie f3) he served
as chief of  the Doctrine Division, [4]
Department of Tactics.
m Me is a graduate of the U.S. [6j Military
Academy at West Point, the U.S. Army m
Command and General Staff College and
U.S. Army m War College, the Engineer
Officers' Advanced [9] Course and has
served in the Military Engineering  1101
Division in the Office of the Chief of the
Army in] Engineers. After receiving his
Master's Degree (121 in theoretical and
applied mechanics from the mi Univer-
sity of Illinois, he was assigned to  West
|i
-------
U.S. Army ixups or tngmeers «. a. uivision
Massachusetts Port Authority
                                                          May 17,1994
project. I don't tsj think, being in the
position  I am, it is a  [9] tremendous
responsibility, but it's a very uoj enjoy-
able one. I think a lot of us share that [in
with other people who work around the
Port and [12] make their living and have
for many, many years [131 around the Port
that are here today.
[14] I don't think  a project like this (isi
could move forward if there weren't a
number of n6] people who weren't pas-
sionate about seeing the IITJ Port of Bos-
ton survive, and more than that, [is] really
grow.
H9l MyfamUy.myfatherstarted 1201 work-
ing on the Boston waterfront back in the
(2i] mid-50s, and I remember as a young
boy wanting to  [22] spend  more  time
with him. I would go with him on [23]
some of his weekend junkets up to the
ships and 124] he actually worked on
some of the oil ships that
                             Page 16
in came into Boston. So then my career
•went off in  m different ways, playing
hockey in Europe. I [3l never thought I'd
find myself in this position of HI sort of
being in charge or leading a charge to tsi
really save the Port and to encourage
growth. i6\ That's, quite frankly, where I
find myself (?] today. And I want to make
it clear that I am tsj  passionate about
wanting to see this project come [9] to
fruition.
no] I grew up on  Cape Cod and spent, I
[a] would like to say  90 percent of my
time fishing (12) and crabbing and really
living in a serene  IB! environment.It's at
times difficult to be  IMJ painted as a
person on the opposite side of the t»]
environmental community because I'm
equally tie) passionate about seeing our
economy and our (ITI companies grow
and expand in an environmentally im
sound way. And I think that's all that we
are 1191 truly trying to accomplish with
this project.
120] A couple of feet, just so 121 j everybody
knows. We have roughly 17 million tons
[22] of cargo that comes into the a Port
of Boston (251 today. A far cry from what
it used to be as the »4j world's number
one port, but still it's a healthy	
                             Page 17
in sum, and we have ways of growing as
the economy 121 improves, only if we
protect the infrastructure [31 that sort of
guides that, that economy.
M Roughly, general cargo, the m  con-
tainer cargo, we  have about 150 TEU's
— TVs, [6]  shoes, food,  clothing,
beverages. And I've sort m of promised
my HA colleagues that we would work
[8] to movethat over 200,000,and I know
they're (9) going to keep my hand to the
fire trying to make noi that come true.
There was a day when there was mi
over 3,000 longshoremen workers in
the Port of 112] Boston. Today there's
about 260. Some of that (131  is  the
economy. Some of that is not sort of [HI
paying attention to the  Port itself and
the [is] infrastructure and keeping it con-
nected to the fie] New England.
H7] We have cars, plywood, salt. We [isj
have  90 percent  of the petroleum
products that  [19] service all of New
England, our housing, our 1201 commer-
cial entities come through the Port of 1211
Boston. 94 percent of all international
trade [221 moves via waterborne carriers.
70 percent of [23] trade that comes in and
out of New England on an i24j  interna-
tional basis comes through the Port of
                            Page 18
[i] Boston.
[2] I bet if we had a map of the world 131
and it showed  tradelanes in green and
said Show HI us the choke points,  the
danger points in red, m you would circle
many of the major ports, [6] including
Boston, in the United States.
I7j As port directors, our number one [si
issue is dredging at the moment. As  our
national  19] society moves forward in
communication  with   [ioi  Secretary
Penia and President Clinton, they have
mi recognized that ports are such an
integral  part 112] of international trade
that they have to be 113] looked upon as
a part of the total intermodal [i4j system
— highways, rails and the ports.
usi Boston quite frankly is in [16] danger.
We are not trying to the save the day inj
here.We're sort of losing ground.By not
(isj having this project really already
completed, we 1191 are behind.
[20] We have the Vessel Sharing 1211 Agree-
ment made up of five of the largest
carriers  [221 in  the world to call in  the
Port of Boston each  [231 week.It's recent-
ly had to bypass because of (24) tides
weren't  right.  They go  down  to New
-Vbrk.    	
                            Page 19
[i] They  sent thing up by truck or by
barge, and the [2] consumers paid a little
bit extra for that. They BJ said that's
going to be much stronger issue as we
[4] move forward in the coming months,
not in the m coming year. It's an increase
in cost  that we  [6j all pay for in  our
products that we ware and v)  drive in
every day.
[8] Lifeline, another part of (91 transporta-
tion, another shipping company that uoj
calls in Boston, wanted to call in Boston,
we tin couldn't accommodate them at
one  of our 1121 terminals. We  had ex-
pedite one portion of it at [13] Moran
Terminal where fortunately we could
work IM] with the state agencies,  and
they understood the us] need, and we
did expedite. We brought in that i iej new
line of service that now comes in again.
The in] first port of call, which is the
best service you usj can ask as  Port
Director, inbound, and it goes 119] out to
Mexico, opens up a new market for
many  1201 Massachusetts and Canadian
companies.
[2i] Also on another part of its 1221 service
is our last port of call on the East 123]
Coast going outbound to Europe. Again,
a port [24] couldn't ask for better service
than what
                            Page 20
HI lifelines provides for us.
(2j It couldn't accommodate them 131
without dredging. Their ships, they're
ordering [4] larger ships that should be
in line within the [51 next 18 months to
2 years. When that happens, if iei our
dredging is not in place, we're in danger
of [7] not being able to keep them. That's
just a [8] fact.
[9] NSC, another shipping company, no]
brings in more cargo to the Port of Bos-
ton than [in  any other carrier, about
12,000 containers a  112] year. They're
ordering larger ships. They're 113] going
to be on line this summer.
[14] Companies that do business in us)
international markets, they don't  have
large uej  warehouses any more. They
want more of the [i?] product, manufac-
ture it, bring it over in a ship usj and get
it into the distribution center. They 119]
need  the products on time and in
demand. They 120] can't wait to have a
ship standing out in the [211 harbor  wait-
ing for a high tide or low tide or 1221
medium tide to get under the bridge or
through [23] the  harbor. Real situations.
Potential [24] problems.
                             _____

[i] Today we have Revere Sugar, a [2]
maritime property over in Charlestown.
We have a [31 several users, potential
users of that property HI that will come
to with a product via water. It's m not
deep enough. The channel is not  deep
id enough. The  berth is  not  deep
enough. It's part m of this project. It's a
missed opportunity that m may not
come back to us.
19] Everybody hears about the port as no]
an economic catalyst for New England,
and it is mi quite ftankly.Transportation
is the way we all (i2j do business. The
way many of us get jobs ti3) provided by
it. A couple of figures. We have a i HI $6.6
billion economic impact to the region
via us) the Port of Boston.Roughly 6,000
jobs are  [16] directly and  indirectly af-
fected by what goes on 117] in the  port.
For a small port, that's a massive [is]
number. If you took that off the  radar
screen in (i9i New England, we'd spiral
into a recession that we 1201 may never
come out quite ftankly in my opinion.
 BPA REPORTING (617)423-0500
          Min-U-Script®
                 Page 16 - Page 21
-------
May 17,1994
                      U.S. Army Corps of Engineers N. E. Division &
                                         Massachusetts Port Authority
I2ij I think if we want to keep our [221
companies  compctctvc, New England,
Massachusetts, 1231 this is a New England
issue, quite frankly. It's [24] not just Mas-
sachusetts. We have an obligation to

                             Page 22

ID a great era citizenship and constituen-
cy. We |2i have to keep the Port open,
alive  and moving.  Bl  This  dredging
process really is an integral part [4] of
that.
15) We're spending $40, $50 million tei
over at Connelly Terminal because we
believe in m the future of New England
as a port to make it [8] more  efficient.
We're working like die dickens [9] to
bring rail freight back into the Port with
lid double stack. The Governor is con-
sidering in] spending close to $200 mil-
lion. Again, if we (12) don't have dreding
and all of these things [131 happening
simultaneously in the next couple of [Ml
year, we are going to be in an economic
fix.
Iisi I've been around. I spoken to tisj
most of die people in this room, all die
117) different constituencies since I've
been Maritime fisj Director. You know, I
really haven't seen 1191 anybody who is
opposed to dredge. No one's  1201 really
saying, 'Forget it. We're not going to [21]
let it happen." I think we're all saying
the (22] same thing, let's just do it in an
1231 cvnironmcntally, sound, economical-
ly feasible [24] fashion. Partly we benefit
from the generosity
ID of the Federal Government, which we
should take 12) care. If we don't benefit
from ft, it won't [j] happen.
(4) I guess as a public servant, which (5j
many of us arc, I see this as truly our r<3
obligation to "work together as we been
for the [7j last couple of years and to not
drop the ball, isj People have been talk-
ing about dredging Boston [sj Harbor for
25 years. It's been in the process no] for
the last six.
|ii| So I want you to know that I am 112]
passionate about it. I  plan to see it
through. |») I plan to work as closely as
I can with the (Mj state, federal and other
groups on the [is] environmental side. I
don't see it as good U6i versus evil. I see
it as a necessity to all of IITI us, and I do
truly look forward to working with [isi
all of you to see it happen in an [19]
environmentally, economically feasible
fashion. 1201 1 think we owe it to oursel-
ves and  all the  people [211  of New
England. Thank you.
122] MR. ROSENBERG: Our       next
speaker (231 is Mr. Peter Jackson. He is the
NED Project (24) Manager for Boston Har-
bor Navigation Improvement
                             Pago 24
111 Project. Mr. Jackson joined the New
England m Division in February of 1978
after ten years of 13] service with the
Corps of Engineers in San HI Francisco.
(si He holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree [6!
from Lycoming College, a Bachelor of
Science in tn civil engineering from the
University of  i«\ Pennsylvania and  a
Master's of Science in civil [9] engineer-
ing from Sanford University. He is a 1101
member of American Society of Civil
Engineers, [ill and Mr. Jackson is also a
member of the 1121 Conservation Com-
mission in Harvard,  [131 Massachusetts,
where he and his wife and their IMJ two
children live. Mr. Jackson, fi$] STATE-
MENT  BY   PETE  JACKSON, NED
PROJECT MANAGER uej MR.JACKSON:
Good afternoon. I (i?) have a chance of
using these electronic us] implements
which are going to help me, I hope.
[19] Ralph Cox just, I think, very [201
dramatically presented the need for the
project. [2i] I'mnot going to get into that.
I might touch on [221 it a little bit. My job
here right now is to [23]  give the over-
view of the project as authorized, [24] to
try to trigger what  the next series of
people
                             Page 25
[i] are going to talk about. That's the
disposal [2] options. So what I want to do
is  walk through a 131 presentation of
what we have arrived at. This is [4] a new
condensed version, so if you'll be real isi
patient, I'll get through it.
16} The Federal navigation system of m
Boston Harbor is a result of over 20 (aj
CongressionaUy  authorized  improve-
ment projects m carried out over about
the last 170 years, uoj Again, the existing
project consists of a series  ml of chan-
nels, anchorages and other items which
[12] I'll touch on as we go through the
presentation.
[13] I'm going to start with the outer [14]
harbor. This  is  the existing project.
There's a usi series  of three entrance
channels coming in from [isj deep water,
the deepest one being in dark blue, IITJ
AM the dark blue areas are the 40-foot
depths, us) The lighter blue is less than
40 feet. Primarily 119135 feet in this area.
Then there's a 30-foot and 120) a 27-foot
channel. This is the way the vessels 1213
get into the harbor. Deer Island, for your
[22] vantage point, is right here.
[23] What we propose to do in this [24]
project  is to make  the following im-
provements to
                             Page 26
[i] this outer harbor area. As you can see,
we've [2] designated  a channel through
this naturally deep [31 area, which has
not been done, and the anchorage MJ
area  in  this  area, existing  4Ofoot
anchorage [51 will be slightly expanded
by redrawing the [6i lines .This particular
part of the project m includes no dredg-
ing. This is  merely changes in  m the
markers so that navigational people can
find [9] designated channels where there
aren't designated |io] channels now. No
impacts associated with this, mi other
than improvement in the operation, and
it [12] show up in the navigation charts
when they're [131  revised.  The Coast
Guard is working with us on [w] this
remarking operation.
[is]  The more interesting part of the tie]
project is in the inner harbor. I want to
[iTi  briefly go through the existing inner
harbor [isj navigation system.
[19]  This slide shows the existing  (201
channels in the  inner harbor, and die
darker blue pi] represents die deeper
40-foot channels and the [221 lighter blue,
die 35-foot channels. All these [23] chan-
nels were built, most of diem in die raid-
to [24] late 60s. And about 1 969 Congress
asked die
                             Page 27

[i] Corps of Engineers to take a look at
this [2] existing system, look at in terms
of modern-day (31 use and see if diere is
an economically feasible m way of im-
proving it if die opportunity exists.
m In 1988 die Corps of Engineers [6]
came out with a feasibility study which
proposed [?] die following plan.
[8] Like die previous slide, this [9] shows
die inner harbor. The yellow areas are
die iioj areas where we propose im-
provements. What I'd [ii] like to do is to
walk through each individual [121 chan-
nel, starting with die Reserve Channel in
H3]  South Boston. This is a 35-foot chan-
nel which ii4] will be deepened to 4O
feet, witii die exception [is] of diis upper
end. There  is no active terminals [isi
diere tiiat would need 40 feet, so we will
cut die [IT] channel off at die upper end
of the yellow area.
[is]  At die mouth of die Reserve [19]
Channel,  diere  is  a series of funny
shapes here 1201 which are die result of
die need to turn vessels [2i] in that area.
Basically they turn die vessel, [221 in-
bound vessel and back it into die berth.
So i23j it's essentially a rotary, a turntable
to turn. [24] So that assures that  on this
side of die 30-foot
[i] channel, they'll have a 40-foot spot in
which to [2] rotate die vessels.
131 Going up to die inner confluence [4]
area, this inner confluence area that ac-
tually is [5] die opening to botii die Mys-
tic River and Chelsea [6] Creek, is also
used for turning vessels, m Primarily die
LNG tanker is probably die critical isj
vessel mat turns in that area.
Page 22 - Page 28
          Min-U-Script®
 BPA REPORTING (617)423-0500
-------
U.9. Army i^orps ox ungineers
Massachusetts Port Authority
                                   . t. unvision  at
                                                                                                  May 17,1994
[9] We also propose to deepena sliver no]
of this 35-foot channel to 40 feet, be-
cause that [in gives a wide access into
the Mystic River. This [12] is all based on
testing we did in real-time I i3j simulation
testing with the pilots in Newport, [i4j
Ihode bland. So they've actually had a
chance (isj to practice with these ves-
sels,
Ii6) Going on to the Mystic River, [i?i
again, we'll deepen that yellow area to
the [is] 40-foot depth from its current
35-foot depth, im with the exception of
this upper area which does poj not re-
quire  40  feet.  There's  certain  [211
beneficiaries up there like Prolerized
Scrap 1221 Metal, Distrigas and Moran Ter-
minal,  in that  [23] area. That's one of
MassPort's key terminals {24] which we
recently dredged, that Ralph Cox spoke
                             Page 29

[i] about.
[2j Up in the Chelsea Creek, the green m
area, it's green because we are not going
to go HI to the 40 feet. We're going only
to 38 feet in isi that channel. We're going
to stay within the tej existing boundary
of the channel.We're going to in shorten
it. We're not going to widen it at this m
point. In essence, that's the project in
terms [9] of a map approach to the
project.
[ioi One of the things that might be IHJ
coining up that we have to be consider-
ing is  that [12]  in  the Chelsea Creek
there's the Chelsea Street 1131 Bridge.
This is looking upstream towards the IHI
Chelsea Street Bridge. Some of you will
probably tisi say those tank don't exist
any more. That's [i6j right. This is an old
picture.But it does show n?i that there's
a major restriction in this area,
Ii8i The City of Boston  owns this 119)
bridge and they're currently working
with the [20] Coast Guard to replace that
bridge with a wider [21] structure. If that
happens, we may be 122) reformulating
this part of the project. We're [231 follow-
ing and coordinating with the City of (24)
Boston and the Coast Guard at this time,
so we're
                             Page 30

HI keeping in touch with that.
[2) What I want to do is begin to go BJ
into the cost factors and the cost shar-
ing. What [4] you're going to hear hi a few
minutes is some [5) discussion about dis-
posal sites.What I want to jfii do is review
the volumes that we have to deal [7j with
in this project. A versjon of this diagram
[81 is in the back, ana it's also in some of
the  [91 handouts. It might look a little
different, but 1101 I would like to  walk
through this, because I nn think there
are  some  critical things on this [121
graph.                     	
                                       Ei3] On the left side of this is what t 14] we
                                       consider the unsuitable material. This is
                                       us]  otherwise  called  contaminated.
                                       There are other nej words that I've heard
                                       used that I don't want to (nj repeat here.
                                       This material has been tested by tisj the
                                       Corps and Masspon, and it's been found
                                       by [191 the Corps' and  EPA's testing
                                       protocol to be 120) unsuitable for uncon-
                                       fined ocean disposal.
                                       KM If you look at the bottom part of (22]
                                       this block  here, this is the  channel
                                       material, 123) it's 361,000 cubic yards. On
                                       the top in the 1241 purple is the berth
                                       material that's considered
                                                                    Page 31

                                       !i]  unsuitable. And it totals  about 1.1
                                       million m cubic  yards. This is the prob-
                                       lem, this material 13) here that we have
                                       to deal with.
                                       14} On the right side — and again, ts] this
                                       material is what has to be cleaned up
                                       before iej we get down to the deepening.
                                       This is to get us  ITJ down to the 35-foot
                                       depth that  we currently is] have.
                                       [9]  On the right side is the clean [ioj
                                       material. The material that sits under-
                                       neath this [in maintenance material.It's
                                       primarily Boston blue [121 clay. It's been
                                       tested over and over again and [B] found
                                       suitable for unconfined ocean disposal.
                                       [14] We're talking about 1.6 million cubic
                                       yards of usi channel material and an
                                       additional  133,000 cubic fi6] yards of
                                       berth material.
                                       JIT] The reference to Prudential Tower
                                       us) is 750 feet high.If this were a football
                                       size [19] field stacked  up, this is how it
                                       would stack up [2oj compared to the
                                       Prudential  Tower. Every time I [211 drive
                                       into Boston, I see that, and it reminds me
                                       [221 what my job  is here. That graph is in
                                       the back (23) and we'll discuss that later.
                                       [24i As every project we work on, there
                                                                    Page 32
                                       [i] is a cost associated with it.The naviga-
                                       tion [2] improvement part of this project
                                       is really that 131  clean material, for ail
                                       practical purposes. This HI  cost here,
                                       which you see in various forms, is the [5]
                                       removal of that clean material on the
                                       right side  [6] of the previous diagram.
                                       Prior to doing this m deepening project,
                                       the Corps of Engineers, a m hundred
                                       percent Corps cost, will deepen the [9]
                                       channel through its  own budget  pro-
                                       gram. In other noj words, we'U have to
                                       clean our house first  before tin we get
                                       into remodeling.
                                       1121 Again, I am going to remind you, H3)
                                       probably through other discussions in
                                       the back,  [Hi that this cost here is to
                                       remove that dean [isi material, with the
                                       exception of the berth »6j materiaLThis
                                       little item  here  does  include [ITI some
                                       contaminated material.
[isi Now, in the Corps' cost-sharing [191
process  as authorized  by Congress,
general 120] navigation features, which in
this project is [21] deepening the chan-
nels, is $31.9 million.The 1221 berth area
deepening, which is a nonfederal cost,
[23] is $2.4 million. Utility relocations,
which are [24] all in the Chelsea Creek,
are $980,000.	
                             Page 33
[i] Remarking the channels by the Coast
Guard is a m federal cost of $15,000.
[3] And at  the bottom you see the HI
breakdown based on the Corps'cost,the
Coast m Guard's cost and the nonfederal
cost, $35.3 [6] million.
m Again, I'm going to go back to the m
ONM  material,  the  so-called  con-
taminated |9] material. Based on the  op-
tions  that we're no] discussing on  dis-
posal of the contaminated mi material,
that cost will be about $15 million 112]
roughly on the average. $15 million will
not be us] part of this. It wMl be part of
our ONM budget iwj  of the Corps of
Engineers.
[15] This is a quick overview of the tiej
schedule, and I don't want to get into
any mi details. I can talk to you about
this later. It us] shows when we did our
testing back in 1990.The »9i project was
actually authorized by Congress in 1201
the end of 1990. This purple line here is
what [2ii  we call preconstruction  en-
gineering and design. 1221 This is aU  the
testing and and all the design 1231 work
and engineering work that has to take
place, [24] which ends when we sign the
project cooperation
                             Page 34
ID agreement with MassPon, which is
the legal [2] binding agreement which
says you're going to pay [31 this and we're
going to pay that.
[4] The yellow bar here is the is] environ-
mental review process, the permit m
process. And if you look real hard, you'll
note  (?)  that this  slide  is probably a
month old, and we  isj  got this draft
EIR/EIR out in April rather than [9] March
or February which shows here.
[io] At the end of '95 when we sign tin
this  project  cooperation agreement,
well start [12] the process of advertising
and going out for (13) construction. And
you see about a year and a [i4] half con-
struction period here for the dredging
[is] and disposal of the material. And as
you  can [i6j see, we have two dredges
working at aU times, i n j And we have an
environment window we have to deal
[is] with. So you will see multiple chan-
nels being [191 dredged at the same time.
[2oi I think that's about all I want to 1211
cover in this. I'd rather spend the rest of
the [22] time answering questions later
and talking to you [231 in the back.I know
BPA REPORTING (6l 7)423-0500
                                                 Min-U-Script®
                 Page 29 - Page 34
-------
May 17,1994
                      U.S. Army Corps of Engineers N. E. Division &
                                        Massachusetts Port Authority
some of you know a lot more (24] than
what you see hue and others may need
more
                            Page 35
ID information, and I'll be happy to
answer your (2) questions.
13] MR. ROSENBERG: Thank you Pete.
W Our next speaker is Janccn Smith m
Hansen. She's the Project Manager for
the [S] Masspon Maritime Division for
this project. Ms.m Hansen has nine years
experience with project  [8j manage-
ment at MassPort, and she has success-
fully (?) overseen the renovations and
transformation of (ioi Commonwealth
Pierinto the World Trade Center,[in and
she's worked on many other related
projects.
U2] Her work includes environmental IB]
and  transportation  and  air  quality
monitoring for [MI the National Commis-
sion  of Air Quality, analysis ns\ of fuel
consumption for the U.S.Department of
list Energy and numerous other success-
ful  [17]  environmental  projects  and
programs on the state (iaj and federal
levels.
fisj Ms. Hansen holds her Master's 120]
Science  in city and regional planning
from 121)  Harvard University  and a
Batchclor of Arts in izzj  social science
from Michigan State University. 1231 Ms.
Hansen.  Project  Manager  for  the
Masspon PMJ Maritime Division
                            Page 36
ID MASSPORT ROLE IN BOSTON HAR-
BOR
121   NAVIGATION   IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT
B) MS, HANSEN: Thank you, Larry. (4] In
the interest of full [5] disclosure, I feel
obligated to  tell you I have  [6]  two
children and a husband.
[7] The reason I'm here this afternoon tsi
is to answer the question: What is the
Pott  |9] Authority doing in the dredging
business?    jioi   Heretofore    port
authorities have not gotten tin involved
in dredging. Dredging was an activity 1121
carried on by the Corps of Engineers,
both for iij] die commercial navigation
purposes  and national [HI  security
reasons. But the  1986 Water Develop-
ment us] Act changed  all of that. It
created  the U6] possibility and oppor-
tunity of the Corps having tin so-called
local sponsors, and for the Boston [is]
Harbor Project, Masspon became the
designated 1191 local sponsor.
(30] Part of the notion here was that [211
those who are interested in the Port
ought to |22] have a greater say in what
goes on in the Port, 123) but I think more
importantly,  from the federal   [24]
perspective, they wanted local entities
to have a
                            Page 37
Hi greater share in the funding of these
project. [2i So we are here as project
proponent, partner with BI the Corps of
Engineers and  primary as  cost m
sharers.
tsj Masspon was clearly the  [6j  ap-
propriate party to be the local sponsor
for the m Boston Harbor Project be-
cause of our role in is) maritime com-
merce and because we operate the two
(9) public terminals on the harbor.
lioj We began in 1991 with the MEPA mi
process, having the project scoped by
then ii2] Secretary—and actually I can't
tell you who 113] the Secretary  was in
1991  —  Sue Tierney, scoped U4]  the
project for us. We proceeded then to
hire 115] consultants to help us  do the
sediment analysis, tie] the criteria selec-
tion for disposal sites and to [ IT] conduct
a dredging advisory committee process,
(iai because we wanted input from all
parties who were 1191 interested in this
project from the very early  [20] begin-
nings of die project.
(21]  Normandeau Associates  has been
our [22] consultant  in this role, and  I
know many of you 123] have worked with
Normandeau with the Corps and 124]
with MassPort over the past couple of
years as we	
                            Page 38
ID put this advisory process together,
and we've [2] really been pleased with
the work that they have [3i done for us.
I would note that they are here in (4] die
audience today.and if people have ques-
tions  [5! specifically about the DEIR/S,
Normandeau as well [6] as die Corps are
here to answer questions.
m The reason we convened the isj dredg-
ing advisory committee is that we real-
ized (91 from die beginning that there
was not complete tioj agreement about
how this project should happen or [iij
even whether this project should hap-
pen. And ii2] MassPort has benefited, as
has the Corps, just 1131 enormously from
the participation of people from IMJ
many perspectives on this project. 1 just
want [isj to say thank you to all of you
who have put in ci6] many, many hours
just to get us to the starting IITJ  line on
this project.
(181 The dredging advisory committee [19]
was comprised of environmental inter-
est groups, (2oj regulatory agencies an
representatives of the 1211 maritime in-
dustry. And many of them are here in 1221
the room today, and many of them are at
the IB] tables so you can speak  with
themafterwardsto [24] get their perspec-
tive on this project.
                             Page 39
m Again, I would just reiterate what m
Colonel Miller said and what Larry said,
we're (3) here to listen and hear com-
ments from all of (4] you.
m MR. ROSENBERG: Thank     you,
Janeen. (6j Our next speaker is Ms. Joan
I?] LeBlanc from Save the Harbor/Save
the Bay. She TO is the Policy Director for
Save the Harbor/Save  m the Bay. And
that's a nonprofit organization [ioj dedi-
cated to preserving and promoting the
Hi] harbor. Save the Harbor/Save the Bay
supports [12] dredging to maintain the
shipping lanes and the 1131 berths and is
an advocate for safe dredging and [i4]
safe disposal. Ms. LeBlanc.
list STATEMENT BY JOAN LeBLANC,

[16] SAVE THE HARBOR/SAVE THE BAY
[17] MS. LeBLANC: Thanks, Larry, twj Ap-
preciate your giving us this opportunity
to (191 make comments. I just want to say
a  couple of (201 words about Save the
Harbor/Save the Bay, who we 1211 are and
how we've been involved in die process
to [22] start. And also thank everyone at
Masspon as (231 well as the Army Corps
for setting up these [24] public comment
periods and for giving us the
                            Page 40

HI opportunity to work with them over
the past 12] couple of years indie prelimi-
nary planning for [3] the project, and we
look forward to working with m them
in the future to come up with solutions
that (5] we can all agree on.
16] Now, Save the Harbor/Save the Bay u\
is a nonprofit organization. We're basi-
cally  [8]  working  to protecft  and
promote Boston Harbor  and [9] Mas-
sachusetts Bay. Our overall goal in terms
of no] the  Boston Harbor  dredging
project is to find mi ways of dredging
and dealing with contaminated [121 sedi-
ments that will benefit both Boston Har-
bor IB]   and  Massachusetts Bay  as
economic resources and  (14; also  as
natural resources.
Hi] I'll give you a little outline of [i6] what
I plan to cover. I hope it's not too long,
[IT] but my formal comments here today
are also for [is] the record as testimony
in response to the [i9] dredging plan. And
I did want to mention that [201 the timing
of the hearing, this hearing today is [211
basically in the middle of the comment
period. (22) The comment period for
evaluating this very  [231 complicated
plan goes to the end of June, I (24)
believe, and I was speaking with Larry
and he
                             Page 41

HI suggested that they would be willing
to have 121 another hearing later towards
the end of June. I (31 think that would
make sense, because it's a heck HI of a
document to get through as anyone who
has is] looked at it can tell. So there may
be [6j additional issues to be raised later,
Page 35 - Page 4l
          Min-U-Script®
  BPA REPORTING (617)423-0500
-------
vj.a. Army thorps ox engineers IN. t. umsion
Massachusetts Port Authority
                                                           May 17,1994
and you m should make sure those are
pan of the public [8j record.
[9] I'll be discussing some broad [ioj is-
sues related to this project and dredging
in [iij general. Then I'U be looking at
disposal [12] options in general, what are
the various  types  [131 and where we
stand on them, and hopefully you'll [14]
get more details from the experts after I
speak. [15] Then the  DEIS basically
presents several options [i6j for dealing
with the  contaminated  and clean [i7j
sediments. And I'd like to outline some
of my [is] comments on those options.
[i9] And then finally I'll be talking 1201
about a little bit about the dredging
process 1211 itself.and what we'll be look-
ing for in  terms of [221 monitoring, i.e.,
who's going to watching to make [23]
sure what goes on is basically done right.
We [24] know that there was some dredg-
ing at the Moran
                             Page 42
Hi Terminal last year, and the permit in
that [2] project were really good. How-
ever, the reality 13] doesn't often match
the permit. With any new  [4] construc-
tion type project, there are going to be
15] problems that come up along the way,
and we have [6] to make sure that we're
looking at not just how [7] the project
looks on paper but how it happens in [8]
reality, what  problems  come up  that
weren't [9] planned for, what we can do
to address those lioj problems as they
come up.
mi I want to make a couple of 1121 com-
ments about Boston Harbor. Our view of
Boston (13) Harbor is that it is clearly a
working port, and [14] we are supportive
of the dredging project. We U5j think that
we certainly need to maintain the (iei
shipping lanes for the economic vitality
of the [IT] area. We also  are concerned
about the Boston [isj Harbor as a natural
resource, and we see the 119] harbor as
it's busy, it's an economic boon to the 1201
area.'It's one of our best natural resour-
ces. [2i] So there are a lot of different
ways to keep 1221 looking at this project.
[23] The project does pose some dangers
[24] as well as opportunities. Dredging
PCB's and	
                             Page 43
HI PAH's and heavy metals is risky busi-
ness, [2i especially when we're spending
millions of 13] dollars to clean the harbor.
And I believe there [4] will be  some
scientists  testifying today, and [5]  they
can talk more about what those con-
taminants [6] actually mean to the marine
environment.  I'm  not  m  a scientist
myself, so I won't elaborate too much [8]
on that.
19] Boston Harbor is complicated, (ioj
especially right  now. There's so  many
different tin projects going on that it's
really tough to keep 1121 track of what's
what.  Is  dredging part of  the [13]
cleanup? That's a question that I get all
the [i4i time, and it isn't. But the Boston
Harbor 115) cleanup is going on, and it's
taking place in [i6j several areas of the
harbor. And that's IITI something that
needs to be coordinated with this [isj
project.We'U be work with the MassPort
and the U9j Army Corps to help  them
make sure that these 1201 decisions fit in
with the other work taking [211 place.
122] There's also the Central Artery 1231
Third  Harbor Tunnel Project, which
people [24] probably know about. And
there's Some work on
                             Page 44
HI Spectacle Island where they're taking
some of the  [2] sediment that's being
brought up from that [31 project, dispos-
ing of it on Spectable, turning [4j that
area into a park and doing some mitiga-
tion [5] under water under the proposed
disposal sites for [6] this project. That's
just another project to [7] keep in mind
in terms of coordination.
[8] Another interesting facet of [9] Boston
Harbor is that there are several hot uoj
spots. The Boston Lightship area, which
is one uu of the proposed disposal sites,
has  radioactive  [121 barrels  scattered
over the area. I'll talk more 1131 about that
in a few minute.
[14] Just another point of caution. We us]
need to be worried about all the dif-
ferent hot [16] spots  like radioactive
waste and highly [17] contaminated areas
of sediment throughout the [isj harbor
while we're doing this. We should try
and [19] have a creative goal here, a goal
that looks for 1201 disposal options and
ways of dealing with the 1211 clean and
contaminated sediment that will result
[22] in a broad benefit for the harbor.
There are 1231 some ways that we can end
up doing the dredging,  [24]  finding a
place to put the sediment and improving
                             Page 45
[i] things along the way. So that's kind of
where [2] we're coming from on this.
131 One final note about just [4]  back-
ground. Fisheries are very strained right
[5] now, so when we're  looking at dis-
posal options, [6] we need to very much
consider what is the impact m on the
benthic community in terms of lobster
[8i resources and the other fisheries that
are (9] already limited in the area.
[io] I want to talk a minute about the [in
cost-benefit analysis that was used in
this [12] project. I have some concerns
about it [13] basically. The budget figures
that Pete used, I U4] think that the bot-
tom line was 35 million, and (isj you can
correct me if I'mwrong, but I believe U6]
that that assumes disposal of all of the
sediment  [IT] at the Mass. Bay Disposal
She or some ocean site [isi with capping
or without capping?
[19] MR. JACKSON: Again, that  project
[20] is 35 million only for clean material.
That's [2i] the improvement part. Again,
on  the  contaminated  [221  materials
primarily, and I'm not going to say all [231
but about  99 percent of it is main-
tenance [24] material. The 35 and a half
or 35.3 million
                             Page 46

[i] dollars is really related to the clean
material [2j that we're dredging. That
small amount there for [31 the berth area.
There's a couple a hundred [4] thousand
cubic yards that will have to go [51 some-
where. For that small amount, the berth
[6] areas, that assumes ocean disposal
with capping.
[7] That 200,000 cubic yards of berth m
material that's contaminated, that is part
of the [9] 35 million. But the cost share,
the  part that [ioj has the benefit-to-cost
ratio equation in it is [in the 35,3 million
more than 90 percent of that is [ 121 clean.
1.1  million  which is not part of the 35
[13] million.
[14] MS. LeBLANC: That's the state  [i5j
share.
[16] MR. JACKSON: The  part  the  in]
benefit-to-cost ration equation is the 35
[is] million,  which is over 90 percent, is
that clean [19] material that is going out
to the Mass. Bay [zoj Disposal Site.
[2i] MS. LeBLANC: I won't talk about (221
the overall budget because I'm not fully
clear on [23] what the state share is and
what the federal [24] share is. But there
are  other costs that have
                             Page 47
in been allocated to this specific dis-
posal option, [2] because part of the way
to make the decision on [31 what are we
going to do to dispose of this [4] material
is how much does it cost and what can
we  [5] afford to do.
[6] The analysis takes  several things [7]
into consideration but it doesn't take
any isj  resource questions  into con-
sideration. I'll give [9] an example. One
of the disposal option is a plan [ioj to
construct a borrow pit near Spectable
Island, [ii]  and that's  an area that has
some very active [121 fisheries, including
lobsters.There are lots of [131 lobster pots
in the area. The cost fectors for [i4] that
don't include what's the loss to the
economy [i5j of having to shut that area
down to fishermen for 116] over a year,
the timing on that project.
in]  So I just want to present to you [is]
that the cost is not simple, and I'm not
saying [19] that we should spend months
and months trying to  [201 quantify how
much one fishery closed for one year 1211
is worth, but we certainly need to take
 BPA REPORTING C6l 7)423-0500
          Min-U-Script®
                 Page 42 - Page 47
-------
May 17,1994
                      U.S. Army Corps of Engineers N. E. Division  &
                                         Massachusetts Port Authority
those [22] facts into consideration when
we make our 1221 decision.
mi The Mass. Bay disposal option

                             Page 48

ID doesn't include any cost for monitor-
ing,  and  that  121 area  is  close  to
StellwagenBank.andit'san [31 area we're
very concerned about. And part of the
HI argument is that that's the cheapest
option, and m there's been a lot of pres-
sure to move in that (6) direction. And in
my mind  it's  certainly not  the  m
cheapest environmentally, and even die
cost IBJ analysis doesn't include the cost,
because  oj  monitoring will be very
necessary. I don't know [101  what the
cost would be,but certainly it would 1111
have to be a part of it where it's so close
to (12) Stellwagen Bank.

H3! So people have been asking fora (Hi
more broad cost analysis over the past
few jisj raonths,yet we haven't seen one.
Again, I'd like [ifij to say that it's time to
do a real cost estimate im of what broad
resource questions are here and usj
weigh things as they really are and not
just look (19) at the cost of the technol-
ogy and the barges.
(2oi Another issue that hasn't been (211
addressed but it came to my attention in
looking (22) at this draft plan, and that is,
the Boston (23) Harbor project versus
long-term dredging in (24] Massachusetts
and future maintenance needs. And

                             Page 49

HI I just want to clarify something for the
record 121 because I was a little bit con-
fused.It's my [3] impression that the draft
EIS/R, or I'll call It (4] the draft plan, is to
make decisions on the LSI Boston Harbor
project. However, we do want to [6j use
this process, learning from this process,
so (7) that we can move much faster in
the future in m dealing with main-
tenance dredging and other [9] regional
dredging. What we don't want to see is
(uq a decision made based on informa-
tion this project (in automatically used
for projects in the future 1121 before the
sediment are analyzed. So I  guess (isj
what I'm saying is this plan that we're
reviewing [Mi for the  Boston  Harbor
Project, there is some usj information in
there that made me a little bit [163 con-
cerned about,  well, are we  making
decisions on im 6 million cubic yards of
contaminated  material, usj  which is
twice as much, because that was 1191
mentioned in the plan. And I •would sug-
gest that (20! we're not, and -we need to
be clear about that, (211 and -we're going
to need a full environmental (221 analysis
of those other projects when them
come [231 up. And hopefully someone
can clarify that {24} later, because I was a
little confused.
                             Page SO
ID I want to spend a minute talking 121
about the general disposal options and
where we im stand on them. First of all,
you've  heard clean  KI  versus  con-
taminated. That's really a tough KI ques-
tion.  What's  clean? What's  con-
taminated? [6] And it's really hard to tell,
and MassPort and m  the Army Corps
have spent  a lot of money doing m
analyses of the sediments, and we're in
the m process of looking at those to
make sure the  1101 definitions are ap-
propriate. We're  going to be sii] doing
very different things with what's called
[12] clean than we will with what we call
[»] contaminated. Because clean is basi-
cally (M] suitable for ocean disposal,
which means we nsj assume  it's not
going to damage fisheries and [16] other
marine  resources. So that's something
IiT] we're in the process of looking at.
[is] In terms of dealing with what's U9i
defined as clean, there are a few dif-
ferent [20] options. Our preference is as
much of that 1211 material be used benefi-
cially as possible. [22] Open-ocean dump-
ing of the clean material wouldn't [231
damage marine resources.and we don't
have a [24] problem with that at the Mass.
Bay site as long
                             Page SI
W as  it's monitored and coordinated
with marine [2] resources, and there's
some sort of a reasonable [31 plan for it.
We're not opposed to that. But HI we'd
certainly much, much prefer them using
that m  material  wherever possible to
upgrade other hot 16] spots around the
harbor. It makes much more m sense to
try to  stabilize some of the  im con-
taminated areas in the inner harbor than
to isi barge this material out into Mass.
Bay and uoj dispose at the Mass Bay
Disposal Site. It's also [in closer, so
maybe it's technically easier. 11121 don't
really know about that.
U3l We would encourage MassPort and
[14] the Army Corps to look first at crea-
tive  us) beneficial  reuse, and  then
secondly, open-ocean [iej dumping of
the clean material.
(171 Contaminated sediments are a more
[is] complicated story, and that's, I think,
probably (191 why we're all here today
and why we have so many 120] concerns.
Open-ocean dumping, which Ibelieve is
I2i] not part of the plan, is something that
we would [22] be very opposed to, and I
think that the leaders 1231 at MassPort
and the Army Corps have also been [24]
very strong in not proposing that, so I
want to
                             Page 52
[i] thank diem for that, because that has
taken place [2] in some  other places
around the country.
[3] Another option — and I can see HI
there a chart in the back. I can't read the
!sj words but I can see there's sort of two
half 16] moons. The half moon on the
right is basically r?j dumping with cap-
ping. What you do is you dump [si die
contaminated sediment down and then
you cap m them over with clean, and
you end up with a no] mound. Another
option is die borrow pits, which [in I
believe is die one right next to it, where
you (121 go out and you physically dig a
hole in die IBI bottom of die ocean,
dump die contaminated IMJ sediments
down and cover diem over with clean.
us]  Our  very  basic, not  expert, [16]
opinion is that borrow pits for dealing
widi (I?) contaminated sediments are
better than caps. And us] die reason is
that you leave die geography of die 119]
area die same way it was. If you're creat-
ing a [20] mound, so to  speak, at die
bottom of die ocean, [211 what you're
doing is you're changing die [221 geog-
raphy, and die currents that are already
at [23] work in that  area are going to
continue to  be at (24j work. So diey
naturally will be eating away at
m diat mound. So we sort of generally
like to see ra borrow pits before cap-
ping.
131 Other options that have been [4]
proposed, just in general before getting
into die (si specific sites, in-channel dis-
posal. That's 16} something that I don't
know a whole lot about, m but die basic
premise is that there you're [8j dredging
certain of die channel, -which you've m
heard about and I think you'll hear more
about, [io] and this proposal is to dredge
deeper, put die uu contaminated sedi-
ment under and dien cover it 1121 over
witii clean. So that you end up at die
level [13] you're looking for in terms of
depth for die [i4i shipping, but you still
have  die contaminated [isi sediments
below. That is an option that we think
[16] is a good one fora couple of reasons.
(IT; The first reason is it minimizes [isj
other areas of die harbor that you have
to [is] disturb. You're already dredging
there .You 120 j already have to surface die
contaminated [211 sediments, so you al-
ready have to contain die [221 area. It's
much better to deal with it all right [23]
there then go through a whole separate
process of [24] shipping it somewhere
else, digging your borrow
in pit orwhatever etoe.lt certainly seems
easier m technically and from an en-
vironmental standpoint [3] you're deal-
ing with a smaller resource area. So HJ
we'll be looking at that as a good pos-
sibility; _ _
Page 48 - Page 54
          Min-U-Script®
 BPA REPORTING (617)423-0500
-------
u.s. Army uorps ot engineers w. K. Division it
Massachusetts Port Authority
                                                           May 17,1994
(5) Near-shore containment facilities, [6] I
believe, have been ruled out of the first
m category of options. I should back up.
I wish is) you had the experts go first
because they can [9] give you all these
categories, but they've 1101 narrowed the
disposal options to several [in different
categories. The first is called 1121 prac-
ticable. That means that they — I have
the [i3i definition here. Maybe someone
can help me with IHJ that.
!i5] FROM THE FLOOR: Engtaeeringiy
[16] feasible and capable of being done,
taking into [nj account logistics and cost
and environmental nsj concerns, out of
the Clean Water Act.
119) MS. LeBLANC: So that's that one 1201
category. I don't know if everybody
heard it. 1211 Environmental, cost, logis-
tics and technology. 1221 So they have
looked through all these components
[23]  and narrowed  many, many  sites
down to a few. We 124] don't necessarily
agree with their definition of
[i] practicable for all of the sites, and I'll
get [2] into that in a minute, but just so
you know that 131 is the definition.
Hi Near-shore containment facilities (si
had proposed early on, and those we
generally [6] don't think are a good idea.
The water-ftont  m space is very, very
limited  right now.  There [8] aren't a
whole lot of areas  where you can [9]
actually do this technically. And also the
HO] amount and intensity of storms has
been [iij increasing over the years. And
basically setting  (121 up something like
this on the  shoreline  of [B]  Mas-
sachusetts is probably not the best idea
in [Mi terms of public access and also in
terms of us] safety. It's not really an op-
tion right now.
[16] Land filling is the most expensive [IT]
in the entire spectrum of disposal op-
tions, and [is] in  general, we also agree
it's too expensive.We [191 beHeve that we
want to keep land filling on the 1201 table
for certain hot spot areas. There may be
[2i] some small amount of contaminated
sites  that  are  1221  too  toxic to  go
anywhere. And  so  we would say,  1231
Leave the land filling on the table in a
very 12*1 limited way.
 11} And finally, remediation of [2]  con-
 taminated sediments is something that
 hasn't [31 been talked about a lot in this
 draft plan. We {4j have been talking with
 some of the officials, and isi we got a
 preliminary  commitment with  Steve
 Tocco 16] to look into innovative tech-
 nologies for (7j remediating  toxics. I
 don't see anything in this [8] plan that
 does that, so we'll be working with the
 191 public officials to try and figure out
 what we tioi actually can do in terms of
coming up with ways mi to reduce the
toxicity of the worst sediments.
112] Let me get into a little bit of 1131 the
disposal sites. I'm sorry for the length of
Ii4j the comments, but I won't be testify-
ing after  [is]  this  presentation. This is
considered my 1161 testimony.
[17] The Mass. Bay  Disposal Site, this [is]
is something that we basically have a lot
of [19] problem with the way it was ad-
dressed in the  1201 plan.  One issue is
inconsistency. In the pi) executive sum-
mary of the plan, the Mass. Bay 1221 Dis-
pose Site is identified as a practicable —
[2}j and you just heard the definition —
practicable [24]  alternative for dealing
with all the sediment,
                            Pages?
[i] clean and contaminated.
[2] Now practicable says that you've BI
looked at the technology, you've looked
at the [4] logistics,  and you've reviewed
the environmental m and cost factors.
We all seem to agree that |6] capping is
not possible in 300 feet of water. In m
fact, the designation of the Mass. Bay
foul area [8] — there's a map over on the
left there with a (9)  red dot,shows where
the foul area  is. It's 1101 adjacent to the
National   Marine   Sanctuary,    (iij
Stellwagen Bank.  The designation  for
that area 112] says that you can't — cap-
ping is not  feasible at 113] this time.
There's no technology proven to do it
iwi in that depth of water. Our concerns
are that us] the marine santuary is right
there. What you jiej have is a basin and
then an upweUing. I'm not a im marine
ecologist. I admit it, but I know that us)
the basin feeds up into Stellwagen Bank,
which is [i9i one of our richest resour-
ces. And we are 1201 completely opposed
to any contaminated  sediments  121]
going out there.
[22] And I'm also very confused.When [231
I talk to some of the people from Mass-
Pott and {24i the Army Corps, they have
said this isn't  an
                            Page 58
Hi option, and yet I read it very clearly
in the [2] summary that it is and that it's
been called 131 practicable, which means
they have already proved J4] the  logis-
tics. But  then other places in the m
document, they say, well, we can't do it
until we [6] prove the logistics. So I have
a couple of m questions. Which is it, for
one thing? And we m don't support it,
and that's one option that m nobody has
supported, and there has been tioi  tes-
timony after  testimony, year after year
on [in that issue. And I just hope we can
take it off 1121 the table so we can move
ahead and find a  [13] solution that will
work and that  we can agree ii4) on. I
think you'll be hearing from some of the
[isi scientist who know more about the
      marine [i6i resources in that area and
      why it's such a IITJ problem.
      [is] Another area that's been proposed
      [19] for dealing with contaminate sedi-
      ments is called (201 the Boston Lighship
      area. I don't have a map of pi] that area,
      but the reason it's significant is 1221 be-
      cause between the 1940s and the 1970s,
      many 1231 radioactive waste barrels were
      dumped in that  [24] area. Now, the EPA
      started looking at that. I
                                   Page 59
      111 don't remember the year. A few years
      ago they [2] started evaluating that. Un-
      fortunately, they [31 stopped short figur-
      ing out where the  barrels are HI and
      what the extent of them is in the area.
      So [5] what I would like to propose to
      MassPortandthe [6] ArmyCorpsandEPA
      — I don'tknow if there's m anyone here
      from the EPA today — that ai those is]
      agencies need to work  together. We
      need to push [9] the EPA to do that
      evaluation very quickly, which no] I
      think is data they have. They have the
      basic lit) data. All they need to do is get
      in a boat and 1121 get out there and do a
      little evaluation, figure i i3i out where the
      barrels are, and think what would [i4] be
      the impact of putting a large amount of
      [is; contaminated and/or clean sediment
      in that area, n&i and would that actually
      be a benefit.
      [IT] Does it make sense to try to cap [isi
      over these radioactive waste barrels that
      are [191 rotting in place with the sedi-
      ments with this [2oj project?  That's a
      creative possibility.  It's  1211 one that
      needs to be coordinated. We can't just
      [22] go out there  and say, All right, we're
      going to [23] use the  Boston Lightship
      area do dump these [24] sediments. It's a
      huge area. We don't know
                                   Page 60
      [i] where the barrels are.
      [2] If it's not coordinated with the rsiEPA,
      what could happen is you could have
      the [4] radioactivity problem, which we
      already do have, m and then you could
      also have  uncapped iei  contaminated
      sediments next to it. What we want rn to
      see is, is there  a way to solve the [8]
      radioactive waste problem and deal
      with the [9] contaminated sediments at
      the same time.That's uoj a possibility, but
      it's one that's not going to  [in happen
      unless there's some real coordination
      and [12] commitment from the EPA and
      the Army Corps and [131 MassPort to
      work with EPA. So that's something [14]
      that we're working for and believe it
      could be a usi very positive solution for
      dealing with two [16] problems.
      [17] A third major disposal site is off [is]
      of Spectacle Island, and that's an area
      where im they're proposing doing bor-
      row pits, which I  [20] mention in the
 BPA REPORTING (617)423-0506
          Min-U-Scripi®
3*7
Page 55 • Page 60
-------
May 17,1994
                      U.S. Army Corps of Engineers N. £. Division &
                                         Massachusetts Port Authority
back. And we're basically looking 1211 at
that area right now and talking to some
[U] scientists. I know that it is a resource
area. 123) There are a lot of fisheries there.
There's (24) lobster pots. And certainly
that's and issue. I
                             Page 61

(U don't know fully what the extents of
the |2| resources are in that area or what
the damage |3) would be.But that's some-
thing that we're in the HI process of
assessing.
(5) If work were to go forward in that [6]
area, it would certainly need very good
m monitoring, and we would need to
have containment [8j going on.
(9) I wanted to mention something [ioj
that's going on with the Central Artery
Project [in in the same area.I mentioned
there's work at 1121 Spectacle Island.The
Central Artery Project is U31 also con-
structing a  reef which is very close to
(Ml this disposal she identified  in this
dredging IK] plan. So, again, here  we
have a complicated [i6i situation where
if the MassPprt and the Army UTI Corps
want to go 'forward  in this area, they
need |U) to  coordinate with the Central
Artery  Project 119] because of the reef
that's being constructed as 1201 pan of
the mitigation effort, and certainly  we
(21) wouldn't want to have dredged-up
contaminated 1221 sediments going on
after the reef construction. [23] There'd
have to be  sort of a timing element [24]
there. Maybe the reef construction can
be
                             Page 62

ID delayed  or whatever, but that's an
important [2] thing that needs to be coor-
dinated.
13) The  two other sites being proposed
J4i in Mass. Bay for borrow pits are called
(5) Mcisburger sites. I don't know where
that name (6) come from, probably some
scientist who evaluated m the area. One
thing I do knowabout that area is [8j that
both of these sites are located very close
19) to the outfall, the proposed outfall,
which is do] part of the Boston Harbor
Cleanup Project. And un what's going to
happen is beginning in 1996, the  [121
date's been switched because  of  the
usual (13] construction delays, but begin-
ning probably 1996, ii4] you're going to
have treated wastewater coming usi  out
at the  outfall site. And there's  an  [16]
intensive, near-shore monitoring plan
going on UTI there to figure out what's
going to be the impact usj of these
nutrients on Mass.Bay. That's just one U9]
aspect.
(20) But the other interesting point is 121)
the reason why that site was chosen for
the (22) outfall location. It was chosen
because it's an 1231 area where the cur-
rents —Judy Peterson can [24] probably
talk about -why that site was chosen for
                             Pago 63
HI the outfall  more than me. She's a
scientist, m But I know that it was
chosen because it's a  13) mixing area,
which means there's a lot of HI different
currents. So my question to MassPort m
and the Army Corps is, why are we look-
ing at this  [6i site for disposal of con-
taminated sediments -when m it's an area
we chose for the outfall because it is\ has
the best dispersal effect? And I think
what [9] we're looking at in terms of the
borrow pit no) locations is exactly the
opposite. So we need to un look at that
more closely and potentially 1121 identify
some other sites for borrow pitting in [131
Mass. Bay.
[14] I talked a little bit about [15] in-chan-
nel disposal as an option, and there are
[16] some  other options, I  won't go
through the whole [IT] laundry list but
just out of the ones proposed tisi that
seem like they could still be on the table.
[191 One idea was to put some of the
contaminated  1201 sediments  in  some
area of the inner harbor that 1211 are
highly contaminated now.The goal is 1221
basically, you've got these hot spots, and
we [231 have some contaminated sedi-
ments we have to deal [24] with. Why not
put them in certain areas and
                             Page 64
ID cover them over with clean, and your
net result 121 would be an improvement
on some of these areas in (31 the inner
harbor. We  think generally that that's |4]
a very good idea.
[51 A couple of specific areas where [6]
that's been proposed  are the Mystic
River and m Revere Sugar, and we're in
the process of looking [8] at the specific
plans for that, but we see that [9] as
something that should stay on the table.
It's no) not in the practicable list right
now. It's in Hi) the potentially prac-
ticable. I'm not really sure 1121 what that
means, whether it means it's off the 1131
table or could be on the table, but we
would just  [Mi like to say it makes sense
to look at doing that us] sort of thing.
(161 I mentioned a little  bit about tn]
innovative  technology to remediate
contaminated  us] sediments. It's  not
MassPort's  responsibility, 119] but I just
want to mention that there's the Green
[20] Ports legislation right now  that's
been proposed 1211  by  Congressman
Menendez. That is something where 1221
Massachusetts  could be eligible to get
some  [23]  funding  for  doing  pilot
remediation projects. So  [24] I would
hope that the officials at MassPort and
                             Page 65
HI the Army Corps could push for that
and also try [2] to position Massachusetts
to get some  of those (31 funds. Steve
Tocco has said that he is committed HI
to doing this type of thing, so this may
be a 15] channel to get some funds in
Massachusetts for (6) that.
[7] I want  to just make a couple of m
summary  comments on  the disposal
sites. It's (91 really complicated. I know I
just sort of said a no] lot, some positive,
some negative. What does it [in mean?
Basically our posistion is we don't want
U2] to see  any contaminated sediments
going out into 1131 the Mass.Bay Disposal
Site, which I mentioned. [i4j We think
borrow phs are a better idea than us]
capping in general. Yet there are some
problems [16] with the borrow sites. So
we'll be working with \n\ the agencies
to either identify those sites or [isj poten-
tially other sites depending.
[19] The Boston Lightship area does 1201
seem like an area that could be used for
this (2i) project and maybe even future
projects. There's 1221 a lot of potential
there, certainly a lot of 1231 capacity as
well. Unfortunately, like the rest 124] of
Boston Harbor, it's complicated. You've
got	
                             Page 66
U) the radioactive waste there, and that
is [2] something that needs to be coor-
dinated. If [3) people are willing to work
together on it,  that [4] could be a big
solution for this project.
m And then in-channel disposal is a [6]
first  priority, although  it  has less
capacity. (?] You can't deal with all the
sediments with that m kind of an option,
but it's better, I think, than [9] most of the
other options if  it can  be done (ioi
properly because you're limiting the
area that  [in  you're dealing with. You
don't have to go  dig a [121 borrow pit
somewhere else and remove the entire
U3) benthic community in that area.
[14] So in-site solutions first, us] because
you limit the area you're dealing with,
[16] and then looking for outside solu-
tions and trying in] to find solutions that
will actually have a us] broader benefits,
like the lightship area.
U9) I want to say a couple of words 120]
about   the   dredging  process  and
monitoring, and 121) then I'll finish up.
Dredging  technology  —   1221  you'll
probably hear a lot about dredging 1231
technology, and there are a lot of dif-
ferent {24] aspects to h.There'sthe barge.
There's the	
                              Page 67
ID dredge that actually goes down and
picks up the [2] contaminated sediments
and puts them on the [31 barge.There are
containment barriers like silt [4] curtains
to use to keep contaminated sediments
in [5] an area, keep them from spreading
around to other [6] resources that are
Page 6l - Page 67
          Min-U-Script®
 BPA REPORTING (617)423-0500
-------
                  ut engineers rv c. juivision at
Massachusetts Port Authority
                                                          May 17,1994
near there. And then there's m a whole
slew of other technology, which I isi
probably don't understand.
I9j What I do warn to say is that poi there
is a lot of dredging that went forward last
in] year at the Motan Terminal, and we
had looked at (121 the permits for that
project. The permits looked  1131 really
good. They were using the environmen-
tally [14] best technology in every area.
The reality was a us] little bit different.
The dredging at the site ti6i had a lot of
problems. The silt curtains weren't IITJ
really  working. The  environmental
bucket wasn't us] working properly. All
kinds of things.There im was debris,old
pilings in the area that hadn't 1201 been
expected, and you know, the list goes
on.
[2i] The bottom line is that you don't 1221
always know what to expect. And so
what happened [23] at Moran was a lot of
probems came up, but [24] nothing really
happened to fix them until the
                            Page 68
HI work was all done and it was too late.
We don't 121 want to see that situation
happen with the rest BI of the projects.
And I think probably a couple [4] of sort
of simple things could happen to help
(Si that along, and those things are re-
lated to the [6] permitting and monitor-
ing situations. Basically  [71 what  we
could do is, hopefully Mike Leone could
is] help with the legal aspects of it, but
in the !9j permit we could put instead of
just outlining the iioj technology — in
other words, we are going to use mi this
type of bucket or that type of bucket —
we [12] could outline performance stand-
ards — here's us] what we want to see
happen and here's the  U4j technology
we're using. If you have the [is] standards
there and the goals in terms of the [i6]
process, then you'll be able to know
whether or [i?] not things are working
well, and you'll have some [isi  sort of
baseline to know, do we need to stop,
[19] re-evaluate and do things a little bit.
[20] It certainly needs to have some [2ij
sort of independent monitoring happen-
ing  at  the  [22] area.  Whatever  the
monitoring plan was at Moran, [23]  it
seemed to break down. There was no
process  [24] for when  so-and-so sees
something, what happens?	
                             Page 69
I u That process wasn't in place. So there
needs to 121 be some kind of contingency
plan written into the 131 permit that says
that if you see problems such as HI this
laundry list happen, then here's what's
m going to  happen. It's going to  be
stopped. !6j  We'll immediately look at
those, do something (?i different, and
then move along and continue with [8]
the dredging. That's something we want
to see [9j happen.
[io] In summary,I just want to say [ii] that
we are in the process of looking at this
[12] very  complicated  plan. Our com-
ments today are a [131  summary of the
major issues we've seen so far, [14] and
certainly we'll probably be doing a more
full [is] analysis of all the sites and maybe
bringing up 116] some additional issues.
In the future I hope inj that there will
be another hearing, because it's iiaj im-
portant that we have adequate time to
review 1191 this  plan. I don't  know if
you've seen it. It's 1201 about this big. It
seems this big. It's fairly 1211 dense for
those of us who aren't scientists, and 1221
we basically want to have another op-
portunity to 1231 give our comments after
we had a full chance to [24] review the
plan.	
                            Page 70
Hi In summary, I just want to say [2] Save
the Harbor/Save the Bay is committed to
131 Boston Harbor as both an economic
resource and a HI  natural resource.
Again, we are supportive of m the dredg-
ing project. We're spending a  lot of [6]
time working with everybody in this
room to find  m  ways to move this
project along so  that we can m aU
benefit, the harbor can benefit, the
economy  [9] can  benefit and the
resource won't have to be 1101 sacrificed
along the way.
mi Dredging is messy. It's needed [121 for
the  economy,  and  it's  potentially
dangerous U3l for the environment. With
those facts in mind, [ ui we'll be working
to push for creative usi combinations of
disposal sites that will cause 116] good
rather than harm to the resource.
I IT] Thanks again for letting me make [ isj
these comments, and we look forward
to hearing 119] from the rest of the staff.
(20] MR. ROSENBERG:  Thank you. [2i|
Following our next speaker, those in-
dividuals who [22] signed up for public
comment will be called, and  1231  then
we'll get back into the formal agenda.
(24] The next speaker is Ms. Grace
                            Page 71
in Perez,Conservation Law Foundation.
She's a m science fellow working on
contaminated sediment ui at CLF.
[4] STATEMENT BY GRACE PEREZ,
15]  CONSERVATION  LAW  FOUNDA-
TION [6] MS. PEREZ: Good afternoon, m
everyone. I'd like to thank the U.S. Army
Corps [8] of Engineers for inviting me to
be here today to [9] speak with you. Like
Save the Harbor/Save the  [ioj Bay, the
Conservation Law Foundation or CLF is
in] not a government agency. We're a
nonprofit, 1121 8,000-member, environ-
mental advocacy group 1131 working in
the New England region.
 [14] CLF has monitored the progress of
 us) the Boston Harbor dredging project
over the past [16] several year. For the
past 12 months or so we've [17] become
increasingly active, mostly by attending
[is] meetings of the advisory committee,
the disposal U9i options working group
and other groups working in 1201 the
planning process of the project.This 121)
participation wouldn't have been pos-
sible without [22] the cooperation of the
Corps of Engineers and of [231 MassPort,
which has provided us with project (24]
documents and information and  have
welcomed us
                            Page 72

in  into  the  scoping  and  planning
process.
m CLF would like to thank these BI
organizations for taking a positive ap-
proach to [4j environmental issues, to the
environmental issues [5} raised  by the
project. And we look forward to [6; con-
tinued collaboration in the future.
[7j Some of you may be aware that CLF
[8] was a key player in the litigation that
led to (9] so-called cleanup of Boston
Harbor that's going no] on right now. I
say so-called because the term un im-
plies a lot more than what is really [121
happening. Partly as  a  result of CLF's
actions, H31 the MWBA has stopped dis-
charging sewage sludge [i4j and scum —
that's the stuff that  sticks to the [is]
bottom and the stuff that floats to the
top in [16] the water — into the harbor.
And as many of you (17] know, the MWRA
is building a sewage treatment [iaj plant
on Deer Island for secondary treatment
of U91 sewage.
[20] These actions are important ones 121;
and will help move the Boston Harbor
to becoming 1221 a cleaner harbor. But
they alone will not make [23] the harbor
totally clean, because sewage is not [24)
the only thing that  determines  how
clean this
                             Page 73

HI area is.This brings us to why CLF has
an i2j interest in this project and why
we're here 01 today.
m At the bottom of the harbor, due is]
not only to historic sewage discharge
but also to [6i input from urban runoff,
rivers, combined  sewer [7] overflows
and even automobile exhaust that are is]
carried and deposited in our waters, are
[9] sediments that are contaminated with
carcinogenic noj and toxic substances.
[ii! I want to say a few words about 112]
what the effects of these sediments are
because ri3] it's a very important issue,
and even though I (i4) was trained in
science,  it's the  wrong  kind of nsj
science. So although I'm a scientist, I
look [16] forward to the comments that
are going to made by IITI some of the
scientists here today.
 BPA REPORTING (6l7)423-O5OO
          Min-U-Script®
                 Page 68 - Page 73
-------
May 17,1994
                      U.S. Army Corps of Engineers N. E. Division &
                                         Massachusetts Port Authority
(is) According to a Oceanographic and
[191 Atmospheric Administration study a
few years [201 back, Boston Harbor sedi-
ments are among some of |2i| the most
contaminated in the country, having [221
elevated levels of heavy metals such as
chromium, (231 lead, mercury and zink as
well as PCB's and [24] PAH's.
ID There was a study that looked at m
previous work, at all the previous work
that had 13] been done on the effects of
contaminated MI sediments on marine
organisms, and then ranked is] over 200
sites nationwide, coastal sites that had [6]
been studied in terms of its potential to
cause m damage to the organisms that
were exposed to m those sediment. Un-
fortunately  Boston Harbor  19]  sites
ranked number 2 and number 6 out of
the 200 (io) national sites. This again is
for adverse in] biological impact.
nn Sediments that were tested during
U3)  the course  of this project also
echoed the  [HI results that NOAA had
found previously. Many of \m the sedi-
ments, including lead, chromium, zink,
H«l PCB's and other contaminants, were
in IITI concentrations greater — and this
is in the  [isj materials that are to be
dredged —  were H9j  concentrations
greater than those known to have (201
adverse effects on organisms. And by
adverse uij effects, this generally means
death.
[22] There's an entire rogues gallery 123]
of potential effects from exposure to [24]
contaminated  sediments. Chronic dis-
eases,
HI  tumors,  eroded  fins,  impaired
reproduction and  [2]  accute toxicity,
death, are some of the potential m ef-
fects of  exposure.  In Boston Harbor
there have MI been some very real ef-
fects that have already isi been docu-
mented. Winter flounder has been [6]
studied to a great extent. They live and
feed on m the harbor bottom, and they
have been found by m researchers to
have tumors on their mouths and to m
have carcinogenic  liver lesions. These
have been (ioj linked directly to pes-
ticides and PAH's in the mi sediment.
(12]  Now, these substance that I'm [131
talking about are very persistent in the
U4] environment Some of them degrade
slowly while us] others, the metals, are
essentially with us  no forever. As they
rise through the food web, they IITI ac-
cumulate. Reaching higher and higher
levels in [is] the organisms towards the
top of the web, humans [19] being among
them. The  human link has already 1201
been made in Boston Harbor.
I2i) In 1988 an EPA study of Quincy Bay
122] found such a high  incidence of dis-
ease in soft- [23] shelled clams and winter
flounder, as well as [24] high PCS levels
in lobster tomalley from the

                             Page 76

ID harbor that they recommended that
a human health  121  advisory be  an-
nouncement. And  a little known one [3]
remains in effect for Boston Harbor. It
warns HI against eating lobster tomalley
from the harbor, is] and particularly
warns pregnant women and young I6j
children to avoid eating lobster from the
m harbor.
18] So I've talked about the effect m these
contaminants can have as they are in
place  no] on the harbor bottom. Now,
some of these mi  contaminants remain
somewhat isolated when they [121 sit on
the harbor bottom and others may, as I
U31 said, may enter the food web. But a
physical [ wj process, such as tidal action
or a dredging us] project, can rc-relcase
the contaminants  into the [16] environ-
ment, and if done improperly or [ IT] care-
lessly, these contaminants can then be
(is] avaiable to potentially contaminate
our food [19] supply. This, of course, in
Boston  Harbor would  [201 have dis-
astrous  effects on the fishing and [211
lobstering industries as well as both
commercial 1221 and recreational.
123] Nevertheless the process of [24] silta-
tion that is what  the Corps  has been
talking

                             Page 77

[i ] about today means that the navigation
channels 121 and berthing areas in the
harbor  have to  be 0j  periodically
dredged in order to be made viable, HI
and failure to do so would result in the
loss of [51 jobs and commerce that we are
unwilling to take.
[6] But the main issue for CLF with m
respect  to this project is, therefore, not
that [8] dredging is a bad thing and that
it shouldn't [9] happen, but rather that
when it is necessary, uoi dredging is
done in a way that minimizes the (in
impacts of the contaminants on the
marine 1121 environment and, therefore,
on our food supply. U3]  At a minimum
this means that the  project  must (Hi
meet the letter and spirit of existing d5i
environmental regulations.
[16] I want to be clear that although ini
I've been talking about the contamina-
tion problem us) here, the levels of con-
tamination aren't as high 119] as at some
other sites. So we  must keep things [201
in perspective. For example, New Bed-
ford Harbor (211 is so contaminated with
PCB's that it's an EPA 122] Super Fund site.
But nevertheless, the levels of (231 con-
taminants that we've  seen as a result of
the 124] testing for this project are sub-
stantially high
                             Page 78
in and deserve careful examination and
proper action [2] as a result when dealing
with dredging and [3] disposal.
Hi CLF is currently reviewing the m draft
EIS and because of the relatively early isi
timing of these comment sessions — we
received m the two volumes two weeks
ago — we don't yet isj have detailed
comments ready. We'd like to touch m
on a few of the key issues that we will
look at no] more carefully, and for those
of you who are [in interested, we have
a 2-page position paper at 1121 our table
in the back of the room.
(13] As has been said by every speaker [i4j
this afternoon, the biggest single chal-
lenge [isi related to the dredging project
and to public [i6j health is the 1.1 million
cubic yards that must n?) be disposed of,
dredged and disposed of, and I [isj have
to look at the chart back there more 1191
carefully to see if my numbers agree that
this [20] correlates with a 60-story build-
ing die size of a [2i] football field. So it's
a lot of stuff. I think [221 I'm going to start
looking at the Prudential [»] Building in
a different light after today too.
[24] Our first concern deals with what
                             Page 79

in is determined to be clean versus un-
clean or [2] unsuitable  for unconfined
ocean disposal. 01 Because of the large
spatial variation in [4]  contaminant con-
centration throughout the harbor is] and
because of the results of the sediment [6]
testing that's been done as part of this
project, m we believe that the entire 1.1
million cubic pj yards of silty material is
unsuitable for [9] unconfined ocean dis-
posal; that is, it should not 1101 simply be
dumped in the ocean. The draft EIS [in
uses this as a working definition, and we
hope (12] that this point will not be
revisited.
[131 The EIS lists five preferred [i4] alter-
natives for disposal in its executive [is]
summary. And I just  have a  few com-
ments on  [16] these. Joan actually
touched on some of our [IT] concerns.
I'll go over them quickly. Generally [is]
speaking, four out of the five sites are
used by ti9i area fishermen and lobster-
men, and so this is one 120] of the things
we have to look at very carefully [211
before we go either digging in the area
or [22] dumping and capping.
[23] The Mass. Bay Disposal Site is 22 [24]
miles east  of  Boston and lies at ap-
proximately
                             Page 80

in 300 feet in depth. Capping is unlikely
to work m sit these depths, and in fact,
the original [31 designation of the site
states that only clean m materials are to
be disposed of there.         	
Page 74 - Page 80
          Min-U-Script®
 BPA REPORTING (617)423-0500
-------
                                 rt. c. *sivi»iuu oc
Massachusetts Port Authority
                                                           May 17,1994
[5| The other issue with the MBDS is tej
that Stellwagen Bank and the National
Marine m Sanctuary is adjacent to it and
is frequented  by  m  a  number of
threatened and endangered species as
19] well as by area commerical fisher-
men. So [to] therefore because of these
reasons, CLF is mi opposed to dumping
contaminated sediments at the 1121 Mass.
Bay Disposal Site.
[13] One of the other alternatives is [i4i
Boston  Lightship,  and as Joan men-
tioned, this was  us] an historic dumping
ground for radioactive waste uej as well
as otherwaste.And CLF believes that IITJ
potentially this would be a good site for
the [is] disposal of probably clean but
possibly :i9] contaminated and clean
sediment in the future, 1201 with capping
of course.Don't misunderstand what uu
I'm saying.
[22i There may be a way to help protect
[23] the radioactive contaminants from
entering the 124] food web, but until the
Boston Lightship area is
                             Page 81
[i] fully mapped and characterized, CLF
is opposed to [2] dumping silts there.
si With respect to Spectacle Island, HI
the studies of the harbor and bay bot-
toms by it] Harley Knebel working at
Woods Hole, the USGS [6] there, showed
that the area immediately east of m Spec-
tacle Island where disposal is proposed
is [8] primarily erosional in nature. And
we have [91 questions about the implica-
tions of dumping 1101 contaminated sedi-
ment in an erosional area. So [in far we
haven't seen anything in the EIS that (121
addresses this point, but we are far from
[i3l finished with reading the EIS. So
perhaps it's [14] already there.
[15] In  thinking about the disposal (i6i
issue, it's easy to forget that environmen-
tal [n] damage can occur during the
active dredging as [is] well as at the time
of disposal. From the recent 1191 Moran
Terminal experience, CLF has learned
not [20] only that the right equipment is
required but pi] that personnel must be
knowledgeable about the 1221 techni-
ques for dealing with contaminated 1231
sediment.
[24] And equally important are
                             Page 82
[i] restrictions imposed by the permit
issued by [21 Federal, State and Local
agencies.  The dredge BI operator, for
example,  must  be  educated on the [4]
permits relative to his or her function. If
silt [5] curtains are required, the operator
should make [6] sure that they are in
place and working before rn commenc-
ing the dredging operation.
[8] Another issue that's important and m
that affects both dredging and disposal
is that (iQi there must be independent
confirmation that the (in work is being
done properly and according to 1121 per-
mits. I'm sure that some of the fishermen
H31 here today have themselves seen or
heard the |U] practice of short dumping
which was used in the 1151 past to get rid
of dredge spoils prior to [i6j arriving at
the  designated   disposal   site.   in
Presumably this was done for economic
reasons.
[is] Likewise at CLF we've heard of U9]
other dubious and illegal practices, such
as the [20] systematic overfilling of barges
and the washing 1211  out of remaining
contaminated sediment from 1221 barges
while the barges are docked.
1231 There's a host of environmentally 12*1
related permits that will be issued as a
result
                             Page 83
[i] of this project, many with specific
requirements  121  and restrictions. We
believe  that there must be  [3]  inde-
pendent  verification that permit re-
quirements [4] are being  met during
every step of the process, m An on-site
observer must be at the dredge site as 16)
well as on disposal runs and should have
the m authority to stop the work if he
or she sees a m violation. This is the only
way that we  can be isj sure that the
project looks as good in reality as uoj it
does on paper.
[ii] I want to make a general comment
ti2] and a recommendation that I believe
has not been [13] raised before. Part of it
actually has. The ii4] first part is, since
this project is expected to U5i cause at
least some environmental disruption —
H6]  after all, anyone  who has seen a
dredging project IITJ knows that it isn't
a clean, meticulous thing iisj like brain
surgery. We proposed that the Corps ri9i
and/or MassPort take specific, positive
action to [20] mitigate or compensate for
these effects.
[2i]  As we stated in  the past, CLF [221
supports the on-going development and
use of [23] alternative technologies to
render the [24] contaminated sediments
less harmful. We
                             Page 84
ID encourage MassPort and  especially
the Corps to 121 take a leadership role by
pursuing these [31 possibilities and treat-
ing a portion of the silt [4] with one of
these technologies.
[5] Another possibility is for the [6] Corps
to begin consultation with agencies not
[7] knowledgeable of harbor conditions
to determine isi whether one or more
localized areas, such  as  a  [91  con-
taminated hot sport,  near the  main-
tenance  [io] dredging sites and outside
navigation channel  [in  boundaries
would  especially  benefits  from [121
dredging as part of the maintenance
project. [13] This action would make op-
timal use of the [HI resources deployed
for the maintenance project H5] and
would be a beneficial step and a positive
[i6l step in the cleanup of Boston Harbor.
li?l Just a quick word on some of the uaj
wider issues that are raised by this
project and  119] and that CLF is con-
cerned about. The United 120]  States
needs  to  develop a  coherent  con-
taminated  [2i]  sediment management
strategy so that projects [221 such as this
one have better guidance on how to 1231
proceed. We also would like to see some
effort [24] at the federal level to develop
a maritime
                            Page 85
Hi strategy addressing the  roles of in-
vidual  ports [2]  from  a  nationwide
perspective.  It's not clear BI that every
port should handle the largest ships. HI
And we're not saying that Boston Harbor
should [5] not, we need a national level
strategy to guide [6] the development of
the ports and the dredging m within the
ports.
m Finally, we've seen the beginnings 19]
of a State interagency effort to view the
no] dredging needs of the Common-
wealth over the next [in 50 years. CLF
encourages these  planning efforts, 1121
and we hope that public interest groups
such as [131 ours will not be  excluded
from the process.
[14] To recap our position on the (i5i
Boston Harbor Navigation Improvment
Project, CLF 116] is not opposed to dredg-
ing to maintain the in\ viability of the
harbor. The nature of the [isj sediments,
however, requires that significant (191 ef-
fort be focused on preventing the con-
taminants  [20) being dispersed in  the
marine environment, both [211 in  the
dredging and disposal sites.
[22j CLF is currently reviewing the [231
draft EIS and will prepare a detailed set
of [24] comments in response to it. I'll be
at the
                            Page 86
HI public interest table over there during
the rest m of the session to answer your
questions and to I3i discuss these issues
further with those who are HI interested.
Thank you very much.
m MR. ROSENBERG: Thank      you,
Grace. [6i Just a word before we open up
to [7] public comment. After the public
comment, we'll \»] be taking about a
I0-minute break, and then we'll [9] get
back to the formal agenda.
[io] Before we start on those comments,
mi I'd like to personally thank both the
[12] Conservation Law Foundation and
Save the 1131 Harbor/Save the Bay. They
were two of among many  IMI other
public interest and environment groups,
IB] such as the Sierra Club and Audubon
 BPA REPORTING (617)423-0500
          Min-U-Script®
                 Page 81 - Page 86
-------
May 17,1994
                      U.S. Army Corps of Engineers N. E. Division &
                                        Massachusetts Port Authority
Society, that |i6] have contributed their
time and energy over the tm past year
or so to get us where we are today, uaj
Originally there were over 300 disposal
|i9l alternatives, and with their help, we
got them 1201 down to where we are.
pti And  I have a special word of [221
thanks for Joan LeBlanc, •who we're
sorry to hear 123) is leaving us and passing
on the cane, if you (24] will, to keep us in
line, to Judy, and thanks for
HI your insight and your common sense,
your advice, m and you were very help-
ful in getting us where "we BI are today.
Mi To start the public  comments, tsi
please excuse  me if I  mispronounce
your name, [6j Mr. Alfred Frizelle.
m  STATEMENT  BY   ALFRED  E.
FREELLE,
m BOSTON SHIPPING ASSOCIATION,
INC.
19) MR. FRIZELLE: Good  afternoon. My
do] name is Al Frizelle. I'm the general
manager and mi counsel for the Boston
Shipping Association.
112) The Boston Snipping Association 113)
members  include   steamship lines,
agents, in) stevedores, marine terminal
operators and others (is] whose daily
business is shipping  in the port of [i6i
Boston. We urge that approval be given
and that [IT] permits be issued to com-
mence dredge in Boston usj Harbor.
U9l A depth of mean low water of 40 1201
feet is needed to accommodate the con-
tainer ships (21] and tankers that present-
ly call at the pott 1221 supplying goods
and gas and petroleum products to 1231
die  Commonwealth  and  the  New
England region. At [24] present container
ships schedule arrivals into
                            Page 88
ID and departures from the port around
the tides  [21 because of  inadequate
depths. Delays  resulting  0] from such
scheduling increases the container [4]
ships' operating costs and  discourage
many, many m ships from calling at the
port of Boston. Within \e\ the last two
months container ships have bypassed
[71 Boston and sailed to  New York be-
cause scheduled m arrivals were at low
water.
19) Importers and exporters in Boston uoj
cannot rely upon this type of service and
need mi this new concept. They must
have their goods 1121 here on time. As
noted in the DHR, more cargo 113] would
be need to be unloaded necessitating
more (MI trips at a higher cost, and also
notes that cargo mi would be snipped
via barge. A more likely net  scenario
would be that containers would be [i?i
delivered directly from  New  York or
from [is] Montreal, Canada, directly to
the consignees U9] bypassing Boston in
total,  leaving out the 120; waterfront
aspect completely.
pi] By far as it appears from the [223
comments that have been made today,
the greatest 1231 concern is the prohibi-
tion of undefined dumping 124] of con-
taminated sediment. We understand the
need
                            Page 89
[i] for sound environmental practices
tempered by 121  economic considera-
tions.
m After review of the numerous sites MJ
and technologies, the draft provides a
list of m reasonable alternative sites and
technologies for  («j ocean dumping of
contaminated sediments with a m cap.
There appears to be no objections to
ocean is]  dumping for uncontaminated
material. Although at [9) this time we do
not favor one site over the uoj other,
there are sites available for dumping in
mi an economically and environmental-
ly sound manner, 1121 and we urge you to
consider those alternatives us] carefully.
[M] We do favor ocean dumping of all im
of  the materials, with limitations  as
noted, (i6i versus the upland disposal of
material which is \\T\ just economically
unsound in our opinion.
[is] The time frame that is noted in [191
the project should be kept and must be
kept.The (201 cost in jobs alone estimated
at approximately [21] 6,000 in the region
dictates that prompt action (221 must be
taken for the benefit of business and 123]
working men and women of the Com-
monwealth and the (24] region. Thank
you.
                            Page 90
HI MR. ROSENBERG: Thank you, sir. [2]
The next comment will be from Louts
Zeppieri.
13] (No response.)
[4] MR. ROSENBERG: William   Robin-
son.
IS] STATEMENT BY WILLIAM E. ROBIN-
SON,
16] MASS.LOBSTERMEN'S ASSOCIATION
m MR. ROBINSON: Good afternoon, isj
ladies and gentlemen. My name is Wil-
liam [9] Robinson. I'm a local lobster
fisherman out of [101 the port of Saugus.
Before I get going on this, uu I'd just like
to let you know I also have a wife ii2) and
two children.
(131 And  I've  been sent  here as a IHI
representative of the Massachusetts
Lobstermen's IK) Association because
Mr, Adler, our executive iiei director
could not be here. Fortunately he'll be
[i?l at the hearing in Hyannis.
(isi I'd like to tell you mainly what U9i
we're concerned with  as fishermen
along the [201 Massachusetts coast. And
that is exactly what 121] everyone has
been speaking about and that's the (221
disposal sites. We  do not know what
type of (231 impact it's going to have on
our fishing,
124] Number one, the problem that we're
                            Page 91

ID having with PCB's up in Boston Har-
bor had bad uj publicity a few years ago,
which was stated 131 earlier. We take this
material, take it HI outside. What type of
effect is it going to have is\ when it meets
the media and you tell the public [6j the
contaminates  are now spread out all
over the m bay? What type of impact is
it going to have on p] our fishing?
19) Secondly, in the dredging mode noj
that we know it as and the dump site,
•when the uu material was dumped, and
what  type of effect it 1121 has on the
coverage of vegetation on the ground,
(13) the bottom of the ocean, affects dif-
ferent types ii4] of fishing different times
of the year when the [isj fish come to
the area; in other  words, what (i6i at-
tracts them to this area, would that be
dumped  iiT)  upon  and would   that
change the topography of the us] bot-
tom of the ocean  which changes dif-
ferent (i9i grounds  for us the most
productive times of the 1201 year where
we fish?
pi] We're kind of concerned also with
[22] the different sites which are chosen.
They kind 1231 of have an effect on dif-
ferent fishermen at 124) different times of
the year. Take the Spectacle

                            Page 92

[i] Island dump site mat you've chosen.
At times of [2] the year that's the  most
productive area for some [3] Boston Har-
bor fishermen around that arca.That's m
their key spot. Spots such as the Meis-
burger m areas or the Boston Lightship
area at certain 16] times of the year, that's
the hop spot or best m spot for some
fishermen to  be fishing at certain [8]
times of the year. And to be closed off
for one m year orto have those areas not
available to us no] could have a huge
effect on our entire annual uu income.
[i2] Also another one of our concerns IBI
was travel to and from the dump site by
the mode ti-tj of transportation, such as
the barges. At the  us] Moran dredging
and the Third Harbor Tunnel tie] Project,
which happened last year, some of the
[IT] tugboats that were hired from New
York  and New [isj Jersey, wherever,
were going on different travel 119] routes
which was causing a large amount of
damage 120] to our lobster traps and fish-
ing gear and so on.
pi] We tried to report this through 122)
the Association and the Coast Guard, and
they (231 said, "Well, we'll try to get back
Page 87 - Page 92
          MinU Script®
 BPA REPORTING (617)423-0500
-------
           VAM;|)» UJL ciigmccrai
Massachusetts Port Authority
                                    n.
                                                           May 17,1994
to them, try [24] and  get better com-
munication between you

                             Page 93

in people." We came  up and tried to
approach the (21 boats on our own and
because of different weather [3] condi-
tions   and  the   sea   conditions  or
whatever,  w the tugboats had to take
different directions at [5] different times
of the year to and from the [6] dredging
site, which caused a lot of damage to m
us. What it is is the cable that was being
towed [8]  in between, as you all  are
familiar with, and [9] they dropped it at
a certain point, tightened the uo] cable
so they could maneuver back into  the
harbor (in and caused a massive amount
of damage on the [121 outer harbor to the
fishermen, and to no avail. 113] Until the
project ended, we weren't compen-
sated [U] for anything. What we're look-
ing for is we just us) want them to take
one straight line. We'd like uej to bring
that up as one of our concerns.
[IT] The other concern that we have is
[is] with the effect of everything. We're
being faced [19]  with  a magnitude of
problems in the lobster [201 industry and
the finfish industry, and we just 1211 kind
of went along with the diffuser project,
[22] which  is taking place from Deer
Island and the 123] outfall sewage plant.
We don't know the results [24] of that yet.
We were promised from the Cashman
                             Page 94

Hi people when the project started that
we were m going to see a film from an
Australian site which  [31 has a familiar
type of sewage outfall. We were [4] told
we were going to see it. We were told
we is] were going to get a chance to look
at it. We [6j were never shown anything.
[7j So my point is, we haven't seen m the
effect yet from that on the fishing in-
dustry [9]  yet, and now to  take these
contaminated materials [io] or  other
materials to be dumped in there.it all [in
kind of is going to have a terrible effect
on the [12] fishermen. We'd just like to be
informed and [131 kept up on what the
concerns are as one party, |i4] the fisher-
men in general, just to keep informed IK]
as to what's happening. Thank you very
much.
[16] MR. ROSENBERG: Thank  you,  sir.
in] The next official comment will us]
come from Mr. William McNamara.
1191  STATEMENT  BY  WILLIAM   R.
McNAMARA,
[20]                INTERNATIONAL
LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION [21]
MR. McNAMARA: Good afternoon. My
[22] name is William McNamara. I'm the
International 1231 Vice President of the
International  [24] Longshoremen's As-
sociation. I'm married. I have
                            Page 95
HI two children also.
[2] I'm very honored to be here today [3]
representing     the    International
Longshoremen's [4] Association/We have
25 locals in the New m England area. We
have about 15,000 members.
[6] My main interest today is the port [7]
of Boston. I have a delegation here from
the [8] port of Boston, many of the mem-
bers who have [9] serviced the port in
over 50 years. Myself, I've no] been in the
port for 38 years.
Hi] I have a letter here from my 1121 office,
the Office of William R. McNamara, 113]
Internaitonal  Vice President.  It's ad-
dressed  to [14] Miss or Mrs. Trudy Cox,
Secretary, Massachusetts [i5] Executive
Office of Environmental Affairs, 100 [16]
Cambridge Street, Boston, Mass. 02202,
dated May [i7] 17,1994. Subject matter
Dredging of Boston [is] Harbor.
[19] "Dear Miss Cox: Attached is a 1201
petition   from   the   International
Longshoremen's  un  Association, its af-
filiated Locals 799, 800, 805, 1221 809,
1066 and 1604, ILA, Port of Boston.
[23] "This petition is signed by over [24j
300  members  of  the  International
Longshoremen's	
                            Page 96
HI Association who work the waterfront
terminals on [2] a daily basis. We  also
have trucking companies, [31 U.S. Cus-
toms, custom brokers, stevedoring [4]
companies, steamship agents, freight
forwarders pi  and  many other  com-
panies who do business through  [6] the
port.
[7] "If dredging is not done soon in m the
Port of Boston or in Boston Harbor, the
ships [9] that service this port will look
elsewhere to uoj unload their cargos and
thousands of jobs will be [in lost. Sin-
cerely, William R. McNamara, 1121 Interna-
tional Vice President."
[13] Thank you.
(i4j MR. ROSENBERG: Thank you, sir.
[is] Our next speaker to give comment
[16] is Mason Weinrich.
[IT] STATEMENT BY MASON WEINRICH,
[18] CETACEAN RESEARCH UNIT [19] MR.
WEINRICH: Thank you. First 1201 I'd like
to thank the Corps and MassPort for (211
giving us the opportunity to comment
and for 1221 holding the hearing. I think
it's a great [23] information session and
will probably help a lot [24] of people get
through about 1500  pages, which is
                            Page 97
ID very difficult to wade through.
Pi First let give you a brief [31 back-
ground as to who I am and where I come
from. [4] I'm the executive director of the
Cetacean isj Research Unit, a private,
non-profit  [6]  organization, based in
Gloucester, Massachusetts,  m with  a
membership of about 300 devoted to m
studying whales, dolphins and marine
life off the [9] New England coast and
conserving it. So I am [io] actually one of
the scientists who has been [ii] referred
to as one of many scientists who will be
[12] speaking later.
[13] I'm also the chair of the Coastal [HI
Advocacy Network, a group that is part
of the [15] Massachusetts base program
that coordinates [i6] groups such as Save
the Harbor/Save the Bay, [17] Conserva-
tion Law Foundation, Mass. Audubon [isj
Society, and the network represents ap-
proximately ii9] 75,000 citizens in Mas-
sachusetts.
[20] I'm going to be speaking here on [211
behalf of the Cetaceon Research Unit. I
will say [22] that the Advocacy Network
is concerned with many [23] of the issues
I'm about to address  and  will be [24]
preparing comments, but it's obviously
fairly
                            Page 98
HI early in the process. And they're not
quite at m the point where they  have
detailed those as yet, [31 so you'll be
hearing from that other half of w mine,
probably at the next hearing you have;
if [5] not, in writing.
[6] First of all, I'm going to deal m today
with primarily one issue. It's one of the
[8] hot issues we've heard about so far,
and that is [9] the open ocean disposal of
both  contaminated  and   no]  clean
material. First of all, I want to give you
Hi]  an idea of why we think  this is a
critical [12] issue. You heard mention that
this area is right [13] next to Stellwagen
Bank National Marine [ 14] Sanctuary. Cer-
tainly that is key. In and of H5] itself, the
Mass. Bay Disposal She is also a (i6) very
important habitat to marine life and [IT]
endangered species.  It's   mentioned
briefly in  us] the document  that the
Mass. Bay Disposal Site is u?) a general
area of transient species, particularly [201
large whales. However, in Bob Kenny's
paper in [211 1985, published in Fishery
Bulletin, based on the [221  results of a
3-year aerial survey from 1979 to 1231
1982, the  10-meter by 10-meter quad-
rant — rather [24] the 10-degree by 10-
degree quadrant that includes
                            Page 99
in the Mass. Bay Disposal  Site, listed
among the top 12110 percent for marine
mammal and  endangered  13] species
throughout the entire Northeast. So I HI
think it has to be characterized as such.
[5] Also there is shown sensitivity [6) for
animals on the top of the food chain, u]
particularly endangered species  and
marine  tsj mammals. They have an ex-
treme  sensitivity to  (91 toxics.  The
highest concentrations of any of the [ioj
 BPA REPORTING C6l 7)423-0500
          Min-U-Script®
                 Page 93 - Page 99
-------
May 17,1994
                     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers N. E. Division &
                                        Massachusetts Port Authority
toxins  that  have been  talked  about
today,  PCB's  (ii)   PAH's,   organic
chlorines, heavy metals, have all 1121
been found in the  tissues of marine
mammals.
II3I The further work that we have been
|M)  involved in doing in cooperation
with scientists us] down at Woods Hole
in the  past few years and as iiej yet
unpublished but details and reports that
were 1173 recently submitted to the Mas-
sachusetts   Water   [isj   Resources
Authority indicates that some of the im
whales that spent a long time in the
Stellwagen 1201 Bank region are showing
increased levels of [211 toxins in their
blubber tissue, not at the point 1221 yet
where it's something to be distressed or
|23l worried about but they're showing
levels higher (2*1 than that of animals in
other areas. So it's	
                            Page 100
ID something we certainly have to be
concerned about 121 and realize that.
01 First of all, regarding the w con-
taminated silt, we congratulate you for
most is) of the DEIS/R classifying all of
the surface silt [6] as contaminated.How-
ever, as Joan LeBlanc  m pointed out,
there are inconsistencies in what is) that
means  and what that doesn't  mean in
the Effi, t9i and we would ask that you
look through that  (ioj  carefully, go
through all the references to it [in and
make that consistent, and we congratu-
late you im for that designation and urge
you to keep that IB] and not look to
reclassify any of it.
mi  Second of all, it is mentioned tisj
numerous times in the DEIS/R that open-
ocean  (i6) disposal of these  sediment
might be feasible with HTJ a capping
demonstration. There's no reason to us)
expect that at a site such at Mass, flay
Disposal  (191 Site that capping would be
effective. There has (201 been  one test
that I've been able to find 1211 reference
to, and I thank that John Kerlan for 1221
National  Fisheries Service for helping
me with 1231 this.
124) While IVe not been able to get
                            Page 101
ID the original report, I have been able
to get an m annotated reference of R. W.
Morion's  1984 Report BJ on Dredge
Material Disposal Operations for the (4]
Boston  Foul Ground, June   1982  to
February 1983- tsi They looked at cap-
ping tests using both clamshell [6j scow
operations and also hopper barges, And
they m found in neither case •was there
a mound built up, (si and in both cases
the sediment was distributed 19] over a
wide region in numerous directions.
lio] Given that, given the depth that [in
we're talking, the midwatcr currents as
well as U2i surface currents go through
there, there would be [131 no reason to
think that capping could take [i4j place.
US) More worrisome to us was the [isj
suggestion several times in the DEIS/R
that  this [I?) project and the material
generated by this  [is] project would
make a sufficient test for [i9] capping.
That to us represents a very dangerous
[20] thing which should be  discarded
immediately. 1211 When you would be
talking about doing that, if [22] testing
with something like that, if the testing
[23] were to fail, and I just present it as a
reason (2-ij to think that test  may fail,
would leave you with     .
                           Page 102
in potentially an environment mess. You
would have m to be dealing then with a
remedial cleanup. You BI  would have
those contaminants exposed to the HI
environment,  and that should not be
thought about [51 in any way, shape or
form for this project.
16] Secondly, in consideration of rn that,
there are several times in which the
Adams [sj model is referred to as a jus-
tification for [9] saying that there would
be no long-term or [ioj  short-term ex-
posures to animals outside the [i n imme-
diate site of the dumping area. I would
[12] caution you on the use of a model to
give you a H3| predictive result. A math-
ematical model, as  a IMJ scientist, I've
dealt with many times, is usi designed to
simplify reality to indicate to you [i«]
where you should look to gather data to
give you im an answer. It is not designed
to give you an [ is] answer. And to use that
kind of a result to H9i predict something
like that is an inappropriate  [201 use of
the model, and all references to that m]
should be struck from the document.
[22] So what then would we consider to
[23] be an appropriate test of capping for
the area? {24] I just told you one we
would think would  not be.
                           Page 103
in We concur with the National Marine
Fisheries [2] letter generated to you at
the Army Corps several I3) weeks ago,
where we feel that before you can even
[4] consider capping at the dump site,
you  would need  m a test  where a
marked, clean sediment was dumped m
and  capped by a secondarily marked
sediment. You [7] would have to show
not only that the cap worked w short
term but you would also have to show
the [9] integrity of the cap over a long
term.
do] Clearly given the time constraints [i n
that there are for this, as we have heard
from [12] sever! speaker already today,
that is [131 unfeasible. So our recommen-
dation for the [14] Massachusetts Bay Dis-
posal Site is that all us] references to
dumping any contaminated silt at [ 16] the
Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site should
be [i?] removed from the document as a
viable option with  [isj or without cap-
ping.
119] There are several other [20] considera-
tions that we think should be con-
sidered [2i] as well. What has been clas-
sified as clean [22] sediment should be
tested  continually and 523] thoroughly
throughout the project. As a [24] scientist,
I know that the ocean environment is
                           Paga1Q4

11) not uniform and varies over a micros-
cale; in m other words, you can have a
habitat that is 10 01 meters away from
another habitat. Because  of w different
current flows, different topographies [si
nearby and on the bottom, you can have
different m  sediment deposits. There
can be many m differences.The fact that
you test hi one area mi and find a certain
level does not necessarily 19] mean that
that will be the case very close to [ioj it.
So if you're going to consider using a in]
sensitive spot like the Mass.Bay Disposal
Site  ii2] at all, that testing needs to be
continual and (13) thoroughly.
[14] Secondly, I was concerned that no
US] consultation had taken place as yet
with the (16)  manager of the Stellwagen
Bank National Marine  [i?]  Sanctuary,
Brad Barr, as designated by law. When i isi
Congress designated that site in Novem-
ber  1992, [19] it mandated that any and
all projects which had 120] the potential
to impact marine resources  on 1211
Stellwagen  Bank   National  Marine
Sanctuary consult 122) with the sanctuary
manager. And the list of [23] people to
whom the document was  sent, with
whom [24] consultation has taken place,
there was no
                           Page 105
m mention of that, and I  would suggest
that you  m  start that consultation
process immediately.
[31 That is all I have for you today. HI  I
would just close by saying that we have
no (si problems at all with the dredging
of the harbor. [6j We support the dredg-
ing  project. I  also, m however, share
many of the concerns that Joan isj Le-
Blanc and Grace Perez shared with you
earlier, m We'll be detailing those in
written comments. We tioj do hope to
see the project go forward in a tin care-
ful and environmentally safe way so we
can  [12] all benefit. Thank you.
1131 MR. ROSENBERG: Thank you very
IM) much.
U51 Our next comment will come from
(i«lJayWennemer.
[171 STATEMENT BY JAY WENNEMER,
[18] MANOMET OBSERVATORY.
[19] MR. WENNEMER: My name is Jay [201
Wennemer. I work for Manomet Obser-
Pagc 100 - Page 105
          Min-U-Script®
 BPA REPORTING (617)423-0500
-------
u.s. Army cx>rps or engineers IN. n. vmsion at
Massachusetts Port Authority
                                                           May 17,1994
vatory.My pu concerns basically involve
the spreading of 1221 contaminated sedi-
ments throughout  the marine  [231 en-
vironment. I believe that ocean disposal
and (24] capping is not workable. I do
remember reading
                           Page 106

in something about an open-ocean site
off New Jersey 12] that was capped, and
the cap was consequently or  [3]  sub-
sequently peeled away by storms and
current w action and is now being con-
sidered  for [5] re-capping. I don't think
that that's an [6j advisable alternative in
the Massachusetts Bay m Disposal Site. I
don't think it  whould  be  spread [8j
anywhere in the environment.
l§] My second concern  is one of (ioj
monitoring. I believe that any permit
that any [in agency puts out is  only as
good  as the compliance 1121 to that per-
mit, and I believe part of the im  com-
pliance has to be continuous and objec-
tive and {Hi careful monitoring of the
processes and [i5] procedures.
[16] I think history show us that [i?i mis-
takes can be made. I think the radioac-
tive [is] waste that's scattered outside of
Boston Harbor [i9] is a good example of
how good plans may go bad. 1201 1 believe
monitoring  by people  that are  em-
powered 121] to constrain the activity of
the operation and by [221 people who are
conversant and educated indie 1231 spirit
of the permits is a necessary part of 124)
insuring that the project is done as en-
visioned
 d! and as permitted. Thank you.
 m MR. ROSENBERG: Thank  you.  131
 Our next speaker will be Ms. HI Vivien
 li.
 I5i STATEMENT BY VIVIEN LI,
 [6]   THE  BOSTON   HARBOR  AS-
 SOCIATION (71 MS. LI: Thank you. I'm
 Vivian (8j Li, the executive director of the
 Boston Harbor [9] Association. The Bos-
 ton Harbor Association is a no] nonprofit
 public interest group founded in 1973
 [in to promote a clean, alive and acces-
 sible Boston [12] Harbor. We were one of
 the first public interest U3) groups catl-
 ing for the  cleaning up of Boston iwi
 Harbor in the early  1970s, and we've
 closely  [is]  monitored the  cleanup
 project for several years [i6] now.
 [17] We also  support  an alive and  us]
 accessible Boston Harbor. People ask us
 what [19] does alive mean. It means not
 only fish and 1201 shellfish swimming in
 the  harbor, but it also [211 means alive
 with people enjoying the harbor. We 122]
 support activities such as the Tall Ships,
 which [23] brought a lot of people to the
 water's edge, and [24] we think that it
 won't be too long in the future
                            Page 108

in before we have thousands of people
swimming in 121 the  harbor on  a hot
summer day.
!3] Likewise  we support  an active (4)
harbor and port that is full of economic
[5] activities. I was moved as I listened to
the [6] diverse opinions this afternoon to
be reminded of m what President Clin-
ton said earlier this week [si when he
announced the appointment of Judge
Breyer [9] for his nomination of Judge
Breyer to the Supreme no] Court. He said
at the time that if he could get n u both
Orin Hatch and Ted Kennedy to support
the [12] same person, he must have made
the right [131 decision. So I hope that you
find the Steven ii4) Breyer option as you
go through this process.
[is] As others, such as Ralph Cox and i 16]
Al Frizelle have pointed  out, there is
more  than [ITJ  17 million tons  of cargo
that comes through the [is] Port of Bos-
ton every year. And more than 80 1191
percent of  the goods which  come
through the  port 1201  are  petroleum
products, and I guess it's now more 121;
than 30,000 cars annually move through
the port's [221 terminals. Clearly any of us
who live in this 1231 region  benefit by
having a strong port area,and [241 we feel
that the port is key to the economic
                            Page 109

til vitality of the region.
[2] Given the size of modern tankers 13]
today, the Boston Harbor Navigation Im-
provement [4] Project is necessary, A, to
provide basic is] services and goods like
fuel, Ike automobiles, [6] like food, like
clothing and such; and B, also to m allow
us  to remain  competitive with other
ports is) in the country.
[91 We've had a chance to briefly read no]
the Draft EIS/EER, and we'd like to offer
the [in following comment: First, TBHA
believes that (121 dredging  can and must
be done in such a way as to [131 limit the
amount of toxic sediments that are [14]
released into the water column in the
form  of [isi suspended solids. I think
Save the Harbor/Save [i6] the Bay already
discussed that. As many of you IITI know,
MassPort has  had recent experience
with [is] dredging at the Moran Terminal,
and MassPort 1191  found  through that
experience that the clamshell  ROJ buck-
et  which they  used  in the  dredging
process [2i] and which the Boston Con-
servation Commission and 1221 some of
the other permitting agencies required,
(2)] was not as  effective as they had
hoped due to the [24] large number of
piles and the amount of debris
                            Pago 110

[i] that got caught in  the bucket which
prevented it [2] from closing tightly.
13] We support MassPort's efforts to f4j
develop a contingency plan to deal with
this m problem. I should state that I'm
on the Boston i6] Conservation Commis-
sion, and when this came [TJ before us at
the commission, no one  from the [sj
public really came forward to help us
figure out is] what we should do environ-
mentally. So working [ioj with our staff
and the MassPort staff and also un the
technical information that we had avail-
able [12] at the time, we thought that the
clam bucket [ 131 would be a good way to
deal with the 114; environmental con-
cerns. And  clearly having now [is] had
the experience of this smaller dredging
lie] project, I think that cleariy we need
to look at  [IT] some contingencies as
well. So I think we usj welcome people's
suggestions about how we might [i9!
deal with that.
[20] I think the Conservation Law 1211
Foundation also mentioned that there's
a  need to 1221 do  some  monitoring
throughout the course of the 1231 dredg-
ing by independent observers. And at
our [24] level, the City level, the Conser-
vation	
                            Pagal11
in Commission, we have staff who go
out periodically pj to monitor projects
like this.
13] On the Central Artery Project, we HI
have staff that are full time monitoring
the [si artery project. So as yougo further
into the [6] permitting process, one of
the things  that we  m  might want to
consider is assigning full-time  [si staff
that would  be paid by the project that is
[9j responsible to the Boston Conserva-
tion Commission uoi that would monitor
the  dredging  process so  that  mi
everyone would have a better sense of
security 1121 about the  feet that there
would be someone 113) impartial looking
at this.  But I don't think  [i4i that's an
insurmountable problem. Certainly the
US] experience with the artery project
has indicated [i6] that it is possible to
have impartial observers im who would
be monitoring the environmental [is] re-
quirements.
[19] I think, as an additional matter, 1201
more attention needs to be given to new
disposal [2i] and remediation  alterna-
tives, to other parts of 1221 the country
alternative technologies have been im
developed which have been effective in
the [24] remediation of contaminated
sediments. We	
                            Page 112
[i] commend MassPort for its efforts to
explore the [2] possible uses of these
alternatives and encourage m you to do
so. Consistent with this, we support M]
the Green  Port legislation filed by Con-
gressman [5] Menendez from  Elizabeth,
New Jersey, resently, 16] which provided
 BPA REPORTING C6l7>423-O5OO
          Min-fl-Script®
               Page 106 - Page 112
-------
May 17,1994
                      U.S. Army Corps of Engineers N. E. Division &
                                         Massachusetts Port Authority
funding for communities to m incor-
porate  alternative  technologies  into
their (si dredging operations. And we
urge that those of [9]  you who have
connections with the Massachusetts fioi
Congressional delegation, that we get
the [ti] delegation to work with their
colleagues to get [121  this legislation
passed.
113) Looking around in this room, there
(Ml are many of you who have strong ties
or who know usi members in the Con-
gressional delegation. When (isi you go
Si and see them, it's important that you
(IT] ask them to support this legislation
and to get usj their colleagues in the U.S.
Congress to support ti9] this legislation
as well. We really need that in poj order
to help fund some of the alternative [211
technologies that many of us support.
(22) Third, as to the practicable 123] alter-
natives for disposal listed in the Draft [24]
EER/HS, we want to make the following
                           Page 113
ID observations: Unconfined  ocean
dumping of 121 contaminated sediment is
an historic practice for Bl which we are
paying the price environmentally  is  HI
no longer permitted. And I think that the
Draft m HS/HR recognizes this reality.
1$) The disposal of contaminated m  sedi-
ments at the  Mass. Bay Disposal  Site,
even isj with capping, may pose some
environmental [9] problems given the
depth of the site. I think 1101 you heard
several speaker discuss that. It's [ii] clear
that additional analysis and monitoring
(12) would be needed before the permit-
ting agency (131 would allow the Mass.
Bay Disposal Site to be [M] used for con-
taminated sediments. I think [15] realisti-
cally this option would be most feasible
(i6j for future harbor maintenance. We'd
encourage UTJ you to begin to do the
additional analysis and [is] monitoring
now so that appropriate supporting 1191
data will be available in the near future.
(20] The Boston  Lightship Site had [211
previously been used for the disposal  of
[22] radioactive waste, and we encourage
further study 123] of the radioactivity  of
the site before it is  (24]  considered as a
disposal site by this project.	
                           Page 114
HI With regard to the combined [2j in-
channel locations, k is not clear whether
the [3] length of the dredging project
would be extended w with this option,
and we  recommend close m coordina-
tion with the local communities, [6] par-
ticular East Boston and other residential
m communities  if you  pursue this op-
tion.
is] We  will  be  submitting more  m
detailed comments between now and
the end of die HO] comment period. We
thank you for holding this mi session.
[12] MR. ROSENBERG: Thank you very
[i$j much.
[14] Mr. Louis Zappieri.
us] (No response.)
[16] MR. ROSENBERG: We're  going to
[17] take a 15-minute break right now.
Following the [is] break, we'll have dis-
cussion on the overall 1191 approach to
the environment impact statement and
[20] report briefing from the Common-
wealth and the 1211 panel discussion. And
I invite everybody who [221 gave com-
ment if they wish to walk around, talk to
123) the workshop groups. As you know,
when comments [24] are given, we do not
interrupt, and we do not try	
                            Paga115
HI  to answer your questions. So please,
seek out  [21 the advice. Maybe we have
some insights for pi you.Thank you very
much.
[4]  I have just been handed one more tsi
card. If you wouldn't mind siding, we'll
have [6j Mr. Bruce Herman give his com-
ment, then we'll [?i take a  15-minute
break and be back here at 3:30. [sj Mr.
Herman.
m  STATEMENT BY BRUCE BERMAN,
[ioj SAVE THE HABBOR/SAVE THE BAY
BAYWATCH in] MR. BERMAN: I'll give
you the [121 capsule version. My name is
Bruce Berman. I [131 direct Baywatch for
Save the Harbor/Save the tw) Bay.
US] The reason I'm here is because I [16]
just  came from Constitution  Marina
where I keep IITI my boat the Shamrock.
I just cleaned it down, [is] We just caught
about  75 herring, and I saw 25  119)
striped bass caught, up to  about 18
pounds. [20]  That's within a thousand
yards of here. I want 1211 to just remind
you folks, while I'm not qualified 1221 to
talk about the technical issues  which
arise [23] from the various disposal op-
tions that you're [24] considering, that we
ace on the edge of a change	
                            Page 116
HI  in the sea. I guess George Bush would
call it a [2] sea change here in Boston.
People are enjoying [31 the harbor as
never before. There's more than m $5
million worth of boats in the water here,
more m than there were last year, and
there'll be more [6] next year. And we
can't blow h.
[7i What this means to me is that m since
dredging  is  a messy  process,  and
television [9j cameras are so portable and
waterproof these days no] that in order
to keep the positive focus, which mi
everyone in this room cares about and
which we've 1121 all worked so hard to
achieve together, that we [»l be honest
with each other,and that we not just [Hi
say that we're going to use the environ-
mental [is] dredge when we all secretly
know  that  50  percent twi  of the
materials or maybe up to 50 percent of
the  [17] materials will certainly be
resuspended on the EISJ way to the sur-
face, and then re-suspended on the im
way to the bottom again if they're going
to be 120] put into some son of contain-
ment under water.
[2i] The areas around Boston and in 1221
Boston Harbor itself are remarkably fer-
tile. [23] There's 10,000 lobster pots out
there now, One [24] of the largest cora-
mercial, in fact the largest	
                           Page 117
[i] commercial fishery in  the  state, I
think. Of the m 70,000 pounds of striped
bass, which  are  allotted  01  to  Mas-
sachusetts for commercial harvesting
this [4] year, my guess is that, although
fishermen don't m always tell the truth,
more than  20,000 pounds of [6] the
quota will to come from Boston Harbor.
These m are not just among the many
economic issues that m you  have  to
balance when you're making decisions,
[91 because they are also symbols which
are really [101 powerful symbols, just like
a whale or in the uu case of the harbor,
maybe the harbor porpoise, 1121 which
we see every time we go out there, or
the [13] harborseals,whJch we see.These
are symbols to IMJ the rate payers, the 41
cities and towns that (is; things are get-
ting better. In the same way as an [16]
accident with a barge or the failure to
use the [ IT] right technology will be sym-
bols of the left hand [is] not knowing
what the right hand is doing.
ti9i In order to make this thing 1201 hap-
pen, I  mean believe  me I understand
how (21] important shipping is to our
regional economy, 1221 how important
the harborproject that we're 1231 discuss-
ing today is to the regional economy. [24]
Still I have to point out that recreational
uses	
                            Page 118
[i] are coming back and they're rapidly
growing. [2] It's the largest growing sec-
tor of our economy, [31 and that the key
to having a multipurpose port is [4] that
we all tell each other the truth and
balance [5] these issues carefully.
[6] I just wanted to say one more m thing,
a suggestion in that regard, that rather [8|
than specifying the technology that
we're going [9] to require people to use
to dredge, because I [io] don't know as
much about dredge scoops as the (in
next guy. I know Vivian and I talked
about this 1121 a while ago. Perhaps we
might consider a [131 performance stand-
ard. And I'm not going to give [14] a real
number, so please don't consider this a
US] real number, but for example, that it
would be [16] reasonable to assume that
if we're going to take JITI the stuff out of
the marine environment, that a [isi cer-
tain percentage, I'd like to see 99.99 and
Page 113 - Page 118
          Min-U-Script®
 BPA REPORTING (617)423-0500
-------
u.s. Army uorps or engineers IN. n. uuvision
Massachusetts Port Authority
                                                          May 17,1994
»9) 44/100$, but I'm sure there are other
people that 1201 have somewhat lower
standards than that, that a 121) certain
percentage be required to come up and
get [22] into the barge. And you can easily
check the 123) cubic yards, make sure
that those products aren't &*} just sort of
released back into the marine
                           Page 119
in ecosystem where they'll lodge in the
lobsters or [2] lodge in the herring and
then end up in the 01 stripers and then
end up in our consumer MI centers.
(si So I suggest a performance [6] stand-
ard instead of specifying the technology,
[7] and I think maybe if you get to a
certain point m and even less than half
of its going to come up, [9i then we have
to ask ourselves who are we fooling, [io]
and perhaps reassess  or just get a big
rake and [in rake the stuff, because un-
less we tell the truth 1121 about it, it's a
very messy  process.  Thank you.  1131
That's all.
[MI MR. ROSENBERG: Thank you, Mr.
U5] Berman.We'U take a 15-minute break
and be back [isj here at 3:30.
U7J (A 15-minute break was taken.)
[is] MR. ROSENBERG: We   have   one
more [19] comment before we entering
into the formal [20] presentation. If Cap-
tain A.Ross Pope would come 1211 up.
[22] STATEMENT BY CAPTAIN A. ROSS
POPE,
[23] PATTERSON WYLDE & COMPANY,
INC.
124] CAPT. POPE: I didn't want to
                           Page 120
in comment before the break because I
knew everybody  [2j was ready for a
break. I thank you for changing [31 the
program around to give me an oppor-
tunity to [4j say something.
[51 My name is Ross Pope. I'm [6] execu-
tive vice president of Patterson Wylde &
17] Company, Inc. We 're steamship agents
in Boston. [8] I'm also president of the
Boston  Shipping m  Association, of
which  Al Frizelle  is the general uoj
manager and whose  comments  you
beard earlier on.
I ii) I'm must say I'm very encouraged [ 12)
with what I'm hearing today because I
sat through [13] quite a few of the ad-
visory committee meetings [HI over the
past two years, and I got the distinct 1151
impression that this just wasn't going to
lie] happen. From the comments I have
heard today, I [ ni hear people saying that
they are supportive of us] the dredging
project, and they understand the U9j
economic impact on the  Common-
wealth  of [20] Massachusetts. Both the
Save the Harbor/Save the pi] Bay and the
CLF seem to be very supportive of it, [22]
and I can agree that with restrictions on
the  [zj]   disposal  of contaminated
material, the project 124) should go for-
ward.

                           Page 131

ID I was also encouraged to hear Pete [21
when he was making his presentation of
what we  01 were  going to  do. That
sounded very positive to [4] me. No one
seems to be opposed to the dredging m
project, understanding the economic
benefits to N the Commonwealth, and
we all have to acquiesce to m the scien-
tific knowledge of those who have the
[8] authority and that knowledge  in
terms of helping m us dispose of this
contaminated material in an [ioi environ-
mentally safe manner.
[ii]  Bearing in mind  that this is [121
probably the most critical issue that the
Port of IB] Boston  has had to face  in
decades, and indeed the [14] Common-
wealth of Massachusetts, because even
today [15] with the  size of vessels, and
somebody was [i6j talking earlier about
why should we accommodate IITI the
largest  size vessel. We're really talking
us]  about  the  average size vessel  in
today's 119] international trade. So we're
not trying to do 1201 better than any other
port. We're just trying to RIJ keep pace
with  international  water-borne   [221
transportation. And if we cannot accom-
modate [23] those ships in this harbor,
then we are indeed [24] becoming one of
those endangered species. It's
in not a case of just those of us who
make our m  living on the waterfront
either. It's a case of 13] everybody who is
a resident of the Commonwealth [4] of
Massachusetts or the  New  England
region who is m going to be adversely
affected if it costs more [6] to transport
our imports and exports to and from m
their destinations. We'll wipe out an en-
tire [8] waterfront industry, will certainly
affect 19} related industries with interna-
tional no] transportation.
Em And this dredging situation has 1121
become particularly important now be-
cause of the us) experience we've had
of some container ships iwi bypassing
the  port.  Because it's making the [i5]
people who are operating these ships
realize that U6| if they are faced with
difficulty in trading [ITJ through the Port
of Boston, they can easily find [isi a
solution because of intermodalism. The
[19] technology in our industry is such
now that a  120] port is  not the most
necessary factor for anybody 121] operat-
ing container ships. The containers can
be (22) discharged somewhere else and
brought in by other 1231 means, with
some cost adjustment acceptably. But
!24j by the same token, there are savings
mother
                           Page 123
in areas. And  I don't think that this
region can 121 give anybody a reason to
divert their business [3] and trade in and
out of the Commonweath other HI than
through the Port of Boston.
15] So on behalf of the usersof the tsiport,
members of the shipping association
and m others such as I responsible for
providing m services to keep these ships
in the Port of [9] Boston, we urge that the
efforts that have been [io] put forward
now continue and that the spirit of [in
cooperation which seems to exist con-
tinue and (12) that those with the talents
of making the IB]  decisions also con-
tinue with die process of [HI solving the
issues of disposal of the materials [»] and
that this project go forward in a timely
[16] manner. Thank you very much.
[IT] MR. ROSENBERG: Thank you, sir,
[is] Our next speaker will be [19] discuss-
ing the overall approach to the draft 1201
environmental impact statement and an
overview of [21] the National Environ-
mental Policy Act. Ms. [22] Catherine
Demos is the Project Officer for the [231
environmental impact statement for the
Boston [24| Harbor Navigation Improve-
tnent Project for the New _
ID England Division of the Corps of En-
gineers.
(2) Ms. Demos joined the New England
131 Division in 1986, following receipt of
a Master HI of Science Degree in coastal
zone management [5]  biology from the
University of West Florida. [6] Ms. Demos
also holds a Bachelor of Science Degree
l?l from the University of Massachusetts.
She is is] responsible for the overall com-
pilation of the [9j EJS and has very suc-
cessfully worked on  many noj related
projects and programs as an ecologist in
[ii] our Impact Analysis Division.
[i2] Ms. Demos is a member of the :i3i
Society ofWetland Scientists and resides
in ;i4] Concord. Ms. Demos.
[isj   STATEMENT   BY   CATHERINE
DEMOS, PROJECT OFFICER  [i6j  FOR
THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATE-
MENT FOR THE [17] BOSTON HARBOR
NAVIGATION         IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT us] MS. DEMOS: Thank you,
Larry, and [isj good afternoon everyone.
As Larry mentioned I'll [20] be speaking
briefly about the NEPA process and t j'j
the environment impact statement.
[22] The main points that the 123] environ-
ment impact statement, EIS, covers is the
[24] purpose and need of the project,
basically why
                           Page 125
ID are we doing this project and why do
we need ft; m different alternatives for
accomplishing  the 01 purpose of the
project, to this case the Boston HI Harbor
 BPA REPORTING (617)423-0500
          Min-U-Script®
              Page 119 - Page 1X5
-------
May 17,1994
                      U.S. Army Corps of Engineers N. E. Division &
                                         Massachusetts Port Authority
Navigation Improvement Project. That
will (5) include the dredging and disposal
alternatives.
16) In addition, the EIS also looks at m the
effected environment. What does the IB]
environment look like before we start
the (91 project, and  then what are the
environmental  [io] consequences from
the alternatives that we're an looking
at? We look at alternatives that would [121
have  environmental   impacts,  both
beneficial  and  [13] adverse  impacts.
Mitigation for short-term or  [U] long-
term impacts would also be discussed in
the us] HS.
US] Prior to  the beginning of the [n]
preparation of the HS, we held several
scoping us] sessions. Basically that helps
involve the 119] public  in determining
what topics we should be [20] including
for analysis in the EIS. They include 121]
the types of issues and also the extent
and the 1221 area of influence. The scop-
ing session also can (231 help narrow
those issues down and eliminate or 12*]
briefly discuss those issues which really
are
                           Pago 126
UI determined not to be that significant.
The whole m  EIS  process and NEPA
process is there to help [3]  decision
makers make their decisions and to w
involve the public in those decisions.
I5i One of the issues that seemed to [6] be
common for many people is that dredg-
ing is m needed in Boston Harbor. Right
now, besides the m improvement of the
navigation in Boston Harbor, [9J we also
are faced with doing maintenance [io]
dredging.There is right now some areas
in UD Boston Harbor which are shoaled,
and the ships 1121 are having problems
getting in and out of Boston U3) Harbor,
which you've heard.One of the benefits
I u) to this project is that it would pro-
vide its own | is] capping material if that
was one of the uej alternatives to go
forward.
117] Other issues that were determined
lie) to be of  concern that were incor-
porated into  the  U9]  EIS  process is
whether or  not the material is  po]
suitable for upland  or open-water dis-
posal. What (2i] would happen to the
disposal silt material at the 1221 Mass. Bay
Disposal She,and some of those (231 con-
cerns, as you heard earlier, were what
would  (Mi  happen  to the whales and
other endangered species
                           Page 127
HI at Stellwagen Bank, which is located
next to the 121 Mass. Bay Disposal Site,
and also whether or not [3] capping is a
feasible alternative at the site.
14] People wanted us to look at K] various
alternatives. People want us to look at [6]
upland  and  open-water, remediation
techniques for m  contaminated sedi-
ments and containment, and we isj did
look at all those various issues. We also
[9] involved the public in the advisory
committee  [io] meetings. And  we also
looked  at ways to monitor  uu and
mitigate for impacts for the different [121
alternatives that we would be looking
at.
U31 We also want people to understand
[U] that in the future  for any  future
projects  or  us] future  maintenance
dredging,  we would  be going (i6)
through the NEPA process again. This
project, [IT] although it looks at future
potential naj alternatives, is mostly deal-
ing with the current  [19] project of
deepening the harbor.
[20] I also wanted to mention that we 121]
also have invited three federal agencies
to help (22] us with the ads, and they are
over to my right. [23] That's Jon Kuriand
from National Marine Fisheries (24] Ser-
vice and Kimberly Keckler from U.S.
EPA and

                            Page 128

HI Vern Lang from the Fish and Wildlife
Service. 121 And they're here to help you
with any questions 13]  you may have
about the coordination process and [4]
the EIS process, how they helped with
this EIS.
15] If EIS is reponsible for covering [6] the
navigation improvements to the federal
[7] channels and the berthing areas of the
18] beneficiaries and nonbeneficiaries,
and MassPort [9] is also preparing an
environment impact report, no] which
you'll hear about a little bit later from (in
Norm Faramelli. Because the NEPA and
the MEPA (12) process are very similar, it
was decided to 113] combine the EIR and
EIS process to form a joint [i4] EIR/EIS.
US] As you  heard before,  the Draft U6]
EIR/EIS was released for public review
on April [IT] 20th and that we provided
the longest  review and us] comment
period, which is a 60-day  comment U9]
period. Don't feel  pressured that you
have to 1201  give your comments here
today. You have until [211 June 21st for
MEPA review and June 28th for the 1221
EIS  NEPA   review comments. They
should be sent to  1231 Trudy Cox and
Colonel Miller.
(24] The draft looked at several
                            Pago 129

(U alternatives, but we did not select a
preferred  [2] final  disposal alternative.
We're •waiting  to  [31  hear from the
people's comments and what their [4]
concerns are, and once we have looked
at those, m we will be reviewing those
to help select [6] preferred disposal sites.
The final EIS is m expected for review
at the end of winter of '94, [8] and the
public will then have another 30-day 19)
period to review the final EIS.
do) Even though this process is [ii] on-
going, we want people to feel free to 1121
comment. This process is not ended yet.
Even [131 though the Draft EIS is out on
the street, your U4] comments are impor-
tant to us, and we do want to us] hear
them.
U6] MR. ROSENBERG: That  you,  in]
Catherine.
US] Our next speaker is Mr. Norman U9i
Faramelli, Director  of  Transportation
and  (20]  Environmental Planning for
MassPort. [21] Mr. Faramelli has worked
at MassPort since 1976, (221 first as the
Chief of Environment Management, [231
then as the MassPort Director of Plan-
ning.
[24] Norm is a graduate chemical
                           Page 130
U] engineer with experience  in  the
petroleum  [2]  industry, and  he  has
several related  graduate (31 degrees.
Prior to coming to MassPort, he worked
[4] as a consultant on social and environ-
mental [5] changes, effect of technologi-
cal changes. Norm.
[6] STATEMENT OF NORMAN FARAMEL-
LI,
m DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION
AND [8] ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING,
MASSPORT (91 MR. FARAMELLI: Thank
you, Larry, (io] and good afternoon. First
let me thank all of u n those who offered
comments. They were most 1121 instruc-
tive. It's very good to know that people
U31 have read the report. That's always a
sobering  [i4] thought. And  it's always
good to learn something 1151 new as we
hear people give different perceptions
116] on their view of this problem.
[IT] MassPort filed an ENF, Environment
us] Notification Form, in 1991. It was an
automatic [19] EIR under the state law.
And we expect to comply [20] with the
Secretary's certificate and also deal 1211
with the scope that was outlined. As
expected, 1221 we did get a very well
defined scope,  well 1231 detailed, very
comprehensive and we felt was also [24]
reasonable in terms of the parameters
that we
                            Page 131
in were to look  at.
12] We focused primarily on two major [3j
areas. One  is  the  sediment charac-
terization, and [4] with  the  group that
Janeen had  outlined earlier [5! in the
working group, we managed to develop
and [6] work on the Green Book protocol
and to come up m with a sampling
protocol, chemical testing, [8] biological
testing,  biological  bioassays  and (9)
bioaccumulation tests. And  I think we
actually no] got  something that satisfied
Page 126 - Page 131
          Min-TJ-Script®
 BPA REPORTING C617H23-0500
-------
U.5. Army corps ox tngmeers IN. u,. vmsion en
Massachusetts Port Authority
                                                           May 17,1994
most of the (in participants, both in the
environmental community [121 and the
regulatory community in terms of the
test us! results themselves.
[H] The next thing we did is looked at
(15] alternative analysis. I'd like to say it
was  not  [16] an exhaustive list but an
exhausting list of im around 300 alterna-
tives that we narrowed  down to us]
around 24.
119] Now, let me tell you what we did jzoi
because this has been alluded to earlier.
We [2i] managed  to  break that down
further into three  [22] kinds of lists. One
had to do with practicable [23] alterna-
tives. And the practicable alternatives [24]
were those that were large enough to
handle the
[H material, were reasonable enough in
terms of cost [21 and also did not have an
environmentally fetal 131  flaw.  That's
what we call a practicable HJ alternative,
and we have a whole list of those in [sj
that first table.
[6] The second thing we looked at was m
potentially practicable. Now, potentially
[si practicable sites mean that there are
no (9! environmentally fatal flaws but
they are limited iioi by cost and capacity,
but some of them might be u u good for
future maintenance projects. We tried
[12] to consider each of these disposal
site, what is iui good for this project and
what is also good for [HI future main-
tenance projects. This was brought up
[is] earlier, but we were very cognizant
of the feet [i6] that this will not  be the
last bit of dredging n?) done in Boston
Harbor. So we're hoping that [isj these
results,  while they don't automatically
[19] permit future maintenance dredging,
we know po] better than that, we realize
that  the materials 1211 and the informa-
tion that we got should be useful 1221 in
terms of setting forth what future main-
tenance [23] requirement might be.
[24i Now, the third list were those
                            Page 133

ill that were dismissed as being poten-
tially [2] practicable either on the cost
factor or the [3]  environmental flaw fac-
tor. Several of those HI alternatives, in-
cidentally, were quite ts] inexpensive but
they were dropped because they [6]
automatically leeped out at us as having
really   [7]   serious    environmental
problems. So that was the pj nature of
how we came up with those three lists.
19] We  did not select a preferred [ioj
alternative.  We  haven't  selected a
preferred [in alternative. We're going to
ask you, those of [12] you on the advisory
committee and those of you 1131 who are
interested in this project to join us as IHI
we develop preferred alternatives. Be-
cause we [is] have several important
tasks ahead of us.
H6] Number one is we have an agreed in]
protocol, sampling protocol, agreed test
[is] results. What we don't have is a com-
mon [191 agreement in terms of what the
test results 1201 mean. And I think it's
important that we begin (211  talking
about a common framework for [22] un-
derstanding those test results because
not all (231 the contaminated materials
are equally p-ti contaminated, and it's
important that we have
                           Page 134
11] that differentiation. And if we're going
to have 121  alternative  technologies,
which I really believe [3J we have to look
at with  greater seriousness and [4] also
look at some possibility of pilot projects,
15] how do we keep the amounts of
material to a [6] sufficiently low level that
we can afford the per m cubic yard costs
with alternative technology, m It's going
to be very important that we do that.
[9] The second thing we're going to uoi
have to do after we agree on a common
(in understanding is to talk about  mix
and matching [121 with the best suitable
disposal sites. How do we 1131 look as
those disposal sites with  regard to IMI
different kinds of material and segregate
those ti5] materials and come up with
the mix and match that [ifi] gives us a set
of alternatives? I don't think (i?) there's
going to be one preferred alternative. I
us] think there will be preferred alterna-
tives,  and ti9] we're hoping between
now and the preparation of 1201 the final,
we'll be developing that. And we look
[2U forward to your cooperation.
[22] If you would like to sit down with [23!
us at any time in terms of the reports and
also (24] the procedures, we'd be happy
to do that, and
                           Page 135
Hi feel free to call on us. Meanwhile, we
look [2] forward to your participation as
we go on from 0] here as we develop
the final documents. Thank [4) you very
much.
is) MR. ROSENBERG: Thank you, sir. 16}
Our next speaker is Ms. Nancy m Baker
from the Commonwealth of Mass. She is
[8] currently in charge of the MEPA plan,
the  (91 Massachusetts  Environmental
Policy Act unit.She [ioj is an environmen-
tal analyst. Her husband is an jn] environ-
mental analyst for ten years. She hasa [12]
Bachelor of Science Degree in biology
from the i 131 University of South Carolina
and a Master of [HI Science Degree in
marine biology from UMass, [isj North
Dartmouth. Ms. Baker.
[16] STATEMENT BY NANCYBAKER, EN-
VIRONMENTAL  in] ANALYST,  MAS-
SACHUSETTS      ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY ACT lie] MS. BAKER: Hi. Thank
you for [19] persevering and staying late
into this 1201 afternoon. I just briefly want
to remind you [211 that this is not only a
federal review process 1221 but it's also a
state review process. And I'm 1231 the
staff person for the Executive Office of
(24j Environmental Affairs in the MEPA
unit who will
                            Page 136
[i] be reviewing and coordinating the
comments that 121 you make on this par-
ticular document.
131 The document is both an EIS, which
[41 is the  federal  environmental impact
statement, m and an environmental im-
pact report, which is the [61 state portion
of the document. So we, too, are m ac-
cepting comments on this particular
document is] and would be happy to
receive them as soon as (9) possible,
naturally, but certainly before June 1101
21.
mi I want to point out the [121  differen-
ces between our review and the NEPA
[13] review. If you look in Appendix A,
there is a [i4] scope document which is
listed as a Certificate IBJ of the Secretary
of Environment Affairs. That is [iei the
map, the format, if you will, this we will
be [i?] using to determine the adequacy
of this [is]  particular document. So
please try to take the [19] time to look
over the scope and think about the 120]
issues that we asked to be addressed in
this (21) document. That will help to
guide us in  our 1221  review. And your
comments focused on scope (23) issues
will be very helpful.
[24] With respect to the final, any
                            Page 137
Hi comments that we do receive will be
coordinated [21 into the Certificate of the
Secretary on the ui draft environment
impact report,and that w document will
form the basis for the final [5] environ-
mental impact report, EIS. So that any [6]
comments  we  receive will  be con-
sidered and m included to the extent
that we can in those [8] documents.
19] Now, our mandate as a state agency
HOI when we review these documents is
to insure, [in first of all, that they ade-
quately  address  the 1121 issues; but
secondly, that the environmental 1131 im-
pact     report    has    adequately
demonstrated that t wi they have avoided
or minimized the impact to the [isj en-
vironment. Those are the standards that
guide [i6] us in our review process. So
we'11 be looking at [r?i how they mitigate
an impact and how they've been i isj able
to avoid or minimize impacts to the [19]
environment.
[20] That's pretty much all I wanted to [211
say. Just  to  remind people again that
there is a [22] state presence, there is a
state review process [231 that's going on
 BPA REPORTING C6l7)423-0500
          Min-U-Script®
              Page 132 - Page 137
-------
May 17,1994
                      U.S. Army Corps of Engineers N. E. Division &
                                        Massachusetts Port Authority
at the same  time as the  federal (241
process is going on. We'll be happy to
accept

                           Page 138

[i] your comments. Thank you.
12) MR. ROSENBERG:  Ms. Baker, thank
13) you very much.

HI We're going to go into a little is] panel
discussion  right  now. The four in-
dividuals [6] up here  are more  or less
running this show for m the Corps and
for MassPort. Catherine and Norm m
will be addressing the list of actions —
what's |§| next; where are we going from
here. We invite iioi comment. We invite
questions. So I'll open  it  mi  up  to
Catherine, please.
(t2) MS. DEMOS: As I mentioned 1131 ear-
lier, •we're probably about at the  middle
of {14} the NEPA process, and we'll be
looking forward to us] people's com-
ments. We have until June  21st for n«)
the state-process and June 28th  for the
federal- in) process comment period.
And at that time we'll mi be looking at
the comments and finalizing the EIS [19]
and MR, and we hope to have the final
out 1201 sometime the winter of 1994.
121] In between that time, we're going 122]
to be lcK>kingforalotofinput.There will
be [23) meetings of the advisory commit-
tee again, and we  124]  look forward to a
lot of input into how we

                           Page 139

ID direct, how we start directing the
EIS/ETR from [2] that point on.

I3I One of the time constraints  that (4]
we're looking at, we're looking at con-
struction is) in January of 1996. If you
back up  from that, we  [6] need  — I
should turn this over to Pete to get a m
good idea of the schedule. There's a
project (8) coordination agreement that
has to be signed [9j three or four months
before we go to tioj construction. That
means we need the permits in uu hand
in late summer of '95.
|i2j So besides the HS/Effi.  process, (»]
there is  also the permitting process
that's going IMJ to take place, that we
also have to schedule (is) for. So there's
also opportunity  for comments nei
during that permit period for the alter-
natives we inj have  to select  for the
project.
[i8| MR. FARAMELLI: The only  thing I
[19] would add, we tried to schedule this
meeting jzoj right in the middle of 60-day
period. Normally mi under MEPA it's a
30-day review period. Rather 1221  than
grant you a 30-day extension, we  just put
it (23) up front to say 60 days. And we will
have an iwj opportunity to hear  from
you at that time.	
                           Page 140
til As I mentioned, if there are any (2)
sit-down sessions that you want to have
on any of (3) these things during this
time, please feel free w to get in touch
with us, because we would like to m
answer any  questions that you might
have on these [6] documents.
m MR. ROSENBERG: One other thing,
is) we're going to try  to plan another
formum of some [9] sort to get comments
at the very end,
do] Could I open this up to [in questions?
Any questions?
H2) (No response.)
(131 MR. ROSENBERG: That's  wonder-
ful mi — yes, finally.
»5) FROM THE FLOOR: Can  you  ad-
dress [i6i the finances? Obviously there
will be overruns. [IT] Can you make men-
tion  of the scheduling of seeking im
additional funds that will be necessary
or may be [i9] necessary?
[20] MR. ROSENBERG: First, we're  the
1213 Corps of Engineers. We don't have
overruns. 1221 I'll turn that over to Pete.
[23] MR. JACKSON: We'll just speak [24]
about the $35 million part of the im-
provement	
                           Page 141
[i] pro ject.Thcre's some built in inflation
in [2] that. You will see probably each
year a slight B) increase based  on the
prediction of the inflation HI for the
period of construction. We're trying to
15} predict what the infiationrate is going
to be in m 1996 and '97. You might see
some adjustments, m You may even see
some go do wn.That will be a w surprise.
B>1 I don't anticipate any cost [101 over-
runs. There are contingencies in that til]
figure, and   I guess every  project
manager •when he 1121 first stands up in
the public says the cost will 1131 never go
up arc eating their words now. But [i4j
we're being very careful inputting con-
tingencies [is] for the project.
US] And again, the disposal options im
we're talking about for the major part of
this  [is] work is not part of the  $35
mUlion.That*s the [19] ONM project cost,
and that person is not here, poj He's the
one that's nervous. He's the one that's
[2i] got to fund the unknown options
that we're all 1221 talking a bout. The 1986
Act was very careful and 123) said you're
going to cost share but ONM is still [24] a
hundred percent federal cost. And when
there's
                           Page 142
(i) a project on the line,they're obligated
to fund [2] that. So the 35 million, I think,
is going to [3] stay fairly level. 1 don't see
any major [4] changes, but we are going
to see off to the side isi this ONM cost.
Much of it will be based on the [6] selec-
tion of the option we're going to pick in
m the final EIS.
[8j So in answer to your question, I m
don't think you're going to see major
cost [to] increases in that $35 million.
(in MR. ROSENBERG: Any  other  [121
questions?
IB] MS. HANSEN: I just want to make [MI
one comment about some of the treat-
ment us] technologies that have been
suggested here and in iiej prior meet-
ings. We're all very interested in [IT] pur-
suing some new alternatives for dealing
with [isi dredge material, and treatment
technology is an H9i option that is par-
ticular appealing to all of us (zoj becuase
it's a way which might potentially 121}
remediate or otherwise  reduce  the
toxicity of (22) some of the contaminants
we're talking about.
123] I believe it was Vivian IJ who 1241
alluded to the Green Ports bill, which I
don't
                            Page 143

in think made it to the floor of the House
of [2] Representatives in this session of
die Congress, ai but I expect it wUl be
re-introduced at the fall m session. And
I would urge everyone to be in m touch
with the Congressional delegation to [6]
further support that avenue of funding.
[7] And in addition, the Maritime [8] Ad-
ministration from the U.S. Department
of [9] Transportation is advocating a na-
tional dredging  no] policy and is also
interested in aquatic funding (in for al-
ternative technologies. So  it's coming
but (12) it's only going to come to us in
sufficient time (13) with a lot of pressure
from a lot of people in |«] this room and
people who were  here earlier. So I (isi
would urge everybody's action on that.
H6i MR. ROSENBERG: Sir.
[IT] FROM THE FLOOR: Just  one ques-
tion  us] going back  to the fishing in-
dustry. If one of [i?] these dump sites is
chosen, say, the Meisburger 1201 areas or
the offshore areas, the Lightship area, [211
what's going to happen if it's closed and
[22] construction is taking, say, a year to
do or (23) whatever? And these are their
productive areas. 1241 What  kind of
answer do I give the other fishermen
                            Page 144

ID as far as that area being shut off? Is the
m answer just going to be, you can't go
there, and [3] that's it? Or what is going
to be resolved when [4] they ask me the
question? If that's their (51 predominant
area and you've chosen that, •what do [6]
I give them as an answer? Too bad, get
out of m there? Or you'll be  compen-
sated for the [8} highlight of your season?
Or •what? I know [9j you've evaluated the
other cost factors. Does no] this come
into the fishermen's cost Jactor?
Page 138 - Page 144
          Min-U-Script®
 BPA REPORTING (617)423-0500
-------
u.s. Army ix>rps 01 ungineers n. n. juivision et
Massachusetts Port Authority
                                                          May 17,1994
till MR. ROSENBERG: it's a great 1121
question. I would like to introduce Bill
[131 Hubbard. He's our head of Impact
Analysis  at our  [i4j  Environmental
Branch. He's also a marine [is] biologist,
and he's one of the people that walks tie]
around with   his  Earth  Day  flag
throughout the  IITJ building.  So, BUI,
please.
[is] MR. HUBBARD: That is a good [19]
question. That's a question of concern.
It  [20] won't be closed. We will coor-
dinate with the pi] fisheries  and the
fishermen. You had mentioned [22] the
haul route and the gear area. Very com-
monly [23]  what we'll do, we will make
known to  you what the [24] haul route
will be, request your gear doesn't be
                            Page 145

[i] deployed there. We've done this off
the coast of [2] Maine constantly.
131 We won't say no, you can't fish MI
there. Obviously you're not going to
want to [5] deploy fixed gear in an area
where we're [6] dumping. We will clearly
mark h, and we will m keep it to a small
area.
[8] It's a conflicting use of [9] resources
and  rights, your right to fish there, 1101
and  certainly we'll never stop  you. We
want to 1 1 1] warn you that we're going to
take this  spot here 1121 and  put the
dredge material in it, and that will [131 be
a temporary impact. But I think with
good {14] coordination, we can  both co-
exist with that.
[is] But I think we've talked already [16]
that  we probably want to interact a little
more [i?] with you, and certainly those
views •will go into [is] this record and we
invite them into the state im record also.
[2oj Does that answer your question?
pi] FROM THE FLOOR: A IMe  bit.
[22] MS. HANSEN: On behalf of the Port
[231 Authority, we will make an effort to
work with [24] you to minimize the im-
pacts to your businesses.
 in I think we can do that.
 [2] One of the things we did right in [3]
 the Moran Terminal dredging project, I
 think, is HI scheduling it around both the
 winter flounder [5] season and the junior
 Alewife running season. We m held off
 the dredging until the  1st of November
 [7] to avoid that.
 18] FROM THE FLOOR:  We truthfully [«
 understand the need for the project and
 what it no] could do for the area, but we
 also want you to nu understand the
 effects it's going to have on us. 1121 We're
 the ones that are going to receive this if
 [131 it's deemed that you're going to go
 there because (MI we're the ones that
 work that area.So we're the [is] ones that
are going to be hit with the brunt of t isi
this, if you know •what I mean.
[i?] MR. ROSENBERG: Sir, one of the [is]
tilings you made plainly clear to all of us
is [19] that we need to establish a series
of dialogue 1201 with your organization
here in Boston and on the  [21] Cape.
During  the  break Bill Hubbard and
myself [221 decided we'll be getting in
touch with you very 123) shortly to start
setting if not workshops, [24]  definitely
not just questions and answers, just
                           Page 147
in so we can sit down across  the table.
We can [2] actually not only listen to your
concerns but  [3] implement  many of
these concerns.
[4] So be assured you will hear from isj
somebody from the Corps of Engineers
and from 16] MassPort. And I'll  make this
plain also on m Thursday in Hyannis.
[8] Yes, sir.
191 FROM THE FLOOR: One question I'd
HO] like to ask you, who is going to be
responsible nu for this project totally?
Through the Mass. (12) Water  Resource
and the Third Harbor Tunnel 1131 Project,
I've  been  cooperating  with  them
through [14] ail the projects right to the
end when I even usi lost $3,000 per year
for the past  four years, [isi They don't
seem to recognize that we do belong tni
there, that we are there, and that this is
a [is] financial loss to us every time these
projects [19] occur.
[201 Who is the one that we can go to [2i]
to say they are responsible, they are the
ones [22] who will tell us, yes, we are
going to help you [23] out; no,  we're not
going to help youout? [24] Because when
there are different agencies and	
                            Page 148
ID  different  contractors   involved,
nobody seems to  pi  have the  correct
answer who wants to solve the [3] prob-
lem, especially when  it  comes to the
major [4] word as far as we're concerned,
compensation. 15] That's something they
don't want to discuss.
[6i Now, we've gone through  the Third
[7] Harbor Tunnel  Project, the whole
project, and  [8i we've gotten zero from
it. This is another [9] project that's going
to  cause  us the  same kinds [io] of
problems because of the barges and the
Hi] traffic, which does happen to buoys,
traps and [12] goes into areas where you
have no way of finding IBI them. It ends
up costing us in gear and time and [M]
effort trying to find them.
US] Is there going to be a designated iifi]
agency as the one who is responsible for
the [17] project?
[is] MR. ROSENBERG: Sir, I wish I 119]
could answer your question right now,
but I [20] can't. What we did is we put it
on the record. 1211 The Corps of En-
gineers is responsible for the 1221 overall
project. I think your question is a [231
little bit more detailed than to get an
answer [24] like that. So if you could after
this when we
                           Page 149

in break for dinner, if I could get your
name, your p] phone number and your
address, we will have BJ somebody get
back to you as soon as possible, [4] with
some information we might be able to
get by  [sj Thursday. Very good question.
I thank you for [6] that.
[7] MS. BAKER: When the  EIS was (8]
filed, I think there were many more ber-
thing [91 areas proposed for dredging. I
think it was [io] somewhere near 29.
Now the  number of  berth areas mi
seems to have been reduced. Can some-
one [12] elaborate on that?
[131 MR. JACKSON: I'll speak briefly [wj
on the berths that  were  part of  the
project's  [is]   economic  evaluation.
There are berths in there  fisi that are
kind of going along for the ride for IITI
disposal.
[is] There were some changes, and I'm
[19] not sure of the time frame, but there
are certain (201 terminals that no longer
qualify, that they 121] would, let me  say,
would  increase their economic 122] ef-
ficiency from the project. I'm going to
give  [231 you one example and that's
Mobile Oil in Chelsea [24] Creek.
ID They're moving to wards using [21 bar-
ges rather than tankers, so they are no
longer 131  a project beneficiary. How-
ever, Eastern Minerals [4] at the same
time joined in. So there's some [Si pluses
and there's some minuses, and that's
only [6) speaking — then there's, I think,
Coastal Oil m has already dredged their
berths. They are a isj beneficiary. They
are still part of the [9] benefit-cost ratio
equation, but we don't have to  [io] deal
with them to this because they are al-
ready nil deep enough.
112] Now, I'll turn it over to Norm for 113]
the other kinds of berths that are being
dredged,  IMI  and that  number  has
changed.
US] MR. FARAMELLI: Some of them usj
dropped out because they're just not
going to do IITI any dredging, they're not
using it, and they [isi don't want to be
part of the process. And that U9j we
found out after the filing of the EIS.They
[20] understood the implications of their
decision., 1211 But it's also a decision they
had not reached in [22] 1991. It was some-
thing that they reached 1231 afterwards.
[24] MS. BAKER: Are we likely to see
 HI more added in the future?
BPA REPORTING C6l7)423-0500
          Min-U-Script®
              Page 145 - Page 151
-------
May 17,1994
                      U.S. Army Corps of Engineers N. £. Division &
                                         Massachusetts Port Authority
121 MR. FARAMELLI: I don't think it's (31
too like. We haven't heard from anyone.
Have [4| you heard from anyone? I don't
think  so. If |51 anything, we wanted to
start with  a very large m list, and it's
gradually shrinking. And those  m that
are staying on are pcople.agcncies or [8]
groups who need, operations that need
dredging, [9] Some of them are just not
going to do any [ioi dredging at all. Made
that commitment.
in) MS. BAKER: You  don't anticipate
Ii2) any change in the capacity of the
disposal?
|»j MR. FAHAMELLI: Not for  new iwi
entries, no,
U5J MS. BAKER: Thank you.
US] MS. LeBLANC: One followuponthe
117] point brought up by the fishermen.
It seems as [iaj though you'll probably
work  something out in [19] terms of the
traffic lanes for barges and of the 1201
routes, not coincidental with major fish-
ing. You pi] probably did do it, at least
that's what it seems 122] to me, looking at
this document, is once you 1231 select the
site, let's say for instance you 1241 select
a she, that site is going to be in use
                           Page 152
It] for whatever the period is, a year or
over a [2] year, some of the estimates in
here. So what IB) would suggest is hi the
analysis when you're w choosing a dif-
ferent site, what you need to do is [5]
consider the cost to these gentlemen's
and many IQ other persons' livelihood in
making those  m decisions. Because
that's  something you're not m going to
be able to do after the fact .And I [9] know
it's not included in the cost-benefit uo]
analysis or the analysis for choosing an
option, [ii! but I think it should be con-
sidered,
[12] MR. JACKSON: Joan, that's an 113) ex-
cellent comment. It isn't in the benefit-
cost (M) ratio. When we do select a she,
we will do us) whatever we can to put
k into the equation, us) It's a good com-
ment.
117] MR. FARAMELU: Again, I think the
I»i point has already been noted, as Bill
bad U9] mentioned and Janeen bad men-
tioned, is a real (20) effort to minimize any
disruption. One of the [2i; things you
don't want to do is to emphasize one 122]
part of the business for another part of
the [23] business, and to say, well, if we're
going to [24] accommodate vessels in the
seaport, we have to	
                           Page 153
in pay a price out here. We're really
cognizant of m the feet this whole things
hangs together. So we m understanding
that there are real fishery issues MI here,
and it is not going to be a case where
one i$) has to trade off for something
else.
16) MR. ROSENBERG: I'm going to stop
m the questions now because I don't
want this to m get into a situation where
we may seem like the ts>J teacher.Please,
bring your questions  up  to the 1101
federal agencies, to the people at the
tables, to [i n the state agencies.of course
the  Conservation 1121 Law  Foundation
and Save the Harbor/Save the Bay. 1131 If
one  thing  is  absolutely  clear, it is
everybody [wj here is working together
because we've [isj acknowledged the
problem.Now we must seek [is] consen-
sus to find that solution. We need ini
everybody here to do that.
118] I thank you all for coming. This [19]
room will be open. We're going to start
back  up  [2o;  officially   with   the
workshops again at 6:00 and pi;  the
formal presentations again at 7:00, but I
[22] invite everybody to stay here for the
next hour 123] and a half and bang away
at each other and bang [24] away at us.
Thank you very much.

                            Page 154

[i](Whcreupon,at4:15 p.m., the [2) after-
noon session was concluded.)

                            Paga 155

[i] EVENING  SESSION  OF  BOSTON
HARBOR
[2]    NAVIGATION    IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT

13] PUBLIC MEETING AND WORKSHOP

[4] MR. ROSENBERG: We're going to [5]
deviate a bit from the schedule at this
point, [6i and  bring back certain in-
dividuals that requested m to comment
on the record. We'll run through the pj
indivduals,  and then we'll take  a 5-
minutc break, m and we'll  get back to
the formal presentation [101 where we
will discuss the process of the draft un
environmental impact statement, the en-
vironmental [12] impact review or report
as required by MEPA, and [13] the panel
discussion on what's next and what's [Hi
going to be happening.

(15) 
-------
U.S. Army 
-------
May 17,1994
                      U.S. Army Corps of Engineers N. E. Division &
                                        Massachusetts Port Authority
                           Page 165
HI limiting depth at low -water in the
North i2) Channel, That includes Fins
ledge, which isvery »j harcLThat means
that tinder certain conditions [4] at low
time when there is a swell, conditions m
aren't good.thc draft limitations are very
large [6] of the shipping coming in. Ob-
viously any kind of m  a touch of an
anchor on Fins Ledge on the bottom [8]
would be a really large disaster, making
m Massachusetts  look like  big  time
idiots.There iioi should be a study about
that, because the ship (in maneuvering
studies that were  in the appendix toj
were very interesting and very nice, but
we U3j wonder how the ships even got
there in the first (Hi place, but they came
in continuously at low tide usj from the
ocean without stopping, coming in IIQ
earlier and stopping at President Roads
and then IITI going in there.
(18) Another thing we did not see at U9]
all is  a  source of contaminated  sedi-
ments in the 1209 harbor. Obviously that's
important to cut  down  [2i] on  the
amount  of sediments coming in in the
next [22j 50 years, which is another 1.3
or 4  million cubic  PSJ yards. We're
curious about what could be done to 124]
slow that down. It's an interesting ques-
tion
                           Page 166
ID because the harbor doesn't have any
big rivers |2]  running into it. They're all
dammed rivers with tsi large bodies of
water behind them going slowly or MI
way over one side, one like Neponset
River, tsi There are various sources of
sediments, maybe [6] storm drains, might
be the docks that acrully m should be
looked into with an idea of perhaps la]
limiting or reducing this.
191 Also dredging methodology is a uo]
very important issue here. There was
nothing mi there, as far as I could sec
about that, in a 112) practical sense be-
cause the Moran Terminal 113] dredging
methodology didn't  work  very well
with (HI the equipment used and the
people that did it.
US) Another aspect that showed upor [16)
that we did not see in here is the amount
of (17] debris and junk located at the
berth bottoms. I  (iej know at Moran
there's a lot of cables, the U9i remains of
this's and that's, pallets. I don't (201 know
if there were any cars down there or not,
121] but this stuff makes it very difficult
to make a 1221 dredge bucket, mostly tied
to environmental work, 1231 work very
well. We didn't see anything about 124]
that either.
                           Page 167
m Also, the cost analysis in there m was
kind of mixed up we thought. It sort of
I31  mixed  economic  considerations
about lost time HI with the environmen-
tal stuff. It was hard for us I5i to sort it
out. We'd like to see it much more, [6j
shall we say, elucidated, much  more
separated m  out, and  also  the  cost
analysis of not being able pi to use the
North Channel when there is a swell [9]
running.  Conditions,  for instance, at
night are [ioi not very good out there. At
low tide the draft uu limitation today is
going to be severe coming 1121 into the
harbor.
(13) That's it. And I'll pass these [i4j in,and
we'll expand on this in the written 1151
comments to the final part. Thank you.
lisj MR. ROSENBERG: Sir, thank you (in
very much.
us) We'll have one more person give im
comment for the record, then we'll take
a (20) 5-minute break and start the formal
program.
(21) Mr.TomLoGrande.
122] STATEMENT BY TOM LoGRANDE,
123] GLOUCESTER FISHERMEN'S WIVES
[24] MR. LoGRANDE: My name is Tom
                           Page 168
ID  LoGrande. I'm a commercial fisher-
man from [2] Gloucester, Massachusetts,
and I wish I had [3] more. This really just
recently  came to  my  HI attention. I
would have liked to present rsi some-
thing a little more formal, but I'd like to
[6] give my comments and some of my
thoughts.
CT First off, when I saw where some [«
of these areas were  going to be the
proposed [9]  sites,  I  became   very
alarmed. One of them is no] directly ad-
jacent to Marine Sanctuary and also it im
is  a  juvenile  fish  protected  area,
Stellwagen (i2j Bank. And I know from
experience this is a 1131 nursery ground
for juvenile codfish, flounders, IHI all
type of different shellfish and lobsters
and [15] shrimps. I've seen that from
years and years of (i«i experience.
[17] I'm concerned that even dumping
da) any type of material, even if it's just
clean [i9] fill, is going to cause quite a
devastating harm 120] to that ecology.
And I just went and I got a pi] book from
the library today, and I tried to get [221
some documentation that I could read,
and what I [231 found is quite distressing.
It says here, "If it 124] comes to choosing
the filthiest waters in the
                            Page 169
m United States, that Boston Harbor will
be a [2] leading contender." And we're
proposing to dump oi dredge material
into a rich marine environment.
Ml I noticed that some of the things m
were polyaromatic hydrocarbons found
in some of 16] the sediments of the har-
bor. And ft say, "Many in of them are
cancer-causing agents. Their threat m to
fish and man is long term, hi fish it [9]
manifests itself as abnormal develop-
ment, [io] deformities, impaired growth,
genetic  damage and (iij tumors. And
such fish from Boston Harbor show (121
high incidents of cancerous lesions."
[13] Also from experience I've seen tw]
winter founder. I know they've done
studies on us] the cancerous lesions on
them, and I've seen that [i6i myself from
experience. The  closer you work  n?)
toward Boston Harbor, you see a direct
[is] correlation with an increase in that
instances.
(19) Just a few other tilings I want to 1201
bring to your attention. I was speaking
with the tan man from the Corps of
Engineers. He was  saying  (221 that
predominantly it's just uncontaminated
[23] dredge material that's going to be
dumped. And [24] it says here, "Even un-
contaminated dredge
[i] material  improperly  handled can
wipe out bottom [2] communities." Just
dumping on top is going to 13) smother
any life that's on the bottom hi itself, HI
not to mention anything that's going to
drift (si with the tides, which we know
as commercial [6] fishermen, can be very
strong different times of m the year, and
they go both ways, in and out  and m
Stellwagen is right there.
[9] And also I just want to say some [to] of
these number were startling to me. I'm
not [in very versed in this, but  ft says,
"Boston Harbor [121 spoil is dumped in
Mass. Bay and  loads the bay [131 with
4,400 tons  of PCB's, 2100 tons of [W]
chlorinated hydrocarbons, 1760 tons of
petroleum [15] hydrocarbons and 88 tons
of cadmium each year." 116] And I think
just adding on top of that is going [17] to
do no good at all.
[is] Right now  the federal government
[19] has imposed the strictest regulations
in the 1201 fishing industry to help bring
back the stocks. 1211 1 don't think this on
a rich nursery ground is 1221 going to
help us at all. I think it's going to 123) hurt
the  Massachusetts fishermen  in par-
ticular, (24) as well at the whole industry
in general.
til Some of my thoughts would be to (2)
explore  land  dumping so  that  we
wouldn't be O] contaminating the ocean.
Why not dredge that HI material and put
it on the side of the channel as [51 you're
going  in? That  would  seem to  me
cheaper [6] as far as you wouldn't have
to transport the m material  and then
dump  it, as well as  keeping [8] con-
taminated material  where  the  con-
tamination is 19] instead of bringing it out
into a healthy marine no] environment.
That's all I have to say. _
Page 165 - Page 171
                                       BPA REPORTING C617H23-O500
-------
U.S. Army corps ot engineers is. t. umsion
Massachusetts Port Authority
                                                          May 17> 1994
(ill MR. ROSENBERG: Sir,thank you [12]
very much.
113) We'll break now for five minutes, U4]
and  we'll start  our formal program. I
reaUy usi want to thank those who have
given comment, uej Please stay because
the purpose of this meeting (i?j is not
just comments. It's to interact with one
[is] another,and please, stay.Thank you.
[19] (A short recess was taken.)
[20] MR. ROSENBERG: Good   evening.
I'd pi] like to welcome you here tonight
to the O'Neill 1221 Federal Center for this
jointly  sponsored public 123;  meeting
and workshop to discuss the  draft  12-11
environmental  impact  statement and
report on the
                            Pag* 172
(ii Boston Harbor Navigation Improve-
ment Project. I  m would also like to
thank you, thank you for [j] involving
yourself in this process,
HJ We're hosting these types of isi public
meetings and workshops to listen to
your t«j concerns, to understand your
comments and to m provide you with an
opportunity to formally [8] appear on the
record should you care to do so. [9iThis
workshop is yours.
no] I do ask  that during the formal  mi
discussion that you hold your question
until the [12] end of each presentation, at
which time you will (i3i be heard. This 1
promise you,
U4j The rules tonight are very easy, [is] if
you've got a question, ask it. If you've got
(16; something to say, say it. If you •wish
to go on iiT) the record,please.And lastly,
if you want to (isj involve yourself in this
process, not just [19] tonight but into the
future, talk to any member ROJ of the
workshop, whether it be at the front [211
table, the Corps table or the tables on
the sides 122] of the room. These tables
are hosted by the 1231 Corps of Engineers
and MassPort at the rear, [24] several of
the federal agencies to my right, and
                            Page  173
HI several of the state agencies also to
my right; (2)  and to my left, Save the
Harbor/Save the Bay and 0] the Conser-
vation Law Foundation representing the
Hi many public interests  groups that
have been is] involved to this project
from Day One.
f6l We've all been working over the [7]
past year to get to where we are today,
and now m we need you. Yes, thank you
very much for m coming.
[ioj Our agenda is running very short.uu
We're going to go for an overview of the
[12] project. MassPort will discuss their
role in the 1131 project. We will hear from
Save the Harbor/Save IMJ the Bay and
Conservation law Foundation. We'll [is]
also talk about the environmental  im-
pact [i6i statement, the draft environ-
mental impact »TJ statement, the N1PA
process and  an overview of iwj the
statute itself.
H9J  The   Commonwealth  of  Mas-
sachusetts f2oi will also be speaking on
their role in this 121; project. And lastly,
we're going to have a small 122] panel
discussion  where  you'll hear about
what's [23] coming next, where we hope
to go, how your 124] comments and in-
sights are needed in this process.
                            Page 174

[2] (The formal portion of the Boston B]
Harbor   Navigation    Improvement
Project public MI meeting and workshop
was held, including the isi introduction
by Larry Rosenberg, Chief, [6j Public Af-
fairs; Boston Harbor Navigation r?l Im-
provement Project overview by Colonel
[8] Brink P. Miller, Division  Engineer;
Janeen  [9]  Hansen, MassPort  Project
Manager; and Peter tioi Jackson, Corps
Project Manager; the role of  cm public
interest groups by Joan LeBlanc, Save (123
the  Harbor/Save the  Bay, and Grace
Perez,  [i3J Conservation Law Founda-
tion.)
US] MR. ROSENBERG:  We're  going to
Ii6\ deviate from the  schedule at this
point and  bring ini  back  those  in-
dividuals that have requested (isj  com-
ments on the  record. We'll run through
the [i9i rest of the individuals, then we'll
take a 1201 5-minute break, and we'll get
back to the  formal  1211 presentation
where we will discuss the process of [221
the  draft environmental impact state-
ment, [231 environmental impact review
or report as required  [24] under NEPA
and the panel discussion on what's
                            Page 175

[i] next and what's going to be heppen-
ing.
[2] Our next comment for the record is
!3) David Leveille.
Hi STATEMENT BY DAVID LEVEILLE
15] MR. LEVEILLE: My name is David m
Leveille. I'm a fisherman in Gloucester,
m  Massachusetts, and I'm  very con-
cerned with the [8] dumping of this con-
taminated material in the [9] Mass. Bay.
UO] For ISyears IVe earned my living mi
in Mass. Bay along with many other
fishermen  from  1121  the   City  of
Gloucester. I estimate on a daily 1131 basis
anywhere from a hundred to 150 boats
out of [14] the port are fishing in that area.
The majority im of the boats fish there
sometime during the year, tie] some part
of the year. There's very strong [ITJ cur-
rents, and I don't believe that the sedi-
ments [is] are going the stay in one posi-
tion for a  long [19] time, especially if
you're dumping in 50 fathoms, 120] 300
feet, as proposed in the site next to the
[2i] sanctuary in Stellwagen Bank.
(22] The currents in this area are [231 run-
ning in different directions at all times.
So [24] there is no one direction that this
sediment is
                           Page 176
[j] going to travel. I don't believe the
estimates m that only 5 to 10 percent or
3 to 5 percent of 131 it, whatever they
said, is going to be washed HI with the
tide. I think it's going to be much 15]
greater than that. At that depth the tides
are sei  terrifically strong, especially in the
springtime i?] and near full moon.
18] Another concern I have is there is 191
dumping done in the wintertime, we
know what [ioj happened in the last two
or three years, inj Northeast storms that
we've had  stirred the 1121  bottom up
tremendously. A lot of fixed gear was iw
lost by a lot fishermen during that time.
That [14] shows you the powerof Mother
Nature when a [is] Northeaster roars up.
[16] If dumping is being done during [ng
that time, what is going to happen to the
[isi  sediment that's on the  bottom? I
know from H9j experience that after a
Northeaster —  the water [201 is  blue
under normal conditions, and after a pi]
Northeaster, the water is brown because
the  [22] bottom is all stirred up. So these
types  of |23) weather conditions can
have a great effect 124] dumping in that
area. _
                           Page 177
in I also have  a concern with the 121
dumping so close to the  sanctuary.
Fishermen are 131 going to great extents
to preserve the fish in m this area. Many
juvenile fish — all of the m Mass. Bay is
unlike other fishing areas that I've [6]
fished in. It's more like a nursery. Many,
[7] many, many juvenile fish just live in
this area, i« from dabs, winter founders,
codfish. There's pj sand lance, herring,
mackerel, striped bass, blue no] fish.
Everything transits this area coming up
mi the coast in the springtime,and many
of the fish [12] stay the yearround, espe-
cially  codfish and dabs 113] stay the year-
round.
[M] These fish are already endangered,
[isi and the fishermen are going to great
extents to Iifi] try and save these fish. I
can't  see   dumping  UTJ  hazardous
materials in this area and putting more
list  strain on the environment with the
sacrifice that U9j we're making. It's like
a step backwards.
[20] Some other things I want to 1211 com-
ment  on is in the past as a fisherman, I
have  [22] pulled out of the area of Mass.
Bay aerial bombs, 1231 torpedoes, mines,
depth charges, barrels with [24] contents
encased in cement, poisons of all types,
 Hi and all types of containers. This area
 has been [2] overtaxed with pollutants
 BPA REPORTING (617)423-0500
          Min-U-Script®    Jpy'3** Si
              Page 172 - Page 178
-------
May 17,1994
                      U.S. Army Corps of Engineers N. £. Division &
                                        Massachusetts Port Authority
for the past, I don't 13] know how many
years. And fishermen have cleaned HI
most of that area up. We've brought so
much |5] stuff out of there and dumped
it and disposed of (6] it in other areas
where it's not going to be m caught by
us again.
is) I don't see why. There has to be [9) a
better way, a different site to dump this
1101 material. This place has been pol-
luted  and (iij  polluted. It  has outfall
pipes from  every 112] coastline com-
munity. It's a very prosperous [131 place
for fishermen to fish. I can't see dump-
ing (M] this contaminated material in this
area. I think 115] there should be another
site than anywhere in the (iq Mass. Bay,
any other sites. I don't agree with [IT] any
of them. Thank you.
[18] MR. ROSENBERG: Sir,thank you U9]
very much.
(20) Our next speaker is Agnela 121] San-
filippo.
(221 STATEMENT BY ANGELA SANFILIP-
PO,
|2j) GLOUCESTER FISHERMEN'S WIVES
M MS. SANFIUPPO: My name ia Angela
                           Pago 179
(i) Sanfilippo. I'm the president of the
Gloucester  121  Fishermen's Wives  As-
sodahon, the vice-chaiman  [3] of the
Gloucester   Fishermen's Commission
and a H] member of the board of direc-
tors of the (sj Gloucester United.
(61 We are here tonight and to speak m
on this issue.Unfortunately we have not
read is] the FJS because we do not get a
copy of ft. We [9] didn't get a notice. It
took the Save the  no] Harbor/Save the
Bay and the Conservation law mi Foun-
dation to bring this issue to our atten-
tion.
(12) Our organization has about 130 (131
members. Most of them fishermen's
wives. We've (Mi been in existence for
25 years. This year is our [15] 25th an-
niversary, and  throughout our years,
many U6] people know us as, you know,
protecting the fish [in so people can
fish.But our major role has been (isj part
of protecting the environment.
(1911 just received one of the most 1201
prestigious  awards  from the Italian
American 121] community in Boston and
my role in part has been 122] representing
environmentists.So I'm known such 123]
as well as a fisherman's wife.
mi We are very concerned about this
                           Page 180
HI issue, and we  oppose  any ocean
dumping anywhere 12] in the area. The
Mass. Bay site is  12 miles  out (31  of
Gloucester. We would be directly  af-
fected, [4| not only for  the  fishing
grounds but we spend is]  millions of
dollars in cleaning Gloucester (6] Harbor.
Many time during the summer with the
m southwest winds, anything that is
dumped there m will come into our
harbor and will have a [9] devastating
effect  on our beaches and our [ioi
coastline.
[in In addition,! want to bring to 1121 your
attention that in the Magneson Act that
H31 there is specific language that says
that any [14] time any species of fish is at
its lowest level, [ isi fishing shall cease. So
what I'm trying to say, 116] no matter who
does the damage to the spot, the IIT]
fisherman are always the ones to pay the
price. (18] And so at the present time
there has been U9i extensive fishing by
foreign fleets in the late [20170s and early
70s and 60s. Today the fishermen 1211 in
New England are paying the price for
the [22] conservation and the restoration
of the fish (23] stock.
124] It's ironic that the Mass. Bay
                           Page 181
[i] site and all the other sites are within
an area [2] that specifically in Amend-
ment 5 requires from (31 March 1 st to July
31st  to use  only  15 square [4] mesh,
which does conserve 50 percent of the
15] catch. People are using that net, they
are [6i  losing 50  percent of the  usual
catch, so that m they can allow the fish
to grow and become more (8j economi-
cal for them to fish.
[9] It's ironic that all this (ioj disposal, you
know, that it's all contaminated [ii] and
it is even being thought of being put in
this ii2] area.
(131 I'd like to ask you a question. [Hi Did
you have anyone from the fishing in-
dustry on (15] the advisory board that you
spoke of tonight?
[i6i MS. HANSEN: We did actually. Tom
(IT) Mills.
[is] MS. SANFILIPPO: Well, he's not a (19]
commercial  fisherman. He represents
the pilot [20] boat industry.
[2i] I have some other comments that I
122] have to put my glasses on for. The
other issue 1231 that we have, we are very
concerned about traffic 124] during this
disposal off the barges. They are	
                           Page 182
(i] areas that are heavily fished by the
Gloucester 121 fishing fleet, and there are
big boats and small (31 boats, and we
closed areas on Georges Bank for HI six
months. Those boats depend on the in-
shore [si waters, and that is considered
inshore waters, (6] because it's close. So
during the first six n months of every
year the fishing is done there is] because
Georges Bank is closed.
[9] In the summertime, starting in [ioi
early spring to late summer, we will have
bad  [iij weather conditions when we
have the Northeasters  [121 in the fall
weather, which is very impossible to [13]
see. Many times we hear from our hus-
bands, "I [14] cannot see the other man
inthebowofthe [isi boat. "That is a great
concern of running into  [i6] problems
that will probably cause a bigger  tni
increase in our insurance policies. Right
now [is] we're very outraged at the mo-
ment. And I would [i9i like to bring that
to your attention as well.
[20] We arc willing very much to work [2ij
with you so that we can learn from each
other, [22] but we strongly want to go on
the record that [231 we're opposing any
ocean dumping of this [24] material. And
we will submit a written statement
                           Page 183
in within the period. Thank you.
[2] MR. ROSENBERG: Thank  you. Our
[31 next  speaker for comment is Alex
Gwefinkel.
14] STATEMENT BY ALEX GWEFINKEL,
(5] INNOVOTECH ASSOCIATION (6) MR.
GWEFINKEL:  My name is  Alex  m
Gwefinkel. I represent here a group of
[8] scientists and professionals which
will soon [9] transfer itself into a small
consulting group. [io] This consulting
company will be based on a (iij project
which we developed, a system, technol-
ogy [i2i to convert containment of con-
taminated dredge 113] sediment into use-
ful material like  materials  [Hi which
could be used in construction, for  [15]
petroleum and metal and for normal
landfill [i6i disposal.
[IT] This technology is based on a  (isj
combination of mechanical, electromag-
netic  and (19] microwave  and tempera-
ture  processes. I have with  1201 me
samples  of  construction  materials
which were [21] made from Boston Har-
bor sludge contaminants. 1221  This is a
sample of a cement block, and this is a
[23] sample of light-weight construction
material.
(2411 came here to represent our group
                           Page 184
[i] and to ask the Army Corps of En-
gineers to relay \2\ our project, our tech-
nology for possible [3] implementation.
Thank you.
[4] MR. ROSENBERG: Sir, thank you [5]
very much.
16] We're going to take a 10-minute m
break here, and then we'll get back to
the formal [8] procedures. I'll see you all
in ten minutes.
[9] (A short break was taken.)
[ioi MR. ROSENBERG: We've     gone
through [in a great deal of the formal
briefing for the 1121 second time. Most of
the individuals that are [i3] now in atten-
dance have heard the second part of U4]
the briefing,  so  if it is  okay with
everybody, we us] would like to forego
that and just open the floor 116] to any
Page 179 - Page 184
          Min-U-Script®
 BPA REPORTING (617)423-0500
-------
u.s. Army corps ox engineers is. t. Division
Massachusetts Port Authority
                                                           May 17,1994
questions, any concerns that you may
have [iTj regarding tonight.
[is] (No response.)
119] MR. ROSENBERG: That's  wonder-
ful. [20] I would like to keep this as infor-
mal as [2i] possible. This is not a class-
room situation. 1221 Let's get down and
dirty if we have to. Please,.[23] sir.
[24] MR. LEWIS: Mr. Jackson, I have a

                            Page 185
[i] question of anybody. The question
goes like  121 this. You're  captain of a
tanker which is [3] anchored presently in
the President Roads. The [4] dredging
project has been done. It's complete. [5]
It's 40 feet at the berths. The tanker is
called [6] Product Glory Number One,
800 feet long for m example, and you
want to berth at Coast Petroleum [8] in
the Reserve Channel.
191 The question is, the  tide now is no]
zero point zero; in other words, mean
low water, [ii] You're the captain. How
much draft would you 1121 take on that
tanker to the terminal?
[13] MR. JACKSON: Project is done?
[14] MR. LEWIS: 40 feet.
[15] MR. JACKSON: I think, and I'm not
[i6] a pilot here —
[i?] MR. LEWIS: We know your ticket is
[is]  very important  to you. It's your
livelihood. 119] Now, how much draft
would carry to the terminal?
[20j MR. JACKSON: One or two foot [2i]
under the keel clearance, so 38 feet.
[22] MR. LEWIS: Actually you probably
[23] want to go for 37. You have to allow
for [24] automobiles and other objects in
the channel that
                            Page 186
ID are going to roll under the ship.
[2] MR. JACKSON: You said the project
131 is done.
Hi MR. LEWIS: The project is M finished
but somebody has done their thing that
[6] they do. Okay. Now, the scenario is
now [7] different. The project has been
done, however, is] the conditions are as
they have been the last few [9] days, as h
is tonight, for example. You're [io] com-
ing into Boston from Aruba, same ship,
and [in it's zero point zero.The swell is
8 feet, winds 1121 out of the East. Now, it's
the East today, the [13] swell is ten feet.
You want to come into Boston [14] on this
800-foot ship, coming in at mean low
tide [15] again. How much draft would
you dare  carry going [16] into Boston,
into the President Roads outer sea?
117] MR. JACKSON: That's beyond  my
us] expertise.
[i9i MR. LEWIS: Take a guess.
120] MR. FARAMELLI: Less that  37  [21]
feet.
[22] MR. LEWIS: Less than 37, but what
[23]  we're  trying to do here is we're
trying to  be  [24] practical about this
whole thing to see what's
                           Page 187
[i] really going on here, what the limita-
tions really [2] are and have 24-hour ser-
vice of all stages of the [3] tide in dif-
ferent weather conditions, not every [4]
weather condition but under different
weather isi conditions, like lately.
[6] The answer is probably 30 feet or m
less because  you have two things to
allow for. is] One, the ship is going to
need 8 and a half knots [9] coming into
the harbor to maintain steerage to [io]
stay in the 40-foot channel. That's going
to [in make the ship squat probably
several feet into 1121  the  water,  the
phenomenon about that.
[13] The second thing is the swell out [14]
of the Northeast may be 10 feet. That
would [is] cause the ship to go down and
dive somewhat, even [16] an 800 footer,
another few feet. Just to be IITJ comfort-
able, you'd want to save your ticket, not
[is] have a grounding on Fins Ledge. You
want to have  U9j plenty of water under
that vessel. So you're [201 probably talk-
ing probably 10 feet of allowance, 1211 or
maybe a little more.
[22] Actually where I get this  from is [23]
the Boston pilots, the ones that do the
outer [24] ship work, not the inner dock-
ing pilot. So what
                           Page 188

HI we have here, the thing is all done,
and yet the 12) limiting factor here under
these conditions is [31 probably a 30-foot
draft, if you want to come [4] into the
harbor at all times. So you have to ask [5]
yourself, you know, where should the
work be [6] done, and what are we doing
here anyhow?
17] MR. JACKSON: There's a very  is]
simple answer to that question, in that
the [9] answer is that in the economic
feasibility for [ioj this project, we looked
at the current use of the [ii] vessels and
loading and limitations that we [121 have.
Then we compared that with 35 down
to 40 [131 feet, what improvements in the
efficiency of the [14] operation there are.
So if they have limitations us] in 35 feet
with storms and all these factors, [16]
then they will have the same limitations,
but now [IT] they will have five more feet
to deal with. So [is] there is an improve-
ment.
[19] MR. LEWIS: Right, but that's the 1201
inner harbor.
[2i] MR. JACKSON: Yes, that's  the 1221
inner harbor.
[23] MR. LEWIS: See, the inner harbor [24]
is easy. You don't have these  two
phenomenon,
                            Page 189
HI number one, the  squatting caused
with the speed. [2] You're not going that
fast, I hope.
[31 MR. JACKSON: Even  so.  The  w
economics you want for every terminal
operator.
15} MR. FARAMELLI: I am going to ask [6]
you a question.
[7] MR. LEWIS:  Sure.
[8] MR. FARAMELLI: You're saying the
[9] project isn't ambitious enough? We
should be i io] going down deeper? Is that
what you're saying?
[ii] MR. LEWIS: I'm just simply saying
[12] that this whole thing is a system. It
starts out 113] in the ocean and ends up
in the head of Chelsea [14] Creek or the
Mystic or wherever. We didn't see [is] the
whole thing as a system. We son of
pieced H6] the system, considered Deer
Island inward. We [17] didn't see all the
rest of it, especially your us] economic
analysis we suspect is maybe a little (i9)
less than you think.
[20] Like in that container ship 1211 anal-
ogy that you made that went by Boston.
I'd [22] love to know what the guy's draft
was, what the [23] conditions were, and
the tide stage that he did [24] that. I have
a suspicion he  did it out of fear	
                            Page 190
[i] of the North Channel rather than the
inner [2] channels, because the container
ships usually (3) don't draw that kind of
water even when loaded. [4] That's my
suspicion.
IS] MR. JACKSON: I think that was [6]
looked at in the feasibility report that
was  m complete in '88. They looked at
every channel  [8] inside and outside the
harbor to see  what  [9] improvements
would be economically justifiable. [ioi
The project you see here is the result of
all the [in studies. They looked at Fins
Ledge. They looked [12] at the outer har-
bor. They found that there was [13] not
enough economic benefits to justify the
[14) COSt.
[151 MR. LEWIS: Okay,  that's  like [16]
transferring a part of the EIS/EIRbackto
an [17] earlier thing, which obviously I
didn't see [is] because it wasn't in it. And
I was drawing  that, 119] yes, that that be
included in it  so we  can do it 1201 as a
complete thing. This is important be-
cause [2ii this is the justification for the
job,  moving 122] ships at any tide, I
believe. That's  one of our 123] things.
124] The other thing is, something	
                            Page 191
[i] completely different, as a member of
the  Boston  [2] Conservation  Commis-
sion, as you are and the other [3] conser-
vation commissioners, you have a lot to
do [4] with dredging over the years, par-
BPA REPORTING (617)423-0500
          Min-U-Script®
              Page 185 - Page 191
-------
May 17,1994
                      U.S. Army Corps of Engineers N. E. Division &
                                        Massachusetts Port Authority
tlculatly the m sediments fromthe Third
Harbor Tunnel [6] operation. And I would
simply say that sorting m out sediments
into a less and more contaminated [8]
area turned out to be exteremely dif-
ficult  even m under good conditions
with an excellent noj contractor, never
mind doing it in harbor uu conditions.
That's why, for the organization I'm inj
talking for, the Sierra Club, we don't
want to H3J see any of the sediments,
which are defined  as  im  materials
deposited on top of the parent earth, us]
disposed of in the ocean at all. That's
what's |i6i in back of that experience.
(i?l MR. FARAMELLI: Are you saying it
I is) shouldn't be disposed of in the ocean
at all, or  1191 it shouldn't be an uncon-
fincd disposal?
I»j MR. LEWIS: Not in the ocean at 1211
au, because we're not too happy about
the (22)  so-called confined  scenario.
We've been looking 123] at the research
down at long bland Sound and 124] other
areas, and we think the conditions were
ID somewhat different. And I think the
point by the [2] fishermen who are not
here now about the currents BJ there is
well taken, and we have 300 feet of m
water, a hundred meters of water there
and tough m conditions.
[6j And the other problem, of course, in
is dredging methodology. I'll re-accent
that. (8) Our experience with the present
dredging (9) companies in Boston Harbor
is not that heartening 1101 in terms of
sticking to their contract or doing [iij
anything else. In fact, at the Moran Ter-
minal mi they'd have done just as well
to thrown im everything in the air, the
dam stuff. They went (Mi through an
incredible process, the commission I tisj
was on, to see that it was done right. And
[16]  indeed, some of it was  done very
well, once it (IT] got to the barge beside
the dock and the water usj taken out. But
leading up to that was just (19) something
else, and how to prevent that from (201
happening is very important.
121] MR. ROSENBERG: Thank you.  We
122] have come to the close of tonight. I
would like 123) to state for the record —
124] MR. STRAHAM: Could I make one
                            Page 193
Iij comment?
I2I MR, ROSENBERG: Sure. One  quick
IJl comment.
Hi MR STRAHAM:  I'll be short. It's ra
fundamental. I obviously agree with the
Sierra i« Qub's position. We would pret-
ty much oppose any rn dumping in the
ocean of any material, [8] contaminated
material, any material in fact. But [9] like
what I addressed earlier, and I'd just like
not to get some feedback ftom the peole
who have been uu doing it is the issue
that has been overlooked, 11121 mink, in
the scope of the EIS/EER. and in every [131
aspect of this process, especially now
that the [M] biological assessment has
been turned in, which nsi is the impact
of the vessel traffic on the  [16] whales.
H7]  Now, the reality is that every JIBJ
scientist is restudying now, dealing with
H9] Northern Right whales, say one dead
whale is too 1201 many whales dead. And
if you're going to [2ij increase traffic, it's
not going to hook. [221 There's no mitiga-
tion; that is, the guts of the  1231 project is
to increase vessel traffic and to 124; main-
tain vessel traffic where othcrise  it
would
                           Page 104
HI be degraded over the years.
I2] So I'm asking, I guess, the [3] people,
that you  consider this  equal to HI
sedimentation and other problems, con-
tamination [5] in the ocean, and would
you be willing to reopen jei the EIS
process to  include as either a m sup-
plemental EIS,  et cetera, and to recon-
sider (8] the biological assessment for its
impact on CT vessel traffic increase or
vessel traffic, fioi period, on the North-
ern Right  whale and other  mi en-
dangered species, whales and marine
•wildlife [12] that are going  to be simply
impacted by this  [131 traffic by being
killed and injured in a very [H] horrible
way if not also being disturbed?
IK] MR. ROSENBERG: That's a very usj
detailed question, and I  don't think
anybody here n?i can give you anything
but a simple answer, and I [isj don't think
that's what you're looking for.
Ii9] MR. STRAHAM: Oh, yes I am. I 120]
want a very simple, yes.
I2i] MS. HANSEN: The process is not [22]
closed. The process is open. By your
raising it 123] here tonight,  it will be ad-
dressed in the final [24] EIS.
                           Page195
HI MR. STRAHAM: Well, what do you [2]
feel about this question? What do you
feel about (3} this subject?
[4] MS. HANSEN: I  think  it's  a  tsj
legitimate question to be looked at.
16) MR. FARAMELU: It  has to be m
looked at. Max, but I can't give you an
answer.
18] MR. STRAHAM: I just want to know
[9] that you consider h an open question.
no] MS. HANSEN: That's why we're uu
here.
112] MR. STRAHAM: Because if I submit
(131  a petition to do a supplemental EIS
on this [Mi subject, I don't want to spend
hours preparing it nsj and then have the
door slammed in my race nej arbitrarily
on the issue because you're already [i?i
prejudiced against it being an issue,
either that [isj you don't consider it sub-
 stantial  either  on  [19]  meritorious
 grounds or you're politically  [20] dis-
 posed to ignoring it because you don't
 want to [2»] deal with it. You know what
 I'm saying?
 (22) MR. ROSENBERG: Once     again,
 thank  1231 you for the comment. To res-
 tate it, the reason [24] for these meetings
 is not to have the Corps and
                            Page 196
 HI MassPort and our partners and the
 people involved m in die advisory com-
 mittee preach but to receive  tsi your
 comments to identity areas that we may
 have [4] not looked at and to look a your
 insight and to [5] take them very serious-
 ly.
 [6] So, sir, the last question for the m
 evening.
 IS] MR.TRENZ: My name is JimTrenz, m
 and  I've been involved  with some re-
 search using no] microbes to degrade,
 chilling hydrocarbons and ml PAH's.
 (12) I -would like to see some funds ti3)
 readily available for some more research
 into  [14]  that  end  to  degrade the
 hydrocarbons either in (151 situ or have
 a low cost method of treating the fi£)
 chilling hydrocarbons, PAH's, PCB's, so
 that we  (17) can render these con-
 taminants innocuous or (is) relatively in-
 nocuous, less toxic so we can have a [i9]
 low cost solution for the silt that is the
 main [20] problems of the disposal.
 (2i) MR. FARAMELLI: Let me start on 1221
 that, then 111 let Janeen pick up. We are
 [23] clearly going to be looking at alter-
 native [24] technologies more so in the
 final than we did in
 [ij the draft. We're very clear about that.
 [2] With regard to the funding, that [3] is
 yet to be determined. One plug is the HI
 proposed  green  harbor  legislation,
 which would [5] allow some of that to
 happen. I think it really iei is essential
 that work be done on this. We'll do m
 what we can.
 [8] MS. HANSEN: I would second that pi
• comment, and in the earlier tests, we did
 talk a no) little bit about the Green Ports
 legislation, (iij which  I believe did not
 make it to the floor of (121 the House of
 Representatives in this  session of U3)
 Congress, but may well be introduced
 again in the [H] fall. But this is the time
 to contact the us] Massachusetts Con-
 gressional delegation and any \\6] other
 delegations that you can think of to let
 [i7j your Senators and Congressman
 know that this is a lie] priority issue to
 you, that there ought to be U9] some
 funding for treatment technologies for
 pot dredge disposal. It's beginning to be
 talked 1211  about in Washington, but if
 they don't hear a hue 1221 and cry ftom
 their districts, it won't go BW anywhere.
Page 192 - Page 197
          Mia-U-Script®
  BPA REPORTING (617)423-0500
-------
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers N. £. Division &
Massachusetts Port Authority
                                                           May 17,1994
(241 MR.TRENZ: If they're not talking
                            Page 198
ID about doing anything until the fall
session, [2] we're missing a treatment
season as we're  upon it [3]  right now.
Given that the temperature has H]  in-
creased, we increase biological activity
in [5] that season. We will have missed
another year, \6] and we will be further
behind in any kind of m research along
these ends. And if we don't have [8] some
fast-track method forgetting some funds
[9] soon, we're going to miss this season.
We're not no] going to be able to supply
and institute [ii] solutions for treatment
for the '96 dredging (121 target date.
[13] MR. LEWIS: Here's a question. [14]
How close are you to inventing some-
thing that [i5j works on sediment from
dredging that contains 116] petroleium
materials?
[IT] MR.TRENZ: I've already gotten a [isj
preliminary crude bench skill study per-
formed and (19) completed, and we're
looking fora more rigorous [20] test with
full scientific laboratory testing with 1211
a control, some other testing at the end
of the [22] testing period so that we can
prove that we don't [231 have the toxic
affects that we have for the  (24) con-
taminants beforehand.
                            Page 199
ID MR. LEWIS: You're looking  for a [2]
test bed here of some son?
13) MR. TRENZ: That's  correct, and  [4]
some funds that would take  us through
to that.
[51 MR. LEWIS: It's  an  interesting  [6]
proposal.
m FROM THE FLOOR: Can  you   do
these [si  tests on actual Boston Harbor
silt'
19] MR. TRENZ: Yes, I did.
do] FROM THE FLOOR: So it's not clear
(in until you can do the toxicity test
whether even (121 biodegrading these
organics successfully will [13] sufficient-
ly reduce the toxicity, for example, [14]
associated with  heavy metals that are
also [i5j present to make the difference
between the ne\ clean —
117] MR. TRENZ: That's  right.  The  us]
toxicity tests are very expensive, but
we're H9] willing to do the  tests,  do
whatever rigorous (201 scientific studies
that are  needed to prove that [211 the
technology is working. We  recently
treated a 1221 gasoline station  that had
two inches of floating 1231 gasoline in it
less than a month ago, and now [24]  it's
got total effect levels of 2 EPB. So that's
                            Page 200
[i] drinking water quality.
[2] MR. LEWIS: Gasoline is nasty [31 toxic
stuff .This wouldn't affect heavy metal [4]
obviously.                 	
[5] MR.TRENZ: Well, there's studies [6]
that do suggest the metals are bound as
opposed m to being leachable.You have
mine tailing |8j studies that have been
done by EPA out West where [9] they
have combined  some  materials with
mine [ioj tailings, and you've bound up
the metals,and you (iij prevent it leach-
ing, although you don't reduce 112) the
contamination level in metals. You do
access [13]  the straight lines.
114]  MR. LEWIS: You want some [15] ex-
perimentation of the saltswater confine-
ment [16] obviously.
[IT]  MR. TRENZ: That's correct. And [is]
these are  live marine micro-organisms
so they can [i9j take salinity up to 18
percent.
[20]  MR. LEWIS: The organics  that the
[2i]  metals bind to  are  going  to  be
biodegraded under [221 the technology
we're talking about,  couldn't that  (231
increase the mobility and toxicity of the
[24]  metals?	
                            Page 201
ID MR.TRENZ: Will k be bound to [2]
organic or will it be bound to soils?
13] MR. ROSENBERG: Thank you. (4) I'd
like to ask Colonel Miller to [5] come up,
although he's not on the agenda, and [6]
give us some closing remarks. Sir.
m COLONEL MILLER: Very closing [8]
remarks. Thank  you all for  coming.
Please, if [9] you have comments that are
specific, put them in [io] writing so we
can respond to them in writing, (in make
sure that we know exactly what your
concerns 1121 are.
[131  Thanks for coming. Hope you got (14)
something out of the evening. See you
at the [15] next one.
U6]  (Whereupon, at 9:10 p.m. The  IITI
meeting was closed.)	
                            Page 202
in Thursday, May 19,1994 12) Tara Hyan-
nis Hotel & Resort [31 (The formal por-
tion of the  public  [4] meeting  and
workshop on the Boston Harbor [5]
Navigation Improvement  Project  was
held, (6i including the introduction by
Larry m Rosenberg, Chief, Public Affairs;
Boston  (8] Harbor Navigation  Improve-
ment Project  (9) overview by Colonel
Brink P. Miller, [io] Division Engineer;
Janeen  Hansen, MassPort (in Project
Manager; and Peter Jackson, Corps 1121
Project Manager; the role of public inter-
est [13]  groups by Grace Perez for the
Conservation 114] Law Foundation, and
for Save the Harbor/Save us] the Bay.
[17] MR. ROSENBERG: Thank     you,
Grace, [is] The next part of the program
is [19] our public comments. These are
taken in the [201 order  in which they
were received, with the (211 exception of
one gentleman who must leave early. 1221
He will be our first speaker. Mr. Dennis
Finn 1231 from the Cape Cod Commis-
sion. Mr. Finn.
124] STATEMENT BY DENNIS FINN,

                            Page 203

ID CAPE COD COMMISSION

[2] MR. FINN: Thank  you. I have a [3]
statement that I'd like to read to Colonel
Miller [4] from Amando Cardinale,Execu-
tive Director of the  (5) Cape Cod Com-
mission.
[6] "The staff at the Cape Cod p] Commis-
sion, a regional land-use planning and [8]
regulatory agency serving 15 towns in
Barnstable [9] County, have reviewed the
draft environmental [io] impact report,
environmental impact statement for (in
the Boston Harbor Navigation Improve-
ment and (i2i  Berth Dredging  Project
and offer the follow [13] comments, for
your consideration.
[14] "The Commission staff believes it (is)
is important to make  navigational im-
provements to [16] Boston Harbor that
will  help  insure safe  passage  [nj for
marine vessel traffic. This is particularly
[is] important given  the fact that much
of New [19] England's petroleum supply
is shipped into and 1201 out of the Port of
Boston. At the same time, the 1211 project
should be conducted in an environmen-
tally (22] sound manner and the disposal
locations for the [231  dredge  material
should be chosen based primarily [24] on
environmental costs and benefits.

                            Page 204

in "The Commission staff believes that
(2] the dredge materials from the Boston
Harbor (31 Project, almost one half of
which has been [4]  identified as being
contaminated  silts,  should be [5] dis-
posed of in-harbor  or as close to the
harbor [6] as possible. This will decrease
the possibility pi of transporting con-
taminants  into  the  larger   i«\  Mas-
sachusetts and Cape Cod Bays system.
19) "The bays support  resources of [io]
national and state significance, not the
least of [in which is the federally desig-
nated  Stellwagen  Bank  (121 National
Marine Sanctuary. The conservation and
(131 management of  these resources
should not be [i4] compromised by the
Boston Harbor Project.At the us] present
time neither the federal nor state  U6j
environmental agencies has factual in-
formation on (17] the stability of capped
contaminated    sediments    in    us]
oceanographic dynamic sites.
[19] "For these reasons, the Commission
[20] staff  recommends that  the Mas-
sachusetts Bay's [2i] disposal she and the
Boston Lightship site  be (22) dropped
from further consideration for disposal
(23) of dredge material from the Boston
Harbor [24] Project.            	
 BPA REPORTING C6l 7)423-0500
          Min-U-Script®
                                                                               /
              Page 198 - Page 204
-------
May 17,1994
                      U.S. Army Corps of Engineers N. E. Division  &
                                        Massachusetts Port Authority
                           Page 205
HI "The Commission staff recommends
I2| the Army Corps of Engineers and
MassPott more (31 fully evaluate the in-
harbor and near-harbor [4j disposal op-
tions.
15) "The staff recommends that the (6j
final EIR/HS evaluate the options of con-
tainment (71  and  near-shore disposal
sites, as well as more IBJ fully evaluate the
use of the inner-harbor borrow 19] pits as
a disposal option for contaminated (ioj
materials from the Boston Harbor.
(it) The Commission staff recommends
H2) that the federal and state regulatory
agencies im  work cooperatively  on
identifying the legal and mi policy issues
which need to be addressed to allow HSJ
one or more  contained disposal sites
within us] Boston Harbor.
(17) "Finally the Cape Cod Commission
(IB) staff recommends that  the  final
EER/HS include [191 an analysis of the
management monitoring needs [zoj for
the preferred disposal sites. This [211 in-
formation is needed to fully evaluate the
(22| environmental costs and the benefits
of each of (231 the alternatives."
12^! MR. ROSENBERG: Sir, thank you
(H very much.
(2) The next speaker for the record is is]
Mr. Wayne Bergeron,
(4) STATEMENT BY WAYNE BERGERON,
1$)  BAYS  LEGAL  FUND   (61  MR.
BERGERON: 1 thank you, the m mem-
bers, for inviting me to speak today and
(8) allowing me to go out of order, and
my apologies tsi to those who are behind
me.Ihave about four HOI meetings today,
and I want to have a chance to [inspeak.
I want to thank  also Grace Perez,  [121
Conservation Law  Foundation,  for
notifying me  of  1131 the meeting and
staying on top of me to be here.  [HJ
Thank you, Grace.
US) My name is Wayne Bergeron. I am 116]
the chairman of  the Bays Legal Fund,
which is an u?) advocacy group for  the
Massachusetts and Cape Cod (isi Bays.
We are a governmental arm, if you will,
of U9i Barnstable  County. We represent
the towns  of 1201 Dennis, Yarmouth,
Cleans, Eastbam, Provincctown,  (211
Barnstable,    Sandwich,    Mashpec,
Brcwster and t22)  Harwich, most of  the
Cape.
(23) We have been involved recently hi
124) a lawsuit regarding the Boston Har-
bor outfit 11 _
                           Page  207
(U tunnel, which is yet to be resolved to
(2j everybody's  satisfactory. And  of
course, the BJ Army Corps of Engineers
is one of the litigants [4] involved in that
particular situation.
[SI I'm going to be mercifully brief \e\ on
this because having had a number of
these, m you're going to hear the same
things over and  m over. I'll begin by
saving, of course, that the [9] Bays Legal
Fund supports many of the issues put tioj
forth by both Save die Harbor/Save the
Bay and uu also by Conservation Law
Foundation as they have 1121 been ad-
dress. We will submit in depth written
113] testimony in the future regarding this
particular [H] issue.
[isi It is our position with the Bays U6j
Legal Fund that tinder no circumstances
should (171 contaminated sediments be
disposed of at the [is) Mass. Bay Disposal
Site, including capping with [19]  clean
sediment, a technology that we believe
is [20] unfeasible to the current depths
and lack of more 1211 advanced technol-
ogy to be used.  It has been 1221 men-
tioned  that  the   National  Marine
Sanctuary is (231 in that particular area
close to the disposal t24i site. Of course,
that is true.
                           Page 208
HI What I would like to point out to m
you that has not been mentioned is that
the Mass, m Bay Disposal Site falls in the
perimeter of the  HI proposed North At-
lantic Right whale sanctuary tsiarea.Tbe
North Atlantic Right whale is the most
[€i endangered of all marine mammal
spcies. There  [7i are approximately 350
left at this point  in time, [si coming, by
the way, from three females. So their [91
genetic diversity is very slow in evolving
and no] susceptible to many problems.
(ill You've heard talk already about [i2j
bioaccumulation potentials, which we
also near 1131 concerns about. North At-
lantic Right whales eat IMI masses of
zooplankton, and they may be impacted
[i5] through the food web, and that's a
big concern [ifii for us, of course.
[IT] I "would suggest it would be to the
[is] Army Corps' of Engineers extreme
advantage if H9] they were to make the
unfortunate decision to (201 wish to
dump in the Mass. Bay Disposal Site, that
[2i] they involve the Endangered Species
Act and do a 1221 Section 7(AX2) review.
Section 7(AX2) of the 1231 Endangered
Species Act simply states that any [24]
federal  agency must assure that their
actions are
                           Page 209
HI not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence  121  or  be any threat to en-
dangered  species or degrade  [31 their
habitat. We would like, of course, that to
[4] be done prior to the dumping as
opposed to [51 after.
isi Another concern is that we ask m
simply, "we're well aware of the situation
that (si cod, haddock and other ground
species are right m now in our bays.
Some of the advanced theories tioi we
have heard recently is that due to [ii]
contamination,fish larvae are not surviv-
ing. We [12] do not need to have a situa-
tion  where  we  have 1131 more  con-
tamination being dumped into our bays
and  [14] making that situation worse
potentially than it U5i is right now.

[16] We're also concerned  simply, and I
[171 think Grace addressed this very well,
about [is] accumulative impact of having
the outfall tunnel U9] as now proposed
in the discharge area that it is 1201 and
having more sediment being discharged
in the (211 Mass. Bay Disposal Site that's
contaminated. (221 Those two together
are doubly frightening. They [23j are al-
most doubly frightening to the people
at (24) Bays Legal Fund.

                           Page 210

HI I  will leave  you with  those [2]
thoughts. I will give you, as I said, a much
(31 more in-depth review, but I did want
to go over HI and adrress them briefly to
you. I would simple m say for your con-
sideration that while we have [6] been
involved  in a lawsuit with the  Army
Corps of m Engineers, we would like to
have a positive is] relationship in work-
ing through the situation now (9) and in
the future, but "where we have gone to
uoi court once on this issue, we will not
hesitate a mi second time.
(12) I'm hoping that we can continue to
[131 communicate with each other and
find  the best (Hi feasible solution for
what we see is necessary  115] dredging,
but of course, for these particular [iei
channels. Thank you very much.
(IT] MR. ROSENBERG: Our       next
speaker [is] is Dr. Paul Atmurray.
[19] STATEMENT  BY DR. PAUL ATMUR-
RAY

[20] DR. ATMURRAY: I just have a brief
[2i] comment. I just came to the meeting
and reviewed [221 the material, and the
problem I have  with the [23] disposal
sites is not enough information to ask [24]
relevant questions. I wish there was
more

                            Page 211

(i] information about the locations, the
cost and the [2]  environmental factors
surrounding each of the 31 disposal sites
so that the public knows more [4] about
it.
15] MR. ROSENBERG: Thank you, sir, [6]
for your information. We have copies of
the (7i environmental impact statement.
We'll make sure [8] you get one before
you leave.
[91 DR. ATMURRAY: I have one.
[io] MR. ROSENBERG: Our       next
speaker [iij is Ms. Dorothy Kiersteae.
Page 205 - Page 211
          Min-U-Script®
 BPA REPORTING (617)425-0500
-------
U.S. Army (jorps ot Engineers N. E. Division
Massachusetts Port Authority
           &
                                                          May 17,1994
[12]   STATEMENT   BY    DOROTHY
KIERSTEAE
[13) MS. KIERSTEAE: My    name   is
Dorothy tui Kiersteae, and I'm from the
town of Dennis.My [is] concern is,as Mr.
Bergeron has stated, about the 116] after
effects of the sediment that is to be [i?i
dumped,and if alternate places could be
US] considered rather than where they
have proposed. [19] It would be in the
best interest of the fish  and  1201 the
animals that have to live in the ocean. [211
Thank you.
122] MR. ROSENBERG: Thank you very
[23] much. And our last speaker for the
record at [24] this time is Mr. William
Adler.	
                            Page 212
in STATEMENT BY WILLIAM ADLER
[2] MR. ADLER: My name is  William [3]
Adler. I'm the executive director of the
Hi Massachusetts  Loberstermen's As-
sociation, which   is]  represents  ap-
proximately about 1100 lobstermen in
16] the state of Massachusetts and quite a
few, m probably 500, that are in the area
of which we [si are speaking.
[9] I wanted to bring to your [io] attention
several ideas here on this project, [in
We're not, by the way, opposed to the
project [12] itself, the dredging. We un-
derstand the need for [13] that.However,
we've been cleaning Boston Harbor [i4]
and trying to clean  the ocean of con-
taminants and [15] oils, plastics, toxics, et
cetera, and it seems 116] like here we
have the opportunity to dump some u?]
right back in to where we've been clean-
ing. A [is] lot of money and time has been
spent in  the [i9] method of trying to
clean it.
[20] Also the government agencies, the
[2i] United States Coast Guard, are all
over us with 1221 rules about not dump-
ing anytype of stuff in the 123] ocean, and
yet the government here is dumping [24]
stuff in the ocean, and I'm particularly
                            Page 213
HI concerned that it's contaminated. I
spent over a [2] year on the EPA Hazard-
ous Waste Disposal Advisory (31 Commit-
tee in Boston where we were looking
for [4] barrels that were out in these areas
that were [5] dumped 20, 25 year ago
with holes shot in them.  [6] They con-
tained various toxic wastes, nuclear n
waste, atomic waste. And  we had subs
going [8] around down there. We had
sonar scans going on. [9] We had been
raising dead men's records as to when
no] they dumped it 25 years  ago. All
because we were mi concerned about
something that was dumped 251121 years
ago and could be hot spots out there in
[131 areas similar to where we were —
actually some [14] of the areas we're talk-
ing about now.
US] And so we were very concerned U6]
about these things that were dumped 25
years [ni ago. And rather than progress-
ing onward and [isi trying to not, at least
not put more out there, 119] this project
seems to propose putting more [201 con-
taminants out there.
[2i] Speaking of the area's lobstermen,
[22] 6.5 million  pounds. 9.5 million
pounds of [23] lobsters landed from the
territorial waters of [24] Massachusetts.
6.5 million come from this
                            Page 214
ID general area just south of Gloucester
to just the [2] northern section of the
South Shore. It's a very [3] big lobstering
area with  many ports scattered w be-
tween Gloucester and, let's say, Cohas-
set, and [5] many, many fishermen earn-
ing their living out in [6] the outer areas
here of Boston Harbor and also m  just
beyond the territorial sea. Many of these
(si or just about all of these proposed sea
dumping [91  sites are  in or near where
lobster fishermen [io] work.And they are
very concerned that this [in  material
would get loose and would therefore
make 1121 the bottom contaminated  and
make the lobster and 1131 fish also con-
taminated:
[14] You just  can't move. In your \K\ ex-
ecutive summary you  indicated  that
fisheries [16] would be affected.and we'd
have to move. And I IITI think it needs to
be remembered the lobstermen, [is] un-
like other type of fishermen, they are
more or [191  less confined to a certain
area. You don't go [201 move your traps
over into Gloucester. You just 121] don't
do that. You have sort of an unwritten
[22] area which is your little world of
lobstering. [231 So it's not like, well, why
don't you fora year [24] and a half just go
off to Maine to do lobstering
                            Page 215
[i] and then come back. It just won't
work that ui way. And I think that needs
to be remembered. [31 You talk about a
year and a half of disruption, [4] and that
would be, of course, very serious.
[5] Also the space and the traffic [6] in-
volved in this is also of concern, since
there pi will be a  lot of barge traffic,
more than there [8] already is and there
already is a lot, which of [9] course
damages their gear by taking the buoys
no] with them and therefore their trawls
and traps [in are scattered all over the
place and lost. [121 Contamination of the
area and lobsters would ruin 113) these
fishermen and their families and certain-
ly [14] would spawn lawsuits against the
agency for this U5] damage.
[16] We might also say that this [IT] ques-
tion of containment using covers or bag-
gies [is] or barrels or coffins, and  this
goes back to  U9] those days with the
coffins, barrels that were [20] already out
there, will it work? And we don't [211
think it will. And I don't think you could
[22] guarantee that there will be no ooze,
which of [231  course would cause the
contamination of the  [24] bottom and
thereby the creatures.
                           Page 216
ID We would  suggest that you look [2]
serious at something  like Fort Point
Channel, [3] also the end of the Reserve
Channel, options that  [4] I think were
listed as a possible place to  put [5] this
stuff, because  much of that area has
already [6] got this stuff. And the ideal
thing, of course, m which is probably
very farfetched, but I just [8] have  to
throw it in here, is why can't we take it
[91 to Nevada?
no] There's a track out at the end of mi
the Moran Terminal there, they can put
in hopper [121 cars, hundreds of them,
and  just maybe  you  could [131 pay
Nevada to take it and put it into one of
[14] their big holes that they have out
there, and [15] maybe  some  day some-
body will find a use for this 116] stuff, and
we could mine it all over again and u?)
take  it somewhere. And I'll end on that.
Thank us] you very much, and I have a
letter for the [191 Colonel. Thank you.
[20] MR. ROSENBERG: Thank you very
[2i] much.
[22] The next part of the agenda is an 123]
overall approach to what's been going
on with (24] regard to the draft environ-
mental impact
                           Page 217
in statement and the draft environmen-
tal impact [2] report.
[4] (Panel discussion on overall [5] ap-
proach to the draft environmental im-
pact  [6]  statement  with  Catherine
Demos, Corps EIS ITJ  Project Officer,
Norman FaramelU, MassPort [si Director
of Transportation and Environmental [9]
Planning, and Nancy Bakerm MEPA, [io]
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.)
[12] MR. ROSENBERG:  I'd  like to open
[131 it now to any questions, concerns,
advice, love [i4] letters. Sir.
US] FROM THE FLOOR: I was wonder-
ing, [i6] one of things expressed was the
large volume of [IT] materials that are
involved for maintenance [is] dredging,
and I was wondering if there is any [191
viable solution over the long term, for
example, 1201 of reducing the volume of
sediments that have to [211 be involved
in maintenance dredge or sources of [221
contaminants that contaminate them.
[231 MR. ROSENBERG:  Pete, want to [24]
stan off and then Mr. Hubbard, Chief of
our
                           Page 218
HI Environmental Branch, can jump in.
BPA REPORTING (6l7)423-O5OO
          Min-U-Script®
                                                                              / I
              Page 212 - Page 218
-------
May 17,1994
                      U.S. Army Corps of Engineers N. E. Division &
                                        Massachusetts Port Authority
PI MR. JACKSON: You had two m ques-
tions. One, could we reduce the  sedi-
ments (4) that have to be dredged for
maintenance. Boston tsi Harbor is a low-
sediment type harbor, unlike [6] where
they have maintenance every year, m
maintenance frequency on the order of
about ten ») years rather than annually.
19] These sediments come from [io] dif-
ferent rivers and streams that enter the
Hi)  harbor that comes from urban
runoff, sand and 1121 runoff from streets.
It  moves  around the  harbor. (131 It
doesn't escape.There isn't a tot of supp-
ly (M) coming in either, so the little bit
we get is (isi mostly urban runoff, out-
falls, that sort of nei thing. Hopefully the
MWKA cleanup on line should \rn  clear
this up.
I iaj Some of these sources are [i9] non-
points sources and come from just nor-
mal (20) drains that come from the city
and the industrial 121] harbor that it is.
That is very difficult to 122] treat. I don't
think anywhere in the country 1231  have
they been able to economically address
that 124) problem. You can't capture any
one place and
HI treat it and then let it go. The Corps
of (2) Engineers is committed for the
future maintenance  B] of this project,
and  those  other  examples that I [4]
showed you. So that federal cost, that's
part of is] the project. I don't know of
any trick to [6j minimize the amount of
maintenance dredging. I m really don't
have a good answer. If anybody m does,
please see me.
19} MR. HUBBARD: I agree, Pete, on [ioi
the amount of nonpoim sources. Espe-
cially in in] the last two administrations
a lot of money has 112] been put forward
for government programs to  us) ex-
amine this. Massachusetts has some
programs  mi  also  in  reducing  con-
taminants, if you noticed the us] amount
of material that's licensed to go out the
U6] pipe, so to speak. Every year it gets a
little im more stringent,  as does the
Clean AirAct.They us) don't want to lock
up industry. As the decades 119] go by,
you'll probably see a reduction in the [201
contamination into the system.
|2i) A tot of Boston Harbor is going to 1221
slosh around hi the system for a while.
When it 1231 sloshes around, it does settle
in the near 124] channel. They've got to
get it out of the _
                            Pago 220
til harbor.
121 Long term, over the next 25 years 01
we're all hoping to  see a reduction. I
think [41 we've seen it in the last 20 years
as a result of m the Clean Water Act. It's
gotten belter. It's m going to take a little
while.
m FROM THE FLOOR; I'm  wondering
18] about the state of the art as far as this
Boston [9] Harbor  Project. I'd  like  to
remind the Army [101 Corps of Engineers
about the straightening of the [in Kis-
simmee  River, what they have done in
the [12] Everglades, and I think they are
precipitating a 113] real tragedy as far as
the environment is iu) concerned and so
for as Cape Cod is concerned, us] Be-
cause the U.S. geological surveys shows
that  [i6! the tides  come down clear
around Cape Cod Bay in (i?) July,and we
don't know what the tides will bring [isj
down to Cape Cod, and we're very wor-
ried about 119] that, not only for the pol-
lution of our beaches 1201 but also pollu-
tion of our water supply, which is [21]
quite dependent upon the marshes in
Cape Cod Bay.
[22] MR. ROSENBERG: Any  other  123}
questions or concerns?
124) FROM THE FLOOR: I just have a
                           Page 221
HI question for the MassPort folks. Could
you say (2) something about any projec-
tions you might have BI about how many
more ships are expected to call in [4j
Boston Harbor as a result of this project,
or is] conversely, how many you will not
lose as a w result of this project?
m MS. HANSEN: I'd be happy to [8] ad-
dress that question. At this point the Port
of (9) Boston is fighting for life as we
know it. We'd uoj like to keep the vessels
calling that we ni]  currently have. The
possibility of attracting 112] additional
vessels is probably  not a likely 1131 out-
come. Because the  fact of the matter is
the IM] vessels are getting larger. So they
come more ti5] heavily loaded and not
as frequently as perhaps (ifij in past years
when vessels were smaller with more
(I?) regular ports of call.
[is) I would actually like to take this 1191
opportunity to  mention that we had a
ship [20] diverted about three weeks ago
coming  inbound 1211  from Northern
Europe fully loaded. The first 1221 port of
call was supposed to be Boston. The 1231
vessel was delayed  in the middle of the
Atlantic [24) by a storm, and as a result it
did not arrive on
                            Page 222
ID schedule as anticipated when it em-
barked. As (2) they got closer to Boston,
they realized they did is) not have time
to wait  for high tide, so they left HI
containers wailing  on the dock at Con-
nelly m Terminal,  and the  ship went
directly to  New  is) York. The  Mas-
sachusetts customers had to wait m for
the containers to be barged up from
New [si York. Vessels are getting larger,
drawing more m water.
do) MR. FARAMELLl: The  only  thing I
111) would say is we are not talking about
(12) accommodating the larger vessels.
We're talking 113; about improving the
ship lanes and accommodating IHI the
average size vessels essentially of the
Port us] of Boston so we don't have a
recurrence of what U6] Janeen talked
about. The ships are getting im larger
above all. We have a lot of lightering im]
going on.  The ships have to remove
some of the (19) cargo before they come
in rather than risking 1201 grounding, and
on petroleum products, that's 1211 quite
an expensive undertaking to take the 1221
petroleum off the ship onto the barge.
That's  (23) double  handle costs. And
we're going to have [24] more and more
of that in the future. That's the
m kind of thing we're trying to avoid.
[2] FROM THE FLOOR: The     second
point (3) of my question, do you have any
projections how (4) many ship you'll lose
as a result of not doing [5i this project?
m MS. HANSEN: Eventually   we'll  m
probably be served by barge and truck
traffic (8j from New York  or possibly
Montreal.
[9] MR. ROSENBERG: Any  other  1101
questions?
Hi) Before I recess the formal part of 1121
this  afternoon's session, I'd like  to
remind you (is; of the last rule; that is, if
you want to involve (M) yourself in this
process, get involved. We need nsi you
in order to get to the end, which is to [ i6\
finally select an alternative.
li?) We also ask that you work with cie]
these workshops, the workshop tables
in the rear (isi here. If you have con-
cerns, please express [201 them. Beat us
into submission if you need to. 1211 This
is a unique way  of  communicating
projects to f22j  the public, and the only
way this is going to (231 "work is if the
public communicates back to us.
[241 1 really want to thank you for _
                            Page 224
ID coming here today. I would also like
to thank [2) Mr. Adler from the Mas-
sachusetts Lobstermen's 13) Association
who has extended a welcome to  us so
(4) we  can start setting up discussion
groups with [5) the lobstermen in Mas-
sachusetts with regard to [6] this project
and others.
m Please stay involved. Keep us on wi
our toes. And I'd like to recess now the
formal [9] part  of the session until 6:00
o'clock.Thank 1101 you.
[i] EVENING SESSION
[2] (The formal portion of the public 13)
meeting and workshop on the Boston
Harbor HI Navigation  Improvement
Project was held, [5] including the intro-
duction by Larry [6j Rosenberg, Chief,
Page 219 - Page 225
          Min-TJ-Script®
 BPA REPORTING C6l7>423-0500
-------
u.s. Army ixirps 01 jfcngmeers IN. t. mtnsion  &
Massachusetts Fort Authority
                                                          May 17,1994
Public Affairs; Boston pi Harbor Naviga-
tion Improvement Project isi overview
by Colonel Brink P, Miller, m  Division
Engineer; Janeen Hansen, MassPort noj
Project  Manager; and  Peter Jackson,
Corps [in Project Manager; the role of
public interest 1121  groups by Grace
Perez, Conservation law usiFoundation,
and for Save the Harbor/Save the [HI
Bay.)
[16] MR. ROSENBERG: Thank     you,
Grace.
[i7j At this time in the program, we're iisi
asking those who have asked to put
their  comments  U9]  on the  records to
come forward. If you give  me 1201  30
seconds, I'll raise the mike, and our first
pi]  person to  give  comments on the
record will  be  1221  Mary  Loebig. (23)
STATEMENT BY MARY LOEBIG, STOP
THE OUTFALL PIPE.
[24] MR. LOEBIG:  Thank you for this
Hi opportunity to comment. I had some
questions 121 first. Is that possible?
Bi MR. ROSENBERG: Hold the «j ques-
tions.There*s a period for uninterrupted
[5] comments. When you give these com-
ments, we'll [6] put them on the record
and we will respond to m them within
the final environmental impact tsj state-
ment.
19] MS. LOEBIG: My  name is Mary no]
Loebig. I represent  Stop The  Outfall
Pipe. And [ii] I'm a high school teacher,
and I haven't had a  [121 lot of time this
week to review the Dlffi/DEB. [131 I'll be
doing so before the final time period is
[M] up. But until then I did want to enter
some us]  comments, general comments
in the record.
lie] On October 4th,  1992 we offered a
in] comment to the  designation of the
Mass. Bay us]  Disposal Site because we
were very concerned that U9]  even
though they're only talking about clean
[20]  spoils, that the  fact they had not
designated  1211 where the dredge spoils
from Boston Harbor were 1221 going to
be going, it was felt that it would 123]
eventually be considered for this. And
124] unfortunately it looks like that  is
what has
                            Page 227
in happened here.
12} We were assured by the agencies at [3]
that time that the MBDS was to be util-
ized for [4; clean spoils only. And then as
now, our concern  isj was that estab-
lishing this prior to the Boston [6] Harbor
dredging project being finalized, that it
I?) was being done for the purpose of
providing an (sj opportunity for those
spoils to  be disposed of at [9] the MBDS.
no] Now these agencies are back, of [ii]
course, with their plans for dredging the
[i2j harbor. We're not opposed to the
dredge of the [131 shipping lanes. We are,
however, opposed to the ti4] dredging of
the lanes at the expense of the  us)
marine ecosystem throughout Boston
Harbor and [i6] Mass.Bay.The alternative
of disposing of the [IT; sediments at Mass.
Bay Disposal Site or the [is] Meisburger
sites near the proposed discharge site
(19) for the MWRA outfall found in this
document is (201 one more solution that
is  in direct opposition to  121) their
reported goal of preserving, protecting
the [22] environmental integrity of the
marine ecosystem. 1231 When will we
wake up to the cumulative impact of IMI
all the insults we continue to perpetuate
against
                           Page 228
in these bodies of water?
[2] Under no circumstances should the
13] MBDS be considered a suitable site for
any [4] contaminated spoils. Capping
should not be m considered a mitigation
measure as ft is not a [6j proven technol-
ogy particularly given the depth of m
these sites; Given their proximity to the
many m endangered species that live on
Stellwagen Bank  m  and Stellwagen's
stature as a national santuary, 1101 even
disposal of clean sediment at these sites
mi should required the strictest over-
sight by  [12] National Marine Fisheries
and NOAA.
[i3i We're also concerned about how IHJ
these spoils are going to eventually be
(15) designated, and we hope that there
will be some iisj independent oversight
of that process.
[17] Section 4.5.1 of this document tisj
dwells on studies which imply  that
various groups U9j of pollutants are not
as great a threat to 1201 biological systems
as previously believed 11211 would sug-
gest that much of this research was 1221
performed by those invested in current
dredging 1231 technology and would like
to remind the Corps of (24) the many
studies which suggest that, to the
                           Page 229
(i) contrary, these toxics seriously impair
many 121  biological functions  in marine
ecosystems.As [3j Ms. Perez pointed out,
the flounders in Boston [4] Harbor are
ample proof that there is a problem [5i
here.
[6] There's another study that was m just
released in '91 from the National Marine
[81  Fisheries Service  called "Pollution
and [9] Development Abnormalities of
the Atlantic (ioj Fishes." In that study, it-
indicates that (in chromosomal abnor-
malities brought on by many of 1121 these
toxics may account  for  significant
amounts (131 of larval mortalities in the
fisheries which now [i4] thrive in Mas-
sachusetts Bay.
(isi Throughout this document, [i6j refer-
ence is made to the economic benefits
that in] will be derived from the dredg-
ing project, and in tisi fact, maintaining
the harbor as a viable shipping H9j port
is important. But to consider only those
120]  immediate costs  incurred by the
dredging without [2i] considering its
long-term impact on natural [221 resour-
ces, the environmental integrity of the
bay {231 and human health is to be penny-
wise and [24j pound-foolish. The cost of
$18 per cubic yard	
                           Page 230
ID for disposal of silt at the MBDS is one
of the pi lowest costs cited in the docu-
ment, which makes [31 me very nervous.
Yet it does not reflect the [4] potential
harm to other industries and ecosystems
[5] from the collection of bioaccumula-
tive toxics at [6] this site.
m We urge the Army Corps to redraft m
the economic formulas upon  which
decisions of (91 this nature are made to
accurately reflect their noj long-term im-
pacts on the marine environment. It mi
would seem imperative, with the valu-
able (i2) resources of Boston Harbor and
Massachusetts Bay nsj being placed at
risk, that consideration of [14] innovative
treatment and dredging technologies
us] would be the truly economical solu-
tion to the [i6] problems of dredging and
disposal.
It?)  Dumping these spoils at the MBDS
Ii8j or the Meisburger sites will be one
more  example  (isi of the out-of-sight,
out-of-mind mentality that (201 continues
to dominate their approach to waste 1211
problems. We  should recognize from
past 122] experience that these types of
solutions are 1231 shortsighted and short
term.
124] MR. ROSENBERG: Our       next
speaker	
                           Page 231
HI for the record is Etta Goodstein.
12] STATEMENT BY EDDTA GOODSTEIN,
m STOP THE OUTFALL PIPE  [4) MS.
GOODSTEIN: Now that Mary m Loebig
has given the formal statement for Stop
16} The Outfall Pipe, I want to say that I'm
most  m grateful that I had the oppor-
tunity to hear the is] comments from
Save the Harbor/Save the Bay and [9] the
Conversation Law Foundation this eve-
ning as no) well.
Hi] Basically we're all saying the [12] same
thing. We're here to urge the Corps of
[13] Engineers to take the language that
would (14) consider the Mass. Bay dis-
posal area, just take usi it out. We don't
want to get reassurance, "We're (161 real-
ly not going to use that for contaminated
in] soil from this dredge material."
{isj We think in the best interest of [i9i
the environment as a whole, this is the
 BPA REPORTING (617)423-0500
          Mitt-tl-Scrifrt®
              Page 226 - Page 231
-------
May 17,1994
                      U.S. Army Corps of Engineers N. E. Division  &
                                        Massachusetts Port Authority
time now 1201 for you just to remove it as
a possibility so [21] that we can assure
that  the  goals that we have to  [22]
preserve and protect Massachusetts and
Cape Cod 123] Bays and work towards
environmental  policy  that  [24] make
more sense in Massachusetts is some-
thing	
                           Pago 232
(i) that can happen, and the thing you
can do now to [2] help us is to remove
that Language.Thank you.
13) MR. ROSENBERG: Thank  you. That
14] concludes the formal comments from
the public, m At this time on the agenda
we have set aside what (6j we were going
to call the panel discussion, where m we
were going to teE you all about the
overall pi approach, have some of our
experts sit up here, m What I would
propose to the four of you is that [ 101 we
sit down and we talk. I think many of the
Hi) questions that have come up in both
of your [i2i official comments can be
addressed.
(131 Nobody here will ask you today to
(Ml judge us on what we're going to say,
but judge us us] on the actions that we're
going to take over the  lie) next year or
so.
|i7] So  if that's okay with you, we [is]
could skip the rest of the formal presen-
tation,  U9] and  we could just sit down
with you and talk. I (20) think it would be
much easier. You might get 1211 much
more from us, and we will have the [22;
opportunity to gain a  little from your
expertise (231 and your insights. But I'll
leave that up to 1241 you.	
                           Page 233
ID Let me tell you about the people 121
that are up here you haven't met yet. I
like (3) reading bios. It's my lot in life
actually.
H] Catherine Demos is the Project isj
Officer for the FJS. She works in our
Impact (6j Analysis Division, and she's
been working with m the Corps in New
England since 1986.Shc has a isj Master's
of Science in coastal zone management
19) and biology from the University of
West  Florida,  uoj  She also holds a
Bachelor of Science from the un Univer-
sity of Massachusetts.
U2j She is solely responsible, not usj sole-
ly but she's  responsible for putting
together (Mi the entire documentation
for not only the draft, IK] which is what's
out there, but the final, which lie] is what
we're work towards right now.
UTJ She's a member of the Society of i&\
Wetlands Scientists and resides in Con-
cord.
U91 Sitting to her left is Mr. Norman [20j
Faramclli. Norm is  the Director of [2i]
Transportation and Environment Plan-
ning at [22] MassPon. He has worked at
MassPort since 1976.1231 First as Chief of
Environmental Management  and 124)
then at MassPort Director of Planning.
He's a	
                           Page 234
[i] graduate chemical engineer with ex-
perience in the 121 petroleum industry
and has several graduate [3] degrees. And
prior to coming to  MassPort, he [4]
worked as a consultant on the social and
pi environmental effects of technologi-
cal change.
[6] What I would like everybody to do t?i
is stand up, and let's go over there and
talk. [8] That concludes tonight's session.
Thank you.
19] (Whereupon, at 8:08 p.m., the noj
session was concluded.)
B.PJL REPORTING ASSOCIATES, INC.
Page 232 - Page 234
          Min-U-Script®
BPA REPORTING (617)423-0500
-------
U.S. Army corps of .Engineers is. JB. Division at
Massachusetts Port Authority
                                          May 17,1994
$
$1533:11,12
$15,00033:2
$1708:21
$18 229:24
$2.4 32:23
$20022:11
$3,000 147:15
$31.932:21
$35 14O:24; 141:18;
142:10
$35.3 33:5
$4022:5
$5116:4
$50 22:5
$6.6 21:14
$980,000 32:24

o

f|f%Mf|«« QC»*>r




1.1 31:1:46:12;
78:16; 79:7
1.3 165:22
1.631:14
1099:2;104:2;
160:12, 14; 176:2;
187:14, 20
10,000116:23
10-degree 98:24, 24
10-meter 98:23, 23
184:6
10095:15
1066 95:22
1100 212:5
12 71:16; 180:2
12,00020:11
130 179:12
133,00031:15
15 181:3:203:8
15,00095:5
15-minute 114:17;
115:7:119:15,17
150 17-5' 175-13
150096:24
160495:22
17 16:21:95:17;
108:17
170 25:9
1760 170:14
1820:5:115:19;
175: 1O; 200:19
19 202:1
1940s 58:22
1969 26:24
1970s 58:22; 107:14
1973 107:10
1976 129:21; 233:22
1978 24:2
197998:22
\ao£ yo.Zy, 1U1:4
1983 101:4
1984 101:2
198598:21
198636:14:124:3;
141:22;233:7
198827:5:75:21
199033:18,20
199137:10,13;
130-18' 150'22
19928:18;104:18;
226:16
199495:17;138:20;
202:1
199662:11,13;
139-5- i4j-6
1:005:9
1st 146:6; 181:3



2 20-5- 74-9- 1 59-11-

199:24
2-page 78: 11
20 25:7; 160:12, 14;
213:5; 220:4
20,000117:5
20074:5,9:157:8
200,000 17:8; 46:7
20th 128:17
21 136:10
2100 170:13
21st 128:21; 138:15
22 79:23
24 131:18
24-hour 187:2
yK 7a-Q«Q5-^-
115:18;179:14;
213:5,10,11,16;
220:2
25th 179:15
260 17:12
27-foot 25:20
fotn 148:21; 130:10
29 149:10
3
3 12:7; 176:2
3,00017:11
3-year 8:23; 98:22
30 160: 12, 14; 187:6;
225:20
30,000 108:21
30-day 129:8;
139:21, 22
30-foot 25:19; 27:24;
188:3
300 57:6; 80:1;
86: 18; 95:24; 97:7;
175:20; 192:3
31st 181:3
3525:19:45:14,20,
24:46:9,12,17;
142:2; 188:12, 15
35,346:11
35-foot 26:22; 27: 13;
28:10,18;31:7
35.3 45:24
350 208:7
361,00030:23
37 185:23; 186:20, 22
3829:4;95:10;
185:21
3:30 115:7; 119:16



4 165:22
4,400 170:13
4.5.1 228:17
4025:18;27:14,16;
•?S-1fi 7fl-7Q-iJ-
87:19; 185:5, 14;
188:12
40-foot 25:17; 26:4,
21; 28:1, 18; 164:24;
187:10
41 117:14
44/1 OOs 118:19
4:15154:1
4th 226:16
5
5156:2:176:2,2;
181:2
5-minute 155:8;
167:2O; 174:20
5085:11;95:9;
116:15, 16; 165:22;
175: 19; 181:4, 6
500160:23:212:7
6
649:17;74:9
6 000 21-15- 89-21
6-state8:19
6.5 213:22, 24
60 139:23
60-day 128:18;
139:20
60-story 78:20
600 8:20
60s 26:24; 180:20
6:00 153:20; 224:9
7
7 8:17; 161:24
7(AX2) 208:22, 22
70 17:22
70,000117:2
70s 180:20, 20
75115:18
75,000 97:19
750 31:18
79995:21
7:00 153:21; 156:2
8
8 186:11; 187:8
8,000-member 71:12
80 108:18
800 95:21; 185:6;
187-16

800-foot 186:14
805 95:21
809 95:22
88 170:15; 190:7

9
9.5 213:22
90 16:11; 17:18;
46:11,18
91 229:7
94 17:21; 129:7
9534:10;139:11
96198:11
97 141:6
99 45:23
99.99 118:18
9:10201:16
A
abandonment
158:10
able 20:7; 68: 16;
100:20, 24; 101:1;
137:18; 149:4; 152:8;
158:17;167:7;
198:10:218:23
abnormal 169:9
Abnormalities
229:9,11
above 222: 17
absolutely 153:13;
159:3; 161:14
Academy 9:6
accept 137:24
acceptably 122:23
accepting 136:7
access 28:1 1;55:14;
200:12
accessible 107:11,
18
accident 117:16
accommodate
19:11; 20:2; 87:20;
121: 16, 22; 152:24
accommodating
222:12, 13
accompanied
158:10
accomplish 16:19
accomplishing
125:2
According 73:18;
82:11
account 10:12;
54:17- 229-12
accumulate 75:17
accumulative
2O9-18

accurately 230:9
accute 75:2

achieve 116: 12
acknowledged
153:15
acquiesce 121:6
across 147:1
Act 36:15:54:18;
123:21:135:9,17;
141:22:159:18;
160:10, 11; 180:12;
208:21,23:219:17;
220:5
action 76: 1 4; 78:1;
83:19; 84:13; 89:21;
106:4;143:15
actions 72: 12, 20;
138:8; 208:24; 232: 15
active 27:15; 47:11;
71:17; 81:17; 108:3
activities 107:22;
1O8:5; 158:21
*tf th/ifv su**i 1 •
106:21;157:22;
158:8,9:162:1,15;
198:4
actual 157:22; 199:8
actually 15:24; 28:4,
14;33:19;37:12;
43:6; 55:9; 56:10;
59:16; 66:17:67:1;
79:16; 83:13; 97:10;
131:9; 147:2; 156:23;
181: 16; 185:22;
187:22:213:13;
221:18;233:3
actulfy 166:6
Adams 102:7
add 9:23; 139:19
added 151:1
adding 170:16
addition 11:2; 125:6;
143:7:180:11
additional 31: 15;
41:6; 69:16; 111:19;
113:11,17:140:18;
158:18;221:12
Additionally 14:10
address 10:17; 13:1,
2; 42:9; 97:23:
137:11;140:15;
149:2; 207: 12;
218:23:221:8
addressed 48:21;
56:19:95:13:136:20;
157:21; 193:9;
194:23:205:14;
209:17; 232:12
addresses 81:1 2
addressing 85:1;
138:8
adequacy 136:17
adequate 69: 18
adequately 137:11,
13
Adiarieni s~7-in-
80:7; 168:10
adjustment 122:23
adjustments 141:6
Adler 90-15- 21 1:24-
212:1,2,3:224:2
Administration
T2-1Q- 143-S
administrations
219:11
admit 57: 17
admits 163:8
adopt 162:6
adrress 210:4
ads 127:22
Advanced 9:8;
207:21; 209:9
advantage 208-18
advantages 156:18
adverse 74:10, 20,
20; 125:13
adversely 122:5
advertising 34:12
advice 87:1; 115:2;
217:13
advisable 106:6
advisory 37:17;
38:1,8, 18; 71:18;
76:2:120:13:127:9;
133:12;138:23;
181:15; 196:2; 213:2
advocacy 71:12;
97:14,22;206:17
advocate 39' 13
advocating 143:9
aerial 98:22; 177:22
Affairs 95: 15;
135:24;136:15;
174:6; 202:7; 225:6
affect 122:8; 200:3
affected 21:16;
122:5; 180:3; 214:16
affects 82:9:91:13;
198:23
 BPA REPORTING f6l 7)423-0500
Min-U-Scriirt®
$15 - affects
-------
May 17,1994
           U.S. Army Corps of Engineers N. E. Division &
                          Massachusetts Port Authority
affiliated 95:21
afford 47:5; 134:6
afternoon 5:11;
15:1; 24:16; 36:7;
71:6; 78:14; 87:9;
90:7;94:21; 108:6;
124:19; 130:10;
135:20; 154:2
afternoon's 223:12
afterwards 38:23;
150:23
again 8:12; 19:16,
23; 22:11; 25:10;
28:17:31:4,12;
32:12; 33:7; 39:1;
45:19,21;48:15;
6l:15;70:4, 17;
74:10;116:19;
127:16:137:21;
138:23:141:16;
152:17:153:20,21;
156:l;178:7;186:15;
195:22;197:13;
216:16
against 76:4;
161:23:195:17;
215:14:227:24
agencies 5:5, 6;
6:16; 13:6; 19:14;
38:20; 59:8; 65:17;
82:2; 84:6; 109:22;
127:21:147:24;
151:7; 153:10, 11;
162:12; 172:24;
173:1:204:16;
205:12:212:20;
227:2, 10
Agency 14:15;
71:11; 106:11;
113:12; 137:9;
148:16; 156:8; 203:8;
206:24;215:14
agenda 7:1:70:23;
86:9; 173:10; 201:5;
216:22; 232:5
agents 87:13:96:4;
120:7; 169:7
Agneia 178:20
ago 59:1:78:7; 91:2;
103:3:118:12;
199:23:213:5,10,
12,17:221:20
agree 40:5; 54:24;
55:18; 57:5; 58:13;
78:19; 120:22;
134:10;178:16;
193:5; 219--9
agreed 133:16, 17
Agreement 18:21;
34:1,2,11:38:10;
133:19; 139:8
ahead 58:12; 133:1 5
air 35:13, 14; 192:13;
219:17
Al 87:10; 1O8:16;
120:9
alarmed 168:9
Alewrfe 146:5
Alex 183:3, 4, 6
Alfred 87:6, 7
alive 22:2; 107:11,
1^ 1Q *?t
1 /, !;*» ^1
alleviate 161:17
alleviation 162:6
allocated 47:1
allotted 117:2
allow 109:7; 113:13;
181:7; 185:23; 187:7;
197:5; 205:14
allowance 187:20
allowed 159:6
allowing 161:23;
206:8
alluded 131:20;
142:24
almost 204:3; 209:23
atone 72:22; 89:20
along 42:5;45:1;
68:5; 69:7; 70:7, 10;
90:19:93:21:149:16;
160:23; 175:11; 198:7
already 18:18; 45:9;
52:22:53:19,20,21;
58:3; 60:4; 75:4, 19;
81:14;103:12;
109:16; 145:1 5;
150:7,10:152:18;
158:13,14:177:14;
195:16;198:17;
208:11:215:8,8,20;
216-5
if, *V- J
ftlt|fcmf*f*a *>1 1 *1*7
CllfcbtllClbC 4,1, i,i. /
alternative 56:24;
83:23; 89:5; 106:6;
111:22;112:7,20;
127:3; 129:2; 131:15;
132:4;133:10,11;
134:2,7,17:143:11;
156:22;196:23;
223:16; 227:16
alternatives 12:13,
16; 79:14; 80:13;
86:19; 89:12; 111:21;
112:2,23:125:2,5,
10, 11; 126:16;
127:5, 12, 18; 129:1;
131:17,23,23;
133:4,14:134:16,
18; 139:16; 142:17;
163:5, 7, 24; 205:23
although 66:6;
73:15; 77:16; 89:8;
117:4;127:17;
200:11;201:5
always 67:22; 117:5;
130:13, 14; 180:17
Amando 203:4
ambitious 189:9
amendment 158:21;
181:2
American 24:10;
179:20
among 73:20; 75:19;
86:13; 99:1; 117:7
amount 46:2, 5;
55:10,21;59:14;
92:19:93:11:109:13,
24; 165:21; 166:16;
219:6, 10, 15
amounts 134:5;
229:12
ample 229:4
analogy 189:21
analyses 50:8
Analysis 10:20;
35:14; 37:15; 45:11;
47:6; 48:8, 14; 49:22;
69:15; 113:11, 17;
124:11;125:20;
131:15:144:13;
152:3, 10, 10; 167:1,
7; 189:18; 205:19;
233:6
analyst 135:10, 11,

analyzed 49:12
anchor 165:7
anchorage 26:3, 4
anchorages 25:11
anchored 185:3
and/or 59:15; 83:19
ANGELA 178:22, 24
animals 99:6, 24;
102:10;211:20
anniversary 179:15
annotated 101:2
announced 108:8
announcement 76:2
annual 8:20; 92:10
annually 108:21;
*51 Q-Q
£lo:o
answered 13:13
answering 34:22
anticipate 141:9;
151:11
anticipated 222:1
anybody 22:19;
122:20; 123:2; 185:1;
194:16; 219:7
anyhow 188:6
anyone 41:4; 59:7;
83:16:151:3,4;
181:14
anywhere 55:22;
106:8; 175:13;
178:15:180:1;
197:23; 218:22
apologies 206:8
appealing 142: 19
appear 5:22; 172:8
appears 88:21; 89:7
Appendix 136:13;
165:11
applied 9:12
appointment 108:8
Appreciate 39:18
approach 29:9;
72:3; 93:1; 114:19;
123:19:216:23;
217:5; 230:20; 232:8
appropriate 37:6;
50:10; 1O2:23;
113:18; 158:23
approval 87:16
approximately 8:21;
79:24; 89:20; 97:18;
208:7; 212:5
April 34:8; 128:16
aquatic 143:10
arbitrarily 195:16
area 8: 19; 25:19;
26:1,3,4,4:27:17,
21; 28:4, 4, 8, 17, 19,
23; 29:3, 17; 32:22;
42:17, 2O; 44:4, 10,
12; 45:9; 46:3; 47:11,
13,15:48:2,3:52:19,
23;53:22;54:3;57:7,
9,11:58:16,18,20,
21, 24; 59:4, 15, 23,
24;60:18,21,22;
61:2,6,11,17:62:7,
7,23:63:3,7,20;
65:19,20:66:10,13,
15,18;67:5,14,19:
8:22; 73:1; 79:19, 21;
80:9,24:81:6,10;
91:15,16:92:2,3,5;
95:5:98:12,19;
102:11,23:104:7;
108:23:125:22;
143:20:144:1,5,22;
145:5,7:146:10,14;
168:11:175:14,22;
176:24:177:4,7,10,
17,22:178:1,4,14;
180:2; 181:1, 12;
191:8; 207:23; 208:5;
209:19; 212:7; 214:1,
3,19,22:215:12;
16:5; 231:14
area's 213:21
areas 25: 17; 27:9,
10;43:16;44:17;
46:6; 51:8; 53:18;
55:8, 20; 63:24; 64:2,
5; 77:2; 84:8; 92:5, 9;
99:24; 116:21; 123:1;
126:10; 128:7; 131:3;
143:20,20,23;
148:12; 149:9, 10;
158:8; 168:8; 177:5;
178:6;182:1,3;
m-24" 196-=V 21=4-4
• *OI) *^W»,,7j •ffi.,2 «^t)
13, 14; 214:6
argument 48:4
arise 11 5:22
*ii>vn *5/"l/%" 1 O
CHiTI ZUO.lo
Army 8:16; 9:1, 6, 7,
"1 1\ *!*£« 3<1\,.*V2 jtt 1 1\
10, 24; 39:23; 43:19;
50-7- 51-14 23-
j\ff 1 1 JF M>* Jti;, *«,?,
57:24; 59:6; 60: 12;
61:16; 63:5; 65:1;
71:7; 103:2; 161:19;
184:1; 205:2; 207:3;
208:18; 21O:6; 220:9;
230:7
around 6:11; 13:7;
15:11,13:22:15;
51:6; 52:2; 67:5;
88:1;92:3; 112:13;
114:22:116:21;
120:3; 131:17, 18;
144:16; 146:4; 213:8;
218:12; 219:22, 23;
220:16
arrivals 87:24; 88:8
arrive 221:24
arrived 25:3
arriving 82: 16
art 220:8
Artery 43:22;6l:10,
12,18:111:3,5,15;
159:12; 160:20
Arts 24:5; 35:21
Aruba 186:10
aside 232:5
aspect 62:19:88:20;
164:7,22;166:15;
193:13
aspects 66:24; 68:8;
163:21
assessing 61:4
assessment
193:14; 194:8
assigned 9: 13
assigning 111:7
assignment 8:23
assistant 9:14
ASSOCIAfTON
107:6; 179:2; 183:5
associated 26:10;
•»•%.« iftrt.t «f
32:1; 199:14
Associates 37:21
ASSOCIATION
87:8,11,12:90:6,15;
92:22:94:20,24;
95:4, 21; 96:1; 107:9,
9; 120:9; 123:6;
212:4; 224:3
assume 50:15;
118:16
assumed 8:16
assumes 45:16; 46:6
assure 208:24;
231:21
assured 147:4;
227:2
assures 27:24
Atlantic 208:4, 5, 13;
221:23; 229:9
Atmospheric 73:19
Atmurray 210:18,
19,20;211:9
atomic 213:7
Attached 95:19
attendance 184:13
attending 71:17
attention 17: 14;
48:21; 111:20; 168:4;
169:20;179:11;
180:12:182:19;
212:10
attracting 221:11
attracts 91:16
audience 1 1:6; 38:4
Audubon86:l5;
97:17
Australian 94:2
authorities 36: 10
Authority 36:9; 83:7;
99:18; 121:8; 145:23
authorized 24:23;
25:8; 32:19; 33:19
automatic 130:18
automatically '
49:11; 132:18; 133:6
automobile 73:7
automobiles 109:5;
185:24
avaiable76:18
avail 93:12
available 89: 10;
92:9; 110:11; 113:19;
196:13
avenue 143:6
average 33:12;
121:18; 222:14
avoid 76:6; 137:18;
146:7; 223:1
avoided 137:14
awards 179:20
aware 72:7; 209:7
away 52:24; 104:3;
106:3:153:23,24;
158:23; 159:10, 12



B 109:6
Bachelor 24:5, 6;
124:6; 135:12; 233:10
back 10:22; 11:6, 13;
13:21;15:20;21:8;
22:9; 27:22; 30:8;
31:22:32:13:33:7,
18; 34:23; 52:4; 54:7;
60:20; 70:23; 73:20;
78:12,18:86:9;
92:23;93:10;115:7;
118:1,24:119:15;
139:5; 143:18; 149:3;
153:19:155:6,9;
156:8;157:15,23;
1 59:8; 170:20;
174:17,20;184:7;
190:16; 191:16;
212:17:15:1,18;
223:23; 227:1O
background 45:4;
97:3
backwards 177:19
affiliated - backwards
Min-U-Script®
BPA REPORTING (617)423-0500
-------
U.S. Army corps of Engineers N. K. Division &
Massachusetts Port Authority
                                        May 17,1994
bad77:8;91:l;
106:19; 144:6; 182:10
bsooics 215:17

Baker 8:5; 135:7, 15,
16, 18; 138:2; 149:7;
150:24; 151:1 1,15
Bakerm 217:9
balance 117:8; 118:4
ball 23:7
bang 153:23, 23
Bank 48:2, 12;
57:11,18:80:6;
98:13; 99:20; 104:16,
21; 127:1; 168:12;
175:21;182:3,8;
204:11;228:8
bar 34:4
barge 19:1; 51:9;
66:24; 67:3; 88: 15;
117:16; 118:22;
192:17; 215:7;
222:22; 223:7
barged 222:7
barges 48:19:82:20,
22, 22; 92: 14; 101:6;
148:10; 150:2;
151:19; 159:8; 181:24
Barnstable 203:8;
206:19, 21
Barr 104:17
barrels 44: 12; 58:23;
59:3,13,18:60:1;
177:23:213:4;
215:18, 19
barriers 67:3
base 97: 15
based 28: 12; 33:4,
9; 49:10; 97:6; 98:21;
141:3; 142:5; 183:10,
17; 203:23
baseline 68: 18
basic 52:15:53:7;
59:10; 109:4
Basically 27:21;
40:7,21;41:15,23;
45:13; 50:13; 52:6;
55:ll;56:18;60:20;
63:22; 65:11; 68:6;
69:22:105:21;
124:24;125:18;
231:11
basin 57:16, 18
basis 17:24;96:2;
137:4; 157:23; 175:13
bass 115:19; 117:2;
177:9
Batchelor 35:21
Bay 5:4;6:19; 7:17;
11:10; 39:7, 9, 11,16,
20; 40:6, 9, 13; 45:17;
46: 19; 47:24; 50:24;
51:9,10:56:17,21;
57:7; 62:4, 18; 63:13,"
65:13;70:2;71:10;
75:21;79:23; 80:12;
81:4; 86: 13; 91:7;
97:16;98:15,18;
99:1; 100:18; 103:14,
16; 104:11; 106:6;

109:16:113:7,13;
115:10,14;120:21;
126:22; 127:2; 53:12;
156:24; 157:9, 11;
158:5,8,11,13,16;
159:2,5,20:160:13,
15;170:12,12;
173:2,14;174:12;
175:9,11:177:5,22;
178:16;179:10;
180:2,24;202:15;
207:10,18;208:3,
20; 209:21; 220:16,
21; 225:14; 226:17;
227:16,17;229:14,
22; 230:12; 231:8, 14
Bay's 204:20
bay-dependant
157:10
Bays 204:8, 9;
206:5,16,18:207:9,
15:209:9,13,24;
231:23
BAYWATCH 115:10,
13
beaches 180:9;
220:19
Bearing 121:11

became 36: 18; 168:9
become 11:18;
71:17; 122:12; 181:7
becoming 72:21;
121:24
becuase 142:20
bed 199:2
Bedford 77:20
beforehand 198:24
began 37:10
begin 30:2; 84:6;
113:17; 133:20; 207:8
beginning 38:9;
62:1 1,13; 125:16;
197:20
beginnings 37:20;
85:8
behalf 97:21; 123:5;
145:22
behind 18:19; 166 3;
198:6; 206:9
believe 22:6; 40:24;
43:3; 45:15; 51:20;
52:11; 54:6; 55:19;
60:14; 79:7; 83:2, 12;
105:23; 106:10, 12,
20- 117-20- 134-2-
£tWt J. A / ,£**Jy lj^*£*f
142:23; 164:24;
175:17;176:1;
190:22;197:11;
207:19

believed 228:20
believes 80: 16;
109:11; 203:14; 204:1
belong 147:16
below 53: 15
. .
bench 198:18
beneficial 51:15;
84:15; 125:12
beneficially 50:21
beneficiaries 28:21;
128:8
beneficiary 150:3, 8
benefit 13:17, 19;
22:24; 23:2; 40: 12;
44:22; 59:16; 70:8, 8,
9; 89:22; 105:12;
108:23
benefit-cost 150:9;
152:13
benefit-to-cost
46:10, 17; 163:10
benefited 38:12
benefits 66:18;
84:11;121:5;126:13;
190:13:203:24;
205:22;229:16
benthic45:7;66:13
Bergeron 206:3,4,
6, 15; 21 1:15
Berman 115:6,8,9,
berth 21:6; 27:22;
30:24; 31:16; 32: 15,
22:46:3,5,7:149:10;
164:14; 166:17;
185:7; 203:12
berthing 77:2;
128:7; 149:8
berths 39:13;
149:14, 15; 150:7,
13; 185:5
beside 192:17
besides 126:7;
139:12
best 19:17;42:2O;
55:13; 63:8; 67:14;
92:6; 134:12; 210:13;
211:19:231:18
bet 18.2
better 19:24; 52: 17;
53:22* 65:14' 66:8-
84:22;92:24; 111:11;
117:15;121:20;
132:20:178:9:220:5
beverages 17:6
beyond 164:23;
186:17; 214:7
big 66:4; 69:20, 20;
119: 10; 165:9; 166:1;
182:2; 208: 15; 214:3;
216:14
bigger 182:16
txtjKJIl JUJI t "7O.1 jt
Diggest 7o:i4
Bill 10:19; 142:24;
144:12, 17; 146:21;

152:18
billion 21:14
billions 162:16
bind 200:21
binding 34:2

bioaccu mutation
131:9; 208:12
bioaccumulathre
230:5
bioassays 131:8
biodegraded 200:21
biodegrading
199:12
biological 74: 11;
131:8,8;193:14;
194:8; 198:4; 228:20;
229:2-
biologist 144:15
biology 124:5;
135:12,14;233:9
bios 233:3
bit 11:1 1;19:2;
24:22; 4 1:20; 49:2,
15; 56: 12; 63: 14;
64:16;67:15;68:19;
128:10:132:16;
145:21:148:23;
155:5:197:10:218:14
block 30:22; 183:22
blow 11 6:6
blubber 99:21
blue 25:16, 17, 18;
26:20,22:31:11;
176:20; 177:9
board 14:13; 179:4;
181:15
boat 59:11; 11 5:17;
157:22:181:20;
182:15
boats 93:2; 116:4;
157:24; 159:7;
175:13,15:182:2,3,
4
Bob 98:20
bodies 166:3; 228:1
bombs 177:22
bond 14:16
Book 131:6; 168:21
boon 42:19
borrow 47: 10;
52:10,16:53:2,24;
60:19;62:4;63:9,12;
65:14, 16; 66:12;
**f*C.Q
2O5:o
Boston 5:16; 10:2,
4, 14; 14:3; 15:17, 20;
16:1, 22; 17:12, 21;
18:1,6, 15, 22; 19:10,
10; 20:10; 21:15;
23:8,24;25:7;27:13;
29:18,24;31:11,21;
36:1, 17; 37:7; 40:8,
10, 12;42:12,12, 17;
43:9,14:44:9,10;
48:22:49:5,14;
58:2O; 59:23:62:10;
65:19,24:70:3;
71:15:72:9,21;
73:20;74:8;75:3,20;
6:3,19;79:24;80:14,
24; 84:16; 85:4, 15;
87:8,11,12,16,17;

88:5,7,9,19:91:1;
92:3,5:95:7,8,16,
17, 22; 96:8, 8; 101:4;
106:18;107:6,8,9,
11,13,18:108:18;
109:3,21;110:5;
111:9; 113:20; 114:6;
11 6:2, 2 1,22; 117:6;
1 20:7, 8; 121:1 3;
122:17; 123:4, 9, 23;
124:17; 125:3; 126:7,
8,11,12:32:17;
146:20; 155:1; 160:8,
22; 164:2; 169:1, 11,
17; 170:11; 172:1;
174:2,6:179:21;
183:21; 186:10, 13,
16; 187:23; 189:21;
191:1; 192:9; 199:8;
202:4,7:203:11,16,
20;204:2,14,21,23;
205:10,16;206:24;
212:13; 213:3; 214:6;
218:4; 219:21, -220:8;
221:4, 9, 22; 222:2,
15; 225:3, 6; 226:21;
27:5,15:229:3;
230:12
both 12:1, 2; 14:4;
28:5; 36: 1 2; 40: 12;
62:8; 70:3; 76:21;
82:9; 85:20; 86:11;
98:9; 101. -5, 8;
108:11:120:20;
125:12;131:11;
136:3; 145:14; 146:4;
170:7;207:10;232:11
bottom 3O:21;33:3;
45:14:52:13,20;
67:21;72:15;73:4;
75:7:76:10,12;
91: 13, 18; 104:5;
116:19; 157:18;
165:7:170:1,3;
176:12,18,22;
214:12;215:24
bottoms 81:4;
166:17
bound 200:6, 10;
201:1,2
boundaries 84:1 1
boundary 29:6
bow 182:14
boy 15:21
Brad 104:17
brain 83:18
brakes 157:15
Branch 144:14;
218:1
break 68:23; 86:8;
114:17, 18; 11 5:7;
119:15, 17; 120:1, 2;
131:21;146:21;
149:1; 155:8; 167:20;
171:13; 174:20;
184:7,9
. . . ,

Brewster 206:2 1
Breyer 108:8, 9, 14
bridge 20:22; 29: 13,
14, 19, 20
t^ *_*— /-.P. . C«C»
Drier 7:23; 15:5;
97:2; 207:5; 210:20
briefing 114:20;
184:11,14
briefly 26: 17; 98: 17;
109:9:124:20;
125:24:135:20;
149:13; 210:4
bring 12:17;20:17;
22:9; 93:16; 153:9;
155:6; 169:20;
170:20;174:16;
179:11; 180:11;
182:19; 212:9; 220:17
bringing 69: 15;
171:9
brings 20: 10; 73:1
Brink 7:4; 8:15; 9:19;
174:8; 202:9; 225:8
broad 41:9; 44:22;
48:14, 17
broader 66:18
brokers 96:3
brought 19:15; 44:2;
107:23:122:22;
178-4- 229-11
1 /Q*1T £i4.*y+ 1 1
brown 176:21
Bruce 115:6, 9, 12
brunt 146:15
bucket 67:17;68:11,
12; 166:22*
budget 8:20; 32:9;
33:13:45:13:46:22
building 72: 17;
78:20,23:144:17
built 26:23; 101:7;
141:1
Bulletin 98:21
buoys 148:1 1; 215:9
Bush 116:1
busines 14:17
business 13:19;
14:10; 20:14; 21:12;
36-9;43:l;87:15;
89:22;96:5;123:2;
152:22, 23
businesses 145:24
busy 42: 19
bypass 18:23

bypassed 88:6
bypassing 88:19;
122:14
BPA REPORTING (617)423-0500
Min-U-Script®
bad - bypassing
-------
May 17,1994
           U.S. Army Corps of Engineers N. E. Division &
                          Massachusetts Port Authority




cable 93:7, 10
cables 166:18
cadmium 170:15
calculation 163:12
call 18:22; 19:10, 17,
O1}* 23»'91 . XQ*2»
2Z; 33:Zl ; 49:3;
50:12; 87:21; 116:1;
132:3;135:l;221:3,
17,22;232:6
called 30:15:50:11;
54:11; 58:2, 19; 62:4;
70:22; 185:5; 229:8
calling 88:5; 107:13;
156:4;221:10
calls 19:10
Cambridge 95:16
came 8:22; 16:1;
27:6; 48:21; 67:23;
93:1; 110:6, 8;
115:16; 133:8;
165:14; 168:3;
183:24; 210:21
camel's 157:15
cameras 116:9
can 19:18;23:13;
26:1,8;33:17;34:1S;
38:23; 40:5;41:5;
42:9:43:5; 44:23;
45:15; 47:4; 49:7, 23;
523, 5; 54:8, 13;
55:8; 56:10; 58:11,
12, 13; 61:24:62:23;
66:9: 70:7, 8, 9; 76:9,
15,17;81:17;83:8;
103:3:104:2,5,6;
105:11:106:17;
109:12; 118:22;
120:22:122:17,21;
123:1; 125:22; 134:6;
37:7:140:15,17;
145:14; 146:1; 147:1,
1,20:149:11;
152:15:160:4,13;
162:8:170:1,6;
176:23:179:17;
181:7;182:21;
190:19:194:17;
196:17, 18; 197:7,
16; 198:22; 199:7,
11; 200:18; 201:10;
210:12;216:11;
218:1;224:4;231:21;
232:1, 1, 12
Canada 14:12; 88:18
Canadian 19:20
cancer-causing
169:7
cancerous 169:12,
15
cane 86:23
cap 52:8;59:17;
89:7:103:7,9:106:2;
163:19
capable 54: 16
capacity 65:23;
66:6; 132:10; 151:12
Cape 16:10; 146:21;
159:20; 16O:13, 15;
202:23:203:1,5,6;
204:8:205:17;
206:17,22;220:14,
16, 18, 21; 231:22
capped 103:6;
106:2; 204:17
capping 45:18, 18;
46:6;52:7;53:2;
57:6,12:65:15;
79:22:80:1,20;
100:17, 19; 101:5,
13, 19; 102:23;
103:4, 18; 105:24;
113:8; 126:15; 127:3;
157:20;164:18;
207:18; 228:4
caps 52:17
capsule 11 5:1 2
CAPT 119:24
Captain 119:20, 22;
185:2,11
capture 218:24
carcinogenic 73:9;
75:9
card 11 5:5
Cardinal 203:4
care 5:23; 10:13, 13;
23:2; 172:8
career 16:1
careful 78:1; 105:11;
106:14; 141:14, 22
carefully 78:10, 19;
79:20; 89:13; 100:10;
118:5
carelessly 76:17
cares 116:11
cargo 16:22; 17:4, 5;
20:10; 88:12, 14;
108:17; 222:19
cargos96:10
Carolina 135:13
carried 25:9; 36:12;
73:8
carrier 20:11
carriers 17:22; 18:21
carry 185:19; 186:15
cars 17:17; 108:21;
166:20; 216:12
case 101:7; 104:9:
117:11:122:1,2;
125:3; 153:4
cases 101:8
Cashman 93:24
catalyst 21:10
catch 181:5, 6
categories 54:9, 11
category 54:7, 20
Catherine 7:21; 8:7;
123:22:124:15;
129:17:138:7,11;
217:6; 233:4
Cathy 10:19
caught 110:1;
115:18, 19; 178:7
cause 70:15; 74:6;
83:15; 148:9; 168:19;
182:16; 187:15;
215:23
caused 93:6, 11;
189:1
causing 92: 19
caution 44: 14;
102:12
cease 180:1 5
cement 177:24;
183:22
Center 5: 13; 20: 18;
35:10; 171:22
centers 119:4
Central 43:22;
6l:10,12,18;lll:3;
159:12; 160:20
certain 28:20; 53:8;
55:20; 63:24; 92:5, 7;
935; 104*; 118:18,
21; 119:7; 149:19;
155:6; 165:3; 214:19
certainly 42: 15;
47:21;48:6,10;51:4;
54:1; 60:24; 61:6, 20;
65:22; 68:20; 69:14;
98:14; 100:1; 11 1:14;
116:17; 122:8; 136:9;
145:10,17:215:13
certificate 130:20;
136:14; 137:2
CETACEAN 96:18;
97:4
Cetaceon 97:21
cetera 194:7; 212:15
chain 99:6
chair 97: 13
chairman 206:16
challenge 78:14
chance 24:17;
28:14;69:23;94:5;
109:9; 206:10
change 91:17;
115:24; 116:2; 151:12
changed 36:15;
150:14
changes 26:7;
91:18:130:5,5;
142:4; 149:18
changing 52:21;
120:2
channel 21:5; 25:20;
26:2; 27:12, 12, 13,
17, 19; 28:1, 10; 29:5,
6;30:22;31:15;32:9;
53:8;65:5;84:10;
164:10, 23; 165:2;
167:8; 171:4; 185:8,
24;187:10;19O:I,7;
216:2, 3; 219:24
channels 11:21;
25:11,15:26:9,10,
20,21,22,23:32:21;
33:1:34:18:77:1;
128:7; 164: 15; 19O:2;
210:16
CHAPTER 162:23;
163:1
characteristically
158:10
characterization
131:3
characterized 81:1;
99:4
charge 16:4, 4; 135:8
charged 10:1
charges 177:23
Charlestown 21:2
chart 52:4; 78:18
charts 26:12
cheaper 171:5
cheapest 48:4, 7
check 118:22
Chelsea 28:5; 29:2,
12,12,14:32:24;
149:23; 189:13
chemical 129:24;
131:7; 157:16
chief 9:3, 10; 129:22;
174:5;202:7;217:24;
225:6;233:23
children 9:17, 21;
14:20; 24:14; 36:6;
76:6;90:12;95:1
chilling 196:10, 16
China 14:12
chlorinated 17O:14
chlorines 99:11
choke 18:4
choosing 152:4, 10;
168:24
chose 63:7
chosen 62:21, 22,
24; 63:2; 91:22; 92:1;
143:19; 144:5; 163:6;
203:23
chromium 73:22;
74:15
chromosomal
229:11
Chronic 74:24
circle 18:5
circumstances
207:16; 228:2
cited 230:2
cities 117:14
citizens 97:19
citizenship 22:1
City 29:18,23;
35:20;110:24;
175:12; 218:20
civil 24:7, 8, 10
clam 110:12
clams 75:23
clamshell 101:5;
109:19
clarify 49.1, 23
classified 103:21
classifying 100:5
f^lnQcrnnvn 1R«i"^l
dusfaiuuiii j.o*tt^i
clay 31:12
clean 11:22; 12:1, 3;
31:9:32:3,5,10,14;
41:16; 43:3; 44:21;
45:20:46:1,12,18;
50:3, 5, 12, 13, 19,
22; 51:16; 52:9, 14;
53:12;54:18;57:1;
59:15:64:1:72:23,
24; 79:1; 80:3, 18, 19;
83:17;98:10;103:5,
21; 107:11; 168:18;
199:16:207:19;
*31 *>» 1 A 1 Q* *) 1 O» 1 ^«
£l<2:i4, iy,£iy.i/,
220:5; 226:19; 227:4;
228:10
cleaned 31:5;
115:17; 178:3
cleaner 72:22
cleaning 107:13;
180:5; 212:13, 17
cleanup 43:13, 15;
62: 10; 72:9; 84: 16;
102:2; 107:15; 218:16
clear 11:18; 16:7;
46:22; 49:20; 77:16;
85:2; 113: 11; 114:2;
146:18:153:13;
197:1;199:10;
218:17:220:16
clearance 185:21
cieariy 37:5:42:13;
58:1; 103:10; 108:22;
110:14, 16; 145:6;
163:6; 196:23
CLF71:3,10,14;
72:2, 7; 73:1; 77:6;
78:4; 80:10, 16; 81:1,
19; 82:18; 83:21;
84:19:85:11,15,22;
120:21
CLF's 72:12
Clinton 18:10; 108:7
close 22:ll;48:2,
11; 61:13; 62:8;
104:9; 105:4; 114:4;
177:2; 182:6; 192:22;
198:14; 204:5; 207:23
Closed 47:20; 92:8;
143:21; 144:20;
182:3,8:194:22;
201:17
closely 23:13;
63:11; 107:14
closer 51:11;
169:16; 222:2
closing 110:2;
201:6,7
clothing 17:6; 109:6
Club 86: 15; 162:23;
163:1; 191:12
Club's 193:6
co-exist 145:14
Coast 19:23; 26: 13;
29:20,24:33:1,4;
90:20; 92:22; 97:9;
145:1; 161:23;
177:11; 185:7; 212:21
coastal 74:5:97:13;
124:4; 150:6; 233:8
coastline 161:21;
178:12; 180:10
Cod 16:10; 159:20;
160:13,15:202:23;
203:1,5,6:204:8;
205:17:206:17;
209:8:220:14,16,
18, 21; 231:22
codfish 168:13;
177:8, 12
coffins 21 5:18, 19
cognizant 132:15;
153:1
Cohasset 214:4
coherent 84:20
coincidental 151:20
COL 9:20
collaboration 72:6
colleagues 17:7;
112:11,18
collection 230:5
College 9:2, 7, 8;
24:6
Colonel 7:4; 8:1 5;
9:16,18,19:39:2;
128:23; 174:7; 201:4,
7; 202:9; 203:3;
216:19; 225:8
column 109:14
combination 183:18
combinations 70:15
combine 128:13
combined 73:6;
114:1;161:3;200:9
comfortable 187:17
coming 6:24; 8:13;
10:24; 15:1; 19:4, 5;
25:15:29:11:45:2;
56:10; 62:14; 118:1;
130:3:143:11;
153:18; 165:6, 15,
21; 167:11; 173:9,
23; 177: 10; 186:10,
14; 187:9; 201:8, 13;
208:8; 218:14;
221:20; 224:1
command 8: 17; 9:1,
7
Commander 7:4*
8:23
commence 87:17
commencing 82:7
commend 112:1
comment 39:24;
40:2 1,22; 70:22;
78:6; 83:11; 86:7, 7;
90:2;94:17;96:15,
21; 105:15:109:11;
cable - comment
Min-U-Script®
BPA BEPOBMNG (617)423-0500
-------
u.». Army corps or engineers i>. t. omsion
Massachusetts Port Authority
                                        May 17,1994
114:10,22;115:6;
119:19; 120:1;
128:18, 18; 129:12;
138:10, 17; 14 2:14;
152:13, 16; 155:7;
156:14; 162:21;
167:19; 171:15;
175:2; 177:21; 183:3;
193:1, 3; 195:23;
197:9; 210:21; 226:1,
17
comments 5:20;
39:3, 19; 40:17;
41:18; 42:12; 56:14;
65:8:69:12,23;
70:18; 73:16; 78:8;
79:15; 85:24; 86:10;
87:4; 88:22; 97:24;
105:9; 114:9, 23;
120:10, 16; 128:20,
22; 129:3, 14;
130:11; 136:1,7,22;
137:1, 6; 138:1, 15,
18; 139:1 5; 140:9;
156:2,3,7,9:163:2;
167:15:168:6;
171:17; 172:6; 73:24;
174:18:181:21;
196:3; 201:9; 202:19;
203:13; 225:18, 21;
226:5, 5, 15, 15;
231:8; 232:4, 12
commerce 37:8;
77:5
commercial 17:20;
36:13; 76:21; 116:24;
117:1,3; 168:1;
170:5; 181:19
commercially
158:15
commerical 80:9
Commission 24:12;
35:14; 109:21; 110:6,
7; 11 1:1, 9; 179:3;
191:2; 192:14;
202:23:203:1,5,7,
14; 204: 1,1 9; 205:1,
11,17
commissioners
191:3
commitment 56:5;
60:12; 151:10
committed 65:3;
70:2; 219:2
committee 37:17;
38:8,18;71:18;
120:13:127:9;
133:12;138:23;
196:2; 213:3
common 87:1;
126:6:133:18,21;
134:10
commonly 144:22
Commonwealth
6:16; 8:5; 14:11;
35:10; 85:10; 87:23;
89:23:114:20;
120:19; 121:6, 14;
122:3; 135:7; 173:19;
217:10
Commonweath
123:3
communicate
210:13
communicates
223:23
communicating
223:21
communication
18:9; 92:24
communities 112:6;
114:5, 7; 170:2
community 16: 15;
45:7; 66:13; 131:11,
12; 178:12; 179:21
companies 16:17;
19:2O; 20:14; 21:22;
96:2, 4, 5; 192:9
company 19:9; 20:9;
119:23; 120:7; 183:10
compared 31:20;
188:12
compensate 83:20
compensated
93:13; 144:7
compensation
148:4
competetve 21:22
competitive 109:7
compilation 124:8
complete 38:9;
185:4; 190:7, 20
completed 18:18;
198:19
completely 57:20;
88:20; 191:1
compliance 106:1 1,
13
complicated 40:23;
43:9;51:18;6l:15;
65:9, 24; 69:12
comply 130:19
components 54:22
comprehensive
130:23; 161:3
comprised 38:19
compromised
204:14
concentration 79:4
concentrations
74:17,19:99:9
concept 88: 11
concern 78:24;
88:23; 93:17; 106:9;
126:18:144:19;
157:20; 176:8; 177:1;
1«7-1 S- 7OS-1 ">•
£O.*»* 1 J, ivO. A Jj
209:6; 21 1:15; 215:6;
227:4
concerned 12:6;
42:17; 48:3; 49:16;
84:19; 90:19:91:21;
97:22; 100:1; 104:14;
148:4;158:22;
168: 17; 175:7;
179:24;181:23;
209:16;213:1,H,
15; 214:10; 220:14,
14; 226:18; 228:13
concerns 5:21;
10:10; 45:12; 51:20;
54:18; 57:14; 79:17;
92:12; 93:16; 94:13,"
105:7,21;11O:14;
126:23; 129:4; 147:2,
3; 156:21; 157:2, 3,"
172:6:184:16;
201:11;208:13;
217:13; 220:23;
223:19
concluded 154:2
concludes 232:4
Concord 124:14;
233:18
concur 103:1
condensed 25:4
condition 187:4
conditions 84:7;
93:3, 3; 165:3, 4;
167:9; 176:20, 23;
182:11; 186:8; 187:3,
5; 188:2; 189:23;
191:9,11,24:192:5
conduct 37: 17
conducted 156:22;
203:21
confined 191:22;
214:19
confinement 200:15
confirmation 82: 10
conflicting 145:8
confluence 28:3, 4
confused 49:2, 24;
57:22
congratulate 100:4,
11
Congress 10:2;
26:24; 32:19; 33:19;
104:18;112:18;
143:2; 197:13
Congressional
112:10,15:143:5;
197:15
Congressionally
25:8
Congressman
64:21; 112:4; 197:17
connected 17: 15
connections 112:9
Connelly 22:6; 222:4
consensus 153:16
consequences
125:10
consequently 106:2
Conservation 5:4;
6:20; 7:18; 11:12;
24:12; 71:1, 5,10;
86:12; 97:17; 109:21;
110:6,20,24;111:9;
153:1 1;162:6; 173:3,
14;174:13;179:10;
180:22; 191:2, 3;
202: 13; 204: 12;
206:12:207:11;
225:12
conserve 181:4
conserving 97:9
consider 30:14;
45:6; 89:12; 102:22;
103:4; 1O4:10; 11 1:7;
118:12,14;132:12;
152:5; 194:3; 195:9,
18; 229:19; 231:14
consideration 47:7,
8,22;102:6;l6l:l6;
203:13:204:22;
210:5; 230:13
considerations
89:2; 103:20; 158:20;
167:3
considered 30:24;
56:15; 103:2O; 1O6:4;
113:24;137:6;
152:11; 182:5;
189:16:211:18;
226:23; 228:3, 5
considering 22:10;
29: 11; 11 5:24; 229:21
consignees 88: 18
consistent 100:11;
112:3
consistently 158:5
consists 25: 10
constantly 145:2;
161:4
constituencies
22:17
constituency 22:1
Constitution 115:16
constrain 106:21
constraints 103:10;
139:3
construct 47: 10
constructed 61:19
constructing 61:13
construction 34:13,
14; 42:4; 61:22, 24;
62:13; 139:4, 10;
141:4:143:22;
183:14, 20, 23
consult 104:21
consultant 37:22;
130:4
consultants 37:15
consultation 84:6;
104:15, 24; 105:2
consulting 183:9, 10
consumer 119:3
consumers 19:2
consumption 35:15
contact 197:14
contain 53:21
contained 205: 15;
213:6
container 17:5;
87:20, 24; 88:3, 6;
122:13, 21; 189:20;
190:2
containers 20:11;
88:16; 122:21; 178:1;
222:4, 7
containment 54:5;
55:4; 61:7; 67:3;
11 6:20; 127:7;
183:12; 205:6; 215:17
contains 198:15
contaminant 79:4
contaminants 43:5;
74:16; 76:9, 11, 15,
17; 77:11, 23; 80:23;
85:19; 102:3; 142:22;
183:21; 196:17;
198:24;204:7;
212:14;213:20;
217:22; 219:14
contaminate 58:19;
76:18:217:22
contaminated
11:23; 12:1, 2; 30:15;
32:17:33:8,10;
40:11;41:16; 44:17,
21;45:21;46:8;
49:17;50:4,5, 13;
51:8, 17; 52:8, 13, 17;
53:11, 14, 20; 55:21;
56:2; 57:1, 20; 59:15;
60:6, 9; 61:21; 63:6,
19,21,23:64:17;
65:12;67:2,4;71:2;
73=9, 21; 74:3, 24;
77:21:80:11,19;
81:10,22:82:21;
83:24; 4:9, 20; 88:24;
89:6; 94:9; 98:9;
100:4, 6; 103:15;
105:22;111:24;
113:2,6,14:120:23;
121:9; 127:7; 133:23,
24; 156:24; 157:17;
165:19; 171:8; 175:8;
178:14; 181:10;
183:12; 191:7; 193:8;
204:4,17;205:9;
207:17;209:21;
213:1:214:12, 13;
228:4; 231:16
contaminates 91:6
contaminating
171:3
contamination
77:17, 18; 171:8;
194:4;200:12;
209:11,13:215:12,
23; 219:20
contender 169:2
contents 177:24
contingencies
110:17:141:10,14
contingency 69:2;
110:4
continual 104:12
continually 103:22
continue 52:23;
69:7;123:10,11,13;
210:12:227:24
continued 72:6;
209:1
continues 230:20
continuous 106:1 3
continuously
165:14
contract 192: 10
contractor 191:10
contractors 1-48:1
contrary 229:1
contributed 86:1 6
control 198:21
convened 38:7
conversant 106:22
Conversation 231:9
conversely 221:5
convert 183:12
cooperating 147:13
cooperation 33:24;
34:11;71:22;99:14;
123:11:134:21
cooperatively
205:13
coordinate 61:18;
144:2O
coordinated 43:17;
51:1;59:21;60:2;
62:2; 66:2; 137:1
coordinates 97:15
coordinating 29:23;
136:1
coordination 44:7;
60:11; 114:5; 128:3;
139:8; 145:14
copies 21 1:6
copy 179:8
Corps 5:2; 6: 15; 7:6,
9 24-8-16 18-9'24-
,7j £mj) t*-iwj *V) S"i>**l
13:16; 24:3; 27:1, 5;
30:18, 19; 32:7, 8, 18;
33:4,14:36:12,16;
37:3,23:38:6,12;
39:23:43:19:50:7;
51:14,23:57:24;
59:6; 60:12; 61:17;
63:5:65:1:71:7,22;
76:24; 83:18; 84:1,6;
96:2O; 103:2; 124:1;
138:7; 140:21; 147:5;
148:21:156:10;
161:19; 69:21;
172:21, 23; 174:10;
184:1;195:24;
202: 11; 205:2; 207:3;
208: 18; 210:6; 217:6;
219:1:220:10;
225:10;228:23;
230:7; 231:12: 233:7
correlates 78:20
correlation 169:18
cost 19:5; 30:3, 3;
32:1,4,8,14,22;
33:2,4,5,5, 11; 37:3;
 BPA REPORTING C617H23-O500
Min-TJ-Script®
comments - cost
-------
May 17,1994
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers N. £. Division &
               Massachusetts Port Authority
46:9:47:4,13,18;
,48:1,7,8,10,14,16,
19; 54:17, 21; 57:5;
88:14:89:20; 122:23;
132:1,10:133:2;
141:9,12,19,23,24;
142:5,9:144:9,10;
152:5:163:8,11;
167:1,7:190:14;
196:15, 19; 21 1:1;
219:4:229:24
cost-benefit 45:11;
cost-sharing 32:18
costing 148:13
costly 163:7
costs 46:24; 88:4;
122:5:134:7:203:24;
205:22;222:23;
229:20; 230:2
couWnt 19:1 1,24;
20:2; 200:22
counsel 87:11
country 52:2; 73:21;
109:8; 111:22; 218:22
County 203:9;
206:19
couple 10:15; 16:20;
21:13:22:13:23:7;
37:24; 39:19; 40:2;
42:ll;463;53:l6;
58,6; 64:5,' 65:7;
66:19:68:3:157:18
Course 9:9, 14;
74:13; 76:19:80:20;
110:22; 153:11;
156:9; 161:17; 192:6;
207:2,8,24:208:16;
209:3:210:15:215:4,
9, 23; 216:6; 227:11
Court 108:10; 210:10
cover 34:21:40:16;
52:14; 53:11; 64:1
coverage 91:12
covering 128:5
covers 124:23;
215:17

Cox 7:7; 14:2, 8, 13,
17,20,21,23:24:19;
28:24:95:14, 19;
108:15; 128:23
crabbing 16:12
created 36:15
creating 52:19
creative 44:19;
51:14; 59:20; 70:14
creatures 215:24
Creek 28:6; 29:2, 12;
32:24; 149:24; 189:14
criteria 37:16
critical 28:7; 30:11;
98:11:121:12
crude 198:18
cry 16:23; 197:22
Crystal 156:7
cubic 12:7;30:23;
31:2,14,15:46:4,7;
49:17; 78:16; 79:7;
118:23:134:7;
165:22; 229:24
cumulative 227:23
curious 165:23
current 28:18;
104:4; 106:3; 127:18;
188:10;207:20;
228:22
currently 29:19;
31:7;78:4;85:22;
135:8:221:11
currents 52:22;
62:23; 63:4; 101:11,
12; 175:17, 22; 192:2
curtains 67:4, 16;
82:5
custom 96:3
customers 222:6
Customs 96:3
cut 27:16; 165:2O



dabs 177:8, 12
daily 87:15:96:2;
157:23; 175:12
dais 156:6
damage 50:15,23:
61:2:74:7:81:17;
92:19:93:6,11;
169:10; 180:16;
215:15
damages 215:9
dammed 166:2
danger 18:4, 16; 20:6
dangerous 70: 12;
101:19
dangers 42:23
dare 186:15
dark 25: 16, 17
darker 26:20
dam 192:13
Dartmouth 135:15
data 59:10, 11;
date 198:12
date's 62:12
dated 95: 16
DavW 175:3, 4, 5
day 17:10; 18:16;
19:7; 1O8:2; 144:16;
159:4; 160:24; 173:5;
'
days 116:9:139:23;
186:9; 215:19
dead 193:19,20;
deal 12:9; 30:6; 31:3;
34:17; 53:22; 6O:8;
63:23; 66:7; 98:6;
110:4,13,19;
130:20; 150:10;
162:3, 4; 184:11;
188:17; 195:21
dealing 40:11;
41:16; 44:20; 49:8;
50:18;52:16;54:3;
56:24;58:19;60:15;
66:11,15:78:2;
81:22; 102:2; 127:18;
142:17; 161:20;
162:7; 193:18
deals 78:24
dealt 12:8; 102:14
Dear 95: 19
death 74:21;75:2;
160:7
debris 67:19;
109:24; 166:17
decades 121:13;
219:18
decided 128:12;
146:22
decision 47:2, 23;
49:10; 1O8:13; 126:3;
150:20,21:208:19
decisions 43:20;
49:4, 16; 117:8;
123:13:126:3,4;
15Z-7; 230:8
declining 157:8
decrease 204:6
dedicated 39:10
deemed 146:13
deep 21:5, 5, 6;
25:16; 26:2; 150:11;
163:19
deepen 28:9, 17;
32:8
deepened 27:14
deepening 31:6;
32:7, 21, 22; 127:19
deeper 26:21; 53:10;
189:10
deepest 25:16
Deer 25:21:72:18;
93:22; 164:23; 189:16
M t— Tipiiif i cft.m.
oenneci 5U:iy;
130:22; 191:13
definitely 146:24
definition 54:13, 24;
55:3:56:23:79:11
definitions 50:10
deformities 169:10
degrade 75:14;
196:10,14:209:2
degraded 194:1
Degree 9:1 1:14:17;
24:5:124:4,6;
135:12, 14
degrees 1303
DEIR 88:12
DEIR/DEIS 226:12
DEIR/S 38:5
DEIS 41:15; 163:8
DEIS/R 100:5, 15;
101:16
delayed 62:1; 221:23
delays 62:13; 88:2
delegation 95:7;
112:10,11,15;
143:5; 197:15
delegations 197:16
delivered 88:17
demand 20:19
demonstrate 163:9
demonstrated
137:13
demonstration
100:17
Demos 7:21; 10:20;
123:22;124:2,6,12,
14, 15, 18; 138:12;
217:6;233:4
Dennis 202:22, 24;
206:20;211:14
dense 69:21
Department 9:4;
35:15; 143:8
departures 88:1
depend 182:4
dependent 220:21
depending 65:18
depleted 158:13
deploy 145:5
deployed 84:14;
145:1
deposited 73:8;
158:1; 191:14
depositing 11:21
deposits 104:6
depth 28:18, 18;
31:7:53:13:57:14;
80:1; 87:19; 101:10;
113:9;165:1;176:5;
177:23; 207:12; 228:6
depths 25:17; 8O:2;
88:2; 207:20
rlprh/«»ri 77Q-1T
Ud IW^^J £t£t;f.i f
deserve 78:1
design 33:21, 22
9; 36: 18; 82: 16;
104:17,18:148:15;
204:11; 226:20;
228:15
designation 57:7,
11; 80:3; 100:12;
226:17
designed 102:15, 17
designing 10:3
destinations 122:7
destruction 159:23
detail 7:10; 11:17
detailed 78:8; 85:23;
98:2; 114:9; 130:23;
148:23; 194:16
detailing 105:9
details 33:17; 41:14;
99:16
determine 84:7;
136:17
determined 79:1;
126:1, 17; 197:3
determines 72:24
determining 125:19
devastating 168:19;
180:9
develop 84:20, 24;
110:4; 131:5; 133:14;
135:3
developed 11 1:23;
158:14; 183:11
developing 134:20
development 14:5,
10;36:14;83:22;
85:6; 160:8; 169:9;
229:9
develops 14:4
deviate 155:5;
m,-t£.
.10
devoted 97:7
diagram 30:7; 32:6
dialogue 146:19
dickens 22:8
dictates 89:21
difference 199:15
differences 104:7;
136:12
different 16:2;
22:17;30:9;42:21;
43:1O; 44:15; 50:11,
19:54:11:63:4;
66:23; 67:1 5; 69:7;
78:23; 91:13, 14, 18,
22,23,24:92:18;
93:2,4,5:104:4,4,5;
125:2:127:11;
130:15:134:14;
147:24; 148:1; 152:4;
168:14:170:6;
175:23; 178:9; 186:7;
187:3,4:191:1;
192:1;218:10
tiff «.§"—•* 13^.1
difficult 16:13:97:1;
163:22; 166:21;
191:8; 218:21
difficulty 122:16
diffuser 93:21
dig 52:12; 66:11
digging 53:24; 79:21
dinner 149:1
direct 115:13; 139:1;
169:17; 227:20
directing 139:1
direction 48:6;
175:24
directions 93:4;
101:9; 175:23
directly 21:16;
75:10:88:17,18;
159:23:168:10;
180:3; 222:5
Director 7:7; 9: 14;
11:7:14:2,9,14,22;
19:18; 22:18; 39:8;
90:16; 97:4; 107:8;
129:19,23:130:7;
203:4; 212:3; 217:8;
233:20, 24
directors 18:7; 179:4
dirty 184:22
disaster 165:8
disastrous 76:20
discarded 1O1:20
discharge 73:5;
*>rtQ. 1 Q. ?•??. t Q
£My,iyt A4C./.JLO
discharged 122:22;
209:20
discharging 72:13
disclosure 36:5
discourage 88:4
discuss 5:14; 8:8;
11:16:31:23; 86:3;

1 13:10; 125:24;
148:5:155:10;
171:23:173:12;
174:21
discussed 109:16;
125:14
discussing 33:10;
41:9:117:23:123:19
discussion 6:2; 8:7,
1O; 30:5; 114:18, 21;
1 2fi*C> 1 CC*1 2*
130.5,175.13,
172:11;173:22;
174:24;217:4;224:4;
232:6
discussions 32:13
disease 75:22
diseases 74:24
dismissed 133:1
dispersal 63:8
dispersed 85:20
disposal 12:2; 25:1;
30:5,20:31:13;
33:10:34:15:37:16;
39:14;41:11;44:5,
11,20:45:5,16,17;
46:6,20;47:1,9,24;
50:2,14:51:10:53:5;
54:1O;55:17;56:13,
17;6O:17;6l:l4;
63:6,15:65:8,13;
66:5:70:15:71:18;
78:3; 79:2, 9, 14, 23;
Qf\' t *3 f O. Q^ .— t t C
0U:12, lo; el: 7, 1?,
18; 82:9, 16; 83:6;
85:21; 86:18; 89:16;
0:22;98:9,15,18;
99:1; 100:16, 18;
101:3:103:14,16;
104:11;105:23;
106:7; 11 1:20;
112:23:113:6,7,13,
21,24;115:23;
120:23:123:14;
125:5; 126:20, 21,
cost-benefit - disposal     f~7/J          Min-U-Script®
              BPA REPORTING (617)425-0500
-------
U.S. Army corps of Engineers N. E. Division &
Massachusetts Port Authority
                                         May 17,1994
22; 127:2; 129:2, 6;
132:12; 134:12, 13;
141:16; 149:17;
151:12; 157:1;
158:24:159:13;
160:21, 23; 163:14;
t fZ.ji* 1 f\ t *>. 1 01 * 1 f\
lt>4:lO, Iz; lol:lu,
24; 183:16; 91:19;
196:20; 197:20;
203:22; 204:21, 22;
205:4,7,9,15,20;
207: 18, 23; 208:3,
20; 2O9:21; 210:23;
21 1:3; 213:2; 226:18;
227:17:228:10;
230:1,16:231:14
dispose 47:3; 51:10;
56:22; 121:9; 164:13
disposed 78: 17, 17;
80:4; 178:5; 191: 15,
18; 195:20; 204:5;
207:17;227:8
disposing 44:3;
227:16
disruption 83:15;
152:20; 215:3
distinct 120:14
distressed 99:22
distressing 168:23
distributed 101:8
distribution 20:18
District 8:23, 24
districts 197:22
Distrigas 28:22
disturb 53:19
disturbance l6l:6
disturbed 194:14
dive 187:15
diverse 108:6
diversity 208:9
divert 123:2
diverted 221:20
diverting 158:16
Division 7:5, 5; 8: 15,
17; 9:3, 10; 10:20, 22;
24:2; 35:6, 24; 124:1,
3, 11; 156:10; 174:8;
202: 10; 225:9; 233:6
dock 192:17; 222:4
docked 82:22
docking 187:24
docks 166:6
Doctrine 9:3
document 41:4;
58:5:98:18; 102:21;
103: 17; 104:23;
136:2,3,6,7,14,18,
21; 137:4; 151:22;
AW!* •* f\ *?*)<> 1 ^
227:19:228:17;
229:15; 230:2
documentation
168:22; 233:14
documented 75:5
documents 71:24;
135:3; 137:8, 10;
14O:6
dollars 14:16; 43:3;
46:1; 180:5
dolphins 97:8
dominate 230:20
done 26:3; 38:3;
41:23; 54:16; 66:9;
68:1; 74:3; 76:16;
77:1O; 79:6; 82:11,
17; 96:7; 106:24;
109:12;132:17;
145:1:158:4,4;
163:2O; 165:23;
169:14; 176:9, 16;
182:7; 185:4, 13;
186:3,5,7;188:1,6;
192:12,15,16;
197:6; 200:8; 209:4;
220:11;227:7
door 195:15
Dorothy 2ll:il, 12,
13
dot 57:9
double 22:10; 222:23
doubly 209:22, 23
Douglas 10:23
down 18:24; 31:6, 7;
47:15:52:8,14;
54:23;67:1;68:23;
86:20; 99:15; 115:17;
125:23:131:17,21;
134:22; 141:7; 147:1;
157:8;l6l:21;
165:20, 24; 166:20;
184:22:187:15;
188:12:189:10;
191:23:213:8;
220:16,18;232:10,
19
* ,f
Dr 210:18, 19, 20;
211:9
draft 5: 14; 10:9;
12:14;34:8;48:22;
49:3,4:56:3:78:5;
"7Q» « f\, Q£.*52. OO'^t •
7yi 10; 05:^3; 
-------
May 17,1994
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers N. E. Division &
                Massachusetts Port Authority
37:3; 71:8, 22; 124:1;
140:21;147:5;
148:21; 156:11;
161:19; 169:21;
172:23; 184:1; 205:2;
207:3; 208:18; 210:7;
219:2; 220:10; 231:13
England 7:5;8:16,
17, 19, 22; 14:12;
17:16, 19, 23; 21:10,
19,22,23:22:7;
23:21;24:1;71:13;
87:23; 95:5; 97:9;
122:4; 124:1, 2;
156:10; 162:23;
163:1; 180:21; 233:7
England's 203:19
enhance 159:23;
161:14
enhancing 162:15
enjoyable 15:10
enjoying 107:21;
116:2
enormously 38:13
enough 21:5, 6, 6;
131:24:132:1;
150:1 1;189;9;
190:13; 210:23
enter 76:13; 218:10;
226:14
entered 6:2
entering 80:23;
119:19
entire 55:17:66:12;
74:22;79:7;92:10;
99:3; 122:7; 233:14
entitles 17:20; 36:24
entrance 25:15
entries 151:14
environment 5:15;
12:6; 16:13; 34:17;
43:6; 70:13; 75:14;
76:16:77:12; 85:20;
86:14;102:1,4;
103:24:105:23;
106:8; 114:19;
118:17:124:21,23;
125:7,8:128:9;
129:22; 130: 17;
136:15:137:3,15,
19; 169:3; 171:10;
177:18; 179:18;
220:13;230:10;
231:19; 233:21
environments!
7:22; 10:9, 21; 11:7;
12:4,14,22:16:15;
23:15:34:5:35:12,
17; 38:19; 49:21;
54:2,17,21:57:4;
67:17; 71:12; 72:4, 4;
77:15; 81:16; 83:15;
oOit * fic»i e« *i i fL*t A *
S9.1;95:15; 1IO:14;
111:17:113:8;
116:14; 123:20, 21,
23; 124:16; 125:9,
12; 129:20; 130:4, 8;
131:11:133:3,7;
135:9,10,11,16,17,
24; 36:4, 5; 137:5, 12;
144:14; 155:1 1,11;
162:5; 166:22; 167:4;
171:24; 173:15, 16;
174:22, 23; 203:9,
10,24;204:16;
205:22; 21 1:2, 7;
216:24; 217:1, 5, 8;
218:1; 226:7; 227:22;
229:22:231:23;
233:23
environmentally
16:17; 23:19; 48:7;
67:13; 82:23; 89:11;
105:11; 110:9; 113:3;
121:10:132:2,9;
203:21
envtronmentists
179:22
envisioned 106:24
EPA 58:24; 59:6, 7,
9; 60:3, 12, 13; 75:21;
77:21:127:24;
162:11; 200:8; 213:2
EPA's 30:19
EPB 199:24
equal 194:3
equally 16:15;
81:24; 133:23
equation 46:10, 17;
150:9; 152:15
equipment 8l:2O;
166:14
eroded 75:1
erosional 81:8, 10
escape 218:13
especially 43:2, 10;
84:1,11;148:3;
156:22:157:4;
158:18;175:19;
176:6; 177:12;
189:17:193:13;
219:10
essence 29:8
essential 197:6
essentially 27:23;
75:15; 222:14
establish 146: 19
establishing 227:5
estimate 48:16;
175:12
estimated 89:20
estimates 152:2;
176:1
et 194:7; 212:15
Etta 231:1
Europe 16:2; 19:23;
221:21
evaluate 205:3, 6, 8,
21
evaluated 62:6;
144:9
evaluating 40:22;
59:2
evaluation 59:9, 12;
149:15
even 38:1 1;48:7;
65:21; 73:7, 13;
103:3; 113:7; 119:8;
121:14; 129:10, 12;
141:7;147:14;
158:21,23:165:13;
168:17,18:169:24;
181:11;187:15;
189:3; 190:3; 191:8;
199:11:226:19;
228:10
evening 8:9; 155:1;
171:20; 196:7;
201:14; 225:1; 231:9
Eventually 223:6;
226:23; 228:14
Everglades 220:12
every 19:7; 3 1:20,
24; 67: 14; 78:13;
83:4; 85:3; 108:18;
117:12;141:11;
147:18:162:14;
178:11; 182:7; 187:3;
189:4; 190:7; 193:12,
17; 218:6; 219: 16
everybody 15:2;
16:21; 21:9; 54:20;
70:6; 114:21; 120:1;
122:3; 153:13, 17,
22; 184:14
everybody's
143:15; 207:2
everyone 12:23;
39:22; 71:7;90:21;
111:11;116:11;
124:19; 143:4
everything 93:18;
161:2; 177:10; 192:13
evil 23:16
evnironmentally
22:23
evolving 208:9
exactly 63:10;
90:20; 156:21; 201:11
examination 78:1
examine 219:13
example 47:9;
77:20; 82:3; 106:19;
118:15:149:23;
185:7; 186:9; 199:13;
217:19:230:18
examples 219:3
excellent 152:13;
191:9
exception 27:14;
28:19; 32: 15; 202:21
excluded 85:13
excuse 87:5
execute 12:10
executing 10:3;
12:22
Executive 14:9;
56:21;79:14;90:15;
95:15; 97:4; 107:8;
120:6; 135:23; 203:4;
212:3; 214:15
exhaust 73:7
exhausting 131:16
exhaustive 131:16

exist 29:15; 123:11
existence 179:14;
209:1
existing 25:10, 14;
26:4, 17, 19; 27:2;
29:6; 77:14
exists 27:4
expand 16:17;
167:14
expanded 26:5
expect 67:22;
1OO:18; 130:19;
143:3; 162:13
expected 67:20;
83:14; 129:7; 130:21;
221:3
expedite 19:12, 15
expense 227: 14
expensive 55:16,
18; 199:18; 222:21
experience 35:7;
81:19:109:17,19;
110:15:111:15;
122:13:130:1;
168:12, 16; 169:13,
16; 176:19; 191:16;
192:8; 230:22
experimentation
200:15
expert 52:15
expertise 186:18;
232:22
experts 41:14; 54:8;
232:8
explain 7:9
explained 11:16
explore 112:1; 171:2
exporters 88:9
exports 122:6
exposed 74:7; 102:3
exposure 74:23;
75:3; 156:19
exposures 102:10
express 223:19
expressed 217:16
extended H4:3;
162:2; 224:3
extension 139:22
extensive 156:19;
164:11; 180:19
extent 59:4;75:6;
125:21; 137:7
extents 61:1; 177:3,
1C
* J
exteremeiy 191:8
extinction 161:10
extra 13:23; 19:2
extreme 99:8; 208:18
eyeball 13:10, 10




face 121:13; 195:15
faced 93: 18; 122: 16;
126:9
facet 44:8
facilities 54:5; 55:4
facing 161:15
fact 16:20; 20:8;
57:7; 80:2; 104:7;
111:12:116:24;
132:15; 152:8; 153:2;
157:17;159:6;
161:13; 192:11;
193:8; 203:18;
221:13:226:20;
229:18
factor 122:20; 133:2,
3; 144:10; 188:2
factors 30:3:47:13;
57:5; 144:9; 188:15;
211:2
facts 47:22; 70:13
factual 204:16
fail 101:23, 24
failure 77:4; 117: 16
fairly 6:5:69:20;
97:24; 142:3
fall 143:3; 182: 12;
tQ^.t jt* tQQ.1
iy/:i4; is«s:i
falls 208:3
familiar 93:8; 94:3
families 215:13
family 15: 19
far 12:5; 16:23;
69:13:81:11,12;
88:21; 98:8; 144:1;
14R-4- l&vl 1* 171-fv
i^O.Ti, AW. 1, 1,, X / L*U,
220:8, 13, 14
Faramelli 8:3; 11:5;
128:11;129:19,21;
130:6, 9; 139:18;
150:15:151:2,13;
152:17;186:20;
189:5,8:191:17;
195:6; 196:21; 217:7;
222:10:233:20
farfetched 216:7
fashion 22:24; 23:19
fast 189:2
fast-track 198:8
faster 49:7
fatal 132:2, 9
father 15:19
fathoms 175:19
favor 89:9, 14
fear 189:24
feasibility 27:6;
188:9; 190:6
feasible 22:23;
23:19; 27:3; 54:16;
57:12;100:16;
113:15; 127:3; 210:14
features 32:20
February 24:2; 34:9;
101:4
federal 5:5, 13; 6:16;
23:1, 14; 25:6; 33:2;
35:18; 36:23; 46:23;
82:2; 84:24; 127:21;
128:6; 135:21; 136:4;
137:23:138:16;
141:24;153:10;
160:18; 161:3; 162:1,
12; 163:10; 170:18;
171:22:172:24;
204:15:205:12;
208:24; 219:4
federally 204:11
,_•_ — . •mm.w-jf ~ — _ _
feed 75:6
feedback 193: 10
feeds 57:18
feel 7:15; 12:12, 15,
17,24;13:11;36:5;
103:3; 108:24;
128: 19; 129:11;
135: 1:140:3; 195:2, 2
feet 25:18, 19; 27:14,
16; 28: 10, 20; 29:4, 4;
31:18; 57:6; 80:1;
87:20; 159:10, 12;
175:20; 185:5, 6, 14,
21;186:11,13,21;
187:6,11,14,16,20;
188:13, 15, 17; 192:3
fellow 71:2
felt 130:23; 226:22
females 208:8
fertile 116:22
few 30:4; 44: 13;
48:14;50:19;54:23;
59:1:73:11,19:78:9;
79:15:91:2; 99:15;
120:13:169:19;
186:8; 187:16; 212:6
field 31:19; 78.21
fighting 221:9
figure 56:9; 59:12;
62:17; 110:8; 141:11
figures 21:13; 45:13
figuring 59:3
file 161:22
filed 11 2:4; 130: 17;
149:8
filing 150:19
fill 168:19
filling 55:16, 19, 23
film 94:2
filmiest 168:24
final 45:3; 129:2, 6,
9; 134:20; 135:3;
136:24; 137:4;
138:19:142:7;
167:15:194:23;
196:24; 205:6, 18;
226:7, 13; 233:15
finalized 227:6
finalizing 138:18
England - finalizing t~~J '*} Mili-U-Sei-ipt® BPA REPORTING (617)423-0500
-------
LJ.a. Army ixups 01 engineers IN. t. Jtnvision
Massachusetts Port Authority
                                         May 17,1994
finally 41:19; 56:1;
85:8; 140:14; 205:17;
223:16
Finance 14:14
finances 140:16
financial 147:18
find 16:3, 6; 26:8;
40:10; 58:12; 66:17;
70:6; 100:20; 104:8;
108:13:122:17;
148:14:153:16;
157:5:210:13:216:15
finding 44:24; 148:12
finfish 93:20
finish 13:8; 66:21
finished 81: 13; 186:5
Finn 202:22, 23, 24;
203:2
fins 75:1; 165:2, 7;
187:18; 190:11
fire 17:9
First 8:14; 19:17;
32:10:50:3:51:14;
53:17:54:6,8,11;
66:6,14:78:24;
83:14;96:19;97:2;
98:6, 10; 100:3;
107:12; 109:11;
129:22;130:10;
132:5:137:11;
140:20; 141:12;
156:14,18;165:13;
168:7; 182:6; 202:22;
221:21;225:20;
226:2; 233:23
fish 91:15,20;
107:19; 128:1; 145:3,
9; 168:11; 169:8, 8,
11; 175: 15; 177:3, 4,
7,10,11,14,16;
178:13; 179:16, 17;
180:14, 22; 181:7, 8;
209:11:211:19;
214:13
fished 177:6; 182:1
Fisheries 45:4, 8;
47: 12; 50: 15; 60:23;
100:22; 103:1;
127:23; 144:21;
214:15:228:12;
229:8, 13
fisherman 90:9;
168:1; 175:6; 177:21;
180:17; 181:19
fisherman's 179:23
fishermen 47: 15;
79:19:80:9:82:12;
90:19:91:23:92:3,7;
93:12:94:12,14;
117:4:143:24;
144:21; 151:17;
170:6,23:175:11;
176:13; 177:2, 15;
178:3, 13; 180:20;
192:2; 214:5, 9, 18;
215:13
fishermen's 144: 10;
167:23:178:23;
179:2,3,13
fishery 47:20:98:21;
117:1;153:3
Fishes 229:10
fishing 16:1 1;76:20;
90:23;91:8,14;92:7,
20; 94:8; 143: 18;
151:20;170:20;
175:14; 177:5; 180:4,
15, 19; 181:14;
182:2, 7
fit 43:20
five 15:6; 18:21;
79:13, 18; 171:13;
188:17
fix 22:14; 67:24
fixed 145:5; 176:12
flag 144:16
flaw 132:3; 133:3
flaws 132:9
fleet 182:2
fleets 180:19
floating 199:22
floats 72: 15
FLOOR 54:15;
140:15; 143:1, 17;
145:21; 146:8; 147:9;
184:15:197:11;
199:7,10;217:15;
220:7, 24; 223:2
Florida 124:5; 233:9
flounder 75:5, 23;
146:4
flounders 168:13;
229:3
flow 160:22
flows 104:4
focus 12:4; 116:10
focused 85: 19;
131:2; 136:22
folks 10:15, 21; 11:2;
12.19, 13-9, 15,
115:21:221:1
follow 203: 12
followed 7:6, 10, 18;
8:1
Following 7:20;
8:22; 25:24; 27:7;
29:23; 70:21; 109:11;
112:24; 114:17; 124:3
followup 151:16
food 17:6; 75: 16;
76:13,18:77:12;
80:24; 99:6; 109:6;
161:1; 208:15
fooling 119:9
foot 185:20
football 31:18; 78:21
footer 187:16
force 8:20
forego 184:15
foreign 180:19
forever 75: 16
Forget 22:20; 81:16
form 102:5; 109:14;
128:13; 130:18; 137:4
formal 5:8; 6:1; 13:8;
40: 17; 70:23; 86:9;
119:19:153:21;
155:9; 167:20; 168:5;
171:14;172:10;
174:2,20;184:7,11;
202:3; 223:11; 224:8;
225:2;231:5;232:4,
18
formally 5:22; 172:7
format 136: 16
forms 32:4
formulas 230:8
formum 140:8
Fort 9:2; 216:2
forth 132:22; 157:23;
159:8; 207:10
fortunately 19:13;
90:16
forward 15:15; 18:9;
19:4; 23: 17; 40:3;
61:5,17;67:10;
70: 18; 72:5; 73: 16;
105: 10; 110:8;
120:24; 123:10, 15;
126:16; 134:21;
135:2; 138:14, 24;
219:12;225:19
forwarders 96:4
foul 57:7, 9; 101:4;
163:19; 164:2
found 30:18;31:13;
74:14;75:7,22;
99:12; 101:7; 109:19;
150:19:168:23;
169:5; 190:12; 227:19
Foundation 5:4;
6:20; 7:19; 11:12;
71:1,5, 10; 86:12;
97:17:110:21;
153:12; 173:3, 14;
174-13- 179-11-
i / ^ . A «7j A / s* A A j
202:14; 206:12;
207:11; 225: 13; 231:9
founded 107:10
founder 169: 14
founders 177:8
four 79:18; 138:5;
139:9; 147:15; 206:9;
232:9
frame 89:18; 149:19
framework 133:21
Francisco 24:4
frankly 16:6; 18: 15;
21:11,20,23
free 12:17; 129:11;
135:1; 140:3
freight 22:9; 96:4
frequency 218:7
frequented 80:7
frequently 221:15
frightening 209:22,
23
Frizelte87:6,7,9,
10; 108:16; 120:9
front 139:23; 172:20
fruition 16:9
fuel 35:1 5; 109:5
full36:4;49:21;
69:14,23:108:4;
11 1:4; 176:7; 198:20
full-time 11 1:7
fully 46:22;6l:l;
81:1;205:3,8,21;
221:21
function 82:4
functions 229:2
Fund 77:22; 11 2:20;
14 1:21; 142:1; 206:5,
16; 207:9, 16; 209:24
fundamental 193:5
funding 37:1;64:23;
112:6;143:6,10;
163:11; 197:2, 19
funds 65:3, 5;
140:18:196:12;
198:8; 199:4
funny 27:19
further 13:13;86:3;
99:13; 11 1:5; 113:22;
131:21; 143:6; 198:6;
204:22
future 6:10; 22:7;
40:4; 48:24; 49:7, 11;
65:21;69:16;72:6;
80:19:107:24;
113:16,19:127:14,
14!l9!22il5lll;'
161:10; 164:16;
172:19:207:13;
210:9; 219:2; 222:24
G

gain 232:22
gallery 74:22
gallons 160:24
Galveston 8:24
Gardner 156:7
gas 87:22
gasoline 199:22, 23;
200:2
gather 102:16
gave 114:22
gear 92:20; 144:22,
24; 145:5; 148:13;
176:12; 215:9
General 9:2, 7; 17:4;
32:19:41:11,12;
50:2; 53:4; 55: 18;
65:15; 83:11:87:10;
94:14; 98:19; 120:9;
156:20; 170:24;
214:1; 226:15
generally 53:1:55:5;
64:3; 74:21; 79:17
generated 101:17;
103:2; 157:24
generosity 22:24
genetic 169:10;
208:9
gentleman 202:21
gentlemen 9:18;
90:8
gentlemen's 152:5
geography 52:18, 22
geological 220: 15
George 116:1
Georges 182:3, 8
gets 219:16
given 87:16; 101:10,
10; 103:10; 109:2;
111:20:113:9;
11 4:24; 159:4;
171:15:198:3;
203:18:228:6,7;
231:5
gives 28:11; 134:16
giving 39: 18, 24;
96:21; 156:6
glasses 181:22
Glory 185:6
Gloucester 97:6;
167:23; 168:2; 175:6,
12;178:23;179:1,3,
5; 180:3, 5; 182:1;
214:1,4,20
goal 40:9; 44: 19, 19;
63:21; 227:21
goals 68: 15; 23 1:21
goes 19:18;21:16;
36:22; 40:23; 41:23;
67:1, 20; 148:12;
185:1:215:18
Good 5-1 1- 23-1 5-
ViWWWI J* A A f +fj* i Xj
24:16; 42:2; 53:16;
54:4; 55:6; 61:6;
64:4; 67:13; 70:16;
71:6; 80:17:83:9;
87:9; 90:7; 94:21;
106:11,19,19;
110:13:124:19;
130:10,12,14;
132:11,13,13;
139:7:144:18;
145:13:149:5;
152:16;165:5;
167:10:170:17;
171:20; 191:9; 219:7
goods 87:22; 88:11;
108:19; 109:5
Goodstein 231:1,2,
4

Government 23:1;
212:20, 23; 219:12
governmental
206:18
Governor 22: 10
Grace 7:18; 11:11;
70:24; 71:4; 86:5;
1 05:8; 174:1 2;
202:13,17;206:11,
14; 209:17; 225:12,
gradually 151:6
graduate 9:5;
129:24; 130:2
grant 139:22
graph 30:12; 31:22
grateful 231:7
great 11:16; 14:24;
75:6; 96:22; 144:11;
157:20;176:23;
177:3, 15; 182:15;
184:11;228:19
greater 22:1:36:22;
37:1;74:17, 19;
134:3; 176:5
greatest 88:22
green 18:3; 29:2, 3;
64:19; 112:4; 131:6;
142:24; 156:16;
197:4, 10
grew 16:10
ground 18:17;
80:15; 91:12; 101:4;
164:2:168:13;
170:21; 209:8
grounding 187:18;
222:20
grounds 91: 19;
180:4; 195:19
group 71:12, 19;
97:14; 107:10; 131:4,
5; 183:7, 9, 24;
206:17
groups 6:18; 7:14;
23:14; 38:19:71:19;
85:12; 86:14; 97:16;
107:13:114:23;
151:8; 173:4; 174:11;
202:13:224:4;
225:12; 228:18
grow 15: 18; 16: 17;
181:7
growing 17:l;118:l,
2
growth 16:5; 169:10
guarantee 21 5:22
guaranty 160:14
Guard 26: 13; 29:20,
24; 33:1; 92:22;
161:23:212:21
Guard's 33:5
guess 15:4; 23:4;
49:12; 108:20; 116:1;
117:4;141:11;
186:19; 194:2
outdance 84-22
guide 85:5; 136:21;
137:15
guides 17:3
guts 193:22
guy 118:11
BPA REPORTING C6l 7)423-0500
Min-U-Soript®
finally- guy
-------
May 17,1994
          U.S. Army Corps of Engineers N. E. Division &
                          Massachusetts Port Authority
guy's 189:22
Gweftnkel 183:3,4,
6,7



habitat 98:16; 104:2,
3; 209:3
haddock 209:8
hadn't 67:19
half 34:14; 45:24;
52:5, 6; 98:3; 119:8;
153:23; 187:8; 204:3;
214:24; 215:3
Hampshire 14:18
hand 17:9; 117:17,
18; 139:11
handed 115:4
handle 85:3; 131:24;
222:23
handled 170:1
handouts 30:9
hangs 153:2
Hanson 7:11;11:4;
35:5, 7, 19, 23; 36:3;
142:13:145:22;
156:11:174:9;
181:16;194:21;
195:4,10;197:8;
202:10; 221:7; 223:6;
225:9
happen 22:21;23:3,
18; 38:10, 11;60:3,
11; 62:11; 68:2, 4, 13;
69:4, 5, 9; 77:9;
117:20; 120:16;
126:21, 24; 143:21;
148:11; 176:17;
197:5:232:1
happened 67:22,
24;92:16;176:10;
977*1
£•£>/ fl
happening 22:13;
68:21;72:12; 94:15;
155:14; 192:20
happens 20:5;
29:21; 42:7; 68:24
happy 5:7;35:1;
134:24; 136:8;
137:24; 191:21; 221:7
harassment 161:6
Harbor 5:16; 10:2, 4,
14; 20:21, 23; 23:9,
24; 25:7, 14, 21; 26:1,
16, 17, 20; 27:9; 36:1,
18; 37:7, 9; 39:11;
40:8,10,12;42:12,
13, 18, 19; 43:3, 9,
14,16,23:44:9,18,
22; 48:23; 49:5, 14;
5l:6,8;53:18;62:10;
63:20; 64:3; 65:24;
7O:3,8;71:15;72:9,
16,21,22,23:73:4,
20; 74:8; 753, 7, 20;
76:1,3,4,7,10,12,
19:7:2,20:79:4;
81:4; 84:7, 16; 85:4,
15, 17; 87:18; 91:1;
92:3,15:93:10,12;
95:18; 96:8; 105:5;
106:18; 107:6, 8, 9,
12,14,18,20,21;
108:2,4:109:3;
113:16; 116:3, 22;
117:6,11,11,13,22;
121:23:123:24;
124:17; 125:4; 126:7,
8,11,13:127:19;
132:17;147:12;
148:7; 155:1; 160:8,
22; 164:22; 65:20;
166:1; 167:12; 169:1,
6, 11, 17; 170:11;
172:1:174:3,6;
180:6, 8; 183:21;
187:9; 188:4, 20, 22,
23; 190:8, 12; 191:5,
10; 192:9; 197:4;
199:8; 202:4, 8;
203:1 1,16; 204:2, 5,
14,23:205:10,16;
206:24;212:13;
214:6;218:5,5,11,
12,21;219:21;
220:1,9:221:4;
225:3,7:226:21;
227:6,12,15:29:4,
18; 230:12
Harbor/Save 5:3;
6:19;7:17;11:10;
39:7,8,11,16,20;
40:6; 70:2; 71:9;
86:13; 97:16; 109:15;
115:10,13:120:20;
153:12:173:2,13;
174:12:179:10;
202:14;207:10;
225:13; 231:8
hard 34:6; 50:6;
116:12; 165:3; 167:4
1 i— t— »» 0 1 *C
riariey el: 5
harm 70:16; 168:19;
230:4
harmful 83:24
Harvard 24:12; 35:21
harvesting 117:3
Harwich 206:22
hasn't 48:20; 56:2
Hatch 108:11
haul 144:22, 24
haven't 22:18;
48:15;81:11;94:7;
133:10;l51:3;
226:11; 233:2
hazardous 177:17;
213:2
head 144:13; 189:13
heafth 76:l;78:l6;
229:23
healthy 16:24; 171:9
hear 8:4; 12:1 1,15,
23;13:5,18;30:4;
39:3; 53:9; 66:22;
86:22; 120:17; 121:1;
128:10;129:3,15;
130:15:139:24;
147:4; 156:8; 173:13,
22; 182:13; 197:21;
207:7; 208:12; 231:7
heard 6:4; 11:1;
30:16:50:3:53:9;
54:20; 56:23; 82:13,
18;98:8, 12; 103:11;
113:10:120:10,16;
126:13,23:128:15;
151:3,4:172:13;
184:13:208:11;
209:10
hearing 40:20, 20;
41:2; 58:14; 69:17;
70:18;90:17;96:22;
98:3,4:120:12
hears 21:9
heartening 192:9
heavily 182:1;
221:15
heavy 43:1:73:22;
99:11; 199:14; 200:3
heck 4 1:3; 160:1
held 125:17; 146:6;
174:4; 202:5; 225:4
help 6:12, 23; 24:18;
37:15:43:19:54:13;
68:4, 8; 72:21; 80:22;
86:19:96:23:110:8;
112:20;125:23;
126:2; 127:21; 128:2;
129:5; 136:21;
147:22, 23; 170:20,
22; 203: 16; 232:2
helped 128:4
helpful 87:2; 136:23
helping 100:22;
121:8
helps 125:18
heppening 175:1
here's 68:12, 13;
69:4; 198:13
Heretofore 36:1O
herring 115:18;
119:2; 177:9
hesitate 2io.-io
Hi 135:18
high 20:21;31:18;
75:22, 24; 77:18, 24;
169:12;222:3;226:11
higher 75: 17, 17;
88:14; 99:23
highest 99:9
highlight 144:8
highly 44:16; 63:21
highways 18:14
hire 37:14
hired 92:17
historic 73:5;80:15;
1 "1 Sl**>
113:2
history 106:16
hit 146:15
hockey 16:2
hold 6:3; 172:11;
226:3
holding 96:22;
114:10
holds 14-17-74-1?'
liUlUA i"*.* / , *^(«i7,
35:19;124:6;233:10
hole52:12;81:5;
£UX • £
99:15
holes 213:5; 216: 14
honest 116:13
Hong 14:12
honored 95:2
hook 193:21
hop 92:6
hope 8:2; 24:18;
40:16; 58:11;64:24;
69:16; 79:11;85:12;
105:10; 108:13;
138:19:173:23;
189:2; 2O1:13; 228:15
hoped 109:23
hopefully 4 1:13;
49:23; 68:7; 218: 16
hoping 132:17;
134:19; 210:12; 220:3
hopper 101:6;
216:11
horrible 194:14
host 82:23
hosted 6:14; 172:22
hosting 5:19; 172:4
hot 44:9, 15; 51:5;
55:20; 63:22; 84:9;
98:8; 108:2; 213:12
Hotel 202:2
hour 153:22
hours 38:16; 195:14
house 32:10; 143:1;
197:12
housing 17:19
Hubbard 10:19;
144:13, 18; 146:21;
217:24; 219:9
hue 197:21
huge 59:24; 92: 10
human 75:19; 76:1;
229:23
humans 75:18
hundred 14:15;
32:8:46:3:141:24;
159:10; 175:13; 192:4
hundreds 216:12
hurt 170:23
hurts 161:1
husband 36:6;
135:10
husbands 182:13
Hyannis 5:20; 90: 17;
147:7; 202:2
hydrocarbons
169:5; 170:14, 15;
196:10, 14, 16




i.e 41:22
ia 178:24
Idea 55:6, 13; 63:19;
64:4; 65:14; 98:11;
139:7; 163:18; 166:7
irlonl 9l£-A
IMCttl £ii\J,\J
ideas 212:10
identified 13:7;
56:22; 61:14; 2O4:4
identify 63: 12;
65:17; 196:3
identifying 205:13
idiots 165:9
ignoring 195:20
ILA 17:7; 95:22
illegal 82:19
Illinois 9: 13
immediate 102: 11;
161:10:229:20
immediately 11:19;
69:6; 81:6; 101:20;
105:2; 161:8
impact 5:1 5; 7:22;
10:9, 20; 12:4, 14;
21:14; 45:6; 59:14;
62:17;74:11; 90:23;
91:7; 104:20; 114:19;
120:19:123:20,23;
124:11,16,21,23;
128:9:136:4,5;
137:3, 5, 13, 14, 17;
144:13:145:13;
155:11,12;157:2,
21:158:5,7,18;
161:16:171:24;
173:15, 16; 174:22,
23: 193:15; 194:8;
203:1O,1O; 09:18;
211:7;216:24;217:1,
5; 226:7; 227:23;
229:21; 233:5
impacted 194: 12;
208:14
impacts 11:19; 12:5,
22; 26:10; 77:11;
125:12,13,14;
127:11;137:18;
145:24;230:10
impair 229:1
impaired 75:1;
169:10
impartial 111:13, 16
imperative 230: 11
implement 147:3
implementation
184:3
implements 24:18
implications 81:9;
150:20
implies 72: 11
imply 228:18
important 13:15;
62:1;69:18;72:20;
73: 13; 81:24; 82:8;
98:16; 112:16;
117:21,22;122:12;
129:14;133:15,20,
24; 134:8; 165:20;
166:10; 185:18;
190:20;192:20;
203:15, 18; 229:19
importantly 36:23
Importers 88:9
imports 122:6
imposed 82:1;
170:19
impossible 182:12
impression 49:3;
120:15
improperly 76:16;
1"7A*1
I /U.i
Improvement 5:16;
10:4; 23:24; 25:8;
26:11; 32:2; 36:2;
45:21; 64:2; 1O9:3;
123:24; 124:17;
125:4; 126:8; 140:24;
155:2; 172:1; 174:3,
7; 188:18; 202:5, 8;
203:11:225:4,7
improvements
25:24; 27:10; 128:6;
188:13; 190:9; 203:15
improves 17:2
improving 27:4;
44:24; 222:13
Improvment 85: 1 5
in-channel 53:5;
63:15; 66:5; 114:2;
164:19
in-depth 210:3
in-harbor 204:5;
205:3
in-stte 66:14
in-the-channel
164:11
inadequate 88:2
inappropriate
102:19
inbound 19:18;
27:22; 221:20
INC 87:8; 119:23;
120:7
inches 199:22
incidence 75:22
incidentally 133:4
incidents 169:12
include 32:16;
47: 14; 48: 1,8; 87: 13;
125:5, 2O; 194:6;
9fK*1R
^VJ-iO
included 137:7;
152:9; 190:19
includes 26:7;
35: 12; 98:24; 165:2
including 18:6;
47:12; 74:15; 125:20;
174:4; 202:6; 207:18;
225:5
guy's - including
Min-U-Script©
BPA REPORTING (617)423-0500
-------
u.a. Army lAirps ui
Massachusetts Port Authority
                            rx. r.. tsivisiuii, et
                                                                                   May 17,1994
income 92: ll
inconsistencies
100:7
inconsistency 56:20
incorporate 112:7
incorporated 126:18
increase 19:5;
141:3; 149:21; 158:8,
9; 159:19; 160:1, 1,
12, 14; 169:18;
182:17;193:21,23;
194:9; 198:4; 200:23
increased 99:20;
160:16, 22; 198:4
increases 88:3;
142:10
increasing 55: 11
increasingly 71:17
incredible 192:14
incurred 229:20
indeed 121:13, 23;
192:16
independent 68:21;
228:16
indicate 102:15
indicated ll 1:15;
214:15
indicates 99: 18;
229:10
indirectly 21: 16
ind'wduals 155:8
individual 27: ll
individuals 70:21;
138:5; 155:6; 156:3;
174:17, 19; 184:12
Industrial 14:14;
218:20
industries 76:21;
122:9; 230:4
industry 38:21;
93:20,20:94:8;
122:8, 19; 130:2;
143:18; 170:20,24;
181:14,20;219:18
inexpensive 133:5
inflation 141:1,3,5
influence 125:22
informal 184:20
information 5:8;
35:1:49:10,15;
71:24;96:23; 110:11;
132:21; 149:4;
204:16:205:21;
210:23:211:1,6
informed 94: 12, 14
infrastructure 17:2,
15
inherently 160:8
injured 194: 13
injury i6l:6
inner 26: 16, 17,20;
27:9;28:3,4;51:8;
63:20; 64:3; 187:24;
188:20,22,23:190:1
inner-harbor 205:8
innocuous 196:17,
18
innovative 56:6;
64:17; 230:14
INNOVOTECH 183:5
input 13:4, 15;
37:18; 73:6; 138:22,
24
inputting 141:14
inshore 182:4, 5
inside 190:8
insight 87:1; 196:4
insights 115:2;
173:24; 232:23
instance 151:23;
158:22; 167:9
instances 1 69:18
instead 68:9; 11 9:6;
171-Q
jt / jt »jf
institute 198:10

instructive 130:12
insufficient 159:14
insults 227:24
insurance 182:17
insure 13:13;
137:10;203:16
insuring 106:24
insurmountable
111:14
integral 18:11; 22:3
integrity 103:9;
227:22; 229:22
intensity 55:10
intensive 62:16
interact 145:16;
171:17
interaction 164:4
interagency 85:9
interest 6: 18; 7:14;
36:4; 38: 19; 73:2;
85:12;86:1,14;95:6;
107:10, 12; 174:11;
202:12:211:19;
225:11:231:18
interested 36:21;
37:19; 78:11;86:4;
133:13:142:16;
143:10; 164:8, 17
interesting 26:15;
44:8; 62:20; 165: 12,
24; 199:5
interests 10:12;
m-4
•^
intermodal 18:13
intermodalism
122:18
Internaftonal 95:13
international 17:21,
24; 18:12; 20:15;
94:20,22,23:95:3,
20,24;96:12;
121:19, 21; 122:9
interrupt 114:24
into 7:13; 10:12;
16:1,22:20:18;
21:19; 22:9; 24:21;
25:21; 27:22; 28:11;
30:3:31:21:32:11;
33:16; 35:10; 44:4;
47:7,8,22;51:9;
53:4; 54: 16; 55:2;
56:6, 12; 57:18;
65:12;69:2;70:23;
72:1, 16; 76:15;
87:24; 93:10; 109:14;
11 1:5; 112:7; 116:20;
118:22,24;119:19;
126:18; 131:21;
135:19; 137:2; 38:4,
24; 144:10; 145:17,
18; 148:12; 152:15;
153:8; 163:12; 166:2,
7; 167:12; 169:3;
171:9; 172:19; 180:8;
182:15; 183:9, 13;
186:10, 13, 16, 16;
« O^*f\ 11-1 Q>Q.yf .
io7:y, ll, ioo:4;
191:7:196:13;
203:19:204:7;
209:13;214:20;
216:13:219:20;
introduce 8: 14;
10:15; 144:12
introduced 197:13
introduction 174:5'
202:6; 225:5
inventing 198:14
invested 228:22
invkfual85:l
invft** 1 1^'*?1 * 1 3t&>Q
II I VIM? J, I'tfJSif Jt j Jl^O*^'}
10; 145:18; 153:22
invited 127:21
inviting 71:8; 206:7
involed6:l3
involve 6:9; 105:21;
125:18;126:4;
172:18;208:21;
223:13
involved 6: 18; 8:4;
13:24; 36:11; 39:21;
99:14;127:9;148:1;
173:5:196:1,9;
206:23; 207:4; 210:6;
215:6;217:17,21;
223:14; 224:7
involving 5:18; 172:3
inward 189:16
ironic 180:24; 181:9
Island 25:21;28:14;
44:1;47:10; 60:18;
61: 12; 72:18; 81:3, 7;
92:1; 93:22; 164:3,
23; 189:16; 191:23
isolated 76: ll
issue 11:20; 12:9;
18:8; 19:3; 21:23;
48:20; 56:20; 58:11;
60:24; 73:13; 77:6;
8O:5;81:16;82:8;
98:7, 12; 121:12;
159:16; 166:10;
179:7, 11; 180:1;
181:22;193:11;
195:16, 17; 197:18;
207:14; 210:10
issued 10:10; 82:1,
24- 87-17
dCi^X) Q / , J, /
issues 10.18; 11:24;
12:3, 17, 24; 14:15;
41:6, 10; 69:13, 16;

72:4, 4; 78:9; 84: 18;
86:3; 97:23; 98:8;
11 5:22; 117:7; 118:5;
123:14;125:21,23,
24; 126:5, 17; 127:8;
136:20,23:137:12;
153:3; 205:14; 207:9
Italian 179:20
Kern 32: 16
items 25: 11
ttseB 17:14;41:2I;
98:15; 116:22; 163:8;
169:9; 170:3; 173:18;
183:9;212:12


Jackson 7:9; 10: 19;
23:23:24:1,11,14,
15, 16; 45:19; 46:16;
140:23; 149:13;
152:12:156:5,9;
174:10;184:24;
185:13,15,20;
186:2,17:188:7,21;
189:3;19O:5;2O2:1I;
218:2; 225:10
Janeen 7:11; 11:4;
35:4; 39:5; 131:4;
152:19:156:11;
174:8; 196:22;
202: 10; 222:16; 225:9
January 139:5
Jay 105:16, 17, 19
Jeff 10:21
jeopardize 209:1
Jersey 92:18; 106:1;
112:5
Jim 196:8
Joan 7:16; 11:9;
39:6, 15; 79:16;
80: 14; 86:22; 100:6;
105:7; 152: 12; 174: 11
job 24:22;3I:22;
190:21
jobs 21: 12, 15; 77:5;
89:20; 96:10
John 100:21;
162:21, 22
join 133:13
joined 24:1; 124:2;
150:4
joining 14:8
joint 128:13
jointly 5:13; 171:22
Jon 127:23
Judge 108:8, 9;
232:14, 14
Judy 62:23; 86:24
July 8:17; 181:3;
220:17
jump 218:1
June 40:23; 4 1:2;
101:4:128:21,21;
136:9; 138:15, 16
junior 146:5
junk 166:17
junkets 15:23
justifiable 190:9
justification 102:8;
190:21
justify 190:13
juvenile 168:1 1,13;
177:4, 7




Keckter 127:24
keel 185:21
keep 17:9:20:7;
2 1:21; 22:2; 42:21;
43:1 1;44:7;55:19;
67:4, 5; 77:19; 86:24;
94: 14; 100: 12;
115:16; 116:10;
121:21; 123:8; 134:5;
145:7; 159:1O; 162:7;
184:20; 221:10; 224:7
keeping 17:15; 30:1;
171:7
keeps 159:3
Kennedy 108: ll
Kenny's 98:20
kept 89: 19, 19; 94: 13
Kerlan 100:21
key 28:23:72:8;
78:9:92:4; 98:14;
108:24:118:3
Kiersteae211:ll,
12, 13, 14
kill 160:2
kilted 194:13
killer 1 59:21
killing 160:15;
161:5, 7; 162:16
Kimberly 127:24
kind 45:1; 66:8; 69:2;
73:14:91:21,22;
93:21; 94:1 1;102:18;
143:24; 149:16;
160:2; 165:6; 167:2;
190:3; 198:6; 223:1
kinds 67:18; 131:22;
134:14; 148:9; 150:13
Kissimmee 220:1 1
Knebel81:5
knell 160:7
knew 120:1
knots 187:8
knowing 117:18
knowledge 12 1:7, 8
knowledgeable
81:21:84:7
known 74: 19; 76:2;
144:23; 179:22
knows 16:21;83:17;
211:3
Kong 14:12
Kurland 127:23

L
laboratory 198:20
lack 207:20
Ladies 9:17; 9O.-8
lance 177:9
Land 55:16, 19, 23;
i ^i **>
171:2
land-use 203:7
landed 21 3:23
landfill 183:15
lanes 39:12;42:16;
m. 10.999.12.
. 17, *•*•*!' i :?,
227:13, 14
Lang 128: 1
language 180: 13;
231:13; 232:2
targe 20:15;59:14;
79:3; 92:19; 98:20;
109:24;131:24;
151:5; 160:3; 165:5,
8; 166:3; 2 17: 16
larger 20:4, 12;
204:7;221:14;222:8,
12, 17
largest 18:21;85:3;
116:24,24:118:2;
121:17
Larry 9:20; 10:23;
14:23; 36:3; 39:2, 17;
40:24; 124:18, 19;
130:9:174:5:202:6;
225:5
larvae 209:11
larval 229:13
last 19:22; 23:7, 10;
25:9; 42:1; 67:1 0;
88:6; 92:16; 116:5;
132:16;157:8,9;
176: 10; 186:8; 196:6;
211:23:219:11;
220:4;223:13
lastly 6:8; 172: 17;
173:21
late 26:24; 68:1;
135:19:139:11;
lately 187:5
later 31:23:33:17;
34:22; 4 1:2, 6; 49:24;
97:12; 128:10
laundry 63:17; 69:4
Law 5:4; 6:20; 7: 18;
11:12; 71:1, 5, 10;
BPA REPORTING C6l7)423-O500
                                          Min-U-Script®
Income - Law
-------
May 17,1994
          U.S. Army Corps of Engineers N. E. Division &
                         Massachusetts Port Authority
85:12; 97:17; 104:17;
110:20;130;19;
153:12; 173:3, 14;
174:13:179:10;
202:14;206:12;
207:11; 225:12; 231:9
lawsuit 161:23;
206:24:210:6
lawsuits 21 5:14
teachable 200:7
leaching 200:11
lead 73:23; 74:15
leaders 51:22
leadership 84:2
leading 16:4; 169:2;
192:18
team 130:14; 182:21
learned 81:19
{earning 49:6
least 83:15; 151:21;
163:7,9; 204:10;
213:18
leave 52:18; 55:23;
101:24;202:21;
210:1; 211:8; 232:23
Leavenworth 9:2
leaving 86:23; 88:19
LcBlane 7:17; 11:9;
39:7, 14, 15, 17;
46:14, 21; 54:19;
86:22; 100:6; 105:8;
151:16:174:11
ted 72:8
Ledg« 165:2,7;
187:18;190:11
leeped 133:6
left 5:5; 6:20; 30:13;
57:8; 117:17; 173:2;
208:7; 222:3; 233:19
legal 34:1;68;8;
205:13:206:5,16;
207:9, 16; 209:24
legislation 64:20;
112:4,12,17,19;
197:4, 10
legitimate 195:5
length 56:13; 114:3
Leone 68:7
lesions 75:9;
169:12, 15
less 25:18; 66:6;
83:24; 119:8; 138:6;
186:20, 22; 187:7;
189:19:191:7;
196:18;199:23;
214:19
tetter 77:14:95:11;
103:2; 216:18
letters 217:14
letting 70:17
Leveiltel75:3,4,5,6
tevel 53:12;84:24;
85:5; 104:8; 110:24,
24; 134:6; 142:3;
160:16; 180:14;
200:12
levels 35:18;73:22;
75:17,24:77:18,22;
99:20, 23; 199:24
Lewis 162:21,22,
24;184:24;185:14,
17, 22; 186:4, 19, 22;
188:19,23:189:7,
11; 190:15; 191:20;
198:13:199:1,5;
200:2, 14, 20
Li 107:4, 5, 7, 8;
142:23
library 168:21
licensed 219:15
lies 79:24
life 97:8;98:16;
170:3; 221:9; 233:3
Lifeline 19:8
lifelines 20:1
I inhihin 1»'9fl
L^yi!9ill*« JOifAJ
light 78:23
light-weight 183:23
lighter 25: 18; 26:22
lightering 222:17
Lightship 44:10;
59:23:65:19:66:18;
80:14, 24; 92:5;
113:20;143:20;
204:21
liked 168:4
likely 88:1 5; 150:24;
209:1:221:12
Likewise 82: 18;
108:3
limit 66:15; 109:13;
163:13
limitation 167:11
limitations 89:15;
165:5; 187:1; 188:11,
14, 16
limited 45:9; 55:7,
24; 1325
limiting 66:10;
165:1; 166:8; 188:2
line 19:16; 20:4, 13;
33:20; 38:17;45:14;
67:21;86:24;93:15;
142:1; 218:16
lines 26:6; 87: 13;
200:13
link 75:19
linked 75: 10
list 63:17; 64: 10;
67:20; 69:4; 89:4;
104:22; 131:16, 16;
132:4, 24; 138:8;
151:6
listed 99:1; 112:23;
136:14;216:4
listen 5:20; 10:8;
39:3; 147:2; 172:5
listened 108:5
lists 79:13; 131:22;
133:8
litigants 207:3
litigation 72:8;
161:18
little 11:11; 13:23;
19:2;24:22;30:9;
32:16; 40:15; 41:20;
49:2,15,24:56:12;
59:12; 63:14; 64:16;
67:15:68:19:76:2;
128: 10; 138:4;
145:16, 21; 148:23;
162:7; 168:5; 187:21;
189:18:197:10;
214:22;218:14;
219: 16; 220:6; 232:22
live 24:14;75:6;
108:22; 177:7;
200:18; 211:20; 228:8
livelihood 152:6;
185:18
liver 75:9
lives 14:18
living 15:12; 16:12;
122:2; 175:10; 214:5
LNG 28:7
loaded 190:3;
221:15, 21
loading 188: 11
loads 170:12
Loberstermen's
212:4
lobster 45:7; 47:1 3;
60:24; 75:24; 76:4, 6;
90:9;92:20;93:19;
116:23:214:9,12
lobstering 76:21;
214:3, 22, 24
lobstermen 79:19;
212:5:213:21;
1"! j<«^^» '"J'Hj^.JE
214:17; 224:5
LOBSTERMEN'S
90:6,14:224:2
lobsters 47: 12;
119:1; 168:14;
213:23:215:12
local 36:17, 19, 24;
37:6;82:2;90:9;
114:5
localized 84:8
locals 95:4, 21
located 62:8; 127:1;
m Jf£ •••V
166:17
location 62:22
locations 63: 10;
114:2; 203:22; 21 1:1
lock 219:18
lodge 119:1, 2
Loefaig 225:22, 23,
24; 226:9, 1O; 231:5
logistics 54:17, 21;
57:4:58:4,6
LoGrande 167:21,
22, 24; 168:1
long 40:16:50:24;
99:19; 103:9; 107:24;
160:22; 169:8;
175:18:185:6;
191:23; 217:19; 220:2
long-term 14:4;
48:23; 102:9; 125:14;
229:21; 230:10
longer 113:4;
149:20; 150:2
longest 128:17
longshoremen
17:11
LONGSHOREMEN
"894:20,24; 95:3,
20,24
look 23:17; 27:1, 2;
30:9,21;34:6;40:3;
48:18; 51:14; 56:6;
63:11; 64:14; 69:6;
70:18; 72:5; 73:15;
78:9,18;79:20;94:5;
96-9- 100*9 IV
^\f*~,r) .l.WW',7) *J)
102:16; 110:16;
125:8,11:127:4,5,8;
131:1; 134:3, 4, 13,
20; 135:1; 136:13,
19; 138:24; 165:9;
196:4; 216:1
looked 18:13;4l:5;
54:22; 57:3, 3; 67:11,
12; 74:1; 101:5;
127:10; 128:24;
129:4; 131:14; 132:6;
166:7; 188:10; 190:6,
7,11,11:195:5,7;
196:4
looking 29:13;
41:11,21:42:6,22;
45:5; 48:21; 50:9, 17;
53:13;54:4;58:24;
60:20; 63:5, 9; 64:7;
66:16; 69:11; 78:22;
93:14;111:13;
112:13:125:11;
127:12:137:16;
138:14,18,22;
139:4, 4; 151:22;
191:22; 194:18;
196:23; 198:19;
199:1; 213:3
looks 42:7:44:19;
83:9; 125:6; 127:17;
226:24
loose 214:11
lose 157:11,11;
221:5; 223:4
losing 18:17; 181:6
loss 47:l4;T7:4;
147:18
lost 96:11; 147:15;
163:11; 167:3;
176:13:215:11
lot 15:10; 34:23;
42:21 ;48:5; 50:7;
53:6; 55:8; 56:3, 18;
60:23; 63:3; 65:10,
22,22:66:22,23;
67:10, 16, 23; 70:5;
72:11; 78:21; 93:6;
96:23:107:23;
138:22,24;143:13,
13; 166:18; 176:12,
13; 191:3; 212:18;
215:7,8;218:13;
219:11,21:222:17;
226:12; 2333
lots 47:12; 163:21
Louis 90:2; 11 4: 14
love 189:22; 217:13
low 20:21;87:19;
88:8; 134:6; 165:1, 4,
14; 167:10; 185:10;
186:14; 196:15, 19
low-sediment 218:5
lower 118:20
lowest 180:14; 230:2
Lycoming 24:6
tying 157:18
M

mackerel 177:9
Magneson 180:12
magnitude 93:19
main 77:6:95:6;
124:22; 196:19
Maine 145:2; 214:24
mainly 90:18
maintain 39:12;
42:1 5; 85:16; 187:9;
193:24
maintaining 10:2;
229:18
maintenance 14:6;
31:11:45:23:48:24;
49:8:84:9,12,14;
113:16;126:9;
127:15:132:11,14,
19,22;217:17,21;
218:4,6,7;219:2,6
major 11:19; 18:5;
29:17;60:17;69:13;
131:2; 141:17; 142:3,
9; 148:3; 151:20;
179:17
majority 175:14
makers 126:3
makes 51:6; 64:14;
166:21; 230:2
making 49: 16;
117:8; 121:2; 122:14;
123: 12; 152:6; 156:2;
165:8; 177:19; 209:14
mammal 99:2;
160:10; 208:6
mammals 99:8, 12
man 169:8, 21;
182:14
managed 131:5,21
management 35:8;
84:21; 124:4; 129:22;
204:13:205:19;
233:8, 23
Manager 7: 12;
10:19; 11:4; 23:24;
24:15:35:5,23;
87:10;104:16,22;
120:10; 141:11;
174:9, 10; 202:11,
12:225:10,11
manages 8:18
mandate 137:9
mandated 104:19
maneuver 93:10
maneuvering
165:11
manifests 169:9
manner 89:11;
121:1O; 123:16;
203:22
MAHOMET 105: 18,
20
manufacture 20:17
many 6:18; 14:24;
15:12, 12; 18:5;
19:19; 21:12; 23:5;
35:11; 37:22; 38:14,
16, 16, 21, 22; 43:10;
51:19:54:23,23;
58:22; 72:16; 74:14;
83:1:86:13:88:4,4;
QC-fi* CWC-C- Q7-1 1 "3'3'
y>.of 3ra.;>, y/.ii, iZj
102:14;104:6;105:7;
109:16;112:14,21;
117:7;124:9;126:6;
147:3; 149:8; 152:5;
156:21; 158:2; 169:6;
173:4;175:11;77:4,
6,7,7,11:178:3:
179:15:180:6;
182:13; 193:20;
207:9; 208: 10; 2 14:3,
•5 f» 7- 221-3 5'
-*» -Jf /» £»jt*M.mJt J}
223:4; 228:7, 24;
229:1, 11; 232:10

map 18:2; 29:9; 57:8;
58:20; 136:16
mapped 81:1
March 34:9; 181:3
Marina 115:16
marine 14:7; 43:6;
50:16,23:51:1;
57:10, 15, 17; 58:15;
74:4;77:11;80:6;
85:20; 87: 14; 97:8;
98:13,16:99:2,7,12;
103:1; 104:16, 20,
21; 1O5:22; 118:17,
24;127:23;135:14;
144:14:159:15;
160:1O; 168:10;
169:3; 171:9; 194:11;
200:18;203:17;
204:12:207:22;
208:6;227:15,22;
228:12;229:2,7;
30:10
Maritime 7:7; 14:2,
22; 21:2; 22:17; 35:6,
lawsuit - Maritime
Min-U-Script®
EPA REPOBUNG (617)423-0500
-------
u.s. Army thorps or tngtneers IN. t. Division
Massachusetts Port Authority
                                         May 17,1994
24; 37:8; 38:21;
84:24; 143:7
mark 145:6
marked 103:5, 6
markers 26:8
market 19:19
marketing 14:5
markets 20: 15
married 94:24
marshes 220:21
Mary 225:22, 23;
226:9; 231:4
Mashpee 206:21
Mason 96: 16, 17
Mass 45-17- 46-19-
inc*
-------
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers N. E. Division &
May 17, 1994 Massachusetts Port Authority
much 6:24; 19:3;
43:7; 45:6; 47:4,20;
49:7, 18; 50:20; 51:4,
4, (5; 53:22; 86:4;
94: 15; 105: 14;
1 14-ia. 1 ic-a-
AA1»13,AA J'Jl
118:10; 123:16;
135!4; 137:20; 138:3;
142:5;153:24;
156:19; 162:19;
164:11, 21; 167:5, 6,
17; 171:12; 173:8;
176:4; 178:4, 19;
182:20; 184:5;
185:11, 19; 186:15;
193:6; 203:18; 206:1;
210:2,16:11:23;
216:5,18,21;
228:21; 232:20, 21
muHJpte 34:18
multipurpose 1 18:3
must 77:13, 19;
78:16;81:21;82:3,
10; 83:2, 5; 88:11;
89:19,22:108:12;
109:12:120:11;
153:15:163:9;
202:21; 208:24
MWRA 72:13, 17;
160:23; 162:10;
218:16;227:19
myself 16:3. 6; 43:7;
95:9; 146:21; 169:16
My stfe 28:5, 11, 16;
64:6; 189:14

N
naked 157:18
name 8:2; 62:5; 87:5,
10;90:8;94:22;
105:19:115:12;
120:5; 149:1; 167:24;
175:5;178:24;183:6;
196:8:206:15;
211:13; 212:2; 226:9
Nancy 8:5; 135:6,
16; 217:9
narrow 125:23
narrowed 54:10,23;
131:17
nasty 200:2
Natick9:l7
national 18:8;35:14;
36:13; 57:10; 74:10;
80:6;85:5; 98:13;
100:22:103:1;
104:16, 21; 123:21;
127:23:143:9;
204:10,12:207:22;
228:9, 12; 229:7
nationwide 74:5;
85:2
natural 40:14;42:18,
20; 70:4; 163:15;
229:21
naturally 26:2;
52:24; 136:9
nature 81:8;85:17;
133:8; 176:14; 230:9
Navigation 5:16;
10:4; 23:24; 25:6;
26:12,18:32:1,20;
36:2, 13; 77:1; 84:10;
85:15; 109:3; 123:24;
124:17; 125:4; 126:8;
128:6; 155:2; 172:1;
174:3,6;202:5,8;
203:11:225:4,7
navigational 26:8;
203:15
near 47:10;67:6;
84:9:113:19:149:10;
176:7;214:9;219:23;
227:18
near-harbor 205:3
Near-shore 54:5;
55:4; 62:16; 205:7
nearby 104:5
necessarily 54:24;
104:8
necessary 48:9;
77:9:106:23:109:4;
122:20; 140:18, 19;
164:20; 210:14
necessitating 88:13
necessity 12:20;
15:7; 23:16
NED 23:23; 24:15
need 5:8;6:23;
19:15:20:19:24:20;
27:16,20;34:24;
42:15; 44:15; 45:6;
47:21;49:20,21;
59:8, 8, 11; 61:6, 7,
17;63:10; 68:18;
85:5:88:10,13,24;
103:4;110:l6,21;
112:19; 124:24;
125:1; 139:6, 10;
146:9, 19; 151:8, 8;
152:4;153:16;
163:15; 173:8; 187:8;
205:14; 209:12;
212:12; 223:14, 20
needed 70:11;
87:20; 11 3: 12; 126:7;
164:18; 173:24;
199:20; 205:21
needs 12:8;43:17;
48:24; 59:21; 62:2;
66:2; 68:20; 69:1;
fiX«1/V ftC>1 (\* 1 AX. 1 O-
o4:zu; o3:iu; lU4:lz,
111:20;157:10;
205:19; 214:17; 215:2
negative 65:10
neither 101:7;
167-1 7- 7ft4-1S
JLW^*l&f £f\rlflj
NEPA 7:24; 124:20;
1 7fr7- 177-1 (v
L fm\J»fm^ iffl fl V,
128:11,22:136:12;
138:14:173:17;
174:24
Neponset 166:4
nervous 141:20;
230:3
net 64:1; 181:5
Network 97: 14, 18,
22
Nevada 216:9, 13
Nevertheless
76:23:77:22
New 7:5; 8:16, 17,
19, 22; 14:18; 17:16,
19, 23; 18:24; 19:16,
19:21:10,19,22,23;
22:7; 23:21; 24:1;
25:4; 42:3; 71:13;
77:20; 87:23; 88:7,
11, 17; 92: 17,17;
95:4; 97:9; 106:1;
111:20; 112:5; 122:4;
123:24;124:2;
130:15; 142:17;
151:13:156:10;
158:18; 162:23, 24;
180:21;203:18;
222:5, 7; 223:8; 33:7
Newbury 14:19
Newport 28:13
next 8:8; 14:1; 20:5;
22:13; 23:22; 24:24;
35:4; 39:6; 52:11;
60:6;70:21,24;
85:10; 90:2; 94:17;
96-i5-gg-4 ia-
S*J*±Jy ^O«Tlj A-?»
105:15:107:3:116:6;
118:11;123:18;
127:1;129:18;
131:14; 135:6; 138:9;
153:22; 155:13;
161:22; 162:20;
165:21; 173:23;
175:1, 2, 20; 178:20;
183:3:201:15;
202:18; 206:2;
210:17:11:10;
216:22; 220:2;
230:24; 232:16
nice 165:12
night 8:13; 167:9
nine 35:7
nrtpick 162:8
NOAA 74:14; 228:12
nobody 58:9; 148:1;
162:9; 232:13
noise 157:24; 158:3,
6,9
nomination 108:9
non-profit 97:5
nonbeneficiaries
1 OO.O
128:8
nonfederal 32:22;
33:5
nonpoint 219:10
nonpoints 218:19
nonprofit 39:9; 40:7;
71:11; 107:10
nor 204:15
Norm 8:1, 7; 128:11;
129:24; 130:5; 138:7;
150:12; 233:20
normal 176:20;
183:15; 218:19
Normally 139:20
Norman 8:2; 11:5;
129:18; 130:6; 217:7;
233:19
Normandeau 37:21,
23; 38:5
North 135:15;
164:23; 165:1; 167:8;
190:1; 208:4, 5, 13
Northeast 99:3;
176:11; 187:14
Northeaster 176:15,
19,21
Northeasters
1 QO.I 1
lo^.l 1
Northern 157:4,6;
193:19; 194:10;
214:2; 221:21
note 34:6; 38:3; 45:3
noted 88:12; 89:15,
18; 152:18
notes 88:14
nothing 67:24;
164:10; 166:10
notice 179:9
noticed 169:4;
219:14
Notification 130:18
notify ing 206: 12
notion 36:20
November 104:18;
146:6
NSC 20:9
nuclear 213:6
number 12:12;
15:15; 16:24; 18:7;
21:18; 74:9, 9; 80:8;
90:24;109:24;
118:14,15:133:16;
149:2, 10; 150:14;
159:21;170:10;
185:6; 189:1; 207:6
numbers 78:19
numerous 35:16;
89:3; 100:15; 101:9
nursery 168:13;
170:21; 177:6
nutrients 62:18

o
o'clock 5:9; 224:9
O'Neill 5:12; 171:21
objections 89:7
objective 106:13
objects 185:24
obligated 36:5;
142:1
obligation 21:24;
23:6
observations 113:1
OBSERVATORY
105:18, 20
observer 83:5
observers 110:23;
111:16
obvious 159:16, 24
obviously 97:24;
140:16; 145:4; 157:2;
159:22; 160:21;
161:18; 162:2; 165:6,
20; 190: 17; 193:5;
200:4, 16
occur 81:17; 147:19;
161:24
occurring 158:24;
160:19
occurs 157:20;
159:12
ocean 30:20;31:13;
45:17; 46:6; 50:14;
52:13,20;79:2,9,10;
89:6,7,14:91:13,18;
98:9; 103:24; 105:23;
113:1; 163:24;
165:15;171:3;180:1;
182:23; 189:13;
191:15,18,20;
193:7; 194:5; 21 1:20;
212:14,23,24
Oceanographic
73:18; 204:18
October 226:16
Off 5:10; 7:2, 16;
15:4; 16:1; 21:18;
27:17; 58:11; 60:17;
64:12; 92:8; 97:8;
106:1; 142:4; 144:1;
145: 1;146:6; 153:5;
163:4; 168:7; 181:24;
214:24;217:24;
222:22
offer 109:10; 203:12
offered 1 W 1 1 •
Wlldw%i X^W>44,
226:16
Office 9:10; 14:9;
95:12, 12, 15; 135:23
Officer 7:8, 22;
123:22;124:15;
156:10, 12; 217:7;
233:5
Officers 9:8
official 94:17; 232:12
officially 153:20
officials 56:4,9;
64:24
offshore 143:20
often 42:3
oil 15:24; 149:23;
150:6
oils 212:15
old 29:16; 34:7; 67:19
Oleans 206:20
on-going 83:22;
129:11
on-srte 83:5
Once 8:12; 13:8;
129:4;151:22;
192:16;195:22;
210:10
one 7:2; 15:10;
16:24; 18:7; 19:11,
12; 25:16; 28:23;
29:10; 42:20; 44:10;
45:3:47:9,20,20;
48:15; 52:11; 53:16;
54: 19; 56:20; 57: 19;
58:7, 8; 59:21; 60:10;
62:7, 18; 63:19; 76:2;
79:19:80:13:84:4,8,
22; 89:9; 90:24; 92:8,
12;93:15, 16;94:13;
97:10, 11; 98:7, 7;
100:20; 102:24;
104:7; 106:9; 07:12;
110:7; 11 1:6; 115:4;
116:23; 118:6;
119:18; 121:4, 24;
126:5,13,15:131:3,
22; 133:16; 134:17;
139:3; 140:7; 141:20,
20; 142:14; 143:17,
18; 144:15; 146:2,
n- 1^7-Q 9IY
t L*± / •?•, £t\Ji
148: 16; 149:23;
151:16; 152:20, 21;
153:4,13:156:17;
158:6, 18; 159:21;
162:7; 164:2, 2;
166:4, 4; 167:18;
168:9; 171:17; 73:5;
175:18,24;179:19;
185:6,20;187:8;
189:1:190:22;
192:24; 193:2, 19;
197:3:201:15;
202:21; 204:3;
205:15:207:3:211:8,
9; 216:13; 217:16;
218:3,24;227:20;
oan. i i Q
£ty\j. it 10
one's 22:19
one-to-one 163:9
ones 63:17;72:20;
146:12,14,15;
147:21;180:17;
187:23
only 13:3; 17:2; 29:4;
45:20; 72:24; 73:5;
80:3;81:20;83:8;
103:7;106:11;
1 f\"7- 1 O- 1 2C*0 1 •
1U/. l7,15?.^l,
139:18;143:12;
147:2; 150:5; 162:4;
176:2; 180:4; 181:3;
220:19:222:10;
223:22;226:19;
227:4; 229:19; 233:14
ONM 33:8, 13;
141:19,23:142:5
onto 222:22
onward 213:17
much -onward /"7
-------
U.S. Army corps ox engineers IN. t. uwnsion
Massachusetts Port Authority
                                        May 17,1994
ooze 215:22
open 5:2; 22:2; 86:6;
98:9; 138:10; 140:10;
153:19:184:15;
194:22; 195:9; 217:12
Open-ocean 50:22;
51:15,20; 100:15;
106:1
open-water 126:20;
127:6
opening 7:3; 9: 19;
28:5; 156:2
opens 19:19
operate 37:8
operating 88:4;
122:15,21
operation 14:6;
26:11, 14; 82:7;
106:21; 188:14; 191:6
Operations 101:3,
6; 112:8; 151:8
operator 82:3, 5;
189:4
operators 87: 14
opinion 21:20;
52:16; 89:17
opinions 108:6
opportunities 42:24
opportunity 5:22;
13:9; 21:7; 27:4;
36:16; 39:18; 40:1;
69:22; 96:21 ;12O:3;
139:15,24:172:7;
212:16:221:19;
226:1; 227:8; 231:7;
232:22
oppose 180:1; 193:6
opposed 22:19;
51:3,22:57:20;
80:11;81:1;85:16;
121:4; 200:6; 209:4;
212:11;227:12,13
opposing 182:23
opposite 16:14;
63:10
opposition 227:20
optimal 84:13
option 47:1, 9, 24;
48:4;52:3,10;53:15;
55:15; 58:1,8; 63:15;
66:8; 103:17; 108:14;
113:15; 114:4 7*
142:6, 19; 152*:10;
164:10,12:205:9
options 25:2; 33:9;
41:12, 15, 18; 44:20;
45:5; 50:2, 20; 53:3;
54:7, 10; 55:17;
63:16;66:9; 71:19;
115:23; 141:16, 21;
163:9,14:205:4,6;
216:3
order 10:17; 12:10;
77:3; 112:20; 116:10;
117:19:156:4;
202:20; 206:8; 218:7;
223:15
ordering 20:3, 12
orgainzation 146:20
organic 99:1 1; 201:2
organics 199:12;
200:20
organisms 74:4,7,
20;75:18
organization 39:9;
40:7;97:6;179:12;
191:11
organizations 72:3
original 80:2; 101:1
Originally 86: 18
Orin 108:11
etherise 193:24
Others 12:21;34:24;
75:1 5; 76:12; 87:14;
108: 15; 123:7; 224:6
otherwise 30: 15;
142:21
ought 36:21; 197:18
ours 85:13
ourselves 23:20;
119:9
out 11:22, 23; 15:1;
17:23:19:19:20:20;
21:20; 25:9; 27:6;
34:8, 12; 46:19; 51:9;
52:12;54:6,18;56:9;
57:21; 59:3, 12, 13,
22; 62:15,17;63:17;
65:12; 74:9; 79:18;
82:21; 88:19:90:9;
91:6;100:7;106:11;
108:16; 110:8; 11 1:1;
115:1:116:23;
117:12,24;118:17;
122:7; 123:3; 126:12;
129:13; 33:6; 136:11;
138:19:144:6;
147:23, 23; 150:16,
156:13:159:20;
163:18; 164:23;
167:5,7, 10; 170:1, 7;
171:9:175:13;
177:22; 178:5; 180:2;
186:12:187:13;
189:12,24;191:7,8;
192:18:200:8;
201:14;2O3:20;
206:8; 208:1; 213:4,
12, 18, 20; 214:5;
215:2O;216:1O,14;
219-15 24-29-3-
ifijL^fmM. J) A«4y Ai.7«_7>
231:15:233:15
out-of-mirtd 230:19
out-of-sight 230:19
outbound 19:23
outcome 221:13
outer 25: 13; 26:1;
93:12;186:16;
187:23;190:12;214:6
outfall 62:9, 9, 15,
22;63:1,7;93:23;
94:3; 178: 11; 206:24;
209:18:225:23;
226:10; 227: 19;
231:3,6
outfalls 218:15
outline 40:1 5:4 1:17;
68:12
outlined 130:21;
131:4
outlining 68:9
outraged 182: 18
outside 66: 16,
84:10;91:4;102:10;
106:18; 157:16; 190:8
over 6:22; 8:2O;
13:21; 14:15; 17:8,
1 1; 20: 17; 21:2; 22:6;
25:7,9:31:12, 12;
37:24; 40:1; 44:12;
46: 18; 47: 16; 48: 14;
52:9, 14; 53:12;
55:11;57:8;59:18;
64:1:71:15; 74:5;
79: 17; 85:10; 86: 1,
16,18:89:9:91:6;
95:9, 23; 101 ,-9;
103:9; 104:1; 120:14;
127:22; 136:19;
139:6; 140:22;
150:12; 152:1; 66:4;
173:6; 191:4; 194:1;
207:7, 8; 210:3;
212:21;213:1;
214:20;215:11;
216:16:217:19;
220:2:232:15
overall 40:9; 46:22;
114:18:123:19;
124:8; 148:22;
216:23; 217:4; 232:7
overfilling 82:20
overflows 73:7
overlooked 193:11
overruns 140:16,
21; 141:10
overseen 35:9
oversight 228: 11, 16
overtaxed 178:2
overview 7:3, 24;
24:23:33:15:123:20;
156:20:173:11,17;
174:7; 202:9; 225:8
owe 23:20
own 32:9;93:2;
126:14
owns 29:18


P

P 174:8; 202:9; 225:8
p.m 154:1; 201:16
pace 121:21
pages 96:24
PAH's 43:1;73:24;
75:10; 99:11; 196: 11,
16
paid 19:2; 11 1:8
painted 16:14
pallets 166:19
panel 8:6; 114:21;
138:5:155:13;
173:22;174:24;
217:4; 232:6
panels 6: 12
paper 42:7;78:11;
83:10; 98:20
papers 163:3
parameters 130:24
parent 191:14
park 44:4
part 18:1 1,13; 19:8,
21; 21:6; 22:3; 26:6,
15; 29:22; 30:21;
32:2:33:13,13;
36:20; 4 1:7; 43: 12;
45:21; 46:8, 9, 12, 16;
47:2; 48:3, 11; 51:21;
61:20; 62:10; 79:6;
83:13, 14; 84:12;
97: 14; 106:12, 23;
140:24;141:17,18;
149:14; 150:8, 18;
152:22,22:164:6;
167:15:175:16;
179:18, 21; 184:13;
190:16;02:18;
216:22:219:4;
223:11;224:9
participants 131:11
participation 38:13;
71:21; 135:2
particular 12:24;
14:4; 26:6; 114:6;
136:2,7, 18; 142:19;
170:23; 207:4, 13,
23; 210:15
particularly 76:5;
98:19; 99:7; 122:12;
159:17:191:4;
203:17;212:24;228:6
parties 37:18
Partly 22:24; 72:12
partner 37:2
partners 196:1
parts 111:21
party 37:6; 94:13
pass 163:3; 167:13
passage 203:16
passed 112:12
passing 86:23
passionate 15:3,16;
16:8, 16; 23:12
past 6:22; 37:24;
40:1;48:14;71:15,
16; 82:15:83:21;
86:17;99:15;120:14;
147:15:173:7;
177:21:178:2;
221:16; 230:21
patient 25:5
PATTERSON
119:23:120:6
Paul 210:18, 19
pay 19:6; 34:2, 3;
153:1; 180:17; 216:13
payers 117:14
paying 17:14; 113:3;
180:21
PCB 75:24
PCB's42:24;73:23;
74:16; 77:21;91:1;
99:10; 170:13; 196:16
peeled 106:3
Penia 18:10
Pennsylvania 24:8
penny-wise 229:23
peole 193:10
people 14:24; 15:11,
16; 22:16; 23:8, 20;
24:24; 26:8; 38:4, 13;
43:23:48:13:57:23;
66:3:93:1:94:1;
96:24; 104:23;
106:20, 22; 107:18,
21, 23; 108:1; 116:2;
118:9, 19; 120:17;
122:15; 126:6; 127:4,
5,13:129:11;
130:12, 15; 137:21;
143:13,14:144:15;
151:7:153:10;
166:14; 179:16, 17;
181:5:94:3:196:1;
209:23; 233:1
people's 110: 18;
129:3; 138:15
per 134:6; 147:15;
229:24
percent 16:11;
17:18,21,22;32:8;
45:23:46:11,18;
99:2:108:19:116:15,
16; 141:24; 160:12,
14; 176:2, 2; 181:4, 6;
20O:19
percentage 1 18:18,
21
perceptions 130:15
Perez 7:18; 11:11;
71:1,4,6:105:8;
174:12;202:13;
206:11;225:12;229:3
performance 68:12;
118:13; 119:5
performed 198:18;
228:22
perhaps 81:13;
166:7:221:15
perimeter 208:3
period 6:2; 34:14;
40:21,22; 114:10;
128:18,19:129:9;
138:17:139:16,20,
21; 141:4; 152:1;
183:1; 194:10;
198:22; 226:4, 13
periodically 77:3;
111:1
periods 39:24
permit 34:5; 42: 1,3;
68:9; 69:3; 82:1;
83:3:106:10,12;
132:19; 139:16
permits 67:12, 12;
82:4,12,24;87:17;
106:23; 139:1O
permitted 107:1;
113:4
permitting 68:6;
109:22; 11 1:6;
113:12; 139:13
perpetuate 227:24
persevering 135:19
persistent 75:13
person 16:14;
108:12:135:23;
141:19:156:14;
162:20; 167:18;
225:21
personally 86:11
personnel 81:21
persons 152:6
perspective 36:24;
38:24; 77:20; 85:2
perspectives 38:14
pesticides 75:10
Pete 10:19:24:15;
35:3:45:13; 121:1;
139:6; 140:22; 156:9;
217:23; 219:9
Peter 7:9; 23:23;
174:9; 202:11; 225:10
Peterson 62:23
petition 95:20, 23;
195:13
petroleium 198:16
petroleum 17:18;
87:22; 108:20; 130:1;
170:14; 183:15;
185:7;203:19;
222:20, 22
phenomenon
187:12; 188:24
phone 149:2
physical 76: 13;
157:22
physically 52:12
pick 142:6; 196.22
picks 67:1
picture 29:16
pieced 189:15
Pier 35:10
piles 1O9:24
pilings 67:19
pilot 64:23; 134:4;
181:19:185:16;
1 O^'OX
lo/.ZI
pilots 28:13; 187:23
pipe 219:16; 225:23;
226: 1O; 231:3, 6
pipes 178:11
BPA REPORTING (617)423-0500
Min-TJ-Script®
ooze - pipes
-------
May 17,1994
           U.S. Army Corps of Engineers N. £. Division &
                          Massachusetts Port Authority
pit 47:10; 54:1; 633;
66:12
pits 52:10, 16; 53:2;
60:19; 62:4; 65:14;
164:1; 205:9
pitting 63:12
place 20:6:33:23;
43:15,21;44:24;
52:1; 59:19; 69:1;
76:9; 82:6; 93:22;
101:14; 104:15, 24;
139:14:157:9;
165:14; 178:10, 13;
215:11; 216:4; 218:24
placed 230:13
places 52:2; 58:4;
211:17
plain 147:6
plainly 146:18
plan 23:12, 13; 27:7;
40:16,19,23:47:9;
51:3, 21; 56:3, 8, 20,
21; 61:15; 62:16;
68:22:69:2,12,19,
24; 110:4; 135:8;
140:8
planned 42:9
planning 10:3; 11:8;
35:20; 40:2;71:20;
72:l;85:ll; 129:20,
O5» 1 4SVOi *Jrt2«"T»
23; 130:8; 203:7;
217:9; 233:21, 24
plans 64:8; 106:19;
227:11
plant 72:18; 93:23
plastics 212:15

player 72:8
playing 16:2
please 6:8; 87:5;
115:1; 118:14;
136:18:138:11;
140:3; 144:17; 153:9;
156:5:171:16,18;
172:17:184:22;
201:8; 219:8; 223:19;
224:7
pleased 38:2; 163:5,
17
plenty 187:19
plug 197:3
plugged 163:12
Plus 159:6
pluses 150:5
plywood 17:17
podium 13:20
Point 9:6, 14; 25:22;
29:8;44:14; 62:20;
79:12; 81:12;933;
94:7; 98:2; 99:21;
117:24:119:7;
136:11; 139:2;
151:17:152:18;
155:5:157:13;
158:12:159:18;
174:16:185:10;
186:11; 192:1; 208:1,
7; 216:2; 221:8; 223:2
pointed 100:7;
108:16; 229:3
points 18:4,4;
124:22
poisons 177:24
policies 182:17
Policy 39:8; 123:21;
135:9. 17; 143:10;
205:14; 231:23
politically 195:19
pollutants 178:2;
228:19
polluted 178: 10, 11
pollution 220:19,
20; 229:8
polyaromatic 169:5
Pope 119:20, 22, 24;
120:5
porpoise 117:11
Port 14:3; 15:11, 13,
17; 16:5, 22, 24;
17:11,14,20,24;
18:7,22:19:17,18,
22, 23; 20:10; 21:9,
15, 17, 17; 22:2, 7, 9;
36:8, 10, 21, 22;
42:13; 85:3; 87:15,
21; 88:1, 5; 90:10;
95:6,8,9,10,22;
96:6, 8, 9; 108:4, 18,
19, 23, 24; 112:4;
118:3:121:12,20;
122:14,17,20;
123:4, 6, 8; 145:22;
175:14; 203:20; 21:8,
22; 222:14; 229:19
Port's 14:6; 108:21
portable 116:9
portion 19: 12; 84:3;
136:6; 174:2; 202:3;
225:2
ports 18:5, 11, 14;
64:20;85:1,6,7;
109:7; 142:24;
161:21;197:10;
214:3:221:17
pose 42:23; 113:8
posist"ion65:ll
position 15:8; 16:3;
65:2; 78:11; 85:14;
175:18; 193:6; 207:15
positive 60:15;
65:10;72:3;83:19;
84:15; 116:10; 121:3;
210:7
possibilities 84:3
possibility 36:16;
54:4; 59:20; 60:10;
84:5; 134:4; 204:6;
221:11;231:20
possible 50:21;
51:5;57:6;71:21; '
111:16; 112:2; 136:9;
149:3; 184:2, 21;
204:6; 216:4; 226:2
possibly 80:18;
223:8
Potential 20:23;
21:3; 65:22; 74:6, 23;
75:2; 104:20; 127:17;
230:4
potentially 63:11;
64:11; 65:18; 70:12;
76:18; 80:17; 102:1;
132:7,7:133:1;
142:20; 209: 14
potentials 208:12
pots 47:13:60:24;
116:23
pound-foolish
229:24
pounds 115:19;
117:2,5;213:22,22
power 176:14
powerful 117:10
practicable 54:12;
55:1; 56:22, 23; 57:2;
58:3:64:10,11;
112:22:131:22,23;
132:3,7,8;133:2
practical 32:3;
166:12; 186:24
practice 28:15;
82:14; 113:2; 159:9
practices 82:19;
89.1
preach 196:2
precipitating 220:12
p reconstruction
33:21
predetermined
163:13
predict 102:19;
141:5
prediction 141:3
predictive 102:13
predominant 144:5
nr^finnninstntlv
UlCUUIIIIIIOIIUjf
169:22
.-, r^fn r Cl . X
prefer 51:4
preference 50:20
preferred 79:13;
129:1,6:133:9,10,
14; 134:17, 18;
163:5,6,8,24;
205:20
pregnant 76:5
prejudiced 195:17
preliminary 40:2;
56:5; 198:18
premise 53:7
preparation 125:17;
134:19
prepare 85:23
preparing 97:24;
128:9; 195:14
presence 137:22
present 47: 17;
87:24; 1O1:23; 168:4;
180:18; 192:8;
199:15:204:15
presentation 6:4;
25:3,12:56:15;
119:20; 121:2; 155:9;
172:12; 174:21;
232:18
presentations
153:21
presented 12:13;
24:20
presently 87:21;
185:3
presents 41:1 5
preserve 177:3;
231:22
preserving 39: 10;
227:21
President 18:10,-
108:7:120:6,8;
165:16; 179:1; 185:3;
186:16
pressure 48:5;
pressured 128:19
prestigious 179:20
Presumably 82:17
pretty 137:20; 193:6
prevent 192:19;
200.11
prevented 110:1
preventing 85:19
previous 27:8:32:6;
74:2, 2
previously 74:14;
113:21:228:20
price 113:3; 153:1;
163:14; 180:17, 21
primarily 12:4;
25:18; 28:7; 31:11;
45:22; 81:8; 98:7;
131:2; 203:23
primary 37:3
Prior 14:8; 32:6;
82:15; 125:16; 130:3;
142:16; 209:4; 227:5
priority 66:6; 197:18
private 97:5
probability 161:9
probably 28:7;
29:14:32:13:34:7;
43:24;51:18;55:13;
62:6,13,24;66:22;
67:8;68:3;69:14;
80:18:96:23:98:4;
121:12:138:13;
141:2; 145:16;
151:18,21:158:3;
161:22; 182:16;
185:22; 187:6, 11,
20,20;188:3;212:7;
216:7; 219:19;
221:12; 223:7
probems 67:23
problem 31:2;
50:24; 56:19; 58:17;
60:4, 8; 77:17; 90:24;
110:5:111:14;
130:16; 148:3;
153:15; 160:4, 18;
192:6; 210:22;
218:24; 229:4
problems 20:24;
42:5, 8, 10; 60: 16;
65:15; 67:16; 69:3;
93:19; 105:5; 113:9;
126:12;133:7;
148:10; 162:5; 164:3;
182:16; 194:4;
196:20;208:10;
230:16,21
procedures 106:15;
134:24; 184:8
proceed 84:23
proceeded 37:14
proceedings 5:8;
13:8
process 5: 18; 6:9;
7:15, 16; 8:4; 22:3;
23:9; 32:19; 34:5, 6,
12; 37:11, 17; 38:1;
39:21; 41:20; 49:6, 6;
50:9, 17; 53:23; 61:4;
64:7; 66:20; 68:16,
23; 69:1, 11; 71:20;
72:1; 76:14, 23; 83:4;
85:13;98:1;105:2;
108:14:109:20;
111:6,10:116:8;
119:12:123:13;
124:20; 126:2, 2, 19;
127:16;128:3,4,12,
13; 29:10, 12;
135:21,22;137:16,
22, 24; 138:14, 17;
139:12, 13; 150:18;
155:10; 172:3, 18;
173:17,24:174:21;
192:14;193:13;
194:6,21,22;
223:14; 228:16
processes 106:14;
183:19
product 20: 17; 2 1:4;
185:6
productive 91:19;
92:2; 143:23
products 17:18;
19:6;20:19;87:22;
108:20;118:23;
222:20
professionals 183:8
professor 9: 1 5
program 32:9;
97:15:120:3:159:3;
161:3; 162:7; 167:20;
171:14:202:18;
225:17
programs 35: 17;
124:10;219:12,13
progress 71:14
progressing 213:17
prohibition 88:23
Project 5:16:6:19;
7:4,8,10,12,21;
10:3,4,7,11,14,18;
11:4,15,18,20;
12:11,18,20,22,24;
13:14,24:15:7,14;
16:8, 19; 18:18; 21:7;
23:23:24:1,15,20,
23:25:10,14,24;
26:6, 16; 29:8, 9, 22;
30:7; 31:24; 32:2, 7,
20; 33:19, 24; 34:11;
35:5,6,7,23:36:2,
18- 37'1 2711 14
XO) J / *Ly £t) / j JL JL) A't
19,20;38:10, 11, 14,
17, 24; 0:3, 10; 41:10;
42:2,4,7,14,22,23;
43:18,23:44:3,6,6;
45:12,19:47:16;
48:23:49:5,10,14;
59:20;6l:10,12,18;
62:10; 65:21; 66:4;
67:12; 70:5, 7; 71:15,
20, 23; 72:5; 73:2;
74:13:76:15:77:7,
13,24;78:15;79:6;
83:1, 9, 14, 16; 84:12,
14, 18; 85:15; 89:19;
92:16; 93:13, 21;
94:1; 101:17, 18;
02:5; 103:23; 105:6,
10; 106:24; 107:15;
5,8,15:113:24;
114:3:117:22;
120:18, 23; 121:5;
123:15,22,24;
124:15,17,24;
125:1,3,4,9:126:14;
127:16, 19; 132:13;
133:13:139:7,17;
141:1,11,15,19;
142:1;146:3,9;
147:11,13:148:7,7,
9,17,22:149:22;
150:3;155:2;156:9,
11, 19; 58:6; 159:13,
19, 22; 160:7, 12, 20;
161:11, 14; 162:3,8,
14; 172:1; 173:5, 12,
13,21:174:3,7,9,
10; 183:11; 184:2;
185:4,13:186:2,4,7;
188:10;189:9;
190:10;193:23;
202:5,8,11,12;
203:12, 21; 2O4:3,
14, 24; 212:10, 11;
213:19; 217:7; 219:3,
5;220:9;221:4,6;
223:5; 224:6; 225:4,
7,10,11;227:6;
29:17; 233:4
project's 149:14
projections 221:2;
223:3
projects 25:8; 35:11,
17; 43:1 1; 49:1 1,22;
pit - projects
Min-U-Script®
BPA REPORTING (617)423-0500
-------
u.». army corps or engineers JN. JK,.
Massachusetts Port Authority
                                vrrtstoti
                                                                                  May 17,1994
64:23; 65:21;68:3;
84:21; 104:19; 11 1:2;
124:10; 127:14;
132:11, 14; 134:4;
147:14, 18; 160:19;
161:12; 223:21
Prolerized 28:21
promise 172:13
promised 17:7;
93:24
promote 40:8;
107:11
promoting 39: 10
prompt 89:21
pronounce 8:2
proof 229:4
propellers 160:3
proper 78:1
property 66:10;
67:18; 82:11; 163:22
property 2 1:2, 3
proponent 37:2
proposal 53:10;
199:6
propose 25:23;
27:10; 28:9; 59:5;
213:19; 232:9
proposed 27:6;
44:5, 11; 53:4; 55:5;
58:18; 62:3, 9; 63:17;
64:6, 20; 81:7; 83:18;
149:9; 157:20; 168:8;
175:20; 197:4; 208:4;
209:19:211:18;
214:8; 227:18
proposing 51:24;
60:19; 169:2
prosperous 178:12
protccft 40:8
protect 17:2; 80:22;
163:15; 231:22
protected 168:11
protecting 179:16,
4 o, *>T7.O1
lo; 2.LI .2.1
protection 159:14;
160:11
protocol 30:19;
131:6,7;133:17, 17
prove 58:6; 198:22;
199:20
proved 58:3
proven 57: 13; 228:6
provide 5:21; 109:4;
126:14; 172:7
provided 21: 13;
71:23; 112:6; 128:17
provides 20:1; 89:4
providing 123:7;
227:7
Provineetown
206:20
proximity 228:7
Prudential 31:17,
20; 78:22
public 5:13, 19;
6:18; 7:14; 10:13;
13:4, 17; 14:6; 23:4;
37:9;39:24;4l:7;
55:14; 56:9; 70:22;
78:15:85:12; 86:1,7,
7, 14; 87:4; 91:5;
107:10,12;110:8;
125:19;126:4;127:9;
128:16; 129:8;
141:12:155:3;
162:20;171:22;
172:5; 173:4; 174:3,
6,11:202:3,7,12,
19; 21 1:3; 223:22,
23;225:2,6,11;32:4
publicity 91:2
published 98:21
pulled 177:22
pungent 160:24
purple 30:24; 33:20
purpose 124:24;
125:3; 171:16; 227:7
purposes 32:3;
!Uv13
,J****J
pursue 114:7
pursuing 84:2;
142:17
push 59:8;65:1;
70:14
put 38: 1,1 5; 44:24;
53:10;63:19,24;
68:9; 116:20; 123:10;
139:22:145:12;
148:20; 152: 15;
171:4; 181:1 1,22;
201:9; 207:9; 213:18;
216:4,11,13;
219:12; 225:18; 226:6
puts 67:2; 106:11
putting 59: 14;
177:17;213:19;
233:13
Q
quadrant 98:23, 24
qualified 1 15:21
qualify 149:20
quality 35:13, 14;
163:10; 200:1
quantify 47:20
quick 33:15:84:17;
193:2
quickly 15:5; 59:9;
79:17; 163:3
Quincy 75:21
quite 16:6; 18: 15;
21:11,20,23:98:1;
120:13:133:4;
168:19,23:212:6;
220:21; 222:21
quota 117:6



R 94:19:95:12;
96: 11; 101:2
radar 21: 18
radioactive 44: 1 1,
16:58:23:59:18;
6O:8;66:1;80:15,23;
1lVfc'1*7" 1 1 X.-'J'J
JIW. J, /, 11^.^^
radioactivity 60:4;
m.*52
:23
rail 22:9
rails 18:14
rainy 15:1
raise 225:20
raised 4 1:6; 72:5;
83:13; 84:18
raising 194:22; 213:9
rake 119:10, 11
Ralph 7:7; 14:1, 21;
24:19; 28:24; 108:15
ranked 74:4, 9
rapidly 118:1
rate 117:14; 14 1:5
rattier 34:8,21;
70:16; 77:9; 98:23;
118:7; 139:21; 150:2;
190:1;211:18;
213:17; 218:8; 222:19
ratio 46: 10; 1 50:9;
152:14; 163:10
ration 46:17
rationalization
164-18
Jl v^*»*O
re-accent 192:7
re-capping 106:5
re-evaluate 68:19
re-introduced 143:3
re-release 76: 15
re-suspended
116:18
reached 150:21, 22
Reaching 75: 17
read 52:4; 58:1;
109:9:130:13;
168:22; 179:7; 203:3
readily 196:13
reading 81:13;
105:24; 233:3
ready 78:8; 120:2
Real 20:23; 25:4;
34:6; 48:16; 60:11;
75:4; 118:14, 15;
152:19; 1533; 220:13
real-time 28:12
realistically 113:15
reality 42:2, 8;
67:14; 83:9; 102:15;
113:5:162:4,9;
193:17
realize 100:2;
122:15; 132:20
realized 38:8; 222:2
really 11:24; 15: 18;
16:5, 12;18:18;22:3,
18, 20; 32:2; 38:2;
42:2;43:11;46:1;
48:18; 5O:4, 6;51:12;
55:15; 64:11; 65:9;
67:13, 17, 24; 72:11;
110:8; 112:19; 117:9;
121:17; 125:24;
133:6; 134:2; 153:1;
157:5; 165:8; 168:3;
171:14:187:1,1;
197:5; 219:7; 223:24;
231:16
rear 5:3;6:15;
172:23; 223:18
reason 36:7; §8:7;
52:18; 53:17; 58:21;
62-21-1OO-17-
U^.i&l.) AVrV/. i/,
101:13,23; 115:15;
123:2; 195:23
reasonable 5 1:2;
89:5; 1 18:16; 130:24;
132:1
reasons 36:14;
53:16; 80:10; 82:17;
164:19:204:19
reassess 119:10
reassurance 231:15
recap 85:14
receipt 124:3
receive 13:4; 136:8;
137:1,6;146:12;
196:2
received 78:6;
179:19:202:20
receiving 9: 11;
13:14
recent 81:18; 109:17
recently 18:23;
28:24; 99:17; 168:3;
199:21;206:23;
209:10
recess 155:15;
171: 19; 223:11; 224:8
recession 21:19
reclassify 100:13
recognize 147:16;
230:21
recognized 18:1 1
recognizes 113:5
recommend 114:4
recommendation
83:12; 103:13
recommended 76:1
recommends
204:20;205:1,5,11,
t Q
IS
reconsider 194:7
record 5: 10, 22; 6:8;
40:18;4l:8;49:l;
145:18,19:148:20;
1=15,7, 1 56-14-
* J> ,?<•/} » *7f ,1,**,
162:21; 167:19;
172:8, 17; 174:18;
175:2;182:22;
192:23:206:2;
211:23:225:21;
226:6,15:231:1
records 213:9;
225:19
recreational 76:22;
117:24
recreationally
158:15
recurrence 222:15
red 18:4; 57:9
redraft 230:7
redrawing 26:5
reduce 56: 11;
142:21; 199:13;
200:11; 218:3
reduced 149:11
reducing 166:8;
217:20; 219:14
reduction 219: 19;
220:3
reef 61:13, 19,22,24
reference 31:17;
100:21; 101:2; 229:16
references 100:10;
102:20; 103:15
referred 97:1 1;1O2:8
reflect 230:3, 9
reformulating 29:22
regard 114:1; 118:7;
134:13; 197:2;
216:24; 224:5
regarding 100:3;
184:17:206:24;
•"M"*^. 'I 2
207:13
region 2I:14;71:13;
87:23:89:21,24;
99:20; 1O1:9; 108:23;
109:1; 122:4; 123:1
regional 35:20,49:9;
117:21,23:203:7
regular 221:17
regulations 77:15;
1 *7fl* 1 Q
1 /U.I;'
Regulatory 10:22;
38:20; 131:12; 156:7;
203:8; 205:12
reiterate 39:1
related 35:11;41:10;
46:1;68:5;78:15;
82:24; 122:9; 124:10;
130:2
relationship 210:8
relative 82:4
relatively 78:5;
196:18
relay 184:1
released 109:14;
118:24; 128:16; 229,7
relevant 210:24
relocations 32:23
rely 88: 10
remain 76:1 1;1O9:7
remaining 82:21
remains 76:3; 166:19
remarkably 1 16:22
remarking 26:14;
"V,-\
3y.L
REMARKS 9: 19;
201:6,8
remedial 102:2
remediate 64:17;
142:21
remediating 56:7
remediation 56:1-
64:23; 111:21,24;
127:6
remember 15:21;
59:1; 105:24
remembered
214:17:215:2
remind 32:12;
115:21:135:20;
137:21:220:9;
223:12;228:23
reminded 108:6
reminds 31:21
remodeling 32:11
removal 32:5
remove 32: 14;
66:12:222:18;
231:20; 232:2
removed 103:17;
160:9
render 83:23; 196:17
renovations 35:9
reopen 194:5
repeat 3O:17
replace 29:20
reponsible 128:5
report 5:15:92:21;
101:1, 2; 114:20;
128:9; 130:13; 136:5;
137:3,5,13:155:12;
171:24:174:23;
190:6; 203:10; 217:2
reported 227:21
reports 99: 16;
134:23
represent 183:7,24;
206:19:226:10
representative
90:14
representatives
38:20; 143:2; 197:12
represented 14:11
representing 95:3;
173:3; 179:22
represents 14:13;
26:21;97:18; 101:19;
181:19:212:5
reproduction 75:1
request 144:24
requested 155:6;
174:17
require 28:20; 118:9
required 81:20;
82:5; 1O9:22; 118:21;
BPA REPORTING €617)423-0500
                                         Min-U-Script®
Prolerized - required
-------
May 17,1994
           U.S. Army Corps of Engineers N. E. Division &
                           Massachusetts Port Authority
155:12; 174:23;
.228:11
requirement 132:23
requirements 7:24;
83:1,3:111:18
requires 85:18;
181:2
RESEARCH 96:18;
97:5,21:191:23;
196:9,13:198:7;
228:21
researchers 75:8
resently 112:5
Reserve 27:12, 18;
185:8; 216:3
reside 9:17
resident 122:3
residential 114:6
resides 124:13;
233:18
resolved 144:3;
207:1
Resort 202:2
resource 42:18;
47:8; 48:17; 54:3;
60:22;70:3,4,9,16;
147:12
resources 40:13,
14; 42:20; 45:8;
50:16,23:51:2;
57:19: 58:l6;6l:2;
67:6; 84:14; 99:18;
104:20; 145:9;
163:1 1,16; 204:9,
13; 229:22; 230:12
respect 12:18;77:7;
813; 136:24
respond 201:10;
226:6
response 40:18;
85:24;90:3: 114:15;
140:12; 184:18
responsibility 8:18;
10:1; 15:9; 64:18
responsible 14:3;
111:9; 123:7; 124*;
147:10, 21; 148:16,
21;233:12,13
rest34:21;65:23;
68:2; 70:19; 86:1;
174:19:189:17;
232:18
restate 195:23
restoration 180:22
restoring 163:11
restriction 29:17
restrictions 82:1;
83:2; 120:22
restudying 193:18
result 25:7; 27:20;
44:21; 64:1:72:12;
77:4, 23; 78:2; 82:24;
102:13, 18; 190:10;
220:4; 221:4, 6, 24;
223:4
resulting 88:2
results 74:14;79:5;
93:23;98:22; 131:13;
132:18; 133:18, 19,
22
resuspended
116:17
reuse 51:15
Revere 21:1; 64:7
review 30:6; 34:5;
69:18, 24; 89:3;
128:16,17,21,22;
129:7, 9; 135:21, 22;
136:12, 13, 22;
137:10, 16, 22;
139:21;155:12;
161:24; 174:23;
208:22; 210:3; 226:12
reviewed 57:4;
158:7; 203:9; 210:21
reviewing 49:13;
78:4; 85:22; 129:5;
136:1
revised 26:13
revisited 79:12
Rhode 28:14
rich 169:3; 170:21
richest 57:19
rid 82:15
ride 149:16
right 5:6; 6:16, 17;
8:2; 18:24; 24:22;
25:22; 29:16; 31:4, 9;
32:5; 41:23; 43:10;
45:4; 52:6, 11; 53:22;
55:7,15:57:15;
59:22; 60:21; 64:1O,
20; 72:10; 81:2O;
98:12;108:12;
114:17; 117:17, 18;
126:7, 10; 127:22;
138:5; 139:20; 145:9;
146:2; 147:14;
148:19:157:4,7;
158:12; 159:1, 5, 15,
21,24;60:3,15;
161:5,7:162:5,10,
13, 16; 170:8, 18;
172:24;173:1;
182:17; 188:19;
192:15:193:19;
194:10; 198:3;
199:17; 208:4, 5, 13;
209:8,15:212:17;
233:16
rights 145:9
rigorous 198:19;
199:19
rise 75:16
risk23O:13
risking 222:19
risky 43:1
River 28:5, 11, 16;
64:6; 166:4; 220:11
rivers 73:6; 166:1, 2;
218:10
Roads 165:16;
185:3; 186:16
roars 176:15
Robinson 90:4, 5, 7,
9
rogues 74:22
ROLE 36:1; 37:7, 22;
84:2; 173:12, 20;
174:10;179:17,21;
202:12;225:11
rotes 7:14; 85:1
roll 186:1
room 5:3; 13:7;
22:16; 38:22; 70:6;
78:12:112:13;
116:11; 143:14;
153:19:164:13;
172:22
ROSENBERG 5:1,
11;10:23;13:22;
23:22; 35:3; 39:5;
70:20; 86:5; 90:1, 4;
94:16; 96:14; 105:13;
107:2;114:12,16;
119:14, 18; 123:17;
129:16; 135:5; 138:2;
140:7,13,20;
142:11;143:16;
144:11;146:17;
148:18; 153:6; 155:4;
156:1;162:18;
167:16; 171:1 1,20;
174:5,15:178:18;
183:2; 184:4, 10, 19;
92:21; 193:2; 194:1 5;
195:22; 201:3; 202:7,
17; 205:24; 210: 17;
211:5,10,22;
216:20;217:12,23;
220:22; 223:9; 225:6,
16; 226:3; 230:24;
232:3
Ross 119:20,22;
120:5
rotary 27:23
rotate 28:2
rotting 59:19
roughly 16:21; 17:4;
21:15:33:12
route 144:22, 24
routes 92:19; 151:20
ruin 215:12
rule 223:13
ruled 54:6
rutes6:5;172:l4;
212:22
run 155:7; 174:18
running 138:6;
146:5; 166:2; 167:9;
173:10;175:23;
182:15
runoff 73:6; 218:11,
12,15
runs 83:6




sacrifice 177:18
sacrificed 70: 10
safe 39: 13, 14;
105:11:121:10;
203:16
safety 55:15
sailed 88:7
salinity 200:19
salt 17:17
saltswater 200:15
same 22:22; 34:19;
52:19:60:9:61:11;
108:12;117:15;
122:24;137:23;
148:9; 150:4; 186: 10;
188:16; 203:20;
207:7:231:12
sample 183:22, 23
samples 183:2O
sampling 131:7;
1 StSt.1 T
133:17
San 24:3
Sanctuary 57:10;
80:7; 98:14; 104:17,
21,22;168:1O;
175:21; 177:2;
204:12; 207:22; 208:4
sand 177:9; 218:11
Sandwich 206:21
Sandy 9:16
Sanfilippo 178:21,
22, 24; 179:1; 181:18
Sanford 24:9
santuary 57:15;
228:9
sat 120:12
satisfactory 207:2
satisfied 131:1O
Saugus 90:10
Save 5:3; 6:19; 7:17;
11:10; 16:5; 18:16;
39:7,8,11,16,20;
40:6;70:2;71:9;
86:12; 97:16; 1O9:15;
115:10,13:120:20;
153:12;173:2,13;
174:11;177:16;
179:9; 187:17;
202:14;207:10;
225:13; 231:8
savings 122:24
saw 115:18; 168:7
saying 22:20, 21;
47:18; 49:13; 80:21;
85:4; 102:9; 105:4;
120:17; 169:21;
189*. 10, 11;
191:17:195:21;
207:8; 231:11
scans 213:8
scattered 44: 12;
106:18; 214:3; 215:11
scenario 88:16;
186:6; 191:22
schedule 33:16;
87:24; 139:7, 14, 19;
155:5; 174:16; 222:1
scheduled 88:7
scheduling 88:3;
140:17; 146:4
school 226: 11
Science 24:6, 8;
35:20,22:71:2;
73:14,15:124:4,6;
135:12, 14; 233:8, 10
scientific 121:7;
198:20; 199:20
scientist 43:7;
58:15; 62:6; 63:1;
73:15; 102:14;
103:24; 193:18
scientists 43:4;
60:22; 69:21; 73:17;
97:10, 11; 99:14;
124:13; 183:8; 233:18
scoops 118:10
scope 130:21,22;
136:14,19,22;
193:12
scoped 37:11, 13
scoping 72:1;
125:17,22
scow 101:6
scows 159:8
Scrap 28:21
screen 21:18
seui*v72:l4
sea 93:3: 116:1, 2;
186: 16; 214:7, 8
seals 117:13
seaport 152:24
season 144:8;
146:5, 5; 198:2, 5, 9
Second 100:14;
106:9; 132:6; 134:9;
184:12, 13; 187:13;
197:8; 210:11; 223:2
secondarily 103:6
secondary 72: 18
secondly 51:15;
91:9; 102:6; 104: 14;
137:12
seconds 225:20
Secretary 18:10;
136:15; 137:2
Secretary's 130:20
secretly 116:15
Section 161:24;
208:22,22:214:2;
228:17
sector 118:2
security 36: 14;
111:11
sediment 37: 15;
44:2,17,21,24;
45:16; 49:12; 52:8;
53:1 1;56:24; 59:15;
71:2; 74:8; 75:11;
79:5:80:19:81:10,
23; 82:21; 84:21;
88:24; 100:16; 101:8;
103:5, 6, 22; 104:6;
113:2;131:3;175:24;
176:18; 183:13;
198: 15; 207:19;
209:20;2H:16;
228:10
c flwf i fw**n$wt in n
aVSUH I its 1 1 1*1 Itwf I
194-4
*^^*TI
sediments 40:12;
41:17; 50:8; 51:17;
52:14, 17; 53:15, 21;
56:2, 11; 57:20;
58:19:59:19,24;
60:6,9;6l:22;63:6,
20, 23; 64:18; 65:12;
66:7; 67:2, 4; 73:9,
12,20:74:4,12,15,
24; 80:11; 83:24;
85:18; 89:6; 105:22;
109:13:111:24;
113:7, 14; 127:7;
163:18:164:14,14,
15,19:165:19,21;
166:5; 169:6; 75:17;
191:5,7,13:204:17;
207:17:217:20;
218:3, 9; 227:17
seeing 15:16; 16:16
seek 115:1; 153:15
seeking 140:17
seem 57:5:63:18;
65:20:120:21;
147:16; 153:8; 171:5;
230:11
seemed 68:23; 126:5
seems 54:1; 69:20;
121:4; 123:11; 148:1;
149:11:151:17,21;
212:15; 213:19
sees 68:24; 83:7
segregate 134:14
select 129:1, 5;
133:9:139:17;
151:23,24;152:14;
223:16
selected 133:10
selection 37:16;
142:6
Senators 197:17
sense 41:3:51:7;
59:17; 64:14; 87:1;

231:24*
sensitive 104: 11;
158:3
sensitivity 99:5, 8
sent 19:1:90:13;
104:23:128:22
separate 53:23
separated 167:6
serene 16:12
series 24:24; 25: 10,
15; 27:19; 146:19
requirement - series
Min-tl-Script®
BPA REPOKTING (617)423-0500
-------
«->.cj. xu..iuy
                            «. n. Division &
Massachusetts Port Authority
                                          May 17,1994
serious 133:7;
215:4; 216:2
seriously 196:5;
229:1
seriousness 134:3
servant 23:4
served 9:3, 9; 223:7
service 17:19;
19:16,17,22,24;
24:3; 88: 10; 96:9;
100:22; 127:24;
128:1; 187:2; 229:8
serviced 95:9
services 109:5;
123:8
serving 203:8
session 9:24; 13:4;
86:2; 96:23; 114:11;
1 25:22; 143:2, 4;
154:2; 155:1; 197:12;
198:1; 223:12; 224:9;
225:1
sessions 78:6;
125:18; 140:2
set 85:23; 134:16;
164:3; 232:5
setting 13:6;39:23;
55:11; 132:22;
146:23; 224:4
settle 219:23
several 6: 15; 2 1:3;
41:15; 43:16; 44:9;
47:6; 54:10; 71:16;
101:16; 102:7; 103:2,
19; 107:15; 113:10;
125:17;128:24;
130:2; 133=3, 15;
172:24; 173:1;
187:11;212:10
severe 167:11
severl 103:12
sewage 72:13, 17,
19,23:73:5:93:23;
94:3
sewer 73:6
shall 167:6; 180:15
Shamrock 11 5: 17
shape 102:5
shapes 27:19
share 15:10; 37:1;
46:9,15,23,24;
105:7; 141:23
shared 105:8
sharers 37:4
Sharing 18:20; 30:3
shelled 75:23
shellfish 107:20;
168:14
ship 20: 17, 20;
165:10; 186:1, 10,
14; 187:8, 11, 15,24;
189:20;221:19;
222:5, 13, 22; 223:4
shipped 88: 15;
203:19
shipping 19:9; 20:9;
39:12; 42:16; 53:14,
24:87:8,11,12,15;
117:21; 120:8; 123:6;
165:6; 227:13; 229:18
ships 15:23,24;
20:3,4,12:85:3;
87:20, 24; 88:4, 5, 6;
96:8; 107:22; 121:23;
122:13,15,21;
123:8; 126:11;
165:13:190:2,22;
221:3:222:16,18
shoaled 126: 11
shoes 17:6
Shore 2 14:2
shoreline 55:12
short 14:4; 59:3;
82:14; 103:8; 155:15;
160:20;171:19;
173:10; 184:9; 193:4;
230:23
short-term 102:10;
125:13
shorten 29:7
chnrthr 1^<-9*
Atturuy 1^17.^3
shortsighted 230:23
shot 2 13:5
shouldn't 77:8;
191:18,19
Show 18:3; 26:12;
f%f\ -t /*f -t /\»> ^ O»
29:16; 103:7,8;
106:16; 138:6; 169:11
showed 18:3:81:6;
166:15:219:4
showing 99:20,23;
156:18
shown 94:6; 99:5
shows 26: 19; 27:9;
33:18;34:9;57:9;
176:14;220:15
shrimps 168:15
shrinking 151:6
shut 47:15; 144:1
side 16:14;23:15;
27:24; 30: 13; 3 1:4, 9;
32:5; 142:4; 166:4;
171:4
sides 172:21
Sierra 86: 15;
162:23:163:1;
191:12; 193:5
sign 33:24; 34:10
signed 10:24;70:22;
95:23; 139:8; 156:5
significance 204:10
significant 58:21;
85:18; 126:1; 229:12
sih 67:3, 16; 82:4;
84:3:100:4,5;
103:15; 126:21;
196:19; 199:8; 230:1
sittation 76:24
silts 81:2; 204:4
silty79:8
similar 128:12;
213:13
similarly 159:7
simple 6:6; 47: 18;
68:4; 188:8; 194:17,
20; 210:4
simplify 102:15
simply 79: 10;
189:11; 191:6;
194:12;208:23;
209:7, 16
simulation 28:13
simultaneously
22:13
Sincerely 96: 11
Singapore 14:12
single 78: 14
sit 76: 12; 134:22;
147:1;232:8,10,19
sit-down 140:2
Site 45: 17, 17; 46:20;
50:24; 51:10; 56:17,
22; 60: 17; 61: 14;
62:15,21,24;63:6;
65:13; 67:15; 77:22;
79:23:80:3,12,17;
82: 16; 83:5; 89:9;
91:10; 92:1, 13; 93:6;
94:2;98:15, 18; 99:1;
100:18,19:102:11;
103:4, 14, 16;
104:11,18; 106:1, 7;
113:7,9,13,20,23,
24; 126:22; 127:2, 3;
132:12;151:23,24,
24;52:4, 14; 157:1;
175:20; 178:9, 15;
180:2; 181:1; 204:21,
21;207:18,24;
208:3,20:209:21;
226:18;227:17,18;
228:3; 230:6
sites 30:5:37:16;
44:5,11:53:5:54:23;
55:1,21:56:13:62:3,
5, 8; 63: 12; 65:8, 16,
17, 18; 69:15; 70:15;
74:5,5,9, 10; 77: 19;
79:18; 84:10; 85:21;
89:3,5,10:90:22;
91:22; 129:6; 132:8;
134:12, 13; 143:19;
163:23; 164:1; 168:9;
178:16; 181:1;
204:18;205:7,15,
20; 210:23; 21 1:3;
214:9;227:18;28:7,
10;230:18
sits 31:10
sitting 6:11; 11:5;
115:5:233:19
situ 196:15
situation 61:16;
68:2; 122:11; 153:8;
184:21; 207:4; 209:7,
12, 14; 210:8
situations 20:23;
68:6
six 23:10; 182:4, 6
size 31:18; 78:20;
109:2; 121:15, 17,
18; 222: 14
skill 198:18
skip 232:18
slammed 195:15
slew 67:7
slice 160:4
slide 26: 19; 27:8;
34:7
slight 14 1:2
slightly 26:5
sliver 28:9
slosh 219:22
sloshes 219:23
slow 165:24; 208:9
slowly 75:14; 166:3
sludge 72:13; 183:21
small 8:6;21:17;
46:2,5:55:21:145:7;
173:21; 182:2; 183:9
smaller 54:3;
110:15:221:16
Smith 35:4
smother 170:3
so-and-so 68:24
so-called 33:8;
36:17;72:9,10;
164:1; 191:22
sobering 130:13
social 35:22; 130:4
society 18:9; 24:10;
86:15; 97:18; 124:13;
233:17
soft 75:22
soil 23 1:17
soils 20 1:2
solely 233: 12, 13
solids 109:15
solution 58:13;
60:15:66:4; 122:18;
153:16;196:19;
210:14;217:19;
227:20;230:15
solutions 40:4;
66:14, 16, 17;
198:11;230:22
solve 60:7; 148:2
solving 123:14
somebody 121: 15;
147:5; 149:3; 186:5;
216:15
someone 49:23;
54:13;111:12;149:11
something 6:7;
43:17; 49:1; 50:16;
51:21; 53:6; 55:12;
56:2,18;60:13;6l:3,
9; 64:9, 21; 66:2;
68:24; 69:6, 8; 99:22;
100:1;101:22;
102:19;106:1;120:4;
130:14;131:10;
148:5:150:22;
151:18; 152:7; 153:5;
168:5; 172:16;
190:24; 192:19;
198:14; 201:14;
213:11; 216:2; 221:2;
oo i .o/f
2y 1 .2A
sometime 138:20;
175:15
somewhat 76:1 1;
118:20; 187:15; 192:1
somewhere 11:22;
46:5; 53:24; 66:12;
122:22; 149:10;
216:17
sonar 213:8
soon 96:7; 136:8;
149:3; 183:8; 198:9
sorry 56: 13; 86:22
sort 16:4; 17:3, 6,
13; 18: 17; 5 1:2; 52:5;
53:1; 61:23; 64:15;
65:9:68:4,18,21;
116:20;118:24;
140:9; 164:5; 167:2,
5; 189:15; 199:2;
214:21;218:15
sorting 191:6
sound 16: 18; 22:23;
89:1,11:191:23;
203:22
sounded 121:3
source 165:19
sources 166:5;
217:21; 218:18, 19;
219:10
South 27:13; 135:13;
214:1,2
southwest 180:7
space 55:7; 215:5
spatial 79:3
spawn 215:14
spcies 208:6
speak 38:23:41:14;
52:20; 71:9; 140:23;
149:13; 179:6; 206:7,
11; 219:16
speaker 14:1; 23:22;
35:4; 39:6; 70:21, 24;
78:13; 96:15; 103:12;
107:3:113:10;
123:18;129:18;
135:6; 178:20; 183:3;
202:22;206:2;
210:17; 21 1:10, 23;
230:24
speaking 40:24;
79:18;90:21;97:12,
20; 124:20; 150:6;
169:20;173:20;
212:8; 213:21
special 86:21
species 80:8; 98: 17,
19:99:3,7:121:24;
126:24:157:3,11,
16; 158:2; 159:18,
22; 160:10; 161:9;
180:14:194:11;
208:21,23:209:2,8;
228:8
specific 10:17;47:1;
53:5; 64:5, 8; 83:1,
19; 180:13; 201:9
specifically 38:5;
181:2
specifying 1 18:8;
119:6
Spectable 44:3;
47:10
Spectacle 44:1;
60:18;6l:12;81:3,7;
91:24; 164:3
spectacularly 157:7
spectrum 55:17
speed 189:1
spend 15:22;34:21;
47:19; 50:1; 162:16;
180:4; 195:14
spending 22:5, 1 1;
43:2; 70:5; 162: 10,
11, 12
spends 162:9
spent 16: 10; 50:7;
99:19; 212:18; 213:1
spiral 21:19
spirit 77:14; 106:23;
123:10
spoil 170:12
spoils 82: 15;
226:20,21;227:4,8;
228:4,14;230:17
spoke 28:24; 181:15
spoken 22:15
sponsor 10:6,7;
36:19; 37:6
sponsored 5: 13;
171:22
sponsors 36:17
sport 84:9
spot 28:1; 55:20;
92:4, 6, 7; 104: 11;
145:11:180:16
spots 44:10, 16;
5 1:6; 63:22; 92:4;
213:12
spread 91:6; 106:7
spreading 67:5;
i nv9i
1U7>^1
spring 182:10
springtime 176:6;
177:11
square 181:3
squat 187: 11
squatting 189:1
stability 204:17
stabilize 5 1:7
Stack 22:10; 31:19
stacked 31:19
staff 9:1,2, 7; 70:19;
110:10, 10; 111:1, 4,
8; 135:23; 203:6, 14;
 BPA REPORTING C6l 7)423-0500
Mia-U-Script®
serious - staff
-------
May 17,1994
          U.S. Army Corps of Engineers N. E. Division &
                          Massachusetts Port Authority
204:1, 20; 205:1, 5,
11,18
stage 189:23
stages 187:2
stand 7:15:41:13;
50:3; 158:17
standard 118: 13;
119:6
standards 68:12,
15; 118:20; 137:15
standing 20:20
standpoint 54:2
stands 141:12
start 5:9; 7:2, 16;
15:4; 25:13:34:11;
39:22; 78:22,- 86:10;
87:4; 105:2; 125:8;
139:1; 146:23; 151:5;
153:19; 156:1; 163:4;
167:20; 171:14;
196:21; 217:24; 224:4
started 15:19:58:24;
59:2; 94:1
starting 27:12;
38:16; 182:9
startling 170:10
starts 189:12
state 5:5; 14:13;
19:14; 23:14; 35:17,
22; 46:14, 23; 82:2;
85:9; 110:5; 117: 1;
130:19; 135:22;
136:6;137:9,22,22;
145:18;153:11;
161:4; 173:1; 192:23;
204:10,15:205:12;
212:6; 220:8
state-process
138:16
stated 83:21:91:2;
211:15
statement 5:15;7:3,
22; 10:9; 12:5, 14;
14:21; 24:15; 39:15;
71:4;87:7;90:5;
94:19; 96:17; 105:17;
107:5; 114:19; 115:9;
119:22; 123:20, 23;
124:15,16,21,23;
130:6; 135:16; 136:4;
155:11:156:16;
162:22:167:22;
171:24; 173:16, 17;
174:22; 175:4;
178:22;182:24;
183:4; 202:24; 203:3,
10;06:4; 210:19;
211:7, 12; 21 2:1;
217:1,6;225:23;
226:8:231:2,5
States 18:6;80:3;
84:20; 161:21; 169:1;
208:23; 212:21
station 199:22
stature 228:9
statute 173:18
statutes 8:1
stay 29:5;64:9;
142:3:153:22;
171:l6,18;175:18;
177:12, 13; 187:10;
O1 A •Ft
224:7
staying 135:19;
151:7;206:13
steamship 87:13;
96:4; 120:7
steerage 187:9
Steliwagen 48:2, 12;
57:11, 18; 80:6;
98:13; 99:19; 104:16,
21; 127:1; 168:11;
170:8;175:21;
204:11;228:8
Stellwagen's 228:9
step 83:4; 84:15, 16;
m.1Q
**X
Steve 56:5; 65:3
stevedores 87:14
stevedoring 96:3
Steven 108:13
sticking 192:10
Sticks 72:14
still 16:24:53:14;
63:18:117:24;
141:23; 150:8
stirred 176:1 1,22
Stock 180:23
Stocks 170:20
stop 68:18;83:7;
145:10; 153:6; 161:5,
6,8;225:23;226:10;
231:3, 5
stopped 59:3:69:5;
72:13
stopping 161:9;
165:15, 16
storm 166:6; 221:24
storms 55:10; 1O6:3;
176:11; 188:15
story 15:5; 51:18
Straham 156:15, 16,
17; 192:24; 193:4;
194:19; 195:1, 8, 12
straight 93:15;
200:13
straightening
220:10
strain 177:18
strained 45:4
strategies 14:5
strategy 84:21; 85:1,
straw 157:15
streams 218:10
Street 29:12, 14;
95:16; 129:13
streets 218:12
strictest 170:19;
228:11
strikes 159:20
stringent 219:17
striped 11 5:19;
117:2; 177:9
stripers 1 19:3
strong 51:24;
108:23:112:14;
170:6; 175:16; 176:6
stronger 19:3
strongly 182:22
struck 102:21
structure 29:21
stuck 161:12
studied 74:6;75:6;
164:13
Studies 81:4; 158:4;
163:20; 165:11;
169:14:190:11;
199:20;200:5,8;
228:18, 24
Study 27:6;73:19;
74:1;75:21; 113:22;
164:9; 165:10;
198:18; 229:6, 10
studying 97:8
stuff 72:14, 15;
78:21:118:17;
119:11; 166:21;
167:4; 178:5; 192:13;
2OO:3;212:22,24;
216:5,6,16
Subject 95:17;
195:3, 14
submission 223:20
submit 182:24;
195:12;207:12
submitted 99:17
submitting 114:8
subs 213:7
subsequently 106:3
substance 75: 12
substances 73:10
substantial 195:18
substantially 77:24
successful 35:16
successfully 35:8;
124:9; 199:12
Sue 10:23, 23; 37:13
sufficient 101:18;
143:12
sufficiently 134:6;
199:13
Sugar 21:1; 64:7
suggest 49: 19;
105:1; 119:5; 152:3;
200:6; 208:17; 216:1;
228:21, 24
suggested 4 1:1;
142:15
suggestion 101:16;
118:7
suggestions 110:18
suitable 31:13;
50:14;126:20;
134:12; 228:3
sum 17:1
summarization
164:5
summary 56:21;
58:2; 65:8; 69: 10, 13;
70:1; 79:15; 214:15
summer 20:13;
108:2; 139:11; 180:6;
182:10
summertime 182:9
Super 77:22
supervises 8:19
supplemental
194:7; 195:13
supply 76:19; 77:12;
161:1; 198:10;
203:19:218:13;
220:20
supplying 87:22
support 58:8; 105:6;
107:17, 22; 108:3,
11; 110:3; 112:3, 17,
18, 21; 143:6; 204:9
supported 58:9
supporting 113:18
supportive 42:14;
70:4; 12O:17, 21
supports 39: 11;
83:22; 207:9
supposed 221:22
Supreme 108:9
sure 10: 11; 11:3;
13:2; 41:7, 23; 42:6;
43:19:50:9:64:11;
82:6,12:83:9;
118:19,23:149:19;
189:7; 193:2; 201:11;
211:7
surface 53:20;
100:5; 101:12; 116:18
surgery 83: 18
surprise 141:8
surrounding 21 1:2
survey 98:22
surveys 220:15
survival 162:9
survive 15:17;
157:10; 162:14
surviving 209:11
susceptible 208:10
suspect 189:18
suspended 109:15
suspicion 189:24;
190:4
swell 165:4; 167:8;
186:11,13:187:13
swimming 107:20;
108:1
switched 62:12
symbols 117:9, 10,
13,17
system 18:14; 25:6;
26:18; 27:2; 164:24;
183:11:189:12,15,
16; 204:8; 219:20, 22
systematic 82:20
systems 228:20

T
Jm.
table 5:6; 10:24;
11:13:55:20,23;
58:12;63:18;64:9,
13, 13; 78:12; 86:1;
132:5; 147:1; 172:21,
21
tables 5:2; 6: 11, 14;
8:11; 13:7; 38:23;
* ea_*/\. * T^ni TITI.
153:10; 172:21, 22;
223:18
Tactics 9:4
tag 163:14
tailing 200:7
tailings 200:10
talents 123:12
talk 6:10:9:21;
11:11; 12:19, 21;

IJ.lOj l^J.lj j6»5"l)
33:17; 43:5; 44:12;
45:10; 46:21; 57:23;
62:24;114:22;
115:22;134:11;
172:19:173:15;
197:9; 208:11; 215:3;
232:10, 19
talked 56:3:63:14;
76:8; 99: 10; 118: 11;
145:15:197:20;
222:16
talking 11:13;23:8;
31:14;34:22;41:19;
50:1; 56:4; 60:21;
75:13; 76:24; 77:17;
101:11,21:121:16,
17;133:21;141:17,
22; 142:22; 187:20;
191:12; 197:24;
200:22:213:14;
222:11, 12; 226:19
Tall 107:22
tank 29: 15
tanker 28:7; 185:2,
5,12
tankers 87:21;
1O9:2; 150:2
Tare 202:2
target 198:12
tasks 133:15
TBHA1O9:!!
teacher 153:9;
226:11
technical 110: 11;
115:22
technically 51:11;
54:2; 55:9
techniques 81:22;
127:6
technological 130:5
technologies 56:6;
83:23; 84:4; 89:4, 5;
111:22; 112:7, 21;
134:2; 142:15;
143:11:196:24;
197:19:230:14
technology 48:19;
54:21:57:3,13;
64: 17; 66:21, 23;
67:7, 14; 68: 10, 14;
117:17; 118:8; 119:6;
122:19:134:7;
142:18; 183:11, 17;
184:2; 199:21;
200:22; 207: 19, 21;
228:6, 23
Ted 108:11
television 116:8
temperature
183:19; 198:3
tempered 89:1
temporary 145:13
ten 24:2; 135: 11;
184:8; 186:13; 218:7
term 14:5; 72:10;
103:8, 9; 160:20, 22;
169:8; 217: 19; 220:2;
230:23
Terminal 19: 13;
22:6; 28:22; 42:1;
67:11;81:19; 87:14;
109:18;146:3;
166:12; 185:12, 19;
189:4:192:11;
216:11; 222:5
terminals 14:7;
19: 12; 27: 15; 28:23;
37:9; 96: i;108:22;
149:20
terms 27:2; 29:8;
40:9;41:21;44:7;
45:7; 50:18; 53:13;
55:14,14;56:10;
63:9;68:15;74:6;
121:8;130:24;
131:12:132:1,22;
133:19:134:23;
151:19; 192:10
terrible 94:11
terrifically 176:6
territorial 213:23;
214:7
test 100.20; 1O1:18,
24; 102:23; 103:5;
104:7;131:12;
133:17,19,22;
198:20; 199:2, 11
tested 30:17:31:12;
74:12; 103:22
testifying 43:4;
56:14
testimony 40: 18;
56: 16; 58:10,10;
207:13
testing 28:1 2, 13;
30:19:33:18,22;
77:24; 79:6; 101:22,
22; 104:12; 131:7, 8;
198:20, 21, 22
stage - testing
Min-U-Script®
BPA REPORTING (617)423-0500
-------
u.a. Army
Massachusetts Port Authority
                01 engineers IN. n. uivisioii ec
                                                                                    May 17,1994
tests 101:5; 131:9,
197:9; 199:8, 18, 19
TEU's 17:5
Texas 8:24
Thanks 9:20; 39:17;
70:17; 86:22, 24;
201:13
themselves 82: 13;
131:13:164:15
theoretical 9: 12
theories 209:9
There'd 61:23
there'll 116:5
thereby 215:24
therefore 77:7, 12;
80:10; 214:11; 215:10
they'd 192:12
they'll 5:6; 28:1;
119:1
they're 17:8; 20:3,
12, 12; 26:12; 29:19;
44:1:60:19:98:1;
99:23; 116:19; 118:1;
128:2; 142:1; 150:1,
16, 17; 166:2;
197:24:226:19
they've 28: 14; 54:9;
137:17; 169:14;
219:24
thinking 81:15
Third 43:23:60:17;
92:15:112:22;
132:24; 147:12;
148:6; 191:5
this's 166:19
thoroughly 103:23;
104:13
though 73: 13;
129:10, 13; 151:18;
226:19
thought 16:3; 102:4;
110:12:130:14;
167:2; 181:11
thoughts 168:6;
171:1:210:2
thousand 46:4;
115:20
thousands 96: 10;
108:1
threat 161:15, 17;
169:7; 209:2; 228: 19
threatened 80:8
three 9:17, 21;
25:15:127:21;
131:21; 133:8; 139:9;
176:10; 208:8; 221:20
thrive 229: 14
throughout 44:17;
79:4; 99:3; 103:23;
105:22; 1 10:22;
144:16;179:15;
227:15:229:15
throw 216:8
thrown 192:12
Thursday 147:7;
149:5; 202:1
ticket 185:17; 187:17
tidal 76:14
tide 20:21, 21, 22;
165:14;167:10;
176:4; 185:9; 186:14;
187:3; 189:23;
190:22; 222:3
tides 18:24:88:1;
170:5; 176:5; 220:16,
17
tied 166:22
Tierney 37:13
ties 112:14
tightened 93:9
tightly 110:2
timely 123:15
times 16:13:34:16;
91:14, 19, 24; 92: 1,6,
8; 93:5; 100:15;
101:16:102:7,14;
170:6; 175:23;
182:13; 188:4
timing 40:20; 47: 16;
61:23; 78:6
tissue 99:21
tissues 99:12
Tocco 56:5; 65:3
today 5:1 2; 6: 10, 23;
10:6, 16; 11:16;
15:13; 16:7, 23;
17:12; 21:1; 38:4, 22;
40:17,20:43:4;
51:19; 59:7; 69:12;
71:8; 73:3, 17; 77:1;
78:23; 82:13; 86:17;
87:3; 88:22; 95:2, 6;
98:7; 99:10; 103:12;
105:3; 109:3; 117:23;
120:12, 16; 121:14;
128:20; 167:11;
168:21; 173:7;
180:20;186:12;
206:7,10;24:1;
232:13
today's 121:18
toes 224:8
together 6:21; 23:6;
38:1; 59:8; 66:3;
116: 12; 153:2, 14;
209:22; 233:13
token 122:24
$nlft O4*jf &* ^(\f)*ryA.
IwlU 7*x*~l1 ~i, i^J&.xA
Tom 167:21, 22, 24;
181:16
tomaltey 75:24; 76:4
tonight 6:5; 171:21;
172:14,19:179:6;
181:15:184:17;
186:9; 192:22; 194:23
tons 16:21; 108:17;
170:13, 13, 14, 15
took 21. 18; 179:9
top 30:23:72:15;
75:18; 99:1, 6; 170:2,
16; 191: 14; 206: 13
topics 125:19
topographies 104:4
topography 91: 17
torpedoes 177:23
total 18:13; 88:19;
161 :9; 199:24
totally 72:23;
147: 11; 159:14
totals 31:1
touch 24:21; 25:12;
30:1; 78:8; 140:4;
143:5; 146:22; 165:7
touched 79: 16
tough 43:11; 50:4;
192:4
toward 169:17
towards 29: 13; 4 1:2;
75:18; 150:1; 231:23;
233:16
towed 93:7
Tower 31:17, 20
town 21 1:14
towns 117:14;
203:8; 206:19
toxic 55:22; 73:10;
109:13; 196:18;
198:23; 200:3; 213:6
toxicrty56:ll;75:2;
142:21;199:11,13,
18; 200:23
toxics 56:7:99:9,
212:15:229:1,12;
230:5
toxins 99:10, 21
track 43: 12; 159:3;
161:4; 216:10
trade 14:11; 17:21,
23;18:12;35:10;
121:19; 123:3; 153:5
tradelanes 18:3
trading 122:16
traditional 159:9
traffic 148:11;
151:19:159:19;
160:1, 2, 13, 16;
161:24; 162:1;
181:23:193:15,21,
23,24;194:9,9,13;
203:17;215:5,7;
223:7
tragedy 220:13
trained 73:14
transaction 14:16
transfer 183:9
transferring 190:16
transformation 35:9
transient 98: 19
transits 177:10
transport 122:6;
171:6
Transportation
1 1:7; 19:9; 21:11;
35:13; 92:14; 121:22;
122:10;129:19;
130:7; 143:9; 217:8;
transporting 204:7
traps 92:20; 148:11;
214:20; 215:10
travel 92:1 3, 18;
176:1
trawls 215:10
treat 218:22; 219:1
treated 62: 14;
199:21
treating 84:3; 196: 15
treatment 72:17, 18;
142:14, 18; 197:19;
198:2, 11; 230: 14
tremendous 15:9;
158:14
tremendously
176:12
TRENZ 196:8,8;
197:24:198:17;
199:3,9,17:200:5,
17; 201:1
trick 219:5
tried 92:21;93:1;
132:11;139:19;
168:21
trigger 24:24
trips 88: 14
truck 19:1; 223:7
trucking 96:2
Trudy 95:14; 128:23
true 17:10; 159:17,
2O7:24
truly 16:19; 23:5, 17;
161:4,5:162:4;
230:15
truth 117:5; 118:4;
119:11
truthfully 146:8
try 24:24; 44: 18;
51:7; 56:9; 59:17;
65:1:92:23,23;
114:24:136:18;
140:8; 177:16
trying 16: 19; 17:9;
18:16; 47:19; 66:16;
121:19, 20; 141:4;
148:14; 161:14;
163:19:180:15;
186:23,23:212:14,
19; 213:18; 223:1
tugboats 92: 17; 93:4
tumors 75:1, 8;
169:11
Tunnel 43:23:92:15;
147:12; 148:7; 191:5;
207:1; 209:18
turn 13:20; 27:20,
21, 23; 139:6;
140:22; 150:12
turned 191:8; 193:14
turning 28:6; 44:3
turns 28:8
turntable 27:23
TV's 17:5
twice 49:18
two 6:17; 14:19;
24:14; 34:16; 36:6;
37:8; 52:5; 60:15;
62:3; 78:7, 7; 86: 13;
88:6; 90: 12; 95:1;
120:14; 131:2; 160:4;
176:IO; 185:20;
187:7; 188:24;
199:22; 209:22;
218:2; 219:11
type 42:4; 65:4;
90:22-91:4,7,11;
94:3; 168:14, 18;
212:22; 214:18; 218:5
types 41:12;91:13;
125:21; 172:4;
176:22; 177:24;
178:1; 230:22
u
U.S 8:15; 9:1, 5, 6, 7,
24; 35:15; 71:7; 96:3;
11 2: 18; 127:24;
143:8; 220:15
UMass 135:14
uncapped 60:5
unclean 79:1
unconfined 30:20;
31:13; 79:2, 9; 113:1;
191:19
uncontaminated
89:8; 169:22, 24
undefined 88:23
under 20:22; 44:5, 5;
53:11; 116:20;
130:19:139:21;
165:3; 174:24;
176:20; 185:21;
186:1; 187:4, 19;
188:2;191:9;200:21;
207:16; 228:2
underneath 31:10
understood 19: 14;
150:2O
undertaking 222:21
unfeasible 103:13;
207:20
unfortunate 208:19
Unfortunately 59:2;
65:23; 74:8; 163:13;
179:7; 226:24
uniform 104:1
uninterrupted 226:4
unique 223:21
UNIT 96:18; 97:5, 21;
135:9, 24
United 18:6;84:19;
161:21; 169:1; 179:5;
212:21
universal 162:6
University 9:13;
14: 18; 24:7, 9; 35:21,
22; 124:5, 7; 135:13;
233:9,11
unknown 141:21
unless 60:11;
119:11:159:11
unlike 177:5;
214:18; 218:5
unlikely 80:1
unload 96: 10
unloaded 88:13
unpublished 99:16
unrelated 163:14
unsound 89: 17
unsuitable 30:14,
20; 31:1; 79:2, 8
unwilling 77:5
unwritten 214:21
up 7:21; 12:17;
15:23; 16:10; 18:21;
19:1, 19; 26:12; 28:3,
21; 29:2, 11; 31:5, 19,
19; 39:23; 40:4; 42:5,
8, 10; 44:2, 23; 49:23;
52:9; 53: 12; 54:7;
55:12; 56:10; 57:18;
66:21;67:1,23;
69: 15; 70:22; 86:6;
91:1; 93:1, 16; 94:13;
101:7; 107:13;
115:19; 116:16;
118:21;119:2,3,8,
21;131:6;132:14;
33:8; 134:15; 138:6,
11:139:5,23;
140:10:141:12,13;
148:13:151:17;
153:9,19; 156:4, 6,
18; 161:21; 166:15;
167:2;176:12,15,
22; 177:10; 178:4;
189:13:192:18;
196:22:200:10,19;
201:5;218:17;
219:18; 222:7; 224:4;
226:14;227:23;
232:8, 11,23:233:2
upgrade 5 1:5
up land 89: 16;
126:20; 127:6
upon 18:13:88:10;
91:17; 198:2; 220:21;
230:8
upper 27: 15, 17;
28:19
upstream 29: 13
upwelling57:i6
urban 73:6; 218:11,
15
urge 87:16; 89:12;
100:12; 112:8; 123:9:
143:4,15:230:7;
231:12
use 27:3:49:6;
59:23; 67:4; 68: 10;
BPA REPORTING (6l 7)423-0500
                                          Min-U-Script®
tests-use
-------
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers N. E. Division &
May 17, 1994 Massachusetts Port Authority
83:22; 84:13; 102:12,
18,20:116:14;
117:16; 118:9; 145:8;
151:24; 158:7, 11,
16; 167:8,- 181:3;
188:10; 205:8;
216:15; 231:16
used 16:23; 28:6;
30:16; 45:11, 13;
49:11; 50:21; 65:20;
79:18; 82:14; 109:20;
113:14, 21; 166:14;
183:14;207:21
useful 132:21;
183:13
users 213, 3; 123:5
uses 79:1 1; 112:2;
117:24
USGS 81:5
using 24:17; 51:4;
67:13:68:14; 101:5;
104:10;136:17;
150:1, 17; 161:20;
181:5; 196:9; 215:17
usual 62:12; 181:6
usually 190:2
Utility 32:23
utilized 158:15;
227:3

V
valuable 230:11
vantage 25:22
variation 79:3
varies 104:1
various 7:13; 10:12,
13; 13:6; 32:4:41:12;
115:23; 127:5,8;
166:5; 213:6; 228:18
vegetation 91:12
verification 83:3
Vem 128:1
versed 170:1 1
version 25:4;30:7;
115:12
versus 23:16; 48:23;
50:4;79:1;89:16
Vessel 18:20;27:21,
22; 28:8; 121:17, 18;
158:8;159:19,20;
160:12; 161:24;
187:19:193:15,23,
24; 194:9, 9; 203:17;
221:23
vessels 25:20;
27:20; 28:2, 6,15;
m-ic. 1S2-24-
** X( * *?****» Tlj
160:2, 3; 188:11;
221:10, 12, 14, 16;
222:8, 12, 14
via 17:22; 21:4, 14;
88:15
viability 85:17
vtabte 77:3; 103:17;
217:19; 229:18
Vice 94:23:95:13;
96:12; 120:6
vice-chaiman 179:2
view42:12;85:9;
130:16
views 145:17
violation 83:8; 160:9
virtually 160:13
visitation 158:11
vitality 42:16; 109:1
Vivian 107:7;
118:11;142:23
Vivien 107:4, 5
volume 217:16, 20
volumes 30:6; 78:7
w
W 101:2
wade 97:1
waft 20:20; 222:3, 6
wafting 20:21;
129:2; 222:4
wake 227:23
walk 25:2; 27:11;
3tA»lA« 1 lA'f3r}
5U.1U, J,11.£Z
Walkers 10:21
walks 144:15
wants 148:2
War 9:8
ware 19:6
warehouses 20:16
warn 145:1 1
warns 76:3, 5
washed 176:3
washing 82:20
Washington 197:21
waste 44:16; 58:23;
59:18; 60:8; 66:1;
80:15, 16; 106: 18;
113:22;159:13;
160:21,24:213:2,7,
7. T>afi'?o
/, itJVffAf
wastes 213:6
wastewater 62:14
watching 41:22
water 21:4;25:16;
36:14; 44:5; 54:18;
57:6,14;72:16;
87:19; 88:8; 99:17;
109:14; 116:4, 20;
147:12; 161:1;
163:20; 165:1; 166:3;
176:19, 21; 185:10;
187:12, 19; 190:3;
192:4,4,17;200:1;
220:5, 20; 222:9;
228:1

water's 107:23
water-borne 121:21
water-front 55:6
waterborne 17:22
waterfront 15:20;
88:20; 96:1; 122:2, 8
waterproof 116:9
waters 73:8; 168:24;
182:5, 5; 213:23
way 10:22; 16:18;
21:11,12;25:20;
T7-;
162:5, 13, 14, 16;
193:19; 194:10;
208:4, 5
whale's 161:1; 162:8
Whales 97:8;98:20;
99:19; 126:24; 157:4;
158:3,5,7,11,16;
159:1,3, 5, 11,21,
22; 160:3, 15; 161:4,
5, 7, 8; 162:10;
193:16,19,20;
194:11;208:13
What's 8:8; 13:18;
43:12; 47:14; 50:5, 5,
11, 18; 62:11, 17;
69:4;94:15;138:8;
143:21; 155:13, 13;
173:22:174:24;
175:1; 186:24;
191:15:216:23;
233:15
whatsoever 160:5
Whereupon 154:1;
201:16
wherever 51:5;
92:18; 189:14
Who's 41:22
whote 53:6, 23; 55:8;
63: 16; 67:7; 126:1;
132:4; 148:7; 153:2;
157:13:164:22;
170:24; 186:24;
189:12,15:231:19
whose 87:15; 120:10
whould 106:7
wide 28:11; 101:9
widen 29:7
wider 29:20; 84:18
wife 9:16; 14:19;
24:13; 90:11; 179:23
Wildlife 128:1;
159:15;194:11
William 90:4, 5, 8;
94:18, 19, 22;95:12;
96:11:211:24; 212:1,
2
willing 41:1;66:3;
182:20; 194:5; 199:19
window 34: 17
winds 180:7; 186:11
Winter 75:5, 23;
129:7; 138:20; 146:4;
169:14; 177:8
wintertime 176:9
Wipe 122:7; 170:1
wish 6:7; 54:7;
114:22; 148:18;
168:2; 172:16;
208:20; 210:24
within 20:4; 29:5;
85:7; 88:5; 11 5:20;
161:10; 181:1; 183:1;
205:15; 226:7
without 13: 14; 20:3;
45:18; 71:21; 103:18;
161:15,24; 165:15;
229:20
WIVES 167:23;
178:23; 179:2, 13
women 76:5; 89:23
wonder 165:13
wonderful 140:13;
184:19
wondering 217:15,
18; 220:7
Woods 81:5; 99:15
word 84: 17; 86:6,
21; 148:4
Words 30: 16; 32: 10;
39:20; 52:5; 66:19;
68:10:73:11:91:15;
104:2; 141:13; 185:10
work 8:20; 13: 16;
15:1 1; 17:7; 19:13;
23:6,13:31:24;
33:23,23:35:12;
38:2; 40:1; 43:18, 20,
24; 52:23, 24; 58:13;
59:8; 60:13; 61:5, 11;
66:3; 68:1; 74:2, 2;
80:1; 82:11; 83:7;
96:1; 99:13; 105:20;
112:11;131:6;
141:18:145:23;
146:14;151:18;
166:13,22,23;
169:16; 182:20;
187:24; 188:5; 197:6;
05:13; 214:10; 215:1,
20;223:17,23;
231:23; 233:16
workable 105:24
uw«B>lra*f 1 C>Oj<*
worKea i ?.z4;
35:11:37:23:103:7;
116:12:124:9;
129:21; 130:3; 233:22
workers 17:11
working 6:21; 15:20;
22:8; 23:17; 26:13;
29:19; 34:16; 40:3, 8;
42:13;56:8;60:14;
65:16:67:17,18;
68:17; 70:6, 14; 71:2,
13,19,19:79:11;
81:5; 82:6; 89:23;
110:9; 131:5; 153:14;
173:6; 199:21; 210:8;
233:6
works 8:3, 5;
198:15; 233:5
workshop 5: 1,14,
23; 8:10; 13:6;
114:23:155:3;
171:23:172:9,20;
174:4; 202:4; 223:18;
225:3

workshops 5:19;
146:23; 153:20;
172:5; 223:18
world 18:2,22;
35:10; 156:16; 214:22
world's 16:24
worried 44:1 5;
99:23; 220:18
worrisome ioi:l5
worse 209:14
worst 56: 11
worth 47:21; 116:4
wrapup8:9
writing 98:5; 201:10,
10
written 69:2; 105:9;
167:14; 182:24;
207:12
wrong 45:15; 73:14
WYLDE 119:23;
120:6

Y

yard 134:7; 229:24
yards 12«;30:23;
31:2,14,16:46:4,7;
49:17; 78:16; 79:8;
115:20;118:23;
165:23
Yarmouth 206:20
year 6:22; 14: 16;
19:5; 20:12; 22:14;
34:13;42:1;47:16,
20; 58:10, 10; 59:1;
67:11:71:16; 86:17;
91:14, 20, 24; 92:2, 6,
8,9, 16; 93:5; 108:18;
116:5,6;117:4;
14i:2;143:22;
147:15:152:1,2;
170:7, 15; 173:7;
175:15,16:179:14;
182:7; 198:5; 213:2,
5; 214:23; 215:3;
218:6; 219:16; 232:16
yearround 177:12,
13
years 15:12;20:5;
23:7, 9; 24:2; 25:9;
35:7; 37:24; 40:2;
55:11; 59:1;73:19;
85:11; 91:2; 95:9, 10;
99:15;107:15;
120:14; 135:11;
147:15:157:18;
165:22; 168:15, 15;
175:10:176:10;
178:3; 179:14, 15;
m-4- 1£, ^A3*Avf,
12, 16; 218:8; 220:2,
4; 221:16
yellow 27:9, 17;
28:17; 34:4

York 18:24; 88:7, 17;
92:17; 222:6, 8; 223:8
young 15:21; 76:5
yours 5:24; 172:9




Zappieri 114:14
Zeppieri 90:2
zero 148:8; 185:10,
10; 186:11, 11
link 73:23; 74: 15

zone 124:4; 163:19;
233:8
zooplankton
208:14
used - zooplankton ^27/0 MIn-U-Scriirt® BPA REPORTING (6l7)423-050(
-------
Condenselt
          TM

BOSTON HARBOR

NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT


NAHANT PUBLIC FX)RUM
TOWN HALL
NAHANT, MASSACHUSETTS
July 28, 1994
7:00 p.m.


BEFORE :

Larry Rosenberg, Chief of Public Affairs
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
New England Division
424 Trapeio Road
Haltham, Massachusetts 02254-9149
Captain Jeffrey H. Monroe, Deputy Port
Director /Administration
Massachusetts Port Authority
Fish Pier East II
Northern Avenue
Boston, Massachusetts 02210
Peter E. Jackson, Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
New England Division
424 Trapeio Road
Haltham, Massachusetts 02254-9149

(continued)

MARIANNE KUSA-RVLL
REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTER
JUSTICE HILL REPORTING
252 JUSTICE HILL ROAD, P.O. BOX 610
STERLING, MASSACHUSETTS 01564-0610
TELEPHONE (S08) 422-8777 FAX (508) 422-7799

Page 2
BEFORE: (continued)

Janeen Smith Hansen, Project Manager - Maritime
Massachusetts Port Authority
Fi sh Pi*r II
Northern Avenue
Boston, Massachusetts 02210

Norman Faramelli, Director of Transportation
and Environmental Planning
• Mas sport
Ten Park Plazd
Boston, Massachusetts 02116-3971

i William A. Hubbard, Marine Eco legist
Chief, Environmental Resources Branch
> U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
New England Division
i 424 Trapeio Road
Haltham, Massachusetts 02254-9149
,
1
ALSO PRESENT:
Robert Forraan, Chairman,
i Nahant Board of Selectmen
Richard Lombard, Vice Chairman,
> Nahant Board of Selectmen
Robert Mcllveene, Secretary
i Nahant Board of Selectmen
J
)
)
I
>
J
1



1 INDEX

2 SPEAKERS: P
3 Robert Forman, Chairman, Board

4 Larry Rosenberg
5 William Coffey
6 Captain Jeffrey Monroe
7 Janeen Hansen

8 Peter Jackson

9 Joseph Ayers
10 Mike Gambale
11 Kevin Jangaard
12 Polly Bradley
13 Robert Forman, Chairman, Board
14 Michael Armini
15 Representative Doug Peterson
16 Representative Chip Clancy
17 Representative Jeffrey Hayward
18 Deborah Smith Walsh
19 James Walsh, Selectman
20 PaulGenest
21 Mary Sherber
22 Grace Perez
23 William Coffey
24 (continued)


l INDEX (continued)

2 SPEAKERS: P

3 Michael Meagher

4 James Passanisi

5 Andrew Weiss
6 Rachel Tose

7 Emily Potts
i/
8 Joseph Farrell
XT
9 Dorothy Allen
10 Charles Hansell
1 1 Michael Manning
12 Richard Lombard
13 Mark Scaglione
14 Jay Michaud
15 Richard Adamo
16 Richard Batchelder
17 Darryl Forgione
18 Bob Myers
19
20
21
22
23
24




AGE
of Selectmen












of Selectmen















AGE

81

82

82
83

85

87

88
90
92
99
101
102
105
107
109
127






Page 3




5

6
10
12
15

18

36
43
46
49
51
53
56
59
62
66
68
70
71
75
79

Page 4
































                      06
                                        Page 1 - Page 4
-------
-------
                                               Condenselt1
                                                PageS
 1          PROCEEDINGS
 2
 3        SELECTMAN FORMAN: Good evening. Can
 4  we get started. I know we delayed a little bit to
 5  try to improve the acoustics of the room.  One of
 6  the things that we have heard from the Selectmen's
 7  meeting we ran from six o'clock to seven o'clock
 8  is this room, as we all know, is not great for
 9  acoustics, especially as the Town body is
 0  concerned.  I think we all need to make sure
 l  tonight that we speak into the microphones. We
 2  are going to ask everyone to come up here to the
 3  mike to speak so that people tend to hear what is
 4  going on. There is a lot of people at home that
 5  are watching what we think the Town of Nahant's
 6  hearing is all about.
 7        So I would like to just start
 8  by opening the meeting and introducing
 9  Mr. Larry Rosenberg, the Chief Public Affairs
:0  Officer of the Corps of Engineers. It is really
:i  their meeting tonight  We asked them to come here
!2  to Nahant and to explain the project and to allow
:3  us to provide our input and our concerns on
14  this — the navigation project, improvement of
                                                Page 7
 l  to provide you an opportunity to formally appear
 2  on the record, should you care to do so.  This
 3  forum is yours.
 4        With me tonight are members of the
 5  Corps' division staff:  Mr. Pete Jackson, our
 6  Project Manager; and Mr. William Hubbard, the
 7  Chief of our Environmental Branch.  Excuse me.
 8        In addition, we are very pleased
 9  to have Captain Jeffrey Monroe, the Deputy
10  Port Director for Massport; along with
11  Ms. Janeen Hansen, Massport's Project Manager; and
12  Mr. Norman Faramelli, Massport's Director of
13  Transportation and Environmental Planning, all of
14  whom are here tonight to listen to you.
15        The project under discussion deals
16  with more than just improving the navigation
17  capability of Boston Harbor. It deals with the
18  disposal of over one million cubic yards of silt
19  materials, which need to be disposed of in an
2.0  environmentally sound manner, and our purpose for
21  this session tonight is to gather comments from
22  you prior to a joint decision regarding that final
23  disposal site for the dredged material.
24        It's very important that you know that
                                                Page 6
 1  Boston Harbor and supposedly the use of a site to
 2  dump the material off the Town of Nahant.
 3        We have a lot of people here tonight
 4  who want to speak.  Mr. Rosenberg will go and
 5  explain the process that will certainly give
 6  people a chance to speak.
 7        And I think without saying any more, I
 8  can turn it over to Mr. Rosenberg and start the
 9  entire process.
10        Thank you very much.
11        MR. ROSENBERG: Thank you, Mr.  Forman.
12        Good evening.  I am Larry Rosenberg.
13  I am the Chief of Public Affairs for the Army
14  Corps of Engineers in New England, and I would
15  like to welcome you here tonight to this public
16  gathering — forum where we, together with your
17  non-Federal partners from Massport, will receive
18  your comments and  your insight on the Draft
19  Environmental Impact Statement for the Boston
20  Harbor Navigation Improvement Project
21         I also would  like to thank you for
22  involving yourself in this environmental review
23  process.  You see, we are here tonight to listen
24  to your comments, to understand your concerns and
                                                PageS
 1 no decision — no decision has been made with
 2 regard to where the material will be disposed of.
 3 Furthermore, we are not here tonight to defend any
 4 of the alternatives listed in — listed for
 5 consideration in the final — in the Draft
 6 Environmental Impact Statement We are here to
 7 listen to what is on your mind concerning those
 8 disposal alternatives. Before any decision is
 9 made, we must take into consideration both the
10 environmental concerns and the issues that are of
11 concern to you, the residents of Massachusetts.
12        What we will do tonight is describe
13 both the project and the environmental project to
14 date.  Then we are going to open the floor to
15 statements so that you can make your views known
16 to us. Feel free to bring up any and all
17 concerns, which you feel need to be discussed in
18 the final document to be prepared. Please try to
19 limit your formal statement to five minutes.
20 There are some exceptions to that, and there were
21 four individuals who were speaking to the Town
22 Meeting, and we will allow them a little bit
23 more. There is much to be discussed tonight, and
24 that is why we want to limit it to five minutes.
                                                                                              Page 5 - Page 8
-------
                                                Condenselt1
                                                Page 9
 l        After the formal statements are
 2  concluded, you are invited to continue this
 3  dialogue with the general members who again are
 4  here solely just to listen to you.
 5        The rules for this forum tonight are:
 6  If you have got a question, ask it; if you have
 7  got something to say, say it; if you want to go on
 8  the record, come on up and please go on the
 9  record. Lastly, if you want to involve yourselves
10  in this process not just tonight, but into the
11  future, let us know. We can accommodate that. We
12  want to accommodate that
13        You know, as a direct result of having
14  this kind of open process, we have been able to
15  overcome many of the difficulties other major
16  metropolitan areas face when preparing for large
17  navigation improvement projects.  Although we are
18  here tonight to discuss the Draft E.I.S., we need
19  your input throughout the entire process. Your
20  involvement is not only requested, it is necessary
21  if we are going to find an acceptable solution for
22  the dredged material disposal problems that we are
23  facing here. You see, we have been working
24  hand-in-hand with many Federal and State agencies,
                                              Page 11
 1  Bill J. Coffey from SWIM, and I am wondering if
 2  you could have the courtesy that at the end of the
 3  hearing or before the speakers speak there may be
 4  some questions. There may not be that many.
 5  There may be just comments.  But if there are
 6  questions, since this is an information meeting,
 7  and we are going to be giving out information
 8  without those speakers, there may be new
 9  information.  And I am wondering if any questions
10  come up according to that information might we be
11  able to respond to those questions?
12        MR. ROSENBERG:  Absolutely.  Better
13  yet, sir, I invite you to join the panel
14  discussion at the end.  Your opinion is not only
IS  valued, but important in this process mat is
16  going to eventually identify the final disposal
17  permanently placed. We are not at a point where
18  we can make that decision yet, and your voice is
19  needed if we are going to get through this process
20  together. Okay.
21        Once again we will have an open
22  question and answer session at the end of all the
23  comments and an open panel.  No question is out of
24  bounds, and you are always welcome to participate
                                               Page 10
 l  local businesses, elected representatives and
 2  public interest groups such as the Conservation
 3  Law Foundation, Save the Harbor/Save the Bay for
 4  over the past year to identify approximately
 5  300 disposal sites that are available for this
 6  project, but also to narrow these disposal sites
 7  to the most economical and most environmentally
 8  safe alternative. Thankfully with the assistance
 9  of those individuals and public interest groups,
10  we have successfully accomplished that part of the
11  process. Now we need you, especially those of you
12  who are impacted directly or indirectly by the
13  project to assist us in this environmental review
14  process.
15        Once again, we need to know your
16  concerns. We need your advice, and we need your
17  expertise.
18        Yes. Thank you very much for coming
19  here tonight
20        I would like to introduce —
21        WILLIAM COFFEY: Could you ~ can I
22  ask you one question, please?
23        MR, ROSENBERG: Absolutely.
24        WILLIAM COFFEY: My name is
                                              Page
 l  in any manner really.
 2        I would now like to introduce Captain
 3  Jeffrey Monroe.  He is the Deputy Port Director
 4  for the Massachusetts Port Authority.
 5        Captain Monroe.
 6        CAPTAIN MONROE: I want to thank
 7  everybody for the opportunity to come up and give
 8  us the opportunity to speak with you and keep this
 9  forum alive, because what everybody has to
10  recognize is that there are no done-deals  here.
11  This isn't something that we inform everybody.
12  This is still an interaction part of the process,
13  and I want everybody to understand that in the
14  course of letting me do that, the voices that are
15  heard or for that matter no opinion is
16  nonspecific.
17        You know, there is a tendency when we
18  talk about the Port of Boston to think of the port
19  as just serving that specific city, but actually
20  ports no longer do that They serve the region.
21  All of your food, your wine, clothing, the oil
22  that heats your homes, the gasoline that you put
23  in your vehicles all move through the port, and we
24  compete on a global scale with other ports, not
                                                                                             Page 9 - Page 1
-------
                                              Condenselt
                                                          TM
                                              Page 13
   only in the Western Hemisphere, but around the
   world.  These ports that collect cargo, and they
   move it onto ships or onto ground base
   transportation systems.
         To remain competitive, we must
   overcome two very important forces.  The first one
   is nature, and the second one is technology. The
   harbors that we work all silt up because of the
   flow of rivers, the ebb and flow of the tides.
   Now unless we maintain those harbors, they become
   too shallow for normal water travel, but
   technological advances also have an impact on us.
   For example, the size of the ships have increased
   considerably. Today, the largest container ships
   in the world, some of which will call in the Port
   of Boston are nearly a thousand feet long and
   carry over 4,000 tractor trailers on them. The
   reason they are so big is because on economies of
   scale, they can move this cargo in and out faster,
   very similar to the air system that we have in
   this country. Smaller vessels, larger remaining
   ports like Boston and New York is  then put onto
   larger ships, and these larger ships take it to
   other larger ports where it is then disbursed in
                                                                                                  Page 15
                                                    l what do you do with the dredge spoil once you take
                                                    2 them out of the harbor, and that is what we are
                                                    3 going to try to answer tonight
                                                    4        There has been no decision made.  All
                                                    5 right You are participating in this public
                                                    6 forum, because it is exceedingly important that
                                                    7 those of us on the State level and the Federal
                                                    8 level understand the concerns of everybody that
                                                    9 this can potentially affect you.
                                                   10        Now I would like to introduce my
                                                   11 partner in crime here, Janeen Hansen, who is the
                                                   12 Project Director for Massport and who has been
                                                   13 working very closely with the Federal Government
                                                   14 and Army Corps of Engineers to go through the
                                                   IS dredging process, and she has done an outstanding
                                                   16 job; but the one thing that impressed me most
                                                   17 about Janeen in working with her is that she
                                                   18 really has taken every opinion into consideration.
                                                   19        So Janeen.
                                                   20        Thank you.
                                                   21        JANEEN HANSEN: Thank you, Jeff.
                                                   22        I wanted to take just a minute this
                                                   23 evening to explain a little about Massport's
                                                   24 involvement in this project and also to bring you
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
g
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
.6
.7
.8
,9
"0
II
12
23
24
                                              Page 14
the same manner.
       When the port gets shallow, the ships
can't come in. When the ship can't come in what
happens is they will bypass the port once, twice,
and then they will stop coming back.  AH that
cargo will go to someplace like New York where it
will  then be put on trains.  It will be put over
the roads, and what happens is that the direct
impact then becomes those of us who live here in
Eastern Massachusetts and Western Massachusetts
and the surrounding states wind up shelling more
out of our pocket for the goods that we are now
paying for. Not only that, but it has a direct
impact on the local economy, and that local
economy extends well up into Eastern Massachusetts
at both the southern side and the northern side
where it affects our jobs, employment and
everything else.
       The economy will  head down if we
cannot remain a competitive port. If we cannot
continue to bring ships in, it's going to affect
us all, whether we think we have an interaction
with the seaport or not. We always do.  We have
to dredge.  And where the question now remains is
                                              Page 16
 l  up to date on the project's schedule.
 2         Historically, navigational presence
 3  has been done by the Corps of Engineers, a
 4  100 percent Federal project. So what is Massport
 5  doing in the dredging business all of a sudden?
 6  This came about in 1986 as a result of the Water
 7  Resources Development Act, which required that
 8  navigation improvement projects now have a local
 9  sponsor. So for the first part of this, the Corps
10  lends us the money to help pay for the project.
11  It's no longer 100 percent Federally funded.
12         The second aspect is that we were the
13  logical partner, because we own and operate many
14  public container terminals  in the ports. The
IS  first is Moransa over in Charlestown, and the
16  second is Conley Terminal in South Boston.  These
17  two terminals together handle over 100,000
18  containers a month.  So from that perspective,
19  Massport is one of the important players in the
20  Port of Boston.
21         The schedule historically began
22  Massport's involvement in 1991 when we filed an
23  Environmental Impact Notification Form with the
24 Secretary of Environmental Affairs. She in turn
                                                                                           Page 13 - Page 16
-------
                                               Condenselt
                                                           TM
                                               Page 17
 1  gave us the scope of work for an Environmental
 2  Impact Report, which began in October of 1991.  We
 3  selected a consultant to work with us, and in the
 4  spring of 1992, we convened an advisory panel.
 5  This committee was comprised of regulators and
 6  resource agencies and environmental groups, the
 7  maritime industry and others interested in
 8  supporting present projects. Slowly by the end of
 9  the summer, we not had as conclusive evidence as
10  we could have, and we would at this time like to
11  extend to the Committee in the Town of Nahant to
12  formally participate in the Dredging Advisory
13  Committee. I will be  speaking a little later
14  about that
15        The Dredging Advisory Committee has
16  sat through many, many meetings that have flung
17  off on a larger group, two groups. One was
18  interested primarily in sediment characterization,
19  which is the group that helped us with the testing
20  of the dredge material, the sampling, the analysis
21  of what is in the materials, and the second group
22  helped us define disposal alternatives, including
23  the criteria used that evaluated these alternatives.
24        We are here tonight as part of the
                                               Page;
 1  seaport in New England, and its importance to New
 2  England has just been described to you by
 3  Massport, so I won't reiterate that, but I do want
 4  to emphasize that the purpose of this project is
 5  to improve navigation of fishing industries.
 6  While the project removes contamination from the
 7  harbor, that is not the project's purpose, and we
 8  do not get a benefit to that
 9        Federal navigation systems of Boston
10  Harbor are a result of over two dozen
11  congressionally authorized projects that have been
12  built over the last 170 years. During its
13  history, the port has experienced many changes,
14  including the ships that turned away from die main
15  Port of Boston to the three tributary channels
16  that serve the Grand Terminal, Conley Terminal and
n  the tank farm in the Chelsea Creek. However,
18  there has been a shift in also the bulk carriers,
19  the container division and also the smaller
20  vessels to larger vessels, as Jeff mentioned. In
21  order to accommodate these changes, snippers
22  delays, they have to lighten the ships, they have
23  to lighten the loads or other inefficient methods
24  of transportation.
                                               Page 18
 1 public information process to get the public's
 2 comment on the project and about disposal
 3 alternatives.
 4        We filed the Draft Environmental
 5 Impact Report or Statement in April.  We will be
 6 gathering comments throughout the summer. We will
 7 begin to do some analysis of marine life and fish
 8 habitat on some of the sites that look more
 9 promising, and we expect to file a Final
10 Environmental Impact Report and Statement in late
11 December.
12        And now Pete Jackson from the Corps of
13 Engineers will talk a little bit about the
14 specifics of the project.
15        PETER JACKSON: Now for the Show. All
16 of us are here tonight to discuss the project and
17 to hear your comments, and so I am going to make
18 this as short as possible.
19        And first of all, can everybody see
20 that?
21        AUDENCE PARTICIPANTS: No.
22        PETER JACKSON: We will get some Of
23 these lights out.
24        The Port of Boston is the largest
                                              Page 2
 1        In April, container vessels from
 2 Northern Europe that were Boston bound bypassed
 3 the Port of Boston, because it was not going to
 4 wait for the tide to rise sufficiently. So it
 5 went on to New York, and that's material like Jeff
 6 said that arrived by train and truck after this.
 7        In 1988, the Corps of Engineers did a
 8 feasibility report and recommended that E.P.
 9 increase the tributary channels taking the
10 benefits derived from reducing these Federal
11 delays, reducing lightening practices.  The
12 project is a prerequisite of Massport's long-term
13 strategy, which includes improvements to their
14 container terminals and participation encouraging
15 rail lines to the Midwest and Canada.
16        On this slide is the existing major
17 channels in the inner harbor. The darker area
18 represents the 40-foot deep main ship channel that
19 enters from the ocean into this area.  That darker
20 blue is the 40-foot channel. This is presently
21 underutilized. When originally constructed during
22 the first half of the century, it accessed most of
23 the port's activity, as I mentioned, the ports
24 along the main waterfront. In fact, you can see
                                                                                           Page 17 -Page^
-------
                                               Condenselt7
                                              Page 21
l  the outlines of some of those old piers and docks,
2  some of which are now condominiums.
3        The feasibility report found limited
4  depth available in the tributary channels, which
5  were located in the Mystic River, the Chelsea
6  River and the Reserve Channel in South Boston. As
7  you can see, all three of these are 35 feet.
8  Ideally, maritime interests would want to go into
9  these terminals without Federal restrictions,
0  schedule their activities in the most efficient
l  manner. And, also, they don't want to be limited
2  along with investment capital or economic
3  evaluation potentially all these factors, which
4  are very different. The conservative approach to
5  the Corps of Engineers justified the economics of
6  dredging this project as compared to the benefits
7  of making commerce more efficient
8        What we have proposed.  There is some
9  changes sitting here that I am not going to
0  mention tonight that are right off the slide, but
l  they are moving slowly in remarking the channels.
2  So I am going to emphasize the work shown in
3  yellow and in green.
4        In the inner harbor, the project calls
                                               Page 23
 l  Mystic or the Chelsea Creek. Part of the
 2  expansion includes deepening of a portion of the
 3  35-foot channel in that area for a wide turn in
 4  the Mystic River, which is the current practice.
 5        The lower Mystic River channel was
 6  last deepened in 1958 to its present 35-foot
 7  depth. It provides access to the port's widest
 8  variety of terminal facilities, including the
 9  marine container port, oil companies, liquid
10  natural gas, the liquefied natural gas terminal
11  and other facilities.  The areas upstream are
12  polluted, which do not have active terminals as
13  shown here, do not require dredging so it's just
14  that yellow area that is deepened five feet to
15  40 feet
16        The Chelsea Creek Channel to the right
17  shown in green was last seen at 35 feet in 1966.
18        There is nine other ports and
19  11 petroleum terminals that are loading along this
20  channel, and it goes by the airport. You can see
21  all those tank farms over there. These terminals
22  provide the majority of what we need for petroleum
23  products. In fact, 90 percent of the cargo in and
24  out of the port are petroleum products.  The
                                              Page 22
l  for deepening the ports of three principal
2  tributary channels and the turning areas.
3  Starting at the South Boston Reserve Channel here,
4  this was last seen at 35 feet in 1960. It
5  provides access to six active facilities,
6  including the Conley Terminal to Massport.  Under
7  this project, it will be deepened for most of it,
8  its length to 40 feet That is a deepening of
9  five feet.
0         In order to represent the next new
l  channel on the new turn, the confluence of the
2  Reserve Channel will be modified as shown. This
3  includes deepening a portion of the 35-foot
4  existing channel as shown on the slide to
5  accommodate turning vessels in that area.
6         During this entire study process, we
7  used the State of New York as a simulation to
8  optimize the design and minimize the amount of
9  dredging while still maintaining the safety.  The
0  35-foot deep intercoastal channel, this area right
I  here (indicating), provides access to both the
2  Mystic River on the left and the  Chelsea Creek on
3  the right. This area will be deepened to 40 feet
.4  to accommodate turning vessels down either at the
                                               Page 24
 l  project includes deepening within the path of the
 2  existing channel almost to 38 feet  Project
 3  depths greater than 38 feet is not economically
 4  feasible, because of major utility costs,
 5  including the Boston Gas site, which is too
 6  expensive to relocate, so the project is 38 feet
 7        In addition to the Federal channel
 8  deepening, the project includes deepening berths;
 9  in other words, to get the depth from the channels
10  you can see there over from the shore line to the
11  dock.  These areas in here will be deepened to the
12  same depth as the channel.
13        In dredging, we will first remove all
14  materials that have been laid into the channels.
IS  As I said, the last major dredging on most of
16  these channels was in the early'80s.  Maintenance
17  amounts to about 860,000 cubic yards. That is
18  this lower of the blue here (indicating). That is
19  silty material that has accumulated since 1983.
20  The cost of maintenance dredging will be borne by
21  the Federal Government. Non-federal interest may
22  have to be contributed depending on the disposal
23  method,
24        Silts from the berth amounting to
                                                                                            Page 21 -Page 24
-------
                                               Condenselt1
                                               Page 25
 l 240,000 cubic yards will require removal. That
 2 is this area (indicating), the purple area on
 3 top. The total amount of maintenance material
 4 is LI million cubic yards. This material has
 5 been determined to be unsuitable to be disposed,
 6 and therefore must be managed in some way.
 7        We have proven by quite a bit of data
 8 as far as dredging and disposal of these materials
 9 will be required to deepen the channels.  That is
10 the green material on the right, which has been
11 determined to be suitable for up to five years of
12 disposal. This apparent material from the
13 channels amounts to about 1.6 million cubic yards.
14 This material has never been measured.  Deferred
15 to that is an additional 133,000 cubic yards.
16 That is the dark area on the top for a total of
17 1.8 million cubic yards of clean material.
18        I want to emphasize that the
19 improvement project does not — if the improvement
20 does not move forward, this material will have to
21 be taken out of Boston Harbor sooner than late,
22 because this is maintenance.  In other words, we
23 have to take that much material out just to keep
24 it at 35 feet. And roughly speaking, that is the
                                               Page 2
 1  The underlying apparent material primarily was
 2  clay, as I mentioned. It has been tested
 3  extensively and found to be clean and suitable for
 4  disposal. In addition to the chemical analysis of
 5  the testing, protocol required biological testing.
 6  There are worms and clams and arthropods that were
 7  exposed to this material. The worms and clams
 8  survived it, but there were arthropods that did
 9  not It was not survival at a sufficient rate.
10        Massport began the State environmental
11  process in 1991. In 1992, the Corps decided to go
12  beyond its environmental assessment and prepared
13  an E.I.S. During the same time, Massport convened
14  the Advisory Committee, which Janeen talked about,
lS  and for about a year and a half that committee
16  guided us through the environmental process
17  through various subcommittees to the point where
18  we are tonight
19        In April of this year, the Corps'
20  management filed a combined E.I.S. and E.I.R. to
21  cover all the impacts associated with the project
22  in which to focus on.
23        This committee helped us narrow down a
24  list of over 300 options to a list of 21 that I
                                               Page 26
 1  amount of material that has accumulated since
 2  1983.  This is required for safe and efficient
 3  navigation. Some areas of the harbor have not
 4  been dredged for over ten years and need to be
 5  dredged now.  Other areas probably could wait a
 6  couple of years, but this maintenance material is
 7  unsuitable for disposal. The advantage — the
 8  advantage of the improvement project is that there
 9  will be significant volumes of this clean material
10  in which we can properly dispose of the unsuitable
11  material.
12         When we initiated the design of this
13  project in 1989 before the E.P.A., this was a new
14  testing protocol for sediments.  Testing in the
15  channel for all 1990 maintenance was unsuitable
16  for disposal.  Prior to 1990, this material would
17  have been suitable under the requirements for
18  disposal.
19         For the purposes of this project, we
20  are assuming that all the material on the left is
21  unsuitable. The quality of the maintenance
22  material is typical of an American harbor. It has
23  a chemical consistency similar to the sediment
24  that was taken in past sites, and it's unmanaged.
                                               Page
 l  will mention next. This chart may be hard to see,
 2  but I have them up here, so after if any of you
 3  have questions you can come up and read it That
 4  is the best I can do. I am going to point a few
 5  features out here.
 6        Disposal options to be evaluated to
 7  match general categories on the top are aquatic
 8  disposal sites and land-based disposal sites.  We
 9  also considered new technologies for the  treatment
10  of dredge material.  We found that land-based
11  disposal was not cost-effective and particularly
12  for the volume rate of production on this
13  project  Also land-based options range from about
14  six to almost 15 times the cost of straight ocean
15  disposal. This chart shows on the left relative
16  costs starting from one time up to 14 times the
17  cost of taking it out to the ocean and dumping
18  it. And these various alternatives, I think there
19  is about 24 of them, you can see that the cost in
20  the aquatic sites are generally less expensive,
21  and the costs in the upland  sites are generally
22  more expensive, because of the extra handling and
23  transportation and extra treatment making it part
24  of it.
                                                                                           Page 25 - Page
-------
                                               Condenselt
                                                          TM
                                              Page 29
1        Despite disposal option costs ranging
2  of about one and a half times to about five and a
3  half times straight unconfined ocean disposal, two
4  aquatic sites were over 30 times more extensive
5  given the site. These are the ones sitting up
6  here. Again, this chart is much easier to read,
7  if you would like to come up and look at it.  The
8  disposal site map is also shown to the left here.
9  The six preferred alternatives were described in
0  the E.I.S. Those are shown in blue on this chart
1  and shown in blue on the previous chart.  These
2  blue sites were judged on environmental impact,
3  navigation, capacity and cost. These sites
4  include Boston Lightship, the former  disposal site
5  located here; deep channel disposal, which is
6  located within the channels that we are dredging;
7  the designated Massachusetts Bay disposal site
8  located here with packing, two sites east of the
9  harbor. That is the Meisburger sites here and
0  here, and the M.W.R A. outfall is right there for
l  reference; and there is a small site at Spectacle
2  Island, which is located here (indicating), off
3  shore of Spectacle Island. I want to emphasize
4  that none of these sites have been selected.
                                              Page 3]
 l  process will meet environmental permits. We are
 2  also considering the proposal by the Conservation
 3  Law Foundation and Save the Harbor/Save the Bay,
 4  who are on our advisory committee to have an
 5  independent monitor oversee the project
 6  Long-term monitoring of the disposal site will
 7  also be required to ensure that the containment of
 8  the sediment continues to work over a long period
 9  of time.
10         I just want to touch on the project
11  costs and the project schedule and get right into
12  discussion.
13         This slide shows the project on the
14  right  The green bar that I showed you on the
IS  clean material involves the dredging of about
16  1.6 million cubic  yards of contaminated spoil.
17  Together with the private working with the
18  Federal, it will cost us $35.3 million.
19         As you can see, Massport is going to
20  be required to cost share about  13.6 million, and
21  the Corps of Engineers will — through Congress
22  will share $21.7 million.  The cost of
23  maintenance, that is 860,000 cubic yards on the
24  left side of unsuitable material, will be funded
                                              Page 30
l        After reviewing the public comments on
2  the previous public hearings, all the letters that
3  we receive, which now stack higher than the
4  E.I.S., we will begin the selection process.  To
5  assist us we plan to collect some data this summer
6  on each of the aquatic sites.  The data will be
7  fish counts, sediments and ocean bottom sampling.
8  We plan to convene the Advisory Committee again
9  and have their assistance in narrowing down the
0  choices to their selective  claim. We are also
l  addressing mitigation of two areas that we read in
,2  the E.I.S. There will be a restricted period of
13  measuring the significant accomodation of fish
14  links, the strength and due to concerns expressed
15  during our dredging of Massport's  Grant Terminal,
16  we have identified the use of the work site
17  clamshell bottom for the chemical dredging.  Use
18  of all systems and other measures are going to be
19  considered to reduce the  turbidity of the committed
>0  site.
n         Under no set of circumstances will we
12  propose a site that will be harmful  to the
23  environment. Whatever  we propose as site
24  selection of the proposed dredging, the disposal
                                              Page 32
 l through the Corps' Maintenance Program.  The cost
 2 of maintenance, dredging and disposal will not be
 3 considered until they have a final site. This
 4 cost is just clean material. I would estimate
 5 that the cost of the 860,000 cubic yards of
 6 unsuitable material will be in the vicinity of
 7 $15 million and up.
 8        The project schedule, I don't want to
 9 spend a lot of time on this, but if you were to
10 look at the history, you would see that everything
11 came to a screeching halt until we got into the
12 environmental aspects of it. That delayed the
13 project about two years in order to accommodate
14 the Advisory Committee, the requirements of the
15 E.I.R. and the E.I.S.  I did want to point out
16 that we would expect to have a Final E.I.S. in
17 December of this year. Another key point is that
18 construction could begin in the spring of 1996.
19 That will take about one and a half years to
20 complete.
21        In closing, I want to emphasize again
22 that no decision has been made on the disposal
23 plan.  We have resisted ~ I have resisted the
24 temptation of eliminating options until we have
                                                                                           Page 29 - Page 32
-------
                                               Condenselt1
                                               Page 33
 1  heard everybody, until we have done our studies
 2  and collected the data. At that point, we will
 3  consider elimination to be made and consider
 A  additions of options that are currently on the
 5  second list
 6         We have been also reviewing new
 7  technology. There is  a lot of treatment methods
 8  out there that we have considered.  At this point
 9  in time, there is no feasible treatment method.
10  These methods were for small scale hazardous waste
11  sites. We are talking about 4,000 cubic yards a
12  day. They can handle a couple hundred  cubic yards
13  a day, but we are still going to have those people
14  come in and listen to  their sales pitch. We are
IS  going to consider as lengthy as possible future
16  maintenance options, but we are not shutting the
17  door to treatment technology.  We are also looking
18  at things such as fabric containment and other
19  unique methods of disposal. In fact, we have even
20  listened to a person who proposed putting this
21  material on train cars and shipping it to Utah. I
22  haven't heard the cost of that.
23        It has become  very apparent from this
24  project process that a project theme that there
                                              Page 3
 1 been extended; and if it's been extended, to what
 2 date?
 3        MR. ROSENBERG: The microphone, please.
 4        WILLIAM HUBBARD:  Tell me if you can't
 5 hear me. Any time a public request in the
 6 involvement in the State process and particularly
 7 the Clean Water Act are requesting a public
 8 hearing tonight, we would be more than happy to
 9 take comments for the next 30 days.
10        AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: After this
11 meeting?
12        WILLIAM HUBBARD:  Yes, we would
13 appreciate that time frame. If it's 35, and
14 frankly if it's 45, we understand. We will
IS address all comments. The Draft E.I.S. is up for
16 review now. The final is not going to be out in
17 30 or 60 days. At the moment, we are not setting
is a date until we finish these rounds of questions.
19 So we appreciate any comments you have in writing;
20 and, folks, if you would like to get the address,
21 there is, I believe it's an off grey pamphlet, an
22 informational pamphlet outside. If not, you can
23 get the address from anyone of us.
24        MR. ROSENBERG: We have the Boston
                                               Page 34
 l  has to be a long-term maintenance plan for the
 2  State of Massachusetts. If proven, a project such
 3  as this one may have the resources to go through
 4  this long involved process. Future maintenance on
 5  the smaller projects do not have this advantage.
 6  The State itself has to come to some solution so
 7  that a small project as well as large projects can
 8  continue to keep the port open, can continue to
 9  keep the port efficient and maintain the projects
10  that currently exist.
11        That is my little spiel.
12        MR. ROSENBERG: Thank you, Pete.
13        That will conclude the federal and
14  Massport portion of the program.
15        At the request of the Selectmen of
16  Nahant, we have been asked to allow three — four
17  speakers to speak for the town. Prior to doing
18  that, I would like to open the floor for about
19  five minutes for questions, if you have any of
20  Mr. Jackson or Massport before we start the formal
21  presentation from the city.
22        Yes, ma'am.
23        AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: Yes.  Has the
24  comment period for this project ended, or has it
                                              Page 3
 l Harbor Highlights, and it's a little magazine,
 2 eight pages that outlines the project We have a
 3 copy for public members, and a summary from the
 4 E.I.S. is available.
 5        Two more questions before we go to the
 6 Town representatives.
 7        SELECTMAN FORMAN:  Excuse me.  People
 8 should come to the microphone, because the
 9 questions being asked are not being heard by the
10 television audience unless they come with
11 microphones.
12        MR. ROSENBERG: That is a very good
13 point  Thank you,
14        The next speaker will be Joseph Ayers,
15 Director of Northeastern University.
16        (Applause.)
17        JOSEPH AYERS: I'm the Director of
18 Northeastern University and also a member of the
19 Conservation Commission.
20        What I would like to talk about is
21 what I consider probably the most dangerous aspect
22 of this project, especially to the local
23 fisheries, which is the effect on lobsters.
24        The lobster, the only source of new
                                                                                           Page 33 - Page :
-------
                                                Condenselt7
                                               Page 37
1  lobster to the population is born looking like
2  this (indicating). They swim around in the water
3  column. They are caught typically in the plankton
4  pools around the water in this area. This is an
5  area of profusion, and they go through several
6  stages where they finally settle to the bottom of
7  the ocean. And, in fact,  this is the most
8  vulnerable period in the  life of a lobster.  They
9  are subject to predation by all sort of fishes,
0  other crustaceans, and they really have only the
i  defense to be able to hide in public habitat
2         One of the things that I am very
3  concerned about in this project is that the
4  capping material, the clay will just eliminate all
5  the habitat  Simply, where this goes the habitat
6  of the water lobsters need to live in will go.
7         I think that the potential impact of
8  this on the fishery at this point is very critical
9  to estimate; but as you probably know, the fish
iO  are in this area, based  on the silt insult from
>1  the M.W.R.A. outfall and the use of dragging in
!2  the area, which is certainly the habitat in this
!3  project.
!4         Now I think this  issue of destruction
                                               Page 39
 l  million.
 2         AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: We can't SBC
 3  it, Joe.
 4         JOSEPH AYERS: Excuse me.
 5         AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: We can't see
 6  it.
 7         JOSEPH AYERS: It's about 1.3 parts
 8  per million, and where it's dangerous to animals
 9  is about .5 to .05 parts per million. Now if you
10  look at the mercury levels on this chart, tMs row
11  here where it says H.G., you will see that most of
12  these are in the danger level, that the mercury
13  levels of this material are toxic. If we look at
14  lead, the level of which it's considered toxic is
IS  about 200 parts per million.  In fact, if you look
16  at lead right here, we have got a reading of 283
17  parts per million. So the material is toxic both
18  in lead and in mercury.
19         Now these are the results we heard. I
20  can also include PCBs. I don't mean to get into
21  this, but PCBs in this material is also considered
22  toxic.
23         But the real take-home message I want
24  to get across here is these  are the results of
                                               Page 38
 1  of habitat and siltation is only part of the
 2  problem. The problem that, as I suggest is even
 3  more disturbing is that this material which has
 4  been labeled as unsuitable for ocean dumping is
 5  probably lethal to all the lobsters.  These are
 6  the figures that indicate danger levels for these
 7  materials on marine animals, and these are
 8  generally categorized into Type 1, which is
 9  apparently okay; type 2, which is borderline on
10  the part of the animals; and anything in the Type
11  3 category is deleterious to the life of them.
12         Now if you look at this, there is two
13  materials, and these are materials that were
14  provided for us in the Environmental Impact
15  Report, which are lead and mercury.
16         Now in developing organisms one  of my
17  areas of research is on the development of the
18  nervous system in larger lobsters. One of the
19  most toxic materials are heavy metals at this time
20  when the connection between neurons and the
Ji  nervous system are being formed. And, of course,
12  lead and mercury are two of the most dangerous
n  materials. If you look at the level of mercury,
M  which  has toxic effects, it's about 1.3 parts per
                                               Page 40
 l testing these materials on three different types
 2 of organisms, worms, clams, and then on arthropods.
 3 The arthropods are small arthropods that grow almost
 4 into animals like lobsters. Now if you look at the
 5 test results from the sediments here, you can see
 6 that we get down to as low as 14 percent survival.
 7 In other words, 80 percent — 86 percent of the
 8 animals were put in this sediment during the test,
 9 so the stuff is lethal for arthropods.  There is a
10 note that this data is unreliable due to the test
11 procedures. So it was replicated, and again we
12 got back as low as 17 percent survival in these
13 materials.  I think this material is just absolutely
14 unacceptable to be put in what is in effect a
IS nursery area for this lobster fishery.  I am sure
16 Mike Gambale will give us some idea of the
17 importance of this fishery area.
18        I would like to also show a short
19 videotape. We were kind of interested in what the
20 bottom looked like on this site, whether it is
21 good lobster habitat.  So we took our research
22 vessel out and made a video of the bottom, and I
23 would like to show that tape. We also did a
24 similar tape of the bottom of the Chelsea River so
                                                                                             Page 37 - Page 40
-------
                                               Condensclt
                                                           TM
                                               Page 41
 1  you get an idea of what the two sites are.
 2        (Whereupon, there was a videotape
 3  presentation.)
 4        JOSEPH AYERS: Okay. This is R.O.V.
 5  This is remote operated video camera. It's an
 6  effective robot submarine that has got lights on
 7  it, and this is quite a short tape. This is the
 8  Meisburger 2 site. You can see there is each
 9  point. It's really quite close. This is prime
10  habitat for larvae lobsters. And, in fact, much
11  of this material you see floating by, the
12  plankton, may also contain larvae lobsters.
13        Here is an example of the crab in the
14  site.
15        This  is the predominant bottom we see
16  in this area.  It's sort of a muddy bottom, worm
17  tubes, white material.  It's a perfect habitat for
18  small lobsters in the harbor.  This is again some
19  of the typical property habitat, which is ideal.
20  I think we are going to fly over a lobster trap
21  here right now. When we were out there, which is
22  not the typical time of the season to be fishing
23  for lobsters in that area, we saw plenty of
24  tackle. There was clearly some gill netting and
                                              Page 4
 i        (Applause.)
 2        MR. ROSENBERG: Okay. Thank you very
 3 much for presenting that data from our E.I.S. in
 4 such a very easy manner and really putting in
 5 perspective some of the problems we are facing in
 6 trying to find an alternative here; and as Pete
 7 said earlier, we are collecting data this summer
 8 on various sites, and if we could get a copy of
 9 that tape, that would really help us.
10        JOSEPH AYERS: We will be making court
11 transcripts.
12        MR. ROSENBERG: Our next speaker is
13 Mr. Mike Gambale.
14        (Applause.)
15        MICHAEL GAMBALE: Thank you.
16        I first would like to thank the Nahant
17 Selectmen for organizing this forum.
18        I also would like to thank the various
19 elected public officials for being here tonight
20 I will be as brief as possible.
21        I notice a lot of my colleagues here.
22 I am sure they will have some things to say.  I
23 represent the Swampscott Fishing Alliance as well
24 as other commercial area fishermen, and we support
                                               Page 42
 1 lobstering going on in that area. This is a
 2 fairly sandy bottom habitat that is there.
 3        Okay. This is now the Chelsea River
 4 site. We will first pan around so you can see
 5 where we took the video from.  Okay. This is
 6 right in the middle of the Chelsea River.
 7        Okay. This is the bottom here.  It's
 8 very flocculent When you are flying R.O.V., it's
 9 very hard to get around without stirring it up.
10 There are a lot of fish and some crabs in this
11 area, and there is a lot of flounder.  It's an
12 escort.  I mean this is where these animals and
13 evolution normally when to grow up, and they go
14 into it.  I think most of the test results we have
15 seen on animals from these source of slides show
16 that they are diseased. They have lesions from
17 living in the material that's out there. But you
18 will notice it's very heavily silted in. It's a
19 very different habitat. Okay.
20        Again, these are the results at the
21 different sites, Chelsea, Mystic River, the
22 Reserve Channel, survival of arthropods compared
23 to the number of bars, which would be full
24 numbers. So at least it's ndt material at all.
                                              Page 4-
 1 the Mass. Lobster Association's position regarding
 2 this proposed dredging project
 3        I speak for myself when I oppose the
 4 dumping of any material which comes from this
 5 project in the open waters of Mass. Bay. I
 6 particularly oppose the dumping site referred to
 7 as Meisburger 2. I refer to this area, and I fish
 8 in this area, and I am more familiar with some of
 9 the other areas. And with what Joe just said, I
10 couldn't agree with him more about the habitat.
11 It is prime lobster habitat for a couple of
12 reasons. Joe got into the lobster larvae, which
13 we are very concerned about  One point is
14 it's — you may or may not know, we are under a
15 Federal plan, a Federal and State proposal,
16 Amendment 5, to further regulate our industry in
17 an effort to recruit more egg-bearing female
18 mature lobsters.  It's not for us to land more
19 lobsters, but in order to recruit egg-bearing
20 lobsters, we are going to be restricted  in many
21 ways on where, when  and how we are going to fish
22 in order for this to work.  It seems to me to be
23 kind of ridiculous for us to be conserving and
24 trying to promote female egg-bearing lobsters only
                                                                                           Page 41 -Page^
-------
                                               CondenseItT
                                               Page 45
l  to release them, which may be caught at least in
2  this area; and based on what Joe just told us, I
3  don't think their survival rate is going to be
4  very good. So that was suggested to me somewhat,
5        Also, this area is also a habitat for
6  lobsters to shed in and to migrate. Lobsters
7  migrate. They travel great distances, and even
8  though you don't see too much — many lobsters
9  traps here in this area at this point, it is
0  because of a few reasons. The reason is they
l  shed, and they bury themselves, and we can't find
2  them, or they haven't gotten there yet, but there
3  are times of the year when you cannot find a piece
4  of that body, set a trap on them, because it's so
5  dense in here because it is prime fishing area.
6  Statistics show that Massachusetts is the second
7  largest leading -- it's the second largest state
8  for remaining lobsters in this country, 50 percent
9  of which are landed between Gloucester and
10  Cohasset, and 50 percent of that figure and more
:i  than 50 percent of the landings land in this
12  area. To give you an idea, that is approximately
!3  200,000 traps of fish between Boston and Cohasset
;4  in that area.  Like  I said earlier, I know there
                                               Page 47
 1 sewage outflow that is being constructed.  Where
 2 we are sitting here today, it is about three miles
 3 from Meisburger 2. We are also about three miles
 4 from the trash facility where you come into town
 5 to give you an idea of how close we are to this
 6 location.
 7        On the map here, this is the location
 8 of the outflow. Here is Meisburger 2, and here is
 9 Nahant.  When we look at the effects of the
10 outflow on Nahant, we look at several conditions.
11 On this board here, which was the site we
12 evaluated during that process this site here was
13 the initial proposal of the M.W.R.A., which is
14 where Meisburger 2 is. The one in the middle is
15 close to where the outflow is now, and the one on
16 the far side is the location where the terminal
17 closes out
18        The tan area is the plume that comes
19 out of the outfall, and this is very much like the
20 smoke out of a smokestack. This is almost a
21 continuous flow of the effluent coining out of the
22 outfall. Sometimes it will go to the north;
23 sometimes it will go to the south; sometimes it
24 will come into shore or go out to sea.
                                               Page 46
 l  are a lot of fisherman here that probably are
 2  making points. 1 could babble on all night, but I
 3  just wanted to go on record as being opposed to
 4  dumping of any material in here in any way
 5  suitable or unsuitable for disposal. And in
 6  closing, I wish you would eliminate Meisburger 2
 7  and all the other sites who threaten disposal.
 8        Thank you.
 9        (Applause.)
10        MR. ROSENBERG:  Thank you very much.
11        Our next speaker is Mr. Kevin Jangaard
12  from SWIM.
13        (Applause.)
!4        KEVIN JANGAARD: I have a couple of
15  boards here I would like to use.
16        I would like to thank you for this
17  opportunity to speak. You understand how this
18  project is important to Boston.  It's also for the
19  lobstermen and recreation here and what we have at
20  Nahant.
21        AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: Mike.  Use the
22  mike.
23        KEVIN JANGAARD: Our main concern is
24  the proximity of Meisburger 2 to Nahant and to the
                                               Page 48
 l        This green line here is the tidal
 2 reach. Basically, that is how far the water will
 3 come in and out to shore.  And you can see how
 4 close Meisburger 2 is to the tidal reach. We are
 5 very concerned with the process that they are
 6 proposing in dumping this material along here
 7 during the year and a half that it would be done
 8 and how this will affect the water.  We are also
 9 concerned with what it is going to do to the
10 bottom as has been explained earlier.
11        Another concern we have is with the
12 heavy metals and the other pollutants that will be
13 found in this area at Meisburger and beyond when
14 the outflow is in place.
15        This chart was taken from material
16 provided by the M.W.R.A. and was. prepared with
17 their Environmental Impact Statement. You can't
18 read it from a distance, but basically it lists a
19 series of heavy metals and other pollutants,
20 mainly pesticides, which exceed human health
21 criteria for carcinogens and aquatic life toxicity
22 levels.  The site they selected was somewhere
23 between four and five. During the primary
24 treatment, which is the period where this project
                                                                                            Page 45 - Page 48
-------
                                               Condenselt1
                                              Page 49
 1 is planned to take place, it will be replaced by a
 2 secondary treatment sometime around the turn of
 3 the century.
 4        During this earlier period, we have
 5 some heavy metals and pesticides, which range from
 6 maybe 20 times what is allowed up to 200  times the
 7 criteria that the E.P.A. puts down in their
 8 bulletin.  So we are concerned with the heavy
 9 metals and the upper effluents and any foreign
10 pesticides and the material that they are going to
11 be dredging and putting them out in proximity to
12 the outflow of the proposal we are going to be
13 including in our work.
14        Thank you.
15        (Applause.)
16        MR. ROSENBERG: Thank  you, sir.  Once
17 again, if we can get copies of your charts, we
18 would appreciate it.
19        Our next speaker is Ms. Polly Bradley
20 from SWIM.
21        (Applause.)
22        TOLLY BRADLEY: You have heard from
23 Joe Ayers what the top six biological  poisons if
24 you dredge Chelsea Creek and Boston Harbor would
                                              Page5
 1  about says it
 2        (Laughter.)
 3        POLLY BRADLEY: Clean up Boston
 4  Harbor, but really Massachusetts Bay,
 5        (Applause.)
 6        MR. ROSENBERG: Thank you very much.
 7        (Laughter.)
 8        MR. ROSENBERG: if you would, I would
 9  like you to join our advisory group and add your
10  voice to the voices from all over Massachusetts
11  for trying to get a grip on mis project
12        (Applause.)
13        MR. ROSENBERG: Mr. Forman, before we
14  open this up to public comment, would you like to
15  say something?
16        SELECTMAN FORMAN: I think we all
17  recognize that we are very fortunate in the Town
18  of Nahant to have this very talented and
19  successful watchdog group of waterways and
20  potential threats to the town.
21        (Applause.)
22        SELECTMAN FORMAN: And SO what I would
23  like to do, for the record, is just read a
24.  prepared statement from the Board of Selectmen on
                                              Page 50
 1  do to our environment to the baby lobsters.  You
 2  have heard from Kevin Jangaard what the poisons
 3  from the Boston sewage outfall will do to our
 4  environment Put these two together, and you get
 5  the combined poisons of dredging and sewage
 6  together near Nahant, an outrageous proposal.
 7         You have heard from Mike Gambale that
 8  there really are fish and lobsters here in
 9  Nahant SWIM insists that you study the resources
10  near Nahant Study species, abundance and
11  diversity, what is there and how many. Study in
12  all seasons:  fall, winter, spring, summer. And
13  SWIM insists that you study the combined effects
14  of dredging and sewage on the fish and lobsters
15  and on our children who play on the beach, swim in
16  our rivers and eat the fish and lobsters.
17         As Joe explained to you, baby lobsters
18  are more easily poisoned than adult lobsters.
19  It's also true that baby people are more easily
20  poisoned than adult people. Actually, those that
21  eat it, just drop the idea of putting contaminated
22  dredging spoil with Boston sewage outfall.
23         (Applause.)
24         POLLY BRADLEY: Well, I guess that
                                              PageS
 l our concerns on this project.
 2        And as you know, we are a town that is
 3 totally surrounded by water.  As was pointed out,
 4 we do not know the impact of the sewer outfall.
 5 We have lobsters, and fishing is our only
 6 business.  And importantly in the statement that
 7 we prepared, which I want to read this. I hope I
 8 can pronounce some of the words right, because
 9 they sound very threatening.  I am not sure I can
10 do it exactly correct
11        It pointed out that Boston Harbor has
12 some of the most contaminated sediments in the
13 Northeast.  And the reference there is the National
14 Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and
15 Status and Apprentice Board from 1987 to the
16 present.  In particular, Boston ranks high in the
17 levels of petroleum, hydrocarbons, specifically
18 P.A.H., which are naturally found and are
19 by-products of combustion and enter from spills,
20 run-offs, atmospheric depositions and other point
21 services. Many are contaminating, or they are
22 metabolics.  They are known to be cacinogenic,
23 mutagenic, detrogenic both to humans or animals.
24 Historically, the areas where sediments have been
                                                                                          Page 49 - Page'
-------
                                              Condenselt
                                                          TM
                                              PageSSj
1  the highest of P.A.H. are in Chelsea and the
2  Mystic River; whereas, reserve channels and tidal
3  areas in the high concentrations of metal and
4  polychlorinated biphenyls, PCBs.  So we know what
5  we have out there, and it just seems
6  unconscionable that we would think about putting
7  it in in Nahant, and especially with all the
8  information we have presented here tonight.
9         So we as a Board of Selectmen are
0  going to endorse what our technical experts have
i  been telling us and go on record that we are
2  against consideration of this site, this adopted
3  site, and that material.
4        Thank you very much.
5         (Applause.)
6         MR. ROSENBERG:  Thank you.
7         Our first speaker  is Mr. Michael
8  Armini. He is from Congressman Torkildsen's
9  office.
3         (Applause.)
1         MICHAEL ARMINI: Thank you very much.
2  My name is Mike Armini. I am an aide to
3  Congressman Torkildsen, and I handle environmental
4  and other  issues for the Congressman.
                                              Page 55
 l industries are an important part of the Sixth
 2 District economy.  In addition, these industries
 3 are currently facing enormous challenges as a
 4 result of dwindling stocks and federal
 5 restrictions on fishing.  The last thing anyone
 6 wants to see happen is the imposition of more
 7 hardship on the commercial fishing and lobster
 8 industry.
 9        I am aware of biological assessment,
10 which has been performed to assess the potential
11 impacts dumping could have on, quote, threatened
12 or endangered species; however, as the
13 Massachusetts Lobsterman's Association has pointed
14 out just because lobsters are neither threatened
15 or endangered does not mean we should dump
16 material into a known lobster habitat. This is
17 one example that may need further study,
18        I urge the Corps of Engineers and all
19 Federal agencies with jurisdiction over this
20 project to carefully consider the testimony of the
21 interested parties here today. I know that
22 several local groups have done their own research
23 on issues and have ideas on possible alternatives
24 to the current proposal. Their research and
                                              Page 54
1        First, I just want to apologize that
2  he could not be here in person tonight  He
3  had — the U.S. House is not adjourned, so he is
4  still in Washington. I have a prepared statement
5  by the Congressman that I would just like to read
6  for the record briefly.
7        I would like to begin by thanking
8  Colonel Miller of the New England Division of the
9  Army Corps  of Engineers for granting this
0  hearing. Any time there is an issue with the
I  potential to affect the quality of many peoples'
2  lives, it is important for government agencies to
3  be available and listen to concerned citizens.
4        The issue in question today is not the
5  proposed maintenance dredging of Boston Harbor.  I
6  do not believe that anyone has expressed opposition
7  to the dredging itself.  The issue we are addressing
8  today is the proposal to drop the dredging material
9  into a location known as Meisburger 2 off the
0  coast of the Massachusetts North Shore.
l        One of my primary concerns as a
2  Representative in Congress for the Sixth District
3  is the quality of marine life, especially fish and
4  lobsters. The commercial fishing and lobster
                                               Page 56
 1 suggestions deserve a full and fair public
 2 hearing.
 3        Thank you.
 4        (Applause.)
 S        MR. ROSENBERG: Thank you, sir.
 6        Our next speaker for the record will
 7 be Representative Doug Peterson.
 8        (Applause.)
 9        REPRESENTATIVE PETERSON: Thank you,
10 all of you for being here this evening and giving
11 us this opportunity to talk to you.
12        Pete, nice to connect with your face.
13 We have talked on several tunes over the telephone
14 in the last several weeks.
15        I want to be brief, because I am sure
16 there is a lot of people who want to talk here. I
17 really just want to express three major points.
18 One is that I am concerned, as I have been
19 listening. I have been out on that boat last week
20 when we went out to the Meisburger site and
21 visited Chelsea Creek, and I guess I am concerned
22 about the impact of this project with the outfall
23 pipe project occurring at the same time. I would
24 hope that you would give that sort of dual
                                                                                           Page 53 - Page 56
-------
                                               Condensclt
                                                           TO
                                               Page57
 I experiments, and as we talked and as I have talked
 2 with people from C.C.N. and other agencies, a lot
 3 of the technologies we are thinking about in terms
 4 of this ocean dumping are not largely long-tested
 5 technologies. And so there is going to be risks,
 6 and I think everyone would acknowledge that And
 7 I think there is some merits to the argument that
 8 we already have a risk imposed by the outfall
 9 line.  We don't know exactly what is going to
10 happen when that effluent starts to pour out of
li that pipe.  And I think it's a very, very valid
12 argument to have a study, to have a study that
J3 looks at the disturbance in Meisburger 2 along
M with the outfall pipe and the effect that it has.
15        Secondarily, I talked with — I think
16 the arguments about the habitat area are also ones
17 that are very salient, and I think it has moved
18 me, and I would just want to remind the Army
19 Corps, we had a dredging project in Swampscott,
20 one that was very frustrating for us, frankly, and
21 one that I am trying to get the Department of
22 Environmental Protection back involved with. One
23 of the problems that they continually cited is the
24 fact that we have eel grass in the swamps and
                                                                                                    Page5<
                                                      1  risks and a variety of benefits.
                                                      2        The primary beneficiary of the harbor
                                                      3  dredging is the City of Boston. I know we all
                                                      4  benefit in many ways, but the City of Boston is
                                                      5  the immediate, let's say, beneficiary; however,
                                                      6  the costs of the project are not borne by that
                                                      7  immediate beneficiary or borne by Massport for
                                                      8  that matter, at least directly.  So that I am
                                                      9  hopeful or I would hope that somehow in this
                                                     10  process you can guarantee to all of us that
                                                     11  political considerations don't enter into what I
                                                     12  hope and what I trust thus far has been a very
                                                     13  academic process. There are very powerful leaders
                                                     14  on our party and the opposite party that occupy,
                                                     15  if you wish, some of the proposed sites that I
                                                     16  have heard, and I would just hope that in the end
                                                     17  that those political interests don't take over
                                                     18  when the ultimate site is chosen.
                                                     19        So thank you very much for coming here.
                                                     20        (Applause.)
                                                     21        MR. ROSENBERG: Our next speaker is
                                                     22  Representative Chip Clancy.
                                                     23        (Applause.)
                                                     24        REPRESENTATIVE CLANCY: Good evening
l
                                               Page 58
   harbor, and the problem that 1 think the Army
 2 Corps objection to dredging that area, because
 3 it's a habitat area for aquatic life. If indeed
 4 that is the case, and if indeed that has been the
 5 policy of the Army Corps, I would hope that that
 6 same policy would extend itself to other habitat
   areas.
          (Applause.)
          REPRESENTATIVE PETERSON: It's simply
10 that that be given the same kind of consideration,
1 1 whether it's Meisburger 2, Meisburger 7 or any of
12 the other sites that we have already talked about,
13 Pete.
14        And finally, I think my third concern
15 is simply a political one.  The various areas that
16 we have talked about, Pete, and the various areas
17 I have talked with C.C.N. about, and other people,
18 there is & great deal of science, and I am happy
19 about that, and my conversations with you have
20 been very very enlightening as well  as very
21 reassuring in many ways, but there is a lot of
22 disagreement here it seems, and I have a feeling
23 that in the end there will be a number of sites
24 that will present themselves with a variety of the
                                              Page 61
 l  and thank you for giving me the opportunity to
 2  address you tonight and also thank you for coming
 3  to the lovely Town of Nahant so that each of us
 4  can have the opportunity of addressing this issue
 5  directly.
 6         I believe that Senator Boverini is
 7  going to try to be here, but he had another
 8  engagement also tonight
 9         First of all, I want to state my
10  strong, unequivocal and unalterable opposition to
11  the disposing of contaminated dredge material in
12  our North Shore waters.
13         (Applause.)
14         REPRESENTATIVE CLANCY: I think the
15  underlying premise of disposing of all of this
16  newly dredged up waste material in an area where
17  the water is as clear and pristine as it can be in
18  an area located near the shore makes absolutely no
19  sense.
20         (Applause.)
21         REPRESENTATIVE CLANCY: Number two,
22  the communities that are most affected by this,
23  Nahant, Lynn, Swampscott and Marblehead and the
24  Town of Saugus have already done what they were
                                           Jbh
                                                                                          Page 57 - Page (
-------
                                                Condenselt
                                                           TM
                                               Page 61
 l  supposed to do many years ago, and that is
 2  construction of a secondary wastewater treatment
 3  plant so that the effluent that is being
 4  discharged from their plant, their wastewater, is
 5  not contaminating the ocean.
 6         (Applause.)
 7         REPRESENTATIVE CLANCY: And  with all
 8  due respect to any potential or tangential
 9  economic benefit that may occur to the City of
10  Boston and maybe incidentally to the North Shore,
11  that is the price that the people of the Town of
12  Nahant and the surrounding communities should not
13  have to pay.
14         (Applause.)
15         REPRESENTATIVE CLANCY: Even if, and
16  as I just said, I don't agree, but even if
n  an economic indicator was to be the primary judge
18  of the worthiness of this project, certainly those
19  who would be entitled to the  first protection
20  would be the lobstermen, the other commercial
21  fishermen and others that have for literally
22  hundreds of years been a viable part of our
23  community here on the North Shore.
24         (Applause.)
                                              Page 63
 l question your decision that it might be based on
 2 cost or what is in the budget and not what is
 3 actually the best interests of the agriculture in
 4 the area. I would also question the impact in the
 5 fishing and lobster industry.  Several speakers
 6 before us have said that the economy in this area
 7 depends greatly on the fishing industry.  We are
 8 dealing with Amendment 5 right now, which is
 9 placing extreme burdens on the fishing industry;
10 but compared to what the impacts this could bring,
11 Amendment 5 looks like child's play, because
12 Amendment 5 will end at a time certain, and the
13 fishermen will continue to fish. They will then
14 go out into the oceans and fish as often they
IS would like instead of the 80 days that are limited
16 now, because what you are actually saying is
17 something that is irreversible. We heard tonight
18 that capping is not a feasible option, because
19 it's too deep, and I could only assume that once
20 you do drop that into the ocean, it is then
21 irreversible,  because it is too deep. You have
22 already placed — the Federal Government has
23 already placed the burden on the fishing industry
24 and the lobster industry. I ask that as small
                                               Page 62
 1        REPRESENTATIVE CLANCY: And also the
 2  tourism and other aspects. I don't want to
 3  belabor this, and I am sure many people want to
 4  speak. I don't want to go on, but I just want to
 5  emphasize that I represent the Town of Nahant.
 6  It's been a joy to having had this privilege and
 7  opportunity for the last four years, and I just
 8  want to tell you that no matter what has to be
 9  done, either legislatively or otherwise, every
10  single thing is going to be done to protect the
11  Town of Nahant and the waters of your community.
12        Thank you very much.
13        (Applause.)
14        MR. ROSENBERG: Our next speaker is
15  Representative Jeffrey Hayward.
16        (Applause.)
17        REPRESENTATIVE HAYWARD: 1 want to
18  thank you for the opportunity for allowing the
19  public input into the process. And I want to
20  believe you that the decision has not been made;
21  but having worked in government for the last
22  10 years, I have heard it before.
23        (Laughter.)
24        REPRESENTATIVE HAYWARD: I would
                                              Page 64
 l business people our lobstermen and our fishermen,
 2 who have already put them close to out of business
 3 that you not continue that process and put them
 4 out of business permanently, because with the
 5 environmental and the economic damage that could
 6 be done, they clearly would be out of business
 7 permanently.
 8        Somebody also said tonight nobody is
 9 questioning the dredging of the harbor. I would
10 ask that you take a look at the last few issues of
n Boston Magazine, as they have gone into detail and
12 have built a scenario around that if we continue
13 to bring in bigger boats with deeper drafts that
14 the Big Dig of the Third Harbor Tunnel is not
15 going to be in position to be able to handle what
16 could be a catastrophe. And being very brief,
17 Boston Magazine went through an in-depth analysis,
! 8 and they took a look at all the other tunnels
19 throughout the world, and usually they are much
20 deeper. Usually they have as much as 20 feet of
21 concrete on top of them; and yet the Big Dig in
22 the Third Harbor Tunnel will end up with five feet
23 of concrete. And the Big Dig was described as
24 having in Boston Harbor a scenario where a barge
                                                                                           Page 61 - Page 64
-------
                                               Condenselt
                                                           TM
                                               Page 65
 1  sinks. And because the tug boat might not have
 2  insurance or might not want to deal with the paper
 3  work, that the barges have sunk and have staved on
 4  the bottom of the ocean and gone unreported.  It
 5  has happened before, and this has drafted a
 6  scenario that  it could happen again. By bringing
 7  in deeper boats, you run the risk of bringing that
 8  scenario into  reality.  I would ask that you do
 9  step back and you do take a look at the impact of
10  the Big Dig; you take a look at the impact of them
11  compounding that by digging that channel deeper,
12  and you take  a look at the boats that are getting
13  bigger and bigger as the ships come down that
14  channel.
IS        I want to go on record tonight as
16  opposed through your actions of dumping under
17  the ocean.  I represent the City of Lynn right
18  along the waterfront, up here from Red Rock right
19  up to the Nahant rotary.  It's  my suggestion, as
20  Pauline Bradley says, that you scratch this as an
21  option, you go back to the drawing board, and you
22  seek other alternatives.
23        Thank you.
24        (Applause.)
                                              Page 6:
 1 dredging of these companies for years, a project
 2 which is neither justified nor necessary as it
 3 stands.
 4       The sea is the livelihood of many
 5 Nahant residents.  Those who live near and make
 6 their living on the sea know that it has its own
 7 set of rules. They follow in respect its tides,
 8 its storms and its winds. The residents of Nahant
 9 deserve similar respect Massport and the Army
10 Corps of Engineers should re-examine their
11 hastily-researched plan.
12       Thank you very much.
13       (Applause.)
14       MR. ROSENBERG: Our next speaker is
15 Mr. Joseph Ayers from the Nahant Conservation
16 Commission.
17       JOSEPH AYERS: I already spoke.
18       (Applause.)
19       MR. ROSENBERG: Mr. James Walsh, Town
20 of Nahant Selectman.
21       (Applause.)
22       SELECTMAN WALSH: It's difficult to
23 know that it's our night, but you hear when you
24 talk about projects that they are necessary.  How
                                               Page 66
 l        MR. ROSENBERG: Our next speaker for
 2 record in this hearing is Ms. Deborah Smith Walsh,
 3 Councillor-at-Large from Lynn.
 4        (Applause.)
 S        DEBORAH SMITH WALSH: Thank you very
 6 much. I also would like to thank you for coming
 7 on such a warm night, and thanks to the Nahant
 8 Selectmen for hosting this evening and —
 9        (Applause.)
10        DEBORAH SMITH WALSH: -for the
11 record, I am here tonight to register my
12 opposition to the proposed plan by Massport and
13 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The plan to
14 dispose of sludge containing toxic chemicals,
IS including  arsenic and lead barely two miles off
16 the shores of Nahant, Lynn, Swampscott and
17 Marblehead is short-sighted, dangerous,
18 and economically detrimental to Massachusetts
19 taxpayers and residents of the North Shore.
20        The dumping of the toxic material and
21 poisonous sewage will destroy  our fishing and
22 tourism industries while benefiting such private
23 companies as Gulf Oil, Eastern Minerals and
24 Exxon. Our tax dollars will be used to fund the
                                              Page 6
 1 many people here have heard of Love Canal?
 2 Anybody heard of Love Canal? Somebody thought
 3 that that was economically necessary, that it had
 4 to be done that way.
 5        We heard tonight that it is necessary
 6 to dredge Boston Harbor, and one of the
 7 justifications for that was the story of an
 8 ocean-going container ship coming  from Europe,
 9 arriving off the shores of Boston, and because
10 they couldn't wait for the tide to change, they
11 turned and went 300 miles down to New York City.
12 Now the original goal was to come to Boston. This
13 must have been — the guy who is the captain of
14 that ship must have been drinking the same stuff
15 that the Captain of the Exxon Valdez was
16 drinking —
17        (Laughter.)
18        SELECTMAN WALSH: - because it
19 doesn't make any sense to the captain.
20        I guess in discussions of this project
21 one of the interesting things is that  the hole
22 that they intend to dig two miles off shore  is as
23 deep as the Hancock Tower is tall.  Now we all
24 remember what the Hancock Tower looked like when
                                                                                           Page 65 - Page
-------
                                               Condenselt
                                                           TM
                                              Page 69
1 they did that the first time.  We had a plywood
2 palace there. Why? Because when the world-renowned
3 architects didn't get it right the first time they
4 put up all this plywood, waited awhile, and then
5 they fixed it. The story, because I don't know
6 how many know, but two weeks ago another window
7 popped out of the 57th floor.
8        So now we have the Army Corps of
9 Engineers. They say we are going to dig a hole in
0 the ocean that deep. The question I have is if it
1 goes wrong are they going to put the plywood down
2 there?
3        (Laughter.)
4        SELECTMAN WALSH: The point I am
5 trying to make is this.  We have a technology that
6 is not proven, as far as I know, and we cannot
7 afford to have anyone blow it the first time,
8 because there will not be a second chance.
9        (Applause.)
0        MR. ROSENBERG: Thank you.
1        Our next speaker is Mr. Paul Genest
2 from Swampscott, and he is the Chairman of the
3 Conservation Commission.
4        (Applause.)
                                               Page7J
 1        (Applause.)
 2        MR. ROSENBERG: Thank you, sir.
 3        The next speaker is Mary Sherber from
 4 here in Nahant.
 5        (Applause.)
 6        MARY SHERBER: I have been asked to
 7 make a statement.  A memorandum to Save the Harbor
 8 and Save the Bay.  It was written by Joseph
 9 Sugarman, the policy director.
10        We are very sorry that we cannot be at
11 the Nahant public forum. Save the Harbor and Save
12 the Bay are non-profit efficacy organizations
13 committed to the protection of the Boston Harbor
14 and Massachusetts Bay. We support regular Boston
15 Harbor shipping routes and berths to preserve the
16 port's economic vitality, but we have many
17 concerns about the project, particularly regarding
18 the safe disposal of contaminated dredging spoil.
19        In April of mis year, Massport and
20 the Army Corps of Engineers released a Draft
21 Environmental Impact Statement  Attached is a
22 copy of our comments on this document Of
23 particular concern to Nahant is the fact that
24 Massport and the Corps identified Meisburger sites
                                              Page 70
1        PAUL GENEST: Thank you for allowing
2  me to speak tonight. I will speak for the
3  Conservation Commission, our local fishermen and
4  the recreational users of our coastal region.
5        What we perceived is a situation that
6  includes shipping and aiding the clean up of the
7  pollution in Boston Harbor.  However, if that
8  tends to tear an iceberg through, it could very
9  easily result in the spread of its contamination
0  along the North Shore in an area which already has
J  its problems. It has been stated that various
2  forms of contamination are there, including
3  arsenic, lead and mercury and PCBs, which are
4  persistent toxic and cancer causing.  The presence
5  of these chemicals poses a real threat to
6  fisheries and the recreational use of our coastal
7  region.  This problem is compounded by the fact
8  that currents in this area could result in the
9  widespread contamination of the North Shore.
0        In conclusion, we have proposed that
1  an alternative site be chosen or a different
2  technology be implemented,  and we have sent a
3  formal letter to this effect.
4        Thank you.
                                               Page 72
 1  2 or 7 located off the coast of Nahant as a
 2  preferred disposal alternative. These sites are
 3  also located adjacent to the Mass. Water Resources
 4  Authority plant nine and a half mile outfall pipe
 5  from the Deer Island Sewerage Treatment Plant
 6  This site was chosen for the outfall pipe
 7  specifically because they have strong current
 8  disbursal.
 9        Recently, at a meeting with Massport,
10  the Corps and the Gloucester Fisheries Reliance
11  Center, fishermen confirmed the existence of
12  strong currents at this site. We believe,
13  therefore, mat Meisburger 2 and 7 may not be safe
14  enough for disposal of contamination sediments.
IS  Further, millions of dollars is being spent and
16  invested in long-term programs at the M.W.R.A.
17  outfall pipe located in disposal sites for
18  contaminated sediments so close to the outfall
19  main area for the long-term efforts.  Should a
20  problem arise, it may be difficult to decipher
21  whether it was caused by the outfall or the
22  disposal site. Our overall goal is to work with
23  Massport off shore to ensure that the dredging
24  process and disposal of dredged soils is
                                                                                           Page 69 - Page 72
-------
                                               Condenselt
                                                           TM
                                               Page 73
 l environmentally safe and that Boston Harbor's
 2 navigation improvement project benefits Boston
 3 Harbor and the Massachusetts Bay as both an
 4 environmental and economic resource.  Please do
 5 not hesitate to contact me to determine further
 6 questions.
 7        I just have one further thing that I
 8 would like to say, and it's a question more than a
 9 statement. And I don't know if questions are
10 allowable at this point, but it's food for
11 thought, and I do understand that it was said by
12 the Army Corps of Engineers that Boston Harbor was
13 dredged in 19S3, and I was just wondering at that
14 time where they disposed of the spoil.
15        PETER JACKSON: Massachusetts Bay
16 disposal site 1983, uncapped.
17        MR. ROSENBERG: m 1983, the disposal
18 was done in Mass. Bay disposal site uncapped. At
19 that time the E.P.A. protocol said that - they
20 called it clean.  The protocols have changed.
21 They changed in 1990. And I can tell you they are
22 going to get tougher every year.
23        (Applause.)
24        MR. ROSENBERG: Thankfully they will
                                              Page 7:
 l  sounds cynical, but to the people up front they
 2  would like to be taken real seriously. And with
 3  that in mind, the reason we are not defending
 4  ourselves is we are listening to you. And this
 5  floor is yours, and everything that you are saying
 6  tonight is being put on the record for the Draft
 7  E.I.S., and it carries as much weight from any
 8  letter from any Congressman, State Representative
 9  or Senator.  As a matter of fact, because it's
10  coming from the members of the public, we make
11  sure it gets a little bit more weight
12        Our first speaker in the — entering
13  the second half is one of our partners on the
14  Advisory Council, and her name is Grace Perez, and
15  she is with the Conservation Law Foundation.
16        (Applause.)
17        GRACE PEREZ: Thank you, Larry.
18        First of all, I want to commend Lynn,
19  the people of Nahant and the officials in Nahant
20  for giving us such a tremendous showing here
21  tonight  This has truly been the most populated
22  comment session, and I am really impressed that
23  everyone is here tonight
24        As Larry said, I am with the
                                               Page 74
 l get tougher. We are going to take a ten-minute
 2 break right now. Save the Harbor/Save the Bay,
 3 their position statement is outside for your
 4 pleasure.  You may take a copy of it We are
 5 going to reconvene at exactly nine o'clock.
 6        Thank you very much.
 7        (Applause.)
 8        (There was a short break taken.)
 9        MR. ROSENBERG: Ladies and gentlemen,
10 please take your seats. We have a lot of people
11 to hear from this evening.
12        Ladies and gentlemen, we have many
13 people who wish to speak. Would you please come
14 into the gym.
15        Thank you. Thank you for returning.
16 I was asked a question during the break. I was
17 asked a question during the break, and the
18 question was there are six people at the table,
19 and we are defending ourselves. The fact is we
20 are not here to defend ourselves. We are here to
21 listen to you. We are employees of the Federal
22 Government, and we are public servants, and part
23 of our duty is to sit here and listen to the
24 people we supposedly serve. Now to some that
                                              Page?
 l  Conservation Law Foundation, and we have been
 2  working on this project under budget and otherwise
 3  over the past few years looking at its progress.
 4  Now we have already come out with our formal
 5  statements on it, on the project; and any of you
 6  who are interested in looking at the formal
 7  comments, I have a few copies here, and I can have
 8  them send them to you if you are interested or to
 9  answer any questions you have about how we feel
10  about this project and what we think are the
11  important issues.
12        I just want to say one quick thing.
13  The Draft Environmental Impact Statement lists
14  five preferred disposal alternatives, the
15  Mass. Bay disposal site, Boston Lighthship,
16  Meisburger 2, Meisburger 7 and Spectacle Island, a
17  site right off Spectacle Island.  This last site
18  is the only one that is in Boston Harbor, and for
19  a variety of reasons we oppose that site as a
20  disposal area.  All the other sites are in
21  Massachusetts Bay.  Very simply the Conservation
22  Law Foundation believes that Boston Harbor's
23  contaminated sediment should not be exported into
24  Massachusetts Bay.
                                                                                           Page 73 - Page
-------
                                              Condenselt1
                                              Page 77i
1        (Applause.)                                  I
2        GRACE PEREZ: The E.I.S. lists some            j
3 other alternatives for disposal, as were mentioned
4 earlier, and we would prefer, of course, to go up
5 land, to go on land where they can be very
6 carefully monitored and contaminants can be
7 isolated. If that is not possible, we very much
8 would prefer that the contaminants stay within
9 Boston Harbor, such as the in-channel disposal
0 option and another option which involves putting
1 the contaminants between key areas and then
2 sealing those areas off. So those are the
3 preferred alternatives as we see it.  And if you
4 have any questions, I will be here the rest of the
5 evening. So feel free to ask any questions.
6        Thank you.
7        (Applause.)
8        MR. ROSENBERG: Thank you very much.
9        Our next  speaker is Mr. Richard Lombard.
0 He is on the Board of Selectmen for the Town of
l Nahant.
2        Richard.
3        JOSEPH AYERS: Richard is in a
4 meeting. Can we put him back a little, please.
                                              Page 79
 l spend a couple more bucks to do it right.
 2        (Applause.)
 3        MR. ROSENBERG: Thank you.
 4        Once we get through with the rest of
 5 the speakers tonight, we will have an open
 6 discussion and talk about all sorts of different
 7 options.
 8        Our next speaker is Bill Coffey from
 9 Nahant
10        (Applause.)
11        WILLIAM COFFEY: I don't want to get
12 nasty, but the point is I just want the people
13 here who are making, and I want to make an issue
14 or challenge. We heard from some pretty good
15 people tonight, but I want to make a challenge to
16 the Army Corps. It's been raised that this is the
17 most dangerous location of all the sites based on
18 how close it is to man and how close the outfall
19 is to this site.  There have been literally no
20 studies done on the effects of the outfall and the
21 effects of Meisburger 2. It has been ignored. So
22 the challenge is to do this well and to do the
23 study.
24        Thanks.
                                              Page 78
         MR. ROSENBERG: Our next speaker is
   Mr. Kevin Jangaard.
         KEVIN JANGAARD:  Already spoke.
         MR. ROSENBERG: You have spoken?
         KEVIN JANGAARD:  Yeah.  Can I ask a
   question. Grace Perez just mentioned the option
   about putting this dredged material in this area.
   If you take a look at the exhibit over here, you
   see a lot of little fingers coming out from
   Charlestown, East Boston and Chelsea.  These are
   the old break out piers that are obselete and no
   longer in use. I see no reason why this dredged
   area couldn't be put in a lined, capped landfill
   behind the bulkhead line and the pier line that
   exists, which is in the area that is up from the
   channel. In talking to John (inaudible) and
   Captain Monroe, he said that some other people who
   presented with this opportunity said, well, we
   have got a lot of fish breeding ground along the
   old piers. The other point is the cost of the
   dredging disposal. I understand it's  only $17 a
   cubic yard. I don't know if there is any
   contractors in the audience, but that is cheap,
   but the very  least disposal, I think you ought to
 l        (Applause.)
 2        MR. ROSENBERG: Our next speaker is
 3 Mr. Michael Gambale from Swampscott.
 4        AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: He is the
 5 fisherman that spoke.
 6        MR. ROSENBERG: Oh.  Mr. James Bartlett
 7 from Danvers.
 8        AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: He left
 9        How about his brother Thomas Bartlett
10 from Beverly?
11        AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: They left
12 together.
13        MR. ROSENBERG: And his other brother
14 Bill Bartlett.
15        (Laughter.)
16        AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: They left
17 together.
18        MR. ROSENBERG: The court transcript
19 will stipulate they are recently departed.
20        Ms.  Bradley, your card is here. Would
21 you like to speak again?
22        POLLY BRADLEY: No.
23        MR. ROSENBERG: Mr. Michael Meagher
24 from Nahant.
                                                  80
                                                                                          Page 77 - Page 80
-------
                                               Condenselt
                                                           TM
                                              Page 81
 i        (Applause.)
 2        MICHAEL MEAGHER: Thank you for giving
 3 me the opportunity to speak tonight
 4        I think a lot of the earlier speakers
 5 identified many of the concerns of Nahant about
 6 this particular project.  You heard the concerns
 7 about the 1.3 million yards of silt that is
 8 proposed to be disposed. You heard the concerns
 9 about the chromium, the mercury, the lead that is
10 contained in these sediments.
11        One of the issues that struck me is
12 that we are not talking about 1.3 million cubic
13 yards from my perspective. In looking at this, I
14 think you arc not looking down towards Ac reality.
15 One of the items that separates Meisburger 2, for
16 example, from the other sites, if you look in the
17 particular handout that is entitled Executive
18 Summary Draft Environmental Impact Report, and you
19 look at the last page, the next to last page, and
20 the last page, you will  see that there is a chart
21 that shows the various options.  You will see in
22 the little footnote at the bottom of the page, it
23 talks about future harbor maintenance, and it says
24 future harbor maintenance consists of maintenance
                                                                                                   Page 83
                                                       l        MR. ROSENBERG: Off the record we had
                                                       2  met with them in Gloucester last Friday.  So we
                                                       3  are very well aware of their position.  We met
                                                       4  with them.
                                                       5        Ms. Rachel Tose, T-O-S-E.
                                                       6        RACHEL TOSE: Thank you.
                                                       7        Hi. I am Rachel Tose.  I am the past
                                                       8  president of the Lynn Fair Share, and approximately
                                                       9  ten years ago I spoke against the water and sewage
                                                      10  outfalls off the Nahant coast and, you know, we
                                                      1l  were concerned then, and we are still concerned.
                                                      12  And I want to thank SWIM especially for bringing
                                                      13  these issues to our attention, because we wouldn't
                                                      14  know if there wasn't a group like SWIM out there,
                                                      15  you know, bringing this up.
                                                      16        You know, Nahant is a unique town.
                                                      17  Somebody already said that, because, you know,
                                                      is  it's surrounded by water, and because of that
                                                      19  it's in a unique position to appreciate the ocean
                                                      20  and also to be concerned about safeguarding the
                                                      21  ocean.  You know, I think it was very interesting
                                                      22  that listening to the first speakers the big thing
                                                      23  was economy and cost-effectiveness.  And, you
                                                      24  know, we are looking at a short-term situation
 l dredging for approximately 4.4 million cubic
 2 yards. This is going to occur over a 50-year life
 3 of this project. Let me suggest to you that we
 4 are not talking about a one and a half-year
 5 project We are talking about 50 years of
 6 disposal from this project. You can be sure if
 7 there is approval for this project in one and a
 8 half years, they are going to be back in another
 9 50 years dumping contaminated sediments off the
10 shores of Nahant
11        Thank you.
12        (Applause.)
13        MR. ROSENBERG: Mr. James — and I am
14 going to spell the last name - P-A-S-S-A-N-I-S-I.
          JAMES PASSANISI: My  question  has been
   answered.
                                               Page 82
          AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: His question
   has been answered.
          MR. ROSENBERG: Thank you.
15
16
17
18
19
20 Andrew Weiss.
21        ANDREW WEISS: I am all set.  1 would
22 like to say that those names you mentioned before,
23 the Bartletts, they are all fishermen,
24 representatives for us.
                                              Page 8'
 l  here in terms of what they are speaking of as far
 2  as the economy and as far as the cost
 3  effectiveness; but as everybody here is aware,
 4  it's much, much more important than the next five
 5  years or the next ten years or even the next
 6  50 years, you know, and I want to speak for my
 7  grandchildren. My grandchildren would like to
 8  thank SWIM, even though they haven't been born
 9  yet They would like to thank SWIM for bringing
10  this up, because these are the issues that are
11  going to affect their lives, the quality of their
12  lives living in Nahant Nahant Beach is still
13  going to be able to have children swimming  in it,
14  you know, when they are bringing up their
15  children, you know, or they are going to be able
16  to eat lobsters. Maybe there won't be any
17  lobsters any more. Maybe they will all be dead.
18  You know, it's so important to watch out for
19  this.
20         I am completely against dumping
21  anything toxic into the ocean, and if we do, we
22  certainly can't do it as close to the shore as
23  what is being proposed here.  I mean if you  send
24  it to Utah — I mean I really don't think we
                                                                                          Page 81 -Page!
-------
                                              Condenselt7
                                             Page 85
l should send it to Utah either. My first thought
2 is that we just don't do it Just don't do it
3 But if we have to do it, don't dump it in the
4 ocean. We don't need any more lead and chromium
5 and mercury and garbage like that affecting our
6 fish and our beaches.  I just want to say again I
7 am dead set against it, and thank you.
8        (Applause.)
9        MR. ROSENBERG: Our next speaker is
0 Emily Potts from Nahant
1        (Applause.)
2        EMILY POTTS: When I speak before you,
3 you know I am really concerned, because this is
4 something that I never do.  And I am very
5 concerned about some of the contaminants that I
6 have listened to here tonight being dumped in our
7 waters. I am concerned about not only are they
8 close to Nahant, but in the waters anywhere.
9        Water is one of our most important
0 commodities, and it's becoming more and more
l precious. We have all seen pictures of the Valdez
2 and beaches.  We have followed the expensive
3 costly clean up, and this clean up has only been
4 partially successful.
                                              Page 87
 l         MR. ROSENBERG: Our next speaker is
 2  Mr. Joseph Farrell from Lynn.
 3         (Applause.)
 4         JOSPEH FARRELL: Hello.  I am a
 5  fisherman out of Lynn. I have a boat out of
 6  Marblehead, but I do it part-time. I have been
 7  doing it part-time for about 20 years now, and I
 8  can see both sides of the story. I mean we need
 9  it dredged, but we don't need to be dumping the
10  waste, the hazardous waste, out here at that
11  number two site.
12         What has happened over the years is my
13  other job, my full-time job is at General Electric
14  in Lynn. And if you have been really concerned
15  about hazardous waste, we have got all sorts of
16  environmental fines. I am an all-around machinist
17  I do a lot of development work.  We spill plenty
18  of oil.  We deal with speedy dry hazardous waste
19  barrels, and off it goes to Clean Harbors, and I
20  think it costs them in the price range of $750 a
21  drum to get rid of. Okay.
22         Now here these guys at Massport are
23  talking about moving hazardous waste out of the
24  channels of Boston Harbor and dumping it on the
                                              Page 86
l        1 would like to ask if good technology
2  exists to remove the dredging should it become
3  necessary.  I think that it's only a matter of
4  time until the courts will order a clean up of
5  Massachusetts Bay just as we have of Boston
6  Harbor.
7        I would like to know (1) Can we do
8  it? What would be the spillage? How would we
9  transport it, and again what would be the spillage
0  during the transportation? I would like to know
l  where would be the non-water site where it will
2  eventually be stored; and how much will it cost to
3  do it all twice instead of doing it the first time
4  correctly?
5        (Applause.)
6        EMILY POTTS:  If this project has to
7  be done, I would ask that you please use a
8  non-water storage site, and then when technology
9  is available for decontamination of this stuff
0  that it would be cleaned so that it won't saddle
 l  our children and our children's children with
2  contaminated resources  and dangerous waters.
3        Thank you.
4         (Applause.)
                                              Page 88
 l  lobster beds. I am definitely opposed to it. The
 2  farmers and all the fishermen are definitely
 3  opposed to this.  And if you are going to do it,
 4  do it right Set up the railroad system and cart
 5  it someplace Upstate New York, wherever they treat
 6  this stuff. Treat it and get rid of it once and
 7  for all.
 8        Thank you very much.
 9        (Applause.)
10        MR. ROSENBERG: Ms. Dorothy Allen from
11  Nahant
12        (Applause.)
13        DOROTHY ALLEN: I am a little
14  nervous.  For many years I have been bringing up
15  children.  Prior to that,  I was working for
16  10 years with the Federal Government in making
17  Environmental Impact Statements, and I have never
18  heard of a public hearing where I couldn't receive
19  a Draft Environmental  Impact Report to take home
20  and to look at. I remember we used to spend hours
21  and hours to bring them, bring boxes to the
22  meetings so that people would have these reports
23  to take back with them so they would be able to
24  make very informed comments to you.
                                                         //)
                                                                                          Page 85 - Page;
-------
                                               Condenselt1
                                              Page 89
 1         I just recently moved back here from
 2  New York, and I was told about this meeting
 3  yesterday so I didn't prepare comments, but there
 4  was a previous speaker that said that this
 5  material sludge — and maybe some of you people
 6  misspoke — this material is essentially sludge.
 7  I don't think there is very much sediment going
 8  down the rivers.  I know that there is hundreds of
 9  combined sewer outward flows from Boston and
10  surrounding communities that discharge daily. Raw
i l  wastewater, industrial wastewater has  not been
12  shown where it's released.  Also, there is sludge
13  that was dumped out of that sewer treatment plant
14  for many years, and much of the problem is it back
15  tides, and that is what is the sediment  down
16  there. I thought that the Corps had given up on
17  ocean dumping, which is off the Continental Shelf
18  of New York or New Jersey, but apparently the
19  Board hasn't given up.  This material is
20  essentially sludge.  We are dumping over two miles
21  of land, and I find that outrageous. We have got
22  to stop doing that  At least take it to the
23  landfill the stuff or burn it  It does not belong
24  back in the ocean.
                                              Page 91
 l site. We spend millions of dollars to clean them
 2 up.
 3        I am opposed to any of this dumping in
 4 the ocean until you really know what you are
 5 doing. You know, I heard it said here that the
 6 regs. changed in '90. And unsaid here was that if
 7 the regulations changed in '90, we wouldn't be
 8 here today.  You would be dumping.  The project
 9 would be going ahead. And I am  hearing also that
10 the regulations are getting tougher. Well, this
11 year, we are paying for secondary treatment. We
12 are paying for acid gas scrubbers in our plant in
13 Saugus.  We are paying the price of living under
14 the best available technology. And now we have
15 the Federal Government and the State Government
16 coming to us saying, we don't want to live up to
17 the same best available technology and the best
18 environmental scientific guidelines that we impose
19 on you every day. We are going to try to get
20 ahead of maybe the '98 regs. and get this stuff
21 going now at a lower cost  I think it's bad
22 policy.
23        (Applause.)
24        MR. ROSENBERG; There are four more
                                              Page 90
 1         Thank you.
 2         (Applause.)
 3         MR. ROSENBERG: Our next speaker is
 4  Charles Hansell from Nahant,
 5         (Applause.)
 6         CHARLES HANSELL: Thank you.
 7         I want to thank the Corps. 1 have sat
 8  at that side of the table a few years, and I enjoy
 9  not being there for the last two years.  I have
10  been previously employed by various power plants,
11  the Love Canal, one of them.  So I appreciate some
12  of your efforts, the timelines, the costs and
13  environmental concerns on both sides. Let me get
14  to the heart of my concerns.
15         My concern is one that very little is
16  related to the expediency of cost, the expediency
17  of let's get this project before the regulations
18  get stricter and more expensive.  A reminder that
19  even the landfill business, it's not many years
20  ago, 25,30 years ago, the proper engineering
21  thing to do was  in the landfills.  You go out, and
22  you find low value land. It's usually wetlands,
23  swamp areas, and we fill them in.  Today we would
24  throw them in jail, call it a hazardous waste
                                              Page 9
 l speakers, maybe five. The next speaker will be
 2 Michael Manning from Nahant.
 3        (Applause.)
 4        MICHAEL MANNING: I have to say that
 5 after the more I listened to tonight, I am more
 6 than a little bit confused.  The topic we are
 7 addressing has to do with whether or not — which
 8 is the best environmentally acceptable site to
 9 put this waste is. And I have to agree with
10 Mr. Hansell that in terms of policy, it makes
11 my head swim to even think about starting this
12 process; but the reason I am here is to talk a
13 little bit about, I guess, the term floating
14 around a couple of years ago was voodoo
15 economics. And I have some questions about
16 economics, because why do we even think about
17 doing something like this in the first place?
18        It's my understanding that the concept
19 of having it here on the environmental impact of a
20 large-scale project is to make sure that someone
21 doesn't run off and do something that is
22 counterproductive to a large number of people
23 immediately around the project causing adverse
24 effects on both how it affects the environment per
                                                                                          Page 89 - Page
-------
                                               Condenselt
                                                           TM
                                              Page 93
1 se, but also the workplace, the living area, the
2 entire vitality of the region, in which that
3 project is taking place.
4        And I have some serious questions
5 about this project in particular relative to the
6 benefit to the public welfare in the economy of
7 the region. There are several options that have
8 been outlined, and I think both Paul and some of
9 the other people who just spoke mentioned that
0 there was one that wasn't discussed, and that was
I how about doing nothing? Is that really so bad?
2 And I think there are a number of issues here that
3 really would tend to make one think that that is
4 not such a bad idea.
5        Anybody who has gone down to the shore
6 beach on a Saturday afternoon and watched the kids
7 do what they always do, which is drive their pail
8 and shovel and dig a small hole in the sand know
9 that it's amusing for awhile, but after a short
0 period of time, the tide starts to come in, and
i before you know it, the side walls get a little
2 ify, and things tend to flow back in toward the
3 middle.  And that is, I think, kind of the origin
4 of an old Yankee phrase that talks about a process
                                               Page 95
 l         If we look at the economics of the
 2  process, we have to not be fooled by having
 3  microscopic vision. We are told that one of the
 4  reasons that we have to act now is that we have to
 5  maintain the competitive nature of the Port of
 6  Boston. The concept of the tanker that comes
 7  over, you know, might not want to hang around for
 8  a tide shift to me as an ex-Navy officer is
 9  absolutely ludicrous.  I mean I go out and sit  and
10  watch as a  L.N.G. tanker drops anchor off of East
11  Point and sits there often for a number of days
12  before it goes into the Port of Boston. I don't
13  think the difference in a six-hour tidal change is
14  really going to alter the behavior of a captain  on
15  a tanker waiting to come into port. As a matter
16  of fact, I can remember standing several watches
17  on the bridge of a ship steaming back and forth in
18  front of the approaches to the harbor, because we
19  weren't due in until 7:00 a.m. anyway.
20         But I think the other thing we have to
21  look at is what are the global economics?  What
22  happens if Boston is a more competitive port?
23  Think of all of the huge financial interests
24  generating all of the jobs that are dependent on
                                              Page 94
1  that starts in futility, something about shoveling
2  the sand against the current. You are there
3  forever. It doesn't end. You spend a lot of time
4  and effort, and you get a little.
5        We are listening to a project where we
6  are going to dig a deeper channel in some spots so
7  that it is the tide that saunters in and out.  It
8  will fill in faster, and maybe instead of doing it
9  every ten years, we will do it every eight
0  Hence, you need a much bigger place in which to
1  put all of this stuff, and so you get something
2  that is the size of an inverted manhole.
3        I think you ought to back up a second
4  and say why do you want to start in the first
5  place?  Who is really going to benefit from all of
6  this stuff? What is it that we are really trying
7  to promote?  Well, there are a number of
3  organizations that have a stake in  all mis.
?  There is Massport, some shipping interests, and
D  the Corps of Engineers regulates what they do and
 i  don't do and how they do it, and you know, they
2  are all tied up in there together. Heaven knows
3  it doesn't work. They can all go out of business,
4  and that would be terrible.
                                               Page 96
 l the marine transportation out of Boston Harbor.
 2 All of you know lots of major Massachusetts
 3 corporations are tied to that as the way to get
 4 their products out. They don't send it out by air
 5 freight. They just don't send it to the West
 6 Coast by railroad. They don't truck it They are
 7 really dependent on the fact that we really need
 8 more traffic through the container terminals on
 9 the north side and the south side of Boston
10 Harbor. But we could take a provincial attitude
11 and say wereally have got to maintain those
12 container terminals, because they are vital to the
13 economy. And I might ask:  Is that really the
14 best way to do it? You don't have to go  back too
15 far in history to realize that is why taxation for
16 import duties were first imposed to support local
17 industries that weren't cost competitive, to put
18 in artificial price structures that keep the most
19 cost-efficient port from being the port of
20 choice. Well, if that is the disadvantage, we as
21 taxpayers can spend Federal money so that someone
22 can continuously dredge the harbor to make it
23 competitive and hence put a tax on the nation as a
24 whole to maintain that port to support the
                                                              //I
                                                                                           Page 93 - Page 96
-------
                                              Condenselt
                                                          TM
                                              Page 97
 I shipping there, or maybe we can do something else
 2 and say wait a minute, what is so bad that that
 3 captain goes down to New York for a port. Maybe
 4 it's easier to dredge that harbor than it is to
 5 dredge Boston Harbor. Maybe the approaches to
 6 that harbor are more open than what you can see
 7 from looking at an ordinary map.
 8        We are cutting back right here on the
 9 military as the Cold War has ended, and we are
10 even abandoning military facilities. There is a
11 full Navy port not more than an hour and a half
12 from here and certainly a very short railroad jog
13 from here in the Town of Newport. The rate at
14 which such sites have been closed is fairly
15 quick.  As a matter of fact, the economy in
16 Massachusetts was also impacted as we closed an
17 airport in Ayer. The first question that came up
18 was should we be using this as a second airport
19 instead of Logan to take traffic in and out of
20 Massachusetts by air freight Should we dredge
21 Boston Harbor and dispose of the contaminated
22 materials in this area in order to prop up our
23 harbor here, or maybe it would be better to
24 maintain the harbor in New York or one in Newport
                                             Page 9<
 i        (Applause.)
 2        MR, ROSENBERG:  Our next speaker is
 3 Mr. Richard Lombard, Board of Selectmen for the
 4 Town of Nahant.
 5        SELECTMAN LOMBARD: Thank you. We
 fi covered a lot of material.
 7        First of all, I would like to thank
 8 you very much, Massport and the Port Authority,
 9 for coming to the Town of Nahant We appreciate
10 you coming. It's very, very, very nice.
11        I want to thank Polly Bradley and
12 Mr. Coffey here for setting this meeting up.  We
13 owe him greatly on behalf of the Board of
14 Selectmen.
15        Thank you.
16        (Applause.)
17        SELECTMAN LOMBARD: AS a member of the
18 Board of Selectmen, we have been inundated in the
19 last ten years. First we had the Salem outfall,
20 the Lynn outfall, now the Boston outfall and now
21 this. We have had enough. Please, I ask you
22 please do not let this material into the North
23 Shore area. That is all I am going to say.
24        Thank you.
                                              Page 98
 1 or use another facility at another location here.
 2 It's not clear to me that there is any net
 3 economic benefit to the plan that is proposed here
 4 in terms of the preservation of jobs and economic
 5 vitality to this area.  And as  a matter of fact, I
 6 would say there is prima facia evidence of that
 7 All you have to do is look at the rest of Boston
 8 Harbor. Where there is an aquarium now there used
 9 to be piers.  Where there is the financial center
10 and a Boston Harbor hotel, there -used to be
11 piers. The Boston Harbor hotel supports a number
12 of ships that maintain the vitality of the town as
13 a convention center, that take people on cruises
14 around Boston Harbor, that go on whale watching
15 cruises, all of them on shallow draft boats. Why
16 do we want to spend all this money and stir up all
17 this muck in order to make sure that we can get
18 deep draft boats into Boston Harbor is beyond my
19 comprehension. I think we ought to go back to the
20 beginning and take a look at why you are starting
21 to do this in the first place and see whether or
22 not the economic benefits we think are really
23 there are real or imagined.
24       Thank you.
          (Applause.)
          SELECTMAN LOMBARD: Two questions I
   have. Number one, I would like the Town of Nahant
   to receive on the list of the contract proposal so
   that we can review it and have our Town Counsel
   review it The reason being is this. I would
   like to see if there is performance bonds put into
   these contracts. If we have economic loss to the
   North Shore and North Shore area so that we have
   recourse  and all the North Shore areas have
   recourse  to go after the individual contractors,
   Massport and the Army Corps. Is that possible?
          (Applause.)
          MR. ROSENBERG: To just try to answer
   your question. The decision would be the
   alternative to where we are going to dispose of
   it  I don't think you would want to see the
   contract if indeed  a different disposal option is
   chosen. I think when we get to that point, if
   indeed this is the selection, you will be notified
   in advance of that selection.
          SELECTMAN LOMBARD: And the
   performance bonds —
          MR. ROSENBERG:  I don't have that
                                                in
                                   Page 97 - Page K
-------
                                               Condenselt
                                                          TM
                                             Page 101
 1  information with me.
 2        SELECTMAN LOMBARD: But you will
 3  consider putting these contracts, the performance
 4  bonds to cover the economic loss for the
 5  lobstermen and the fishermen surrounding our bay?
 6        MR. ROSENBERG: That is a question for
 7  the Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association, and
 8  our division counsel is now looking into that.
 9  Like I said, to be sure, we could start, disposal
10  site on a list of 300.
11        AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: if this site
12  would be selected, you would notify us within a
13  year or two is that the process?
14        MR. ROSENBERG: No, I said  you would
15  be well aware of our selection process months
16  before the final selection came in.
17        Our next speaker is Mr. Mark
18  Scaglione.
19        (Applause.)
20        MARK SCAGLIONE: I am a lobster
21  fisherman. The same ideas now, and I don't know
12  how they got the spot up there where they want to
23  do this project. It's known to the fishermen.
24  It's called Rosie's Hole. It's the biggest
                                             Page 103
 l        I happened to be thumbing through an
 2 old book that was on the shelf the other day, and
 3 it's called Lobstering Inshore and Offshore. I
 4 made three copies of page 20 for you. Anybody who
 5 wants it can take a look at it.
 6        The book was written 25 years ago by a
 7 fellow by the name of Earl Dolimer (phonetic
 8 spelling), and interestingly enough, it was a kind
 9 of a snapshot of the Marblehead lobster fishing
10 industry at that time. And on page 20 it shows a
11 map or a chart, and the chart shows what is called
12 the winter fishing grounds, spring and winter
13 fishing grounds, and lo and behold, it's what you
14 called Meisburger 2. The reason why I gave you
15 that is because 25 years ago that was an active
16 fishing area.  That is how it was 25 years ago,
17 and that is reporting back to the turn of the
18 century.
19        My father-in-law is going to turn 83
20 years old on Saturday. A good guy. He is a
21 lobster fisherman.  He has been lobstering for
22 about 63 years. What a crazy guy.
23        (Laughter.)
24        JAYMICHAUD:  But he told me how prior
                                             Page 102
 l  lobster area when they hit and the biggest fishing
 2  area. If they do this project there, it's going
 3  to completely wipe out that whole area, because
 4  that is where they migrate to.  They all end up
 5  going there.  1 think if they do have to go in,
 6  they have to go, they do they cover all that dirt,
 7  and you can find an area on land. There is plenty
 8  of dirt that's took out. It's all in the back of
 9  the Lynnway. Find a landfill.  Bring it back on
10  land. I think that is the best way to do that
11  now. Rosie's Hole is not the place to do this
12  whole project, and it's the type of thing where we
13  are saying that we shouldn't do it. They can't do
14  it. It definitely can't be done.
15        Thank you.
16        (Applause.)
17        MR. ROSENBERG:  Mr. Jay Michaud from
18  Marblehead.
19        JAYMICHAUD: My name is Jay Michaud.
20  I am a commercial lobster fisherman from
21  Marblehead, and I have been chosen by the
22  Marblehead Fishermen's Group to speak for us.  We
23  are a loosely affiliated group, but there are
24  about 25 lobster fishermen in Marblehead.
                                             Page 104
 l to World War n - and I was bom in 1943 so I
 2 figure I am an old guy — they were lobstering out
 3 there, so it's been going on for a long, long,
 4 long time.
 5        I am vehemently opposed to any dumping
 6 of anything in Meisburger 2, number 7, or the
 7 Lightship, because these are the areas that we
 8 depend on. I have heard people talking about
 9 impact on the economy, the economy of the area. I
10 will tell you what the impact of the economy on me
11 will be.  Okay. Over the last four years, I have
12 seen my income decline 40 percent What used to
13 be a very productive area for me, Salem Sound, is
14 now the Bay of Poverty. There is nothing there.
15 We don't know why. Maybe the thousands of gallons
16 of chlorine that was put into the outfall at
17 Salem. That might have something to do with it,
18 maybe not Maybe El Nino has something to do with
19 it, maybe not, but I will tell you one thing, that
20 once you start dumping at Meisburger 2, 7, or the
21 Lightship, I don't care if there isn't one toxin
22 in that  The mere fact that you will take
23 millions and millions of cubic yards of material
24 and cover that bottom means that you are going to
                                                                                        Page 101 -Page 104
-------
                                               Condenselt
                                                           TM
                                              Page 105
 1  irreversibly destroy what we have right now, and
 2  that is the habitat What you are going to do is
 3  you are going to give Massachusetts Bay a
   vasectomy. Okay.
          (Laughter. )
          JAY MICHAUD:  On the surface
   everything looks great. You can still have a lot
 8  of fun, but production has decreased forever.
 9         (Applause.)
10         MR. ROSENBERG:  If you need a job, I
1 1  think the public speakers (inaudible) ~
12         (Laughter. )
13         MR. ROSENBERG:  Our last speaker
14  before we open up for comments, concerns,
15  questions, and we have people standing up here.
          Mr. Richard Adamo.
          RICHARD ADAMO: Adamo.
          MR. ROSENBERG:  Adamo.
          (Applause.)
          RICHARD ADAMO: My name is
21  Richard Adamo. I must say that is a tough act to
22  follow.
23         Certainly with a last name that begins
24  with "A", I am not accustomed to this treatment
                                             Page 10
 1 their own livelihood. That is all I have to say.
 2        (Applause.)
 3        MR. ROSENBERG: We are going to open
 4 to public dialogue, unless anybody has something
 5 they would like to come up and say.
 6        Sir.
 7        RICHARD BATCHELDER: Could I Speak from
 8 here? Can everyone hear me?  Richard Batchelder,
 9 a citizen of Nahant
10        In the executive summary, there is a
11 chart in the figure ES-3. Now the base line of
12 all the costs are unconfined ocean disposal.
13        Now why has this not been considered
14 if this is the cheapest way of doing this?
15        MR. ROSENBERG: It's not
16 environmentally sound. It's not environmentally
17 safe for much of the material. So you sometimes
18 feel that as we have heard from many of the
19 experts tonight, from SWTM and others, that there
20 are toxic materials.  We have P.C.B.S, PAHs, other
21 chemicals.  Much of it has come from household
22 cleaners. When it breaks down into sediments, it
23 becomes toxic.  Petroleum products do not go over
24 well with the environment. What we are here to do
                                              Page 106
 1 I'm usually at the beginning, but I find myself at
 2 the end of the meeting, and I will make my
 3 comments short
 4        I work for the Trial Court of the
 5 Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  We are a
 6 free-registered government in Massachusetts.  We
 7 run under 2 percent of the State budget for among
 8 other things, many political reasons. I am
 9 certainly aware of the constraints, financial
10 constraints that agencies are under; however, I
1 1 must say as I came in tonight, I saw a chart, and
12 on the chart there were different costs, and I
13 heard as I walked in that we were going to save
14 taxpayers money by attempting to get one site or
15 another.  I find it highly illogical, and I think
16 the people in Nahant have been very polite this
17 evening to ask people ~ to tell people that you
18 are going to save them tax dollars at the expense
19 of their livelihood.  I find it highly illogical.
20 I think the people of Nahant have been very polite
2] this evening.  I can't imagine that they would
22 ever go along with it. I find it illogical.  I
23 find it almost infuriating to tell people you are
24 going to save them tax dollars at the expense of
                                             Page 1C
 1 tonight is to look at the clean environment  We
 2 can tell you.  We didn't need — we didn't need
 3 you to tell us the fatalities of chemicals of the
 4 site. We have marine biologists sitting here.
 5        What we need ~ what we are here for
 6 is the human part  We heard that point quite well
 7 that when we are starting to look at alternatives
 8 for the so-called material, whether it's clean or
 9 whether it's unsuitable, there is an impact to the
10 human environment.  Much of it is economic.  The
11 people in Nahant have been very, very nice to us
12 when they are thinking this one disposal option is
13 the only disposal option that is on the list
14 That is not quite true. There are a lot of
15 disposal alternatives, but the list is 300 plus.
16 The alternatives, they can take all of the
17 materials, one group I believe is what, six or
18 eight, and then there is combinations of disposal
19 options.  On one of the 300 plus options mandated
20 by law — mandated by the National Environmental
21 Policy Act is the no alternative,  which has also
22 been brought up. You asked why don't we just go
23 with the cheapest way, because it impacts on one
24 woman's grandchildren.
                                                                                         Page 105 - Page 1
-------
                                               Condenselt
                                                           TM
                                             Page 109
 1         RICHARD BATCHELDER: Well, if it's
 2  unsafe to dump it at sea, it certainly is unsafe
 3  to dump it closer to us.
 4         (Laughter.)
 5         MR. ROSENBERG: well, I think we are
 6  feeding the fire.
 7         RICHARD BATCHELDER: Okay. Thank
 8  you.
          MR. ROSENBERG: okay. So where do we
 9
10
11
12
13
14
   go?
          Yes, sir.
          DARRYL FORGIONE: How are you doing?
          MR. ROSENBERG:  Okay.
          DARRYL FORGIONE: My name is Darryl
15  Forgione.
16         And I would like to thank the Corps of
l?  Engineers and Massport and the Selectmen and
18  everybody that showed up for this. It's
19  phenomenol.
10         1 am a recreational fisherman. I love
ll  to fish. I have three children, who I am teaching
12  them the love of fishing.  We tend lobster traps,
>3  and things are real slow right now with the traps
14  I have. Although recreational fishing is on the
                                             Page 111
 l       AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: Maintenance.
 2       DARRYL FORGIONE: Maintenance.  Thank
 3 you. Maintenance. Eleven years ago you dredged,
 4 and you have all this silt return. It's hazardous
 5 material. So you are not going to the source.
 6 You have to nip it off in the bud. You have to
 7 stop it from coming in.  You have to stop it
 8 entering the harbor, or you keep continuing the
 9 process of having this stuff pile up in our laps,
10 so you have got to stop the big business from
11 dumping on us, and that is up to you guys. It's
12 one thing to dredge and allow the ships to come
13 in.  It's another thing to dump it on our laps.
14 The public has suffered from enough uncommon sense
15 by big business and dumping.
16       (Applause.)
17       MR. ROSENBERG: Okay.  And I heard two
18 points. One is the continuing requirements of
19 meeting this, and the other the continuing
20 development of poisonous or unsuitable materials.
21       So, Bill, why don't you talk about
22 that
23       WILLIAM HUBBARD: I think first this
24 is toxicity. It is material that is toxic to the
                                             Page 110
 l  increase, we have seen more stripers, more blues
 2  early in the season without giving away some good
   spots.
          (Laughter.)
          DARRYL FORGIONE: Seasonal fishing, we
 6 brought in over 150 pounds of mackerel we are
 7 talking about.  We saw Bottle Nose Dolphins. We
 8 saw small whales in that area. We have had a
 9 pretty good start of the season, and we have
 0 enjoyed it, and we would like to continue to enjoy
 i it.
 2        One problem I have is the terminology
 3 in regards to dredging  and what 1 would consider
 4 a hazardous hazard, a hazardous material.  So
 5 you are not really dredging. You are dredging
 6 hazardous waste, and it's tough to go away. It
 7 can't go back into the sea.  You can't put it
 8 660 feet down. You can't visualize placing
 9 this material in a hole without having it spill
 :0 back  into our environment.  My children love to
 l swim. I have one son  that dives so deep I think
 :2 he has gills. So it's imperative that we look
 :3 out for our future.  We can't just continue this
 :4 way.
                                                                                                   Page 112
                                                       1 organisms, but it is not a hazardous waste, and we
                                                       2 know it doesn't support the life that is in Boston
                                                       3 Harbor. The photographs from Chelsea were, I
                                                       4 think, optimistic.  We worked an awful lot out
                                                       5 there, and there are some pictures.  It supports a
                                                       6 little less life than we even saw in the videotape
                                                       7 from Chelsea.
                                                       8        The Mystic River stuff is really
                                                       9 pretty miserable.  To that point, it shouldn't be
                                                      10 left in place, and that is part of the no-action
                                                      11 alternative.  That will be an economic impact as
                                                      12 time goes by. In Providence, you will see four
                                                      13 and a half cents more a gallon, because they
                                                      14 haven't dredged in a couple of decades.
                                                      15        We agree there is a risk in anything
                                                      16 we do with it, and we are here very openly
                                                      17 listening to all your concerns. We have been
                                                      IS around the entire Mass. Bay area, and it's about
                                                      19 someone is opposed to all of the sites, but we
                                                      20 appreciate the weight of evidence you gave us here
                                                      21 tonight, because that is certainly important for
                                                      22 the record, and then we go back and analzye it
                                                      23        We talked about toxicity in terms of
                                                      24 some of the test results presented to you
                                                                                        Page 109-Page 112
-------
                                               Condenselt
                                                           TM
                                              Page 113
 i earlier. And, yes, the material supports claim in
 2 wildlife of retarded species, and we will take
 3 back with us a little more of an analysis on what
 4 it's going to do the fisheries in this area and
 5 what the potential fisheries are.
 6        MR, ROSENBERG: And there was one
 7 other point you made. I guess you were pointing
 8 to new technology. What can we do to get rid of
 9 this.
10        A little earlier today I talked to
11 somebody who mentioned shipping this stuff to
12 Utah.  Well, frankly, that is an alternative.
13        Pete, could you speak about the
14 technology and some of the things that we are
15 looking at
16        PETER JACKSON: Well, there is number
17 of new technologies that have come out, and I use
18 the term, and I don't mean to  criticize these
19 technologies, but they come to me like slick oil
20 salesmen. I have heard everything from
21 microwaving stuff, to burning it, to cooking it in
22 many different ways, broiling, frying, whatever.
23 I have heard ideas of using some pretty brilliant
24 technology, fire mediation technologies that they
                                             Page 115
 l technologies before we pick one.
 2        MR. ROSENBERG: On the subject of
 3 technology.  Grace from the Conservation Law has
 4 been lobbying various Congressmen and working very
 5 hard.
 6        Do you have anything to add to this
 7 technology?
 8        GRACE PEREZ: Just that there are a
 9 couple of bilk that are being pushed by a number
10 of people in  Congress that will hopefully allocate
11 some money for research into new technologies and,
12 therefore, demonstration projects and so forth,
13 but nothing is certain at this point
14        Janeen may have some more information
15 along these lines, too.
16        JANEEN HANSEN: Just along what Grace
17 said. One proposed amendment to  the Defense
18 Reorganization Bill is the so-called Green Ports
19 Amendment, and this is put together by Congressman
20 Mendenez from New Jersey, who also has dredging
21 issues in his district, and part of this bill will
22 be to create some funding for demonstration projects,
23 onee* more of these technologies.  One of the
24 sites characterized in the bill would be the
                                              Page 114
 1  use for hazardous waste sites. However, as I
 2  mentioned before, these technologies are very,
 3  very new. They are only — if they are proven,
 4  they are only proven in very small quantities.
 5  Research done in the Midwest shows that — also
 6  confirms that, but they are also very expensive,
 7  even at the lower levels.
 8         We will continue to look at these
 9  technologies, but I won't make any promises that
10  they will be fully available and practical for
11  this project At that time I don't think anybody
12  in this world can afford the cost of some of these
13  technologies. There are a few that are closer to
14  reality, and we  will probably put more emphasis on
15  those and probably pick one and demonstrate that
16  technology to make sure that if we want to use it
17  that it will work. We don't want to pick a
18  technology and have it fail. Some of the
19  techniques that we have been showing here have
20  been used elsewhere around the country, around the
21  world and are proven.  The last thing we want do
22  is to put this —  treat this in some way, dump it
23  somewhere and have it fail us.  We have got to
24  take very careful consideration of these
                                             Page 11'
 i Boston Harbor Project, and we would be delighted
 2 to be able to do some demonstrations of one or
 3 more technologies, but at this point the funding
 4 isn't there yet, but we are lobbying hard to get
 5 it, and we are also working at the same  time to
 6 try to figure out which among the many technologies
 7 we have seen actually are environmentally and cost
 8 effective.
 9       MR. ROSENBERG: Thank you. Next
10 question.
11       AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: I JUSt have two
12 questions. One is how is Massport raising money
13 to fund this project; and one is in the future
14 could this be a maintenance project; and No. 2,
15 why did Massport and the M.W.R.A. not get together
16 prior to this to look at both projects and see how
17 one outweighed the other?
18       (Applause.)
19       AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: It is basically
20 you are cleaning up hazardous material. It's not
21 a maintenance program. In Chelsea you just built
22 a garage on a hazardous site, the garage built in
23 Chelsea for the airport
24       JANEEN HANSEN: I am not aware that
                                                                                         Page 113 -Pagel
-------
                                              Condenselt
                                            Page 11?
1  that is the case.
2        AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: That WES built
3 on land that was not able to be sold because of
4 the hazardous material.
5        NORMAN FARAMELLI: It's an  industrial
6 site in Chelsea.
7        AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: Right
8        NORMAN FARAMELLI: The garage isn't
9 built on hazardous waste, but the space is being
0 maintained by Massport. It was an industrial
!  site. It was not a hazardous waste site.
2        AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: But because it
3 is industrial —
4        NORMAN FARAMELLI: It was similar to
5 other industrial sites in Chelsea.
6        AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: But how are you
7 planning on raising the funds to fund this
8 project?
9        JANEEN HANSEN: That is one of OUT
0 next challenges, funding.
1         AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: So we are
2 talking about a project that is not even funded
3 yet?
4        JANEEN HANSEN: That is correct.
                                             Page 119
 1        JANEEN HANSEN: - but there are
 2  other -
 3        (Applause.)
 4        AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: That was not
 5  mentioned once here, Janeen.
 6        MR. ROSENBERG: Yes, ma'am.
 7        AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: Yes, I have a
 8  question. I am duly opposed to any alternatives.
 9  The more I have listened to you to even the
10  possibility of dredging, I have to agree with the
11  gentleman that said why are you even spending
12  money on this? I understand all sites of it, but
13  parts of it, but it really opens up a whole new
14  Pandora's box.
15        And my question is:  During your whole
16  process, your whole procedure, is everything that
17  you open up to options?  Are we able to see the
18  different records, researches, the decisions that
19  you are making?  Why you have made those decisions
20  prior to any final say?  Do we the people have the
21  final vote, or is it just the Federal and State
22  Government and  the legislature that says yes, and
23  during the process before it gets there how can we
24  be more aware? It is my understanding that we
                                             Page 118
1        NORMAN FARAMELLI: Massport is
2  committed to it.
3        AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: I understand,
4  but we are talking about doing all this work, but
5  you haven't done funding, so if something was
6  wrong, how do you plan to fund clean up of the
7  problem? I mean you haven't even got that
8  funded.
9        JANEEN HANSEN:  What we - we are
0  looking into limited fund alternatives, but
1  frankly, until we know the disposal site, we won't
2  know the true cost to fund it
3        AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: And why didn't
4  Massport and the MW.R.A. not get together?
5        JANEEN HANSEN:  Actually, the
6  Mass. Water Resource Authority does sit on our
7  Advisory Committee, and we work quite well
8  with them.
9        AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: And what is
o  their feeling on this particular site?
1        JANEEN HANSEN:  Well, they would
2  prefer that we would be further from their
3  outfall. They support some of the other sites —
4        AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT:  Oh.
                                             Page 120
 l need to be very open and aware of every step as we
 2 are going along; and as the public, I want to be
 3 aware of that, and I want to know if we are
 4 capable of that procedure.
 5        MR. ROSENBERG:  It's a great question,
 6 and I will try to put it in context
 7        I work for a Federal agency, the
 8 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. On a credibility
 9 scale of one to ten, ten being the highest and one
10 being the lowest, we are much higher than ten. We
11 are all Federal agents. People on the North Shore
12 section fishing have had regulators from the
13 Federal Government, from the State Government,
14 from the local government, from policy makers,
15 from Denny's and every restaurant and everybody
16 everywhere making decisions that affect their
17 outcome.  Those decisions come down, but there is
18 no public discussion.  There is a decision and an
19 announcement and an agency. We did not make the
20 decision. What the Corps of Engineers does
21 mainly — not that we don't want to make the
22 decision. I am sure that somebody in Washington,
23 D.C. says we want to make the decision. It's not
24 for other people, just like the other, but we have
                                                                                       Page 117-Page 120
-------
                                               Condensclt
                                                           TM
                                              Page 121
 I  laws that tell us how we arc responsible.  One of
 2  the ways that we must operate is in the open.  You
 3  wanted information on this project You can pick
 4  up a phone and call me.  My phone number is all
 5  over almost every document you have there.  Call
 6  me. I will get you that information.  That is my
 7  job.
 8         Bill's job description and Pete's job
 9  description, they also work for the Corps of
10  Engineers. Part of their job description is to
11  answer to you. Where are we now in the process?
12  In that booklet, I want to make a note of mat
13  slide, and I kind of wish I did, you know. There
14  is a little chart on one of the decision-making
15  processes, the steps in making that decision. At
16  two points we open up to public scoping, public
17  hearing, where we do nothing but sit and listen,
18  and I will tell you, it's not really nice
19  sometimes to be called a liar and not being able
20  to say anything.  You wouldn't want to do it, but
21  that is part of our mandate.  That happened twice
22  in this — in this situation. Throughout the
23  process there is your input.  At any point,
24  whether it's directly through the Advisory
                                             Page 1
 1  are volunteering doing this after hours, and we
 2  would like to have this so, you know —
 3        MR. ROSENBERG: I will assure you you
 4  get your own copy, but I should point out that
 5  SWIM responded to the first public comment period
 6  by letter on June 8th, and I have a copy of that
 7  here. It is signed the following, and it states
 8  your position quite candidly. So we have had the
 9  opportunity at this point to review the
10  documentation, but I will be sure in turn that you
11  get your own copy.  If I am wrong, tell me I am
12  wrong, and I think you can see I have a copy of it
13  here. And everything is responded — every issue
14  is raised and circled and will be responded to and
IS  addressed in the environmental contract
16        Anyone want to — yes, Polly.
17        POLLY BRADLEY: I just wanted to
18  comment that neither -- that although in some ways
19  the process may have been somewhat open, neither
20  the Selectmen of the Town of Nahant or the
21  Selectmen of Hull were informed of this ahead  of
22  time. I talked to the Town Manager of Hull, and
23  he asked me to, because we had informed the people
24  of Hull who did not know about this. He has
                                              Page 122
 l  Council, through people that we designate to
 2  represent you, there is no doubt here that Polly
 3  represents a great deal of the opinion in this
 4  community. And when she is a member, she is if
 5  she wants to be of the Advisory Committee, she
 6  will have direct voice into that decision. You
 7  have direct voice in that decision not only from
 8  this process, but through the telephone, through
 9  me, through my office, which is in Waltham, and I
10  listen. What other Federal agency in that most of
11  the decisions have been made over the past
12  three months have come to you and said beat me up
13  before I make a decision. Here I am.
14         AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: Larry, so you
15  could assist us in beating you up. You mentioned
16  a 35 and 30 day, 45-day review period where you
17  would like to hear our comments.  On the Technical
18  Advisory Group for SWIM, we have lobstermen. We
19  have marine biologists, engineers, mathematicians,
20  geologists, chemists and a lot of other dedicated
21  volunteers, who will be willing to look at the
22  complete E.I.R. documents including all appendices.
23  We  would like to have that information now so we
24  can  start looking at it Please bear in mind we
                                             Page 12
 1 written now for a copy of the Environmental Impact
 2 Report, and we only found out about this, because
 3 we were going by the lobstermen. As I said, as
 4 Kevin said, we felt we work full-time in this, and
 5 we do our best to follow whatever we can is
 6 pertinent, but I think that you really need
 7 to — you should not have proposed Meisburger 2
 8 and Meisburger 1 without informing either the
 9 Selectmen of Nahant or the Selectmen of Hull.
10        I want to say that the Town Manager of
11 Hull authorized me to say that the Selectmen and
12 the Town Manager and citizens of Hull are very
13 much concerned about Meisburger 7, because that
14 also is close to affect them.
15        I also would like to make a comment on
16 the comment about the bottom of Boston Harbor not
17 being hazardous waste. Actually, that is just a
18 matter of definition.  I was an English major, and
19 that's a matter of semantics.  I mean we are
20 talking what has been declared the dirtiest harbor
21 in the country. I don't know whether it is the
22 dirtiest or maybe the second or the third, or
23 whatever, but anyway there is no question that
24 this stuff is hazardous. If you don't want to
                                            H
                                  Page 121 - Page 1:
-------
                                              Condenselt1
                                             Page 125
1 call it hazardous, we'll call it something else.
2 Let's just call it poison.
3        AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: There you go.
4        (Applause.)
5        MR, ROSENBERG: Polly, you brought up
6 a great point I will take the second one,
7 because I love the language, and you are right
8 We can call this anything we want. There was a
9 great discussion not even six months ago on what
0 to call the material. Should we call it dirty?
l Should we call it clean?  Should we call it
2 hazardous? Should we call it fragrant?  You are
3 right. The fact is that it's not environmentally
4 sound materials that can be disposed of in open
5 water without some impact, and I think we can all
6 agree on that, correct?
7        Number two, the courts have a lot of
8 trouble with this. I believe there are 124
9 newspapers from Portsmouth all the way down. I
D can't tell you why one Board of Selectmen in
l Nahant was able to get a request for a public
2 meeting under the public notice and why the people
3 in Hull didn't  What I would say to you —
4        POLLY BRADLEY:  Because SWIM was
                                                                                                  Page 127
                                                      l  Nahant  We have to get some consensus. I can
                                                      2  tell you it's unfair,
                                                      3         Yes, sir.
                                                      4         BOB MYERS: Bob Myers. I am a retired
                                                      5  engineer, and I have been listening in great
                                                      6  amazement I visualize this process of being the
                                                      7  sides of the Hancock building on its side,
                                                      8  whatever. And as you first remember, you have to
                                                      9  dig out as you are going to put in.  Okay. It's
                                                     10  piled somewhere. Do something with it But I got
                                                     11  to thinking. I said, I used to do disposal work
                                                     12  for many years, and I visualize this hole that you
                                                     13  are going to dump in, and you are going to have it
                                                     14  all dumping into the hole, not just through the
                                                     15  area, but if you don't, you know very well the
                                                     16  fines to dispose it, you are going to lose about
                                                     17  1 percent, about 1 percent of the total burden
                                                     18  into the area around your disposal site.  It's
                                                     19  going to make a lovely pancake all around there of
                                                     20  poisonous or hazardous material.
                                                     21         Thank you.
                                                     22         AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: YOU know, I
                                                     23  have been visualizing this hole all night This
                                                     24  is one hell of a hole, what 67 stories down and
                                            Page 126
l  watching.
2         MR. ROSENBERG: Right. And -- that is
3  exactly right. Because SWIM was watching. I
4  would say to you that the people of Hull need an
5  organization like you have here like SWIM to keep
5  your representatives - to keep their representatives
7  on top of this as well.
8         POLLY BRADLEY: They did say that they
?  would be asking for a public hearing, and I would
3  request it as well that you have a public hearing
l  in Hull, and we will make every effort to get
2  there.
3         MR, ROSENBERG: That is another great
*  point.  Sometime in September for the North
5  Shore. We are looking for a location now to have
5  a complete open forum. Not this structure.  I am
7  going to teach you the disposal of dredging
3  material  101.  It will be an open forum with
?  information.  I think that is where we want to
3  go.  We have to look at the process.  We can't
l  look at the sailboats any more.  We can't look at
2 I don't want this, because it affects me.  I hear
3  that from people who live near. I hear it from
4 people in Utah, and I hear it from people in
                                                                                                   Page 128
                                                       l  the size of a football field.  I put the map out.
                                                       2  Could you talk a little about exactly what that
                                                       3  alternative is talking about, not the selective
                                                       4  alternative, we understand that, but that
                                                       5  alternative of that hole.
                                                       6         PETER JACKSON: Can you put that board
                                                       7  up that shows — I have been to a lot of public
                                                       8  hearings recently, public meetings, small
                                                       9  meetings, discussions, and this is the first town
                                                      10  where we are accused of digging a hole 600 some
                                                      11  feet deep.  I think that is the confusion with the
                                                      12  chart that we showed that shows the volume of the
                                                      13  material. In fact, these bars on site will only
                                                      14  be about 10 to 13 feet deep depending on whether
                                                      15  it's Meisburger 2 or Meisburger 7. Instead of a
                                                      16  football field, the size it might be  on the order
                                                      17  of a half a mile by a half a mile square. On the
                                                      18  navigation chart that is just up on the board it
                                                      19  shows  the scale of that footprint  There will be
                                                      20  no hole 600 something deep. I don't know how that
                                                      21  could be achieved, but that would be an
                                                      22  engineering feat. So they are talking about 10 to
                                                      23  13 feet, about 2,000 by 2,000 feet in rectangle
                                                      24  squared or whatever.
                                                 1   \,
                                                                                        Page 125 - Page 128
-------
                                               Condensclt
                                                           TM
                                              Page 129
 1         The other question is I disagree with
 2  the gentleman that it is 1 percent loss.
 3  Generally it's 3 to 5 percent loss on the way down
 4  based on our model studies. So I want to make
 5  that correction, because it is higher than you
 6  mentioned.
 7         MR. ROSENBERG: Yes, sir.
 8         AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: I would like to
 9  say one more thing.
10         MR. ROSENBERG: Anything you want.
11         AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: Okay. They
12  would never dump anything into Canadian waters.
13  They would not  dump anything in. Okay. They did
14  a multi-billion dollar sewer project off Boston
15  that they haven't even turned the switches on yet
16  We don't even know how much that is going to
17  affect us. Now you. get into a project that we
18  don't know.  We didn't want the switching in
19  there, but they did it anyway. You don't even
20  know what that is going to cost. They are pumping
21  fresh water into this salt water ocean. I will
22  tell you right there, that is going to be a
23  problem.  Drilling last year, we had the worst
24  year in 20 years from the drilling. The
                                              Page 131
 1  talking the State is trying to find or put
 2 together some sort of long-term plan.
 3        Could you please address that
 4        WILLIAM HUBBARD: Just like everywhere
 5 else in New England, each state has, except for
 6 maybe Long Island Sound for the disposal of their
 7 material.  Long Island Sound has three or four
 8 designated and fully monitored sites, areas where
 9 they have basically written that off for habitat
10 in the immediate river due to the disposal. That
11  is not the case in Massachusetts,  That is not the
12 case in Maine, not the case in Rhode Island, We
13 have recommended in working with the State of
14 Massachusetts for  several years now and are
15 trying to get a long-term management strategy
16 for interpreter of disposal over the next
17 50 years.
18        Larry is right  This project is a
19 one-time E.D.H. site.  Find a site for this
20 project, but you still have a problem that was
21  evidenced in Gloucester.  You  are still closing
22 your own port channel in Lynn, and it needs to be
23 dredged.  We don't have a place to put it.
24 Saugus, the river, we have a  positive project, and
                                              Page 130
 1  vibration. The lobster can't come in. You know
 2  what that is going to do. And you are already
 3  starting another project, and I just think -- my
 4  last thing I think you should do is put it on the
 5  back burner. Find out what this thing is going to
 6  do first, and then go on from there. Put it on
 7  the back burner.  I don't even think you should do
 8  it.  The other fellow said, why do it? Just don't
 9  do any more polluting in the Chelsea Creek. That
10  would end it.
11         MR. ROSENBERG: That is a great
12  point.  That is a great point, but the fact is
13  that the gentleman supposes that that alternative
14  has been selected. That alternative has not been
15  selected. That is  one of many alternatives, and
16  we don't know which one of those alternatives will
17  be selected for this process.
18         Yes, sir.
19         AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: Once you get a
20  site somewhere in greater Mass. Bay, for how long
21  would it be an active site?
22         MR. ROSENBERG: That is a good
23  question. What we are talking about is a one-time
24  site, but Pete ~ I  believe Pete and Janeen were
                                              Page 13
 J  27 lobstermen are sitting there.  There is no
 2  place to put the dredged material. So although
 3  the Government will come in and dredge that
 4  harbor, we don't have a place to put it.  So in
 5  this particular Environmental Impact Statement and
 6  Environmental Impact Report, we are only dealing
 7  with this solution to the larger project. After
 8  that, we are encouraging the State, and you also
 9  should look at it yourselves and say yeah, let's
10  look at where we are going to put all that
II  material for the next 50 years. I don't think
12  it's fair to feed them into Saugus, and this is
13  true around the State. It has to wait until low
14  tide to get out of tine Saugus River.  So for the
15  focus  of the Town next week, and it's specific to
16  this report, and this one project, but we are in
17  the Town of Nahant looking at the long term.
18        AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: Would the site
19  of the disposal area for this particular project
20  affect the long-term siting?  Would it make that
21  site more probable as being the disposal site for
22  the next 50 years?
23        WILLIAM HUBBARD: NO, it will probably
24  fill up, because we have a capacity problem here.
                                                                                         Page 129 - Page 1
-------
                                               Condenselt7
                                             Page 133
i   Whatever site we do use here is going to come off
2   the list in the next 50 years, because for the
3   most part we don't have the capacity. One or two
   of the  sites or combinations could be revisited,
   but what we are trying to get out of this series
   of public meetings is of all the sites, the 300
   that are practical will work for this project; and
8   in the  context of the Environmental Impact
9   Statement, we are  talking about cumulative impacts
0   and as we stated no long-term loss to the area.
i   We won't designate officials or additional sites,
2   but certainly the information we got here tonight
3   will be part of the evidence of whether or not we
4   are going to use the site in the future.
5         MR. ROSENBERG: Yes, sir.
6         AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: I am more
7   familiar with the air, and I don't want to put
8   like 200 smokestacks in Nahant. I would need
9   permits. I mean you probably go out and do the
0   base line ambient studies, the air occurs in
1   spring, summer, fall, winters, to do a proper
2   computing of pollution.
3         Do you have  a similar process for
4   polluting the ocean? It's really a base line
                                              Page 135
 i haven't been addressed yet, and they won't be
 2 until after a final E.N.F. and E.I.R. have been
 3 done.
 4        AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: In your initial
 5 siting studies has that process incorporated the
 6 projection of what the Boston outfall is going to
 7 do?
 8        WILLIAM HUBBARD: The cumulative
 9 impacts, yes, they will need to be, but it's not a
10 percentage.  You are not going to get this is the
11 answer on that.
12        POLLY BRADLEY:  I would like to reply
13 to that question, also.
14        MR. ROSENBERG: Okay.  Norm.
15        NORMAN FARAMELLI: I think, you know,
16 we learned and what happens is we will be using
17 the information that we have in this preliminary
18 way for the Final Environmental Impact Report
19 together.  Once we have an idea of the set of
20 sites we are going to look at, we will do more
21 extensive work on the sites. That is the
22 intention to look at them and to find out
23 information about fish habitat, find out what the
24 benefit analysis is, the ocean bottom
                                              Page 134
   study. Are you required to do that number one?
   And is there something that finally authorizes a
   permit to do this?
         MR. ROSENBERG:  Bill, if you would.
         WILLIAM HUBBARD: With this class it
   has certainly gone on 20 years. D.I.S.
   formulation really started about in 1990 with
   several million dollars in tests for both the town
   and the Corps of Engineers.
       •  As far as dredged material disposal
   and the technology nationally, several types of
   names. We have all the sites around the country.
   For this particular project, we are doing base
   line data, and of course we are incorporating the
   existing base line data, too, in Mass. Bay. The
   D.I.S. is incorporating existing information. The
   permitting process hasn't even begun. When I was
8  with the Board of Selectmen recently, we are still
?  in discovery.  We are still in just gathering
D  information. We will take that E.I.R. and the
i  E.M.F. and the E.I.R. that has been published. We
2  have received comments from the M.E.P.A. process.
3  This is part of the M.E.P.A. and the 401 Clean
4  Water Act process, and,  yes, the myriad of permits
                                              Page 136
 1  characteristics. We will look at that in depth,
 2  and we have to create preferred alternatives.
 3  Then they have to go to a public review. We have
 4  to find on the State level and the Federal level
 5  in terms of whether this is an acceptable
 6  document, whether all the environmental effects
 7  have been adequately considered and so forth.
 8  Then we have the permitting process, and that
 9  permitting process occurs at both the State level
10  as well as on the Federal level; but as Bill
11  mentioned until the preferred alternative is
12  selected, and that is at the end of the
13  Environmental Impact Report and Impact Statement
14  process, we can't talk about permits.
15        AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: Not to be
16  jaded, on land process, there is no local level
17  permitting process; is that true?
18        NORMAN FARAMELLI: There is local
19  conservation measures. In the jurisdiction where
20  this occurs under the  Wetlands Protection Act, we
21  do need local additions and local conservation
22  items where this dredging occurs.
23        POLLY BRADLEY: You keep talking about
24  there being 300 sites, and nobody has decided
                                                                                         Page 133 - Page 136
-------
                                               Condenselt
                                                           TM
                                             Page 137
 l anything, but having read the Drtft Environmental
 2 Impact Report, it was narrowed down to some
 3 20 sites or so, and of those five were preferred
 4 sites, and those were all the ones that were the
 5 master disposal site is the foul area.
 6 Meisburger 2 and 7, the Boston Lightship and
 7 Spectacle Island. It's very clear from the
 8 comments to the report from the Executive Office
 9 of Environmental Affairs that the foul area can be
10 ruled out; and by the way, the foul area is
11 terrible for this stuff to be dumped there.
12 Anyplace in the ocean is. It's very clear that it
13 is very quickly being narrowed down to
14 Meisburger 2 and 7. And maybe — well, we can
15 always hope they are saying that 300 sites means
16 that they are backing off from Meisburger 2.
17        MR. ROSENBERG: Okay, I have two
18 questions. First, how do we come up and who was
19 involved in the 300 sites, and how did those
20 300 alternatives get narrowed down to the 26
21 sites?
22        Who would like to — Janeen.
23        JANEEN HANSEN: Right HOW OUT site
24 lies in  conjunction with the Advisory Committee,
                                             Page 139
 1 the environment and hopefully still where the
 2 material is still accessible should add the new
 3 technologies.
 4        AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: One of the
 5 basic rules of dealing with contaminated material
 6 is containment and not to spread around and make
 7 more contaminated material.
 8        MR. ROSENBERG: Yes, sir.
 9        AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: IwasjUSt
10 wondering.  On the marine map years ago I was
11 looking at there used to be an old nuclear waste
12 disposal site right off the Cape, and I was
13 wondering every once in a while you hear about a
14 dredger getting tied up in one of those drums. If
15 that would be an alternative site, where you could
16 dump some of it out there and pad those barrels,
17 and that wouldn't happen.
18        MR. ROSENBERG: That is a great
19 point  I just had that discussion twice in the
20 past ten days.  And the first time was with some
21 Massachusetts law communities, and the second time
22 was with the fishermen in Gloucester; and prior to
23 that, at a meeting in Hyannis, Save the Harbor had
24 brought up well, maybe you can just use this
                                             Page 138
 1  and, in fact, we started a site list at M.W.R.A.
 2 and the central artery to put together some of
 3 their projects. The Dredgery Advisory Committee
 4 added the sites to that list and helped us develop
 5 the list of criteria, which we evaluated all of
 6 the sites. I think you are right in assuming that
 7 there arc not still 300 sites on the table, but I
 8 figure there are more than 26.
 9        MR. ROSENBERG: And one second. The
10 other question gets back to, and I will get right
11  to you, sir. You had brought up a little earlier
12 in the evening somebody here said, why don't you
13 just burn this stuff? What do you think our
14 chances would be of siting an incinerator in
15 Nahant? No. And what do you think the chances
16 are of siting that same incinerator anywhere else
17 in Massachusetts?  Less than that  So there is a
18 certain reality here as to what technologies are
19 available and what it really actually influences,
20 but there is a magic wand here. There is stuff
21 that is in the water. Let's take care of it, if
22 we are going to take care of it at all in a manner
23 that is going to be environmentally safe.
24 Environmental in  Salem with little or no impact on
                                             Page 140
 l material to cap the stuff at Lightship, because
 2 that is where this is. That is where it is.
 3        AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT:  Is that where
 4 it is?
 5        MR. ROSENBERG: Everything we do has
 6 two edges to it. Let's face it
 7        Yes, sir.
 8        AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT:  YOU were
 9 mentioning you wanted to just put the sludge in an
10 area that you. thought you might want to be
11 accessible for future technology. Well, it seems
12 to me ~ I wind surf around Nahant a lot, and I
13 wind surf on Long Beach, and I know from one day
14 to the next the water temperature can go — can
15 drop about ten degrees, meaning the off shore
16 waters have springs, silt and everything else.
17 There is no way that you are going to be able to
18 dump something and keep it there. It's just going
19 to spread everywhere, you know, when we are on the
20 beach in 24 hours until it gets cooler water.  And
21 I am sure if you have ever been to the beach on a
22 nice hot summer day when it's 90 degrees out,
23 there are several thousand people on that Long
24 Beach, and I am sure, you know, whether you call
                                                                                        Page 137 - Page 14
-------
                                              Condenselt
                                                          TM
                                             Page 141
i  it toxic, poisonous, hazardous waste they are
2  going to be living in it.
3        MR. ROSENBERG: Well, you are
4  absolutely right. Get back to the question of
5  containment And that is more or less what I was
6  talking about. I think you should kind of contain
7  this material. It would be accessible.
8        AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT:  Iwasjust
9  working in school, and we had two oil tank leaks,
0  and there wasn't much leakage, but there were
1  E.P.A. standards equating to the amount of
2  material that we had to remove from the ground.
3  We almost bankrupt the school, because there was
4  so much stuff that needed to be taken out It was
5  caused —  you know, it was called hazardous waste,
6  but we had to remove it.  $850 a ton, and there
7  was 300 tons of it You know, why doesn't this
8  fall in the same classification? And why does the
9  same type of treatment have to be done  to it?
:0        AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT:  I think it is a
:i  long question and a big long answer.  It's part of
:2  liabilities, and the other along the line is that
3  that oil spill was in wetlands or habitats before
:4  putting it down as fine and usual.
                                             Page 143
 l as was alluded to. The reason we are not taking
 2 it off the list is because there are other
 3 alternatives where other people in other
 4 communities feel as strongly as you do, and what
 5 is approved, it has to be objective in its
 6 pursuit. It cannot lean to any one alternative,
 7 and it's just a hard pill to swallow, but the fact
 8 is I invite  you to write us letters.  We are
 9 taking all your comments.  Everything you said
10 tonight is now part of  the record.  Everything you
II said tonight is part of the equation that comes up
12 at that final decision; but as for the Corps
13 saying because of what we heard tonight, we will
14 no longer consider it, that is out of the
15 question.  We must be objective in the way we
16 pursue this. Would  you have us say to you we  will
17 not take you off a list, but we are taking them
18 off a list.
19       PETER JACKSON:  Let me tell you why.
20 We are the only location where the outfall is
21 going to have an impact. Number one, you cannot
22 guarantee  the secondary impact.  Number two, you
23 are going to be dumping this one time during the
24 period where the environmental came recommended by
                                             Page 142
 1        MR, ROSENBERG: Yes, sir.
 2        SELECTMAN LOMBARD:  I don't know if it
 3  is appropriate or not, but on the agenda here, you
 4  have a last item that says conclusion, and I think
 5  we have presented a myriad of reasons tonight that
 6  we seem to get, you know, agreement on. This is
 7  not a good site. So I want to raise the question,
 8  and the conclusion is that the Corps of Engineers
 9  how can you assure us it is not going to happen,
10  because I think we pointed out these things,
11  conservative things, one of the reasons it might
12  be selected, because we are not sure if it's going
13  to work.  And we want to get to it again. So I
14  mean maybe it's time to ask the question what do
15  we do. What do we need to do to have you take the
16  site off the list? And I think that is what
17  everyone wants to see. What do we need to do to
18  take the site off the list?
19        (Applause.)
20        MR. ROSENBERG: A very good question,
21  but you are not going to get an answer. And the
22  reason you are not going to get an answer -- the
23  reason we are not going to take it off the list
24  has nothing to do with it being the only candidate
                                             Page 144
 i the M.W.R.A., and you don't know whether the
 2 secondary area is going to be complete. He has
 3 said there is complete. Every time there is a
 4 storm, they will be in violation in the water.
 5 When you put your notes and their notes together,
 6 it will be in constant violation of the
 7 Clean Water Act You have not studied this. You
 8 have admitted that you haven't studied this. We
 9 have asked you to study this, and again of all the
10 sites you pick, this is the most dangerous to the
11 environment. Beyond this meeting, we will
12 continue.  We will be at the next meeting with
13 you, and we appreciate it.
14        I would like to close. It's getting
15 late. But politics enters into this, and that is
16 the next step, and that is why we need this
17 coalition thing. I think we should end the
18 meeting now.
19        Thank you.
20        AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: When do you
21 come to a decision?
22        AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: You have an
23 overall plan. You have  got to make a decision as
24 to whether or not you are going to do the project,
                                                                                        Page 141 -Page 144
-------
                                              Condenselt
                                                          TM
                                             Page 145
 1  whether or not what site you are going to take.
 2 What arc those dates?
 3        AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: Doyouneeda
 4 60-day notice that it's going to go there?
 5        AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: You said we had
 6 so many days to come to you, but we were not
 7 involved in denying the decision.
 8        MR. ROSENBERG: Good point
 9        Norman.
10        AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: Until the plane
11  goes over, please. We can't hear.
12        NORMAN FARAMELLI:  We are in the
13  process of trying to gather comments from all the
14 groups. We are trying to put them together and to
15 find out our next step in terms of preparing the
16 Final Impact Report, the Environmental Impact
17 Report and Environmental Impact Statement That
18 process is just beginning.  The earliest it will
19 be filed is around December of this year, maybe
20 later, and it's going to take some time to come up
21  with the third alternative.  We are months away
22 from that.
23        AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: While you go
24 through these different alternatives, and while
                                            Page 147
 i        MR. ROSENBERG: One final question,
 2 and then I will close.
 3        AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: When we went
 4 through the M.E.P.A. and M.E.P.A. process --
 5        MR. ROSENBERG: We are in it now.
 6        AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: No, on the site
 7 at the Deer Island Treatment Plant  It was
 8 determined that the solids that were the
 9 by-products of primary treatment were
10 inappropriate for dumping in ocean waters.
11        Has the composition of the materials
12 that you are going to be dredging, the spoils,
13 compare to the solids that are the by-products of
14 primary treatment?
15        MR. ROSENBERG: Thank you for that
16 question.
17        WILLIAM HUBBARD: We are analyzing
18 that under the Ocean Disposal Act and the Clean
19 Water Act. The testing protocol that was put up
20 on the board by Joe Ayers from Nahant talked about
21 Class 1,2 or 3.  That is the level of
22 contamination, of which we are more conservative
23 than I think it was alluded to. Anything that
24 gets into Class 2, we begin biological testing.
                                             Page 146
 l you go step-by-step, it is my understanding from
 2 the answer that you gave earlier that all of that
 3 information is public information, so that we get
 4 an idea as to which site you think is better or
 5 worse and what you are finding; is that true?
 6        NORMAN FARAMELLI: Yes, this is the
 7 reason we would like to have your participation
 8 from the Advisory Committee. The Advisory
 9 Committee is set to address each step along the
10 way.> All the Advisory Committee members have this
11 information each step along the way, every test
12 result, what we are doing about it, the decision
13 itself.
14        AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: Thank you.
IS        MR. ROSENBERG: One final -
16        AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: I would like to
17 just address Massport on a nonrelated issue. The
18 planes that go over —
19        MR. ROSENBERG: Okay.
20        AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: What are  the
21 planes around ~ are the planes that are flying
22 supposedly in the approved area corridor to avoid
23 the noise going over Nahant?
24        I am glad to hear it.
                                            Page 14*
 1  That is for sediments on the bottom of the ocean.
 2  You are not dealing with that in a concentrated
 3  wastewater sludge.  The levels are much higher.
 4  They are not --
 5        AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: Sludge or
 6  sediments?
 7        WILLIAM HUBBARD: The sludge levels
 8  are much higher than the concentrated. They are
 9  still not for the most part over the limits of the
10  Toxic Substance Control Act, so you wouldn't even
11  call that hazardous waste, although the oil spill
12  alluded to would be. So the levels in comparison
13  are: You have got hazardous waste.  You have got
14  material in the oil spill range. Then you have
15  got the sludge material. Below that is the marine
16  sediments, and that kind of makes sense, because a
17  lot of the contaminants going into the sediments
18  used to be coming from the sludge which then would
19  get diluted and spread thin. And that is the
20  numbers that were put up today.
21        AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: So it has less
22  toxics and less heavy metal than environmental
23  sludge?
24        WILLIAM HUBBARD: The problem with the
                                                                                      Page 145 - Page 14
-------
                                              Condenselt
                                                          TM
                                             Page 149
  land application of this material is actually in
  the salt content. You don't want it taken in, and
  you will fertile all your agricultural lands.
         MR. ROSENBERG: Okay.  I would like to
  thank everybody for coming tonight. The process,
  I am sorry, I couldn't say you are off the list,
  but there are things — we have to look at
  everything. And I really hope you stay involved,
  and this doesn't just turn out to be a rather, and
  you will stay involved, and we have SWIM as part
  of this Advisory Committee free to work hand in
  hand with C.L.S., Save the Harbor and the other
  environmentalists that are involved in this.
         And I thank you very much.

         (Whereupon, at 10:40 p.m., the hearing
  was adjourned.)
                                             Page 150
            CERTIFICATE
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
I
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
!1
!2
13
!4
         I, Marianne Kusa-Ryll, Registered
Professional Reporter, do hereby certify that the
foregoing transcript of the Boston Harbor
Navigation Improvement Project, Nahant Public
Forum, is a true and accurate transcription of my
stenographic notes taken on Thursday, July 28, 1994.
                Mananne'Kusa-Ryll, RPR
                                                                                        Page 149 - Page 150
-------
Condenselt
          TM
$15 - Allen
n5m 32:7
117 [1] 78:21
121.7(11 31:22
B35.3[i] 31:18
5750 [1] 87:20
5850 [i] 141:16
80s(i] 24:16
90 pi 91:6 91:7
98 Ji] 91:20
05 [1] 39:9
5rn 19-9
1*1 jy.y
»0[2] 1:6 95:19
>1564-0610[ijl:23
)2 11 6-397 l[i) 2:7
)2210[2] 1:14
2:4
12254-9149 pj 1:1 1
1:17 2:10
[6] 38:8 86:7
127:17 127:17 129:2
147:21
.1 [il 25:4
.3 W 38:24 39:7
81:7 81:12
.6 [2j 25:13 31:16
.8(1] 25:17
0 [6] 3:5 62:22
88:16 128:14 128:22
149:16
00 pi 16:4 16:11
00,000 [i] 16:17
01 171 4-13 126-18
\f J. |<£J "• J J 1 *-VJ. 1 O
02 [ii 4:14
05 PI 4:15
07 [1] 4:16
09 II] 4:17
1 [1J 23:19
2rn "Vfi
~ 1*1 j.\j
24 [1] 125:18
27 [i] 4:18
3 [21 128:14 128:23
3.6 [i] 31:20
33,000 m 25:15
4 121 28-16 40-fi
™ I*! *O.*U "TW*vl
5 £21 3:7 28:14
50 Ji] 110:6
7{i] 40:12
70 [i] 19:12
8 Ii] 3:8
943 [i] 104:1
958 [11 23:6
960 [i] 22:4
966 [i] 23:17
983 [5] 24:19 26:2
73:13 73:16 73:17
986 p] 16:6
987 [i] 52:15
988 [i] 20:7
989 [il 26:13
990 Hi 26:15 26:16
73:21 134:7
1 991 [31 16:22 17:2
27:11
1992pil7:4 27:11
1994(21 1:5 150:8
1996 [i] 32:18
2(29] 38:9 41:8
44:7 46:6 46:24
47:3 47:8 47:14
48:4 54:19 57:13
58:11 72:1 72:13
76:16 79:21 81:15
103:14 104:6 104:20
106:7 116:14 124:7
128:15 137:6 137:14
137:16 147:21 147:24
2,000 [2] 128:23
128:23
20 [sj 49:6 64:20
87:7 103:4 103:10
129:24 134:6 137:3
200 pi 39:15 49:6
133:18
200,000 [i] 45:23
21[ij 27:24
24 pi 28:19 140:20
240,000 ii] 25:1
25 m 90:20 102:24
103:6 103:15 103:16
252(1] 1:23
26 (2J 137:20 138:8
27 rn 132'1
*• i |JJ U±,i
28(2] 1:5 150:8
283 [1] 39:16
3(3] 38:11 129:3
147-Tl
It /*Al
30 m 29:4 35:9
35:17 90:20 122:16
300(131 10:5 27:24
68:11 101:10 108:15
108:19 133:6 136:24
137:15 137:19 137:20
138:7 141:17
35 [61 21:7 22:4
23:17 25:24 35:13
122:16
35-foot [41 22:13
22:20 23:3 23:6
36 [ii 3:9
38 [3] 24:2 24:3
24:6
4,000(21 13:17
33:11
4.4 £i] 82:1
40 (5] 22:8 22:23
23:15 104:12 149:16
40-foot [2] 20:18
20:20
401 HI 134:23
422-7799m 1:24
422-8777 [i] 1:24
424(3] 1:10 1:17
2:10
43 [i] 3:10
45 [i] 35:14
45-day [i] 122:16
46 pi 3:11
49 [il 3:12
5l«] 3:3 44:16
63:8 63:11 63:12
129:3
50(10] 45:18 45:20
45:21 82:5 82:9
84:6 131:17 132:11
132:22 133:2
50-year [ij 82:2
508(2] 1:24 1:24
<1 MI 3.13
J i I.JJ J.4 J
53 p] 3:14
56pj 3:15
57thii] 69:7
59pi 3:16
6 rn V4
v i*j j»*t
60 pi 35:17
60-day [ii 145:4
600 [2] 128:10 128:20
610[i] 1:23
62 p] 3:17
63 [i] 103:22
66 p] 3:18
660[i] 110:18
67(1] 127:24
68 [i] 3:19
7[i3] 1:6 58:11
72:1 72:13 76:16
95:19 104:6 104:20
124:8 124:13 128:15
137:6 137:14
70(1] 3:20
71 [i] 3:21
75 (i] 3:22
79 pi 3:23
80 [2] 40:7 63:15
81 [i] 4:3
82(21 4:4 4:5
83 12] 4:6 103:19
Of * **
85 [11 4:7
86 p) 40:7
860,000(3] 24:17
31:23 32:5
87p] 4:8
88 p] 4:9
8th p] 123:6
90(31 4:10 23:23
140:22
92 (i] 4:1 1
99(i] 4:12
a.mp] 95:19
abandoning [i] 97:10
ablep3]9:14 11:11
37:11 64:15 84:13
84:15 88:23 1«:2
117:3 119:17 121:19
125:21 140:17
absolutely [6] 10:23
11:12 40:13 60:18
95:9 141:4
abundance p] 50: 10
academic [i] 59: 1 3
acceptable pj 9:21
92:8 136:5
access [3] 22:5
22:21 23:7
accessed [ij 20:22
accessible p] 139:2
140:11 141:7
accommodate (6]
9:11 9:12 19:21
22:15 22:24 32:13
accomodation [i]
30:13
accomplished m
1 A. 1 A
10:10
according pi 1 1 :l 0
accumulated [2]24:i9
n£.|
ZO.l
accurate [i] 150:7
accused PI 128:10
accustomed [i] 105:24
achieved [i] 128:21
acidpi 91:12
acknowledge (i]
57:6
acoustics (2] 5:5
5:9
act [ii] 16:7 35:7
95:4 105:21 108:21
13424 136:20 144:7
147:18 147:19 148:10
actions p] 65:16
active [4] 22:5
23:12 103:15 130:21
activities [i] 2i:io
activity pi 20:23
Adamorn 4:15
105:16 105:17 105:17
105:18 105:20 105:21
add pi 51:9 115:6
no>2
i J7**t
added p] 138:4
addition [4] 7:8
24:7 27:4 55:2
additional [2] 25:15
133:11
additions m 33:4
136:21
address m 35:15
35:20 35:23 60:2
131:3 146:9 146:17
addressed p] 123:15
1 ^C. 1
1 JJ.J
addressing [4] 30:11
54:17 60:4 92:7
adequately [i] 136:7
adjacent p] 72:3
adjourned m 54:3
149:17
Administration pi
52:14
admitted PI 144:8
adopted m 53:12
adult [2] 50:1 8 50:20
advance pi 1 00:2 i
advancesri} 13:12
advantage pi 26:7
26:8 34:5
adverse pi 92:23
advice pi 10:16
advisory [i»] 17:4
17:12 17:15 27:14
30:8 31:4 32:14
51:9 75:14 118:17
121:24 122:5 122:18
137:24 138:3 146:8
146:8 146:10 149:11
Affairs pi 1:9
5:19 6:13 16:24
137:9
affect [9] 14:21
15:9 48:8 54:11
84:11 120:16 124:14
129:17 132:20
affected (i] 60:22
affecting [i] 85:5
affects PI 14:17
92:24 126:22
affiliated p] 102:23
afford pi 69:17
114:12
afternoon p] 93:16
again pe] 9:3
10:15 11:21 29:6
30:8 32:21 40:11
41:18 42:20 49:17
65:6 80:21 85:6
86:9 142:13 144:9
against [5] 53:12
83:9 84:20 85:7
O4-?
2»*f.i
agencies [«] 9:24
17:6 54:12 55:19
57:2 106:10
agency p] 120:7
120:19 122:10
agenda [i] 142:3
agents [i] 1 20:11
ago [12] 61:1 69:6
83:9 90:20 90:20
92:14 103:6 103:15
103:16 111:3 125:9
139:10
agree [6j 44:10 61:16
92:9 112:15 119:10
125:16
agreement m 1 42:6
agricultural (i] 149:3
agriculture [i] 63:3
ahead p] 91:9
91:20 123:21
aidepi 53:22
aiding m 70:6
air (5) 13:20 96:4
97:20 133:17 133:20
airport [4] 23:20
97:17 97:18 116:23
alive pi 12:9
all-around [i] 87:16
Allen p] 4:9
88:10 88:13
                                           Index Page 1
-------
Condenselt
           TM
Alliance - be:
Alliance [i] 43:23
allocate m 115:10
allow [4] 5:22
8:22 34:16 111:12
allowable [i] 73:10
allowed m 49:6
allowing [2] 62:18
70:1
alluded [3] 143:1
147:23 148:12
almost [7] 24:2
28:14 40:3 47:20
106:23 121:5 141:13
along [i<] 7:10
20:24 21:12 23:19
48:6 57:13 65:18
70:10 78:19 106:22
115:15 115:16 120:2
141:22 146:9 146:11
alter m 95:14
alternative [IT] 10:8
43:6 70:21 72:2
100:16 108:21 112:11
113:12 128:3 128:4
128:5 130:13 130:14
136:11 139:15 143:6
145:21
alternatives [23] 8:4
8:8 17:22 17:23
18:3 28:18 29:9
55:23 65:22 76:14
77:3 77:13 108:7
108:15 108:16 118:10
119:8 130:15 130:16
136:2 137:20 143:3
145:24
always [4] 11:24
14:23 93:17 137:15
amazement [i] 127:6
ambient [i] 133:20
amendment [c] 44:16
63:8 63:11 63:12
115:17 115:19
American [i] 26:22
among pi 106:7
• • £ f
116:6
amount [4] 22:18
25:3 26:1 141:11
amounting [i] 24:24
amounts m 24:17
25:13
amusing [i] 93:19
analysis [*j 17:20
18:7 27:4 64:17
113:3 135:24
analyzing [ij 147:17
analzycm 112:22
anchor [i] 95:10
Andrew [3] 4:5
82:20 82:21
animals [si 38:7
38:10 39:8 40:4
40:8 42:12 42:15
52:23
announcement 1 1]
120:19
answer [io] 11:22
15:3 76:9 100:14
121:11 135:11 141:21
142:21 142:22 146:2
answered [2] 82:16
Anyplace [i] 137:12
anyway [3] 95:19
124:23 129:19
apologize [i] 54:1
apparently [i] 38:9
apparent [3] 25:12
27:1 33:23
appear [i] 7:1
appendices [ij 122:22
Applause [70] 36:16
43:1 43:14 46:9
46:13 49:15 49:21
50:23 51:5 51:12
51:21 53:15 53:20
56:4 56:8 58:8
59:20 59:23 60:13
60:20 61:6 61:14
61:24 62:13 62:16
65:24 66:4 66:9
67:13 67:18 67:21
69:19 69:24 71:1
71:5 73:23 74:7
75:16 77:1 77:17
79:2 79:10 80:1
81:1 82:12 85:8
85:11 86:15 86:24
87:3 88:9 88:12
90:2 90:5 91:23
92:3 99:1 99:16
100:1 100:13 101:19
102:16 105:9 105:19
107:2 111:16 116:18
119:3 125:4 142:19
application [i] 149:1
appreciate [8] 35:13
35:19 49:18 83:19
90:11 99:9 112:20
144:13
Apprentice [i] 52: 1 5
approach [i] 21:14
approaches [2] 95: 1 8
97:5
appropriate [i] 142:3
approval m 82:7
approved [2] 143:5
146:22
April [4] 18:5 20:1
27:19 71:19
aquarium [i] 98:8
aquatic [*] 28:7
28:20 29:4 30:6
48:21 58:3
architects m 69:3
area [70] 20:17 20:19
22:15 22:20 22:23
23:3 23:14 25:2
25:2 25:16 37:4
37:5 37:20 37:22
40:15 40:17 41:16
41:23 42:1 42:11
43:24 44:7 44:8
45:2 45:5 45:9
45:15 45:22 45:24
47:18 48:13 57:16
58:2 58:3 60:16
60:18 63:4 63:6
70:10 70:18 72:19
76:20 78:7 78:13
78:15 93:1 97:22
98:5 99:23 100:9
102:1 102:2 102:3
102:7 103:16 104:9
104:13 110:8 112:18
113:4 127:15 127:18
132:19 133:10 137:5
137:9 137:10 140:10
144:2 146:22
areas [20] 9:16
22:2 23:11 24:11
26:3 26:5 30:11
38:17 44:9 52:24
53:3 58:7 58:15
58:16 77:11 77:12
90:23 100:10 104:7
131:8
argument pi 57:7
57:12
arguments [i] 57:16
arise [i] 72:20
Annini [4] 3:14
53:18 53:21 53:22
Army in] 1:9
1:16 2:9 6:13
15:14 54:9 57:18
58:1 58:5 66:13
67:9 69:8 71:20
73:12 79:16 100:12
120:8
arrived m 20:6
arriving [ij 68:9
arsenic [2] 66:15
70:13
artery [i] 138:2
arthropods m 27:6
27:8 40:2 40:3
40:3 40:9 42:22
artificial [i] 96:18
aspect [2] 16:12
36:21
aspects [2] 32:12
62:2
assess [i] 55:10
assessment [2] 27:12
55:9
assist [3] 10:13
30:5 122:15
assistance [2] 10:8
30:9
associated [ij 27:21
Association [2] 55:13
101:7
Association's [i]
44:1
assume [i] 63:19
assuming [2] 26:20
138-6
A JO*\J
assure [2] 123:3
142-Q
1"^.7
atmospheric [21 52:14
52:20
Attached [i] 71:21
attempting [ij 106:14
attention [i] 83:13
attitude [i] 96:10
audience [57] 18:21
34:23 35:10 36:10
39:2 39:5 46:21
78:23 80:4 80:8
80:11 80:16 82:17
101:11 111:1 116:11
116:19 117:2 117:7
117:12 117:16 117:21
118:3 118:13 118:19
118:24 119:4 119:7
122:14 125:3 127:22
129:8 129:11 130:19
132:18 133:16 135:4
136:15 139:4 139:9
140:3 140:8 141:8
141:20 144:20 144:22
145:3 145:5 145:10
145:23 146:14 146:16
146:20 147:3 147:6
148:5 148:21
Authority [6] 1:13
2:2 12:4 72:4
99:8 118:16
authorized pi 19:11
124:11
authorizes [i] 134:2
available [9] 10:5
21:4 36:4 54:13
86:19 91:14 91:17
114:10 138:19
Avenue [2] 1:14
2:3
avoid [i] 146:22
aware [9] 55:9
83:3 84:3 101:15
106:9 116:24 119:24
120:1 120:3
away [4] 19:14 110:2
110:16 145:21
awful [i] 112:4
awhile [2] 69:4
93:19
Ayerii] 97:17
Ayers [12] 3:9
36:14 36:17 39:4
39:7 41:4 43:10
49:23 67:15 67:17
77:23 147:20
babble m 46:2
baby [3] 50:1 50:17
50:19
backing [i] 137:16
bad [4] 91:21 93:11
93:14 97:2
bankrupt [i] 141:13
barm 31:14
barely [i] 66:15
barge [i] 64:24
barges m 65:3
barrels [2] 87:19
139:16
bars [2] 42:23 128:13
Bartlettm 80:6
80:9 80:14
Harrietts [i] 82:23
base [6] 13:3 107:11
133:20 133:24 134:13
134:15
based [5] 37:20
45:2 63:1 79:17
129:4
basic [ii 139:5
Batchelderp] 4:16
107:7 107:8 109:1
109-7
A\jy f i
bay [22] 10:3 29:17
31:3 44:5 51:4
71-8 71-12 71-14
/ 1 .O / 1 .1^ / 1 . J^
73:3 73:15 73:18
74:2 76:15 76:21
76:24 86:5 101:5
104:14 105:3 112:18
130:20 134:15
beach [7] 50:15
84:12 93:16 140:13
140:20 140:21 140:24
beaches m 85:6
85:22
bearni 122:24
beat[l] 122:12
beating [i] 122:15
become [3] 13:10
33:23 86:2
becomes [2] 14:9
107:23
becoming [i] 85:20
beds[i] 88:1
began [3] 16:21
17:2 27:10
begin IS} 18:7 30:4
32:18 54:7 147:24
beginning [31 98:20
106:1 145:18
begins [i] 105:23
begun [i] 134:17
behalfm 99:13
behavior [i] 95:14
behind [i] 78:14
behold [i] 103:13
belabor [i] 62:3
believes [i] 76:22
1_ 1 nn MM
belong [i] 89:23
Below [i] 148:15
beneficiary [3] 59:2
59:5 59:7
benefit [7] 19:8
59:4 61:9 93:6
94:15 98:3 135:24
benefiting m 66:22
benefits m 20:10
21-1 fi SQ-1 73-2
^ i • j u jy • * i j,+i
OR-99
yQt*,*,
berth \\\ 24:24
berths m 24:8
71:15
best [9] 28:4 63:3
91:14 91:17 91:17
92:8 96:14 102:10
                                            Index Page
-------
  Condenselt
         TM
better - Clancy
114:5
betterpi ii:i2
97:23 146:4
between pj 38:20
45:19 45:23 48:23
77:11
Beverly [i] 80:10
>eyond[4j 27:12
48:13 98:18 144:11
jig pi 13:18 64:14
64:21 64:23 65:10
83:22 111:10 111:15
141:21
>igger[4j 64:13
65:13 65:13 94:10
liggestp] 101:24
102:1
»11[9) 11:1 79:8
80:14 111:21 115:18
115:21 115:24 134:4
136:10
Jill's m 121:8
tills [i] 115:9
'iological [4] 27:5
49:23 55:9 147:24
iologists p] 108:4
122:19
•iphenyls [i] 53:4
it [7] 5:4 8:22
18:13 25:7 75:11
92:6 92:13
low [I] 69:17
luejsj 20:20 24:18
29:10 29:11 29:12
lueS[i] 110:1
oardpoi 2:15
2:16 2:17 3:3
3:13 47:11 51:24
52:15 53:9 65:21
77:20 89:19 99:3
»:13 99:18 125:20
128:6 128:18 134:18
147:20
oardsp] 46:15
oat [3] 56:19 65:1
57:5
oats m 64:13 65:7
55:12 98:15 98:18
Obpj 4:18 127:4
;27:4
Qdyp]5:9 45:14
ands [3] 100:7
00:23 101:4
30k[2] 103:2 103:6
aokletrn 121:12
Drderlincm 38:9
3rn[3] 37:1 84:8
04:1
srne pj 24:20
'9:6 59:7
oston[7S] l:l
:14 2:4 2:7
:1 6:19 7:17
2:18 13:16 13:22
6:16 16:20 18:24
9:9 19:15 20:2

20:3 21:6 22:3
24:5 25:21 29:14
35:24 45:23 46:18
49:24 50:3 50:22
€T 1 *"3 €*5. 1 1 €•**. 1 £.
51:3 52:11 52:16
54:15 59:3 59:4
61:10 64:11 64:17
64:24 68:6 68:9
68:12 70:7 71:13
71:14 73:1 73:2
73:12 76:15 76:18
76:22 77:9 78:10
86:5 87:24 89:9
95:6 95:12 95:22
96:1 96:9 97:5
97:21 98:7 98:10
98:11 98:14 98:18
99:20 112:2 116:1
124:16 129:14 135:6
137:6 150:5
Bottle [i] 110:7
bottom [17] 30:7
30:17 37:6 40:20
40:22 40:24 41:15
41:16 42:2 42:7
48:10 65:4 81:22
104:24 124:16 135:24
148:1
bound [i] 20:2
bounds [i] 11:24
Bovcrini [ij 60:6
box (2] 1:23 119:14
boxes [i] 88:21
Bradley [14] 3:12
49:19 49:22 50:24
51:3 65:20 80:20
80:22 99:11 123:17
125:24 126:8 135:12
136:23
Branch [2] 2:8
7:7
break [5] 74:2 74:8
74:16 74:17 78:11
breaks m 107:22
breeding [i] 78:19
bridge [i] 95:17
brief [3] 43:20 56:15
64:16
briefly m 54:6
brilliant [i] 113:23
bring [S] 8:16 14:21
15:24 63:10 64:13
88:21 88:21 102:9
bringing m 65:6
65:7 83:12 83:15
84:9 84:14 88:14
broiling [i] 113:22
brother [2j 80:9
80:13
brought m 108:22
110:6 125:5 138:11
139:24
bucks [i] 79:1
bud [i] 111:6
budget [3] 63:2
76:2 106:7
building [i] 127:7

built [6] 19:12 64:12
116:21 116:22 117:2
117:9
bulk[i] 19:18
bulkhead [i] 78: 1 4
bulletin m 49:8
burden pj 63:23
127:17
burdens m 63:9
burn [2] 89:23 138:13
burner [2] 130:5
« *}/t T
130:7
burning [i] 113:21
bury[i] 45:11
business [to] 16:5
52:6 64:1 64:2
64:4 64:6 90:19
94:23 111:10 111:15
businesses m 10:1
by-products pj 52:19
147:9 147:13
bypass [i] 14:4
bypassed [i] 20:2
C[3J 5:1 150:1
150:1
e.C.N(2) 57:2
58:17
C.L.S [i] 149:12
cacinogenic [i] 52:22
calls [i] 21:24
camera [i] 41:5
Canada [i] 20:15
Canadian [ij 129:12
Canal pj 68:1
68:2 90:11
cancer (i] 70:14
candidate [i] 142:24
candidly [i] 123:8
cannot pj 14:20
14:20 45:13 69:16
71:10 143:6 143:21
cap [i] 140:1
capability [i] 7:17
capable m 120:4
capacity [3] 29:13
132:24 133:3
Cape [i] 139:12
capital [i] 21:12
capped [i] 78:13
capping [2] 37:14
63-18
\JJ, i O
captain [12] 1:12
3:6 7:9 12:2
12:5 12:6 68:13
68:15 68:19 78:17
95:14 97:3
carcinogens [i] 48:21
card 1 1] 80:20
care [4] 7:2 104:21
138:21 138:22
careful [1] 114:24
carefully p] 55:20
77:6

cargo (4J 13:2 13:19
14:6 23:23
carriers [i] 19:18
carries [i] 75:7
cany[ij 13:17
cars [i] 33:21
cart [ij 88:4
case [5] 58:4 117:1
131:11 131:12 131:12
catastrophe [i] 64:16
categories m 28:7
categorized [i] 38:8
category [i] 38:11
caught pi 37:3
45:1
caused £2] 72:21
141:15
causing pi 70:14
92:23
center pi 72:11
98:9 98:13
central [i] 138:2
cents [i] 112:13
century [3] 20:22
49:3 103:18
certain pj 63:12
115:13 138:18
certainly [ii] 6:5
37:22 61:18 84:22
97:12 105:23 106:9
109:2 112:21 133:12
134:6
certify [ij 150:4
Chairman pj 2:14
2:15 3:3 3:13
jCQ-TS
W.22
challenge p) 79:14
79:15 79:22
challenges p] 55:3
117:20
chance p) 6:6
69:18
chances p] 138:14
138:15
change pj 68:10
95:13
changed [4] 73:20
73:21 91:6 91:7
changes pi 19:13
19:21 21:19
channel [23] 20:18
20:20 21:6 22:3
22:11 22:12 22:14
22:20 23:3 23:5
23:16 23:20 24:2
24:7 24:12 26:15
29:15 42:22 65:11
65:14 78:16 94:6
131:22
channels [14] 19:15
20:9 20:17 21:4
21:21 22:2 24:9
24:14 24:16 25:9
25:13 29:16 53:2
87:24 .

characteristics (i;
136:1
characterization in
17:18
characterized m
115:24
Charles p] 4:10
90:4 90:6
Charlestown pj 16:15
78:10
chart [16] 28:1
28:15 29:6 29:10
29:11 39:10 48:15
81:20 103:11 103:11
106:11 106:12 107:11
121:14 128:12 128:18
charts m 49:17
cheap [i] 78:23
cheapest pj 1 07:14
108:23
Chelsea po] 19:17
21:5 22:22 23:1
23:16 40:24 42:3
42:6 42:21 49:24
53:1 56:21 78:10
112:3 112:7 116:21
116:23 117:6 117:15
130:9
chemical [3] 26:23
27:4 30:17
chemicals [4] 66:14
70:15 107:21 108:3
chemists [i] 122:20
Chief [5] 1:9 2:8
5:19 6:13 7:7
child's [i] 63:11
children rs] 50:15
84:13 84:15 86:21
86:21 88:15 109:21
110:20
children's [i] 86:21
Chip [2] 3:16 59:22
chlorine [i] 104:16
choice [i] 96:20
choices m 30:10
chosen [5] 59:18
70:21 72:6 100:19
102:21
chromium p] 81:9
85:4
circled [i] 123:14
circumstances m
30:21
cited [i] 57:23
citizen in 107:9
citizens p] 54:13
124:12
city [7] 12:19 34:21
59:3 59:4 61:9
65:17 68:11
claim pi 30:10
113:1
clams p] 27:6
27:7 40:2
clamshell m 30: 1 7
f^t •*«% »w * p«* "5 1£
Clancy [sj 3:16
l&l.
  Index Page 3
-------
Condenselt
          TM
class - countr
59:22 59:24 60:14
60:21 61:7 61:15
62:1
class pi 134:5 147:21
147:24
classification [i]
141:18
clay p] 27:2 37:14
clean pi) 25:17
26:9 27:3 31:15
32:4 35:7 51:3
70:6 73:20 85:23
85:23 86:4 87:19
91:1 108:1 108:8
118:6 125:11 134:23
144:7 147:18
cleaned p] 86:20
cleaners [ij 107:22
cleaning (i] 116:20
clear m 60:17 98:2
137:7 137:12
clearly J2) 41:24
64:6
close [13] 41:9
47:5 47:15 48:4
64:2 72:18 79:18
79:18 84:22 85:18
124:14 144:14 147:2
closed PI 97:14
97:16
closely ni 15:13
closer [2] 109:3
114:13
closes [11 47:17
Closing [3] 32:21
46:6 131:21
clothing [i] 12:21
coalition [i] 144:17
coast [4] 54:20 72:1
83:10 96:6
coastal pj 70:4
70:16
Coffeytsj 3:5
3:23 10:21 10:24
H«1 *7O-Q "7O-1 1
:i /y.s /y:ii
99:12
Cohasset pj 45:20
45:23
Cold ill 97:9
colleagues m 43:21
collect 12] 13:2
^A*C
30:5
collected [ii 33:2
collecting [i] 43:7
Colonel ft] 54:8
column [i] 37:3
combinations [2]
108:18 133:4
combined [4] 27:20
50:5 50:13 89:9
combustion [i] 52:19
coming [is] 10:18
14:5 47:21 59:19
60:2 66:6 68:8
75:10 78:9 91:16
99:9 99:10 111:7
148:18 149:5
commend [ij 75:18
comment [sj 18:2
34:24 51:14 75:22
123:5 123:18 124:15
124:16
comments [22] 6:18
6:24 7:21 11:5
11:23 18:6 18:17
30:1 35:9 35:15
35:19 71:22 76:7
88:24 89:3 105:14
106:3 122:17 134:22
137:8 143:9 145:13
commerce [i] 21:1?
commercial [5] 43:24
54:24 55:7 61:20
102:20
Commission [4] 36:19
67:16 69:23 70:3
committed m 30:19
71:13 118:2
committee [isj 17:5
17:11 17:13 17:15
27:14 27:15 27:23
«»/V Q »* | M «|M| • .
30:8 31:4 32:14
118:17 122:5 137:24
138:3 146:8 146:9
14&10 149:11
commodities m
85:20
Commonwealth in
106:5
communities [S]
60:22 61:12 89:10
139:21 143:4
community [3] 61:23
62:11 122:4
companies [3] 23:9
66:23 67:1
compare [i] 147:13
compared [3] 21:16
42:22 63:10
comparison [i] 148:12
compete m 12:24
competitive [G] 13:5
14:20 95:5 95:22
96:17 96:23
complete [Si 32:20
122:22 126:16 144:2
144:3
completely p] 84:20
1 /Vl.*5
102:3
composition [i] 147:11
compounded [i]
70:17
compounding [i]
£C . 1 1
65:11
comprehension m
98:19
comprised m 17:5
computing [i] 133:22
concentrated p]
148:2 148:8
concentrations m
53:3
concept [2] 92:18
95:6
concern [6] 8:ll
46:23 48:11 58:14
71:23 90:15
concerned [i?i 5:10
37:13 44:13 48:5
48:9 49:8 54:13
56:18 56:21 83:11
83:11 83:20 85:13
85:15 85:17 87:14
124:13
concerning m 8:7
concerns [i?] 5:23
6:24 8:10 8:17
10:16 15:8 30:14
52:1 54:21 71:17
81:5 81:6 81:8
90:13 90:14 105:14
m-1"7
.1 /
conclude [i] 34:13
concluded m 9:2
conclusion [3] 70:20
142:4 142:8
conclusive [i] 17:9
concrete [2] 64:21
64:23
conditions [i] 47:10
condominiums m
21:2
confirmed [i] 72:11
confirms [i] 1 1 4:6
confluence [i] 22:11
confused m 92:6
confusion [i] 128:11
Congress [3] 31:21
54:22 115:10
congressionally [ij
19:11
Congressman is\
53:18 53:23 53:24
54:5 75:8 115:19
Congressmen m
115:4
conjunction [i] 137:24
Conleypj 16:16
19:16 22:6
connect [i] 56:12
connection [ij 38:20
consensus [i] 127:1
conservation [121
102 31:2 36:19
67:15 69:23 70:3
75:15 76:1 76:21
115:3 136:19 136:21
conservative pi
21:14 142:11 147:22
conserving [ij 44:23
consider [s] 33:3
33:3 33:15 36:21
55:20 101:3 110:13
143:14
considerably [i]
13:14
consideration [6]
8:5 8:9 15:18
53:12 58:10 114:24
considerations m
59:11
considered [S] 28:9
30:19 32:3 33:8
39:14 39:21 107:13
136:7
considering [i] 31:2
consistency [i] 26:23
consists [i] 81:24
constant [i] 144:6
constraints [2] 106:9
106:10
constructed [2] 20:21
47:1
construction [2] 32:18
61:2
consultant [i] 17:3
contact [ij 73:5
contain [2] 41:12
141:6
contained [i] 81:10
container pi 13:14
16:14 19:19 20:1
20:14 23:9 68:8
96:8 96:12
containers [i) 16:18
containing m 66: 1 4
containment [4] 31:7
33:18 139:6 141:5
contaminants pi
77:6 77:8 77:11
85:15 148:17
contaminated [12]
31:16 50:21 52:12
60:11 71:18 72:18
76:23 82:9 86:22
97:21 139:5 139:7
contaminating pi
52:21 61:5
contamination m
19:6 70:9 70:12
70:19 72:14 147:22
content [ij 149:2
context p] 120:6
133:8
Continental [i] 89:17
continually [i] 57:23
continue [ii] 9:2
14:21 34:8 34:8
63:13 64:3 64:12
110:10 110:23 114:8
144:12
continued [4] 1:19
2:1 3:24 4:1
continues [i] 31:8
continuing P] ni:8
111:18 111:19
continuous m 47:21
continuously [i]
96:22
contract pj 100:4
100:18 123:15
contractors p] 78:23
100:11
contracts p] 100:8
101:3
Contributed [1] 24:22
Control [i] 148:10
convene [i] 30:8
convened [2] 17:4
27-13
J* 1 ~ij
convention [i] 98:13
conversations m
SR*IQ
**0.*3F
cooking [i] 113:21
COOler (1] 140:20
copies p] 49:17
76:7 103:4
copy [»] 36:3 43:8
71:22 74:4 123:4
123:6 123:11 123:12
124:1
corporations m96:3
Corps pi] is
1:16 2:9 5:20
6:14 15:14 16:3
16:9 18:12 20:7
21:15 27:11 31:21
54:9 55:18 57:19
58:2 58:5 66:13
67-10 69-8 71-20
U * .1 V» U7*O / J *4»U
71:24 72:10 73:12
79:16 89:16 90:7
94:20 100:12 109:16
120:8 120:20 121:9
134:9 142:8 143:12
Corps' pj 7:5
27:19 32:1
correct pi 52:10
117:24 125:16
correction m 129:5
correctly [i] 86:14
corridor [ij 146:22
COSt [231 24:20 28:14
28:17 28:19 29:13
31:18 31:20 31:22
32:1 32:4 32:5
33:22 63:2 78:20
84:2 8fiil2 9W6
91:21 96:17 114:12
116:7 118:12 129:20
cost-effective [i]
28:11
cost-effectiveness [i]
83:23
cost-efficient m
96:19
COStly [I] 85:23
COStS [10] 24:4
28:16 28:21 29:1
31:11 59:6 87:20
90:12 106:12 107:12
Council [2] 75:14
122:1
Councillor-at-Large
[i] 66:3
counsel [2] 100:5
101:8
counterproductive m
92:22
country [S] 13:21
45:18 114:20 124:21
134:12
          /30
                                       Index Page
-------
Condenselt
          TM
counts - down
:ounts [ii 30:7
;ouple [8] 26:6
33:12 44:11 46:14
79:1 92:14 112:14
115:9
:ourse[4i 12:14
38:21 77:4 134:14
X>UTt[3]43:10 80:18
106:4
xrartesym ii:2
;ourts pi 86:4
125:17
:over[4l27:21 101:4
102:6 104:24
severed [ii 99:6
:rabm 41:13
xabs [ii42:10
:razy[ij 103:22
reatepi 115:22
136:2
redibility [ii 120:8
ireekpi 19:17
22:22 23:1 23:16
49:24 56:21 130:9
rimem 15:11
riteria[4] 17:23
48:21 49:7 138:5
ritical[i] 37:18
riticizem 113:18
ruisesp] 98:13
98:15
rustaceans [i] 37:10
ubic[i6] 7:18
24:17 25:1 25:4
25:13 25:15 25:17
31:16 31:23 32:5
33:11 33:12 78:22
51:12 82:1 104:23
umulativep] 133:9
135:8
urrent[4i 23:4
55:24 72:7 94:2
urrentspi 70:18
utting [i] 97:8
ynical[i] 75:1
'pi 3:1 4:1
5:1
».C[l) 120:23
iJ.S PI 134:6 134:16
ailym 89:10
amage[ii 64:5
anger [2j 38:6
!9:12
angerouspi 36:21
(8:22 39:8 66:17
'9:17 86:22 144:10
'anvers iij 80:7
arkm 25:16
arkerpi 20:17
!0:19
arryl[6j 4:17
09:12 109:14 109:14
10:5 111:2
lta[9j 25:7 30:5
30:6 33:2 40:10
43:3 43:7 134:14
134:15
date [4] 8:14 16:1
35:2 35:18
dates [i] 145:2
days [6] 35:9 35:17
63:15 95:11 139:20
145:6
dead pi 84:17 85:7
deal [4] 58:18 65:2
87:18 122:3
dealing [4] 63:8
132:6 139:5 148:2
deals p] 7:15 7:17
Deborah [4] 3:18
66:2 66:5 66:10
decades [i] 112:14
December pi 18:11
32:17 145:19
decided [2j 27:1 1
136:24
decipher [i] 72:20
decision psi 7:22
8:1 8:1 8:8
11:18 15:4 32:22
62:20 63:1 100:15
120:18 120:20 120:22
120:23 121:15 122:6
122:7 122:13 143:12
144:21 144:23 145:7
146:12
decision-making [i]
121:14
decisions [5] 119:18
119:19 120:16 120:17
122:11
declared [ii 124:20
decline [i] 104:12
decontamination [i j
86:19
decreased in 105:8
dedicated [i] 122:20
deep [12] 20: 18 22:20
29:15 63:19 63:21
68:23 69:10 98:18
110:21 128:11 128:14
128:20
deepen [ij 25:9
deepened [S] 22:7
22:23 23:6 23:14
f\A ,|1
24:11
deepening [?] 22:1
22:8 22:13 23:2
24:1 24:8 24:8
deeper [si 64:13
64:20 65:7 65:11
94:6
Deer [2) 72:5 147:7
defend pi 8:3
74:20
defending pi 74:19
75:3
defense p] 37:1 1
115:17
Deferred rii 25:14
defined] 17:22
definitely p] 88:1
88:2 102:14
definition [i] 124:18
degrees p] 140:15
140:22
delayed pi 5:4
32:12

20:11
deleterious [i] 38:11
delighted [i] 116:1
demonstrate [i] 114:15
demonstration pj
m'l*5 11 ^.*5*>
.1* 11O.ZZ
demonstrations [i]
Denny's t»l 120:15
dense [i] 45:15
denying [i] 145:7
departed [i] 80:19
Department [ii 57:21
depend [i] 104:8
dependent pj 95:24
96:7
depending p] 24:22
128:14
depositions [i] 52:20
depth [5121:4 23:7
24:9 24:12 136:1
depths [i] 24:3
Deputy p] 1:12
7:9 12:3
derived [ij 20:10
describe [i] 8:12
described PJ 19:2
29:9 64:23
description pi 121:8
121:9 121:10
deserve PI 56:1
67:9
design pi 22:18
26:12
designate p] 122:1
133:11
designated p] 29: 1 7
131:8
Despite iij 29:1
destroy p] 66:21
105:1
destruction [i] 37:24
detail [i] 64: n
determine [ij 73:5
determined pj 25:5
25:11 147:8
detrimental [i] 66:18
detrogenic m 52:23
develop [i] 138:4
developing [i] 38:16
development [4j
16:7 38:17 87:17
111:20
dialogue [2] 9:3
107:4
difference [i] 95:13
differentpi] 21:14
40:1 42:19 42:21
70:21 79:6 100:18
106:12 113:22 119:18
145:24
difficult [2j 67:22
72:20
difficulties [i] 9:15
dig [91 64:14 64:21
64:23 65:10 68:22
69:9 93:18 94:6
127:9
digging p] 65:11
128:10
diluted [i] 148:19
direct [S] 9:13
14:8 14:13 122:6
122:7
directly [4] 10:12
59:8 60:5 121:24
director [g] 2:5
7- If! 7-12 12-"?
ttl\J I *i^ 1&,J
15:12 36:15 36:17
71:9
Director/Administration
[1] 1:12
dirt [2] 102:6 102:8
dirtiest pi 124:20
124:22
dirty [i] 125:10
disadvantage [i]
96:20
disagree [i] 129:1
disagreement ni
58:22
disbursal [i] 72:8
disbursed [i] 13:24
discharge [i] 89:10
discharged [i] 61:4
discovery [i] 134:19
discuss PI 9:18
discussed pi 8:17
8:23 93:10
discussion [?] 7:15
11:14 31:12 79:6
120:18 125:9 139:19
discussions pj 68:20
128:9
diseased [i] 42:16
disposal pi] 7:18
7:23 8:8 9:22
10:5 10:6 11:16
17:22 18:2 24:22
25:8 25:12 26:7
26:16 26:18 27:4
28:6 28:8 28:8
28:11 28:15 29:1
29:3 29:8 29:14
29:15 29:17 30:24
31:6 32:2 32:22
33:19 46:5 46:7
71:18 72:2 72:14
72:17 72:22 72:24
73:16 73:17 73:18
76: 1 4 76:15 76:20
77:3 77:9 78:21
78:24 82:6 100:18
101:9 107:12 108:12
108:13 108:15 108:18
118:11 126:17 127:11
127-18 ni-fi 131'10
tA/mJtO JUJ, *V J, ,i/ J, « 1 V
131:16 132:19 132:21
134:10 137:5 139:12
147:18
dispose [5] 26:10
66:14 97:21 100:16
127:16
disposed W 7:19
8:2 25:5 73:14
81:8 125:14
disposing p] 60:11
60:15
distance [i] 48:18
distances m 45:7
district [3] 54:22
55:2 115:21
disturbance [i] 57:13
disturbing m 38:3
diversity [ii 50:11
dives nil 10:21
division [7] 1:10
1:16 2:9 7:5
19:19 54:8 101:8
dock [ii 24:11
docks [i] 21:1
document [4] 8:18
71:22 121:5 136:6
documentation m
123:10
documents m 122:22
doesn't pi 68:19
92:21 94:3 94:23
112:2 141:17 149:9
Dolimeni] 103:7
dollar [i] 129.14
dollars [6j 66:24
72:15 91:1 106:18
106:24 134:8
Dolphins [i] 110:7
done [is] 15:15 16:3
33:1 48:7 55:22
60:24 62:9 62:10
64:6 68:4 73:18
79:20 86:17 102:14
114:5 118:5 135:3
141:19
done-deals [i] 12:10
doornj 33:17
Dorothy pi 4:9
88:10 88:13
doubt m 122-2
UWUUI 1^1 *.****, Jm
Doug pi 3:15 56:7
down [24] 14:19
22:24 27:23 30:9
40:6 49:7 65:13
68:11 69:11 81:14
89:8 89:15 93:15
97:3 107:22 110:18
120:17 125:19 127:24
129:3 137:2 137:13
137:20 141:24
                                        Index Page 5
-------
Condenselt
dozen - extei
dozen uj 19:10
draft [13) 6:18
8:5 9:18 18:4
35:15 71:20 75:6
76:13 81:18 88:19
98:15 98:18 137:1
drafted ji] 65:5
drafts m 64:13
dragging [i] 37:21
drawing [i] 65:21
dredge [is) 14:24
15:1 17:20 28:10
49:24 60:11 68:6
96:22 97:4 97:5
97:20 111:12 132:3
dredged [is] 7:23
9:22 26:4 26:5
60:16 72:24 73:13
78:7 78:12 87:9
111:3 112:14 131:23
132:2 134:10
dredger [i] 139:14
Drcdgerym 138:3
dredging [43] 15:15
16:5 17:12 17:15
21:16 22:19 23:13
24:13 24:15 24:20
25:8 29:16 30:15
30:17 30:24 31:15
32:2 44:2 49:11
50:5 50:14 50:22
54:15 54:17 54:18
57:19 58:2 59:3
64:9 67:1 71:18
72:23 78:21 82:1
86:2 110:13 110:15
110:15 115:20 119:10
126:17 136:22 147:12
drilling [21 129:23
drinking [2] 68:14
68:16
drive [ij 93:17
drop[4j 50:21 54:18
63:20 140:15
drops [i] 95:10
drum [i] 87:21
drums [i] 139:14
dry [ii 87:18
dual[t] 56:24
dueisj 30:14 40:10
61:8 95:19 131:10
duly [i] 119:8
dump [12] 6:2
55:15 85:3 109:2
109:3 111:13 114:22
127:13 129:12 129:13
139:16 140:18
dumped p] 85:16
89:13 137:11
damping [25] 28:17
38:4 44:4 44:6
46:4 48:6 55:11
57:4 65:16 66:20
82:9 84:20 87:9
87:24 89:17 89:20
91:3 91:8 104:5
104:20 111:11 111:15
127:14 143:23 147:10
during [16] 19:12
20:21 22:16 27:13
30:15 40:8 47:12
48:7 48:23 49:4
74:16 74:17 86:10
119:15 119:23 143:23
duties p] 96:16
dutyri) 74:23
dwindling [i] 55:4
E[7] 1:15 3:1
4:1 5:1 5:1
150:1 150:1
E.D.H[i] 131:19
E.I.R[6)27:20 32:15
122:22 134:20 13421
135:2
E.I.S [13] 9:18
27:13 27:20 29:10
30:4 30:12 32:15
32:16 35:15 36:4
43:3 75:7 772
E.M.Fpj 134:21
E.N.F[i] 135:2
E.P [i] 20:8
E.P.A[4] 26:13
49:7 73:19 141:11
Earlp] 103:7
earliest [i] 145:18
early pi 24:16 110:2
easier pi 29:6
Q7-A
y 1 A
easily p] 50:18
50:19 70:9
east[4i 1:13 29:18
78:10 95:10
Eastern p] 14:10
easym 43:4
eat pi 50:16 50:21
84:16
ebb[i] 13:9
Ecologistm 2:8
economic [13] 21:12
61:9 61:17 64:5
71:16 73:4 98:3
98:4 98:22 100:8
101:4 108:10 112:11
economical [i] 10:7
economically p]
24:3 66:18 68:3
economics [5j 21:15
92:15 92:16 95:1
95:21
economies [i] 13:18
economy [13] 14:14
14:15 14:19 55:2
63:6 83:23 84:2
93:6 96:13 97:15
104:9 104:9 104:10
edges [i] 140:6
eel [i) 57:24
effect [4] 36:23
40:14 57:14 70:23
effective m 4 1 :6
116:8
effectiveness m
84:3
effects pi 38:24
47:9 50:13 79:20
79:21 92:24 136:6
efficacy m 71:12
efficient [4] 21:10
21:17 26:2 34:9
effluent p] 47:21
57:10 61:3
effluents m 49:9
effort [3] 44:17
94:4 126:11
efforts p] 72:19
90:12
egg-bearing P) 44:17
44" 1 Q 44 '^4
tt.!? *t*t.**t
eight p] 36:2 94:9
IflR-tS
AUO.iO
either [4] 22:24
62:9 85:1 124:8
El[i] 104:18
elected p] 10:1
43:19
Electric [i] 87:13
Eleven [i] 111:3
eliminate pi 37:14
46-6
"U*U
eliminating [i] 32:24
elimination [i] 33:3
elsewhere m 1 14:20
Emily [4) 4:7
8
-------
Condenselt
          TM
extended - government
58:6
extended pi 35:1
35:1
extends [i] 14:15
jxtensive pi 29:4
135:21
;xtensively [i] 27:3
;xtra [21 28:22 28:23
;xtreme [i] 63:9
Exxon pi 66:24
68:15
7[i] 150:1
:abric[i] 33:18
"ace [3] 9:16 56:12
140:6
'acia[i] 98:6
acilities [4] 22:5
23:8 23:11 97:10
acilityp] 47:4
98:1
acing [3] 9:23
43:5 55:3
act pi] 20:24 23:23
33:19 37:7 39:15
41:10 57:24 70:17
71:23 74:19 75:9
95:16 96:7 97:15
98:5 104:22 125:13
128:13 130:12 138:1
143:7
actors [i] 21:13
ail pi 114:18 114:23
air pi 56:1 83:8
1 "37- 1 7
1 JA>.1 *•
airly p] 42:2
97:14
all p] 50:12 133:21
141:18
ami liar [2] 44:8
133:17
ar[9] 25:8 47:16
48:2 59:12 69:16
84:1 84:2 96:15
134:10
'aramelli (ioj 2:5
7:12 117:5 117:8
117:14 118:1 135:15
136:18 '145:12 146:6
arm[i] 19:17
aimers [i] 88:2
arms m 23:21
'arrcll pj 4:8
87:2 87:4
aster p] 13:19
94:8
atalities m 108:3
ather-in-law[ij
103:19
'AX ii] 1:24
sasibility [2] 20:8
21:3
sasible pj 24:4
33:9 63:18
sat [t] 128:22
matures [ij 28:5
federal 1271 9:24
15:7 15:13 16:4
19:9 20:10 21:9
24:7 24:21 31:18
34:13 44:15 44:15
55:4 55:19 63:22
74:21 88:16 91:15
96:21 119:21 120:7
120:11 120:13 122:10
136:4 136:10
Federally [i] 16:11
feedm 132:12
feeding [i] 109:6
feeling pj 58:22
118:20
feet po] 13:16 21:7
22:4 22:8 22:9
22:23 23:14 23:15
23:17 24:2 24:3
24:6 25:24 64:20
64:22 110:18 128:11
128:14 128:23 128:23
fellow p] 103:7
130:8
felt[l] 124:4
female p] 44:17
44:24
fertile (i] 149:3
fewpj 28:4 45:10
64:10 76:3 76:7
field [2] 128:1 128:16
figure [5] 45:20
104:2 107:11 116:6
138:8
figures ii] 38:6
fileiu 18:9
filed [4] 16:22 18:4
27'20 145-1Q
4f t **>V 1 ~ J.17
fill [3] 90:23 94:8
132:24
final [I7]7:22 8:5
8:18 11:16 18:9
32:3 32:16 35:16
101:16 119:20 119:21
135:2 135:18 143:12
145:16 146:15 147:1
finally p] 37:6
58:14 134:2
financial pj 95:23
98:9 106:9
finding [i] 146:5
fineji] 141:24
fines p] 87:16 127:16
fingers [i] 78:9
finish [i] 35:18
fire [2] 109:6 113:24
first [34] 13:6 16:9
16:15 18:19 20:22
24:13 42:4 43:16
53:17 54:1 60:9
ftl-lQ fiO-l ftQ-t
Ul*17 \jy .1 VJJ.J
69:17 75:12 75:18
83:22 85:1 86:13
92:17 94:14 96:16
97:17 98:21 99:7
99:19 111:23 123:5
127:8 128:9 130:6
137:18 139:20
fish po] 1:13 2:3
18:7 30:7 30:13
37:19 42:10 44:7
44:21 45:23 50:8
50:14 50:16 54:23
63:13 63:14 78:19
85:6 109:21 135:23
fisheries m 36:23
70:16 72:10 113:4
113:5
fisherman m 46:1
80:5 87:5 101:21
102:20 103:21 109:20
fishermen [12] 43:24
61:21 63:13 64:1
70:3 72:11 82:23
88:2 101:5 101:23
102:24 139:22
Fishermen's m 102:22
fishery pi 37:18
40:15 40:17
fishes [i] 37:9
fishing [22] 19:5
41:22 43:23 45:15
52:5 54:24 55:5
55:7 63:5 63:7
63:9 63:23 66:21
102:1 103:9 103:12
103:13 103:16 109:22
109:24 110:5 120:12
five [13] 8:19 8:24
22:9 23:14 25:11
29:2 34:19 48:23
64:22 76:14 84:4
92:1 137:3
fixed [i] 69:5
floating pi 41:11
92- 11
y&*i j
flocculentp] 42:8
floor H] 8:14 34:18
69:7 75:5
flounder [t] 42:11
flow [4] 13:9 13:9
47«TI Q'3-77
•»/.*! yj.AA
flows [i] 89:9
flung [i] 17:1 6
fly 11] 41:20
flying pj 42:8
146:21
focus [2)27:22 132:15
folks p] 35:20
follow [3] 67:7
105:22 124:5
followed [i] 85:22
following [i] 123:7
food [2] 12:21 73:10
fooled [i] 95:2
football p] 128:1
128:16
footnote [i] 81:22
footprint [i] 128:19
forces [i] 13:6
foregoing [i] 150:5
foreign [i] 49:9
foieverra 94:3
105:8
Forgione [6] 4:17
109:12 109:14 109:15
110:5 111:2
Form[l] 16:23
formal [6] 8:19
9:1 34:20 70:23
76:4 76:6
formally p] 7:1
17:12
Formanp) 2:14
3:3 3:13 5:3
6:11 36:7 51:13
M'lfi 51-22
• i U J A ,+fai*
formed [i] 38:21
former [i] 29:14
forms [i] 70:12
formulation [i] 134:7
forth p] 95:17 115:12
136:7
fortunate [i] 51:17
forum [ii] 1:4
6:16 7:3 9:5
12:9 15:6 43:17
71:11 126:16 126:18
150:7
forward [i] 25:20
foulp] 137:5 137:9
1 "5*7 1 f\
137:10
found [6] 21:3
27:3 28:10 48:13
52:18 124:2
Foundation [S] 10:3
31:3 75:15 76:1
76:22
four is] 8:21 34:16
48:23 62:7 91:24
104:11 112:12 131:7
fragrant [i] 125:12
frame [i] 35:13
frankly [4] 35:14
57:20 113:12 118:11
free [3] 8:16 77:15
149:11
free-registered [i]
106:6
freight p] 96:5
97:20
fresh [t] 129:21
Friday [i] 83:2
front p) 75:1 95:18
frustrating EIJ 57:20
frying p] 113:22
full p] 42:23 56:1
97:11
full-time p] 87:13
124:4
fully (21 114:10 131:8
fun[i] 105:8
fund [6] 66:24 116:13
117:17 118:6 118:10
118:12
funded [4] 16:11
31:24 117:22 118:8
funding m 115:22
116:3 117:20 118:5
funds [t] 117:17
Furthermore [ij 8:3
futility [i] 94:1
future [9] 9:11
33:15 34:4 81:23
81:24 110:23 116:13
133:14 140:11
G[i] 5:1
gallon [i] 112:13
gallons [i] 104:15
Gambale[6] 3:10
40:16 43:13 43:15
50:7 80:3
garage pi 116:22
116:22 117:8
garbage [ii 85:5
gas [4] 23:10 23:10
24:5 91:12
gasoline [i] 12:22
gather p] 7:21
145-13
it*tm},*J
gathering p] 6:16
• O*j£ 1 11 A . 1 fl
18:6 134:19
general pj 9:3
28:7 87:13
generally [4] 28:20
28:21 38:8 129:3
generating [i] 95:24
Genestpi 3:20
69:21 70:1
gentleman pi 119:11
129:2 130:13
gentlemen p] 74:9
74:12
geologists [i] 122:20
gill II] 41:24
gills [1] 11022
given [4] 29:5 58:10
89:16 89:19
giving [6] 11:7
56:10 60:1 75:20
81:2 110:2
glad ii] 146:24
global p) 12:24
Gt * *
95:21
Gloucester [5] 45:19
72:10 83:2 131:21
139:22
goal [2] 68:12 72:22
goes [8] 23:20 37:15
69:11 87:19 95:12
97:3 112:12 145:11
gone [4] 64:11 65:4
Q*J« | 
-------
Condenselt
           TM
Grace - increase
63:22 74:22 88:16
91:15 91:15 106:6
119:22 120:13 120:13
120:14 132:3
Grace ill 3:22
75:14 75:17 77:2
78:6 115:3 115:8
115:16
Grand [i] 19:16
grandchildren [3]
84:7 84:7 108:24
Grant [i] 30:15
granting [i] 54:9
grass [i] 57:24
great (is] 5:8
45:7 58:18 105:7
120:5 122:3 125:6
125:9 126:13 127:5
130:11 130:12 139:18
greater 12] 24:3
130:20
greatly pi 63:7
99:13
green it] 21:23 23:17
25:10 31:14 48:1
115:18
greyiu .35:21
gripm 51:11
ground [3] 13:3
78:19 141:12
grounds [2] 103:12
103:13
group iioj 17:17
17:19 17:21 5J:9
51:19 83:14 102:22
102:23 108:17 122:18
groups w 10:2
10.-9 17:6 17:17
55:22 145:14
grow 121 40:3 42:13
guarantee [2] 59:10
143:22
guess IS] 50:24 56:21
68:20 92:13 113:7
guided [i] 27:16
guidelines [i] 91:18
f^ If ,»•*• A A
Gulf[i] 66:23
guyR 68:13 103:20
103:22 104:2
guys pj 87:22 111:11
gym in 74:14
H.Gui 39:11
habitat 122] 18:8
37:11 37:15 37:15
37:22 38:1 40:21
41:10 41:17 41:19
42:2 42:19 44:10
44:11 45:5 55:16
57:16 58:3 58:6
105:2 131:9 135:23
habitats [i] 141:23
half in] 20:22 27:15
29:2 29:3 32:19
48*7 72-4 75- n
TU* * f <£.*? f *J* U
82:8 97:11 112:13
128:17 128:17

half-year [i] 82:4
HALL in 1:4
halt ii] 32:11
Hancock pi 68:23
68:24 127:7
hand [2] 149:11 149:12
hand-in-hand m
9:24
handle [4] 16:17
33:12 53:23 64:15
handling ii] 28:22
handout in 81:17
hang p] 95:7
Hansell w 4:10
90:4 90:6 92:10
Hansen [U] 2:2
3:7 7:11 15:11
15:21 115:16 116:24
117:19 117:24 118:9
118:15 118:21 119:1
137:23
happy 12] 35:8
CQ.1Q
3^ Q0«<* O
91:9 121:17 126:9
126:10 149:16
heaiiogs pi 30:2
128:8
heart ii] 90:14
heats ii] 12:22
Heaven m 94:22
heavily ii] 42:18
heavy 16] 38:19
48:12 48:19 49:5
49:8 148:22
hellli] 127:24
Hello in 87:4
help [2] 16:10 43:9
helped (4] 17:19
17:22 27:23 138:4
Hemisphere m 13:1
hence [2] 94:10
96:23
hereby tn 150:4
hesitate [i] 73:5
Hi in 83:7
hideti] 37:11
high p] 52:16 53:3
higher is] 30:3
120:10 129:5 148:3
148:8
highest 12] 53:1
120:9
Highlights m 36:1
highly pi 106:15
106:19
HILLp] 1:22
1:23
historically pj 16:2
16:21 52:24
history is] 19: 13
32:10 96:15
hit m 102:1
hole 113] 68:21 69:9
93:18 101:24 102:11
110:19 127:12 127:14
127:23 127:24 128:5
128:10 128:20
home p] 5:14 88:19
homes m 12:22
hope 18] 52:7 56:24
58:5 59:9 59:12
59:16 137:15 149:8
hopeful m 59:9
hopefully pj 115:10
139:1
hosting ii] 66:8
hot Ii] 140:22
hotel p] 98:10 98:11
hour ii] 97:11
hours [4] 88:20 88:21
123:1 140:20
House [i] 54:3
household m 1 07:2 1
Hubbardmi 2:8
7:6 35:4 35:12
111:23 131:4 132:23
134:5 135:8 147:17
148:7 148:24
hugeii] 95:23
Hull p] 123:21 123:22
123:24 124:9 124:11
124:12 125:23 126:4
126:11
human m 48:20
108:6 108:10
humans in 52:23
hundred m 33:12
hundreds p] 61:22
89:8
Hyannism 139:23
hydrocarbons m
52-17
J4f,k I
iceberg iu 70:8
idea is] 40:16 41:1
45:22 47:5 50:21
93:14 135:19 146:4
ideal m 41:19
Ideally m 21:8
ideas p] 55:23 101:21
113:23
identified p] 30:16
71:24 81:5
identify p] 10:4
11:16
ifyii] 93:22
ignored (ij 79:21
II p] 1:13 2:3
104:1
illogical [3] 106:15
106:19 106:22
imagine m 106:21
imagined in 98:23
immediate p] 59:5
59:7 131:10
immediately in 92:23
impact 143] 6:19
8:6 13:12 14:9
14:14 16:23 17:2
18:5 18:10 29:12
37:17 38:14 48:17
52:4 56:22 63:4
65:9 65:10 71:21
76:13 81:18 88:17
88:19 92:19 104:9
104:10 108:9 112:11
124:1 125:15 132:5
132:6 133:8 135:18
136:13 136:13 137:2
138:24 143:21 143:22
145:16 145:16 145:17
impacted p] 10:12
97:16
impacts i«j 27:21
55:11 63:10 108:23
1«3-ij f* f "SC*!"-!
133:9 135:9
imperative in 110:22
implemented ii]
70:22
import [i] 96:16
importance p] 19:1
40:17
important its] 7:24
11:15 13:6 15:6
16:19 46:18 54:12
55:1 76:11 84:4
84:18 85:19 112:21
importantly in 52:6
impose in 91:18
imposed pi 57:8
96:16
imposition in 55:6
impressed p] 15:16
75:22
improve pj 5:5
19:5
improvement [ioj
1:2 5:24 6:20
9:17 16:8 25:19
25:19 26:8 73:2
150:6
improvements in
on- 11?
Xv*U
improving in 7:16
in-channel m 77:9
in-depth in 64:17
inappropriate [i]
147:10
inaudible pi 78:16
105:11
incidentally in 61:10
incinerator p] 138:14
1 *DQ. I Hi
138:16
include P] 29:14
io>^n
jy*£>\}
includes w 20:13
22:13 23:2 24:1
24:8 70:6
including (9] 17:22
19:14 22:6 23:8
24:5 49:13 66:15
70:12 122:22
income ii) 104:12
incorporated ii]
135:5
incorporating [2]
134:14 134:16
increase p] 20:9
110:1

                                            Index Pagf
-------
CondenseItT
increased - listed
incieased*m 13:13
indeed (4j 58:3
58:4 100:18 100:20
independent p j 3 1 -.5
indicate [ ij 38:6
indicating [S] 22:21
24:18 25:2 29:22
37:2
indicator [i] 61:17
indirectly [i] 10:12
individual [t] 100:11
individuals [2] 8:21
10:9
industrial m 89:1 1
117:5 117:10 117:13
117:15
industries m 19:5
55:1 55:2 66:22
96:17
industry p] 17:7
44:16 55:8 63:5
63:7 63:9 63:23
63:24 103:10
inefficient [i] 19:23
influences [ij 138:19
inform in 12:11
information poj
11:6 11:7 11:9
11:10 18:1 53:8
101:1 115:14 121:3
121:6 122:23 126:19
133:12 134:16 134:20
135:17 135:23 146:3
146:3 146:11
informational m
35:22
Informed pj 88:24
123:21 123:23
nforming[i] 124:8
nfuriating[i] 106:23
nitialp] 47:13
135:4
nitiatedm 26:12
nnerpj 20:17 21:24
nput[4]5:23 9:19
62:19 121:23
nshorem 103:3
nsight[i] 6:18
nsists [2] 50:9
50:13
nstcad[5) 63:15
86:13 94:8 97:19
128:15
nsultii] 37:20
nsurancem 65:2
n tend [i] 68:22
mention [i] 135:22
nteraction [2] 12: 12
14:22
ntercoastal [i] 22:20
nterestp] 10:2
10:9 24:21
ntercsted[6] 17:7
17:18 40:19 55:21
76:6 76:8
interesting 121 68:21
83:21
interestingly m
103:8
interests [S] 21:8
59:17 63:3 94:19
95:23
interpreter [i} 131:16
introduce p] 1 0:20
12:2 15:10
introducing [i] 5:18
inundated (i] 99:13
inverted [i] 94:12
in vested [i] 72:16
investment [i] 21:12
invite P] 11:13
143:8
invited [i] 9:2
involve [ij 9:9
involved pj 34:4
57:22 137:19 145:7
149:8 149:10 149:13
involvement [4] 9:20
15:24 16:22 35:6
involves [2] 31:15
77:10
involving [ij 6:22
irreversible [2i 63:17
fiT-71
UJ*£ 1
irreversibly [i] 105:1
Island [io] 29:22
29:23 72:5 76:16
76:17 131:6 131:7
131:12 137:7 147:7
isolated pi 77:7
issue [81 37:24 54:10
54:14 54:17 60:4
79:13 123:13 146:17
issues [io] 8:10
53:24 55:23 64:10
76:11 81:11 83:13
84:10 93:12 115:21
itemp) 142:4
items 12] 81:15 136:22
itself [4] 34:6 54:17
58:6 146:13
Jm ii-i
* iij * j.i
Jackson [ii] 1:15
3:8 7:5 18:12
18:15 18:22 34:20
73:15 113:16 128:6
143:19
jaded [i] 136:16
jail (ij 90:24
James [6] 3:19
4:4 67:19 80:6
82:13 82:15
Janeen (21] 2:2
3:7 7:11 15:11
15:17 15:19 15:21
27:14 115:14 115:16
116:24 117:19 117:24
118:9 118:15 118:21
119:1 119:5 130:24
137:22 137:23
Jangaard(8] 3:11
46:11 46:14 46:23
50:2 78:2 78:3
78:5
Jay [6j 4:14 102:17
102:19 102:19 103:24
105:6
Jeff[3] 15:21 19:20
20:5
Jeffrey M 1:12
3:6 3:17 7:9
12:3 62:15
Jersey p] 89:18
115:20
job[8j 15:16 87:13
87:13 105:10 121:7
121:8 121:8 121:10
jobs [3] 14:17 95:24
98:4
Joe t?] 39:3 44:9
44:12 45:2 49:23
50:17 147:20
jog ii] 97:12
Johnpj 78:16
join [2] 11:13 51:9
joint [i] 7:22
Joseph [13] 3:9
4:8 36:14 36:17
39:4 39:7 41:4
43:10 67:15 67:17
71:8 77:23 87:2
JOSPEHw 87:4
joy ii] 62:6
judge [i] 61:17
judged [i] 29:12
July m 1:5 150:8
June {i] 123:6
jurisdiction [i] 55:19
136:19
JUSTICE [2] 1:22
1:23
justifications m
68:7
justified [2] 21:15
67:2
keep [10] 12:8 25:23
34:8 34:9 96:18
111:8 126:5 126:6
1 *3£T "t'S l^tA.IQ
136:23 140:18
Kevin m 3:1 1
4fi-1 1 4fi*14 4fi-'?'3
^U-AJ ~U*J^ ^O,4J
SO-9 78-2 78-"?
*J\Jnttr /O.«b 1 O,J
78:5 124:4
key m 32:17 77:11
kidsm 93:16
kind [9] 9:14 40:19
44:23 58:10 93:23
103:8 121:13 141:6
148:16
known [S] 8:15
52:22 54:19 55:16
101:23
knows [1] 94:22
Kusa-Ryllp] 1:21
150:3 150:11
L.N.Gm 95:10
labeled [i] 38:4
Ladies ro 74:9
74:12
laid [i] 24:14
land [ii] 44:18 45:21
77:5 77:5 89:21
90:22 102:7 102:10
117:3 136:16 149:1
land-based p] 28:8
28:10 28:13
landed [i] 45:19
landfill [4] 78:13
89:23 90:19 1025
landfills m 90:21
landings [ij 45:21
lands [i] 149:3
language [i] 125:7
lapS[2] 111:9 111:13
large [3] 9:16 34:7
92:22
large-scale [i], 92:20
largely [i] 57:4
larger pi 13:21
13:23 13:23 13:24
17:17 19:20 38:18
132:7
largest [4] 13:14
18:24 45:17 45:17
Larry [sj 1:9
3:4 5:19 6:12
75:17 75:24 122:14
131:18
larvae pi 41:10
41:12 44:12
last 126) 19:12 22:4
23:6 23:17 24:15
55:5 56:14 56:19
62:7 62:21 64:10
76:17 81:19 81:19
81:20 82:14 83:2
90:9 99:19 104:11
105:13 105:23 114:21
129:23 130:4 142:4
Lastly [i] 9:9
late [2] 18:10 144:15
Laughter [it] 51:2
51:7 62:23 68:17
69:13 80:15 103:23
105:5 105:12 109:4
110:4
law [8] 10:3 31:3
75:15 76:1 76:22
108:20 115:3 139:21
laws [i] 121:1
lead [9] 38:15 38:22
39:14 39:16 39:18
66:15 70:13 81:9
QdJ
Si :4
leaders [i] 59:13
* «* * *r * *•
leading [i] 45:17
leakage [i] 141 :io
leaks [i] 141:9
lean PJ 143:6
learned [i] 135:16
least [S] 42:24 45:1
59:8 78:24 89:22
left [9] 22:22 26:20
28:15 29:8 31:24
80:8 80:11 80:16
112:10
legislatively [i] 62:9
legislature [ i] 11 9:22
lends [i] 16:10
length [i] 22:8
lengthy [i] 33:15
lesions Ii] 42:16
less [6] 28:20 112:6
138:17 141:5 148:21
148:22
lethal [2] 38:5
40:9
letter pi 70:23 75:8
123:6
letters m 30:2
143:8
letting [i] 12:14
level [ii] 15:7
15:8 38:23 39:12
39:14 136:4 136:4
136:9 136:10 136:16
147:21
levels [9] 38:6
39:10 39:13 48:22
W-17 114-7 148-1
«/^*4 / i J~«* J~O.J
148:7 148:12
liabilities [i] 141:22
Hani] 121:19
liesfi] 137:24
life p] 18:7 37:8
38:11 48:21 54:23
58:3 ma 112:2
112:6
lighten [2] 19:22
19:23
lightening [ii 20:11
Lighthship [ij 76:1 5
lights [2] 18:23
41:6
Lightship (S] 29:14
104:7 104:21 137:6
140:1
limit [2] 8:19 8:24 |
limited [4] 21:3
21:11 63:15 118:10
limits [i] 148:9
line [11] 24:10 48:1
57:9 78:14 78:14
107:11 133:20 133:24
134:14 134:15 141:22
lined [i] 78:13
lines [2] 20:15 115:15
links [i] 30:14
liquefied [i] 23:10
liquid [ii 23:9
list [is] 27:24 27:24
33:5 100:4 101:10
108:13 108:15 133:2
138:1 138:4 138:5
142:16 142:18 142:23
143:2 143:17 143:18
149:6
listed [2] 8:4
8:4
     Index Page 9
-------
Condenselt
           TM
listen - mercur
listen [io] 6:23
7:14 8:7 9:4
33:14 54:13 74:21
74:23 121:17 122:10
listened w 33:20
85:16 92:5 119:9
listening [t] 56:19
75:4 83:22 94:5
112:17 127:5
lists (3] 48:18 76:13
77:2
literally (2j 61:21
79:19
live IS} 14:9 37:16
67:5 91:16 126:23
livelihood pj 67:4
106:19 ]07:1
lives pi 54:12 84:11
84:12
living [t] 42:17
67:6 84:12 91:13
93:1 141:2
b[i] 103:13
loading [i] 23:19
loads [i] 19:23
lobbying p] 115:4
116:4
lobster (23] 36:24
37:1 37:8 40:15
40:21 4150 44:1
44:11 44:12 54:24
55:7 55:16 63:5
63:24 88:1 101:20
102:1 102:20 102:24
103:9 103:21 109:22
130:1
lobstering [4] 42:1
103:3 103:21 104:2
Lobstcrman's (ij
55:13
lobstcrmcn [7j 46:19
61:20 64:1 101:5
122:18 124:3 132:1
Lobstcrmcn's [i]
101:7
lobsters pij 36:23
37:16 38:5 38:18
40:4 41:10 41:12
41:18 41:23 44:18
44:19 44:20 44:24
45:6 45:6 45:8
45:18 50:1 50:8
50:14 50:16 50:17
50:18 52:5 54:24
55:14 84:16 84:17
local [U] 10:1
14:14 14:14 16:8
36:22 55:22 70:3
96:16 120:14 136:16
136:18 13621 136:21
located pi 21:5
29:15 29:16 29:18
29:22 60:18 72:1
72:3 72:17
location is] 47*6
47:7 47:16 54:19
79:17 98:1 126:15
143:20

Logan [i] 97:19
logical [i] 16:13
Lombard [to] 2:15
4:12 77:19 99:3
99:5 99:17 100:2
100:22 101:2 142:2
long-term pi 20:12
31:6 34:1 72:16
72:19 131:2 131:15
132:20 133:10
long-tested in 57:4
longer [4j 12:20
16:11 78:12 143:14
look [xo] 18:8 29:7
32:10 38:12 38:23
39:10 39:13 39:15
40:4 47:9 47:10
64:10 64:18 65:9
65:10 65:12 78:8
81:16 81:19 88:20
95:1 95:21 98:7
98:20 103:5 108:1
108:7 110:22 114:8
116:16 122:21 126:20
126:21 126:21 132:9
132:10 135:20 135:22
136:1 149:7
looked [2] 40:20
68:24
looking [is] 33:17
37:1 76:3 76:6
81:13 81:14 83:24
97:7 101:8 113:15
118:10 122:24 126:15
132:17 139:11
looks [3] 57:13 63:11
105:7
loosely [ii 102:23
losem 127:16
loss [5] 100:8 101:4
129:2 129:3 133:10
lots [i] 96:2
love [7] 68:1 68:2
90:11 109:20 109:22
110:20 125:7
lovely [2] 60:3
127:19
low [4] 40:6 40:12
90:22 132:13
lower [4] 23:5
24:18 91:21 114:7
lowest [ij 120:10
ludicrous m 95:9
Lynn [ii] 60:23
65:17 66:3 66:16
75:18 83:8 87:2
87:5 87:14 99:20
131:22
Lynnway [i] 102:9
M.E.P.A[4j 134:22
134:23 147:4 147:4
M.W.R.A [9) 29:20
37:21 47:13 48:16
72:16 116:15 118:14
138:1 144:1
ma'am [2j 34:22
119:6
machinist [i] 87:16
mackerel rn 1 1 0:6
magazine [3] 36:1
64:11 64:17
magic (ii 138:20
main [5] 19:14 20:18
20:24 46:23 72:19
Maine [i] 131:12
maintain [7] 13:10
34:9 95:5 96:11
96:24 97:24 98:12
maintained m 1 1 7: 1 0
maintaining [i] 22:19
maintenance [22]
24:16 24:20 25:3
25:22 26:6 26:15
26:21 31:23 32:1
32:2 33:16 34:1
34:4 54:15 81:23
8124 81:24 111:1
111:2 111:3 116:14
116:21
major [7] 9:15
20:16 24:4 24:15
56:17 96:2 124:18
majority [i] 23:22
makers m 120:14
makes m 60:18
92:10 148:16
man[i] 79:18
managed [i] 25:6
management [2] 27:20
131:15
Managerp] 1:15
2:2 7:6 7:11
123:22 124:10 124:12
mandate [i] 121:21
mandated [21 108:19
108:20
manhole [i] 94:12
manner [6] 7:20
12:1 14:1 21:11
43:4 138:22
Manning [3] 4:1 1
92:2 92:4
map [6] 29:8 47:7
97:7 103:11 128:1
139:10
Marblehead[s] 60:23
66:17 87:6 102:18
ifw -?i \tn-'ft \M'")A
JvfA.^i 1\J&»4,4 l\JA-fS1
103-9
1\JJ»,J
Marianne [3] 1:21
150:3 150:11
marine iioj 2:8
18:7 23:9 38:7
54:23 96:1 108:4
122:19 139:10 148:15
maritime [3] 2:2
17:7 21:8
Mark [3] 4:13 101:17
101:20
Mary [3] 3:21 71:3
71:6
Mass [9] 44:1 44:5
72:3 73:18 76:15
112:18 118:16 130:20
134:15
Massachusetts [401
1:5 1:11 1:13
1:14 1:17 123
2:2 2:4 2:7
2:10 8:11 12:4
14:10 14:10 14:15
29:17 34:2 45:16
51:4 51:10 54:20
55:13 66:18 71:14
73:3 73:15 76:21
76:24 86:5 96:2
97:16 97:20 101:7
105:3 106:5 106:6
131:11 131:14 138:17
139:21
Massport[3i] 2:6
6:17 7:10 15:12
16:4 16:19 19:3
22:6 27:10 27:13
31:19 34:14 34:20
59:7 66:12 67:9
71:19 71:24 72:9
72:23 87:22 94:19
99:8 100:12 109:17
116:12 116:15 117:10
118:1 118:14 146:17
Massport's[6] 7:11
7:12 15:23 16:22
20:12 30:15
master [i] 137:5
match (i] 28:7
material [84] 6:2
7:23 8:2 9:22
17:20 20:5 24:19
25:3 25:4 25:10
25:12 25:14 25:17
25:20 25:23 26:1
26:6 26:9 26:11
26:16 26:20 26:22
27:1 27:7 28:10
31:15 31:24 32:4
32:6 33:21 37:14
38-3 39-13 39-17
*/€}iw* «I7*A*} «JJ.i *
39:21 40:13 41:11
41:17 42:17 42:24
44:4 46:4 48:6
48:15 49:10 53:13
54:18 55:16 60:11
60:16 66:20 78:7
89:5 89:6 89:19
99:6 99:22 104:23
107:17 108:8 110:14
110:19 111:5 111:24
113:1 116:20 117:4
125:10 126:18 127:20
128:13 131:7 132:2
132:11 134:10 139:2
139:5 139:7 140:1
141:7 141:12 148:14
148:15 149:1
materials (171 7:19
17:21 24:14 25:8
38:7 38:13 38:13
38:19 38:23 40:1
40:13 97:22 107:20
108:17 111:20 125:14
147:11
mathematicians m
122:19
matter (io] 12:15
59:8 62:8 75:9
86:3 95:15 97:15
98:5 124:18 124:19
mature [i] 44:18
may [18] 11:3 11:4
11:5 11:8 24:21
28:1 34:3 41:12
44:14 44;i4 45;]
55:17 61:9 72:13
72:20 74:4 115:14
123:19
Mcllveene[i] 2:16
Meagherpi 4:3
80:23 81:2
mean [121 39:20
42:12 55:15 84:23
84:24 87:8 95:9
113:18 118:7 124:19
133:19 142:14
meaning [i] 140:15
means [2] 104:24
137:15
measured en 25:14
measures pi 30:18
136:19
measuring [i] 30:13
mediation m 1 1 3:24
meet[i] 31:1
meeting [IT] 5:7
5:18 5:21 8:22
11:6 35:11 72:9
77:24 89:2 99:12
106:2 111:19 125:22
139:23 144:11 144:12
144:18
meetings [S] 17:16
88:22 128:8 128:9
133:6
Meisburger p2j 29:19
41:8 44:7 46:6
46:24 47:3 47:8
47:14 48:4 48:13
54:19 56:20 57:13
58:11 58:11 71:24
72:13 76:16 76:16
79:21 81:15 103:14
104-6 104-20 124-7
1 V*t*U .1 V^tvibV *<&•?» f
124:8 124:13 128:15
128:15 137:6 137:14
137:16
member [3] 36:18
99:17 122:4
members m 7:4
9:3 36:3 75:10
146:10
memorandum m
71:7
Mendenez(i] 115:20
mention [2] 21:20
28:1
mentioned [13] 19:20
20:23 27:2 77:3
78:6 82:22 93:9
113:11 114:2 119:5
m.i< 170-6 136-11
. i_j j, 4t,y+\j uu» * i
mentioning [i] 140:9
mercury [9] 38:15
38:22 38:23 39:10
39:12 39:18 70:13
81:9 85:5
                                           Index Page
-------
Condenselt1
mere - ocean
nerem 104-.22
merits [i] 57:7
nessage p] 39:23
net [2] 83:2 83:3
netabolics [ij 52:22
netalp]53:3 148:22
netals pi 38:19
48:12 48:19 49:5
nethod [2] 24:23
33:9
nethods[4j 19:23
33:7 33:10 33:19
netropolitanm
9:16
vlichael pi] 3:14
4:3 4:11 43:15
53:17 53:21 80:3
80:23 81:2 92:2
92:4
vfichaud[6] 4:14
102:17 102:19 102:19
103:24 105:6
nicrophone [2] 35:3
36:8
nicrophones pi
5:11 36:11
nicroscopic m 95:3
nicrowaving p]
113:21
Diddle [3] 42:6
47:14 93:23
vfidwestp] 20:15
114:5
night po] 11:10
63:1 65:1 65:2
95:7 96:13 104:17
128:16 140:10 142:11
migrate jsj 45:6
45:7 102:4
nikeis] 3:10 5:13
40:16 43:13 46:21
46:22 50:7 53:22
nilep] 72:4 128:17
128:17
niles [6] 47:2 47:3
66:15 68:11 68:22
89:20
nilitary p] 97:9
97:10
*fillerpi 54:8
nillionps] 7:18
25:4 25:13 25:17
31:16 31:18 31:20
31:22 32:7 39:1
39-8 39-9 39-15
37 . O */7>7 _r7.J. *>
39:17 81:7 81:12
82:1 134:8
nillions[4] 72:15
91:1 104:23 104:23
nind[3]8:7 75:3
m**)A
,^t
Minerals [ij 66:23
ninimizepj 22:18
ninutep) 15:22
97:2

minutes m 8:19
8:24 34:19
miserable [i] 112:9
misspoke [i] 89:6
mitigation [i] 30: 1 1
model [i] 129:4
modified [i] 22:12
moment [i] 35:17
money [7] 16:10
96:21 98:16 106:14
115:11 116:12 119:12
monitor [ij 31:5
monitored pj 77:6
131:8
monitoring [i] 31:6
Monroe m 1:12
3:6 7:9 12:3
12:5 12:6 78:17
month [i] 16:18
months [4] 101:15
122:12 125:9 145:21
Moransap] 16:15
most [23] 10:7
10:7 15:16 20:22
21:10 22:7 24:15
36:21 37:7 38:19
38:22 39:11 42:14
52:12 60:22 75:21
79:17 85:19 96:18
122:10 133:3 144:10
148:9
move [4] 12:23 13:3
13:19 25:20
moved [2] 57:17
89:1
moving p] 21:21
87:23
Ms [6] 7:11 49:19
66:2 80:20 83:5
88:10
muck [i] 98:17
muddy [i] 41:16
multi-billion PI
129:14
must [9] 8:9 13:5
25:6 68:13 68:14
105:21 106:11 121:2
143:15
mutagenic [i] 52:23
Myers pj 4:18
127:4 127:4
myriad [2] 134:24
142:5
Mystic [8] 21:5
22:22 23:1 23:4
23:5 42:21 53:2
112:8
N[3] 3:1 4:1
5:1
Nahant[69] 1:4
1:5 2:15 2:16
2:17 5:22 6:2
17:11 34:16 43:16
46:20 46:24 47:9
47:10 50:6 50:9
50:10 51:18 53:7
60:3 60:23 61:12
62:5 62:11 65:19
66:7 66:16 67:5
67:8 67:15 67:20
71:4 71:11 71:23
72:1 75:19 75:19
77:21 79:9 80:24
81:5 82:10 83:10
83:16 84:12 84:12
85:10 85:18 88:11
90:4 92:2 99:4
995 100:3 106:16
106:20 107:9 108:11
123:20 124:9 125:21
127:1 132:17 133:18
138:15 140:12 146:23
147:20 150:6
Nahant'sm 5:15
name [9] 10:24 53:22
75:14 82:14 102:19
103:7 105:20 105:23
109:14
names p] 82:22
134:12
narrow p] 10:6
27:23
narrowed p] 137:2
137:13 137:20
narrowing pi 30:9
nasty p] 79:12
nation p] 96:23
National p] 52:13
108:20
nationally pi 1 34: 1 1
natural p] 23:10
23:10
naturally [i] 52:18
nature p] 13:7
95:5
navigation [13] 1:2
5:24 6:20 7:16
9:17 16:8 19:5
19:9 26:3 29:13
73:2 128:18 150:6
navigational [i] 16:2
Navy [i] 97: 11
near [5] 50:6 50:10
60:18 67:5 126:23
nearly [i] 13:16
necessary [6j 9:20
67:2 67:24 68:3
68:5 86:3
need (311 5:10 7:19
8:17 9:18 10:11
10:15 10:16 10:16
23:22 26:4 37:16
55:17 85:4 87:8
87:9 94:10 96:7
105:10 108:2 108:2
108:5 120:1 124:6
126:4 133:18 135:9
136:21 142:15 142:17
144:16 145:3
needed pi 11:19
141:14
needs [i] 131:22
neither [4] 55:14
67:2 123:18 123:19
nervous p] 38:18
38:21 88:14
netpj 98:2
netting [ij 41:24
neurons p] 38:20
never [4] 25:14 85:14
88:17 129:12
new [33] 1:10 1:16
2:9 6:14 11:8
13:22 14:6 19:1
19:1 20:5 22:10
22:11 22:17 26:13
28:9 33:6 36:24
54:8 68:11 88:5
89:2 89:18 89:18
97:3 97:24 113:8
113:17 114:3 115:11
115:20 119:13 131:5
139:2
newly [i] 60:16
Newport pj 97:1 3
97:24
newspapers [i] 125:19
next [39] 22:10 28:1
35-9 3frl4 43-12
JJ.7 Jvl,*^ ™«J. A A*
46:11 49:19 56:6
59:21 62:14 66:1
67:14 69:21 71:3
77:19 78:1 79:8
80:2 81:19 84:4
84:5 84:5 85:9
87:1 90:3 92:1
99-2 101:17 116:9
117:20 131:16 132:11
132:15 132:22 133:2
140:14 144:12 144:16
145:15
nice [S] 56:12 99:10
108:11 121:18 140:22
night [4j 46:2 66:7
67:23 127:23
nine [3] 23:18 72:4
74-5
/*!.•/
Ninop] 104:18
nip [i] 111:6
no-action p] 1 1 2:10
nobody [2] 64:8
136:24
noise [i] 146:23
non-federal pi 6:17
24:21
non-profit p] 71:12
non- water [2 j 86:11
86:18
nonep] 29:24
nonrelated [ii 146:17
nonspecific p] 12:16
nor pi 67:2
Norm [i] 135:14
normal p] 13:11
normally p] 42:13
Norman [ii] 2:5
7:12 117:5 117:8
117:14 118:1 135:15
136:18 145:9 145:12
146:6
north [is] 47:22
54:20 60:12 61:10
61:23 66:19 70:10
70:19 S6:9 99:22
100:9 100:9 100:10
120:11 126:14
Northeast p] 52:13
Northeastern p]
36:15 36:18
northern [4] 1:14
2:3 14:16 20:2
Nosep] 110:7
note [2] 40:10 121:12
notes [3) 144:5 144:5
1SO-S
Jwv.O
nothing [S] 93:11
104-14 1I*H3 121-17
iW^.l" * i •/,.!> *» 1*.1.1 /
142:24
notice [4j 42:18
43:21 125:22 145:4
Notification m 16:23
notified [i] 100:20
notify [i] 101:12
now [56] 10:11 12:2
13:10 14:12 14:24
15:10 16:8 18:12
18:15 21:2 26:5
30:3 35:16 37:24
38:12 38:16 39:9
39:19 40:4 41:21
42:3 47:15 63:8
63:16 68:12 68:23
69:8 74:2 74:24
76:4 87:7 87:22
91:14 91:21 95:4
98:8 99:20 99:20
101:8 101:21 102:11
104:14 105:1 107:11
107:13 109:23 121:11
122-23 124-1 126-15
14J*r4,J .iifcif *Jk Jtt£.\3,A%J
129:17 131:14 137:23
143:10 144:18 147:5
nuclear PI 139:11
number [is] 42:23
58:23 60:21 87:1 1
92:22 93:12 94:17
95:11 98:11 100:3
104:6 113:16 115:9
121:4 125:17 134:1
143:21 143:22
numbers pi 42:24
14820
nurseryp] 40:15
Otij 5:1

5:7 74:5
objection p] 58:2
objective pj 143:5
143:15
obseletep] 78:11
occupy [i] 59:14
occur p] 61:9 82:2
occurring p] 56:23
occurs [4] 133:20
136:9 136:20 136:22
ocean psj 20:19
28:14 28:17 29:3
30:7 37:7 38:4
57:4 61:5 63:20

Index Page 11
-------
Condenselt™
ocean-going - phenomem
65:4 65:17 69:10
83:19 83:21 84:21
85:4 89:17 89:24
91:4 107:12 129:21
133:24 135:24 137:12
147:10 147:18 148:1
ocean-going (i] 68:8
Occanographic [i]
C1* t A
52:14
oceans m 63:14
October [i) 17:2
offfMl 6'2 17-17
\S4 A l**^J \ft4r 1 /•! /
21:20 29:22 35:21
54:19 66:15 68:9
68:22 72:1 72:23
76:17 77:12 82:9
83:1 83:10 87:19
89:17 92:21 95:10
mt£i 1 Oft. 1 /I t 1 I rt
:o 129:14 131:9
133:1 137:16 139:12
140:15 142:16 142:18
142:23 143:2 143:17
143:18 149:6
office [3] 53:19
122:9 137:8
officer p) 5:20
95:8
officials [3] 43:19
75:19 133:11
Offshore [i] 103:3
often [2)63:14 95:11
Oil (»J 12:21 23:9
66:23 87:18 113:19
141:9 141:23 148:11
148:14
old[S] 21:1 78:11
78:20 93:24 103:2
103:20 104:2 139:11

once [13] 10:15 11:21
14:4 15:1 49:16
63:19 79:4 88:6
104:20 119:5 .130:19
135:19 139:13
one(ss) 5:5 7:18
10:22 13:6 13:7
15:16 16:19 17:17
28:16 29:2 32:19
34:3 37:12 38:16
38:18 44:13 47:14
47:15 54:21 55:17
56:18 57:20 57:21
57:22 58:15 68:6
68:21 73:7 75:13
76:12 76:18 81:11
81:15 82:4 82:7
85:19 90:11 90:15
93:10 93:13 95:3
97:24 100:3 104:19
104:21 106:14 108:12
108:17 108:19 108:23
110:12 110:21 111:12
111:18 113:6 114:15
115:1 115:17 115:23
115:23 116:2 116:12
116:13 116:17 117:19
120:9 120:9 121:1
121:14 125:6 125:20
127:24 129:9 130:15
130:16 132:16 133:3
134:1 138:9 139:4
139:14 140:13 142:11
143:6 143:21 143:23
146:15 147:1
one-time p] 130:23
131:19

ones [3] 29:5 57:16
137:4
onto [3] 13:3 13:3
13:22
open po] 8: 14 9:14
11:21 11:23 34:8
34:18 44:5 51:14
79:5 97:6 105:14
107:3 119:17 120:1
121:2 121:16 123:19
125:14 126:16 126:18
opening [i] 5:18
openly [i] 112:16
opens [i] 119:13
operate p) 16:13
121:2
operated [i] 41:5
opinion [4i 11:14
12:15 15:18 122:3
opportunity [12] 7:1
12:7 12:8 46:17
56:11 60:1 60:4
62:7 62:18 78:18
81:3 123:9
Oppose [31 44:3
44:6 76:19
Opposed [8] 46:3
65:16 88:1 88:3
91:3 104:5 112:19
119:8
opposite [i] 59:14
opposition [3] 54:16
60-10 66-12
*JV/»AV/ \J\J,l£t
optimistic [ii 112:4
optimize [i] 22:18
optional 29:1
63:18 65:21 77:10
77:10 78:6 100:18
108:12 108:13
options (12] 27:24
28:6 28:13 32:24
33:4 33:16 79:7
81:21 93:7 108:19
108:19 119:17
order [9] 19:21 22:10
32:13 44:19 44:22
86:4 97:22 98:17
128:16
ordinary [i] 97:7
organisms [3] 38:16
40:2 112:1
organization [i] 126:5
organizations p]
71:12 94:18
organizing (ij 43:17
origin [i] 93:23
original [i] 68:12
originally [i] 20:21
otherwise pi 62:9
76:2
ought [3] 78:24
94:13 98:19
ourselves [3] 74:19
74:20 75:4
outcome [i] 120:17
outfall [24] 29:20
37:21 47:19 47:22
50:3 50:22 52:4
56:22 57:8 57:14
72:4 72:6 72:17
72:18 72:21 79:18
79:20 99:19 99:20
99:20 104:16 118:23
135:6 143:20
outfalls [ii 83:10
outflow [6] 47:1
47:8 47:10 47:15
48:14 49:12
outlined [i] 93:8
outlines p] 21:1
36:2
outrageous p] 50:6
89:21
outside pj 35:22
74:3
outstanding [i] 15:15
outward [i] 89:9
outweighed m 1 16:17
overall pj 72:22
144:23
overcome [2] 9:15
nf
:6
oversee (i] 31:5
OWC[i] 99:13
own p] 16:13 55:22
67:6 107:1 123:4
123:11 131:22
P[i] 5:1
P-A-S-S-A-N-I-S-I [i]
82:14
P.A.H[2] 52:18
53:1
P.C.B.S[ij 107:20
p.mpj 1:6 149:16
P.O[ij 1:23
packing [i] 29:18
pad [ii 139:16
page [8] 3:2 4:2
81:19 81:19 81:20
81:22 103:4 103:10
pages [i] 36:2
PAHs[i] 107:20
pail[i] 93:17
palace [i] 69:2
pamphlet p] 35:21
35:22
pan [1] 42:4
pancake (i) 127:19
Pandora's [i] 119:14
panel [3] 11:13 11:23
17:4
paper [i] 65:2
Park[ij 2:6
part [24] 10:10 12:12
16:9 17:24 23:1
28:23 38:1 38:10
55:1 61:22 74:22
108:6 112:10 115:21
121:10 121:21 133:3
133:13 134:23 141:21
143:10 143:11 148:9
149:10
part-time pj 87:6
B7-7
O/. /
partially [i] 85:24
PARTICIPANT^]
34:23 35:10 39:2
39:5 46:21 80:4
80:8 80:11 80:16
82:17 101:11 111:1
116:11 116:19 117:2
1 17-7 117-17 1 17-lfi
1 1 / • / ll/.JX J1/
-------
       Condenselt
                TM
phone - provides
phone (2i 121:4
121:4
phonetic [i] 103:7
f t *
photographs [i] 112:3
phrase [i] 93:24
pick [5] 114:15 114:17
115:1 121:3 144:10
pictures [2] 85:21
112:5
piece [i] 45:13
pier [3] 1:13 2:3
78:14
piers [5] 2 1:1 78:11
78:20 98:9 98:11
pile[i] 111:9
r»«1«yl rt t 1 *>*T 1 A
piled [i] 127:10
pill[i] 143:7
pipe [6] 56:23 57:11
57:14 72:4 72:6
72:17
pitch [i] 33:14
place [12] 48:14
49:1 92:17 93:3
94:10 94:15 98:21
102:11 112:10 131:23
132:2 132:4
placed [3] 11:17
63:22 63:23
placing [2] 63:9
110:18
plan [12] 30:5 30:8
32-23 34-1 44-15
J+i.AiJ J^ , 1 *n. 1 J
66:12 66:13 67:11
98:3 118:6 131:2
144:23
plane [i] 145:10
planes [3] 146:18
146:21 146:21
plankton [2] 37:3
41:12
planned [i] 49:1
planning [3] 2:5
7:13 117:17
plant [7] 6 1:3 61:4
72:4 72:5 89:13
91:12 147:7
plants [i] 90:10
play [2] 50:15 63:11
players [i] 16:19
Plaza [i] 2:6
pleased m 7:8
pleasure [i] 74:4
plenty [3] 41:23
87:17 102:7
plume m 47:18
plus [2] 108:15 108:19
plywood [3] 69:1
69:4 69:11
pocket [1] 14:12
point (33] 11:17
27:17 28:4 32:15
32:17 33:2 33:8
36:13 37:18 41:9
44:13 45:9 52:20
69:14 73:10 78:20
79:12 95:11 100:19
108:6 112:9 113:7
115:13 116:3 121:23
123:4 123:9 125:6
126:14 130:12 130:12
139:19 145:8
pointed [4] 52:3
52:11 55:13 142:10
pointing [i] 113:7
points [4] 46:2
56:17 111:18 121:16
poison [i] 125:2
poisoned [2] 50:18
50:20
poisonous [4] 66:21
111:20 127:20 141:1
poisons [3] 49:23
50:2 50:5
policy m 58:5
58:6 71:9 91:22
92:10 108:21 120:14
polite [2] 106:16
106:20
political [4] 58:15
59:11 59:17 106:8
politics [i] 144:15
pollutants [2] 48:12
48:19
polluted [i] 23:12
polluting [2] 130:9
133:24
pollution [2] 70:7
133:22
Polly [15] 3:12
49:19 49:22 50:24
51:3 80:22 99:11
122:2 123:16 123:17
125:5 125:24 126:8
135:12 136:23
polychlorinated m
53:4
pools [i] 37:4
popped [i] 69:7
populated [i] 75:21
population m 37:1
port [33] 1:12 1:13
2:2 7:10 12:3
12:4 12:18 12:18
12:23 13:15 14:2
14:4 14:20 16:20
18:24 19:13 19:15
20:3 23:9 23:24
34:8 34:9 95:5
95:12 95:15 95:22
96:19 96:19 96:24
97:3 97:11 99:8
131:22
port's [3] 20:23
23:7 71:16
portion [3] 22:13
23:2 34:14
ports [10] 12:20
12:24 13:2 13:22
13:24 16:14 20:23
22:1 23:18 115:18
Portsmouth [i] 125:19
poses [i]70:15
position [6] 44:1
64:15 74:3 83:3
83:19 123:8
positive [i] 131:24
possibility [i] 1 19:10
possible^] 18:18
33:15 43:20 55:23
77:7 100:12
potential [6] 37:17
51:20 54:11 55:10
61:8 113:5
potentially [2] 15:9
21:13
Potts [4] 4:7 85:10
85:12 86:16
pounds [i] 110:6
pourii] 57:10
Poverty [i] 104:14
noort*Tri i on* i n
l/uwwi |ij y \j.i\j
powerful [i] 59:13
practical [2] 1 14:10
133:7
practice [i] 23:4
practices [i] 20:11
precious [i] 85:21
predationm 37:9
predominant [i]41:15
prefer p] 77:4
77:8 118:22
preferred pj 29:9
72:2 76:14 77:13
136:2 136:11 137:3
preliminary [i] 135:17
premise [i] 60:15
prepare [i] 89:3
prepared [6] 8:18
27:12 48:16 51:24
52:7 54:4
preparing [2] 9:16
145:15
prerequisite [i] 20:12
presence [2] 16:2
70:14
present [sj 2:13
17:8 23:6 52:16
58:24
presentation pi 34:21
41:3
presented [4] 53:8
78:18 112:24 142:5
presenting m 43:3
presently m 2020
preservation tij 98:4
preserve [i] 71:15
president [i] 83:8
pretty [4] 79:14
110:9 112:9 113:23
previous [3] 29:11
30:2 89:4
previously [i] 90:10
price [4] 61:11 87:20
91:13 96:18
primani 98:6
primarily p] 17:18
27:1
primary [6] 48:23
54:21 59:2 61:17
147:9 147:14
prime [3] 41:9
44:11 45:15
principal [i] 22:1
pristine [i] 60:17
private [2] 31:17
fifi-22
\J\Jt *f*i
privilege [i] 62:6
probable [i] 132:21
problem [12] 38:2
38:2 58:1 70:17
72:20 89:14 110:12
118:7 129:23 131:20
132:24 148:24
problems [4] 9:22
43:5 57:23 70:1 1
procedure [2] 119:16
1 "»/"l A
120:4
procedures [i] 40:1 1
process [STJ 6:5
fi-o fi-'?i Q-IO
Q.7 IJ.4J 7.1V/
9:14 9:19 10:11
10:14 11:15 11:19
12:12 15:15 18:1
22:16 27:11 27:16
30:4 31:1 33:24
34:4 35:6 47:12
48:5 59:10 59:13
62:19 64:3 72:24
92:12 93:24 95:2
101:13 101:15 111:9
119:16 119:23 121:11
121:23 122:8 123:19
126:20 127:6 130:17
133:23 134:17 134:22
134:24 135:5 136:8
136:9 136:14 136:16
136:17 145:13 145:18
147:4 149:5
processes [i] 121:15
production p] 28: 1 2
105:8
productive [i] 104:13
products [4] 23:23
23-24 96-4 107-23
^J.^^ 7U»™ *-\J 1 *^J
Professional [2] 1:22
150:4
profusion [ij 37:5
program [3] 32:1
34:14 116:21
programs [i] 72:16
progress m 76:3
project [106] 1:2
1:15 2:2 5:22
5:24 6:20 7:6
7:11 7:15 8:13
8:13 10:6 10:13
15-12 1S-24 lfi-4
U.I 4* J J.XH AU.*T
16:10 18:2 18:14
18:16 19:4 19:6
20:12 21:16 21:24
22:7 24:1 24:2
24:6 24:8 25:19
26:8 26:13 26:19
27:21 28:13 31:5
31:10 31:11 31:13
32:8 32:13 33:24
33:24 34:2 34:7
34:24 36:2 36:22
37:13 37:23 44:2
44:5 46:18 48:24
51:11 52:1 55:20
56:22 56:23 57:19
59:6 61:18 67:1
68:20 71:17 73:2
76:2 76:5 76:10
81:6 82:3 82:5
82:6 82:7 86:16
90:17 91:8 92:20
92:23 93:3 93:5
94:5 101:23 102:2
102:12 114:11 116:1
116:13 116:14 117:18
11722 121:3 129:14
129:17 130:3 131:18
131:20 131:24 132:7
132:16 132:19 133:7
134:13 144:24 150:6
project's p] 16:1
19:7
projection [i] 135:6
projects [12] 9:17
16:8 17:8 19:11
34:5 34:7 34:9
67:24 115:12 115:22
116:16 138:3
promises [i] 114:9
promising [i] 18:9
promote [2] 44:24
94:17
pronounce [i] 52:8
propm 97:22
proper [2] 90:20
nv2i
i j j*^j
properly [i] 26:10
property [i] 41:19
proposal [8] 31:2
44:15 47:13 49:12
50:6 54:18 55:24
100:4
propose [2] 30:22
30:23
proposed [i3] 21:18
30:24 33:20 44:2
54:15 59:15 66:12
70:20 81:8 84:23
98:3 115:17 124:7
proposing [i] 48:6
protect [i] 62:10
protection M 57:22
61:19 71:13 136:20
protocol [4] 26:14
27:5 73:19 147:19
protocols [i] 73:20
proven [6] 25:7
34:2 69:16 114:3
114:4 114:21
provide pj 5:23
7:1 23:22
provided [2] 38:14
48:16
Providence [i] 1 12:12
provides [3] 22:5
/37
   Index Page 13
-------
Condenselt
          TM
provincial - Rosenbei
22:21 23:7
provincial [i] 96:10
proximity [2] 46:24
49:11
public [43] 1:4
15 5:19 6:13
6:15 10:2 10:9
15:5 16:14 18:1
30:1 30:2 35:5
35:7 36:3 37:11
43:19 51:14 56:1
62:19 71:11 74:22
75:10 88:18 93:6
105:11 107:4 111:14
120:2 120:18 121:16
121:16 123:5 125:21
125:22 126:9 126:10
128:7 128:8 133:6
136:3 146:3 150:6
public's [i] 18:1
published [i] 134:21
pumping [i] 129:20
purple [i] 25:2
purpose [3] 7:20
19:4 19:7
purposes [ij 26:19
pursue [i] 143:16
pursuit [i] 143:6
pushed [i] 115:9
put [42] 12:22 13:22
14:7 14:7 40:8
40:14 50:4 64:2
64:3 69:4 69:11
75:6 77:24 78:13
92:9 94:11 96:17
96:23 100:7 104:16
110:17 114:14 114:22
115:19 120:6 1275
128:1 128:6 130:4
130:6 131:1 131:23
132:2 132:4 132:10
133:17 138:2 140:9
144:5 145:14 147:19
148:20
puts [11 49:7
putting [»] 33:20
43:4 49:11 50:21
53:6 77:10 78:7
101:3 141:24
quality [4] 26:21
54:11 54:23 84:11
quantities [i] 114:4
questioning [i] 645
questions [20] 11:4
11:6 11:9 11:11
28:3 34:19 35:18
36:5 36:9 73:6
73:9 765 77:14
77:15 92:15 93:4
100:2 105:15 116:12
137:18
quick [2] 76:12
97:15
quickly [i] 137:13
quite [7j 25:7 41:7
41:9 108:6 108:14
118:17 123:8
quote [1)55:11
R[2] 5:1 150:1
R.O.V[2] 41:4
42:8
Rachel [4] 4:6
83:5 83:6 83:7
rail[i] 20:15
railroad m 88:4
96:6 97:12
raise [i] 142:7
raised [2] 79:16
1 O1 1 A
123:14
raising [2] 116:12
117:17
ran [i] 5:7
range [4] 28:1 3 49:5
87:20 148:14
ranging [i] 29:1
ranks [i] 52: 16
rate [4] 27:9 28:12
45:3 97:13
rather [i] 149:9
Raw[i] 89:10
re-examine [i] 67:10
reach [2] 48:2 48:4
read [8] 28:3 29:6
30:11 48:18 51:23
52:7 54:5 137:1
reading [i] 39:16
real [5] 39:23 70:15
75:2 98:23 109:23
reality [4] 65:8
81:14 114:14 138:18
realize [i] 96:15
really [34] 5:20
12:1 15:18 37:10
41:9 43:4 43:9
50:8 51:4 56:17
75:22 84:24 85:13
87:14 91:4 93:11
93-13 94-15 94-16
7J.U 7~ .U 7" • 1 \J
95:14 96:7 96:7
96:11 96:13 98:22
110:15 112:8 119:13
121:18 124:6 133:24
134:7 138:19 149:8
reason [ii] 13:18
45:10 75:3 78:12
92:12 100:6 103:14
142:22 142:23 143:1
146:7
reasons [?] 44:12
45:10 76:19 95:4
106:8 142:5 142:11
reassuring m 58:21
receive [4j 6:17
30:3 88:18 100:4
received [i] 134:22
recently [sj 725
80:19 89:1 128:8
134:18
recognize [2] 12:10
51:17
recommended [3]
20:8 131:13 143:24
reconvene m 74:5
record [is] 7:2
9:8 95 46:3
51:23 53:11 54:6
56:6 65:15 66:2
ff •• *TC £ Oil
66:11 75:6 83:1
m-22 143-10
*4f4f A~J*JU
records [i] 119:18
recourse m 100:10
100:11
recreation [i] 46:19
recreational [4] 70:4
70:16 109:20 109:24
recruit [2] 44:17
44:19
rectangle [i] 128:23
Red[i] 65:18
reduce m 30:19
reducing [2] 20:10
20:11
Tpfer ri i 44-7
AwAwA 1,1 J ""./
reference [2] 29:21
52:13
referred [ij 44:6
regard m 8:2
regarding [3] 7:22
44:1 71:17
regards in 110:13
region [5) 12:20
70:4 70:17 93:2
0*5 *7
93:7
register [i] 66:11
Registered p] 1:22
150-3
•t, J\t*J
regs[2] 91:6 91:20
regular [i] 71:14
regulate [i] 44:16
regulates m 94:20
regulations [3] 90:17
91:7 91:10
regulators [2] 17:5
120:12
reiterate [i] 19:3
related [i] 90:16
relative [2] 28:15
93:5
release [i] 45:1
released [2] 71:20
89:12
Reliance [i] 72:10
relocate m 24:6
remain [2] 13:5
14:20
remaining [2] 13:21
A C. 1 O
45:18
remains [ij 14:24
remarking [i] 21:21
remember [4] 68:24
88:20 95:16 127:8
remind [i] 57:18
reminder [i] 90:18
removal [ij 25:1
remove [4] 24:13
86:2 141:12 141:16
removes [i] 19:6
Reorganization m
115:18
replaced m 49:1
replicated [i] 40:11
reply m 135:12
report [i?] 17:2
18:5 18:10 20:8
21:3 38:15 81:18
88:19 124:2 132:6
132:16 135:18 136:13
137:2 137:8 145:16
145:17
Reporter [2] 1:22
150:4
reporting [2] 1:22
103:17
reports m 88:22
represent [S] 22:10
43:23 62:5 65:17
122:2
Representative [is]
3:15 3:16 3:17
54:22 56:7 56:9
58:9 59:22 59:24
60:14 60:21 61:7
61:15 62:1 62:15
62:17 62:24 75:8
representatives [S]
10-1 3fi-fi 82-24
1 u.l J \J.\J O^.^~
126:6 126:6
represents [21 20:18
122:3
request [4] 34:15
35:5 125:21 126:10
requested m 9:20
requesting m 35:7
require [2] 23:13
25:1
required [?] 16:7
255 26:2 27:5
31:7 31:20 134:1
requirements [3]
26:17 32:14 111:18
research [6] 38:17
40:21 55:22 55:24
114:5 115:11
researches [i] 119:18
reserve [S] 21:6
22:3 22:12 42:22
53:2
residents [4i 8:11
66:19 67:5 67:8
resisted [2] 32:23
32:23
resource m 17:6
73:4 118:16

resources [6] 2:8
16:7 34:3 50:9
72:3 86:22
respect [3i 61:8
67:7 67:9
respond [i] 11:11
responded [3] 123:5
123:13 123:14
responsible [i] 121:1
rest[3] 77:14 79:4
98:7
restaurant [i] 120:15
restricted [2] 30:12
44:20
restrictions [2] 21:9
55:5
result [7] 9:13
16:6 19:10 55:4
70:9 70:18 146:12
results [6] 39:19
39:24 40:5 42:14
42:20 112:24
retarded [i] 113:2
retired [i] 127:4
return [i] 111:4
returning [i] 74:15
review [8j 6:22
10:13 35:16 100:5
100:6 122:16 123:9
136:3
reviewing p] 30:1
33:6
revisited [i] 133:4
Rhode [i] 131:12
Richard [i6i 2:15
4:12 4:15 4:16
77:19 77:22 77:23
99:3 105:16 105:17
105:20 105:21 107:7
107:8 109:1 109:7
rid [3] 87:21 88:6
113:8
ridiculous [i] 44:23
right [36] 15:5 21:20
22:20 22:23 23:16
25:10 29:20 31:11
31:14 39:16 41:21
42:6 52:8 63:8
65:17 65:18 69:3
74:2 76:17 79:1
88:4 97:8 105:1
109:23 117:7 125:7
125:13 126:2 126:3
129:22 131:18 137:23
138:6 138:10 139:12
rise [i] 20:4
risk [3] 57:8 65:7
112:15
risks [2] 57:5 59:1
river[i4]21:5 21:6
22:22 23:4 23:5
40:24 42:3 42:6
42:21 53:2 112:8
131:10 131:24 132:14
rivers p] 135
50:1 6 89:8
Road [4] 1:10 1:17
1:23 2:10
roads [i] 14:8
Robert [4] 2:14
2:16 3:3 3:13 '
robot [i] 4 1:6
Rock [i] 65:18
remote [i] 41:5
room [2] 5:5 5:8
Rosenberg [»5] 15
3:4 5:19 6:4
                                          Index Page
-------
Condenselt
           TM
Rosie's - siting
6;8 6-.U 6:12
10:23 11:12 34:12
35:3 35:24 36:12
43:2 43:12 46:10
49:16 51:6 51:8
51:13 53:16 56:5
59:21 62:14 66:1
67:14 67:19 69:20
71:2 73:17 73:24
74:9 77:18 78:1
78:4 79:3 80:2
80:6 80:13 80:18
80:23 82:13 82:19
83:1 85:9 87:1
88:10 90:3 91:24
99:2 100:14 100:24
101:6 101:14 102:17
105:10 105:13 105:18
107:3 107:15 109:5
109:9 109:13 111:17
113:6 115:2 116:9
119:6 120:5 123:3
125:5 126:2 126:13
129:7 129:10 130:11
130:22 133:15 134:4
135:14 137:17 138:9
139:8 139:18 140:5
141:3 142:1 142:20
145:8 146:15 146:19
147:1 147:5 147:15
149:4
Rosie's (2] 101:24
102:11
rotary ni 65:19
roughly [i] 25:24
rounds [i] 35:18

routes [i] 71:15
row[i] 39:10
RPR HI 150:11
ruled [ij 137:10
rules [3] 9:5 67:7
139:5
run [3] 65:7 92:21
106:7
run-offs ii] 52:20
Sm 5:1
saddle m 86:20
safe [7] 10:8 26:2
71:18 72:13 73:1
107:17 138:23
safeguarding [i]
83-20
OJ,-fi\J>
safetym 22:19
sailboats [i] 126:21
Salem [4] 99:19
104:13 104:17 138:24
Sales [1] 33:14
salesmen [i] J13:20
salient [i] 57:17
salt [2] 129:21 149:2
sampling [2j 17:20
30:7
iand [2] 93:18 94:2
iandyii] 42:2
sat [2] 17:16 90:7
Saturday [2] 93:16
103:20
Saugus isi 60:24
91:13 131:24 132:12
132:14
saunters m 94:7
Save £12] 10:3 31:3
71:7 71:8 71:11
71-11 74-2 lOfi-11
/ i * i i i HF.A J \J\t* 1 J
106:18 106:24 139:23
1 4Q- 1 ")
.1"7. J ft
sawisj 41:23 106:11
110:7 110:8 112:6
says m 39:11 51:1
65:20 81:23 119:22
120:23 142:4
Scaglione[3] 4:13
101:18 101:20
Scale [S] 12:24 13:19
33:10 120:9 128:19
scenario (4] 64:12
64:24 65:6 65:8
schedule m 16:1
16:21 21:10 31:11
32:8
school [2] 141:9
141:13
science [i] 58:18
scientific [i] 91:18
scope [i] 17:1
scoping [ii 121:16
scratch m 65:20
screeching [i] 32:11
scrubbers [i] 91:12
<8f*fll 0*^*1
dv i-ij yj~i
Sea [5] 47:24 67:4
67:6 109:2 110:17
sealing pi 77:12
seaport [2] 14:23
19:1
season [3] 41:22
110:2 110:9
Seasonal [i] 110:5
seasons [i] 50:12
Seats [i] 74:10
second [is] 13:7
16:12 16:16 17:21
33:5 45:16 45:17
69:18 75:13 94:13
97:18 124:22 125:6
138:9 139:21
Secondarily [i] 57:15
secondary [sj 49:2
61:2 91:11 143:22
144:2
Secretary pi 2:16
16:24
section [i] 120: 12
sediment [?] 17: is
26:23 31:8 40:8
76:23 89:7 89:15
sediments [14] 26:14
30:7 40:5 52:12
52:24 72:14 72:18
81:10 82:9 107:22
148:1 148:6 148:16
148:17
SCO p?i 6:23 9:23
18:19 20:24 21:7
23:20 24:10 28:1
28:19 31:19 32:10
39:2 39:5 39:11
40:5 41:8 41:11
41:15 42:4 45:8
48:3 55:6 77:13
78:9 78:12 81:20
81:21 87:8 97:6
98:21 100:7 100:17
112:12 116:16 119:17
123:12 142:17
seekm 65:22
seemm 142:6
selected m 17:3
29:24 48:22 101:12
130:14 130:15 130:17
136:12 142:12
selection [6] 30:4
30:24 100:20 100:21
101:15 101:16
selective pi 30:10
128:3
Selectman [is] 3:19
5:3 36:7 51:16
51:22 67:20 67:22
68:18 69:14 99:5
99:17 100:2 100:22
101:2 142:2
Selectmen [22] 2:15
2:16 2:17 3:3
3:13 34:15 43:17
51:24 53:9 66:8
77:20 99:3 99:14
99:18 109:17 123:20
123:21 124:9 124:9
124:11 125:20 134:18
Selectmen's [i] 5:6
semantics m 124:19
Senator pi 60:6
75:9
send [5] 76:8 84:23
85:1 96:4 96:5
sense M 60:19 68:19
111:14 148:16
sentp] 70:22
separates [i] 81:15
September m 1 26: 14
series pj 48:19
133:5
serious [i] 93:4
seriously [i] 75:2
servants [i] 74:22
serve pi 12:20 19:16
74:24
services [ij 52:21
serving [i] 12:19
session m 7:21
11:22 75:22
set pi 30:21 45:14
67:7 82:21 85:7
88:4 135:19 146:9
setting [2] 35:17
99:12
settle ii] 37:6
seven [i] 5:7
several [121 37:5
47:10 55:22 56:13
56:14 63:5 93:7
95:16 131:14 134:8
134:11 140:23
sewage m 47:1
50:3 50:5 50:14
50:22 66:21 83:9
sewer [4] 52:4
RQ-Q SQ-11 190-14
f*y*y Qy*u j^7*j^
Sewerage [i] 72:5
shallow pi 13:11
14:2 98:15
share PI 31:20 31:22
83-8
OJ.Q
shed [2] 45:6 45:11
shelf [2] 89:17 103:2
shelling [i] 14:11
Sherberp] 3:21
71:3 71:6
shift [2 j 19:18 95:8
ship [5] 14:3 20:18
68:8 68:14 95:17
shippers [ij 19:21
shipping [6] 33:21
70:6 71:15 94:19
97:1 113:11
ships [121 13:3
13:13 13:14 13:23
13:23 14:2 14:21
19:14 19:22 65:13
98:12 111:12
shore [23] 24:10
29:23 47:24 48:3
54:20 60:12 60:18
61:10 61:23 66:19
68:22 70:10 70:19
72:23 84:22 93:15
99:23 100:9 100:9
100:10 120:11 126:15
140:15
shores pi 66:16
68-9 82-10
UO*7 €M»»Jlw
short m 18:18 40:18
41-7 74-8 93-19
~ * * 1 I ~-O yj**.?
97:12 106:3
short-sighted m
66:17
short-term [i] 83:24
shovel [i] 93:18
shoveling [i] 94:1
show [5] 18:15 40:18
40:23 42:15 45:16
showed [3] 31:14
109:18 128:12
showing [2] 75:20
114:19
shown p] 21:22
22:12 22:14 23:13
23:17 29:8 29:10
29:11 89:12
shows [9] 28:15
31:13 81:21 103:10
103:11 114:5 128:7
128:12 128:19
shutting [i] 33:16
side [9] 14:16 14:16
31:24 47:16 90:8
93:21 96:9 96:9
127:7
sides [3] 87:8 90:13
127:7
signed [i] 123:7
significant m 26:9
30:13
silt [6] 7:18 13:8
37:20 81:7 111:4
140:16
siltatioB [i] 38:1
Silted HI 42:18
Silts [i] 24:24
siltypj 24:19
similar pi 13:20
26:23 40:24 67:9
117:14 133:23
simply [4] 37:15
58:9 58:15 76:21
simulation m 22:17
single [i] 62:10
sinks [i] 65:1
sit [4j 74:23 95:9
118:16 121:17
siteps) 6:1 7:23
24:5 29:5 29:8
29:14 29:17 29:21
30:16 30:20 30:22
30:23 31:6 32:3
40:20 41:8 41:14
42:4 44:6 47:11
47:12 48:22 53:12
53:13 56:20 59:18
70:21 72:6 72:12
72:22 73:16 73:18
76:15 76:17 76:17
76:19 79:19 86:11
86:18 87:11 91:1
92:8 101:10 101:11
106:14 108:4 116:22
117:6 117:11 117:11
118:11 118:20 127:18
128:13 130:20 130:21
130:24 131:19 131:19
132:18 132:21 132:21
133:1 133:14 137:5
137:23 138:1 139:12
139:15 142:7 142:16
142:18 145:1 146:4
147:6
sites (S3J 10:5 10:6
18:8 26:24 28:8
28:8 28:20 28:21
29:4 29:12 29:13
29:18 29:19 29:24
10-6 33-11 41-1
JW.VJ JJ,Jtl "Tl -A
42:21 43:8 46:7
58:12 58:23 59:15
71:24 72:2 72:17
76:20 79:17 81:16
97:14 112:19 114:1
115:24 117:15 118:23
119:12 131:8 133:4
133:6 133:11 134:12
135:20 135:21 136:24
137:3 137:4 137:15
137:19 137:21 138:4
138:6 138:7 144:10
siting {4] 132:20
135:5 138:14 138:16
                                           Index Page 15
-------
Condenselt
           TM
sits - talk;
sits ii] 95:11
sitting isi 21:19
29:5 47:2 108:4
132:1
situation [3] 70:5
83:24 121:22
six [»j 5:7 22:5
28:14 29:9 49:23
74:18 108:17 125:9
six-hour [i] 95:13
Sixth pi 54:22 55:1
Size [4] 13:13 94:12
128:1 128:16
Slick fij 113:19
slide m 20:16 21:20
22:14 31:13 121:13
slides [i] 42:15
slow 11] 109:23
Slowly 12) 17:8
21:21
sludge [12] 66:14
89:5 89:6 89:12
89:20 140:9 148:3
148:5 148:7 148:15
148:18 148:23
small [10] 29:21
33:10 34:7 40:3
41:18 63:24 93:18
110:8 114:4 128:8
smaller pi 13:21
19:19 34:5
Smith [S] 2:2
3:18 66:2 66:5
66:10
smoke [i] 47:20
smokestack [i] 47:20
smokestacks pj 1 33:1 8
snapshot [i] 103:9
so-called (2] 108:8
115:18
Soils [1] 72:24
Sold(i) 117:3
solely [I] 9:4
Solids PI 147:8
147:13
solution [3] 9:21
34:6 132:7
someone pi 92:20
96:21 112:19
someplace pi 14:6
oo.c
88:5
sometime [2] 49:2
I2S-14
4XU.1H
sometimes [sj 47:22
47:23 47:23 107:17
121:19
somewhat [2] 45:4
123:19
somewhere [4j 48:22
114:23 127:10 130:20
SOU [i] 1 10:21
sooner ii] 25:21
Sony [2] 71:10 149:6
sort [4j 37:9 41:16
56:24 131:2
sorts [2] 79:6 87:15
sound [7] 7:20
52:9 104:13 107:16
125:14 131:6 131:7
sounds [i] 75:1
source p] 36:24
42:15 111:5
SOUth [S] 16:16 21:6
22:3 47:23 96:9
southern [i] 14:16
space [i] 117:9
speak [20] 5:11
5:13 6:4 6:6
11:3 12:8 34:17
44:3 46:17 62:4
70:2 70:2 74:13
80:21 81:3 84:6
85:12 102:22 107:7
m-n
• 1>7
speaker [25] 36:14
43:12 46:11 49:19
53:17 56:6 59:21
62:14 66:1 67:14
69:21 71:3 75:12
77:19 78:1 79:8
80:2 85:9 87:1
89:4 90:3 92:1
99:2 101:17 105:13
speakers [ii] 3:2
4:2 11:3 11:8
34:17 63:5 79:5
81:4 83:22 92:1
t AC 1 1
105:11
speaking [4] 8:21
17:13 25:24 84:1
species [3] 50:10
55:12 113:2
Specific [2] 12:19
132:15
specifically [2] 52:17
72:7
specifics m 18:14
Spectacle pj 29:21
29:23 76:16 76:17
137:7
speedy pi 87:18
spell (i] 82:14
Spelling [i] 103:8
spend [7] 32:9
79:1 88:20 91:1
94:3 96:21 98:16
spending [i] 1 19:11
spent Ii] 72:15
spiel [i] 34:11
spill [si 87:17 110:19
141:23 148:11 148:14
spillage [2] 86:8
86:9
Spills [1] 52:1 9
spoil (S] 15:1 31:16
50:22 71:18 73:14
spoils [ii 147:12
Spoke [5] 67:17
78:3 80:5 83:9
93:9
spoken [i] 78:4
Sponsor [i] 16:9
spotm 101:22
Spots [2] 94:6 110:3
Spread [4] 70:9
139:6 140:19 148:19
Spring [S] 17:4
32:18 50:12 103:12
133:21
springs [ii 140:16
square [i] 128:17
squared [i] 128:24
Stack [i] 30:3
Staff [i] 7:5
Stages [i] 37:6
stake [i] 94:18
standards [i] 141:11
standing p] 95:16
105:15
Stands [i] 67:3
Start [8] 5:17 6:8
34:20 94:14 101:9
104:20 110:9 122:24
started [3] 5:4
134:7 138:1
starting [6] 22:3
28:16 92:11 98:20
108:7 130:3
Starts [3] 57: 10 93:20
94:1
State [22] 9:24 15:7
22:17 27:10 34:2
34:6 35:6 44:15
45:17 60:9 75:8
91:15 106:7 119:21
120:13 131:1 131:5
131:13 132:8 132:13
136:4 136:9
statement [i>] 6:19
8:6 8:19 18:5
18:10 48:17 51:24
52:6 54:4 71:7
71:21 73:9 74:3
76:13 132:5 133:9
136:13 145:17
Statements [4] 8:1 5
9:1 76:5 88:17
States [2] 14:11
123:7
Statistics [i] 45:16
Status [ii 52:15
stay p] 77:8 149:8
149:10
stayed [i] 65:3
steaming [i] 95:17
stenographic m
150:8
Step [6] 65:9 120:1
144:16 145:15 146:9
146:11
step-by-step ni 146:1
Steps [1] 121:15
STERLING [i] 1:23
Still psj 12:12 22:19
33:13 54:4 83:11
84:12 105:7 131:20
131:21 134:18 134:19
138:7 139:1 139:2
148:9
stipulate in 80: 19
stir [i] 98:16
stirring [i] 42:9
Stocks [1] 55:4
Stop [5] 14:5 89:22
111:7 111:7 111:10
storage [i] 86:18
stored [i] 86:12
Stories [i] 127:24
storm [i] 144:4
storms [i] 67:8
story [3] 68:7 69:5
87:8
straight [2] 28:14
29:3
strategy pi 20:13
131:15
Strength [i] 30:14
stricter [i] 90:18
stripers [i] 110:1
strong [3] 60:10
72:7 72:12
strongly [i] 143:4
struck [i] 81:11
structure [i] 126:16
structures [i] 96:18
studied [2] 144:7
144:8
studies m 33:1
79:20 129:4 133:20
135:5
Study [11] 22:16
50:9 50:10 50:11
50:13 55:17 57:12
57:12 79:23 134:1
144:9
Stuff [is] 40:9
68:14 86:19 88:6
89:23 91:20 94:11
94:16 111:9 112:8
113:11 113:21 124:24
137:11 138:13 138:20
140:1 141:14
subcommittees tn
27:17
subject p] 37:9
115:2
submarine [i] 41:6
Substance [i] 148:10
successful [2] 51:19
85:24
successfully [i] 10:10
such [10] 10:2 33:18
34:2 43:4 66:7
66:22 75:20 77:9
93:14 97:14
sudden [i] 16:5
suffered [i] 111:14
sufficient [i] 27:9
sufficiently [ij 20:4
Sugannanii] 71:9
suggest [2] 38:2
82:3
suggested [ij 45:4
suggestion m 65:19
suggestions [i] 56:1
suitable [4] 25:11
26:17 27:3 46:5
summary [3] 36:3
81:18 107:10
summer [?] 17:9
18:6 30:5 43:7
50:12 133:21 140:22
sunk[i] 65:3
support [<] 43:24
71:14 96:16 96:24
112:2 118:23
supporting [i] 1 7:8
Supports [3] 98:11
112:5 113:1
Supposed [1] 61:1
supposedly [3] 6: 1
74:24 146:22
Supposes [1] 130:13
SUrfpj 140:12 140:13
surf ace [i] 105:6
surrounded pi 52:3
83:18
surrounding [4] 14:11
61:12 89:10 101:5
survival [si 27:9
40:6 40:12 42:22
45:3
survived [i] 27:8
swallow [i] 143:7
swamp [i] 9023
swamps [i] 57:24
SwampSCOtt [6] 43:23
57:19 60:23 66:16
69:22 80:3
swim [20] 11:1
37:2 46:12 49:20
50:9 50:13 50:15
83:12 83:14 84:8
84:9 92:11 107:19
110:21 122:18 123:5
125:24 126:3 126:5
149:10
swimming ii] 84:13
switches [i] 129:15
switching [i] 129:18
system [4] 13:20
38:18 38:21 88:4
systems [3] 13:4
19:9 30:18
Tpi 150:1 150:1
T-O-S-E[i] 83:5
table [3] 74:18 90:8
138:7
tackle [i] 41:24
take-home m 39:23
taking m 20S
28:17 93:3 143:1
143:9 143:17
talented m 51:18
talks [2] 81:23 93:24
                                           Index Page
-------
Condenselt
           TM
tall - unalterable
tall m 6S--23
tan[i] 47:18
tangential [i] 61:8
tank [3] 19:17 23:21
141:9
tanker [3] 95:6
95:10 95:15
tape [4] 40:23 40:24
41:7 43:9
tax [4] 66:24 96:23
106:18 106:24
taxation [i] 96:15
taxpayers [3] 66:19
96:21 106:14
teach [i] 126:17
teaching [i] 109:21
tearni 70:8
technical [2] 53:10
122:17
techniques m 1 14:19
technological m
13:12
technologies [i6j
28:9 57:3 57:5
113:17 113:19 113:24
114:2 114:9 114:13
115:1 115:11 115:23
116:3 116:6 138:18
150-5
1 J7. J
technology [is] 13:7
33:7 33:17 69:15
70:22 86:1 86:18
91:14 91:17 113:8
113:14 113:24 114:16
114:18 115:3 115:7
134:11 140:11
telephone [3] 1:24
56:13 122:8
television [i] 36:10
telling [i] 53:11
temperature [i] 140:14
temptation [i] 32:24
ten [i i] 2:6 26:4
83:9 84:5 94:9
99:19 120:9 120:9
120:10 139:20 140:15
ten-minute [i] 74:1
tend [41 5:13 93:13
93:22 109:22
tendency [i] 12:17
tends [i] 70:8
term [3] 92:13 1 13:18
132:17
terminal [8] 16:16
19:16 19:16 22:6
23:8 23:10 30:15
47:16
terminals [9] 16:14
16:17 20:14 21:9
23:12 23:19 23:21
96:8 96:12
terminology [i] 110:12
terms [7]57:3 84:1
92:10 98:4 112:23
136:5 145:15
terrible [2j 94:24
137:11
test [6] 40:5 40:8
40:10 42:14 112:24
146:11
tested [i] 27:2
testimony m 55:20
testing [8] 17:19
26:14 26:14 27:5
27:5 40:1 147:19
147:24
tests [i] 134:8
thank [75] 6:10
6:11 6:21 10:18
12:6 15:20 15:21
34:12 36:13 43:2
43:15 43:16 43:18
46:8 46:10 46:16
49:14 49:16 51:6
53:14 53:16 53:21
56:3 56:5 56:9
59:19 60:1 60:2
62:12 62:18 65:23
66:5 66:6 67:12
69:20 70:1 70:24
71:2 74:6 74:15
74:15 75:17 77:16
77:18 79:3 81:2
82:11 82:19 83:6
83:12 84:8 84:9
85:7 86:23 88:8
90:1 90:6 90:7
98:24 99:5 99:7
99:11 99:15 99:24
102:15 109:7 109:16
111:2 116:9 127:21
144:19 146:14 147:15
149:5 149:14
Thankfully [2j 10:8
7V?4
/ 3.41
thanking [ij 54:7
thanks [2] 66:7
79:24
theme m 33:24
themselves m 45:11
58:24
therefore [3] 25:6
72-15 115-12
/ ^. 1 J 1 1 •?* 1 ^
thin [i] 148:19
thinking [3] 57:3
108:12 127:11
third [5] 58:14 64:14
64:22 124:22 145:21
Thomas [i] 80:9
thought [5] 68:2
73:11 85:1 89:16
140:10
thousand m 13:16
140:23
thousands [i] 104:15
threat [i] 70:15
threaten [i] 46:7
threatened [2] 55:11
55:14
threatening [ij 52:9
threats [i] 51:20
three [i2] 19:15
21:7 22:1 34:16
40:1 47:2 47:3
56:17 103:4 109:21
122:12 131:7
through [24] 11:19
12:23 15:14 17:16
27:16 27:17 31:21
32:1 34:3 37:5
64:17 65:16 70:8
79:4 96:8 103:1
121:24 122:1 122:8
122:8 122:9 127:14
145:24 147:4
throughout [4] 9:19
18:6 64:19 121:22
throw [1] 90:24
thumbing [i] 103:1
Thursday [i] 150:8
tidal [4] 48:1 48:4
53:2 95:13
tide [6] 20:4 68:10
93:20 94:7 95:8
132:14
tides [3] 13:9 67:7
SO. 1C
O7* 1 J
tied [3] 94:22 96:3
139:14
timelines [i] 90:12
times [9] 28:14 28:16
29:2 29:3 29:4
45:13 49:6 49:6
5/5.15
•J\Jfl J
today [9] 13:14
47:2 54:14 54:18
55:21 90:23 91:8
113:10 148:20
together [i?] 6:16
11:20 16:17 31:17
50:4 50:6 80:12
80:17 94:22 115:19
116:15 118:14 131:2
135:19 138:2 144:5
145:14
ton [i] 141:16
tonight [so] 5:11
5:21 6:3 6:15
6:23 7:4 7:14
7:21 8:3 8:12
8:23 9:5 9:10
g.is 10-1Q 1S-3
7. A O Iv/.l 7 1 J.J
17:24 18:16 21:20
27:18 35:8 43:19
53:8 54:2 60:2
60:8 63:17 64:8
65:15 66:11 68:5
70:2 75:6 75:21
75:23 79:5 79:15
81:3 85:16 92:5
106:11 107:19 108:1
112:21 133:12 142:5
143:10 143:11 143:13
149:5
tons[i] 141:17
too [8] 13:11 24:5
45:8 63:19 63:21
96:14 115:15 134:15
took [4] 40:21 42:5
64:18 102:8
top [6] 25:3 25:16
28:7 49:23 64:21
126:7
topic [i] 92:6
Torkildsenm 53:23
Torkildsen's m
53:18
Tose[4] 4:6 83:5
83:6 83:7
total [3] 25:3 25:16
127:17
totally [i] 52:3
touch [i] 31:10
tough [2] 105:21
110:16
tougher [3] 73:22
74:1 91:10
tourism [2] 62:2
66:22
toward [i] 93:22
towards [i] 81:14
Tower [2] 68:23
68:24
town [34] 1:4
5f\ C 1 C ^»*>
:9 5:15 6:2
8:21 17:11 34:17
36:6 47:4 51:17
51:20 52:2 60:3
£f\ *>j* £\ 1 1 f) C
60:24 61:11 62:5
62:11 67:19 77:20
83:16 97:13 98:12
99:4 99:9 100:3
100:5 123:20 123:22
124:10 124:12 128:9
132:15 132:17 134:8
toxic [is] 38:19
38:24 39:13 39:14
39:17 39:22 66:14
66:20 70:14 84:21
107:20 107:23 111:24
141:1 148:10
toxicity[3] 48:21
111:24 112:23
toxics [1] 148:22
toxin [I] 104:21
tractor [i] 13:17
traffic [2] 96:8
97:19
trailers [i] 13:17
train [2] 20:6 33:21
trains m 14:7
transcript [2] 80:18
150:5
transcription [ij
150:7
transcripts [i] 43:11
transport [i] 86:9
transportation [7]
2:5 7:13 13:4
19:24 28:23 86:10
96:1
trap [2] 41:20 45:14
Trapelom 1:10
1:17 2:10
traps [4] 45:9 45:23
109:22 109:23
trash [i] 47:4
travel p] 13:11
45:7
treat m 88:5 88:6
114:22
treatment [i6] 28:9
28:23 33:7 33:9
33:17 48:24 49:2
61:2 72:5 89:13
91:11 105:24 141:19
147:7 147:9 147:14
tremendous [i] 75:20
Trial [i] 106:4
tributary [4] 19:15
20:9 21:4 22:2
trouble [i] 125:18
truck [2] 20:6 96:6
true m 50:19 108:14
118:12 132:13 136:17
146:5 150:7
truly [i] 75:21
trust [i] 59:12
try [8] 5:5 8:18
15:3 60:7 91:19
100:14 116:6 120:6
trying [ii] 43:6
44:24 51:11 57:21
69:15 94:16 131:1
131:15 133:5 145:13
145:14
tubes [1)41:17
tug[i] 65:1
Tunnel [2] 64:14
64:22
tunnels [i] 64:18
turbidity [i] 30:19
turn [9] 6:8 16:24
22:11 23:3 49:2
103:17 103:19 123:10
149:9
turned m 19:14
68:11 129:15
turning [3] 22:2
22:15 22:24
twice [4] 14:4 86:13
121:21 139:19
two [31] 13:6 16:17
ni *T 1 O 1 A *1O "5
:17 19:10 29:3
29:18 30:11 32:13
36:5 38:12 38:22
41:1 50:4 60:21
66:15 68:22 69:6
87-11 89-20 90-9
o / . 1 1 \jy ,*f\j y\t*y
100:2 101:13 111:17
116:11 121:16 125:17
133:3 137:17 140:6
141:9 143:22
type [5] 38:8 38:9
38:10 102:12 141:19
types [2] 40:1 134:11
typical [3] 26:22
41:19 41:22
typically [i] 37:3
U.S[6] 1:9 1:16
2:9 54:3 66:13
120:8
ultimate [i] 59:18
unacceptable [i]
40:14
unalterable [i] 60:10
                                           Index Page 17
-------
Condenselt1
uncapped - yourselvt
uncapped pj 73:16
73:18
uncommon en 111:14
unconfined pi 29:3
107:12
unconscionable m
53:6
under [13] 7:15
22:6 26:17 30:21
44:14 65:16 76:2
91:13 106:7 106:10
125:22 136:20 147:18
underlying pi 27: 1
60:15
understand [io] 6:24
12:13 15:8 35:14
46:17 73:11 78:21
118:3 119:12 128:4
underutilized [ij
20:21
unequivocal in 60:10
unfairm 127:2
unique [3] 33:19
83:16 83:19
University p] 36:15
36:18
unless [3] 13:10
36:10 107:4
unmanagcd[i] 26:24
unreliable [i] 40:10
unreported [i] 65:4
unsafe pi 109:2
109:2
unsaid [i] 91:6
unsuitable [ii] 25:5
26:7 26:10 26:15
26:21 31:24 32:6
38:4 46:5 108:9
m.in
.20
upps] 5:12 8:16
9:8 11:10 12:7
13*8 14-11 14-15
1 JfO JT,4 i 1*1* A mf
16:1 25:11 28:2
28:3 28:16 29:5
29:7 32:7 35:15
42:9 42:13 49:6
51:3 51:14 60:16
64:22 65:18 65:19
69:4 70:6 75:1
77:4 78:15 83:15
84:10 84:14 85:23
85:23 86:4 88:4
88:14 89:16 89:19
m •*) ft i if f\A i *$
91:2 91:16 94:13
94:22 97:17 97:22
98:16 99:12 101:22
102:4 105:14 105:15
107:5 108:22 109:18
111:9 111:11 116:20
118:6 119:13 119:17
121:4 121:16 122:12
122:15 125:5 128:7
128:18 132:24 137:18
138:1 1 139:14 139:24
143:11 145:20 147:19
148:20
upland [i] 28:21
upper [i] 49:9
Upstate [i] 88:5
upstream [i] 23:11
urge [ii 55:18
used [ii] 17:23 22:17
66:24 88:20 98:8
98:10 104:12 114:20
127:11 139:11 148:18
users [i] 70:4
using[3]97:18 113:23
135:16
usual [l]l 41:24
usually [4] 64:19
64:20 90:22 106:1
Utah [5] 33:21 84:24
85:1 113:12 126:24
Utility [i] 24:4
Valdezpi 68:15
85:21
valid m 57:11
value [1)90:22
valued [i] 11:15
variety [4] 23:8
58:24 59:1 76:19
various [io] 27:17
28:18 43:8 43:18
58:15 58:16 70:11
81:21 90:10 115:4
vasectomy [i] 105:4
vehemently [i] 104:5
vehicles [ij 12:23
vessel [i] 40:22
vessels m 13:21
19:20 19:20 20:1
22:15 22:24
viable [i] 61:22
vibration iij 130:1
Vicem 2:15
vicinity [i] 32:6
video [3)40:22 41:5
42:5
videotape pj 40:19
41:2 112:6
views [ij 8:15
violation [2] 144:4
144- f\
i*f*f.U
vision [i] 95:3
visited [i] 56:21
visualize pi 1 10:18
127:6 127:12
visualizing [i] 127:23
vital [i] 96:12
vitality [41 71:16
93:2 98:5 98:12
voice [4] 11:18 51:10
122:6 122:7
voices pi 12:14
51:10
volume t2] 28:12
L2&.1Z
volumes [i] 26:9
volunteering [i] 123:1
volunteers [i] 122:21
voodoo [11 92:14
vote[ij 119:21
vulnerable [i] 37:8
W[i] 1:12
wait [5] 20:4 26:5
68:10 97:2 132:13
waited m 69:4
waiting [i] 95:15
walked [i] 106:13
walls [i] 93:21
Walsh p] 3:18
3:19 66:2 66:5
66:10 67:19 67:22
68:18 69:14
Waltham.[«] 1:11
1:17 2:10 1225 ,
wand [ii 138:20
wants [4] 55:6
103:5 122:5 142:17
Warp] 97:9 104:1
warm [ii 66:7
Washington pi 54:4
120:22
waste po] 33:10
60:16 87:10 87:10
87:15 87:18 87:23
90:24 92:9 110:16
112:1 114:1 117:9
117:11 124:17 139:11
141:1 141:15 148:11
148:13
wastewater [5] 61:2
61:4 89:11 89:11
148:3
watch p] 84:18
95:10
watchdog [ii 51:19
watched [i] 93:16
watches [i] 95:16
watching [4] 5:15
98:14 126:1 126:3
water [25] 13:1 1
16:6 35:7 37:2
37:4 37:16 48:2
48:8 52:3 60:17
72:3 83:9 83:18
85:19 118:16 125:15
129:21 129:21 13424
138:21 140:14 140:20
144:4 144:7 147:19
waterfront p] 20:24
65:18
waters m 44:5
60:12 62:11 85:17
85:18 86:22 129:12
140-16 147-lfl
1"W. * W -1*T * .-1U
waterways [i] 51:19
ways [6] 44:21 58:21
59:4 113:22 121:2
m. 1 O
:18
week p) 56:19 132:15
weeks pi 56:14
fiQ-fi
SI?.*/
weight pi 75:7
7«.i i 1 17.70
'•J.i 1 1 l^.XV
Weiss [3] 4:5
82:20 82:21
welcome [2] 6:15
11:24
welfare [i] 93:6
West [1)96:5
Western P] 13:1
14:10
wetlands [3] 90:22
136:20 141:23
whale [i] 98:14
whales [i] 110:8
whereas m 53:2
wherever m 88:5
white [1)41:17
whole [6] 96:24
102:3 102:12 119:13
119:15 119:16
wide [ii 23:3
widespread [i] 70:19
widest ji] 23:7
wildlife [i] 113:2
William [IT] 2:8
3:5 3:23 7:6
10:21 10:24 35:4
35:12 79:11 111:23
131:4 132-23 134:5
135:8 147:17 148:7
148:24
willing [i] 122:21
wind [3] 14:11 140:12
140:13
window [i] 69:6
winds [i] 67:8
wine [ii 1221
winter [3] 50:12
103:12 103:12
winters ii] 133:21
wipe[i] 102:3
wish [4] 46:6 59:15
74:13 121:13
within [4] 24:1
29:16 77:8 101:12
without [g] 6:7
11:8 21:9 42:9
110:2 110:19 124:8
125:15
woman's m 108:24
wondering [5] ii:l
11:9 73:13 139:10
139:13

25:22 40:7 52:8
worked p] 62:21
112:4
workplace [i] 93:1
world [«] 13:2
O'lS A4-1Q TD4«1
• J«J U^.U AU~«J
114:12 114:21
world-renowned [i]
69:2
worm[i] 41:16
worms [3j 27:6
27:7 40:2
worse [i] 146:5
worst [i] 129:23
worthiness [i] 61:18
write [1] 143:8
writing [i] 35:19
written [4] 71:8
103:6 124:1 131:9
wrong [4] 69:11
118:6 123:11 123:12
Xpj 3:1 4:1
Yankee [i] 93:24
yard[i] 78:22
yards [i«] 7:18
24:17 25:1 25:4
25:13 25:15 25:17
31:16 31:23 32:5
33:11 33:12 81:7
81:13 82:2 104:23
year [13] 10:4 27:15
27:19 32:17 45:13
48:7 71:19 73:22
91:11 101:13 129:23
129:24 145:19
years [4?j 19:12
25:11 26:4 26:6
32:13 32:19 61:1
61:22 62:7 62:22
67:1 76:3 82:5
82:8 82:9 83:9
84:5 84:5 84:6
87:7 87:12 88:14
88:16 89:14 90:8
90:9 90:19 90:20
92:14 94:9 99:19
103:6 103:15 103:16
103:20 103:22 104:11
m-1 127-12 129-24
,J A A / > A 4t i. 4J*,
-------
APPENDIX C - LIST OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND WORKING GROUP
                        MEMBERS
-------
Ms. Karen Kirk Adams
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
New England Division
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA  02254-9149
Mr. Deerin Babb-Brott
Dredging Coordinator/
Permit Advisory Service
Coastal Zone Management
100 Cambridge Street - Room 2006
Boston, MA  02202
Ms. Nancy Baker
Massachusetts Exec. Office of Environmental Affairs
100 Cambridge Street, Room 2000
Boston, MA 02202
Mr. Leigh Bridges
Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, MA  02202
Mr. John Catena
NatL Marine Fisheries Services
One Blackburn Drive
Gloucester, MA 01930-2298
Ms. Priscilla Chapman
Executive Director
Sierra Club
3 Joy Street
Boston, MA  02108
Mr. Philip Colarusso
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mail Code WQE-425
JFK Building - Room 2203
Boston, MA 02203
Mr. Brian J. Cox
Boston Line & Service Co., Inc.
1 Black Falcon Avenue
Boston, MA 02210
Mr. Robert Buchsbaum
Mass. Audubon Society
346 Grapevine Road
Wenham, MA 01984
Ms. Ann Donner
Move Massachusetts 2000
Suite 628
294 Washington Street
Boston, MA 02108
-------
Mr. Vernon Lang
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Ralph Pill Marketplace - 4th floor
22 Bridge Street
Concord, NH 03301-4901
Ms. Joan LeBlanc
Save the Harbor/Save the Bay
25 West Street, 4th Floor
Boston, MA 02111
Mr. Leslie K. Lewis
Massachusetts Dept. of Environmental Management
Division of Waterways
100 Cambridge Street - 14th floor
Boston, MA  02202
Ms. Vivien Li
Executive Director
The Boston Harbor Association
374 Congress Street, Suite 609
Boston, MA 02210
Mr. Steve Lipman
Div. of Water Pollution Control
Massachusetts Dept. of Environmental Protection
1 Winter Street - 8th floor
Boston, MA 02108
Mr. Chris Mantzaris
National Marine Fisheries Service
One Blackburn Drive
Gloucester, MA 01930-2298
Ms. Joanne McBrien
Massachusetts Dept. of Environmental Affairs
Division of Energy Resources
100 Cambridge Street, Room 1500
Boston, MA 02202
Mr. Richard B. Mertens
Boston Redevelopment Authority
One City Hall Square
Boston, MA 02201
Ms. Judith Pederson
Massachusetts Exec. Office of Environmental Affairs
Coastal Zone Management
100 Cambridge Street - Room 2006
Boston, MA 02202
Ms. Grace Perez
Conservation Law Foundation
62 Summer Street
Boston, MA 02110-1008
-------
Lt. Chris Fahy
U.S. Coast Guard
Marine Safety Office
455 Commercial Street
Boston, MA 02109-1045
Mr. Scott Person
Press Secretary
Senator Kennedy's Office
Room 409
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
Mr. Al Frizelle
The Boston Shipping Association
Charlestown Navy Yard
33 Third Avenue
Boston, MA  02129-4516
Capt. Dave Galman
Boston Harbor Docking Pilots
36 New Street
East Boston, MA 02128
Dr. Diane Gould
Massachusetts Bays Program
100 Cambridge Street - Room 2006
Boston, MA 02202
Mr. Joel Hartley
Massachusetts Dept. of Environmental Protection
Solid Waste Management
1 Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
Mr. Thomas Hill
c/o New England Fisheries Management Council
27 Ferry Street
Gloucester, MA 01930
Ms. Kymberlee Keckler
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 1
Mail Code WQE-1900
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
Mr. Christopher Kelly
Executive Secretary
Boston Conservation Commission
Boston City Hall, Room 805
Boston, MA 02201
Ms. Carolyn Kiley
Bay State Cruise Company
67 Long Wharf
Boston, MA 02110
-------
Ms. Judy Pony
Massachusetts Dept. of Environmental Protection
Water Pollution Control
1 Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
Mr. Martin Pillsbury
Metropolitan Area Planning Council
60 Temple Place
Boston, MA 02111
Capt. A. Ross Pope
Patterson, Wylde & Co., Inc.
West Building 2 - Suite 305
Boston Fish Pier
Boston, MA 02210
Mr. Arthur Pugsley
Environmental Department
Boston City Hall
Boston, MA 02201
Mr. Mark Radville
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
Charlestown Navy Yard
100 First Avenue (3rd Fir)
Charlestown, MA  02129
Mr. Ed Reiner
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
JFK Building - Mail Code RER
Boston, MA  02203
Mr. Peter Scarpignato
Department of Public Works
One City Hall Square
Boston, MA 02201
Mr. Deilabarre Sullivan
Sierra Club
3 Joy Street
Boston, MA 02108
Ms. Jodi Sugerman
Policy Director
Save the Harbor/Save the Bay
25 West Street, 4th Floor
Boston,  MA 02111
Mr. Anthony Termine
The Gillette Company
1 Gillette Park
Boston, MA  02127-1096
-------
Mr. Richard Varney
Town of Hull
40 Draper Avenue
Hull, MA 02045-2233
Mr. Robert F. McKeon
No. Atlantic Region Director
U.S. Department of Transportation
Maritime Administration
26 Federal Plaza, R3737
New York, NY  10278
Captain Jeffrey W. Monroe
Deputy Port Director/Administration
Massport Authority
Fish Pier East n
Northern Avenue
Mr. Mason Weinrich
Cetacean Research Unit
P.O. Box 159
Gloucester, MA 01930
Mr. John Simpson
Mass. Dept. of Environmental Protection
Division of Waterways
One Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
Ms. Naomi Schusster
Environmental Department
Boston City Hall
Boston, MA 02201
Mr. Kevin O'Brien
Town of Hull
253 Atlantic Ave.
Hull, MA 02045
Mr. Michael Ludwig
NOAA, Nat'l. Marine Fisheries Service
212 Rogers Avenue
Milford, CT 06460
Mr. John Kurland
Nat'l. Marine Fisheries
One Blacburn Drive
Gloucester, MA 01930-2298
MST2 Heather Leclair
Marine Marine Safety Officer
US Coast Guard
455 Commercial Street
Boston, MA 02109-1045
-------
Mr. Peter Walworth
Manager, Environmental Engineering
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
500 Arborway
Jamaica Plain, MA 02130
Capt. Arthur Whittemore
Boston Pilots
Pier 1 - South Bremen Street
East Boston, MA 02128
Ms. Patience WMtten
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
JFK Building - Mail Code RER
Boston, MA 02203
Ms. Sarah Woodhouse
Senator John F. Kerry's Office
One Bowdoin Square - 10th floor
Boston, MA 02114
Mr. Mitch Ziencina
Environmental Analyst
Div. of Wetlands & Waterways
Massachusetts Dept. of Environmental Protection
One Winter Street - 8th floor
Boston, MA 02108
Mr. Peter Zuk
Massachusetts Highway Dept.
Central Artery/Tunnel
One South Station
Boston, MA 02110
The Honorable Bruce H. Tobey
Mayor
City of Gloucester
Gloucester, MA 01930
Ms. Dorothy Allen
12 Fenno Way
Nahant, MA 01908
Ms. Polly Bradley
c/o S.W.I.M.
Northeastern University Marine
Science Center
East Point
Nahant, MA 01908
Mr. John W. DePriest
City of Chelsea
Department of Community Development
City Hall Room 101
500 Broadway
Chelsea, MA  01250
-------
Mr. Richard Gioiosa
Mass. Dept. of Environmental Protection
Division of Solid Waste
One Winter St., 4th Fl.
Boston, MA 02108
Ms. Ellie Dorsey
Conservation Law Foundation
62 Summer Street
Boston, MA 02110
Mr. Robert Buchsbaum
Massachusetts Audubon Society
346 Grapevine Rd.
Wenham, MA 01984
Mr. Scott Casell
Exec. Office of Environmental Affairs
100 Cambridge St., 20th Floor
Boston, MA 02202
-------
APPENDIX D - TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
-------
   REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON NEW TECHNOLOGIES FOR DREDGED
         MATERIAL HANDLING,  PRE-TREATMENT AND TREATMENT

                              SURVEY QUESTIONS
VENDOR NAME:

Technology Type:

Technology Trade Name:

Address:

City/State/Zip:

Contact:
Title:
Phone:
Fax:
Status (Conceptual, Lab, Pilot or Full Scale):



      Please attach additional pages with answers to the following questions:


I.    EFFECTIVENESS:

      1.    Demonstrated through-put in cubic yards per day
      2.    Estimated maximum through-put in cubic yards per day
      3.    Demonstrated or estimated (state which) effectiveness in eliminating or
            reducing PCBs, PAHs, and metals (see Table 1) to target levels (see Table 2).
      4.    Waste by-products of process: amount and expected concentrations of
            contaminants, estimated cost of disposal of contaminated remainder
      5.    Waste by-products of process: off-gasses, solvents, process water, etc. and
            cost of recycling and disposal
      6.    Effectiveness for marine dredged material and basis for answer (theory, lab,
            bench-scale mock-up, demonstration project)
      7.    Efficiencies in scale - demonstrated or theoretical
      8.    Minimum concentration of contamination (if any) required for process to
            operate
      9.    Processing time for dredged material and secondary waste streams (if any)
-------
Massport Technology Survey
Page Two
II.     IMPLEMENTABILITY:

       1.     Pre-treatment requirements (removing debris, sizing, sorting, de-watering)
       2.     Mobilization and demobilization requirements (including long-lead time
             procurement) for handling, transport, storage and processing.
       3.     Space requirements (land-side, barges)
       4.     Traffic impacts (ship and land-side)
       5.     Logistics of locating storage for pre-treatment, treatment, stockpiling, transport
       6.     Special fabrication requirements for holding barges, rail, trucks or other
             containment vessels
       7,     Land-side building requirements including storage sheds, blow-down walls,
             weatherproofing or other structures and indicate whether they are temporary
             structures or can be made permanent to process future maintenance material.
       8.     Availability of technology (proprietary, lab-scale, commercial)
       9.     Number of handling events (double/triple handling or more) from point of
             material availability to final disposal of wastes including secondary wastes and
             process wastes
       10.    Environmental impacts of technology: provide estimated or demonstrated air,
             water and waste stream characteristics coming from process
       11.    Permittability: apply information from  Question  10 to permit standards and list
             likely permit requirements.
       12.    Site safety requirements including public health risks and public nuisances in
             terms of explosion potential, odor, noise and other operational  effects.
       13.    Environmental constraints, e.g. ambient temperature, humidity, etc.
       14.    Marketability of residuals, treatment by-product or treated material.
-------
Massport Technology Survey
Page Three
III.    ESTIMATED PRICE RANGE

       This is not a request for a cost estimate.  A "ballpark" range is expected.  Orders of
       magnitude differences in costs will be important in comparing technologies.

       Estimate price range per unit of waste treated:

       $	to $	per	

       Price estimates should  include capital costs of technology, operating and maintenance
       costs, energy costs, monitoring costs, special handling or transportation costs.  Price
       estimates should not include indirect costs associated with treatment such as dredging,
       permits or land acquisition.  Unit costs for treating contaminated residuals should be
       estimated if known.

       Factors that have a significant effect on unit price (1 is highest).
              Initial contaminant concentration

              Target contaminant concentration

              Quantity of waste

              Characteristics of residual waste

              Labor Rates
       Others:
Moisture content

Facility Preparation

Waste handling/preprocessing

Characteristics of material

Utility/Fuel rates
-------
      TABLE  1.  BHNIP SILT CHARACTERISTICS
             FOR TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
Bulk Chemistry:
Average Water Content (%)
Percent Gravel
Percent Mid/Coarse Sand
Percent Fine Sand
Percent Silt
Percent Clay
Percent Total Organic Carbon
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (IR)
in ppm, dry wt.
Metals Concentrations in PPM, dry
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Avg.
51
4
7
22
46
23
4
2800
wt.:
15
4
156
168
41043
251
0.6
43
334
Low
16.8
0.1
0.2
6.0
22.5
6.6
0.3
280

1.63
0.07
10.6
7.04
1610
3.38
0.012
8.04
24.2
High
74.7
22.7
36.0
69.4
84.7
69.8
14.0
5860

44.4
12.1
395.0
341.0
173000
1120
1.19
132
841
Source:     Draft Environmental Impact Report (EOEA File No. 8695) and Draft
           Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 of 2 - Appendix; Boston
           Harbor, Massachusetts, Navigation Improvement Project and Berth
           Dredging Project; April 1994; Appendix C-3, Table 2.
-------
     TABLE l.(CONT). BHNIP SILT CHARACTERISTICS
                 FOR TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
PAH Concentrations in PPM, dry wt:
Acenaphthene
Acenaphythylene
Anthracene
Benzo (a) anthracene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Benzo (b) fluoranthene
Benzo (g, h, I) perylene
Benzo (k) fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenzo (a, h) anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Ideno (1,2,3-ed) pyrene
Napthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Total PAH 's
Avg.
.28
.27
.90
.98
1.14
1.4
.66
1.28
1.43
.18
2.81
.79
.22
.60
1.28
3.06
17.06
Low
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
High
2.08
1.58
8.4
8.91
6.68
8.27
2.63
7.58
6.56
1.06
8.86
6.47
1.20
8.1
8.56
9.53
68.17
PCB Concentrations in PPM, dry wt:
                                  1.84       0.16        6.52
Pesticide Concentrations in PPM, dry wt:
                                  0.01         BDL        BDL
Source:     Draft Environmental Impact Report (EDEA File No. 8695) and Draft
           Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 of 2 - Appendix; Boston
           Harbor, Massachusetts, Navigation Improvement Project and Berth
           Dredging Project; April 1994; Appendix C-3, Table 2.

BDL:       Below detection limit
-------
      TABLE 2. TARGET CONCENTRATIONS FOR BHNIP
            TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
SET 1 - UNCONFINED OPEN WATER DISPOSAL:
Bulk Analysis (ppm unless noted):

Mercury
Lead
Zinc
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Total PCBs
Total PAHs
Total VOCs
Total PHC
Volatile Solids %
Water Content %
Silt/Clay %
Oil & Grease %
<0.5
<100
<2QO
<10
<5
<100
<200
<50
<0.5
None Defined > Presence of more than
None Defined >de minimus levels
None Defined > requires bioassays
<5
<40
<60
<0.5
Source:      Draft Environmental Impact Report (EOEA File No. 8695) and Draft
            Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 1 of 2; Boston Harbor,
            Massachusetts, Navigation Improvement Project and Berth Dredging
            Project; April 1994; Table 3-3.
-------
      TABLE 2. (CONT).  TARGET CONCENTRATIONS FOR
                 BHNIP TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
SET 2 - IN-HARBOR BULKHEADED DISPOSAL AND UNLINED LANDFILLS

Bulk Analysis (ppm unless noted)

Mercury                                 < 1.5
Lead                                    <200
Zinc                                    <400
Arsenic                                  < 20
Cadmium                                 < 10
Chromium                                <300
Copper                                  <400
Nickel                                   < 100
Total PCBs                               <1,0
Total PAHs                               < 100
Total VOCs                               <4
Total PHC                                <500
Volatile Solids %                          < 10
Water Content %                          <60
Silt/Clay %                                <90
Oil & Grease %                            <1.0
Source:      Draft Environmental Impact Report (EOEA File No. 8695) and Draft
            Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 1 of 2; Boston Harbor,
            Massachusetts, Navigation Improvement Project and Berth Dredging
            Project; April 1994; Table 3-3.
-------
-------
APPENDIX E - OCTOBER 1994 SAMPLING REPORTS
-------
     ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES FOR THE
 BOSTON HARBOR NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENT
           AND BERTH DREDGING
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/STATEMENT:

         TASK1: BENTHIC STUDIES
                Prepared for

        U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS


                Prepared by

         NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES
               25 Nashua Road
       Bedford, New Hampshire 03110-5500

                    and

                Robert J. Diaz
         R.J. DIAZ AND DAUGHTERS
                P. O. Box 114
             Ware Neck, VA 23178
                (804) 642-7364

        CONTRACT DACW 33-97-D-0004

                R-13116.039
                 April 1995
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES
                           TABLE OF CONTENTS


                                                                     PAGE


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY		  vi

1.0   INTRODUCTION	   1


2.0   MATERIALS AND METHODS	   2

     2.1   FIELD METHODS	   2

          2.1.1  Sediment Profile Camera Survey	 .   2
          2.1.2  Benthic Infauna Sampling	   2

     2.2   LABORATORY ANALYSIS  .	   7

          2.2.1  Sediment Profile Image Analysis	   7

                2.2.1.1   Preliminary Image Analysis	   7
                2.2.1.2   Image Data	   7

          2.2.2  Benthic Infauna Sample Analysis  	;	  10


3.0   RESULTS.	  11

     3.1   SEDIMENT PROFILE IMAGERY	  11

          3.1.1  Quick Look Procedures	  11
          3.1.2  Boston Harbor Habitats 	  11
          3.1.3  Massachusetts Bay Habitats	  18

     3.2   BENTHIC INFAUNA	  29

          3.2.1  Boston Inner Harbor Locations	  29
          3.2.2  Boston Outer Harbor Locations	  35
          3.2.3  Massachusetts Bay Locations  	  37


4.0   DISCUSSION 	  41

     4.1   BOSTON INNER HARBOR LOCATIONS	  41

     4.2   BOSTON OUTER HARBOR LOCATIONS	  44
13116.039 - I3llfes.iiae
April 24, /?«
-------
NOftMANDEA U ASSOCIA TES	


                                                              PAGE


     4.3   MASSACHUSETTS BAY LOCATIONS	 47

     4.4   VALUE OF BENTHIC RESOURCES TO FISHERIES RESOURCES	 50


5.0   LITERATURE CITED 	 54
APPENDICES
     APPENDIX A - CAMERA SPECIFICATIONS
     APPENDIX B - SAMPLING LOCATIONS (maps)
     APPENDIX C - SEDIMENT PROFILE IMAGERY DATA
     APPENDIX D - BENTHIC INFAUNA, RAW DATA
     APPENDIX E - BENTHIC INFAUNA, MEAN ABUNDANCES BY HABITAT
l31lS.03f-l3Hta.Jac
April 24, 199S                           Hi
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES
                                LIST OF FIGURES

                                                                             PAGE


la-   Boston Harbor Locus Map	   3

Ib.   Boston Outer Harbor Locus Map  	'.   4

2.    Massachusetts Bay Locus Map	   5

3.    Sediment profile image from Habitat la (Station SPEC 1, Deployment B). WeH
      developed Ampelisca spp. tube mat on the sediment surface	  14

4.    Sediment profile image from Habitat Ib (Station SPEC 11, Deployment B).
      Senescent Ampelisca spp. tube mat on the sediment surface	  14

5.    Sediment profile image from Habitat Ha (Station SPEC 8, Deployment B). Hard
      bottom with attached and drift algae	  19

6.    Sediment profile image from Habitat lib (Station CHELR 2, Deployment B).
      Muddy sediment with thin apparent color RPD layer and a few worm tubes at the
      sediment interface	  20

7.    Sediment profile image from Habitat IIC (Station SUBE 1, Deployment B).
      MyAlus shell bed over soft sediments	  20

8.    Sediment profile image from Habitat Ilia (Station FP 2, Deployment B).  Very
      soft muddy sediments with no signs of infaunal activity. Three layers of anaero-
      bic sediment are seen  	  21

9.    Sediment profile image from Habitat IHb (Station LOG2 4, Deployment A).  Soft
      muddy sediments with gas voids and two layers of anaerobic sediment	  22

10.   Sediment profile image from Habitat IVa (Station MP  1, Deployment A).  Mixed
      muddy sediment with epifaunal organism on surface	  23

11.   Sediment profile image from Habitat FVb (Station MP  3, Deployment A).
      Muddy-sandy sediment with either a biogenic mound or faedform in the center of
      the image	  24

12.   Sediment profile image from Habitat V (Station BLS 16, Deployment B).
      Rounded rock covered by many small tube-like structures	  24

13.   Sediment profile image from Habitat VI (Station M7 23, Deployment B).  Loose
      gravel sediment  	  25

14.   Sediment profile image from Habitat VII (Station M2 3, Deployment A).  Hard
      sandy sediment with many tubes protruding from the sediment surface  	  25
      - I3ll6es.ttac
April 24, I99S
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIA TES
                                                                PAGE
 15.  Sediment profile image from Habitat VIII (Station BLS 17), Deployment A).
     Heterogeneous sediments with many tubes protruding above the surface. Light
     gray clay layer near the bottom of the image is likely relic dredged material  	  26
                           LIST OF TABLES
2-1.  SAMPLING LOCATIONS FOR BENTfflC INFAUNA 	  6
                                                                *
3-1.  DISTRIBUTION OF BENTfflC HABITAT TYPES AT BOSTON HARBOR
     AND MASSACHUSETTS BAY SITES 	  12

3-2,  DESCRIPTION OF BENTfflC HABITATS CLASSIFICATIONS BASED ON
     THE OCTOBER-NOVEMBER 1994 SEDIMENT PROFILE IMAGING SUR-
     VEY OF SELECTED AREAS OF BOSTON HARBOR AND MASSACHU-
     SETTS BAY	  13

3-3.  SUMMARY OF HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS FROM THE BOSTON HAR-
     BOR STATIONS  	  15

3-4.  SUMMARY OF HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS FROM THE MASSACHU-
     SETTS BAY STATIONS  	  27

3-5   DISTRIBUTION OF STATIONS SAMPLED FOR BENTHOS AMONG HABI-
     TAT TYPES  	  30
13116.039 -
April 24.199S
-------
NOFtMANDEAU ASSOCIATES
                               EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

           Benthic habitat conditions of sites that were under consideration as potential
disposal areas for silt dredged from Boston Harbor for the Boston Harbor Navigation Improve-
ment and Berth Dredging Project (BHNIP) were evaluated in October and November 1994
using sediment profile imagery (SPI) and benthic infauna sampling.  The  SPI survey provided
information on physical and biological characteristics that were interpreted to distinguish
habitats at each site.  These habitat distinctions formed the basis for stratifying sampling effort
for benthic infauna. Benthic infauna sampling was used to confirm the interpretation of the
sediment profile image analysis and to provide specific information on the character of the
benthic community.

           Sediment profile imagery is a photographic technique in which the camera
penetrates the sediment and a color photograph is taken of the vertical profile. The photo-
graphs provide data on sediment texture (approximate grain  size), compaction and water
content, depth to which sediments are oxidized, subsurface biotic and abiotic features, and
surface biological and physical features.  The combination of these features provides a tool for
estimating successional stage and the  "organism-sediment  index" which can be used to estimate
the quality of benthic habitat

           Analysis of the SPI photographs collected at 60  stations in Boston Harbor and 71
stations in Massachusetts Bay identified eight distinct habitats, four of which were unique to
the harbor and four to Massachusetts Bay.  The habitats observed in Boston  Harbor ranged
from biologically dominated (Habitat I) to physically dominated (Habitat III).  Outer harbor
sites were grouped into two habitat types (I and II); both displayed surface amphipod
crustacean tube mats and/or infaunal burrows, evidence of good habitat quality.  Many inner
harbor locations showed signs of physical and organic loading stress (Habitats III and IV).
Several locations in the vicinity of the Inner Confluence exhibited physical,  but not biological,
characteristics of Habitat II.

           Offshore, the sediment profile  camera survey  identified four habitats (V, VI, VH,
and Vm) that were all composed of or dominated by coarse materials (sand, gravel and rock)
and apparently current dominated.  Although biological characters suggesting a successional
13116.039 - 13116a.doc
April 24, 199i
-------
NQRMANDEAU ASSOCIA TES
stage II benthic community  were observed in all habitats, they were most apparent in Habitat
VII (hard sand substrate). The three offshore sites varied in the distribution of the four
habitats. Habitat VII was the most frequently identified habitat at Boston Lightship. Habitats
V (rock over silt and gravel) and VII were about equally represented at Meisburger 2.
Meisburger 7 exhibited approximately even distribution of Habitats V and VI (gravel).

           The survey of benthic infauna tended to support the observations that were made
from  the sediment profile survey.  In general, the inner harbor  locations were depauperate both
in species richness (number of taxa) and total abundance.  Species composition was predomi-
nantly pioneering species, those adapted to rapid colonization of stressed environments.  The
outer harbor locations exhibited high species richness and the highest total abundances of the
survey, primarily because of the abundance of Ampelisca. Offshore locations exhibited
diversity both in substrate conditions and benthic species composition.  The largest number of
taxa were recorded from the offshore locations.  Total abundances were moderately high.

           Results of the fall 1994 survey were compared to and tended to confirm historical
data.  Several trends are noteworthy. Abundances, but not species composition, likely exhibits
seasonal patterns in the inner harbor. This is may be related to the stresses associated with
hypoxic (low oxygen) conditions frequently observed in the late summer in the inner harbor.
The benthic community in the outer harbor appears to be exhibiting a trend of increasing
abundances and diversity, likely associated with  the improvements in water quality through
programs implemented by MWRA.  Current data from the Massachusetts Bay locations
confirm earlier observations of species-rich, successionaily advanced benthic assemblages.

           The areas sampled in 1994  were evaluated in terms of their potential value for
fisheries resources, primarily winter flounder and lobsters.  Biological surveys  (finfish and
lobster sampling) conducted in fall 1994, demonstrated that these species occur in all of these
general locations (inner and outer harbors and Massachusetts Bay).  The outer harbor and
offshore locations appear to provide better food  resources and, potentially, better spawning
habitat for winter flounder than the inner harbor. Lobster utilize a broad range of habitats,
most of which are represented  in Boston Harbor and offshore.  The Early Benthic Phase (EBP)
lobster is the most critical lifestage and has specific habitat requirements. These conditions
131I&039 .1
April 24, J99S                                   VII
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES
may be provided by some of the habitats observed offshore (most extensively at Meisburger 2
and?).
13116.039 -
April24. 1995
-------
-------
NORMAMDEAU ASSOCIATES
1.0        INTRODUCTION

           Characteristics of the substrate and benthic fauna of potential disposal sites for
dredged material from Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement and Berth Dredging Project
were evaluated using sediment profile imagery (SPI) and benthic infauna sampling. The
biological and physical characteristics identified in the initial evaluation of the sediment profile
imagery were used to distinguish habitats at each site.  The habitat distinctions were the basis
of the benthic infauna sampling.

           This report details results of SPI camera and benthic infauna surveys conducted
during October and November 1994.
I3llf.039-t3ll6es.dae
    4, I99S
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIA TES	

2.0        MATERIALS AND METHODS

2-1        FIELD METHODS

2.1.1      Sediment Profile Camera Survey

           A total of 60 stations were sampled within the Boston Harbor area at 19 separate
sites (Figs, la and Ib). A total of 71 stations were sampled within Massachusetts Bay at three
separate locations (Fig. 2).  At each station a Hulcher Model Minnie sediment profile camera
was deployed twice (Camera specification in Appendix A).  At nine of the Massachusetts Bay
and one of the Boston Harbor stations only one deployment was successful.  Appendix B
contains a map and listing of all stations sampled. The profile camera was set to take two
pictures, using Fujichrome 100P slide film, on each deployment at 2 and 12  seconds after
bottom contact.
2.1.2      Benthic Infauna Sampling

           Sampling stations for benthic infauna were determined following the initial
analysis of sediment profile images that determined habitat conditions at each station.  Each
site that was sampled by sediment profile imagery was also sampled for benthic infauna. The
number of benthie samples collected at each location was related to the habitat diversity and
size of the site. An attempt was made to sample each habitat (although several stations where
substrate was primarily gravel or cobble were unsampleable) at each site. Stations sampled at
each site are listed in Table 2-1.

           AH samples were collected using a 0.04 m2 Van Veen type grab.  Samples were
considered acceptable if the grab was fully closed and the surface of the sediment in the grab
was intact and relatively level, with no appearance of having been washed.  Samples were
sieved through a 0.5 mm-mesh sieve in the field, placed  in labeled containers and preserved
with buffered formalin.
13116.639 - H//
-------
       EVERETT
                            CHELSEA
                                                  5* Channel

                                       Inner Confluence
                                         Channel
                                             In. Confl.
                                             (Main Ship
                                         umner and Calahan Tunnels
                                                                -Third Harbor Tunnel (urriar const)

                                                                                   Log-02
                                             SOUTH BOSTON
           Boston Harbor
Navigation Improvement Project
     Figure la. Boston Harbor Locus Map.
                     of pederal Channel
          Scale:
Source:
                      2000*     4000'
                    Scale in Feet
     New England Division, Corps of Engineers
-------
         ;^Y^:;;J^^
                                                              	Existing Channel

                                                              	 Realigned Channel
                Boston Harbor
       Navigation Improvement Project
  Figure Ib. Boston Outer Harbor Locus Map.

        — — = - Omits of Federal Channel
               Scale:
                     0     2000'    4000'
                        Scale in Feet
Source:
     New England Division, Corps of Engineers
!„ .1
-------
r
 r
lo
O
    M.

    era"
    3 p*

    Is
    rt>
    3


    T)
    "i
    O
       *"»
       cr
     CPQ
      c

ju
O
p.

C
e/i
W



r
O
O

t/)

s

*o

                                                                                      UOSTON LIGHTSHIP
                                                                                       DISPOSAL AREA
                                                                                         (HISTORIC)
                                           Depositional substrates within the disposal sites.
                                   *BLDS approximate proposed disposal location » 42°19'N

                                                                               70° 40* W
Meisburger 2 approximate location
                                                                               42°25'N

                                                                               70° 50' W
                                              Meisburger 7 approximate location » 42°21'N

                                                                               70° 47* W
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIA TES
          TABLE 2-1.  SAMPLING LOCATIONS FOR BENTHIC MFAUNA.
                    SITE
      STATIONS3
  Inner Harbor
      Inner Confluence
      Chelsea Creek
      Mystic River
      Little Mystic Channel
      Revere Sugar
      Amstar
      Chel 01
      Che! 02
      Cabot Paint
      Everett
      Conley
      Mystic Piers
      Reserved Channel13

  Outer Harbor
      Spectacle Island
      Subaqueous B
      Subaqueous E

  Massachusetts Bay
      Boston Lightship
      Meisburger 2
      Meisburger 7
         1,2,3,4,5
         1,2,3,4,5
         1,2,3,4,5
         2,4A,4B
         1,3A,3B
         1A,1B,3
           1,3
           1,3
           U
           1,2
           A
      2A,2B,3A,3B
          1,2,3

       2,5,8,11,12
        2A,2B,2C
          1,2,3

1,3,5,7,8,10,11,17,20,22,24
   2,3,5,6,7,9,10,15,17
  2,4,6,8,9,13,18,21,22
Complete station identification includes an alphabetic prefix designating the site and a
 numeric suffix.  Replicates, when collected, were labeled A,  B or C.
 inaccessible for sampling by sediment profile imagery
                                      f
13116.039 - WISauloc
April 2-1. IMS
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES
2.2        LABORATORY ANALYSIS

2.2,1       Sediment Profile Image Analysis

2.2.1.1     Preliminary Image Analysis

           The sediment profile images were first analyzed visually by projecting the images
and recording all features seen into a preformatted standardized spread sheet file (see Appen-
dix A for example).  The images were then digitized and analyzed using National Institute of
Health program Image on a Macintosh computer.  Steps in the computer analysis of each
image were standardized and followed the basic procedures in Viles and Diaz (1991). Data
from each image were sequentially saved to a spread sheet file for later analysis.
2.2.1.2     Image Data

           In this section the importance and usefulness of the data produced from analysis of
profile images is discussed.  Details of how these data are actually obtained can be found in
Kiley (1989) and  in the standardized image analysis procedures of Viles and Diaz (1991).
Data for each photograph are included in Appendix C.

Prism Penetration - This parameter provides a geotechnical estimate of sediment compaction
with the profile camera prism acting as a dead weight penetrometer. The further the prism
enters into the sediment the softer the sediments, and likely the higher the water content
Penetration is simply measured as the distance the sediment moves up the 22 cm  length of the
face plate. By taking two exposures per deployment at an 10s interval, the camera can record
overlapping photographs of the sediment as the prism penetrates. At station MPA1, which had
unconsolidated muddy sediments, a total of 24.5 cm penetration was obtained using this
technique. The first station MPA1 image taken after a 2 s delay had a penetration of about 20
cm.  Ten  second later when the second image was taken, the prism had penetrated another 4.5
cm for a total of 24.5 cm.
13116.039 - IJH6a.doc
April 24. 1995
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES
Apparent Color Redox Potential Discontinuity (RPD) Layer - This parameter is an
important estimator of benthic habitat quality.  It is the depth to which sediments are oxidized.
The term apparent is used in describing this parameter because no actual measurement is made
of the redox potential. An assumption is made that, given the complexities of iron and sulfate
reduction-oxidation chemistry, reddish-brown sediment color tones (Diaz and Schaffher 1988),
or in black and white images whiter or lighter areas of the image (Rhoads and Germane 1986),
are indications that the sediments are toxic, or at least are not intensely reducing. This is in
accordance with the classical concept of RPD depth, which associates it with sediment color
(Fenchel 1969, Vismann 1991).

           The apparent color RPD is very useful in assessing the quality of a habitat for
epifauna and infauna from both physical and biological points of view.  Rhoads and Gennano
(1986), Revelas et al. (1987), Day et al. (1988), Diaz and Sehaffiier (1988), and  Valente et al.
(1992) all found the depth of the RPD from profile images to be directly correlated to the
quality of the benthic habitat in polyhaline and mesohaline estuarine zones. Controlling for
differences in sediment type, habitats with thinner RPD's (ram's) tend to be associated with
some type  of environmental stress.  Habitats with deeper RPD's (em's) usually have flourish-
ing epibenthic and infaunal communities.  Exceptions occur in habitats where resuspension,
accumulation or physical reworking of toxic sediments is rapid, as after a storm event.
Evidence of jresuspension/deposition events was seen at station CON 3, where the RPD layer
was exceptionally deep (4 cm) for muddy sediments.

Sediment Grain Size - This parameter is a geotechnical feature of the sediments and is used
to determine the type of sediments present. From grain size the nature of the physical forces
acting on a habitat can be inferred.  If sediments are coarse  (sand size or greater) the habitat
tends to be current or wave dominated.  Fine grained sediment (silt  size and smaller) tend to
be net accumulation habitats. The sediment type descriptors used follow the Wentworth
classification as described in Folk (1974) and represent the major modal class for each layer
identified in an image.  Sediment grain size from gravel, to  sand, to silt, and clay can be
accurately estimated from the images.  Unconsolidaled soft fine-grained sediments (mud) are
also easily identified.
J3II6.039 ~ I3IItes.dac
April 24, 199S
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES
Surface Features - Those seen include; amphipod and worm tubes, amphipod tube mats,
epibenthtc organisms, macroalgae, microalgae, shells, mud casts, bedforms, feeding pits and
biogenic mounds.  Each gives a bit of information on the type of habitat and its quality for
supporting benthic species.  The presence of certain surface features is indicative of the overall
nature of a habitat. For example, sand ripples (bedforms) are always associated with physical-
ly dominated habitats, whereas the presence of worm tubes or feeding pits would be indicative
of a more biologically accommodated  habitat  (Rhoads and Germane 1986, Diaz and Schaffher
1988).

Subsurface Features - Those seen include; active infaunal burrows, water filled voids, gas
voids, infaunal organisms, and shell debris. Subsurface features reveal a great deal about the
physical-biological control occurring in a habitat.  For example, the presence of methane gas
voids has been found to be an indication of anaerobic metabolism (Rhoads and Germano
1986) and associated  with high rates of bacterial activity.  Muddy habitats with large amounts
of methane gas are generally associated with areas of oxygen stress or high organic loading.
On the other hand, habitats with burrows, infaunal feeding voids, and/or actual infauna visible
are generally  more biologically accommodated and considered "healthy" (Rhoads and Germano
1986, Diaz and Schafmer 1988, Valente et al. 1992).

Successional Stage - Sediment profile data have also been used to estimate successional stage
of the fauna in a habitat (Rhoads and Germano 1986).  Characteristics that are associated with
pioneering or colonizing (Stage I)  assemblages (in the sense of Odum 1969), such as dense
aggregations of small polychaete tubes at the surface and shallow apparent RPD layers, are
easily seen in sediment profile images.  Advanced or equilibrium  (Stage III) assemblages also
have characteristics that are easily  seen in profile  images, such as deep apparent RPD layers
and subsurface feeding  voids. Stage II is intermediate to I and III, and has characteristics of
both (Rhoads and Germano 1986).

Organism-Sediment Index - Rhoads and Germano (1982, 1986) developed the multi-
parameter organism-sediment index (OSI), from data provided by the sediment profile images,
to characterize benthic habitat quality. The OSI defines quality of benthic habitats by
evaluating images for depth of the apparent RPD, successional stage of macrofauna, the
presence of gas bubbles in the sediment (an indication of high rates of methanogenesis), and
13116.039 - UU6ts.do<:
April 24, 1995
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOC1A TES	

the presence of reduced sediment at the sediment-water interface which is an indication of low
dissolved oxygen conditions in the bottom water. The calculation of the OSI is based on:
RPD
(cm)
0.00
0.01-0.75
0.76-1.50
1.51-2.25
2.26-3.00
3.01-3.75
>3.75

= 0
= 1
« 2
mmi 
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES
3.0        RESULTS
3.1        SEDIMENT PROFILE IMAGERY
           Data from analysis of all sediment profile images are found in Appendix C.
3.1.1       Quick Look Procedures

           The classification of stations into habitats was done "blind" with no information
provided on station location prior to analysis.  Initially, all images were evaluated and a
habitat classification setup.  A total of eight habitats was defined, as described below, and each
station was placed into a habitat type. After this was done station location data were added
(Tables 3-1 and 3-2) and the analysis completed (Appendix C).
3.1.2       Boston Harbor Habitats

           Four basic benthic habitats were identified among the 60 Boston Harbor stations
(Table 3-2, Appendix C). These habitats ranged from biologically dominated (Habitat I) to
physically dominated (Habitat III).  Each of the habitat types was further subdivided based on
what appeared to be within-habitat heterogeneity. Examples of each of the habitat types can
be seen in Figures 3 to II.

           Habitat I had homogeneous silty sediments that appeared heavily bioturbated with
an apparent successional stage of II.  The sediment surface was covered by mats of Ampelisca
spp, tubes (Figs. 3 and 4).  The Organism Sediment Index (OS1) at  Habitat I stations had a
median value of 7, highest of all habitats defined (Table 3-3).  The other three habitats (II, III,
and IV) had median OSI values  of 3, except for the one Habitat lie  station (SUBE  1) which
was a combination of an Ampelisca tube mat and Mytilm shell bed.  The subdivision into
habitats la and Ib was based on the appearance of the Ampelisca tubes and depth of the RPD
layer. Habitat la had well  formed tubes and slightly deeper apparent color RPD layers than
33111039 •
April 24, 1995                                   \ \
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES
TABLE 3-1.  DISTRIBUTION OF BENTfflC HABITAT TYPES AT BOSTON
             HARBOR AND MASSACHUSETTS BAY SITES.
                       BENTmC HABITAT TYPE
          AREA       IA     IB    HA     HB   DC    HIA  IDDB   IVA  IVB

Boston Outer Harbor Sites:
    Spectacle Island      12      10      8
    Subaqueous E         .4.      -2---'-
    Subaqueous B         6-      ....___

Boston Inner Harbor Sites:
    Logan 01             ____-6__.
    Logan 02             -._...     12      -      -
    Massport-1-           .       .      -      _     .      4      _
    Inner Confluence       -       _      g      _     -      4      _      _.
    Conley               __..-6-_-
    Cabot Paint           _       _      2      -     -      -      4      -      -
    Everett (Maiden Br)    -       -      -      -     -      6      -      -      -
    Fish Pier             	8      2
    Chel. 01              	6
    Chel. 02              	             6
    Chelsea Creek         -.64.-...
    Little Mystic Channel   -       -      -      -     -      8      -      -      -
    Mystic Piers          _-_2---4-
    Amstar-              ____-6---
    Revere Sugar         -       _      .      .     .      6      -      -      -
    Mystic River          _._._3_g_
      Ship Channel

    Area                       V    VI     VII    VIII
Massachusetts Bay Sites:
Boston Lightship
Meisburger 2
Meisburger 7

4
22
19

1
-
18

33
14
2

8
8
4
NOTE:
 Both deployments at a station were used as replicates to include some estimate of small scale
 within habitat heterogeneity.  See Table 2 for description of habitat types.

- = Habitat type not present.
I3II&SJ9- I3II
-------
NOFtMANDEAU ASSOCIATES
 TABLE  3-2. DESCRIPTION OF BENTHIC HABITATS CLASSIFICATIONS BASED
              ON THE OCTOBER-NOVEMBER 1994 SEDIMENT PROFILE IMAG-
              ING SURVEY OF SELECTED AREAS OF BOSTON HARBOR AND
              MASSACHUSETTS BAY.
Boston Inner and Outer Harbor:

Habitat I.  Silty sediments, very uniform habitat with many animals, well developed commu-
nity, sediments heavily bioturbated. Successional stage is II.
la  Well formed Ampelisca  amphipod tube mats, average RPD is 3.1±0.3 cm (±SE).
Ib  Amphipod tube mats "older" in appearance and appear senescent, average RPD is
    2.5±0.3 cm.

Habitat IT. Heterogeneous sediments ranging from hard sand to shell and silts, some drift
algae, some epifauna, successional stage likely II
Ha Sand to shelly silt, average RPD is  1.2±0.2 cm.
nb  Mixed silty sediments, average RPD is 1.0±0.1 cm.
He Mussel shell bed, RPD is 2.5 cm deep. Only one station with this habitat.

Habitat HI. Homogeneous muddy sediments, do not appear to be bioturbated, sediment
layering common, evidence of gas voids, successional stage indeterminate.
Dla Very soft sediments, prism penetration over 22 cm, average RPD is 0.8±0.1  cm.
Dlb Soft sediments, prism penetration 16 to 22 cm, average RPD is 0.9±0.1 cm.

Habitat IV. Heterogeneous sediments ranging from mud, silts, to sand, with clay, succession-
al stage likely I.
IVa Mixed muddy sediments, average RPD is 0.8±0.2 cm.
IVb Sandier mixed sediments, average RPD is 0.6±0.1 cm.
Massachusetts Bav;

Habitat V. Rock, both angular and rounded, Underlying sediments ranged from silts to
gravel. Many of the rocks were colonized by epifauna.  Penetration very limited and no RPD
layers were seen.

Habitat VI. Gravel, pea to pebble sizes.  Penetration very limited and no RPD layers were
seen.

Habitat Vn.  Hard sand, little prism penetration.  Average RPD is 2.0±0.2 cm. Habitat VII is
only similar to II in that they both are sandy. VII had more surface fauna activity, with lots of
tubes protruding form the sediment surface.

Habitat Vm.  Heterogeneous sediments, including clay, silt, sand, and gravel.  Average RPD
is 1.5±0.2 cm.  There were indications that several of the stations had dredged material.
13116.039 - 13116a.doc
April 24. 1995                           •      \ 3
fftr
-------
                                                          Figure 3. Sediment profile image from
                                                                   Habitat la (Station SPEC 1,
                                                                   Deployment B).  Well developed
                                                                   Ampelisca spp. tube mat on the
                                                                   sediment surface.
                012
           Approximate Scale In en
Figure 4. Sediment profile image from
         Habitat Ib (Station SPEC 11,
         Deployment B), Senescent
         Ampelisca spp. tube mat on the
         sediment surface.
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES
       TABLE 3-3. SUMMARY OF HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS
                   FROM THE BOSTON HARBOR STATIONS.
       Prism Penetration:
       Habitat N        Mean
SEa
Median
Min
Max
la
Ib
Ha
Hb
EC
nia

fflb

IVa
IVb
18
14
22
6
2
41
16
30
1
4
6
12.2
10.9
4.4
11.2
10.1
18.2
>22.0*
16.1
>22.0*
19.0
92
0.7
0,9
0.7
1.5
3.1
0.7

0.6

1.5
2.0
12.8
12.0
2.9
11.3
10.1
20.5

16.3

18.5
8.0
6.8
3.2
0.0
7.0
7.0
7.0

10.0

16.5
4.8
16.5
15.8
10.0
16.8
13.2
24.5

22.0

22.5
17.8
       *-Images that over penetrated within 2 sec. of bottom contact.
       Apparent Color RPD (only images with complete RPD layers)
       Habitat N        Mean    SEa      Median     Min    Max
la -
Ib
Ha
nb
He
HIa
Hlb
IVa
IVb
16
14
16
6
1
40
30
4
6
3.2
2.5
1.2
1.0
2.5
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.1

0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
3.1
2.2
0,9
1.0

0.8
0.8
0.8
0.5
1.5
1.3
0.5
0.6

0.2
0.0
0.5
0.2
5.0
4.8
3.5
1.3

4.0
3.0
1.0
. i.o
       aSE=Standard Error
                                                                      (continued)
13116.639 - I3116ee.doe
April 2-f, 1995
           15
-------
NQRMANDEAU ASSOCIA TES
       TABLE 3-3. (Continued)
       Organism Sediment Index (OSI):
       Habitat N         Median   Min     Max
la
Ib
Ila
Hb
He
ffla
im>
IVa
IVb
16
12
16
6
1
39
30
4
6
7.5
7
3
3
7 .
3
2.5
2.5
2.5
5
5
2
2

!
0
2
0
9
9
8
5

4(7?)
4
3
3
       Cross-Classification of Habitats and Tubes:
                    Relative Tubes Abundance
       Habitat NONE      FEW    SOME    MANY
       Total  56
                            MAT    Total
6Ia
Ib
Ha
Hb -
He
ma
mb
IVa
IVb
0
0
9
2
0
24
17
1
3
0
0
2
4
0
14
11
2
2
0
1
2
0
1
0
1
0
1
3
2
3
0
0
0
1
0
0
17
11
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
20
14
19
6
2
38
30
3
6
35
32
138
                                                                      (continued)
13116.939 - 13H6ts.i!oc
AfrttH, 19tS
                 16
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES
       TABLE 3-3. (Continued)
       Cross-Classification of Habitats and Successional Stage:
                   Estimated Successional Stage
       Habitat IND          I?         I         II         Total
la
Ib
na
lib
EC
nia
ffib
IVa
IVb
0
0
6
0
1
7
0
0
0
0
0
4
I
0
22
10
0
1
0
0
10
6
0
28
20
4
5
20
14
4
0
1
0
0
0
0
20
14
24
7
2
57
30
4
6
       Total   14          38       73         39        164
       Cross-Classification of Habitats and Void type:
                      Void Type
       Habitat Oxic         Anoxic Gas        Total
la
Ib
Oa
nb
He
ffla
rab
IVa
rvb
5
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
3
3
2
1
1
6
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
3
0
0
8
3
4
1
2
10
12
0
0
        Total    8          25         7        40

       NOTE:
       Both deployments at a station were used as replicates to include some estimate of
       small scale within habitat heterogeneity.  See Table 3-2 for habitat descriptions.  A ?
       with Successional stage indicates that there was insufficient data in the image to clearly
       assign a value.  N for each of the parameters is the total number of images in each
       habitats that contained valid data.
13116.039 - 131I6fs.Joc                    <
April 24, 199S                                      17
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIA TES
Habitat Ib (Table 3-3).  Ampelisca tubes in Habitat Ib were shorter and "older" looking than
those seen in Habitat la. Prism penetrations was about 11  cm in both subhabitats.

           Habitat II had heterogeneous sediments that ranged form  hard sand, shell, to silts
(Figs. 5, 6, and 7). Drift algae and epifauna were common (Fig. 5).  The subdivision into
Habitats Ila, lib, and He was based on the prism penetration and the presence of tubes and
shell. Habitat Ila.had more surface fauna than Habitat lib (Table 3-3).  Habitat He was
Mytilus shell beds mixed with Ampelisca tube mats and was found at only one station (Fig. 7).

           Habitat III was depositional with homogeneous unconsolidated muddy sediments
that appeared to not be bioturbated, sediment layering was common (Figs. 8 and 9).  Apparent
successional stage was I with no evidence of higher successional stages.  Gas voids (Fig. 9)
were  present and  indicate either rapid deposition or high inputs of organic matter, or both
(Table 3-3).  Muddy habitats with large amounts of methane gas are generally associated with
areas  of oxygen stress or high organic loading (Rhoads and Germane 1986, Diaz et al. 1993).
The subdivision into Habitats EUa and fflb was based on differences in prism penetration, with
lUa having  softer sediments. Habitat Illb also had more surface fauna than ffia (Table 3-3).

           Habitat IV had heterogeneous sediments that ranged from sand to mud and clay
(Figs. 10 and 11). Successional stage was I with  little surface fauna (Table 3-3). The subdivi-
sion into Habitats IVa and IVb was based on slight differences in sediment type, with IVb
having sandier sediments.
3.13   "   Massachusetts Bav Habitats

           Four basic benthic habitats were identified among the 71 Massachusetts Bay
stations (Table 3-2, Appendix C).  Examples of each of the habitat types can be seen in
Figures 12 to  15.  All four of these habitats appeared physically dominated by currents. The
median OSI was reasonably constant across Habitats V to VIII at 5.5 to 6.5, indicative of
moderately stressful conditions (Table 3-4).  Biological processes were most evident within
Habitat VII, where large worm tubes (about 3 to 5 mm in diameter) were common. The
     9 - I3ll6es.dac
Afrit 24, ins                                   18
-------
Figure 5.  Sediment profile image from HaMtat Ila (Station SPEC
          8, Deployment B). Hard bottom with attached and drift
          algae.
                          012
                     Approximate Scale In cm
-------
                                                         Figure 6.  Sediment profile image from
                                                                   Habitat lib (Station CHELR 2,
                                                                   Deployment B), Muddy sediment
                                                                   with thin apparent color RPD
                                                                   layer and a few worm tubes at the
                                                                   sediment interface.
               012
          Approximate Scale In cm
Figure 7. Sediment profile image from
         Habitat He (Station SUBE 1,
         Deployment B). Mytilus shell
         bed over soft sediments.
-------
Figure 8. Sediment profile image from Habitat Ilia (Station FP 2,
         Deployment B). Very soft muddy sediments with no
         signs of infaunal activity. Three layers of anaerobic
         sediment are seen.
                           o   i   2
                       Approximate Scale In cm
-------
Figure 9. Sediment profile image from Habitat Illb (Station
         LOG2 4, Deployment A). Soft muddy sediments with
         gas voids and two layers of anaerobic sediment.
                           012
                       Approximate Scale la cm
-------
Figure 10. Sediment profile image from Habitat IVa (Station
          MP 1, Deployment A). Mixed muddy sediment with
          epifaunal organism on surface.
                          012
                     Approximate Scale In cm
-------
                                                         Figure 11.  Sediment profile image from
                                                                    Habitat IVb (Station MP 3,
                                                                    Deployment A). Muddy-sandy
                                                                    sediment with either a biogenic
                                                                    mound or bedform in the center
                                                                    of the image.
               012
          Approximate Scale In cm
Figure 12. Sediment profile image from
          Habitat V (Station BLS 16,
          Deployment B). Rounded  •
          rock covered by many small
          tube-like structures.
-------
                                                         Figure 13. Sediment profile image from
                                                                   Habitat VI (Station M7 23,
                                                                   Deployment B). Loose gravel
                                                                   sediment.
              0   1   2
         Approximate Scale In cm
igure 14. Sediment profile image from
         Habitat VII (Station M2 3,
         Deployment A). Hard sandy
         sediment with many tubes
         protruding from the sediment
         surface.
-------
Figure 15. Sediment profile image from Habitat VIfl(Station
          BLS 17, Deployment A). Heterogeneous sediments
          with many tubes protruding above the surface.
          Light gray clay layer near the bottom of the image
          is likely relic dredged material.
                            012
                       Approximate Scale In cm
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES
     TABLE 3-4. SUMMARY OF HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS FROM THE
                MASSACHUSETTS BAY STATIONS.
Prism Penetration:
Habitat          N
         Mean
        SEa
      Median
      Min    Max
V
VI
VII
VIII
Apparent
Habitat
V
VI
vn
V3H
Organism
Habitat
V
VI
vn
vni
45
20
50
19
Color RPD
N
0
0
17
14
0.1
0.6
2.6
5.0
(only images with
Mean


2.0
1.5
Sediment Index (OSI):
N Median
2
1
26
10
6.5
5
6
5.5
0.03
0.4
0.4
0.8
complete
SEa


0.2
0.2
Min
5

3
3
0.0 0
0.0 0
1.0 0
4.8 0
RPD layers)
Median Min


1.8 1.2
1.5 0.5
Max
7

9
7
1.0
8.0
11.3
16.0
Max


5.0
2.5





Cross-Classification of Habitats and Tubes:
                         Relative Tubes Abundance
Habitat         NONE    FEW     SOME    MANY
                                     Total
V
VI
VII
Vffl
25
10
1
7
4
4
2
2
5
3
26
3
9
3
21
6
43
20
50
18
 Total
44
12
39
40
135
                                                                 (continued)
13116.039 - 131Ha.dac
AprS 24,199S
                    27
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIA TES
TABLE 3-4. (Continued)
Cross-Classification of Habitats and Successional Stage:
                             Estimated Successional Stage
Habitat           DSHD          I         II?        II       Total
V
VI
vu
vra
45
16
7
9
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
4
41
9
45
20
50
. 19
Total              77          1         2        54        134
Note:

  Both deployments at a station were used as replicates to include some
  estimate of small scale within habitat heterogeneity.  See Table 3-2 for habitat
  descriptions.  A ? with Successional stage indicates that there was insufficient
  data in the image to clearly assign a value. N for each of the parameters is
  the total number of images in each habitats that contained valid data.

aSE=Standard Error
l3H6.t3»-
    , ms                                  28
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES
apparent successional stage at most stations, when it could be determined, was II.  Within
habitat heterogeneity was low and habitat types were not subdivided.

           Habitat V was primarily pebbles, angular and rounded, underlain by gravel or silts.
Many of pebbles were colonized by epifauna (Fig. 12).  Habitat VI was similar to V but was
primarily gravels (Fig.  13).

           Habitat VII was hard sand with median penetration of 1 cm (Fig. 14). Worm
tubes were common at most stations (Table 3-4).  This was the most biologically accommodat-
ed of the Massachusetts Bay habitats.

           Habitat VIE had heterogeneous sediments ranging from gravel to clay.  Several
stations in the Boston Lightship area had sediments that appeared to be relic dredged material
(BLS 8,  17, and 18, see Figure  15). Dredged material was also identified in profile images
collected in this area by SAIC (1994).
3.2        BENTHIC BVFAUNA

           In this section, the benthic infauna data are grouped for analysis purposes by the
biophysical habitats identified in the sediment profile camera survey described in Section 3.1.
Comprehensive descriptions of the individual habitats appear in that section.  Groupings are
listed in Table 3-5.
3.2.1      Boston Inner Harbor Locations

           Amstar

           Habitat IK, homogeneous muddy sediment, was found at both Amstar sample
locations (Appendix Table E-l).  Mean density of macroinvertebrates collected was
1,912.5/m2. A total of 11 taxa was identified, most of them polychaete worms (5) and
amphipod crustaceans (3). Most of the organisms collected were the polychaete worms
13116.039 - 13U6ts.doc
April 24. 1995                                   29
-------
              TABLE 3-5. DISTRIBUTION OF STATIONS SAMPLED FOR BENTHOS AMONG HABITAT TYPES,
SITE
[NNBR HARBOR
Inner Confluence
Chelsea Creek
Mystic River
Little Mystic Channel
Revere Sugar
Amstar
Chel 01
Cliel 02
Cabot Paint
Everett
Conley
Mystic Piers
OUTER HARBOR
Spectacle Island
Subaqueous B
Subaqueous B
MASSACHUSETTS BAY
Boston Lightship

Meisburger 2

Meisburger 7
HABITAT
I














2,5,11,12
2
2,3






II

1,2,5
1,2,3,4,5






1


3

8

1






III

3,4

1,2
2,4
1,3
1,3
1,3
1,3
3
1,2
A











IV



3,4,5








2










V




















6

13,22
VI






















2,4,6,18
VII


















1,3,5,7,17,
20,22,24
23 5 7 IS
£,,JtJ,l,IJ,
17
21
VIII


















8,10,11

9,10

8,9
u»
o
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES
Polydora cornuta (625.0/m2) and Streblospio benedicti (412.5/m2) and nematode worms
(587,5/m ).  Combined, the amphipods represented only 5% (100.0/m ) of the total abundance.
No commercially or recreationally important species were collected.
           Chelsea 01

           Habitat III, homogeneous muddy sediment, was observed at both Chelsea 01
sample locations (Appendix Table E-l).  Mean density of maeroinvertebrates collected was
275.0/m2. A total of 8 taxa was identified, one-half of them polychaete worms (4). Most of
the organisms collected were polychaete (100.0/m2) and nematode (87.5/m2) worms. No
commercially or recreationally important species were collected.
           Chelsea02

           Habitat EH, homogeneous muddy sediment, was identified at both Chelsea 02
sample locations (Appendix Table E-l).  Mean density of maeroinvertebrates collected was
37.5/m2. Only two taxa were collected - nematode worms (25.0/m2) and the bivalve Mulinia
lateralis (12.5/m2). None of these taxa is commercially or recreationally important
           Chelsea Creek

           Habitat n, a mixture of sand, silt, and shells, was observed at the five Chelsea
Creek sample locations (Appendix Table E-l).  Mean density of maeroinvertebrates collected
was 545.0/m2.  A total of 26 taxa was identified, most of them polychaete worms (12),
gastropods (4),  and bivalves (4).  Most of the organisms collected were polychaete worms
(360.0/m2), especially Polydora comma (230.0/m2).  The gastropods Crepidttla spp. occurred
at an abundance of 95.0/m2. No commercially or recreationally important species were
collected.
1311&.03S - ISllSes-dee
April 24,199$                                  31
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIA TES
           Habitat III, homogeneous muddy sediment, was found at the single Conley sample
location (Appendix Table E-l).  Density of macroinvertebrates collected was 1,150.0/m2.  A
total of 16 taxa was identified, most of them polychaete woims (9). The remaining seven taxa
represented a variety of phylogenetic groups.  Most of the organisms collected were nematode
(450.0/m2), polychaete (325.0/m2), and oligochaete (200.0/m2) worms.  No commercially or
recreationally important species were collected.
           Cabot Paint

           Two different habitats were identified at Cabot Paint (Appendix Table E-l),
Habitat II, a mixture of sand, silt, and shells, was present at Sample Location 1, whereas
Habitat ffl, homogeneous muddy sediment, was observed at Sample Location 3.

           Only one taxon was collected at Sample Location 1 - the polychaete worm
Pofydora cornuta (25.0/m ).  At Sample Location 3, density of macroinvertebrates collected
was 375.0/m .  A total of 6 taxa was identified, most of them polychaete worms (4). Most of
the organisms collected were polychaete worms (300.0/m2), especially Pofydora cornuta
(175.0/m2) and Streblospio bemdicti (75.0/m2), No commercially or recreationally important
species were collected.
           Everett
           Habitat III, homogeneous muddy sediment, was found at both Everett sample
locations (Appendix Table E-l). Mean density of macroinvertebrates collected was 362.5/m2.
A total of 10 taxa was identified, one-half of them polychaete worms (5). Most of the
organisms collected were polychaete worms (262.5/m ). Only one commercially or recrea-
tionally important species was collected - the softshell clam, Mya arenaria (25.0/m2).
                                          32
-------
NOKMANDEAU ASSOCIATES
           Inner Confluence

           Two different habitats were identified at Inner Confluence (Appendix Table E-I).
Habitat II, a mixture of sand, silt, and shells, was present at Sample Locations 1, 2, and 5,
whereas Habitat III, homogeneous muddy sediment, was observed at Sample Locations 3
and 4.

           At Sample Locations 1, 2, and 5, mean density of macroinvertebrates collected
was 1,649,8/m2. A total of 26 taxa was identified, most of them polychaete worms (11),
bivalves (6), and gastropods (4).  Most of the organisms collected were polychaete worms
(725.0/m2), oligochaete worms (500.0/m2), and gastropods (316.7/m2).  Polydora cornuta
(417.5/m2) was the most abundant polychaete; Nassarius trivittattis (250.0/m2) was the most
abundant gastropod.  No commercially or recreationally important species were collected.

           At Sample Locations 3 and 4, mean density of macroinvertebrates collected was
much lower (37.5/m2).  Only two taxa were collected - the polychaete worms Nephtyidae
(25.0/m2) and Polydora cornuta (12.5/m2). None of these taxa is commercially  or recrea-
tionally important.
           Little Mystic Channel

           Habitat HI, homogeneous muddy sediment, was observed at all three Little Mystic
Channel sample locations (Appendix Table E-l). Mean density of macroinvertebrates
collected was only 16.6/m .  Only three taxa were collected - the bivalve Mulinia lateralis
(8,3/m2), the amphipod Gammants lawrencianw (8.3/m2), and the hydrozoan Obelia sp.
(present,  but not enumerated).  None of these taxa is commercially or recreationally important.
13116.OJ9 . !3116rz.doc
April M, 199S                                  33
                                                                                               •*•>/;
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIA TES	

           Mystic Piers

           Two different habitats were identified at Mystic Piers (Appendix Table E-l).
Habitat II, mixed silty sediment, was present at Sample Locations 3A and 3B, whereas Habitat
IV, mixed muddy sediment, was observed at Sample Locations 2A and 2B.

           At Sample Locations 3A and 3B, only one taxon was collected - the gastropod
Nassarim trzvfttatus (37.5/m2).  Mean density of maeroinvertebrates collected was only slightly
higher at Sample Locations 2A and 2B (62.5/m2), where five taxa were collected in equal
density. None were commercially or recreationally important species.
           Mystic River

           Two different habitats were identified at Mystic River (Appendix Table E-l).
Habitat HI, homogeneous muddy sediment, was present at Sample Locations 1  and 2, whereas
Habitat IV, mixed sandy mud, was observed at Sample Locations 3, 4, and 5,

           Only one taxon was collected at Sample Locations 1 and 2 - the  hydrozoan
Obelia sp. (present, but not enumerated). Mean density of maeroinvertebrates collected at
Sample Locations 3, 4, and 5 was 58.2/m2.  Most of the organisms collected were the
polychaete worm Polydora cornuta (33.3/m2), although three other taxa were collected. No
commercially or recreationally important species were collected.
           Reserved Channel

           No sediment profile camera survey was conducted in the Reserved Channel.
Therefore, no habitat description is available.

           Mean density of maeroinvertebrates collected at die three sample locations was
1,041.4/m2 (Appendix Table E-l).  A total of 17 taxa was identified, most of them polychaete
worms (12) and bivalves (4).  Most of the organisms collected were polychaete worms
13116.039 - 13H6cs.Joc
April 24,199S                                  34
-------
NOFtMANDEAU ASSOCIATES
(799.8/m2), especially Leitoscoloplos robustus (375.0/m2). The only commercially or recrea-
tionally important species collected was the softshell clam, Mya arenaria (158.3/m2).

           Revere Sugar

           Habitat III, homogeneous muddy sediment, was observed at all three Revere Sugar
sample locations (Appendix Table E-l).  Mean density of macroinvertebrates collected was
483.2/m2. A total of 9 taxa was identified, most of them polyehaete worms (5).  Most of the
organisms collected were polyehaete (216.6/m2) and oligochaete (183.3/m2) worms.  No
commercially or recreationally important species were collected.
3-2-2      Boston Outer Harbor Locations

           Spectacle Island

           Two different habitats were identified at Spectacle Island (Appendix Table E-2).
Habitat I, silty sediment with amphipod crustacean tube mats on the surface, was present at
Sample Locations 2, 5, 11, and 12, whereas Habitat II, a mixture of sand, silt, and shell, was
observed at Sample Location 8.

           Mean density of macroinvertebrates collected at Sample Locations 2, 5, 11, and  12
was 64,870.6/m2). A total of 59 taxa was identified, most of them polyehaete worms (27) and
amphipod crustaceans (15).  Most of the organisms collected were amphipod crustaceans
(41,556.7/m2), especially Ampelisca sp. (36,537.5/m2), and polyehaete worms (20,275.0/m2\
especially Aricidea catherinae (9,668.8/m") and Polydora cornuta (4,706.3/m~). No commer-
cially or recreationally important species were collected.

           Density of macroinvertebrates collected at Sample Location 8 was 102,025.0/m2.
A total of 41 taxa was identified, most of them polyehaete worms (28) and amphipod
crustaceans (6).  Most of the organisms collected were amphipod crustaceans (65,175.0/m2),
especially Ampelisca sp. (61,675.0/m2), and polyehaete worms (35,925.0/m2), especially
13116-039 -
April 24. 199S                                   35
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES	

Polydora cornuta (14,400.0/m2) and Streblospio bemdicti (11,800.00/m2), No commercially
or recreationally important species were collected.
           SubaqueousB

           Habitat I, silty sediment with amphipod crustacean tube mats on the surface, was
identified at all three Subaqueous B sample locations (Appendix Table E-2). Mean density of
macroinvertebrates collected was 115,149.6/m2.  A total of 60 taxa was identified, most of
them polychaete worms (31) and amphipod crustaceans (10). Most of the organisms collected
were amphipod crustaceans (101,083.2/m2), especially Ampelisca sp. (94,358.3/m2).  No
commercially or recreationally important species were collected.
           Subaqueous E

           Two different habitats were identified at Subaqueous E (Appendix Table E-2).
Habitat I, silty sediment with amphipod crustacean tube mats on the surface, was present at
Sample Locations 2 and 3, whereas Habitat II, a mussel shell bed, was observed at Sample
Location 1. .

           Mean density of macroinvertebrates collected at Sample Locations 2 and 3 was
50,987.5/m2. A total of 51 taxa was identified, most of them polychaete worms (29),
amphipod crustaceans (5), and bivalves (5).  Most of the organisms collected were amphipod
crustaceans (23,975 .0/m2), especially Ampelisca sp. (23,075.0/m2), and polychaete worms
(23,775 .0/m2), especially Polydora comma (9300.0/m2) and Tharyx acutus (6,025.0/m2). The
only commercially and recreationally important species collected were the softshell clam,
     arenaria (25.0/m2) and mussels, Mytilidae (150.0/m2).
           Density of macroinvertebrates collected at Sample Location 1 was 975.0/m2. A
total of 15 taxa was identified, most of them polychaete worms (8).  Most of the organisms
collected also were polychaete worms (525.0/m2), especially Nephtys ciliata (200.00/m2) and
13116.039 -1
                                          36
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES
Ninoe nigripes (150.0/m2). Only two commercially or recreationally important species were
collected - the softshell clam, Mya arenaria (25.0/m2) and the mussel Mytilidae (50.0/ra2).
3.23       Massachusetts Bay Locations

           Boston Lightship

           Two different habitats were identified at Boston Lightship (Appendix Table E-3).
Habitat VH, hard sand, was present at Sample Locations 1, 3, 5, 7, 17, 20, 22, and 24,
whereas Habitat VIII, a heterogeneous mixture of clay, silt sand, and gravel, was observed at
Sample Locations 8, 10, and  11.  Habitats V (rock) and VI (gravel), though identified by
sediment profile imagery, were not sampleable.

           Mean density of macroinvertebrates collected at Sample Locations  1, 3, 5, 7, 17,
20, 22, and 24 was 9,066.5/m2, A total of 125 taxa was identified, most of them polychaete
worms (73), bivalves (14), and amphipod crustaceans (13). Most of the organisms collected
were polychaete worms (7,947J2/m2), especially Spio limicola (4,268.8/m2).  Bivalves
(465.0/m2) were the next most abundant group, particularly Thyasiraflexuosa (235.0/m2) and
Yoldia sp. (L02.5/m2). Two commercially or recreationally important species were collected -
the softshell clam, Mya. arenaria (6.3/m2) and the ocean  quahog, Arctica islandica (3.1/m2).

           Mean density of macroinvertebrates collected at Sample Locations  8, 10, and 11
was 4,732.7/m2.  A total of 76 taxa was identified, most of them polychaete worms (44),
bivalves (10), and amphipod  crustaceans (7).  Most of the organisms collected  were polychaete
worms (3,433.1/m2), especially Spio  limicola (991.7/m2) and Maldane sarsi (442.5/m2).  Only
one commercially or recreationally important species was collected - the softshell clam,
Mya arenaria (33.3/m2).
13116.039 -
April 24. 1995                                  37
-------
 NQRMANDEAU ASSOCIATES	

           Meisbnryer 2

           Three different habitats were Identified at Meisburger 2 (Appendix Table E-3).
 Habitat V, rocks underlain by silt, sand, and gravel, was present at Sample Location 6.
 Habitat VTJ, hard sand, was observed at Sample Locations 2, 3, 5, 7,  15, and 17.  Habitat VIII,
 a heterogeneous mixture of clay, silt, sand, and gravel, was present at Sample Locations 9 and
 10.

           Density of macroinvertebrates collected at Sample Location 6 was 9,066.5/m2.  A
 total of 55 taxa was identified, most of them polychaete worms (35) and bivalves (8). Most of
 the organisms collected were polychaete worms (8,600.0/m2), especially Polydora quadril-
 obata (1,225.0/m2), Prionospio steenstrupi (1,125.0/m2), and Euchone elegans (1,050.0/m2),
 and amphipod crustaceans (1,775.0/m2), especially Unciola inermis (1,250.0/m2).  Two
 commercially or recreationally important species were collected - the mussel Mytilidae
 (50.0/m2) and the softshell clam, Mya arenaria (25.0/m2).

           Mean density of macroinvertebrates collected at Sample Locations 2, 3, 5, 7, 15,
 and 17 was 9,534.4/m2.  A total of 150 taxa was identified, most of them polychaete worms
 (71), amphipod crustaceans (22), other arthropods (9) and bivalves (18). Most of the
 organisms collected were polychaete worms (6,863.0/m2), especially Polydora quadrilobata
 (991.7/m2), Aphelochaeta marioni (858.3/m2), and P. socialis (816.7/m2).  Mean abundance of
 bivalves was  1022.5/m2, including Crenella decussata (250.0/m2), Thyasiraflexuosa
 (207.5/m ), Nucula tenuis (167.5/m ) and Cerastodermapinnulatum (162.5/m ).  Amphipods
 (752.5/m2) were represented primarily by Unciola spp. (217.5/m2) and Haploops tubicola
 (212.5/m2).  Two commercially or recreationally important species were collected - the mussel
 Mytilidae (20.0/m2) and the softshell clam, Mya arenaria (16.7/m2).

           Mean density of macroinvertebrates collected at Sample Locations 9 and  10  was
 17,925.0/m2.  A total of 88 taxa was identified, most of them polychaete worms (58),
 amphipod crustaceans (10), and bivalves (9).  Most of the organisms collected were polychaete
 worms (15,675.0/m2), especially Polydora quadrilobata (4,025.0/m2), Euchone elegans
 (2,437.5/m2), Aphelochaeta marioni (1,950.0/m2), and P.  socialis (1,337.5/m2). No commer-
 cially or recreationally important species were collected.
April U. 19SS                                  38
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES
           Meisbuifer 7

           Four different habitats were identified at Meisburger 7 (Appendix Table E-3).
Habitat V, rocks underlain by silt, sand, and gravel, was present at Sample Locations 13 and
22.  Habitat VI, pea to pebble size gravel, was observed at Sample Locations 2, 4, 6, and  18,
Habitat VII, hard sand, was present at Sample Location 21. Habitat VIII, a heterogeneous
mixture of clay, silt, sand, and gravel, was present at Sample Locations 8 and 9.

           Mean density of macroinvertebrates collected at Sample Locations 13 and 22 was
4,962.5/m2. A total of 61 taxa was identified, most of them polychaete worms (39) and
amphipod crustaceans (9). Most of the organisms collected were polychaete worms
(4,137.5/m2), especially Potydora socialis (787,5/m2), Euctymene collaris (450.0/m2) and
Ninoe nigripes (450.0/m ).  No commercially or recreationally important species were
collected.

           Mean density of macroinvertebrates collected at Sample Locations 2, 4, 6, and 18
was 6,396.7/m2. A total of 92 taxa was identified, most of them polychaete worms (54),
amphipod crustaceans (14), and bivalves (12).  Most of the organisms collected  were poly-
                       A                                      >*
chaete worms  (3,364.2/m ), especially Euclymene  collaris (575.0/m ) and Exogone verugera
(412.5/m2), and amphipod crustaceans (2,381.7/m2), especially Unciola inermis  (1,618.8/m2)
and U. irrorata (550.0/m2).  One commercially  important species was collected  - the sea
scallop, Placopecten magellanicus (6.3/m2).

           Density of macroinvertebrates collected at Sample Location 21 was  7,150.0/m2.  A
total of 45 taxa was identified, most of them polychaete worms (27) and amphipod crustaceans
(6). Most of the organisms collected were polychaete worms (6,225.0/m~),  especially
Spiophanes bombyx (1,100.0/m2), Asabellides oculata (975,0/m2), and Euclymene collaris
(975.0/m2). No commercially or recreationally  important species were collected.

           Mean density of macroinvertebrates collected at Sample Locations 8 and 9 was
2,512.5/m2. A total of 35 taxa was collected, most of them polychaete worms (24). Most of
the organisms  collected were polychaete worms (2.037.5/m~), especially Mediomastus
13116.039 • 13tlta.dee
April 24, Iff!                                   39
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIA TES	


californiensis (237.5/m2) and Spio limicola (237.5/m2).  No commercially or recreationally
important species were collected.
13I1S.OJ* - 1
                                          40
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES
4.0        DISCUSSION

           This section compares the results of this survey with other studies in Boston
Harbor and Massachusetts Bay.  Benthic habitat and community characteristics are discussed in
terms of the requirements of winter flounder and  lobster to evaluate the importance of these
areas in supporting fisheries resources.
4.1        BOSTON INNER HARBOR LOCATIONS

           The sediment profile camera survey identified three habitats (II, III, and IV)
present at the Boston Inner Harbor locations. Many stations within the inner harbor showed
signs of physical and organic loading stress, particularly LOG1, LOG2 (Fig. 9), MPA1,
CHEL1, CHEL2, CON, MAL, FP (Fig. 8), LMC, AM, and RS.  Most of the locations
contained Habitats II and/or III, with Habitat IV present only at Mystic Piers and Mystic
River.  Despite the physical differences upon which these habitats were distinguished, they did
not appear to differ greatly in terms  of biological characters.  For example, epifauna was
observed in Habitats II and FV, with none identified in Habitat III. In all cases, the benthic
community was concluded to be Successional Stage I, a "pioneering" stage in which opportu-
nistic species known for great reproductive capacity and rapid growth dominate.  The apparent
absence of a stable benthic community may be  related to seasonal hypoxia ("August effect")
previously identified in Boston Harbor (Hubbard and Bellmer 1989).

           The grab sample data support the camera survey successional stage conclusion at
all locations.  Although a wide range of total macroinvertebrate population density was
detected (0 at Mystic River - Habitat III to 1,912.5/m2 at Amstar), all measurements are
considered low. The same observation is true for the total number of taxa collected at each
location (1 at Mystic River - Habitat III to 26 at Chelsea Creek and Inner Confluence - Habitat
ffl). Many of the samples were dominated by such opportunistic species as the polychaete
worms Polydora cornuta (Amstar, Chelsea Creek, Cabot Paint, and Inner Confluence)  and
Streblospio benedicti (Amstar,  Chelsea 01, and  Cabot Paint),  nematode worms (Amstar,
Chelsea 01, Chelsea 02, and  Conley), and oligochaete worms (Conley, Inner Confluence, and
Revere Sugar).  Another opportunistic species, the bivalve Mulinia lateralis, was present in
13116.039 - Ullta.doc
April 24, 199!                                   41
-------
NOFtMANDEAU ASSOC1A TES	

low numbers at several locations (Chelsea 02, Everett, Inner Confluence, Little Mystic
Channel, and Reserved Channel).

           Several noteworthy taxa were collected at a few locations.  Only one commercially
or recreationally important species, the soft shell clam, Mya arenaria, was collected at
Reserved Channel (158.3/m2). Another bivalve, the baltic clam, Macoma balthica, that is
important as a food resource for diving ducks, was collected at Everett (12.5/m2) and Reserved
Channel (8.3/m2). The sand shrimp, Crangon septemspinosa, was collected at Chelsea 01
(37.5/m2), Chelsea Creek (10.0/m2), and Revere Sugar (8.3/m2).  This species, which is
important as a fish food resource, is more of a swimming than a benthic animal.  Therefore, it
was unlikely to be adequately sampled using a benthic grab and may, in fact, be present at the
sample locations in different numbers than measured in this study.

           Several Boston Inner Harbor locations standout in terms of total macroinvertebrate
density and total number of taxa identified. Amstar, Inner Confluence, and Chelsea Creek
samples contained the most macroinvertebrates and/or taxa, whereas Mystic River, Mystic
Piers, Little Mystic Channel, Inner Confluence - Habitat III, Cabot Paint - Habitat II, and
Chelsea 02 samples contained the  fewest macroinvertebrates and taxa.

           Benthic resources in the Mystic River, Chelsea River, Inner Confluence and
Reserved Channels were sampled  in July and November 1986 (reported  in the DEIR/S).
Abundances were higher in July than November 1986.  While species composition was similar
in fall 1986 and  1994, abundances were about 10 (Mystic River and Chelsea River) to 60
(Reserved Channel) times larger in 1994.  The seasonal differences observed in the 1986 data
suggest that the fall 1994 data under-represent the potential benthic productivity of the
channels and may be  attributable to a previously observed seasonal cycle of depressed oxygen
concentrations  (Hubbard and Bellmer 1989).

           Data collected in April 1993  and reported (Table Al-2) in the Draft Environmental
Impact Report  and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIR/S) are available for several
Boston Inner Harbor  (berth areas) locations.  In general, taxonomic composition is similar to
that observed in this study. However, population densities were much greater in April 1993.
                                         42
                                                JO?
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES
           The April 1993 data for Amstar were similar to those collected in this study - 10
taxa dominated by the opportunistic polychaete worm Polydora cormtta, nematode worms, and
oligochaete worms. Macroinvertebrate mean density was 9,358.5/nf% compared to I,9I2.5/m2
in this study.

           In the case of Cabot Paint, composition of the dominant species is similar between
both datasets (the opportunistic polychaete worms Polydora cornvta and Streblospio benedict!),
except that oligochaete worm numbers were greatly reduced and nematode worms were not
collected in this study.  Macroinvertebrate mean density was 6,278.0/m2, compared to
200.0/m2 in this study (combination of Habitats II and III).

           Species composition observed in April 1993 in Little Mystic Channel differed
greatly from that  collected in this study.  A total of 30 taxa with mean macroinvertebrate
density of 11,932.5/m2 was reported in the DEIR/DEIS, although two taxa (oligochaeta and
nematoda) accounted for 70% of this total and one station had a total density of 129/m2. Only
three taxa were collected with mean macroinvertebrate density of 16.6/m2 in the 1994 study.

           The April 1993 dataset for Mystic Piers also differed substantially from that
collected in this study.  A total of 13 taxa with mean macroinvertebrate density of 8,922.5/m
was reported, in the DEIR/S.  Only five taxa were collected with mean macroinvertebrate
density of 50.0/m2 in this study (combination of Habitats II and FV).

           In the case of Reserved Channel, composition of the dominant species is similar
between both datasets (the opportunistic polychaete worms Polydora cormtta and Streblospio
benedlcti, nematode worms, and oligochaete worms), except that the polychaete worm
Leitoscoloplos robustm was relatively less important in April  1993. Macroinvertebrate mean
density was 18,597.5/m2, compared to 1,041.4/m2 in this study.  Mean density of the commer-
cially/recreationally important softshell clam, Mya arenaria, was less in April 1993 (32.3/m2)
than in the present study (i58.3/m~). Differences could be partially attributable to the feet that
sampling in 1993 was conducted west of the South Street bridge whereas collections were
made just east of the bridge in 1994 because the sampling vessel was unable to sail under the
bridge.
13116.039 -
April24, 199S                                  43
-------
NORMANDEA U ASSOCIA TES	.

           Species composition at Revere Sugar differed greatly between April 1993 and this
study. Very large numbers of nematode worms and lesser, yet large numbers of the poly-
chaete worm Capitella capitata dominated the April 1993 samples, resulting in a macroinve-
rtebrate mean density measurement (87,662.7/m2) greatly in excess of the number recorded in
this study (483.2/m2).  In addition, 16 taxa were listed in the DEIR/S dataset, whereas only 9
taxa were identified in this study.

           SAIC (1992) and Kropp  and Diaz (1994) reported a distribution of benthic habitats
in the inner harbor similar to the current study. There was a general improvement in benthic
habitat conditions from 1992 to 1993, as evidenced by an increase in the depth of the RPD
layer and in the OSI index.  The lower densities observed in the fall 1994 compared to April
1993 may indicate that the benthic community had not yet recovered from the late summer
hypoxia in 1994 when sampling was conducted.
4.2        BOSTON OUTER HARBOR LOCATIONS

           The sediment profile camera survey identified two habitats (I and II) present at the
Boston Outer Harbor locations. Both habitats displayed surface amphipod crustacean tube
mats and/or infaunal burrows, evidence of benthic macroinvertebrate activity and good habitat
quality.  In particular, both habitats were determined to be supportive of macroinvertebrate
communities in Successional Stage II, considered to be intermediate between or sharing
characteristics of both Stage I (pioneering)  and Stage III  (advanced or equilibrium) communi-
ties. In general, Habitat I  has been expanding in area in  Boston Harbor  since 1991 (Kropp
and Diaz 1994).

           The grab sample data support the camera survey findings at  all locations. With
exception of Subaqueous E - Habitat II (discussed later), the samples contained large numbers
of organisms (50,987.5/m2 at Subaqueous E - Habitat I to 115,149.6/m2 at Subaqueous B) as
well as many taxa (41 at Spectacle Island - Habitat II to  60 at Subaqueous B). The amphipod
crustacean tube mats observed in the camera survey were reflected in the large numbers of
Ampdisca sp. collected (23,075.0/m2 at Subaqueous E - Habitat I to 94,358.3/m2 at Subaque-
ous B. Although many other species were  collected, some opportunistic species also were
13IH.939 - I
Afril24, 199S                '    '              44
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES
present, including the polychaete worms Polydora cornuta, Streblospio benedicti, and Tharyx
acutus and nematode and oligochaete worms.

           The single sample collected at Subaqueous E - Habitat II contained the least
numbers of macroinvertebrates and taxa of all samples collected at the Boston Outer Harbor
locations. This is a function of the substrate collected in this sample - a mixture of sand and
shell hash containing no amphipod crustacean tube mats.

           Several noteworthy taxa were collected.  The commercially and recreationally
important soft shell clam, Mya arenaria, was collected at Subaqueous E in Habitats I
(25.0/m2) and n (25.0/m2).  The Atlantic rock crab (Cancer irroratus) and/or the sand shrimp
(Crangon septemspinosd) were collected in all of the habitats except Spectacle Island - Habitat
El.  These species are very motile. Therefore, they were unlikely to be adequately sampled
using a benthic grab and may, in fact, be present at the sample locations in different numbers
than measured in this study.

           Benthic macroinvertebrate data collected in August 1992 and reported to the
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (Blake, Rhoads, and Williams 1993) are available
for eight Boston Outer Harbor locations. In  particular,  data from samples collected at
Locations T2 and T3 are considered most appropriate for comparison to those collected in this
study due to geographic proximity and similar physical conditions.

           Sediment grain size data for these locations are excerpted  from Blake, Rhoads, and
Williams (1993), Table 3 on page 15:
Station
T2
T3
% Gravel
21.3
0.0
% Sand
47.6
43.5
% Silt
19.1
39.0
% Clav
12.1
17.5
Although a gravel component (21.3%) was measured at Station T2, the sediment composition
appears to be similar to that observed at the Boston Outer Harbor locations sampled in this
study, with exception of Subaqueous E - Habitat II.  Based on both sediment profile camera
survey and grab sampling, Blake, Rhoads. and Williams (1993) considered the samples
13116.039 - 13116eidoc
April 24, 1995                                   45
-------
NQRMANDEAU ASSOCIATES	

collected at Stations T2 and T3 to be representative of macroinvertebrate communities in
Successional Stages I and II, respectively.

           Station T2 was located closest to Subaqueous B and Subaqueous E. The following
paragraph is quoted from  Blake, Rhoads, and Williams (1993), page 27:

           Station T2 near Logan Airport also has several opportunistic species
           among the 10 most abundant.  Tubificoides nr. pseudogaster was the
           most abundant species and represented about 33.3% of the total fauna.
           Other dominant species present that are usually associated with organi-
           cally enriched environments include Tharyx creates, Streblospio bene-
           dicti, Polydora cornuta, and Tubificoides apectmatus. Polydora
           •websteri ranked ninth at this station.

           Although Blake, Rhoads, and Williams (1993) data for Station T2 are somewhat
similar to those collected at Subaqueous B and Subaqueous E - Habitat I  in this study (i.e.,
importance of the polychaete worms Tharyx acutus and Polydora cornuta), they differ, also.
Oligochaete worms (which would include Tubificoides nr. pseudogaster) and the polychaete
worm Streblospio benedlcti were not abundant taxa in this study.  In addition, the very large
numbers of the mat-building amphipod crustacean Ampelisca sp. that were collected in this
study were not collected at T2 (Blake, Rhoads, and Williams 1993).  Blake, Rhoads, and
Williams (1993) data describe a benthic macroinvertebrate community in Successional Stage I,
whereas Successional Stage II applies to the data collected in this study.

           Station T3 (Blake, Rhoads, and Williams 1993) was located closest to Spectacle
Island. The following paragraph is excerpted from Blake, Rhoads, and Williams (1993), page
27:

           Station T3 is on the north side of Long Island, near the site of a
           former sludge outfall. The amphipod Ampelisca spp., the polychaete
           Polydora cornuta, and the oligochaete Tubificoides nr. pseudogaster
           account for more than 75% of the total fauna.  Four other amphipod
           species occur among the 10 most abundant species at this station.
t3ltt.U9~att6es.diK
April 24,199$                                   46
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES
           The Blake, Rhoads, and Williams (1993) data are in good agreement with that
collected in 1994 at Spectacle Island in both Habitats I and II. The same taxa, particularly the
amphipod crustacean Ampellsca sp. and the polychaete worm Polydora cormua, were
dominant in both datasets.  In addition, population densities of other important taxa are similar
in both datasets.  Both datasets describe benthic macroinvertebrate communities in Succession-
al Stage II.

           Several stations within the footprint of the  potential disposal site were sampled in
November  1988 (Battelle Ocean Sciences 1988).  Although community structure was similar to
recent observations, total abundances were substantially lower in 1988 (mean of 1453.3/m2)
than in 1994 (mean of 64,870.6/m2 in Habitat I and 102,025.0/m2 in  Habitat II). In particular,
abundances of Ampelisca sp. averaged only 702.2/m  in 1988 compared to 36,537.5-
61,675.0/m2 in  1994.  Most other taxa that were dominant in 1988 also occurred in higher
abundances in 1994.  One exception was the surface-grazing gastropod Nassarius trivittatus
whose abundance remained at similar levels. It is possible that these temporal differences in
productivity may be a result of changes in MWRA's outfall at Deer Island. By 1992, MWRA
had stopped discharging sludge (at a rate of 40 dry tons/day) into the outer Harbor (Alber et
al. 1992); this action should have resulted in improved benthic conditions (i.e., less environ-
mental stress) in this area of the Harbor.
43        MASSACHUSETTS BAY LOCATIONS

           The sediment profile camera survey identified four habitats (V, VI, VII, and Vni)
present at the Massachusetts Bay locations, all composed of or dominated by coarse materials
(sand, gravel, and rock) and apparently current-affected.  Although biological characters were
observed in all  habitats, they were most apparent as large numbers of worm tubes in Habitat
VH, composed  of hard sand.  Despite uncertainty in several instances, the macroinvertebrate
communities appeared to be in Successional Stage II.

           Habitats in Massachusetts Bay (V and VI) were current dominated and mostly
pebbles and gravels (Figs. 12 and 13).  Benthic communities in sandy and silty sediments
(Habitats VII and VTO) appeared  to be well developed (Figs.  14 and  15). Similar habitat
I31I&OS9 - /3H6cs.iiac
AptM24.1995                                   47   >	* .  ,                                           ,
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOC/A TES	

descriptions were made by Blake et al. (1993b) for the area around the MWRA Massachusetts
Bay outfall located in between areas M2 and M7.  Traces of relic dredged material were also
seen in the Boston Lightship area (Fig. 15).  Relic dredged material was also reported by
SAIC (1994) in the same area.

           The grab sample data support the camera survey successional stage conclusion at
all locations, including confirming Successional Stage II determination where this was
uncertain. The dataset indicates the presence of species-rich macroinvertebrate communities at
all locations, communities that included deep burrowing,  large, and long-lived taxa such as
maldanid (Evclymene collarfs, etc.) and terrebellid (Polycirrus spp., etc.) polychaete worms as
well as opportunistic species. Although these latter species (Polydora cornuta, Tharyx acutus,
etc.) were present, they were not present in great numbers.

           Several noteworthy taxa were collected.  The commercially and recreationally
important soft shell clam, Mya arenaria, was collected at Boston Lightship - Habitats VII
(63/m2) and VIE (33.3/m2) and Meisburger 2  - Habitats V (25.0/m2) and VII (16.7/m2).
Also, the commercially important bay scallop, Placopecten magellanicus, was collected at
Meisburger 7 - Habitat VI. The Atlantic rock crab, Cancer irroratus, and the long-clawed
hermit crab, fagurus longicarpus, were collected at Meisburger 7 - Habitat VI (6.3/m ) and
Meisburger 2 - Habitat VII (4.2/m2), respectively.  Because these species are motile, they were
unlikely to be adequately sampled using a benthic grab and may, in fact, be present at the
sample locations in different numbers than measured in this study.

           Benthic macroinvertebrate data collected in August 1992  and  reported to the
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (Blake, Hilbig, and Rhoads 1993) are available for
20 Massachusetts Bay locations. In particular,  data from  samples collected at Locations NF-5
and NF-6 and NF-3 and NF-19 are considered  most appropriate for comparison to those
collected at Meisburger 2 and Meisburger 7, respectively, in this study, due to geographic
proximity and similar physical conditions.

           Sediment grain size data for these locations are excerpted from Blake, Hilbig, and
Rhoads (1993), Table Cl, Appendix C:
13116.139 -
       9S                        ,           48
-------
NOFtMANDEAU ASSOCIATES
Station
NF-3
NF-5
NF-6
NF-19
% Gravel
0.7
0.5
0.2
8.8
% Sand
64.2
77.3
62.3
84.9
% Silt
27.5
14.6
28.1
4.3
% Clav
7.6
7.7
9.5
2.0
This grain ske distribution is in good agreement with this study's camera survey determination
in Habitats VII and VHI.

          Although total population densities were approximately 10 times greater in their
study, the macroinvertebrate samples described by Blake, Hilbig, and Rhoads (1993) at
Stations NF-3, NF-5, NF-6, and NF-19 were quite similar to those collected at all Meisburger
2 and Meisburger 7 habitats in this study. They may be characterized as species-rich
assemblages dominated by polychaete worms in terms of numbers of species and individual
organisms. The substantial disparity in population densities observed between the two studies
probably was the result of use of 300 ji mesh to sieve the samples described by Blake, Hilbig,
and Rhoads (1993), rather than the 500 p. mesh employed in this study.

          Blake, Hilbig, and Rhoads (1993) reported that, with exception of Station NF-19
where no data were obtained, the macroinvertebrate communities present appeared to be in
Successional Stage I at Station NF-5, and what they termed Stage I over Stage ffl at Stations
NF-3 and NF-6.  This finding is somewhat in agreement with this study's conclusion that the
Meisburger 2 and Meisburger 7 communities were in Successional Stage II, that is displaying
characteristics of both Stage I and Stage III communities.

          Sediment profile camera data collected in August 1994 and reported to the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (SAIC 1994) are available for Boston Lightship. However, no
macroinvertebrate data from grab samples collected were reported.

           SAIC (1994), page 18, paragraph 16, determined that:

           Sediments (at Boston Lightship) contained a relatively robust benthic
          community.  Infaunal communities were dominated by the Stage II-on-
13116.019 -
AprU24,199S                                  49
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIA TES	

           Stage III class.  Surface sediments at all stations were populated by
           stick-building amphipods (Family Podocerdiae).  Sedentary polychaete
           tubes extended above the sediment-water interface at varying densities
           throughout the study area.  Below the surface Stage II community,
           evidence of an abundant Stage III community was commonly observed
           as burrowing polychaetes and/or subsurface feeding voids. Pelletized
           sediments, indicative of actively feeding infauna, were found near the
           sediment-water interface as well as inside feeding voids.  Infaunal
           species were not limited to polychaetes; a bioturbating caudate holo-
           thurian Molpadia oolitica was photographed at C2-10.  In addition to
           infauna] species, several epifaunal species were observed including
           large mud anemones, hydroids, and bryozoans.

           The camera survey and grab sample data collected in this study generally concur
with SAIC (1994).  Many worm tubes  were observed on the surface of Habitat VII. In
addition, deep burrowing polychaete worms and other burrowing species were present in the
samples.
4.4        VALUE OF BENTHIC RESOURCES TO FISHERIES RESOURCES

           Demersal finfish and epibenthic crustaceans utilize benthic resources for three
basic purposes: food, refuge and spawning. The species composition and abundance of the
benthic community may provide some indication of the type of predators (e.g., fish and
lobsters) it can support. Information on feeding preferences by finfish species is not conclu-
sive, but it tends to suggest that demersal finfish are opportunistic.  The characteristics  of the
substrate, including grain size and apparent RPD can indicate whether demersal or epibenthic
organisms would burrow into the sediment.
13116.039-131l6cutac
AftU24,1995                                  50
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES
           Winter Flounder

           Although the inner harbor stations exhibited the lowest abundances and number of
taxa of the areas examined in this survey, bottom-feeding finfish do occur in these areas.
Winter flounder (ranging in length  from 51 to 133 mm) and smooth flounder (47-56 mm long)
collected on a tidal flat at the Schrafft Center just north of the Amstar pier were observed to
have consumed polychaetes and other benthic species that are known to predominate  in the
inner harbor (NAI  1985).  Because young-of-the-year winter flounder are thought to  exhibit
little lateral and cross-channel movement (generally less than 100 m; Saucerman and Deegan
1991),  those juveniles found in the  inner harbor probably were spawned there and would be
expected to remain there for extended periods.

           The areas examined in the outer harbor exhibited a substantially higher standing
crop of benthic organisms than the  inner harbor.  Ampelisca has been identified as an
important food  resource for juvenile demersal fish (Hacunda 1981). This amphipod's life
cycle strategy of two or more reproductive periods a year, high recruitment rate and high death
rate  (McCall  1977) suggest it is adapted to recovering from stresses such as predation.
Therefore, the Spectacle Island CAD, Subaqueous B and Subaqueous £ areas are presumed to
have high potential for supporting demersal finfish, particularly juvenile stages.

           The benthic community in the Massachusetts Bay locations exhibited somewhat
lower abundances and higher species richness than the Outer Harbor. There was a higher
proportion of deeper-burrowing species offshore, indicating a community in a somewhat later
successional stage (less stressed) than in the harbor.  Fish species (or size classes) that are
capable of reaching into the sediment to feed may be able to utilize these deeper resources.  In
addition, the variety of substrate conditions increase the overall benthic species richness, and,
potentially, predator richness.

           Flounder occasionally burrow slightly into fine-grained (sand and silt) sediments.
These sediments occur throughout the inner and outer harbor and many of the offshore
stations.  This activity would increase their exposure to sediment-borne contaminants,
particularly PAHs.  Exposure to sediment-borne contaminants has been linked to diseases such
as finrot  and liver disease (Metcalf and Eddy and USEPA-ERLN  1988). The inner harbor has
13116.039 - 13ll6es.ioc
April 24. 1995                                   5 1
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIA TBS	

been documented as containing elevated concentrations of various organic and inorganic
contaminants. In contrast, the elimination of the discharge of sewage sludge from Deer Island
in 1992 has led to demonstrable improvements in the contaminant loads in the outer harbor
sediments. Contaminant concentrations at the Massachusetts Bay sites are likely to be
relatively low.

           Winter flounder spawn both within Boston Harbor and offshore.  Although
Bigelow and Schroeder (1953) identified sandy sediments as their preferred substrate for
spawning, it appears that winter flounder are less selective.  Winter flounder eggs are demersal
adhesive, sticking to the substrate. In silty substrates, such as those occurring in the inner
harbor, the eggs may experience higher rates of smothering or higher exposure to sediment-
borne contaminants than eggs spawned in coarser sediments.  Sediments in the outer harbor
are primarily sandy silt, stabilized by Ampelisca tube mats (Hacunda 1981) and may provide
better habitat for survival of attached demersal eggs than the inner harbor.  The sediments at
the offshore sites are varied, but include relatively high proportions of hardpacked sand
(especially BLS) and gravel (M2 and M7) that may enable high egg success.
           Lobster

           Adult lobster prefer a varied habitat consisting of mud/silt, mud/rock, sand/rock,
and bedrock/rock substrates (Cooper and Uzmann 19SO).  The most common habitat is sand
substrate with overlying rocks and boulders.  Lobsters will typically construct burrows into
soft sediment with overlying rocks and boulders forming the roof or side of the burrow.  In
the absence of hard substrate they may construct a simple bowl-shaped depression in soft
sediment.  A solid object such as a rock or piece of debris may be found in the center of the
depression.

           The four main habitat types found in Boston Harbor could all provide some
components of lobster habitat  The rock and boulder habitat component appears to be in
shortest supply. However, pilings and discarded materials may provide some of the hard
substrate habitat mat appears to be lacking.
1311&939 - 13llSa.dix
       S                                  52
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES
           The Early Benthic Phase (EBP) has been identified as a critical developmental
stage for lobsters (Wahle and Steneck 1991).  EBP lobsters require shelter from predators and,
therefore, prefer cobble substrate and are absent from featureless substrates (Wahle and
Steneck 1991).  Cobble substrates were not observed in the areas studied.  Therefore, it is
presumed that the potential disposal sites in the inner and outer harbor do not provide this
habitat requirement.  Some areas, notably,  Habitats V and VI (a total of 16% of the Boston
Lightship stations, 48% of the Meisburger 2 stations and 87% of the Meisburger 7 stations)
were gravelly or pebbly in nature (see Figure 13). These areas may be suitable for EBP
lobsters.

           Adult and juvenile lobsters are  omnivorous (Cooper and Uzmann 1980).  Bottom
invertebrates, crabs, polychaetes, mussels, periwinkles, sea urchins, and starfish are important
food items.  The contribution of prey items to the diet varies considerable and is probably
based on the abundance of the prey item.

           The benthic habitats in Boston  Harbor appear to provide prey items for lobsters.
Habitat I is probably the best lobster feeding habitat and consists of soft sediment and is
heavily bioturbated and covered with mats  ofAmpelisca spp. tubes.  Habitat I was present at
the Spectacle Island, Subaqueous B and Subaqueous E sites.  Habitat II consists of harder
substrate with less biological activity. Habitat II was present primarily at the Inner Confluence
and Chelsea Creek site. Habitat in may be the poorest lobster feeding habitat as it consists of
very soft substrate with little evidence of biological activity and evidence of low oxygen stress.
Habitat IE was present primarily at the inner harbor sites. Habitat IV consists of heteroge-
neous sediments with little surface fauna.  Habitat IV was present at the Mystic River and
Mystic Piers sites.

           The three offshore sites each  provided varied substrate conditions and diverse
benthic communities. The high lobster catches all three sites and the presence of large
numbers of lobster traps at Meisburger 2 and Meisburger 7 in fall 1994 (NAI 1995a) indicate
that these benthic resources provide suitable lobster habitat, at least seasonally.
13116.039 - 13116a.d
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES
5.0        LITERATURE CITED

Alber, M., J. Hallam and M.S. Connor.  1993. State of Boston Harbor - 1992. 52 pp.

Battelle Ocean Sciences.  1988. Analysis of Benthic Fauna from Spectacle Island, Boston
    Harbor. Appendix E in Cortell Associates, 1990.  The Aquatic Resources of Spectacle
    Island. Prepared for Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff. Central Artery (I-93)/Third Harbor
    Tunnel (1-90) Project.

Bigelow, H.B. and W.C. Schroeder.  1953. Fishes of the Gulf of Maine.  USDOI, FWS -
    Fisheries Bulletin 74, Washington, DC. 577  pp.

Blake, J.A., D.C. Rhoads, and I.P. Williams.  1993a. Boston Harbor sludge abatement
    monitoring program, soft-bottom benthic biology and sedimentology 1991-1992  monitoring
    surveys.  Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Environmental Quality Dept. Tech
    Rpt 93-11, Charlestown, MA, 65 pp.

Blake, J.A., B. Hilbig and D.C. Rhoads. 1993b.  Massachusetts Bay outfall monitoring
    program, soft bottom benthic biology and sedimentology  1992 baseline conditions in
    Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays. Massachusetts Water  Resources Authority, Environ-
    mental Quality Dept  Tech Rpt 93-10, Charlestown, MA, 108 pp.

Cooper, R.A. and J.R. Uzmann. 1980. Ecology- of Juvenile and Adult Homarus.  In:  J.S.
    Stanley and B.F. Phillips, eds. The Biology and Management of Lobsters, Vol. EL
    Academic Press, New York.

Day, M.E., L.C. Schafmer, and RJ. Diaz.  1988.  Long Island Sound sediment quality survey
    and analyses. Tetra Tec, Rpt to NOAA, NOS, OMA, Rockville, MD. 113 pp.

Diaz, R J. and L.C. Schaffher:  1988.  Comparison of sediment landscapes in the Chesapeake
    Bay as seen by surface and profile imaging,  p. 222-240.  In: M.  P. Lynch and E. C.
    Krome, eds. Understanding the estuary; Advances in Chesapeake Bay research. Chesa-
    peake Res. Consort Pub. 129, CBP/TRS 24/88.

Diaz, R.J., LJ. Hannsson, R. Rosenberg, P. Gapcynski and M. Unger.  1993.  Rapid assess-
    ment of sedimentological and biological characteristics of a hydrocarbon pollution
    gradient  Water, Air  and Soil Pollution 66:251-266.

Fenchel, T.  1969. The ecology of marine microbenthos. IV. Structure and function of the
    benthic ecosystem,  its chemical and physical  factors and microfauna communities with
    special reference to the ciliated Protozoa.  Ophelia 6:1-182.

Folk, RX. 1974. Petrology of sedimentary rocks. Austin, Texas, HemphilPs. 170 pp.

Hacunda, J.S.  1981. Trophic relationships among demersal fishes in a coastal area of the
    Gulf of Maine.  Fish. Bui. 76:765-778.
April 24, 1*95                                  54
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES
Hubbard, W.A. and R.J. BeHmer. 1989.  Biological and chemical composition of Boston
    Harbor, USA.  Mar. Pollut. Bull. 20(12):615-621.

Kiley, K.  1989. Report on the use of personal computer based image analysis software and
    hardware for dredge material disposal monitoring. VIMS, College of William and Mary,
    Gloucester PL, VA.  Rpt. to U. S. Army  Corps of Engineers, WES, Vicksburg, MS.  32
    pp.

Kropp, R.K. and R.J. Diaz.  1994.  Benthic community and sediment profile camera reconnais-
    sance of benthic habitats in the Boston Harbor area, August 1993. Rpt to the Massachu-
    setts Water Resources Authority, Environmental Quality Dept., Charlestown, MA.

McCall, P.L.  1977. Community patterns and adaptive strategies of the infaunal benthos of
    Long Island Sound. J. Mar. Res. 35(2):221-266.

Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. and USEPA-Environmental Research Laboratory.  Narragansett, RI.
    1988.  Assessment of Quincy Bay Contamination Summary Report.  Prepared for USEPA,
    Region 1.

Normandeau Associates and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.  1994. Draft Environmental
    Impact Report (EOEA File No. 8695) and Draft Environmental Impact Statement Boston
    Harbor, Massachusetts Navigation Improvement Project and Berth Dredging Project.

Normandeau Associates. 1985. Biological and hydraulic evaluation of the proposed dredge
    and fill plan at the Schrafft Center, Mystic River, Charlestown, MA.  Prepared for The
    Flatley Co.

Normandeau Associates. 1995a. Environmental Studies for the Boston Harbor Navigation
    Improvement and Berth Dredging EIR/S.  Task 2: Lobster Studies.  Prepared for the U.S.
    Army Corps of Engineers.

Normandeau Associates. 1995b. Environmental Studies for the Boston Harbor Navigation
    Improvement and Berth Dredging EIR/S.  Task 3: Finfish Studies. Prepared for the U.S.
    Army Corps of Engineers.

Odum, E.P. 1969. The strategy of ecosystem development.   Science 164:262-270.

Revelas, E.G., D.C. Rhoads. and J.D. Germane.  1987.  San Francisco Bay sediment quality
    survey and analysis. NOAA Tech. Memor. NOS OMA 35.  Rockville, MD.  127 pp.

Rhoads, D.C. and J.D. Germane.  1982.  Characterization of organism-sediment relations using
    sediment profile imaging: an efficient method of remote ecological monitoring of the
    seafloor (REMOTS system). Mar. Ecol.  Prog. Ser.  8:115-128.

Rhoads, D.C. and J.D. Germane.  1986.  Interpreting long-term changes in benthic community
    structure: a new protocol.  Hydrobiologia 142:291-308.

SAIC.  1992.  REMOTS sediment-profile photography survey of Boston Harbor, Dorchester,
    Quincy, Hingham, and Hull Bays: May 1992. SAIC Rpt. No. 266, Science Applications
13116.039 - I3ll6es.dac
April 24, 1995                                 55
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOC/A T£S
    International Corporation, Newport, RI, to the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority,
    Environmental Quality Dept, Charlestown, MA, 20 pp.

SAIC. 1994,  Monitoring cruise at the Boston Lightship disposal site, August 1994. SAIC
    Rpt No. 328, Science Applications International Corporation, Newport, RI, to the U.S.
    Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division, Waltham, MA. 40 pp.

Saucerman, S.E. and L.A. Deegan.  1991. Lateral and cross-channel movement of young-of-
    the-year winter flounder (Pseudoplewonectes americamis) in Waquoit Bay, Massachusetts.
    Estuaries  14(4):440-446.

Valente, R.M., D.C. Rhoads, J.D. Germano and V.J. Cabelli.  1992.  Mapping of benthic
    enrichment patterns in Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island. Estuaries 15:1-17.

Viles, C. and  R.J. Diaz.  1991.  Bencore, an image analysis system for measuring sediment
    profile camera slides. School of Marine Science, Virginia Institute of Marine Science,
    College of William and Mary, Gloucester Pt. VA.  13  pp.
Vismann, B.  1991.  Sulfide tolerance: Physiological mechanisms and ecological implications.
    Ophelia 34:1-27.

Wahle, RA. and R.S. Steneek.   1991.  Recruitment habitats and nursery grounds of
    the American lobster (Homarus americamis): A demographic bottleneck. Marine
    Ecology  Progress Series 69:231-243.
13116.039
    4, 199S                                 56
-------
NOFtMANDEAU ASSOCIATES
                             APPENDIX A

                      CAMERA SPECIFICATIONS
13116.939 -
April 24, 199S
                                                             /-.
-------
                               Appendix A
Technical specifications for the Hulcher Sediment Profile Camera, Model Minnie.

          Pressure Housing: Camera and prism are stainless steel
          Deployment Frame: Aluminum, 80 x 120 cm base and 150 cm high
          Depth rating: 100 meters or 330 feet
          Weight:  200 Ibs. in air
          Prism: Window 15 by 22 cm
          Lens: UW-Nikkor 28 mm f/3.5 water corrected
          Shutter: Capping with x-synchronization for electronic flash
          Controls: Focus and aperture set manually
                    Bottom contact delay variable from 1 to 32 seconds
                    Exposures per deployment variable from 1 to 3
                    Inter exposure timing variable from 1 to 5 seconds
                    All controls directly accessible through end-cap
          Film Frame size: standard 24 by 36 mm on 35 mm film
          Film loading: Daylight loading using standard 36 exposure cassettes or
                    100 foot bulk load film for approximately 800 exposures
          Power: 12 volts DC rechargeable lead oxide batteries
          Data logger: Day, hour, minute, second
-------
      Appendix A -  Exampla spread sheet from image analysis
Boston Harbor, October-November 1994, SPl Analysis
^b
(cm) (cm)
Pene- Sediment
Hab Station
la SPEC 1 B
la SPEC 1 C
la SPEC 2 A
la SPEC 2B
la SPEC 3 A
la SPEC 3B
la SPEC 4 A
la SPEC 4B
la SPEC 5 A
la SPEC 58
la SPEC 6 A
la SPEC 6B
lla SPEC 7 A
lla SPEC 78
lla SPEC 8 A
lla SPEC SB
lla SPEC 90
Ha SPEC 9D
Ib SPEC 10 A
Ib SPEC 10 B
Ib SPEC 11 A
Ib SPEC 11 B
Ib SPEC 12 A
Ib SPEC 12 B
Ib SPEC 13 A
Ib SPEC 13 B
lla SPEC 14 A
Time
9:02
9:12
9:17
9:18
9:23
9:25
9:29
9:30
9:38
9:38
9:48
9:50
9:55
9:58
10:03
10:05
10:12
10:13
10:21
10:22
10:26
10:27
10:34
10:35
10:39
10:40
10:44
tralion RPD Type
9.8
12.8
10
9.5
14.5
14.5
10
16.5
12.8
10,3
6.8
8
2.5
7,3
4.2
0.5
10
9.5
10.8
7.8
9.8
10.5
13.5
12
13
13.5
3.3
3.2
3.5
4.2
2.5
4.5
5
4
5
3.5
NA
1.5
1.5
0.5
1.5
1.8
NA
3.3
3.5
4
1.8
3
2.5
2.8
3
4.2
4.8
1
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
FS.SI
FS.SI
FS.SI
FS.SI
FS.SI
S.GR
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
FS.SI.SH
Sediment Infauna
Interface Tubes
MAT
MAT
MAT
MAT
MAT
MAT
MAT
MAT
MAT
D
M,P
M,P
M.P.SH
M,P,SH
MAT
MAT,
MAT
MAT
MAT
MAT
MAT
MAT
MAT
MAT
MANY
MANY
SOME
MANY
M.P.MAT
GR.AL
MAT
MAT
MAT
M,P
D.MAT
MAT
MAT
MAT
MAT
MAT
SH.AL
MANY
MAT
MAT
MAT
MANY
MAT
MAT
MAT
MAT
MAT
MAT
FEW
No.
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
Type


WR
WR

WR

WR


WR


WR
MAT
NA
0
0
1
1
0
3
0
0
0
1
0



WR
WR

WR



WR

Bur-
Voids
rows No. Type
1
0
2
4
5
3
2
5
5
0
1
2
0
5
0
NA
3
4
5
1
3
1
0
1
3
1
0
0
2 OX
0
0
1 OX
0
0
0
1 AN
0
0
0
0
0
0
NA
1 OX
1 OX
0
0
0
1 AN
0
2 AN
0
0
0
OS! Calculation
Sue.
Stage
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
I
II
0
IND
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
I
S.S.
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3

m
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
TOTAL
RPD OSIComments
5
5
6
4
6
6
6
6
5
M
2
2
1
2
II
m
5
5
6
3
4
4
4
4
6
6
2
8
8
9
7
9
9
9
9
8
M
5
5
2
5
3
M
8
8
9
6
7
7
7
7
9
9
3
Ampelisca mat
Ampelisca mat old
Ampelisca mat
Ampelisca mat old, Stk, Amp.
Ampellsca mat
Ampellsca mal
Ampellsca mat
Ampelisca mat
Ampelisca mat, Stk. Amp.
Ampelisca mat




36Ampelisca mat old
Tubes & algae on gravel
Ampelisca mat old
Ampelisca mat old
Ampelisca mat old

Ampelisca mat
Ampelisca mat old
Ampelisca mat
Ampelisca mat
Ampellsca mat
Ampelisca mat

-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIA TES
                             APPENDIX B

                        SAMPLING LOCATIONS
                                (maps)
13116.039 - JJ«*ix
-------
-------

             Boston Harbor
  Navigation Improvement Project
                         Figure B-l. Location of sediment profile imaging stations
                                   for Everett, Amstar, Revere Sugar, Mystic
                                   PiersJLittle Mystic Channel, Mystic River
                                   and Inner Confluence.
e
         Scale:
              112
            mm
   Approximate
Scale in Nautical Miles
                                              Source:
NOAA Navigation Chart #13272,
    Massachusetts Bay, MA
-------
                                                                            f .
            Boston Harbor
  Navigation Improvement Project
                          Figure B-2. Location of sediment profile imaging
                                    stations for Chel-OI. Chel-02 and
                                    Chelsea Creek Channel (Chel R).
e
        Scale:
            U2
           m
   Approximate
Scale in Nautical Miles
                                            Source:
NOAA Navigation Chart #13272,
    Massachusetts Bay, MA
-------
          ISV 5V*i     a   *«V^*    9   9  V»
          K/f8li   »  "  «//•,   %  ,  &f

          1  l»" V*   *   /7s           /^ **'
          Boston Harbor
Navigation Improvement Project
Rgnre B-3.  Location of sediment profile imaging
           stations for Logan 1, Logan 2,
           Massport 1, Conley and Fish Pier.
      Scale:
                               1/2
                              •Ml
                     Approximate
                  Scale in Nautical Miles
                                           Source:
         NOAA Navigation Chart #13272,
             Massachusetts Bay, MA
-------
     l^nTV/!
  27 ="2s  IT" ••   •
                                    •a   2
                                     '' 2S 2
                                        . ->r  v* A
                                        ' 2S  —«  a^ssS— ,
                                               _/,'<*27  .-,
                                                    - 'i=- . 6X - ' I  '" C-
                                                         '
                                                                         -  8
                                                           10     'e''.^!1*
                                                             8   , - -  M
                                                J--
                                                           3  jr^r a.  _-•.— ^ ,6
                                                          '"7     -   "  u    ^-
                                                               9   9
15
                                                                                           9
                                                                                          Omn
                                     <--!!.*.' 2 ,,-*2 "
                                                                         33   29  39    38
                            .  ,m         s;^

                           2)   "^iUS
                                                                        iJ   C7  7^
                                                                                 '^"*
331
                     Boston Harbor
           Navigation Improvement Project
                                    Rgure B-4.  Location of sediment profile imaging
                                               stations for Spectacle Island,
                                               Subaqueous B and Subaqueous E.
Scale:
                           1/2
                                    Source:
                                Approximate
                             Scale in Nautical Mile
                                             NOAA Navigation Chart #13270,
                                               Boston Harbor, Boston, MA
-------
                             Boston Lightsb
                              Disposal Area
                               (Historic)

                 vji.^ ^*^-£*"/' *  >   63
               *£*r\  £ 43/1  ,
          Boston Harbor
Navigation Improvement Project
Rgure B-5. Location of sediment profile imaging
           stations for Boston Lightship.
      Scale:
                                V2
Source:
                    Approximate
                 Scale lit Nauiieal Miles
          NOAA Navigation Chart #13267,
             Massachusetts Bay, MA
-------
          Boston Harbor
Navigation Improvement Project
Rgure B-6.  Location of sediment profile imaging
           stations for Meisburger 2 and 7.
      Scale:
                                 1/2
                                          Source:
                     Approximate
                 Scale in Nautical Miles
         NOAA Navigation Chart # 13267,
             Massachusetts Bay, MA
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES
                            APPENDIX C

                 SEDIMENT PROFILE IMAGERY DATA
13116.639 - 13tl6autoc
April 24, 199S
-------
                                APPENDIX C
 Environmental studies for the Boston Harbor navigation improvement and
 berth dredging environmental impact report/statement:  Sediment profile
                     camera survey of benthic habitats:

                      SEDIMENT PROFILE IMAGE DATA
Abbreviations used in analysis of sediment profile images.
                                            R = Pebble (small rock)
Stations:                                    SH = Shell Hash
  BLS = Boston Lightship                      SI = Silt
   M2 - Meisburger 2                          S = Sand
   M7 = Meisburger 7                     FS/SI = Fine sand over silt
 SPEC = Spectacle Island
 SUBE = Subaqueous E
 SUBB = Subaqueous B
 LOG1 = Logan 01
 LOG2 = Logan 02
 MPA1 - Massport-1
     1C = Inner Confluence
  CON = Conley
     CP = Cabot Paint
  MAL = Maiden Bridges (Everett)
     FP = Fish Pier
CHEL1 = Chel. 01
CHEL2 = Chel. 02
CHELR = Chelsea Creek
   LMC = Little Mystic  Channel
     MP = Mystic Piers
    AM = Amstar
     RS = Revere Sugar
  MYR = Mystic River Ship Channel
Pen. Depth:
Prism penetration depth

RPD Depth:
Depth of the apparent color redox
potential discontinuity layer
> = Deeper than could be seen in the
image

Sediment Type:
  CL = Clay
   FS = Fine Sand
  GR = Gravel
  MU = Mud, very soft
Surface Interface:
 E — Even
 M — Mound
 B = Bedform
 P = Pit
 C = Clast
SH = Shell
  R = Rock
GR = Gravel

Tubes at Surface:
      - — None
 FEW =1-6
 SOME = 7-24
MANY = >24
  MAT = Tube Mat

Infauna:
Number and type of infauna
    = WORM
Burrows:
Number of burrow structures

Voids:
Number and Type of voids
 OX = Oxic
 AN — Anoxic
GAS = Gas filled void
-------
Successional Stage:
 0 *= Azoic
 • I = Pioneering
 II = Intermediate
III = Equilibrium

OS!:
Organism Sediment Index of Rhoads and
Germane (1986).  See text for
calculation.

General abbreviations:
   D = Disturbed
END = Indeterminate
 NA = Not Applicable
-------
SEDIMENT PROFILE IMAGE ANALYSIS FOR BOSTON HARBOR STATIONS, OCTOBER-NOVEMBER 1994. SEE TABLE 3-2 FOR DESCRIPTION OF HABITATS.




                                   Surface Features        Subsurface Features

Habitat
Ia
ia
la
Ia
la
la
la
Ia
la
Ia
la
la
iia
Ha
Ha
Ha
lla
Ha
Ib
Ib
Ib
ib
Ib
Ib
Ib
ib
Ha
Ha
Ib
Ib
He
He
Ib
ib
Ib
Ib

Station
SPEC 1 B
SPEC I C
SPEC 2 A
SPEC 2B
SPEC 3 A
SPEC 3 B
SPEC 4 A
SPEC 4B
SPEC 5 A
SPEC SB
SPEC 6 A
SPEC 6B
SPEC 7 A
SPEC 7B
SPEC 8 A
SPEC 8 B
SPEC 9C
SPEC 9D
SPEC 10 A
SPEC 10 B
SPEC 1 1 A
SPEC 1 1 B
SPEC 12 A
SPEC 12 B
SPEC 13 A
SPEC 13 B
SPEC 14 A
SPEC 14 B
SPEC 15 A
SPEC 15 B
SUBE I A
SUBE I B
SUBE 2 A
SUBE 2B
SUBE 3 A
SUBE 3B

Time
9:02
9:12
9:17
9:18
9:23
9:25
9:29
9:30
9:36
9:38
9:48
9:50
9:55
9:58
10:03
10:05
10:12
10:13
10:21
10:22
10:26
10:27
10:34
10:35
10:39
10:40
10:44
10:45
10:50
10:51
11:08
11:10
11:17
11:19
11:23
11:25
Pen.
Depth
9.8
12.8
10.0
9.5
14.5
14.5
10.0
16.5
12.8
10.3
6.8
8,0
2,5
7.3
4.2
0.5
1 0.0
9.5
10.8
7.8
9.8
10.5
13.5
12.0
13.0
13.5
3.3
6.8
3.2
5.0
13.2
7.0
12.0
15.8
13.0
12.5
RPD
Depth
3.2
3.5
4.2
2.5
4.5
5.0
4.0
5.0
3.5
NA
1. 5
1.5
0.5
1.5
1.8
NA
3.3
3.5
4.0
1.8
3.0
2.5
2,8
3,0
4.2
4.8
1.0
0.8
1.5
1.3
2.5
NA
2,0
1.8
1.4
1.5
Sediment
Type
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
FS.SI
FS.SI
FS.SI
FS.SI
FS.SI
S.GR
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
FS.SI.SH
FS.SI.SH
FS
FS
SI
SI.SH
SI
SI
SI
SI

Interface
MAT
MAT
MAT
MAT
MAT
MAT
MAT
MAT
MAT
D
M,P
M,P
M.P.SH
M,P,SH
M.P.MAT
GR.ALGAE
MAT
MAT
MAT
M.P
D.MAT
MAT
MAT
MAT
MAT
MAT
SH.ALGAE
SH
M.P
M.P.SH
MAT.SH
D.SH
MAT
MAT.SNAIL
MAT
MAT
Infauna
Tubes
MAT
MAT
MAT
MAT
MAT
MAT
MAT
MAT
MAT
MAT
MANY
MANY
SOME
MANY
MAT
MANY
MAT
MAT
MAT
MANY
MAT
MAT
MAT
MAT
MAT
MAT
FEW
MANY
SOME
MANY
MAT
SOME
MAT
MAT
MAT
MAT

No.
0
0
1
1
0
I
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
NA
0
0
1
1
0
3
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1

Type


WR
WR

WR

WR


WR


WR




WR
WR

WR



WR




WR




WR
Bur-
rows
I
0
2
4
5
3
2
5
5
0
I
2
0
5
0
NA
3
4
5
I
3
I
0
I
3
1
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
I
1
Voids
No. Type
0
2 OX
0
0
1 OX
0
0
0
I AN
0
0
0
0
0
0
NA
1 OX
1 OX
0
0
0
1 AN
0
2 AN
0
0
0
1 AN
0
0
2 OX.AN
0
0
0
1 AN
0
Success,
Stage
II
II
II
H
H
11
II
II
II
11
II
II
1
II
II
IND
H
11
II
11
11
H
11
II
II
II
1
I
II
II
11
1NI>
II
II
11
II
OSI
8
8
9
7
9
9
9
9
8
IND
5
5
2
5
6
IND
8
8
9
6
7
7
7
7
9
9
3
3
5
5
7
INI)
6
5
5
5
Comments
Ampclisca mat
Ampclisca mat
Ampclisca mat
Ampelisca mat, Stick
Ampelisca mat
Ampclisca mat
Anipelisca mat
Anipelisca mat
Anipelisca mat, Stick
Ampclisca mat




Ampelisca mat




Amp.




Amp.






Tubes & algae on gravel
Ampclisca mat
Ampclisca mat
Ampclisca mat

Ampelisca mat
Ampelisca mat
Anipelisca mat
Ampeiiscu mat
Ampelisca mat
Ampelisca mat




Anipelisca innl
Whole Mytilus shells
Ampelisca mat
Ampclisca mat
Ampclisca mat
Ampelisca mat




















-------
(Continued)
                                                  Surface Features
StthMirfncc l-'cnlures

Ilnhilnl
in
In
la
In
In
In
Illh
1Mb
IHb
Illh
Illh
1Kb
IHb
Illh
IHb
Illh
Illh
Illh
Ilia
Ilia
Ilia
Ilia
Ilia
Illn
Ilia
Ilia
Ilia
Ilia
IHb
(lib
(lib
nth
Illh
Illh

Smtiim
SUM) 1 A
sunn i H
sunn 2 A
801)1} 21)
simn 3 A
sunn 3 H
1,002 1 A
1.002 1 1)
1.O02 2 A
I.O02 21)
1.0(52 3 A
1.002 3 1)
I.OCi2 4 A
I,0(i2 41)
1.002 5 A
1.002 5 I)
I.OO2 6 A
1.002 61)
1,001 1 A
1.001 1 1)
1.001 2 A
I.O01 21)
1.001 3 A
1.O01 3 1)
MI'AI 1 A
MI'AI 1 1)
MI'AI 2 A
MI'AI 21)
am, i A
CHI- , 1 1)
cm: , 2 A
a II-:, 2D
am, 3 A
a IB , 3 1)

Tm\e
11:34
11:36
:
12:02
12:08
12:11
12:29
12:31
12:34
12:36
12:40
12:41
12:47
12:49
12:53
12:55
I2-.5R
12:59
13:18
13:19
13:22
13:24
13:27
13:27
13:38
13:41
13:44
13:46
9:49
9:5 1
9:58
10:00
9:54
9:56
I'cn.
Depth
13.3
16.0
16.5
I'M
10.9
13.3
16.8
20.0
21.5
22.0
18.4
19.8
16.0
16.5
22.0
22.0
I8..1
16.3
17.8
20.5
>22
>22
22.5
18.0
19.0
2-1.5
>22
22.5
14.3
10.0
12.8
14.0
15.5
12.0
RPD
Depth
2.4
2.0
INI)
3.0
2,8
3.0
3.0
0.8
1.2
1.0
1.2
2.0
0.5
1.2
1.0
1.5
1. 5
O.S
1.0
1.0
INI)
IND
0.8
0.4
1.0
1.0
IND
0.4
0.0
2.0
1.5
0.8
0.0
0.2
Sediment
Type
SI
SI
IND
SI
SI
SI
MU
MU
MU
MU
MU
MU
MU
MU
MU
MU
MU
MU
MU
MU
MU
MU
MU
MU
MU
MU
MU
MU
MU
S.S1
SI
SI
MU
MU

Interface
MAT
MAI-
MAT
MAT
MAT
MAI'
P,C
M,P
M,P
M,P
R
M
M
M,P
M,P
M,P
M.P
M,I'
M,P
M.P
IND
INI)
M.P
M,P
M.P
M,P
IND
E
E
C.P.SII
M,P
M,P
C,D
M,P
Infnuna
Tubes
MAT
MAT
MAT
MAT
MAT
MAT
.
-
FEW
-
.
-
FBW
-
.
-
I-'UW
•
.
FEW
IND
IND
-
-
.
.
IND
-
FEW
-
FBW
I;BW
.
-

No. Type
1 WR
2 WR
INI)
2 WR
2 WR
0
0
0
0
0
" 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bur-
rows
3
2
IND
2
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I
0
Voi
No.
2
4
IND
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
3
2
2
2
0
I
0
I
I
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
ds
Type
OX.AN
OX.AN



OX
GAS



OAS
AN
AN.OAS
AN

AN

AN
AN
AN






OAS



AN

AN

Sueces
Stage
II
II
11
11
II
II
1?
1?
I
I?
I?
I?
I?
1?
I?
1?
1
1?
1?
1
I?
I?
1?
1?
1?
1?
1?
1?
1
1
I
1
1
1
s.
OSI Comments
? Ampclisca innt
6 Ampoliscn mat
IND Ampclisca ninl. No (lash
7 Ampcliscu mut
7 Ampclisca mat
7 Ampclisca mat
3
3
3
3
1
4
0
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
INI)
IND
3
2
3
3
IND
2
I
4
3
3
1
2
-------
          (Continued)
                                                        Surface Features
Subsurface Features
--Q

Habitat
Illb
Illb
Illb
Illb
Illb
Illb
lla
lln
lib
lib
lla
lla
lib
lib
lla
Ilii
lla
lla
lla
lla
Ilia
Ilia
Ilia
Ilia
lla
lla
Ilia
Ilia
Ilia
Ilia
Ilia
Ilia
lla
lla
Illb
Illb
Illb
Illb

Station
cma. 2 1 A
a IBM 1 B
C1II-L2 2 C
CI 11-1,2 2 A
CI 11-1,2 3 B
CUEI-2 3 A
CIIEU 1 A
CIIELR 1 B
CIIEJ.R 2 A
CIIEI.R 2 »
CIIEI.R 3 A
CIIEI.R 3 B
CIIEI.R 4 A
CIIEI.R 4 B
CIIlil.R 5 A
tllKU 5 B
1C 1 A
1C 1 B
1C 2 A
It! 2 B
1C 3 A
It! 3 B
1C 4 A
1C 4 B
1C 5 A
1C 5 B
CON 1 A
CON 1 II
CON 2 A
CON 2 B
CON 3 A
CON 3 »
CP I A
CP 1 B
CP 2 A
CP 2 B
CP 3 A
CP 3 B

Time
8:03
8:05
8:08
8:10
8:13
8:14
8:20
8:21
8:47
8:49
8:53
8:56
8:26
8:28
8:39
8:41
10:11
10:13
10:17
10:19
10:23
10:25
10:33
10:35
10:40
;
11:59
12:00
12:03
12:05
12:08
12:10
9:27
9:29
9:22
9:23
9:12
9:13
Pen.
Dqilli
16.5
14.2
16.4
16.0
17.5
19.0
5.0
4.8
10.8
7.8
0.0
0.0
13.2
16.8
5.8
3.5
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
7.0
14,0
17.2
9.8
8.2
5.5
12.0
13.0
20.0
18.8
19.8
14.5
10.0
6.8
12.3
13.2
12.8
12.0
RPI)
Depth
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.6
1,0
1.0
NA
NA
0.6
0,8
1.3
0.8
NA
NA
1,5
NA
1.0
0.8
1.0
1.3
0.5
0,5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.8
4,0
0,4
0.5
0.8
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.5
Sediment
Type
MU
MU
MU
MU
MU
MU
FS
FS
MU
MU
R?
R,S
MU
MU
FS
FS
GR?
GR?
FS.GR
S.OR
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI.GR
SI.GR
SI
SI
MU
MU
MU
MU
SI
St
SI
SI
SI
SI

Interface
M,P-
M,P
M,P
M.P
M.P
M,P
M.P.SII
M.P.SH
M,P,C
M,P
R?
R.SII
M.P
M.P
M.I'.GR
B
OR?
GR?
GR.SII
GR.SII
M,P
M.C
M,P
M,P
GR.SII
GR.SII
M.P
M,P
M,P
M,P
M,P
C,P
C.MAT
MAT
MAT
M.P
M,P
M.P
Infauna
Tubes
SOME
MANY
FEW
FEW
-
«
FEW
.
FEW
FEW
INI)
-
-
FEW
-
-
IN!)
INI)
SOME
INI)
-
FEW
FEW
FEW
-
.
PEW
-
-
*
-
-
-
•
•
-
FEW
FEW

No. Type
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NA
NA
0
NA
0
0
0
0
1 WR
0
0
1 WR
1 WR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bur-
rows
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NA
NA
0
NA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
Voids Success,
No. Type Stage
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 I?
0 1?
0 I
0 1
0 1
0
NA INI)
NA INI)
0 l/ll
NA INI)
2 AN
0
3 AN
0
1 AN
0 ?
o •
0
0
1 GAS
0 1?
0 1?
0
0
1 AN
0
0
I AN
OSI Comments
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
INI)
INI) Starfish on nick
2
3
3
3
INI)
INI)
4
INI)
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
7? Physically reworked layer
2
2 Microalgal mat
3 Microalgal mat
2 Micrunlgnl mot
2
2
2
-------
(Continued)
                                               Surface Features
Subsurface Features


Habitat Stntion
Illn
Illn
Illn
Illn
Illn
Illn
llfn
Ilia
Illn
Ilia
Illb
Illb
Illn
Illn
lib
Illn
Illn
Ilia
Illn
Illn
Illn
Illn
Illn
Illn
IVn
IVn
IVn
IVn
lib
lib
llln
Illn
Illil
Illn
Ilia
Illn
MAI, 1 A
MAI, i n
MAI, 2 A
MAI, 2 11
MAI, 3 A
MAI. 3 H
II* 1 A
1 1* 1 1)
II' 2 A
II' 2 H
II' 3 A
1 1> 3 1!
II' 4 A
1 1' 4 H
ll»5 A
1 1' 5 IJ
I.MC 1 A
I.MC 1 1!
I.MC 2 A
I.MC 2 II
I.MC 3 A
I.MC 3 11
I.MC 4 A
I.MC 4 H
Ml' 1 A
Ml' 1 H
Ml' 2 A
MP 2 II
Ml' 3 A
Ml' 3 C
AM ! A
AM 1 li
AM 2 A
AM 2 1)
AM 3 A
AM3H

Time
13:38
13:40
13:44
13:45
13:50
13:51
12:24
12:25
12:28
12:31
12:36
12:37
12:53
12:55
13:03
13:04
14:11
14:12
14.15
14:17
14:21
14:22
14:26
14:28
14:35
14:37
14:43
14:44
14:48
14:54
15:10
15:12
15:14
15:15
15:18
15:19
Pen.
Depth
>22
>22
>22
>22
15.0
11.2
23.0
>22
19.5
22.0
13,8
10.3
>22
>22
9.5
20.0
22.5
10,5
>22
22.5
18.5
20.5
>22
>22
16.5
16.5
20,5
22,5
7.0
11.3
>22
18.0
21,0
23.5
23.5
22.5
RPD
Depth
1ND
INI)
IND
1ND
0.8
0.5
0.3
IND
1,0
2.0
0.5
1.3
INI)
INI)
0.8
0.8
0.2
1.0
INI)
0.8
1.0
0.4
IND
IND
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
1.3
1.3
INI)
0.8
0.2
0.5
0.8
0.8
Sediment
Type
MU.CL
MU.CL
MU
MU
SI
SI
MU
MU
MU
MU
SI
SI
MU.CL
MU.CL
MU
MU
MU
MU
MU
MU
MU
MU
MU
MU
MU
MU
MU
MU
FS.SI
SI
MU
MU
MU
MU
MU
MU

Interface
IND-
INI)
INI)
IND
M,P
C
INI)
IND
M,P
M.P
M,l»
M.P
INI)
INI)
M.I'
M.P
M,P
M,P
IND
M.P
M.I'.C
M.P
INI)
INI)
M.P
M.l»
M.P
M.l>
M.P
M.P
INI)
M,P
M.P
M.P
M,P
M.P
Infauna
Tubes
INI)
IND
IND
IND
.
.
INI)
IND
*
.
.
I-'F.W
IND
IND
.
-
-
FRW
IND
FBW
FEW
.
IND
IND
.
FEW
FliW
IND
*
FEW
IND
-
-
IND
FEW
FEW
Bur- Voids Success.
No. Type
0
0
0
1 WR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
'0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
rows No. Type Slagc OSI Comments
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 AN INI) INI)
0 INI) IND
0 IND INI)
0 1? IND
0
0
3
2
0 INI) INI)
0 IND IND
0
0
0
0
3
4
2
3
0 INI) INI)
0 IND IND
0
0
3
3
0 |? 2
0
3
0 1? IND
0
0
3
3
0 1? 2
0 I? INI)
0 I? IND
0
0
0
0
0
2 AN
0
0
0
0
0
1 AN
3 Object »n surface
2
2
3
3
3 Maeroalgnl pieces
? INI)
3
2 Macroiilgol pieces
? 2
3
3
-------
            (Continued)
                                                          Surface Features
Subsurface Features

Habitat
Ilia
Ilia
Ilia
Ilia
Ilia
Ilia
Ilia
Ilia
Ilia
IVh
IVh
IVh
IVb
IVb
IVh

Station
KS 1 A
RS 1 1)
RS2A
RS 2 1)
US 3 A
KS 3 1)
MYR 1 A
MYR 1 1)
MYR 2 A
MYR 2 1)
MYR 3 A
MYR 3 »
MYR 4 A
MYR 4 »
MYR 5 A

Time
15:27
15:28
15:32
15:34
15:37
15:39
15:50
15:52
15:57
16:00
16:19
16:22
16:04
16:07
16:11
Pen.
Depth
17.9
18.2
>22
>22
IR.9
IR.2
18.0
18.5
22.5
17.8
9.0
5.5
4.8
II. 0
6.9
RIM)
Depth
0.8
0.2
INI)
INI)
0.5
0.2
0.5
0.5
IND
0.5
0.5
0.8
1.0
0.5
0.2
Sediment
Type
MU
MU
MU
MU
MU
MU
MU
MU
MU
MU
MU.CL
MU.CL.S
FS.SI
MU.CL
MU.CL

Interface
M,r
M,l»
INI)
IND
M.l'
M,l»
M.l»
M,l»
IND
M.l»
M.I'
M.l>
M.I'
M.I'.C
M.I'.C
Infauna
Tubes
FEW
-
IND
IND
FEW
FEW
FEW
-
IND
-
SOME
FEW
-
FEW
-

No. Type
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Uur-
rows
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Voids
No. Type
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 GAS
1 GAS
0
0
0
0
0
Succcs
Stage
1
1
1?
1?
1
1
1
I
1?
1?





s.
OSI
3
2
IND
IND
2
2
2
2
INI)
0
2
3
3
2
2
                                                                                                                                                Comments
5:
  \
-------
\
          SEDIMENT PROFILE IMAGE VISUAL ANALYSIS MASSACHUSETTS BAY, BOSTON LIGHT SHIP STATIONS, NOVEMBER 1994. SEE TABLE 3-2
          FOR DESCRIPTION OF HABITATS.

                                        Surface Features   ' Subsurface Features
Habitat Station
VII
VII
Vll
VII
VII
VII
VII
VII
VII
VII
VII
VII
VIII
VIII
VIII
VHI
VHI
VHI
VI
VHI
VI!
VII
VII
V
VIII
V
BLS 1 B
BLS 1C
BLS 2 A
BLS 2C
BLS 3 A
BLS 3B
BLS 4 A
BLS 4B
BLS 5 A
BLS 6 A
BLS 6B
BLS 7 A
BLS 8 A
BLS SB
BLS 9 A
BLS 9B
BLS 10 A
BLS 10 B
BLS 11 A
BLS 1 1 B
BLS 12 A
BLS 12 B
BLS 13 A
BLS 13 B
BLS 14 A
BLS 14 B
Time
13:11
11:51
12:02
12:52
13:19
13:28
13:34
13:39
13:46
14:06
14:10
8:24
10:05
10:10
10:19
10:23
10:30
10:34
10:43
10:48
10:58
11.03
11:12
11:16
12:22
12:25
Pen.
Deplh
2,5
3.0
1.5
0.8
0.3
1.0
0.0
4.3
5,3
0.5
0.3
5.0
7.2
6.0
4.8
6.2
8.5
6.0
0.3
2.5
7.0
0.3
6.5
0.0
0.3
0.0
RPD Sediment Surface
Depth Type Interface
>2,5
>3,0
>l.5
>0.8
NA
>I.O
NA
>4.3
5.0
>0,5
NA
>5.0
2.5
2.0
1.7
1.5
2.3
1.5
NA
NA
2,5
NA
1,8
NA
NA
NA
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
SA
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS/SL.CL
FS/SL
FS/SL
FS/SL
FS/SL
FS/SL
S,R
CL
FS/SI
S
FS/SI
S,R
S
R
M,P
M,P
C,P
M.P.SH
B
M,P
B
M,P
M.P.SH
M,P
M,P
M,P
M,P
M.P.C
M,P
M,P
M
M,P
M,R
C,D
M.P.SH
C
M,P
R
IND
R
Tubes
MANY
MANY
MANY
MANY
MANY
MANY
SOME
MANY
MANY
MANY
MANY
SOME
SOME
SOME
SOME
MANY
MANY
MANY
MANY
NA
SOME
SOME
MANY
SOME
IND
SOME
Infauna
No. Type
4
0
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
5
4
NA
NA
1
I
0
0
1
0
1
NA
NA
. 0
NA
1
NA
NA
NA
WR






WR
WR


WR
WR


WR

WR




WR



Bur-
rows
0
0
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
2
3
NA
NA
4
0
0
I
1
1
3
NA
NA
0
NA
I
NA
NA
NA
Voids
No. Type
0
0
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
NA
NA
0
0
0
0
1 OX
0
1 OX
NA
NA
0
NA
0
NA
NA
NA
Success.
Stage
11
II
II
II
II
II
11?
11
II
II
II
II
II
11
11
11
11
II
IND
IND
IND
IND
11
IND
IND
IND
OSI
7*
8*
6*
5*
IND
5*
IND
9*
9
3*
IND
9*
7
6
6
S
7
5
IND
IND
IND
IND
6
IND
IND
IND
Comments

Small clam on surface



Large clam on surface







Cerianthid anemone
Worm on surface?



Worm tubes on rock




Hydroids on rock

Hydroids on rock
-------
            (Continued)
-C:
                                                    Surface Features
Subsurface Features
Habitat
V
VII
VII
V
VII
VII
VII
VII
VII
VII
VII
VII
VII
VH
VII
VII
VII
VII
VII
VII
Station Time
BLS 15 A 12:14
BLS IS B 12:17
BLS 16 A 12:04
BLS 16 B 12:07
BLS !7A 11:52
BLS 17 B 11:57
BLS ISA 11:42
BLS 18 B 11:46
BLS 19 A 11:32
BLS 19 B 11:36
BLS 20 A 8:43
BLS 20 B 8:46
BLS 21 A 8:56
BLS 21 B 8:59
BLS 22 B 9:09
BLS 23 A 9:15
BLS 23 B 9:18
BLS 24 A 9:37
BLS 25 A 9:46
BLS 25 B 9:48
Pen.
Depth
0.2
4.5
3,5
0.0
11.3
9.5
6.5
7.8
5.8
5.5
4.3
4.0
1.0
2.0
1.8
0,3
0.8
1.0
2.8
1.5
RPD Sediment Surface
Depth Type Interface
NA S,R
2.0 FS/SI
2.5 FS
NA R
1.8 FS/S1/CL
1,5 SI/CL
2.0 FS/SI.CL
2.0 FS/SI
2.5 FS/SI
2.0 FS/SI
1.3 FS/SI
1.5 FS/SI
>i.O FS
>2.0 FS
>I,8 FS
NA FS
NA FS
 value for the RPD.
-------
       SEDIMENT PROFILE IMAGE VISUAL ANALYSIS MASSACHUSETTS BAY, MEISBURGER 2 STATIONS, NOVEMBER 1994. SEE TABLE 3-2 FOR
       DESCRIPTION OF HABITATS.
                                     Surface Features
Subsurface Features
-C
Habitat
V
V
VII
Vll
VII
VII
V
V
VII
VII
V
V
VH
V
V
V1I1
VIII
V11I
V
V
V
VIII
VIH
VIII
V
VII
Station
M2 1 A
M2 1 B
M2 2 A
M2 2B
M2 3 A
M2 3B
M2 4 A
M2 4B
M2 5 A
M2 50
M2 6 A
M2 6B
M2 7 A
M2 8 A
M2 8B
M2 9 A
M2 9B
M2 10 A
M2 10 B
M2 11 A
M2 11 B
M2 12 A
M2 12 B
M2 !3B
M2 14 A
M2 14 B
Time
9:09
9:11
9:01
9:03
8:53
8:56
8:46
8:48
8:38
8:40
8:31
8:33
8:23
10:16
10:16
10:08
10:11
10:00
10:03
9:51
9:54
9:44
9:47
9:40
10:34
10:36
Pen.
Depth
0,0
0.0
0.5
0.3
2,3
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0,0
5.0
0,0
2.5
0,5
0.0
0.5
2,8
4.0
7.5
0.2
0.0
RPD
Depth
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.0
NA
0.5
NA
NA
NA
0.8
1.2
1.5
NA
NA
Sediment
Type 1
S,OR
S,R
S,R
FS
FS
FS
S
R
FS
FS.R
R?
R?
FS
S
R,SI
FS/SI.OR
FS
FS.OR.SI
R,SI
R
R.GR.SI
SI.OR
FS/SI
FS/SUOR
S,R
S
Surface
Interface
OR
R
R
M,P
M,P
B
IND
R
B
R»B?
R?
R?
M,P
M,P
R
OR
M,P
GR.P
R
R
R.OR
GR.P
M.P
OR
R
M.P
Tubes
.
MANY
SOME
SOME
SOME
SOME
IND
MANY
SOME
FEW
-
.
SOME
SOME
SOME
-
FEW
.
-
FEW
-
-
FEW
MANY
MANY
SOME
Infauna
No. Type
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
NA
NA
Bur-
rows
NA
NA
NA
NA
4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA '
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
NA
NA
Voids
No. Type
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
NA
NA
Success,
Stage
IND
IND
II
II
II
II
IND
IND
II
IND
IND
IND
11
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
1
IND
IND
IND
OSI
IND
IND
IND
IND
6
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
3
IND
IND
IND
Comments

TUBES ON ROCKS
TUBES ON ROCKS




TUBES ON ROCKS











TUBES ON ROCKS



TUBES ON ROCKS
TUBES ON ROCKS

-------
(Continued)
                                Surface Features   " Subsurface Features
Habitat
VII
VII
VII
VII
VII
V
VIII
VIII
V
V
VII
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
Station
M2 ISA
M2 15 B
M2 17 A
M2 17 B
M2 ISA
M2 1SB
M2 19 A
M2 19 B
M220A
M220B
M221B
M222 A
M222B
M223A
M223B
M224B
M225 A
M22SB
Time
10:24
10:27
11:18
11:20
11:33
11:36
11:41
11:45
12:20
12:23
17:24
17:32
17:34
11:52
11:54
12:03
12:11
12:12
Pen.
Depth
2.6
0.5
5.3
5.5
0.0
0.0
3.0
1,0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
RPD Sediment Surface
Depth Type Interface
1.2 FS.S1
NA FS
1.3 FS.S1
2.0 FS.SI
NA S
NA R
IND R.SI
>I.O R,SI
NA R.GR
NA R,GR
>I.O FS
NA R
NA R
NA OR
NA R.GR
NA R.GR.SI
NA R.GR
NA R
M,P
M
M,P
M,P
M,P?
R
R.D
R
R.GR
R.GR
M,P
R
R
OR
R.GR
R.GR
R.GR
R
Tubes
MANY
SOME
SOME
SOME
.
.
-
-
-
FEW
SOME
-
MANY
-
.
SOME
.
MANY
Infauna
No. Type
0
NA
0
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Bur-
rows
4
NA
I
5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Voids
No, Type
0
NA
0
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Success.
Stage
II
II?
II
II
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
11
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
OSl
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
S*
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
Comments









TUBES ON ROCKS


TUBES ON ROCKS


TUBES ON ROCKS
STARFISH ON ROCK
TUBES ON ROCKS
FOR OSl THE * INDICATES A CONSERVAT10VE VALUE CALCULATED USING THE > VALUE FOR THE RPD.
-------
SEDIMENT PROFILE IMAGE VISUAL ANALYSIS MASSACHUSETTS BAY, MEISDURGER 7 STATIONS, NOVEMBER 1994.
SEE TABLE 3-2 FOR DESCRIPTION OF HABITATS,
                              Surface Features
Subsurface Features
Habitat Station
M7 I
Time
Pen.
Depth
RPD Sediment Surface
Depth Type Interface
Tubes
Infauna
No. Type
Bur- Voids Success
rows No. Type Stage
OSI
Comments
1 NO DATA
M7 2 NO DATA
VI
VI
VI
V
V
V
VI
VI
VI
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
M7 3 A
M7 3B
M7 4B
M7 5 A
M7 58
M7 6 A
M7 6B
M7 7 A
M7 7B
M7 8 A
M7 8B
M7 9 A
M7 9B
M7 10 A
M7 JOB
M7 11 A
M7 11 B
M7 13 A
M7 13 B
M7 14 A
M7 14 B
M7 ISA
M7 I5B
13:07
13:09
13:14
14:59
15:00
15:05
15:06
15:11
15:13
16:25
16:27
16:33
16:35
16:40
16:44
16:50
16:52
17:04
17:08
16:12
16:15
16:21
16:24
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
6.0
16.0
5.3
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.5
1.3
1.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
. NA
GR
GR
GR
R
R
R
GR
GR
GR
SI
SI
FS/SI
FS/SI
R
R
R
R
R?
R?
R
R.GR
R
R»GR
GR
GR
GR
R
R
R
GR
GR
GR
F,D
P
M,P
D
R
R
R
R
R?
R?
R
R,GR
R
R,GR
«
.
.
.
MANY
SOME
-
FEW
SOME
-
MANY
MANY
-
.
.
FEW
MANY
. •
.
.
.
.
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1 WR
2 WR
I WR
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
3
3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
0
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
OX II
II
II
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
7
5
5
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND




TUBES ON ROCKS
TUBES ON ROCKS









TUBES ON ROCKS
TUBES ON ROCKS






-------
         (Continued)
                                        Surface Features
Subsurface Features
su
Habitat Station
V
V
VI
VI
VI
VI
V
V
VI
VI
VII
VII
V
V
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
M7 16 A
M7 16 B
M7 17 A
M7 17 B
M7 ISA
M7 18 B
M7 19 A
M7 19 B
M720 A
M720B
M72I A
M72I B
M722A
M722B
M723 A
M723B
M724A
M724B
M72S A
M725B
Time
16:28
16:31
16:39
16:41
16:48
16:51
17:13
17:16
15:38
15:40
15:30
15:32
15:18
15:19
15:49
15:55
16:05
16:07
16:12
16:14
Pen.
Depth
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.5
0,3
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.s
0.0
1.0
1.0
8.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
RPD Sediment Surface
Depth Type Interface
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
>I,0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
R
R
S,OR
S.OR
S
FS
R
R
OR
R,OR
S»OR
FS
S.GR
OR
OR
GR
OR?
R,GR
R.GR
R.OR?
R
R
B
B
B
B
R
R
GR
R.GR
GR
M,P
GR
OR
OR
OR
OR?
R.GR
R,OR
R,OR?
Tubes
.
.
SOME
MANY
SOME
MANY
-
.
FEW
FEW
FEW
SOME
-
FEW
FEW
-
.
-
•
-
Infauna Bur- Voids Success.
No, Type rows No. Type Stage OSI Comments
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
IND
IND
II
II
11
II
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
II
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
5*
IND
IND
IND TUBES ON ROCKS
IND TUBES ON ROCKS
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
IND
          FOR OSI THE * INDICATES A CONSERVATIVE VALUE CALCULATED USING THE > VALUE FOR THE RPD.
-------
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES
                             APPENDIX D

                          BENTfflC 1NFAUNA
                              RAW DATA
13116.939 - 13U6a.
-------
                          TABLE 1. RAW COUNTS CNO./0.04 m»)  FOR  THE  INNER  HARBOR SAMPLING AREA
OUP SPECIES
AHSTAR | CHEL 01 | CHEL 02 CHELSEA CREEK
1A | 18 | 1 3 1 3 1 | 2
RIFERA HALICHONDRIA PANICEA
DROZOA CLYTIA GRACILIS
OBELIA DICHOTOHA
OBELIA SP.
HATODA NEMATOOA
LYCHAETA ANAITIDES SP.
ARICIDEA (ACHIRA)
GATHER I NAE
CAPITELLA CAPITATA
CIRRATULIDAE
ETEONE LONGA
GLYCERA DIBRANCHIATA
HEDISTE DIVERSICOLOR
LEITOSCOLOPLOS ACUTUS
LEITOSCOLOPLOS ROBUSTUS
LEITOSCOLOPLOS SP.
KALDANIDAE
MARENZELLERIA VIRIDIS
HEDIOHASTUS CALIFORNIENSIS
HICROPHTHALMUS ABERRANS
NEANTHES SUCCINEA
NEANTHES VIRENS
NEPHTYIDAE
NEPHTYS CAECA
NEPHTYS CILIATA
NEPHTYS INCISA
NEREIDAE
NJNOE NI GRIPES
PARANAITIS SPECIOSA
PECTINARIA GOULD I I
PECTINARIIDAE
POLYCIRRUS SP.
POLYDORA CORNUTA
POLYDORA SOCIALIS
SPIO FILICORNIS
STREBLOSPIO BENEDICT I
THARYX ACUTUS
IGOCHAETA OLIGOCHAETA
STROPQOA CREPIDULA FORK I CAT A
CREPIDULA PLANA
CREPIDULA SP.
LACUNA VINCTA
NASSARIUS TRIVITTATUS
VALVIA ANOMIA SP.
BIVALVIA
CERASTCOERMA PINNULATUN
HIATELLA SP.
2
























1


13


10

2













45



*





















1

37


23

5













2
























1


1






5






























*l
2|





2








2|




















































































2
1





























1

1






1










1






















1














NTINUED)
-------
                             TABLE 1. RAW COUNTS (NO./0.04 m») FOR THE INNER HARBOR  SAMPLING AREA
GROUP SPECIES
BIVALVIA LYQHSIA HYALIHA
HACOHA BALTHICA
HULINIA LATERAL !S
HYA ARENARIA
HYTILIOAE
TELL I MA AGILIS
TUXTONIA HINUTA
CIRRIPEDIA BALANUS CRENATUS
4YSIDACEA HETEROHYSIS FORMOSA
HXPHIPODA AHPELISCA ABOITA
C08QPH1UH BONELLI
GAHHARUS UWREHCIANUS
HICROOEUTOPUS GRYLLOTALPA
PONTOGEHEIA IHERMIS
UNCIOLA INERHIS
3ECAPOOA CRANCON SEPTEHSPINOSA
IRY020A BUGUU TURRITA
DPHIUROIDEA OPHIUROIDEA
WCIDIACEA ASCIDIA SP.
U.L 2SPECIES COMBINED
AHSTAR | CHEL 01 | CHEL 02
1A












2





IB | 1










4

1

1



2!
32 | 121




1










2



3 [ 1 | 3




1










1



i
|
I 1
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
CHELSEA CREEK
1




2




I
























1



13 | 9| 2| 1| 6| 3
(CONTINUED)
-------
                          TABLI 1. RAW COUNTS 
-------
                             TABLE 1.  RAW COUNTS (NO./0.04 in1 > FOR THE INNER HARBOR SAMPLING AREA
[CROUP SPECIES
JPORIFERA HALICHONORIA PAHICEA
IHYDROZOA CLYTIA GRACILIS
OBELI A OICHOTOHA
OBELIA SP.
INEKATOOA NEHATOOA
IPOLYCHAETA ANAITIDES SP.
ARIC1DEA (ACHIRA)
GATHER I HAE
CAPlTELtA CAPITATA
C1RRATUL1DAE
ETEONE LONGA
GLYCERA DIBRANCHIATA
HEDISTE DIVERSICOLOR
LEITOSCOLOPLOS ACUTUS
LEITOSCOLOPtOS R08USTUS
LEITOSCOLOPLOS SP.
KALDANIDAE
HARENZELLERIA VIRIOIS
HEDIOHASTUS CAHFORHIEHSIS
HICROPHTHALHUS ABERRANS
KEANTHES SUCCINEA
HEAHTKES VIREHS
NEPHTYIDAE
NEPHTYS CAECA
HEPHTYS CILIATA
NEPHTYS INCISA
HERE ID AE
NIHOE HIGRIPES
PARAKAITIS SPECIOSA
PECTINARIA GOULD I!
PECT1HARIIDAE
POLYCIRRUS SP.
POLYDORA CORNUTA
POLYDORA SOCIAL IS
SPIO FILICORNIS
STREBLOSPIO BENEDICT!
THARYX ACUTUS
lOLICOCHAETA OLIGOCHAETA
[GASTROPODA CRiPIDULA FORMICATA
CREPIDULA PLANA
CREPIDULA SP.
LACUNA VINCTA
NASSARIUS TRIVITTATUS
8IVALVIA ANONIA SP.
BIVALVIA
CERASTCOERHA PINHULATUM
HIATELLA SP.
INNER CONFLUENCE
1 | 2 | 3 4










3





















16


1
2
3




7








3



11
I
11
1|
I
I
I
I
21
1

2|
1
1
11 2
11








34


19
1
57

A
21
21
221
1
11
1|
3I
































1














LITTLE HYSTIC CHANNEL
5 j 2



P


































I







2




































11
I


I


4A















































4B
I

1
P |
1



1






































CCONTINUiD)
-------
                         TABLE 1. RAW COUNTS 
-------
                              TABLE  1. RAU COUNTS (NO./0.04 m'}  FOR THE  INNER  HARBOR  SAMPLING AREA
JGROUP
SPECIES
HYSTIC PIERS
MYSTIC RIVER

JPORIFERA HALICHQNDRIA PANICEA
JHYOR020A CLYTIA GRACILIS
08ELIA DICHOTOHA
| 03EL1A SP.
JNEHATOOA NEHATOOA
JPOLYCHAITA AHAlTtDES SP.
ARICIOEA (ACKIRA)
CATHERINAE
CAPITILU CAPtTATA
CIRRATULIDAE
ETEONE LONGA
GLTCERA DIBSAHCHIATA
HEOISTE OIVERSICOLOR
LEITOSCOLOPLOS ACUTUS
LEITOSCOLOPLOS ROBUSTUS
LEITOSCOLOPLOS SP.
HALDANIDAE
KARENZEUERIA VIRIOIS
HEDIOMASTUS CALIFORHIEHSIS
MICROPHTHALKJS ABERRANS
HEANTHES SUCCINEA
KEANTHES V1RENS
HEPHTYIDAE
HEPHTYS CAECA
HEPHTYS CIL1ATA
NEPHTYS INC1SA
NEREIDAE
HI HOE HIGRIPES
PARANAITIS SPECIOSA
PECT1HARIA GOCJLOII
PECTIKARIIOAE
POLYCIRRUS SP,
POLYDORA CORMUTA
POLYDORA SOCIALIS
SPIO FIUCORNIS
STREBLOSP10 BENEDICT I
THARYX ACUTUS
OCICOCHAETA OLIGOCHAETA
GASTROPODA CREPIDULA FORM I CAT A
CREPIDULA PLAHA
CREPIDULA SP.
LADJHA VINCTA
HASSA8IUS TR1VITTATUS
8IVALVIA ANOHIA SP.
BIVALVIA
CERASTCOERKA PINNULATtM
HIATELLA SP.
2A

































1






1



2B








































1



3A












































3S








































3



1


P









































2












































3
P

'



























4













4











































,
(CONTINUED}
-------
                          TABLE 1. RAW COUNTS (NO./0.04 m») FOR  THE  INNER HARBOR SAMPLING AREA
OUP SPECIES

VALVIA LYONSIA HYALINA
HACOMA 8ALTHICA
HULINIA LATERAL IS
HYA ARENARIA
MYTILIDAE
TELLINA AGILIS
TURTONIA MINUTA
RRIPEDIA BALANUS CRENATUS
SIDACEA HETEROHYSIS FORMOSA
PHIPOOA AMPELISCA ABOITA
COROPHIUM BONELLI
GAMHARUS LAURENCIANUS
MICROOEUTOPUS GRYLLOTALPA
PONTOGENEIA INERMIS
UNCIOLA INERMIS
CAPODA CRANGON SEPTEHSPINOSA
YOZOA BUGULA TURRITA
HIUROIDEA OPHIUROIOEA
CIDIACEA ASCIDIA SP.
L ZSPECIES COMBINED

	
2A









1









3
MYSTIC
2B







1











2
PIERS
3A



















o

3B



















3

1



















P
MYSTIC
2



















o
RIVER
3




1












1

6

4



















o|
NTINUED)
-------
                         TABLE 1. RAW COUNTS (KO./0.04 m') FOR THE  INNER  HARBOR SAMPLING AREA
| CROUP SPECIES
JPORIFERA KALICHONDRIA PANICEA
JHYDROZQA CLYT1A BRftCILIS
08EUA DICHOTOHA
OBELI A SP.
HEKATOOA NEHATCOA
POiTCJWETA ANAITIDES SP.
ARICIOEA (ACHIRA)
GATHER I HAE
CAPITELU CAPITATA
CIRRATULIDAE
ETEONE LONGA
GLYCERA D I BRANCH I ATA
HEDISTE DIVERSICOLOR
LEITOSCOLOPLOS ACUTUS
LEITOSCOLOPLOS R08USTUS
LIITQSCOLOPLOS Sf>.
HALO AN I DAE
HARENZELLERIA V1RIDIS
HEOIOHASTUS CALIFORHIENSIS
NlCSCf HTHALKIS ABERRANS
HEANTHES SUCCINEA
HEANTHES VIRENS
NEPHTYIOAE
NEPHTtS CAECA
NEPHTtS CILIATA
HEPHTtS IKCISA
. NEREIDAE
NINOE MIGRIPES
PARAHAITIS SPECIOSA
PECTINARIA GOULD II
PECTIKARIIDAE
POLYCIRRUS SP.
POLYDORA CORNUTA
POLtOORA SOCIAL IS
SPIO FILICORHIS
STREBLOSPIO BENEOICTI
THARtX ACUTUS
[OUGOCHAETA OLIGOCHAETA
NTSTIC |
RIVER j RESERVED CHANNEL
5






































IGASTROPCOA CREPIDULA FORNICATA
| CREPIDULA PLANA
j CREPIDULA SP.
LACUNA VIKCTA
| NASSARIUS TRIVITTATUS
IBIVALVIA ANOHIA SP.
| BIVALVIA
CERASTODERHA PIHNUUTUK
1A 2A















7|



1

1
3A












2|
21
«| 15| Z2
11
















3














1



4




1


1








REVERE SUGAR
1





















2| 1










12|
i
1

11 1 2
1
31





















2

1








3A




2




"






















2


2

8








3B




6




2






















1


2|
3|
13 1








(CONTINUED)
-------
TABLE 1. RAW COUNTS CHO./0.04 m') FOR THE IHH1R HARBOR SAMPLING AREA
10
| GROUP SPECIES
1
1
1
MYSTIC
RIVER
5
1 H. 	 ,
[BIVALVIA HIATELU SP.
j LYONSIA HYALIHA
I MAGOMA BALTHICA
[ MULINIA LATERAL IS
j MYA ARENAS I A
| MYT1L1DAE
j TELLIHA AGILIS
| TURTOHIA MINUTA
ICIRRIPEDIA BALANUS CREHATUS
JKYSIDACEA HETEROHYSIS FORMOSA
IAMPHIPOOA AMPELISCA ABDITA
j COROPHIUH BONELLl
j . GAMMARUS LAURENCIANUS
] MICROOEUTOPUS GRYLLOTALPA
i PONTOGENEIA INERKIS
I UMCIOLA INERHIS
| DECAPOD A CRAN60M SEPTEHSPINOSA
IBRYOZOA BUGULA TURRITA
IWHIUROIDEA OPHIUIWIOEA
JASCIDIACEA ASC1DIA SP.
1 ALL ZSPECIES COMBINED







1









1
RESERVED CHANNEL
1A




1















2A


1
3A



4| 1
16j 2
1|




























I
REVERE SUGAR I
1
















1



3A I 38 |













1






1
1
i
I
|
1
1
i
|
1
I
1
I
i
i
1
I
|
j
I
1
21 1 75 1 29 1 5| 26 1 27 1
                  557
-------
                             TABLE  2.  RAW COUNTS (NO./0.04 ffl1) FOR THE OUTER HARBOR SAMPLING AREA
| CROUP
IHTOROZOA
1

INEMERTINEA
JKEHATOOA
JPOUCHAETA

























•
















SPECIES
SPECTACLE
2 | 5 1 8
CLYTIA SRACILIS
EUOENDRIUM RUGOSUM
SERTULARIA CUPRESSINA
NEMERTINEA
HEHATOOA
AGLAOPHAHUS NEQTENUS
AHPHARETE ARCTICA
AHPHARETIDAE
ANAI TIDES KUCOSA
AHOBOTHRUS GRACILIS
APHELOCHAETA MAR ION I
ARICIDEA CACMIRA)
CATHERINAE
ARICIDEA SP.
ASABELLIDES OOJLATA
CAPITELLA CAPITATA
CIRRATULIDAE
CIRRATULUS CIRRATUS
CLYHEHELU TORQUATA
EN IPO TORELLI
ETEONE LOM6A
EUCHOtJE ELEGANS
EULALIA VIRIDIS
GATTYAKA CIRROSA
HARMOTHOE IM3RICATA
LE1TOSCOLOPLOS ACUTUS


3
5

1

21



401

1
1
1
11
i
1
1
1
11
ISLAND
I
I
I
I

11 ' | 12
I
I
P | P
SUBAQUEOUS B
2A 23


P P
I 2| 4 4) 9|
13 1
21
i
1
121
207|
I
I
| 1
4 ( 371



44 j 38J 85 77|
I
2C
i
i
P
n
1/!



87)
I I 1 11
1
I
S9|
I
1
I
123J
1
I
I


671 1 416] 39 ( 68 1
I
1) |
6| I 6| 6| 11] 4|
4| 1|
119| 59|
I
|
I I
14J 8)





HALO AN I DAE
KEDIOHASTUS CALIFORNIENSISJ ' 25
MICROPHTHALKUS ABERRANS
NEAMTHES VIREHS
NEPHTYIDAE
NEPHTYS CAECA
NEPHTYS CILIATA
NEPHTYS INCISA
NEREIDAE
NICQLEA 20STERICOLA
NINOE NIGRIPES
PARANAITIS SPECIOSA
PHERUSA AFFINIS
PHOLOE MINUTA
PHYLLODOCIOAE
POLYDORA C08NUTA
POLYDORA QUADRILOBATA
POLYDORA SQCIALIS
POLYDORA WEBSTER I
PRIONOSPIO STEENSTRUPI
SCOLELEPIS TEXANA
SCOLETOHA ACICULARUH




7



1
I
|
|
I
i
141
I
I
1|
i
n
i
i
i
n si
11
i
71 5|
1 1
150| 14|
I 2|
I 31
I 11
I 1
1 1
I


18

1
1| | 8) 2| 10| 1|
18| 52 1 56 1 12) 10|
i
8i
I
4|
1|
1
21
1
1
1
81
1|
|
I
27j
13 1
i
I
1
2|
11
I
|
I
S76|
74 1
47[
I
I
31
1I
|
I
I
24) 15
I
i
I
I
]
j
16| 36
j
j
j
| 1



16


1
3


27



1
S| 14| 3
I
2!
I
1
1
1
11| 5| 1
I
I
1| 3
i
205 1 384
2|
I
!
1|
I
I
I
I
I
9!
I
11

1|


22(

1|
I


1

I
4j

I 2| 3]
S| 2j

283 | 140 |
H
11
I
I
I
I
36|
I
1|
2|
"I
I
i
11
1|

i
"I
i
11
i
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
81
11
132]
1
J
1
11

1
(CONTINUED)
-------
                          TABLE 2. RAW COUNTS (NO./0.04 m1) FOR THE OUTER HARBOR SAMPLING AREA
XJP
.YCHAETA









:GOCHAETA
STROPODA


MLVIA






iRIPEDIA
5IDACEA


1ACEA
JPOOA


>H!POOA
















CAPOOA

SPECIES
SCOLETOHA HEBES
SPIO FIUCORNIS
SPIO LIHICOLA
SPIO SP.
SPIO THUL1NI
SPIOHIDAE
SPIOPHANES 80MBYX
STREBLOSPIO BENEDICT!
TEREBELLIDAE
THARYX ACUTUS
OLIGOCHAETA
GASTROPODA
LACUNA VINCTA
NASSARIUS TRIVITTATUS
B1VALV5A
CERASTOOERHA PINKUUTUH
LYQNS1A HYALIMA
HYA ARENARIA
HYSELLA PLANULATA
HYTIUDAE
TEL LI HA ASILIS
CIRRIPEDIA
HETERYTHROPS ROBUSTA
MYSIDACEA
NEONYSIS AMERICANA
DIASTYL1S SP.
CHIRIOOTEA SP.
CYATHURA POL1TA
EOOTEA TRILOBA
AKPELISCA SP.
SPECTACLE ISLAND
2 5 8 |
1
1 I 1
1 11
4j 1|
1 7|
i z\
\ n
\ 1| 4721
! 1
66 108| 23 |
33) 5[ 10)
2|
2|















1|
1230 | 157
AHPHIPOOA
COROPHIUH BONELLI
COROPHIUM CRASSICORNE
COROPHIUM SP. | |
ERICHTHOMIUS FASCIATUS j j 1
CAMMARUS SP. j
JASSA MARMORA TA j
LEPTOCHEIRUS PINGUIS 62) 7
LEPTOCHEIRUS SP. j
LYSIAMASSIDAE . 1 j
ORCHOMENEULA PIHGU1S
I
I
81
1
I
11
i
I
11
21
1
1
1
i
I
1
1
2|
2467|
i
3!
i
1
i
!
i!
124 1
I
I
i
PHOTIS POLLEX 5\ \
PHOXOCEPHALUS HOLBOLL! j 76 j j 5|
PHOXOCEPHALUS SP. | j j j
UHCIOLA IRRORATA j j 7|
UKCIOLA SP. 23 j j
CANCER IRRORATUS j 1 j
CRANGOH SEPTEHSPI80SA [ j j
| SUBAQUEOUS B
11 12 2A
16|
1 M
1 1
I 1
2 3[


4| 8|
1
66( 7| 114|
82 j 116] 34 [
1










.1
1





1132







5| 1


4
1
2


5 1



2|
*l
1|
1 !
1|
5| 8|
2927J 4290 |
11
112|
»l
8| I
1 1
1*1 I
1 I
53) 78 [ 68]
f 1 1
4| | 9|
I 1| !
3| 51 I
100 [ 154| 134|
f I I
I S9| 99 |
17| 9| 5|
I 1
I 11 11
28 2C
34 1 10
I
i
I 2|
51 1
I 2|
1
1| 11
I I
55] 39|
64 1 26]
51 1


2



1










3124







39

*


61


I
!
2
I
2[
I
I
-------
                             TABLE 2.  RAM COUNTS (NO./0.04 mj) FOR THE OUTER HARBOR SAMPLING AREA
(GROUP
1
1
i......... _______
I 	
IDECAPCOA
JBRYQZCA
1
1
1
(ALL
SPECIES | SPECTACLE ISLAND j SUBAQUEOUS B |
i._ 	 ,. 	 _ 	 _, 	 . . 	 	 i
1
I 2
DECAPCOA |
BUSULA TURRITA j
HEH8RANIPORA HEHBRANACEA j
PEDICELLINA CERHUA |
SCRUPARIA AMSIGUA |
5 I 8
i
I
I
I
i
ESPECIES COHBINEO \ 2277\ 461 | 4081
T — ... - j
11 I 12 J 2A | 28 | 2C |
11 ! I i I
1 1 P 1 |P!
P 1 ! I i i
1 1 P 1 1 i
1 1 1 1 1
3116| 4525 | 5288 | 3808 j 4722 |
( CONTINUED)
-------
       TABLE 2.  RAW COUNTS CNO./0.04 m») FOR THE OUTER HARBOR SAMPLING AREA
| GROUP

IHYDROZOA


INEMERTINEA
INEMATOOA
JPOLYCHAETA










































SPECIES

CLYTIA GRACILIS
EUDENORIUM RUGOSUM
SERTULARIA CUPRESSINA
NEMERTINEA
NEMATOOA
AGLAOPHAHUS NEOTENUS
AMPHARETE ARCTICA
AMPHARETIDAE
ANAI TIDES MUCOSA
AMOBOTHRUS GRACILIS
APHELOCHAETA MAR I ON I
ARICIDEA (ACMIRA)
CATHERIHAE
ARICIDEA SP.
ASABELLIDES OCULATA
CAPITELLA CAP I TATA
CIRRATULIDAE
CIRRATULUS CIRRATUS
CLYMENELLA TORQUATA
ENIPO TORELLI
ETEONE LONGA
EUCHONE ELEGANS
EULALIA VIRIDIS
GATTYANA CIRROSA
HARMOTHOE IMBRICATA
LEITOSCOLOPLOS ACUTUS
MALDANIDAE
MEDIOMASTUS CALIFORNIENSIS
MICROPHTHALMUS ABERRAHS
NEANTHES VIRENS
NEPHTYIDAE
NEPHTYS CAECA
NEPHTYS CILIATA
NEPHTYS INCISA
NEREIDAE
NICOLEA ZOSTER I COLA
NINOE NIGRIPES
PARANAITIS SPECIOSA
PHERUSA AFFINIS
PHOLOE MINUTA
PHYLLODOCIDAE
POLYDORA CORNUTA
POLYDORA QUADRILOBATA
POLYDORA SOCIALIS
POLYDORA WEBSTER I
PRIONOSPIO STEENSTRUPI
SCOLELEPIS TEXANA
SCOLETOMA ACICULARUM
SUBAQUEOUS E
1 2 | 3
P I
P I
P | P
1| 1
2 119| 42 |
1| 1|
i
1
44] 6|
1
22| 1|
1
1
1 1
1 9| 8|
19| 24 |
1 24 j 245 |
1|
I 2|
I
26 1 61 1
I
I
I
7|
2 I
2I 1|
13 j 24 j
1|
1 1| 5|
I
1| |
8| 3| 3|
I 1I
I
I
6 1| 3|
1|
I
22 | 16|
I
373 1 371 1
I
11
1
3| 3|
1
1| 11
(CONTINUED)
-------
       TABLE 2. RAW COUNTS (NO.70.04 m') FOR THE OUTER HARBOR SAMPLING AREA
[GROUP
POtYCHAETA





OUGOCHAETA
[GASTROPODA
[
[BIVALVIA
i
1
i
CIRRIPEDIA
[HYSIDACEA

!
CUMACEA
ISOPCOA
»

AMPHIPOOA














JDECAPOOA
1
SPECIES
SCOLETOHA HEBES
SPIO FILICORNIS
SPIO LIHICOLA
SPIO SP.
SPIO THULINI
SPIOSIDAE
SPIOPHANES BOHBYX
STREBLOSPIO BENEDICT!
TEREBELLIOAE
THA8YX ACUTUS
OLIGOCHAETA
GASTROPODA
LACUNA VINCTA
HASSARIUS TRIVITTATUS
BIVALVIA
CERASTOOERHA PINNULATUM
LYOHSIA HYALINA
MY A ARENARIA
HYSELLA PLAHULATA
HniLIDAE
TELLINA AGILIS
CIRRIPEOIA
METERnHROPS ROBUSTA
MYSIDACEA
NEOHYS1S AMERICANA
DIASTYLIS SP.
CHItlBOTEA SP.
CYATHURA POLITA
EDOTEA TRILOBA
AMPEHSCA SP.
AHPHIPODA
COROPHIUH BONELLI
COROPHIUH CRASSICORNE
COROPHIUH SP.
ER1CKTKOHIUS FASCIATUS
SAWMRUS SP.
JASSA HARMORATA
LEPTOCHEIRUS PINGUIS
LEPTOCHEI8US SP.
LYSIANASSIDAE
ORCHOMENELLA PINGUIS
PHOTIS POLLEX
PHOXOCEPHALUS HOLBOLLI
PHOXOCEPHALUS SP.
UHCI0LA IRRORATA
UNCIOLA SP.
CANCER IRRORATUS
C8AN50N SEPTEMSPINOSA
SUBAQUEOUS E
1




1

2
2 3

^
I
11 1
5) 16
I
i
34| 10j
1 j
136| 346
15J 8
1( 9j
1| 1
10j 11| 12|

4] 1
I i
I !
1
2




















1
2
3|
10| 2
8| 2




1 1
1219 627





1

40 11
I
I

I
7J 10]
i
I
1| 2
i! 1
31 ]
CCONTINUED)
-------
       TABLE 2.  RAW COUNTS (NO./0.04 m') FOR THE OUTER HARBOR SAMPLING AREA
(GROUP
                           SPECIES
                                  SUBAQUEOUS  E
IDECAPOOA
JBRYOZOA
(ALL
DECAPODA
BUGULA TURRITA
MEMBRAH1PORA MEMBRANACEA
PEDICELLIHA CERNUA
SCRUPARIA AM8IGUA
ZSPEC1ES COMBINED
                                                     I         It
                                                           391    21981    1881{
-------
                               TABLE 3. RAM COUNTS (NO./0.04 m') FOR THE OFFSHORE SAMPLING AREA
CROUP SPECIES

JPORIFERA . SCYPHA CILIATA
JHtOROZOA ' CIYTIA GRACIUS
EUDENDRIUM RUGOSUM
EUOENORIUH SP.
SERTULAR1A CUPRESSINA
ANTHOZOA AHTHQZOA
CERIANTHEOPSIS AHERICANUS
CERIANTHEOPSIS SP,
EDWARDSIA SP,
IHEMERTINEA NEHERTINEA
JNEHATOOA NEHATOOA
[ARCH i ANNELIDA ARCHIANNELIDA
JWXYCHAETA A6LAQPHAMJS CIRCIMATA
AKPHARETE ACUTIFRONS
AHPHARETS ARCTICA
AMPBARETS SP.
AHPHARETIOAE
AHPHITRITE CIRRATA
ANAITIDES AREHAE
ANAI TIDES HACULATA
AMAITIDES KUCOSA
AMOBOTHRUS GRACIUS
APHELOCHAETA MARION I
APHELOCHAETA HONILARIS
APISTOBRANCHUS TULLBERGI
ARCTE08IA ANTICOSTIEHSIS
ARICIDEA (ACHIRA)
CATHERINAE
ARICIDEA OUADRIL08ATA
ASABELLIDES OCULATA
BARAKTOLLA AMERICANA
CAPITELU CAPITATA
CAULLERIELLA CF.
KILLARIENSIS
CHAETOZONE SETOSA
CHONE DUHERI
CIRRATULIDAE
CIRRATULUS CIRRATUS
COSSURA LTOGOCIRRATA
DRILONERE1S LONGA
DRILONEREIS HAGNA
EM1PO TORELLI
E7EOHE LONGA
BICHONE ELEGANS
EUCHONE INCOLOR
EUCHOSE SP.
EUCLYHENE COILARIS
BJLALIA BIL1HEATA

1




P









3

5.


3

11
13






9




2







3

i




3









V



10
7
3





7
1


1



62











1







5










5
.
1
1
1

1


1

3
1






3







1

t

1
2





BOSTON LIGHTSHIP
7 i 8






1

3
4 3



1
2| 1
I
1| 2
i
I
21
1
i 25
5| 26
1
H
11 1
I
I
I
12| 10
i
21
!
I
I 1
i
!
I

I
I
I i
I 2j
I !
I 1!
I i
i !
I I

10

P







2




1






18
7






1






1


2

1







11








2
1




2






9
4
















2









17









2










1!
9|
22|
1|
1



7
1




2



1



1





(CONTINUED)
-------
                           TABLE 3.  RAVI COUNTS CNO./0.04 »»3 FOR THE OFFSHORE SAMPLING AREA
OUP SPECIES
tYCHAETA EUSYLLIS SP.
EXOGONE 01 SPAR
EXOGONE HEBES
EXOGONE SP.
EXOGONE VERUGERA
GALATHOUENIA OCULATA
GATTYANA AMONOSENI
GATTYANA CIRROSA
GLTCERA CAP! TATA
GOHIA0A HACULATA
HARHOTHOE IH8RICATA
KETEROMASTUS FILIFORMIS
LAGISCA EXTENUATA
LAONICE CIRRATA
LAONOME KROYERI
LEITOSCOLOPLOS ACUTUS
LEVINSENIA GRACILIS
LYSILLA LOVENI
MALDANE SARS1
MALOANIDAE
KARENZELLERIA VIRIDIS
MEDIOMASTUS CALIFORNIENSIS
MICROPHTHALHtiS ABERRANS
MINUSPIO CIRRI FERA
MQNTieELLIHA BAPTISTAE
NONTICELLINA
DORSQBRAHCHIALIS
MYRIOCHELE HEERI
NEPHTYIDAE
NEPKTYS CAECA
MEPHTYS CILIATA
NEPHTYS INCISA
NEREIS GRAYI
NEREIS SP.
NEREIS ZONATA
NIMOE HIGRIPES
OPHELIHA ACUMINATA
ORBIN1IOAE
OUENIA FUSIFORM IS
BOSTON LIGHTSHIP
.. 	 .... . ... .. 	 ...... .....
	 	 	 	 	
1 35 7 8 10 11 17





1
2









,

1
2
1


4j 2| 1
1j
1|


21 3(
1 *i
7| 4| 5
1 1
7| 1
9! 1
1!
14 1 18
I
11



1



2



7



PARADOHEIS LYRA
PARAPIOWOSTLLIS
LONGICIRRATA
PECTIN ARIA GRANULATA
PHERUSA AFFINIS
PHOLOE MI NUT A 1
PHYLLODOCIDAE
POLYCIRRUS MEDUSA
POLYCIRRUS PHOSPHOREUS


1




3





8

21









2



2| 1
H
1






1




1
1




4| 9
11




1
1

3|
2| | 1





1








1
1
9| 1| 3|
3|
2| 32) 20] 1
1

34









1



6








*l 2|

1





1



*



10








1

I


3









2



*


2










1









1



1

















10



1





3
13

6
&

"





2



2



4











1
ITINUED)
-------
                               TABLE 3. RAW COUNTS (HO./0.04 m1} FOR THE OFFSHORE SAMPLING AREA
| GROUP SPECIES
POLYCHAETA POLYCIRRUS SP.
PQLYDORA CAULLERYI
POLYDORA CONCHARUH
POLYDORA CQRKUTA
POLYDORA OUAD8ILQ1ATA
POLYDORA SOCIALIS
POLYDORA SP.
POLYNOIDAE
PRAXILtELLA PRAETERHISSA
P8AXILLURA ORHATA
PRIOKOSPIO STEENSTRUPI
PROTODORVILLEA GASPEEHSIS
RHODINE BITOROUATA
SABELLIDAE
SCALIBREGHA INFLATUM
SCHISTOHERINGOS CAECA
SOR.ETOMA ACICULARUH
SCOCETOHA FRAGILIS
SCOtETOMA HEBES
SCOLOPLOS ARMIGER
SPHAEROSYLLIS SP.
SPIO FILICORNIS
SPIO LIHICOU
SPIO SETOSA
SPIO SP.
SPIO THULIHI
SPIONIDAE
SPIOPHANES BOHBYX
SPIOPHANES KROYERI
STERHAPSIS SCUTATA
SYLLIDAE
SYLLIS
(TYPOSYLLISMLTERNATA
TEREBELLIDAE
TEREBELLIDES ATLANTIS
TEREBELLIDES STROEHI
THARYX ACUTUS
TR1CHOBRAHCHUS ROSEUS
TROCHOCHAETA HULT I SETOSA
TROCHOCHAETA SP.
TYPOSYLLIS SP.
JOUGOCHAETA OL1GOCHAETA
| GASTROPOD A ALVANIA EXARATA
BUCCINUM USDATUH
COLUS PU8ESCENS
COLUS SP.
CREPIDULA FORNICATA
GASTROPODA
BOSTON LIGHTSHIP
1 3(5 7 8 j 10 11 17





«



1
6

1

1




1


97

4

2

3
1


















M I 21
1



2




18



12







237

«

1






2


1







1




1 7



5|
29| 38

2|
1
7| 10


1




128
















1 i
i 2(
i
I
11 3
i
I
4|
1
6|
I
1
1
4|
1
|
4| 1
I
2] 11
1
i i
300 | 50) 50
1 1
51 31
1 1
4| 2]
1
I 2| 5





1
1
11
1|
1


1





1|
I 1
I
I
I
1|
1| 1
31 2
I
1| 2
|
|
I
I
I 1
I
i 1
I
I
I







2


' 2
1


3




19



1



























3j



1


3




67

2

1







1



2






I

1
(CONTINUED)
-------
                            TABLE 3. RAW COUNTS (NO./0.04 m') FOR THE OFFSHORE SAMPLING AREA
OUP SPECIES
STROPOOA LACUNA VINCTA
LUNATIA HERDS
HARGARITES HELICINUS
NASSARIUS TRIVITTATUS
OENOPOTA DECUSSATA
RETUSA OBTUSA
TURRIDAE
LYPLACOPHORA ISCHNOCHITON ALBUS
VALVIA ANOHIA SP.
ARCTICA ISLAND I CA
ASTARTE BOREALIS
ASTARTE SP.
ASTARTE UNDATA
BIVALVIA
CERASTODERHA PINNULATUM
CRENELLA DECUSSATA
CRENELLA GLANDULA
CRENELLA SP.
HIATELLA SP.
LYONSIA HYALIHA
HUSCULUS NIGER
MYA ARENARIA
HYSELLA PLANULATA
HYTILIDAE
NUCULA SP.
NUCULA TENUIS
PECTIHIDAE
PERIPLOHA LEANUH
PERIPLONA SP.
•PLACOPECTEN MAGELLAN I CUS
THRACIA HYOPSIS
THYASIRA FLEXUOSA
YOLOIA SAPOTILLA
YOLDIA SP.
RRIPEDIA CIRRIPEDIA
SIDACEA MYSIOACEA
HACEA CAHPYLASPIS RUBICUNDA
DIASTYLIS ABBREVIATA
DIASTYLIS BISPINOSA
DIASTYLIS SCULPTA
EUDORELLA PUSILLA
PETALOSARSIA DECLIVIS
OPOOA EDOTEA TRILOBA
JAERA MARINA
PLEUROGONIUM SPINOSISSIMUM
POLITOLANA CONCHARUM
PTILANTHURA SP.
PHIPODA AEGINIHA LONG I CORN IS
BOSTON LIGHTSHIP
1 3 5 | 7 8 10 I 11 17




1


























11
2









2


















2





1



1














2

2







1


3














'


2| 2| 3
31 1| 1

















13 1
4| 1





3



3
















1



4| 12| 4| 19| 10
4| 3| 2| 4|
| 8| 1| 3
I I
I 31
11 1| 21
21 I
1 2I 3|
1 1
1| I
I I I
I 1| 3| 4
1 1 1
1 1 1 1
I I I
I I
I I
1


























2








1









13

1



















1






«
1

2









1

1



18|
31
21














NTINUED)
-------
                              TABLE 3. RAW COUNTS (NO./0.04 m1} FOR THE OFFSHORE SAMPLING AREA
GROUP
                          SPECIES
                                                                                 BOSTON LIGHTSHIP





                                                                                1718
                                                                                                     10
                                                                                                              11       17
AHPHIPOOA AMPELISCA HACROCEPHALA
AHPELISCA SP.
AHPHIPOOA
AHONYX LILJEBORGI
ANOHYX SARSI
ARGISSA HAHATIPES
BYBLIS SERRATA
CASCO BIGELOUI
COROPHIIDAE
COROPHIUH CRASSICORHE
ERICHTHOMIUS FASCIATUS
ERICHTHONIUS SP.
GAHHARUS UWREHCIANUS
GAHHARUS SP.
HAPLOOPS SP.
HAPLOOPS TUB I COLA
KARPINIA PROPIKQUA
HIPPOMEDOH SERRATUS
JASSA RARHORATA
LEMBOS WEBSTER!
LEPTOCKEIRUS PINGUIS
LYSIANASSIDAE
HONOCULODES SP.
NONOCULOOES TU8ERCULATUS
OEOICEROTIDAE
PHOTIS POLLEX
STEHOPLEUSTES SP.
SYSRHOE CREHULATA
LmCIOLA INERKIS
UNCIOLA IRRORATA
UNCIOIA SP.
JDECAPOOA CANCER IRRORATUS
PAOJRUS LONGI CARPUS
SIPUNCULA GOLFING! A SP.
| SIPUNCULA
PHOROHIDA - PHORONIS ARCHITECTA
IMYOZQ* AHGUIHELLA PALKATA
BUGULA TURRITA
CRISIA EBURNEA
ELECTRA PILOSA
EUCRATEA LORICATA
HIPPOTHOA HYALINA
OPHIUROIDEA OPHIOPHOLIS AOJLEATA
OPHIURA R06USTA
OPHIURA SARSI
OPHIUROIDEA
JECHIHOIDEA STRONGYLOCENTROTUS
j DROESAOUENSIS
4














1

1
















1
1




P







2





1



1


2

3
3

















2
3





P


3



1

1
3











*
1


•
1













I 2
I 3








I 6



2


2






'




1




1








1





1








«

















2
14
3



13























3











1






*





















P






1









1








3

1















1

2









I
I


1













2




1





















-

3



(CONTINUED)
                                                                          /\   /  A
-------
                           TABLE 3. RAW COUNTS  (NO./0.04  m*)  FOR THE OFFSHORE  SAMPLING AREA
UP

ROATA
IDIACEA



SPECIES

CHOROATA
APLIDIUH SP.
ASCIOIA SP.
' CORELLA BOREAL IS
ZSPECIES COMBINED

1 I
I
I
I
11
252 1

3 !
I
I
I
1|
454 1
BOSTON LIGHTSHIP
5 | 7 | 8 | 10 | 11
III!
I I I " I
I I 11 I
I I I I
303 | 495 | 313 | 174 | 81

17




225 1
TIHUED)
-------
                                TABLE 3. RAM COUNTS  (NQ./0.04 a!>  FOR  THE OFFSHORE SAHPLING AREA
GROUP SPECIES
I
[PORIFESA SCTPHA CILIATA
JHtOROZOA CLYTIA GRACILIS
EUOENSRIUM RUGOSUM
EUOENDRIUX SP.
SERTULARIA CUPRESSINA
AHTHOZOA AHTHOZOA
CERIANTHEOPSIS AMERICANUS
CiRIANTHEOPSIS SP.
EDWAROSIA SP.
INEHERTIHEA NEHERTINEA
INEMATCOA NEKATOOA
IARCHIANHELIDA ARCHIANNELIDA
JPOCYCHAETA AGUOPHAMUS CIRCINATA
AHPHARETE ACUTIFRONS
AHPHARETE ARCTICA
AHPHARETE SP.
AHPHARETIDAE
AKPHITRITE CIRRATA
ANA! TIDES ARENAS
AHAITIDES HACULATA
AKAITIOES KUCOSA
AHOBOTHRUS GRACILIS
APHELOCHAETA MAR I ON I
APHELOCHAETA HOH1LARIS
APISTOBRANCHUS TULLBERGI
ARCTE06IA ANTICQSTIEHSIS
ARICIDEA (ACHIRA)
CATHERIHAE
ARICIDEA OUADRTLOBATA
ASABELLIDES OOJLATA
BARANTQLLA AMERICANA
CAPITELLA CAPITATA
CAULLERIELLA CF.
KILLARIEHSIS
CHAETOZOHE SETOSA
CHONE DUHERI
CIRRATULIDAE
CIRRATULUS CIRRATUS
COSSURA LONGOCIRRATA
DRILONEREIS LONGA
DRILONEREIS HAGNA
ENIPO TORELL1
ETEONE LONGA
EUCHONE ELEGANS
EUCHONE IHCOLOR
EUCHOHE SP.
EUCLYHENE COLLAR IS
EULALIA BILINEATA
BOSTON LIGHTSHIP | HEISBURGER 2
20 22









3




1

1




4
24 I 2
3
1 31
1 1
1
J
I
8| 2
1
1
S|
4| 6]
21 16|
I
I
4 2|
1 9|
I
I 1
P

P

2

5 i 6
7
!
I
I
!





1
I
5| I 2
4
I *
3| 1|



I
11
11 2| 2

10


I 11
i 11





1| 2| 1| 7|
11 I
6i 5|
2| 5

6| 4| 3| 20 | 67
I I
I I
I 2)
1 1
I 1

1
11
1| Hi 7I












2









2




1

1


1



I
I
I
i
1!
i
11 1
i
i
i
i
i
4| 1
1
11
1

4
2|

,




*!



1| 9


I
I


291
61







I
24| 28| 7



91 1






1
I 16
i
1!
1
j
1


14
I
I
|


1





11




6i
i
1
|

]
I I
I I I
5| 2| 4| 2|
2| 1| 42| 10

3
I I I
i ! 27|
4J I 9| 1 19] 32
I

I I i I
(CONTINUED)
-------
                             TABLE 3. RAW COUNTS  CNO./0.04  ra'}  FOR THE OFFSHORE SAMPLING AREA
OUP SPECIES
ILYCHAETA EUSYLLIS SP.
EXOGONE 01 SPAR
EXOGONE HEBES
EXOGONE SP.
EXOGONE VERUGERA
GALATHOUENIA OCULATA
GATTYANA AHONOSEHI
BATIYANA CI8ROSA
GLYCERA CAPITATA
GOHIADA MACULATA
HARHOTHOE IMBRICATA
HETEROHASTUS FIL1FORHIS
LAGISCA EXTENUATA
LAW ICE C1RRATA
LAQHOME KROYERI
LE1TOSCOLOPLOS ACUTUS
LEVINSENIA GRACILIS
LYSILLA LOVENI
NALDANE SARS!
NALDANIDAE
HARENZELLERIA VIRIOIS
HEDIOHASTUS CALIFORNIENSIS
HICROPHTHALMUS ABERRAKS
HIHUSPIO CIRRIFERA
HQNTICELLIMA BAPT1STAE
KQNTICELLINA
DORSOBRANCHIALIS
KYRIOCHELE HEERI
NEPHTYIDAE
NEPHTYS CAECA
NEPHTYS CILIATA
NEPHTYS INCISA
NEREIS GRAYI
NEREIS SP.
NEREIS ZOKATA
NINOE NIGRIPES
OPHELINA ACUMINATA
ORBINIIDAE
OWEN I A FUSIFORM IS
PARADONEIS LYRA
PARAPIDNOSYLLIS
LONGICIRRATA
PECTINAR1A GRANULATA
PHERUSA AFFINIS
PHOLOE HINUTA
PHYLLOOOCIDAE
POLYCIRRUS MEDUSA
POLYCIR8US PHQSPHOREUS
BOSTON LIGHTSHIP MEISSURGER 2
20 22 | 24 2 3 | 5 6 7
1
II II
1 1 i 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
I I 11 I 3| 2
i 11 11 r i
11 1 I 1
i * 1
I 1 I
1





2
2
• 1



6









2



7












1( 1| 1
i 1| | 3
1| 1| j
I 1 1
1

i r\
9\ 131
i
1 21
i 31
1
53| 45j 4
1
'I 1
!
i
i
I
i
|
I
1j 5]
1[ |
i 6i
i 11
«| 5| 13
|
I
I
|
I
I
I 2
I
I 2| 3
I I
I I
1|
2|
211





47




2




1

2

12






'1

^


, *






1






«







6



2


1



1

1
2



3





6|
3| 3



*

16




1








1










2










j
i
i
i
i
I
2|



21 1
1
2| 3
4|
I 1
I 1| I I
3KTIMUED)
-------
                               TABLE 3.  RAM COUNTS (NO./0.04 m1} FOR THE OFFSHORE SAMPLING AREA
[CROUP SPECIES
POLYCHAETA POLYCIRRUS SP.
POLY00RA CAULLERfl
POLYDORA CONCHARUH
POLYDORA CORNUTA
POLYDORA QUAORILOBATA
POLYOORA SOCIALIS
POLYDORA SP.
POLYN01DAE
PRAXILLELLA PRAETERHISSA
PRAX1LLURA ORNATA
PR10NOSPIO STEENSTRUPI
PROTOOORV1LLEA GASPEENSIS
RHOOINE BITORQUATA
SABELLIDAE
SCALIBREGHA INFLATUH
SCHIS70HERIMCOS CAECA
SCOLETOHA ACICULARUH
SCOLETOMA FRAGILIS
SCOLETOHA HESES
SCOLOPLOS ARMIGER
SPHAEROSYLLIS SP.
SPIO FILICORHIS
SPIO LIMICOLA
SPIO SETOSA
SPIO SP.
SPIO THULINI
SPIONIDAE
SPIOPHANES BOMBYX
SPIOPHANES KROYERI
STERNAPSIS SCUTATA
SYLLIDAE
SYLL1S
CTYPOSYLLI SMLTERKATA
TEREBELLIDAE
TEREBELLIDES ATLAHTIS
TERE8ELLIOES STROEMI
THARYX ACUTUS
TRICH08RANCHUS ROSEUS
TROCHOCHAETA MULTISETOSA
TROCHOCHAETA SP.
TYPOSYLL1S SP.
JOLIGOCHAETA OUGOCHAETA
(GASTROPODA ALVANIA EXAEATA
BUCCINUM UHOATUM
COLUS PUBESCENS
| COLUS SP.
CREPIDULA FORJUCATA
GASTROPODA
BOSTON LIGHTSHIP | HEISSURGER 2
20 22





2




8



*



1
24
II




3

'

1

235
2



1



14



22|
35( 35(

1
31 21

18




21




1
121 1


1 1



1
88 | 148) 301 1




|















3!
1|
8] 2
|
2|




21 2j
11 2| 2
11 21 1












11 2







1
"



1








5







1
1

1
11
4|




6 7
21
2j






118| 23[ 49|
26| 29| 37| 7


11





24 1 12


1



10| 9

'


4l
I


I

i






45 1 8|

1


4|
6\ 1






1| 1| 1
71 1 35| 21 6|



1
1










4J
1]
11
8j 4| 8|
31 1( 2]









*l




I 2
2(


|
I
I






1| 2|








*



2




















1






(CONTINUED)
-------
                   TABLE 3. RAW COUNTS (NQ./Q.04 m') FOR THE OFFSHORE SAMPLING AREA
10
JUP SPECIES
iTROPQOA LACUNA VINCTA
BOSTON LIGHTSHIP MEISBURGER Z
20
22 24

LUNATIA HEROS |
MARGARITES HELICINUS j
NASSAR1US TR1V1TTATUS
OENOPOTA DECUSSATA


RETUSA OBTUSA j
TURRIDAE
.YPLACOPHORA ISCHNOCHITON ALBUS
WLVIA ANOMIA SP.
ARCT1CA ISLAND I CA
ASTARTE BOREALIS
ASTARTE SP.
ASTARTE UNOATA
SIVALVIA
CERASTODERHA PIHHUUTUM
CRENELLA DECUSSATA
CRENELLA GLANDULA
CRENELLA SP.
HIATELLA SP.
LYONS I A HYALIHA
MJSCULUS NIGER
HYA ARENARIA
HYSELLA PLANULATA
HYT1LIDAE
NUCULA SP.
NUCUUt TENUIS
PECTINIDAE
PERIPLOHA LEANUH
PERIPLOMA SP.
PLACOPECTEN MAGELLAN I CUS
THRACIA HYOPS1S
THYASIRA FLEXUOSA
YOU) I A SAPOTILIA
YOL01A SP.
RRIPEOIA CIRRIPEDIA
SIDACEA HYSIDACEA
HACEA CAHPYLASPIS RUBICUND A
DIASTYLIS ABBREVIATA
OIASTYLIS BISPINOSA
DIASTYLIS SCULPTA
EUDORELLA PUS I L LA
PETALOSARSIA DECLIVIS
OPODA EOOTEA TRILOBA
JAERA MARINA
PLEUROGONIUM SPINOSISSIKUH
POLITOLANA CONCHARUH
PTILANTHURA SP.
iPHIPODA AEGININA LONGICORNIS







2



















1


3| 1
I
1|
1|
!
I
1
1
!
n
2 3 | 5 6 7
1


1










i
1

i i
i
i
i
i
11
i
2| 1
I
I
I
5|
I
2|
5|


I


I
^



2



11 2|
1
1S| 5| 6) 3| 6|
2 1 20|
I I

I
3| 2| 1

1

I 21
i 11
i i
11 ii 1
i
i
i i
i i
11 11
6| 7| 131
2! ! «|











•



2|
!
i
11
i
2| 3
1
1
i
3 4
1 1
I
!
I
I




I
11
31 1
1
21 1
I
26 1
I
I
i
I
I
"i
II
11
I
I «
11
I
I
1 1|
1
1
n
i
2 j
i
*i
i 1
1 *!
i *j
1
1

n

ri
I
1i
I
2| 1
11


1


I
1
1
I
1
1


31






2










11
3]





INTINUED)
                                         573
-------
                               TABLE 3.  RAW COUNTS (NO./0.04 m') FOR THE OFFSHORE SAMPLING AREA
11
| CROUP SPECIES
BOSTON LIGHTSHIP | HEISSURGER 2 ]
20 22 24 2 3 5 6 j ? |
AHPHIPOOA AHPELISCA MACROCEPHALA 3| 2j 2|
AHPELISCA SP. 1
AHPHIPOOA
AHONYX LILJEBORGI
ANONYX SARSI
ARGISSA HAHAT1PES
BYBLIS SERRATA
CASCO SIGELOWI
COROPHIIDAE
COROPH1UM CRASSICORNE
ERICHTHONIUS FASCIATUS
ERICHTHONIUS SP.
GAHHARUS LAURENCIANUS
GAHKARUS SP.
HAPLOOPS SP.
HAPLCOPS TUB I COLA
HARPIHIA PROPINQUA
HIPPOHEOON SERRATUS
JASSA HARKORATA
LEHBOS WEBSTER I
LEPTOCHEIRUS PINGUIS
LYSIAHASSIDAE
HONOCULOOES SP.
HONOCULODES TU8ERCULATUS
OeSICEROTlDAE
PHOTIS POLLEX
STENOPLEUSTES SP.
SYRRHOE CREHULATA
UNCIOLA INERMIS
UNCIOLA IRRORATA
UNCIOLA SP.
[DECAPOOA CANCER IRRORATUS
[ PAGURUS LONG I CARPUS
[SIPUHCUtA GQLFINGIA SP.
SIPUNCULA
JPHOROMIDA PHOROtUS ARCHITECTA
[BRYOZOA ANGUINELLA PALHATA
BUGULA TURRITA
CRISIA EBURNEA
ELECTRA PILOSA
EUCRATEA LORICATA
BIPPOTHOA HYALIHA
OPHIUR01DEA OPHIOPHOL1S ACULEATA
OPHIURA ROBUSTA
OPHIURA SARSI
OPHIUROIDEA
ECH1HOIDEA STRONGYLOCENTROTUS
DROEBACHIENSIS









2




























2
1

1






1|
I



2
1





1






1

















3
1
1


11| 3
1)
1|


2| 10














2| 1








2 1
1i

|









«



1

p








1



2











1


.

2





1








38




P
p








2[ 4
1
11


1|
I

11
1
5 16
3| 1

I
1|



|
8| 50
9!




1|
— i
I
I

1[

i|
i
i
i
i
111
i
i
i
i
I
i
2!
I
131
1
1)
|
J
I
1|
j
1
23 1
j
I
1
1|
I
I
1! i!

I

I
I I
I
i I I
| 1|
I
1| I I
|
1| |
(CONTINUED)
-------
                            TABLE 3. RAW COUNTS (NO./0.04 m*3 FOR THE OFFSHORE SAMPLING AREA
12
UP

IRDATA
:ID!ACEA



SPECIES

CHOROATA
APLIOIUH SP.
ASCIOIA SP.
CORELLA BOREAL IS
ZSPECIES COMBINED
| BOSTON
|.. 	 ......
I 20 I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I 163 1
LIGHTSHIP |
22 | 24 | 2 |
i i n
\ \ 1
1 1 1
i I 1
371 | 638 | 138)
MEISBURGER 2 \
3 I 5 | 6 I 7 |
... 	 *.... 	 i. 	 - j. .... 1
	 * 	 * 	 * 	 1
I 1 i I
i ! i 1
I I i 1
i i| i 1
675 i 240 1 443 1 258 1
ITINUEO)
-------
                               TABLE 3. RAW COUNTS CNO./0.04 m"5  FOR  THE OFFSHORE SAMPLING A8EA
13
GKOUP SPECIES

PORIFERA SCYPKA CILIATA
HtDROZOA CLYTIA GRACILIS
EUOEHDRIUH RUGOSUM
; EUOEHDRIUH SP.
SERTULARIA CUPRESSIHA
AHTHOZOA ANTHOZQA
CERIANTKEOPSIS AMERICANUS
CERIANTKEOPSIS SP.
EDWARDSIA SP.
IHEHERTIHEA NEMERTINEA
NEKATOOA NEMATOOA
JARCHIANNELIDA ARCHIANNELIDA
POLYCHAETA AGLAOPHAKUS CIRCIHATA
AHPHARETE ACUTIFRONS
AKPHARETE ARCTICA
AHPHARETE SP.
AKPHARETIOAE
AHPHIT8ITE CIRRATA
ANAITIDES ARENAS
ANAITIDES HACULATA
AHAITIDES HUCOSA
ANOSOTHRUS GRACILIS
APKELOCHAETA HARIONI
APHELOCHAETA HOHILARIS
APISTOBRANCHUS TULLBERGI
ARCTEOBIA ANTICOSTIEKSIS
ARICIDEA CACHIRA)
CATHERIHAE
ARICIDEA QUAORILOBATA
ASA8ELLIDES OCULATA
BARANTOLLA AMERICANA
CAPITELLA CAPITATA
CAULLERIELLA CF.
CILLARIENSIS
CKAETOZONE SETOSA
CHOKE DUNERI
CIRRATULIDAE
CIRRATULUS CIRRATUS
COSSURA LQNGQCIRRATA
DRILOHEREIS LOHGA
DRILONEREIS KACNA
ENIPO TORELLI
ETEOHE LONGA
EUCHONE ELEGANS
EUCHOHE INCOLOR
EUCHOHE SP.
EUCLYMEHE COLLAR IS
EULALIA BILINEATA
HEISSURGER 2
9 10 15
I
I
I
I
I P
I
• 1
I
5| I 9
10| 3| 21
1 1
1 1
i 3|
1 1
4| 21 6
1 i
6] 1J
1 1
I 1
11 3] 1
I I
2i | 7
149| 7| 84
I 6|
I I
1 I
I I
3( I 5
I I
11 21 j 14
I 1
14J 3
1
1
I 5
11
| 8 1
1


I
I
11
1] 194
1
I
2j 561 7
11 1

17



"

3

«
2
4
18



2

6





31
*

1

3

«

















I
HEISBURQER 7
2 | 4 6 | 8
I I
i I
i I
I I
i I P
I I i
I I 2
I i I
I I
1[ 3| 1]
I 3] 1(
1 2| |
1 1 11
! 1
I 11 1
I I
• 1| I 4|
I I I
I I I
11 I 3j
1 11 I
i 11 I
I 1| 1| 6
ij 1
1 1
1 i
i I
4J 2] 11 1
I I
9| 33| 14|
1 1
I 1
1 1
1 2 1
f I
1 11
I 3[
I I
I I
I I
I I
I 1 I 1
i 11
91 1] 321
I 1 1
1 9| I
32 1 17] 26 1
I I
(CONTINUED)
-------
                    TABLE 3. RAW COUNTS (NO./0.04 m« 3 FOR THE OFFSHORE SAMPLING AREA
80UP SPECIES
OLYCHAETA EUSYLLIS SP.
EXOCONE D I SPAR
EXQGOME HE8ES
EXOGONE SP.
EXOGONE VERUGERA
GALATHOyENIA OCULATA
GATTYANA AMONOSENI
GATTYANA CIRROSA
GLYCERA CAPITATA
GONIADA MACULATA
HARNOTHOE IMBRICATA
HETEROHASTUS FILIFORHIS
LAGISCA EXTENUATA
UONICE CIRRATA
UOHOHE KROYERI
LEITOSCOLOPLOS ACUTUS
LEVINSENIA GRACILIS
LYSILLA LOVENI
KALDANE SARSI
KALDAKIDAE
HEISBU8GER 2 MEISBUWER 7
9 10 15 17 | 2 4 j 6 8
. I
I
4 1
2j
1S|

1


1




3
5| 3
I •

3|
2
HAREHZELLERIA VIRIDIS
HEDIOHASTUS CALIFORNIENSIS] 46 j 18
MICROPHTHALMUS ABERRANS
MIKUSPIO CIRRI FERA
NONTICELLINA BAPTISTAE
HONTICELLINA
DORSQBRANCHIALIS
HYRIOCHELE HEERI
NEPHTYIDAE
NEPHTYS CAECA
NEPHTYS CILIATA
NEPHTYS INCISA
NEREIS GRAY I
NEREIS SP.
NEREIS ZONATA
NINOE NIGRIPES
QPHELINA ACUMINATA
ORBIN1IDAE
OWENIA FUSIFORM IS
PARAOONEIS LYRA
PARAPIONOSYLLIS
LONG I CIRRATA
PECTIN ARIA GRAHULATA
PHERUSA AFFINIS
PHOLQE HI NUT A
PHYLLODOCIDAE
POLYCIRRUS HEDUSA
POLYCIRRUS PHOSPHOREUS
I


i
1!
1
I
I 1
I *
I
1}
8I 1
2[
t9| 1


2




1






1

13





[
I
I
I
I 5
3!
2|






2


5

70


55 1 32
11



4






3

22


1



n •
1 2J
I 2
i
I
I








1

2

9






5



1



4




2











•
1
1

1
24



8







1


14

5

1


1








11 9





1
1I
I
2|
1
2
29|
!

!
3|


i
n


1| i
6
I
1
1|

2 1
I
I

|
11 6
I
i
I

5



15







I
11 31


I I
CONTINUED)
377
-------
                               TABLE 3. RAW COUNTS 
-------
                            TABLE 3.  RAW  COUNTS  (HO.70.04 in')  FOR THE OFFSHORE  SAMPLING AREA
:OUP SPECIES
iSTROPOOA LACUMA VINCTA
LUHATIA HERDS
MARGARITES KELICIKUS
NASSARIUS TRIVITTATUS
OENOPOTA DECUSSATA
RETUSA OBTUSA
TURK! DAE
1LYPLACOPHORA ISCHNOCHITON ALSUS
VALVIA ANOHIA SP.
ARCTICA ISLAND I CA
ASTARTE BOREAL IS
ASTARTE SP.
ASTARTE UNDATA
BIVALVIA
CERASTOOERKA PIMNULATUM
CRENELLA DECUSSATA
CRENELLA GLANOULA
CRENELU SP.
HIATELLA SP.
LYOMSIA HYALINA
KUSCULUS NIGER
MYA ARENARIA
MYSELLA PLANULATA
HYTILIDAE
NUCULA SP.
NUDJLA TENUIS
PECTIN I DAE
PERIPLOMA LEANUM
PERIPLOMA SP.
PLACOPECTEN MAGELLAHICUS
THRACIA MYOPSIS
THYASIRA FLEXUOSA
YOLDIA SAPOTILLA
YOLOIA SP.
RRIPEDIA CIRRIPEDIA
SIDACEA MYSIDACEA
IMACEA CAHPYLASPIS RUBICUND A
DIASTYLIS ABBREVIATA
DIASTYLIS SISPINOSA
BIASTYLIS SCULPTA
EUDORELLA PUSILLA
PETALOSARSIA DECLIVIS
SQPOOA EDOTEA TRILOBA
JAERA MARINA
PLEUROGONIUM SPINOSISSIMUM
POLITOLANA CONCHARUM
PTILAHTHURA SP.
IPHIPOOA AEGININA LONGICORNIS
MEISBURGiR 2 MEIS8URGER 7
9 10 15 17 2 4 6 | 8
1
11
1
2|








2| 3| 2|
1| 21 1f










1

2|
1|



1










1| *l 1] 3| 4j 7| 8
10 j 4j 8] 26 j


\
I
11
' 1
I
1!
I
31 1 2




I \
I 1
2|
I
\

I
11
1|
I
"I




1J
7\ 301 9|
I 3|
2| | 1|
I I 1
1
I
2]



I
4| 2] 2

I
I














7| 2| 2) 8|
2J 1|
8I
4|

1




2





1





1












3











































3











3


1




1














WTINUED)
-------
                               TABLE 3.  RAW COUNTS  (HO./0.04 m«> FOR THi OFFSHORE SAMPLING AREA
IGROUP SPECIES
HEISBURGER 2 HEISSURGER 7
9 10 15 17 2 4 6 8
AHPBIPOOA AMPEUSCA HACRQCEPHALA 2|
AHPELISCA SP.
AMPKIPODA
ANONYX LILJEBORGI
ANONtX SARS1
ARG1SSA HAHATIPES
BY8LIS SERRATA
CASCO 8IGELOWI
COROPHI1DAE
COROPHIUH CRASSICORHE
ERICHTHOS1US FASCIATUS
ERICHTHOHIUS SP.
GAHHARUS UttfRENCIANUS
GAHHARUS SP.
HAPIOOPS SP.
KAPLOOPS TUBICOLA
HARPIHIA PROPIHGNJA
HIPPOHEOOH SERRATUS
JASSA HARKORATA
LEKBOS WEBSTER I
LEPTOCHEIRUS PINGUIS
LYSIANASSIOAE
HONOCULOOES SP.
KOKOCULOOES TU8ERCULATUS
OBHCEROTIDAE
PHOT1S POLLEX
STEHOPIEUSTES SP.
SYRRH06 CRENULATA
UHCIOLA INERHIS
UNCIOLA IRRORATA
UHCIOLA SP.
DECAPOOA CANCER IRRORATUS
PAGURUS LQHGICARPUS
JSIPUNCULA GQLFINGIA SP.
j SIPtAiCUU
JPHCKONIDA , PHORONIS ARCHITECTA
BRYOZQA AMGUIHELLA PALKATA
BUG5JLA TURRITA
CRISiA EBURNEA
ELECT RA PILOSA
BJCRATEA LOR I CAT A
H1PPOTHOA HYALIKA
C3PHIU80IDEA OPHIOPHOLIS ACULEATA
OPHIURA ROBUSTA
OPHIURA SARSI
OPHIUROIDEA
JECHIHQIDEA STRONGYLOC6HTROTUS
[ DROEBACHIEHSIS














^



















7








1





1





13 1
12|




9i 26
2 1
I
I
i
10|
21



1




8










P



















16


















1



1



21
1













1




7


P
P

P
1






1


1














1



2




86















21







2

2






1|
21 6
1|

1

*


1


























11j 95J
16| 3S| 14j
31 2|
t|



1











































3|
(CONTINUED)
-------
                             TABLE 3.  RAW COUNTS (NO./0.04 m»> FOR THE OFFSHORE SAMPLING AREA                               18
touc

IOROATA
.CIDIACEA

.L
SPECIES

CKOROATA
APLIDIUH SP.
ASCIDIA SP.
COREL LA BOREAL IS
ZSPECIES COMBINED
| HEIS8URGER 2 |
I .................... 	 .... 	 ...+........._
I 9 j 10 i 15 | 17 | 2 .|
! I I I I I
I i I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I ! I I
| 659\ 77S\ 639| 338[ 225|
HEISBURGER 7
4 I 6 | 8
I I
I !
I [
I I
2i9| 323 1 64
MTIMUEO)
-------
                  TABLE 3. RAW COUNTS CNO./0.04 m!} FOR THE OFFSHORE SAMPLING AREA
19
| GROUP SPECIES
HEISBURGER 7
9 13
18
21 | 22
JPORIFERA SCYPHA CILIATA | j |
IHYOROZOA CLYTIA GRACILIS

EU0EN0RIUM RUGOSUH
EUDEMJRIUM SP.
SERTULARIA DJPRESSIHA
ANTHOZOA ANTHOZOA
CERIANTHEOPSIS AMERICANOS
CERIANTHEOPSIS SP.
EDWARDS I A SP.
JNEMERTINEA NEHERTINEA
[HEMATCOA NEMATODA
JARCHIANNEL1DA ARCH I ANNELIDA
IPOLTCHAETA AGLAOPHAHUS CIRCIHATA
AHPHARETE ACUTIFRONS
AHPHARETE ARCTICA
AHPHARETE SP.
AHPHARETIDAE
AKPHITRITE CIRRATA
AVAI TIDES ARENAS
AKAI TIDES MACUtATA
AHAITIDES KUCOSA
ANOBOTHRUS GRACILIS
APHELOCHAETA MAR I ON I
APHELOCHAETA MQSILARIS
APISTOBRANCHUS TULLBERGI
ARCTE06IA AHTICOSTIEHSIS
ARICIDEA CACMIRA)
GATHER I NAE
ARICIDEA QUADRILOBATA
ASASELLIDES OCULATA
BARANTOLU AMERICANA
CAPITELLA CAPITATA
CAULLERIELLA CF.
KILURIENSIS
CHAETOZONE SETOSA
CHONE DUNERI
C1RRATULIDAE
CIRRATULUS CIRRATUS
COSSURA LOHGOCIRRATA
DRILONEREIS LOttGA
DRILONEREIS MAGMA
EN IPO TORELLI
ETEONE LQNGA
EUCHONE ELEGANS
EUCHONE INCOLOR
EUCHONE SP.
EUCLYMENE COLLARIS
EULALIA BI LI HE ATA



3


4




1
















j
i
i 1




1|


1




3






1
1




2| 1


ij


1|








'I





1








1









I P

1|
I
41 2
I
1
I
121
|
1!
I
5J 3
i
I
i 3
2| 3| 1



|
2|
I
I i

I
I !
5| 11 21

I
3] 39 1 18




1

I
2|
|
I
5|
I
11 3) 16
I 1
I
I
I 1
1
1
11 7| 9
|
I
17| 39| 36|

I I
(CONTINUED)
-------
                  TABLE 3. RAW COUNTS (NO./0.04 m> > FOR THE OFFSHORE SAMPLING AREA
20
i GROUP SPECIES

IPOLYCHAETA EUSYLLIS SP.
EXOGONE D I SPAR
EXOGONE HEBES
EXOGONE SP.
EXOGONE VERUGERA
GALATHOUEHIA OCULATA
GAT TY ANA AHONDSENl
GATTYAHA CIRROSA
SLYCERA CAPITATA
GONIADA HACULATA
HARMOTHOE IHBRICATA
HETEROMASTUS F I LI FORM IS
LAGISCA EXTENUATA
LAONICE CIRRATA
LAONOHE KROYERI
LEITOSCOLOPLOS ACUTUS
LEVINSENIA GRACILIS
LYSILLA LOViNI
HALOANE SARSI
MALOAKIDAE
MARENZELLERIA VIRIOIS
HEDIOMASTUS CALIFORNIEHSIS
HICROPHTHALKUS ABERRANS
MINUSPIO CIRRI f ERA
HOKTICELLINA BAPTISTAE
KONTICELLINA
DORS08 RANCH 1AL IS
KYRIOCHELE HEERI
NEPHTYIOAE
HEPHTYS CAECA
NEPHTYS CILIATA
NEPHTYS IHCISA
NEREIS GRAYI
NEREIS SP.
NEREIS ZOHATA
HI HOE HI GRIPES
OPHELINA ACUHINATA
ORBINI IDAE
OUENIA FUSIFORM IS
PARADONEIS LYRA
PARAPIONOSYLLIS
LONGICIRRATA
PECTIKARIA GRAKULATA
PHERUSA AFFINIS
PHOUOE MIHUTA
PHYLLODOCIDAE
POLYCIRRUS MEDUSA
PQLYCIRRUS PHOSPHOREUS

9















*l
4

3|
1

18


2










41








1



HEISBURGER 7
13 | 18 1 21
i 11
1 t
i I
1 1
1 «l 1
! i
I I
i I
I 2I
I I
i 11
I I
I 11
i I
1 t
1 1
8| 3|
I 1
3| 1
! i
i 1
2| 4j 1
I 1
1 I
! 1
t 1
3| *1
1 !
i i
I 1 1
I I
11 i
1 1
i 1 1
i 1
36| 2| 1
1 i
1 1
i I
1 i 1
1 1
i 1
I i
1 1
I 11
! !
! 11
i 1

22

3

4j
23
1J


3|












1

















3




3



CCOMTINUE0)
                                                                                                                fr
-------
                   TABLE 3.  RAW COUNTS  (NO./0.04 ml) FOR THE OFFSHORE SAMPLING AREA
IGROUP SPECIES
PQLYCHAETA POLYCIRRUS SP.
POLYDORA CAULLERYX
POtYDORA CONCHARUM
POLYDORA CORNUTA
POLYDORA QUADRILOBATA
POLYDORA SOCIALIS
POLYDORA SP,
POLYHOIDAE
PRAXILLELLA P8AETERHISSA
P8AX1LLURA ORNATA
PRIONOSPIO STEEHSTRUPI
PROTOOORV1LLEA GASPEENSIS
RHOOINE BITORQUATA
SABELLIDAE
SCALIBREGHA 1NFUTUH
SCHISTOHERINGOS CAECA
SCOLETOHA ACICULARUM
SCOLETOHA FRAGILIS
SCOLETOHA HEBES
SCOLOPLOS ARMIGER
SPHAEROSYLLIS SP.
SPIO FILICORHIS
SPIO LIH1COLA
SPIO SETOSA
SPIO SP.
SPIO THULIK!
SP10NIDAE
SPIOPHANES SOHBYX
SP10PHANES (CROYERI
STERHAPSIS SCUTATA
SYLLIDAE
KEISBURGER 7
9 13 18 21 32





2



I
1[ 1









.

13

1

1




StLLIS
CTYPOSYULIS)ALTERNATA
TEREBELLIDAE
TERE8ELLIOES ATLANTIS
TEREBELLIDES STROEHJ






1




11













THARYX ACUTUS 4| 3
TRICH05RAHCHUS ROSEUS
TROCHOCHAETA KULT! SETOSA
TROCKOCHAETA SP.
TTPOSYLLIS SP.
OUGQCHAETA OL1GOCHAETA
GASTROPODA ALVANIA EXARATA
BUCCIHUM UNDATUM
COLUS PUSESCENS
COLUS SP.
CREP1DULA FORNICATA
GASTROPODA
1
25
•
I
1 3
3] 16 61)

1
3

1














4










15









1



*l
1

24)





*


27


3

44








1









21








21
11

1
5|
1|









3




2

1




(CONTINUED}
-------
                  TABLE 3. RAW COUNTS  (NO./0.04 m<)  FOR THE OFFSHORE  SAMP LI KG AREA
22
GROUP SPECIES
GASTROPODA LACUNA VIMCTA
LUHATIA HERDS
HARGARITES BELICINUS
HASSARIUS TRIVITTATUS
QE80POTA DECUSSATA
RETUSA OBTUSA
TURRIDAE
POLYPUCOPKORA ISCHNOCHITON ALBUS
BIVALVIA AMOMIA SP.
ARCTICA ISUWICA
ASTARTE BOREAL IS
ASTARTE SP.
ASTARTE UNDATA
BIVALVIA
CERASTOOERHA PINNULATUH
CRENELLA DECUSSATA
CRENELLA GLANDULA
CRENELLA SP.
HIATELU SP.
LTONSIA HYALINA
KUSCULUS NIGER
MY A ARENARIA
MYSELLA PLAHULATA
HYTlLIDAi
HUCULA SP.
NUCUU TENUIS
PECTINIDAE
PERIPLOMA LEANUM
PERIPLOKA SP.
PLACOPECTEN HAGELLAHICUS
THRACIA HYOPSIS
THYASIRA FLEMJOSA
YOLDIA SAPOTILLA
YOLDIA SP.
JCIRRIPEOIA CIRRIPEDIA
IHYSIDACE* MYSIDACEA
JCUMACEA CAMPYLASPIS RUBICUNDA
DIASTYLIS A3BREVIATA
DIASTYLIS BISPINOSA
DIASTYLIS SCULPTA
EUDORELLA PUS I L LA
PETALOSARSIA DECLIVIS
ISOPOOA EDOTEA TRILOBA
JAERA HARINA
PLEUROSONIIM SPINOSISSINUH
POLITOLANA CONCHARLM
PTILAHTHURA SP.
JAHPHIPOOA AEGIHINA LONG I CORN IS
MEISBURGER 7
...... 	 ... 	 . 	 ................ 	 .
	 	 	
9 13 | 18 21 22











4






1
















1













2
1






*
























21




'I
2]
1
2|
1 1
11
1 5
4| 3
8|
10| 1
11
1|
i
H
1
1
31

i
1
1


I
I
1

1
I
I ,
|


I *
1|
I
1

I I
3
1







1


















-------
                   TABLE 3. RAW COUNTS (NO./0.04 m') FOR THE OFFSHORE SAMPLING AREA
IGROUP SPECIES
AHPHIPOOA AHPELISCA MACROCEPHALA
AHPELISCA SP.
AHPHIPOOA
ANONYX L1LJEBORGI
ANONYX SARSI
ARGISSA HAHATIPES
BYBLIS SERRATA
CASCO BIGELOUI
CORCPHIIDAE
COROPHIUM CRASSICORNE
ERICHTHONIUS FASCIATUS
ERICHTHONIUS SP.
GAKMARUS LAWRENCIANUS
GAHHARUS SP.
HAPLOOPS SP.
HAPLOOPS TUB I COLA
HARPIHIA PROPINOUA
HIPPOMEDOH SERRATUS
JASSA HARHORATA
LEMBOS UEBSTERI
LEPTOCHEIRUS PINGUIS
LYSIANASSIDAE
HONOCULODES SP.
HQNOCULQOES TUBERCULATUS
OEDICERQTIDAE
PHOTIS POLLEX
STENOPLEUSTES SP.
SYRRHOE CREHULATA
UNCIOLA INERHIS
UNCIOLA IRRORATA
UNCIOU SP.
IOECAPODA CANCER IRRORATUS
[ PAGURUS LONG I CARPUS
ISIPUHCULA GOLFINGIA SP.
iPHORONIDA PH080NIS AtCHITECTA
[BRYOZOA ANGUINELLA PALHATA
BUQULA TURRITA
CRISIA EBURNEA
ELECTRA PltOSA
EUCRATEA LOR I CAT A
HIPPOTHOA HYALINA
OPHIUROIDEA OPHIOPHOLIS ACULEATA
OPHIURA ROBUSTA
OPHIURA SARSI
• OPHIUROIDEA
[ECHINOIDEA STRONGYLOCENTROTUS
DROEBACHIEHSIS
MEIS8URGER 7
9 13 18 21 | 22

11 1




























1
































3













3










"





























67
23
2



l'












1
1



5



1







1

1







1

1




3














1




3









4 1
2|


2!



2|
*l
2S|

















CCONTIHUiD)
-------
                 TABLE 3. RAW COUNTS (NO./O.Q4 m'} FOR THE OFFSHORE SAMPLING AREA
GROUP
                          SPECIES
                                                                     MEISBURGER ?
                                                        9    [    13   I    18    I   21    1   22
                                                       _.....+....	«...	1— -—...4.......
                                                             i         !          1         I
                                                             111!
                                                          137|       891      226 f     286)     3081
JCHORDATA
IASCIDIACEA
(ALL
CHORDATA
APLIDIUH SP.
ASCIOIA SP.
CORELU BOREALIS
2SPECIES COMBINED
-------
NOFtMANDEAU ASSOCIATES
                           APPENDIX E

                        BENTfflC INFAUNA
                 MEAN ABUNBANCES BY HABITAT
13116.0)9 - I3lI«€*.Jac
April 24, 199!
                                                                        /»K> I
-------
                APPENDIX  TABLE  E-1.  MEAN  ABUNDANCE  (NO./m1)  BY  HABITAT OF  BENTHIC  INFAUNA RETAINED  ON A
                                  O.Smn-HESH  SIEVE  COLLECTED FROM  INNER BOSTON  HARBOR  LOCATIONS, OCTOBER  1994.
GROUP SPECIES


	 H
NO. OF SAMPLES TOTAL
PORIFERA HALICHONDRIA PANICEA
HYDROZOA CLYTIA GRACILIS
OBELIA DICHOTOHA
OBELIA SP.
NEHATODA NEHATODA
POLYCHAETA ANAITIDES SP.
ARICIDEA (ACHIRA)
CATHERINAE
CAP 1 TEL LA CAP 1 TATA
CIRRATULIDAE
| ETEONE LONGA
GLYCERA DIBRANCHIATA
HEDISTE DIVERSICOLOR
; LEITOSCOLOPLOS ACUTUS
| LEITOSCOLOPLOS ROBUSTUS
I LEITOSCOLOPLOS SP.
| HALDANIDAE
I HARENZELLERIA VIRIDIS
HEDIOHASTUS CAL I FORM I ENS IS
HICROPHTHALHUS ABERRANS
NEANTHES SUCCINEA
NEANTHES VIRENS
NEPHTYIDAE
NEPHTYS CAECA
! NEPHTYS CILIATA
NEPHTYS INC ISA
NEREIDAE
NINOE NIGRIPES
PARANA! T IS SPECIOSA
PECTINARIA GOULD 1 1
PECTINARIIDAE
POLYCIRRUS SP.
POLYDORA CORNUTA
POLYDORA SOCIALIS
SPIO FILICORNIS
STREBLOSPIO BENEDICTI
THARYX ACUTUS
OLIGOCHAETA OLIGOCHAETA
GASTROPODA CREPIDULA FORNICATA
CREPIDULA PLANA
CREPIDULA SP.
LACUNA VINCTA
NASSARIUS TRIVITTATUS
AHSTAR
HABITAT
III

2.0




587.5



50.0




















12.5
12.5

625.0


412.5

87.5





CHEL 01
HABITAT
III

2.0




87.5
























12.5


12.5


50*0
25.0





25.0
CHEl 02
HABITAT
III
111

2.0




25.0






































CHELSEA
CREEK
HABITAT
"

5.0
P



25.0
5.0



10.0
5.0










15.0

10.0
5.0



5.0


5.0
230.0
10.0

25.0
35.0
5.0
30.0
50.0
10.0

5.0
CONLEY
HABITAT
III

1.0


P

450.0


25.0
75.0









25.0


25.0
25.0


25.0






25.0


50.0
50.0
200.0




25.0
CABOT
HABI
"

1.0
































25.0










POINT
TAT
III

1.0




















25.0











175.0


75.0
25.0
50.0





i
EVERETT
HABITAT
III

2.0




25.0







12.5








37.5


25.0







37.5


150.0

25.0





(CONTINUED)
-------
              APPENDIX TABLE E-1, KEAN ABUWAHCE (KO./m1) BY HABITAT OF  SENTHIC  1KFAUHA RETAINED ON A
                                  O.Sim-KESH SIEVE COLLECTED FROM IKHIR  BOSTON HARBOR LOCATIONS, OCTOBER 1994.
GROUP SPECIES

i
BIVALVIA AHOHIA SP.
BIVALVIA
CERASTOOERHA PINNULATUN
i H1ATELLA SP.
LYONS I A HYALINA
MACOHA BALTHICA
HUL1NIA LATERALIS
HYA ARENARIA
MYT1LIOAE
TELL1NA AGILIS
TURTONIA MI NUT A
ICIRRIPEOIA BALANUS CRENATUS
IHYSIDACEA HETEROHYSIS FORMOSA
JAHPH1POOA AHPEL1SCA ABDITA
COROPHIUH BOHELL1
GAHHARUS LAWRENCIANUS
HICROOEUTOPUS QRYLLOTALPA
POHTOGENEIA INERHIS
UNCIOLA INERHIS
DECAPOOA CRAHGON SEPTEHSPIHOSA
BRYOZOA BUGULA TURRITA
OPH1UROIDEA OPH1UROIDEA
ASC1DIACEA ASCI01A SP.
X NO. OF 1NDIV TOTAL
|X PORIFERA TOTAL
X HYDROZOA TOTAL
X KEHATOOA TOTAL
|X POLYCHAETA TOTAL
JX OL1GOCHAETA TOTAL
|X GASTROPODA TOTAL
JX BIVALVIA TOTAL
X CIRRIPEOIA TOTAL
X HYSIOACEA TOTAL
JX AMP HI POO A TOTAL
|X DECAPOOA TOTAL
JX S8YOZOA TOTAL
|X OPH1UROIOEA TOTAL
|X ASCIOIACEA TOTAL
JNO. Of TAXA ZTOTAL
AHSTAR
HABITAT
III














50.0

37.5

12.5



25.0
1912.5


587.5
1112.5
87.5




100.0



25.0
11.0
j
CHEL 01
HABITAT
III








25.0










37.5



275.0


87.5
too.o

25.0
25.0



37.5



j 8.0
CKEL 02
HABITAT
III






12.5
















37.5


25.0



12.5







2.0
CHELSEA
CREEK
HABITAT
H

5.0






5.0
i.O
5.0


30.0





10.0
P


545.0
P

25.0
360.0
5.0
95.0
20.0


30.0
10.0
P


26.0
CONLEY
HABITAT
HI









25.0



125.0






P


1150.0

P
450.0
325.0
200.0
25.0
25.0


125.0

P


16.0
CABOT
HAB
II














•








25.0



25.0










1.0
i
P01HT EVERfTT
TAT HABITAT
ill III




[
12.5
25.0
i
i
I




25.0|







12.5

375.0 362.5


25.0
300.0 262.5
50.0 25.0

37.5


25.0


12.5

6.0J 10.0
(CONTINUED)
-------
               APPENDIX TABLE E-1.  MEAN ABUNDANCE (NO./m1)  BY  HABITAT  OF  BENTHIC INFAUNA RETAINED ON A
                                   0.5mm-HESH SIEVE COLLECTED  FROM INNER  BOSTON HARBOR LOCATIONS, OCTOBER 1994.
GROUP SPECIES
NO. OF SAMPLES TOTAL
PORIfERA HALICHONDR1A PANICEA
HYDROZOA CLYTIA GRACILIS
OBELIA DICHOTOMA
OBELI A SP.
NEMATODA NEHATOOA
POLYCHAETA ANAIT1DES SP.
ARICIDEA (ACHIRA)
CATHERINAE
CAPITELLA CAPITATA
CIRRATULIDAE
ETEONE LONGA
GLYCERA D I BRANCH I AT A
HEOISTE DIVERS I COLOR
LE1TOSCOLOPLOS ACUTUS
LEITOSCOLOPLOS ROBUSTUS
LEITOSCOLOPLOS SP.
HALO AH I DAE
MARENZELLERIA VIRIDIS
MEDIOMASTUS CALIFORKIENSIS
MICROPHTHALMUS ABERRANS
NEANTHES SUCCINEA
LITTLE
j MYSTIC-
INNER CONFLUENCE j CHANNEL
i
i
NYSTIC PIERS | MYSTIC
RIVER
RESERVED
CHANNEL
HABITAT j HABITAT HABITAT HABITAT HABITAT
II ! Ill III { 11 ! IV j III IV NONE
3.0



P
25.0



8.3

33.3
8.3




16.7

2.0











3.0



P







i






i
16.7

i
NEANTHES VIRENS | j
NEPHTYIDAE 8.3
NEPHTYS CAECA j 8.3
NEPHTYS CILIATA
NEPHTYS INCISA
NERE1DAE
NINOE NIGRIPES
PARANAITIS SPECIOSA
PECTIN ARIA GOULD! I
PECTINARIIDAE
POLYCIRRUS SP.
POLYDORA CORNUTA
POLYDORA SOCIALIS
SPIO FILICORNIS
STREBLOSPIO BENEDICT I
THARYX ACUTUS
OLIGOCHAETA OLIGOCHAETA
GASTROPODA CREP1DULA FORNICATA
CREPIOULA PLANA
CREPIOULA SP.
LACUNA VINCTA

25.0






"








i

16.7
I
i


416.7


166.7
25.0
500.0



12.5











2.0














2.0














i


















i
i
[
i
i
I
I
j
I

1
i
!
i
i
1 12.5
j !
I

Bi
.3,
16.7
16.7

!
i
i
i
2.0



P






































3.0

P








3.0








58.3
i
i
!
i
16.7
1 25.0




375.0
8.3

8.3J
i i
i i
i
i




i
50.0!
s



8.3
i
i
i
i
8.3|


33.3 125.0

8.3
108.3

25.0




(CONTINUED)
-------
                           APPENDIX TABLE E-1. HEAH ABUNDANCE (NO./*1) BY HABITAT OF BEHTHIC IHFAUHA RETAINED OH A
                                               O.SiTO-KSSH SIEVE COILECTEO FROM IHSER BOSTON MARIOS LOCATIONS, OCTOBER 1994.
—o
GROUP SPECIES
!

:

GASTROPODA NASSAR1US TRIVITTATUS
BIVALVIA ANOHIA SP.
BiVALVIA
CERASTOOERHA PINNULATUM
HIATELLA SP.
LYONSIA NYALIHA
MACOMA BALTHICA
HULINIA LATERAL IS


INKER CONFLUENCE
LITTLE
HYSTIC-
CHANHEL
HABITAT ! HABIT AT
II | III
250.0

8.3
8.3
25.0
8.3

8.3
MYA ARENARIA j
HYTILIOAE j 8.3
TELLIHA ACILIS
TURTONIA MINUTA
CIRRIPEOIA BALANUS CRENATUS
HYSIDACEA HETEROHYSIS FORMOSA
AHPHIPODA AHPELISCA ABDITA



8.3

COROPHIUH BONELLI |
CAHKARUS LAWRENCIANUS
MICROOEUTOPUS GRYLLOTALPA
| PONTOGEME1A INERHIS


8.3
UNCIOLA INERHIS |
DECAPOD A CRANGON SEPTEHSP1NOSA
BRYOZOA BUGULA TURRITA
OPHIUROIDEA OPHIUROIOEA
ASC1D1ACEA ASCIOIA SP.
X NO. OF IKDIV TOTAL

















III






MYSTIC PIERS
HABITAT
II | IV
37.SJ 12.5
J 12.5


i
i


8.3











j
i







{RESERVED
MYSTIC RIVER j CHANNEL
HABITAT I HABIT AT
III









1


j 12.5
I
i
i
i




8.3





1


i !
1649.8! 37.5
X PORIFERA TOTAL | |
[X HYDROZOA TOTAL j P !
16.6

P









37.5


X NEHATODA TOTAL | 25. Oj | |
X POLYCHAETA TOTAL | 725. Oj 37.5
X OLIGOCHAETA TOTAL
[X GASTROPODA TOTAL
SOO.Oj
316.7
X BIVALVIA TOTAL | 66.5J
X CIRRIPEDIA TOTAL
X MYS1DACEA TOTAL
X AHPHIPOOA TOTAL
|X OICAPOOA TOTAL
X BRYOZOA TOTAL
X OPHIUROIDEA TOTAL

8.3
8.3









8.3


12.5








IV I NONE









8.3




| 8.3








i
i
i
i






62.5|



12.5
!
37.5



8.3|
i
t
i
i
! !
IX ASCIOIACEA TOTAL | j

12.5
12.5
12.5

12.5

P








i
i
j
4
1







8.3
41.7
158.3
8.3











!
8.3



58.2J 1041.4

P

33.3 799.8
25.0

8.3 216.6


8.3

i


iHO. OF TAXA ZTOTAL | 26.0J 2.0', 3.0} 1.0} 5.0} 1.0
8.3

5.0J 17.0]
-------
APPENDIX TABLE E-1. MEAN ABUNDANCE (NO./m1) BY HABITAT OF BENTHIC INFAUNA RETAINED ON A
                    O.Smm-HESH SIEVE COLLECTED FROM INNER BOSTON HARBOR LOCATIONS, OCTOBER 1994.
                 NO. OF SAMPLES
                 PORIFERA
                 HYDROZOA
                 NEHATODA
                 POLYCHAETA
                 GROUP
                 OL1GOCHAETA
                 GASTROPODA
SPECIES
REVERE
SUGAR
                                                                      HABITAT
                                                                        III
TOTAL
HALICHQNDRIA PANICEA
CLYTIA GRACIL1S
OBEL1A OICHOTOHA
OBELIA SP.
NEHATODA
ANAITIDES SP.
AR1CIOEA (ACH1RA)
CATHERINAE
CAPITELLA CAPITATA
CIRRATULIOAE
ETEONE LONGA
GLYCERA DIBRANCHIATA
HEOISTE DIVERSICOLOR
LEITOSCOLOPLOS ACUTUS
LE1TOSCOLOPLOS ROBUSTUS
LEITOSCOLOPLOS SP.
HALDANIDAE
HARENZELLERIA VIRIDIS
HEDI0MASTUS CAL1FORNIENSIS
MICROPHTHALNUS ABfRRANS
NEANTHES SUCCINEA
NEANTHES VIRENS
NEPHTYIDAE
NEPHTYS CAECA
MEPHTYS CILIATA
NEPHTYS INC1SA
NEREIDAE
N1NOE NtGRIPES
PARANAITIS SPECIOSA
PECTINARiA GOULDII
PECTINARIIDAE
POLYCIRRUS SP.
POLYDORA CORNUTA
POLYDORA SOCIALIS
SPIO FIL1CORNIS
STREBLOSPIO BENEDICTI
THARYX ACUTUS
OL1GOCHAETA
CREPIDULA FORNICATA
CREPIDULA PLANA
CREPIDULA SP.
LACUNA VINCTA
NASSARIUS TRIVITTATUS
    3.0
   66.7
                                                                         108.3
                                                                           8.3!
                                                                          25.OJ
   50,
   25,
  183,
                (CONTINUED)
-------
                          APPENDIX TABLE E-1. HEAH ABUNDANCE (HO./n')  IT KA8ITAT OF 8ENTHIC INFAUNA  RETAINED OH A
                                              0.5mu-HESH SIEVE COLLECTED FROH INNER BOSTON HARBOR LOCATIONS,  OCTOBER 1994.
—Q
IBROUP


BIVALV1A

i


i


.


CIRRIPEOIA
HYSIDACEA
AMP HI POO A





IDECAPOOA
| BRYOZOA
OPHIUROIDEA
ASCID1ACEA
,X NO. OF INDtV
[X PORIFERA
;X HTOfiOZOA
X NEHATOOA
[X POLYCHAETA
|X OLIGQCHAETA
[X GASTROPODA
X BIVALVIA
:X CIRRIPED1A
X HYSIDACEA
X AHPHIPODA
[X OECAPOOA
X BRYOZOA
X OPH1UROIDEA
X ASCIDIACEA
HO. OF TAXA
srecus


AKOHIA SP.
BIVALVIA
CERASTOOERMA PINNULATUH
HIATELLA SP.
LYONSIA HYALINA
KACOMA BALTHICA
MULINIA LATERAL IS
HYA AREHARIA
HYTILIDAE
TELLINA AGILIS
TURTONIA HI NUT A
BALANUS CRENATUS
HETEROHYSIS FORMOSA
AHPELISCA ABDITA
COROPHIUN BONELLI
GAHHARUS LAURENCIANUS
HICROOEUTOPUS GRYLLOTALPA
PONTOGENEIA INERHIS
UNCIOLA INERHIS
CRANGON SEPTEHSPINOSA
BUGULA TURRITA
OPHIUROIDEA
ASC1DIA SP.
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
ZTOTAL
REVERE
SUGAR
HABITAT
III
|

i
i













8.3
i
i

8.3



483.2


66.7
216.6
183.3




8.3
8.3



9.0
-------
  APPENDIX TABLE E-2. MEAN ABUNDANCE (NO./m1) BY HABITAT OF BENTHIC INFAUNA RETAINED ON A
                      O.Smm-HESH SIEVE COLLECTED FROM OUTER BOSTON HARBOR LOCATIONS, OCTOBER 1994.
{GROUP SPECIES


NO. OF SAMPLES TOTAL
IHYOROZOA CLYTIA GRACILIS
EUDENOR1UH RUGOSUN
SERTULARIA CUPRESSINA
HEHERTINEA NEHERTINEA
NEHATODA NEHATODA
POLYCHAETA AGLAOPHAMUS NEOTENUS
AMPHARETE ARCTICA
AHPHARETIDAE
ANA I TIDES HUCOSA
ANOBOTHRUS GRACILIS
APHELOCHAETA MARION I
ARICIDEA (ACHIRA)
CATHERINE
ARICIDEA SP,
ASABEUIDES OCULATA
CAPITELLA CAPITATA
C1RRATULIOAE
CIRRATULUS CIRRATUS
CLYMENELLA TORQUATA
ENIPO TORELLI
ETEONE LON6A
EUCHONE ELEGANS
EULALIA V1RIDIS
GATTYANA CIRROSA
HARHOTHOE IHBR1CATA
LEITOSCOLOPLOS ACUTUS
HALDANIDAE
HEDIOHASTUS CALIFORNIENSIS
HICROPHTHALHUS ABERRANS
NEANTHES VIRENS
NEPHTYIDAE
NEPHTYS CAECA
NEPHTYS CIL1ATA
[ NEPHTYS INC ISA
[ NEREIDAE
j N1COLEA ZOSTER 1 COL A
N1NOE N1GRIPES
PARANAITIS SPECIOSA
PHERUSA AFFINIS
PHOLOE HI NUT A
PHYLLOOOCIDAE
POLYDORA CORNUTA
POLYDORA QUADRILOBATA
SPECTACLI
HAB
I
4.0


P
62.5
1325.0

6.3
6.3
650.0
6.3


9668.8

143,8
81.3
1787.5



381.3






568.8


6.3
6.3
206.3

12.5

175.0
6.3

100.0

4706.3
25.0
• ISLAND
TAT
II
1.0




325.0
50.0


300.0



3075.0

150.0
25.0
450.0

200.0

100.0
25.0

50.0



200.0
25.0


675.0
325.0



50.0
25.0



14400.0
1850.0
SUBAQUE-
OUS B
HABITAT
I
3.0


P
166.7
483.3



2075.0



1041.7
8.3
41,7
108.3
483.3

8.3
16.7
300.0

8.3
16.7
41.7


533,3

16.7


25.0
8.3

8.3
41.7

41.7
125.0
8.3
4625.0
8.3
SUBAQUEOUS E
HABITAT
I II
h * 1
2.0! 1.0
P
P !
P
25.0
2012.5 50.0
25.0

i
625.0

287.5
|
!
12.5 !
212.SJ 25.0]
537.5 i
3362.5 25.0|
12.5| !
25.0| i
i
1087.5

i
i
87.5 S !
! 50.0!
37.5S !
462.5S !
12.5| !
75.0 25.0!
!
! 25.0!
75.0J ZOO.Oj
13 11 1
>*-'t 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
50. oi 150. OJ
12.5| !
! 1
475.01 |
{ !
9300.0; |
i i
i i
(CONTINUED)
-------
APPEHOIX TABLE E-2. HEAH ASUHDA«GE  1250. OJ 3100.0! 1883.3
637.5J
LEPTOCHEIRUS SP. j j j 8.3 j j
-------
                                APPENDIX TABLE E-2. MEAN ABUNDANCE (N0./n>) BY HABITAT OF BENTH1C INFAUNA RETAINED ON A
                                                    0.5mm-HESH SIEVE COLLECTED FROM OUTER BOSTON HARBOR LOCATIONS, OCTOBER 1994.
GROUP SPECIES
jSUBAQUE-j
SPECTACLE ISLAND j OUS B j SUBAQUEOUS E
HABITAT | HABIT AT j HABITAT |
I j II | I ] I I 11 i

AHPH1PODA LYS1ANASS1DAE j 31. 3j
ORCKOHENELLA PINGUIS 6.3J
PHOT IS POLLiX
PHOXOCEPHALUS HOLBOLLl
I PHOXOCEPHALUS SP.
| UNC10LA IRRORATA
! UNCIOLA SP.
] DECAPOD A CANCER IRRORATUS
81.3J
2062.5

368.8
306.3
6.3
125.0

175.0

108.3|
33.3
16.7
2850.0
8.3
1550.0
266.7
! 33.3


212.5


r- ---j


I



37.5*
12.5
j CRANGON SEPTEMSPINOSA 6.3 | 25.0 37.5
j DECAPODA 6.3 j ( j
BRYOZOA BUGULA TURRITA j } j P
HEHBRANIPORA HEHBRAHACEA j P j
PEOICELLINA CiRNUA
SCRUPARIA ANBIGUA
X NO. OF IND1V TOTAL
X HYDROZOA TOTAL
X NEMERTINEA TOTAL
{

64870.6J102025.0

P



{
115149.6! 50987.5
P j P
62.5 166.7
X NEHATOOA TOTAL j 1325.0 325.0
X POLYCHAETA TOTAL j 20251.0
X OL1GOCHAETA TOTAL | 1475.0
X GASTROPODA TOTAL | 62.5
X B1VALVIA TOTAL
X CIRRIPEDIA TOTAL
X HYSIOACEA TOTAL
|X CUHACEA TOTAL
56.3

12.6

{X ISOPOOA TOTAL ! 50.1
|X AHPHIPOOA TOTAL j 41556.7
|X DECAPOOA TOTAL j 18.9
|X BRYOZOA TOTAL \ P
35925.0
250.0
200.0
100.0
483.3
P
25.0
25.0!





P
975.0


2012.5! 50.0
11958.3 23775.0
1033.3 287.5
50.0J 437.5
525.0
50.0
250.0
124. 9j 400.0' 75.0
8.3|
! 58.3
j 8.3
50.0! 116-7
65175.0J 101083.2


25.0




23975.0!
j 58.3| 50.0
! P i
25.0
P
|NO. OF TAXA ZTOTAL j 59. 0| 41. Oj 60. 0| 51. Oj 15.0
I
;K
-------
APPENDIX TABLE E-3. KEAH AIUN0AHCE (HO./M1) IV HABITAT OF BEMTHIC IHFAUNA RETAIHEO  ON A
                    O.Siwi-HESH SIEVE COLLECTED FROM LOCATIONS OFFSHORE FROM BOSTON HARBOR, OCTOBER 1994.
!GROUP
                SPECIES
JBOSTON LIGHTSHIP
HEISBURGER 2
KEISBURGER 7


NO. OF SAMPLES TOTAL
POR1FERA SCYPHA CILIATA
HYDROZOA CLYTIA GRACILIS
EUDENDRIUH RUGOSUH
EUDEHORIUH SP.
SERTULARIA CUPRESS1NA
AHTHOZOA ANTHOZOA
CERIAHTHEOPSIS AHERICANUS
CERIAHTHEOPSIS SP,
EDWARDS I A SP.
NEHERTINEA NEHERTINEA
NEHATODA NEHATODA
ARCHIANNELIDA ARCHIANNELIDA
POLYCHAETA AGLAOPHAHUS CIRC I NAT A
AHPHARETE ACUTIFRONS
AHPHARETE ARCTICA
AHPHARETE SP.
AHPHARETIDAE
AHPHITRITE CIRRATA
ANAI TIDES ARENAE
ANAI TIDES HACULATA
ANAITIDES HUCOSA
ANOBOTHRUS GRACILIS
APHELOCHAETA HARIOHI
APHELOCHAETA HON1LARIS
APISTOBRANCHUS TULLBERGI
ARCTEOBIA ANT1COSTIENSIS
ARICIDEA (ACHIRA)
CATHERINAE
ARICIDEA OUADRILOBATA
ASABELLIDES OCULATA
BARANTOLLA AKERICANA
CAPItELLA CAPITATA
CAULLERIELLA CF.
KILLARIENSIS
CHAETOZONE SETOSA
CHOHE DUNERI
CIRRATULIDAE
CIRRATULUS CIRRATUS
COSSURA LONGOC1RRATA
DRILONEREIS LONGA
DRILONERE1S HAGNA
ENIPO TORELLI
ETEONE LONGA
EUCHONE ELEGANS
HTM*
VII
8.0




P
25.0


9.4
62.5
71.9

3.1
53.1
75.0
9.4
25.0

3.1
28.1
6.3
140.6
171.9
3.1
3.1
12.5


28,1
331.3

6.3


21.9

3.1
3.1
3.1
6.3

9.4
43.8

»ni
VIII
3.0

P




•8.3

41.7
50.0



8.3
33.3

16.7
-



433.3
308.3


8.3



91.7




8.3

8.3


33.3

8.3



v
1.0






25.0

50.0



50,0

25.0




725.0
150.0








175.0




400.0

350.0





100.0
1050.0
unu i i n »
VII
6.0
12.5

P
P
P
20.8
12.5
16.7
66.7
137.S
91.7
45.8
12.5

112.5

29.2
4.2

37.5
29.2
29.2
858.3
29.2

4.2

50.0

337.5
4.2
50.0


25.0

16.7
4.2

,..


41.7
54.2

VIII
2.0








62.5
162.5


37.5

75.0

87.5


50.0

25.0
1950.0
75.0

12.5

37.5

400.0

175.0


62.5
12.5
100.0
12.5




12.5
2437.5

v
2.0




P

12.5

25.0
12.5




37.5

37.5


37.5
12.5
12.5
12.5




275.0

225.0






200.0
12.5


12.5


112.5
iinwi im
VI
4.0









31.3
31.3
12.5
6.3

6.3

31.3


25.0
18.8
6.3
12.5
6.3



75.0

368.8



12.5
6.3
6.3
25.0




6.3
6.3
331.3

VII
1.0





25.0
25.0

100.0



300.0

25.0

125.0



75.0

50.0




25.0

975.0

50.0


125.0

75.0





1
175.0!
-------
           APPENDIX  TABLE  E-3. MEAN ABUNDANCE  (ttO./m') BY HABITAT OF BEHTHIC  1NFAUNA RETAINED  OH A
                              O.Sim-HESH SIEVE COLLECTED FROM LOCATIONS OFFSHORE FROM BOSTON HARBOR, OCTOBER 1994.
GROUP SPECIES
POLYCHAETA EUCHONE INCOLOR
EUCHONE SP.
EUCLYHENE COLLAR1S
EULALIA BiLINEATA
EUSYLLIS SP.
EXOGONE D I SPAR
EXOGONE HEBES
EXOGONE SP.
BOSTON LIGHTSHIP j HEISBURGER 2 \ HEISBURGER 7 |
HABITAT I HABITAT j
HABITAT
	 i
VII { VIII j V ! VII | VIII V ! VI VII
12.5)

12.5





EXOGONE VERUGERA 6.3
GALATHOWEHIA OCULATA { 46.9
GATTYANA AHONDSENI j 15. 6
GATTYANA CIRROSA |
GLYCERA CAPITATA
GONIAOA HACULATA
HARHOTHOE IMBRICATA

31.3
3.1
HETEROHASTUS FILIFORHIS ! 9.4
LAGISCA EXTENUATA j
LAOHICE CIRRATA
LAONOHE KROYERI
LEITOSCOLOPLOS ACUTUS
LEVINSENIA GRACILIS
LYSILLA LOVENI
HAL DA HE SARSI

37.5
S6.3
193.8
15.6

475.0



i

j 150.0
116.7
8.3)
i
! 50.0
!
!
8.3J 25.0
8.3|
j
33.3J 150.0
16.7! 75.0
33.3'
i
i
56.3 441.7|
i i
i i
125.0
200.0 725.0 450.0
j 12.5!
I !
56.3
575.0

12.5
4.2J 37.5 18.8
! 50.0
6.3
8.3 25.0 50. 0! 18.8
29.2 187.5 287.5
12.5 12.5
12.5 12.5
16.7 !
412.5



16. 7| ! 37.5J 112-5
8.3J 12.5
16. 7J
i
i i
4.2| !
16.7! !
8.3J 37.5{
154.2 100. Oj
25.0! i 100-0

308.3J 37.5J 37.5
HALDAHIDAE ! 93.8! 50. Oj 100.0* j 25.0
HARENZELLERIA VIRIDIS ) 3.1J j | j
HEDIDHASTUS CALIFORNIENSISj 611.3 41. ?j 400. OJ 600. Oj 800. Oj 37.5
H1CROPHTHALHUS ABERRANS |
HIHUSPIO CIRRIFERA j 9.4
KONTICELLIHA BAPT1STAE j
MONTICELLINA !
DORSOBRANCHIALIS j 3.1
HYRIOCHELE HEERI j 9.4
NEPHTYIDAE j
NEPHTYS CAECA
NEPHTYS CILIATA
NEPHTYS INCISA
NEREIS GRAY I
NEREIS SP.
NEREIS ZOHATA


56.3
3.1
18.8
3.1
HI HOE NIGRIPES j 118.8
4.2 !
: : : i
i i :
• i i
, 25,0
25.0 12.5J 37.5
8.31 12.5|
! 4.2 !
12.5
i 50.0
58.3! 8.3 12.5
I 12.5J
! ! 29.2 112.5
I ! i 25-0

6.3

18.8


6.3
50.0


93.8

81.3

6.3


37.5








125.0J 25.0! 250.0 250.0J 410.0} 75.0
OPHELINA ACUHINATA j 3.1| | | | j
ORBINIIDAE 3.1| ! !
OWEH1A FUSIFORH1S
16.7! 12.5! 25.0!
PARADONEIS LYRA | | j | 37.5




- i

975.0





25.0
















25.0







25.0



25.0

25.0



25.0
(CONTINUED)
-------
                     APPEHOIX TABLE E-3.  MEAN'AEUHDAHCE  (NO./n*)  BY  HABITAT OF BEHTH1C  IHFAUNA RETAINED  ON A

                                                    SIEVE COLLECTED  FROM LOCATIONS OFFSHORE  FROM IOSTOH HARBOR, OCTOBER 1994.
o
 o
GROUP SPECIES
i
POLYCHAETA PARAPIONOSYLLIS
LONGICIRRATA
PECTIHAR1A GRANULATA
PKERUSA AFFINIS
PKOLOE HI NUT A
PHYLLODOCIDAE
POLYCIRRUS MEDUSA
POLYCIRRUS PHOSPHOREUS
POLYCIRRUS SP.
POLYDORA CAULLERY1
POLYDORA CQNCHARUH
POLYDORA CORNUTA
BOSTOH LIGHTSHIP j HEISBURGER 2 [ HEISBURGER 7 \
HABITAT HABITAT j HABITAT
VII | VIII V | VII | VIII | V VI VII




12.5


3.1
6.3



POLYDORA QUADR1LOBATA |
POLYDORA SOCIAL IS
POLYDORA SP.
POLYNOIDAE
PRAXILLELLA PRAETERHISSA
PRAXILLURA ORNATA
PRIONOSPIO STEEHSTRUPI
PROTOOORV1LLEA GASPEEHSIS
RHOOINE BITORQUATA
SABELLIOAE
103.1



90.6




8.3



16.7

16.7






75.0



50.0
50.0


1225.0
33.3! 925.0


33.3



25.0

33.3
16.7

4.2
20.8
8.3

4.2
991.7
816.7

i
45.8
i i
i i
537.5J 66.T| 1125.0} 250.0
! !
25. OJ { 25. OJ
3.1! 16.7 100.0! 8.3
SCALIBREGHA INFLATUH j 203.1} 41. 7\ 150. Oj 170.8
SCHISTOMERIN60S CAECA
SCOLETOHA ACICULARUH
SCOLETOHA FRAGILIS
SCOLETOMA HEBES
SCOLOPLOS ARHICER
SPHAEROSYLLIS SP.
SPIO F1LICORNIS
SPIO L1HICOLA
SPIO SETOSA
i i
i i

15.6
3.1
15.6


66.7

8.3





j 25.0
4268.8 991.7 50.0
j
SPIO SP. S6.3J 25.0
SPIO THULINI 3.1!
SPIONIOAE 50. 0| 25.0
SPIOPHANES BOHBYX
SP10PHANES KROYERI 15. 6j 58.3
STERNAPS1S SCUTATA 3.1J 8.3
SYLLIDAE j
100.0
25.0
25.0





111
tilt
1
12.5|
37.5 J
j 37.5
6.3J j
|
!i
!
i i i
6.3

12.5


12.5! 312.5J 6.3


4025.0 37.5
1337.5 { 787.5
i 12.5
j
i

812.5! 12.5
i
75.0}
112.5J
112.5J
i
j
29.2! 37.5J 12.5
I i
i i
8.3

20.8
541.7
4.2
20.8
50.0J
1
1
25.0J 25.0
675. Oj 150.0
i
i
j 12.5
66.7! 50. OJ 62.5
45.8J 50.0| 12.5
16.7J 37.5J
j 12.5J
i
12.5J
SYLLIS i ! ! ! !
(TYPOSYLLIS)ALTERNATA ! j 33.3J j
TEREBELLIDAE 18.8 8.3
TEREBELLIDES ATLANTIS 21.9J 16.7
TEREBELLIDES STROEHI
THARYX ACUTUS
15.6
15.6
! ! !
!
41.7 I \ \


25.0
62.5 400.0
6.3
6.3|
18.8J
!
12.5 100.0
6.3
i
287.5J W-O

6.3J
6.3!
1
i
i
! 100.0
12.5

31.3 675.0

12.5J
87.5" 75.0
6.3
12.5 1100.0








\ 100. Oj 25.0J 50. Oj 75. Oj 200.0 25.0
-------
           APPENDIX TABLE  E-3.  MEAN  ABUNDANCE  (NO./m1)  BY  HABITAT OF BENTH1C  INFAUNA RETAINED  ON A
                               O.Sim-HESH  SIEVE  COLLECTED  FROM LOCATIONS OFFSHORE  FROM BOSTON HARBOR, OCTOBER 1994.
GROUP SPECIES
I
BOSTON LIGHTSHIP | HE1SBURGER 2 HEISBURGER 7
HABITAT | HABITAT | HABITAT
VII | VIII | V | VII j VIII | V j VI
POLYCHAETA TRICH08RANCHUS ROSEUS | 3.1| 25.0
TROCHOCHAETA HUCTISETOSA
TROCHOCHAETA SP.
TYPOSYLLIS SP.
OLIGOCHAETA OLIGOCHAETA
GASTROPODA ALVANIA EXARATA
| BUCCINUH UHDATUM
! COLUS PUBESCENS
| COLUS SP.
\ CREPIDULA FORM 1C AT A
GASTROPODA
LACUNA VINCTA
LUHATIA HEROS
HARGARITES HELICINUS
NASSARIUS TRIVITTATUS
OENOPOTA DECUSSATA
RETUSA OBTUSA
TURRIDAE
POLYPLACOPHORA ISCHNOCHITON ALBUS
B1VALV1A ANOHIA SP.
ARCTICA ISLANDICA
ASTARTE BOREALIS
12.5J
i
i
3.1


9.4
12.5

3.1




3.1
3.1



3.1

ASTARTE SP. !
ASTARTE UNDATA
BIVALVIA
34.4
12.5

8.3

8.3


8.3



50.0








8.3
12.5
12.5
12.5
4.2


i
i


37.5





i
i
25.0 25.0
J
i 12.5




! 25.0 8.3
1










58.3
16.7
CERASTOOERHA PiNNULATUH | 9.4 j 108.3
CRENELLA DECUSSATA 15. 6 j 41.7
50.0
125.0





4.2


4.2

25.0 20. B
j
i

25.01 37.5
j 4.2
75.0

CRENELLA GLANDULA j
CRENELLA SP. j | 25-°
HIATELLA SP.
LYONS! A HYALINA
j j 25.0
! !
HUSCULUS NIGER j
HYA ARENARIA 6.3 j 33.3
HYSELLA PLANULATA 9.4 j
HYTILIDAE , 3.1J

25.0

50.0
NUCULA SP. | ! I 25.0
NUCULA TENUIS | 21 .9J 25. 0[
PECTINIDAE
PERIPLONA LEANUH
!
3.1] 8.3J
PERIPLOHA SP. ill
PLACOPECTEN MAGELLAN I CUS
THRAC1A HYOPSIS
THYASIRA FLEXUOSA
YOLDIA SAPOTULA
YOLD1A SP.
! !
6.3
234.4
62.5
40.6
i
350. OJ
33.3|
41.7J
162.5
250.0
25.0
37.5
25.0


12.5

25.0


I
1

! 12.5
i




i
i

6.3


i i
i i
j 6.3
1
1
1


62.5
37.5
62.5
175.0



25.0
37.5
12.5
12.5


4.2}
8.3
16.7
4.2
12.5


20.8! 12.5

166.7




4.2
208.3

387.5





87.5
16.7
8.3 25.0








50.0
12.5







12.5

18.8

18.8
6.3
143.8
100.0
93.8
Vll














50.0







25.0

125.0
75.0

25.0
25.0S
12.5

6.3


31.3






i
i
j
i
i
i
6.3! !
i i
)
1
i i
1
i
i
(CONTINUED)
-------
APPEHOIX TABLE E-3. MEAH ABUNDANCE (HO./d1) IV HABITAT OF BEHTH1C IHFAWJA RETAINED  OH A
                    O.Swn-KESH SIEVE COLLECTED FROH LOCATIONS OFFSHORE FROH BOSTON HARBOR,  OCTOBER  1994,
GROUP SPECIES
CIRRIPEOIA CIRR1PEDIA
HYSIDACEA HYSIDACEA
CUHACEA CAMP YL ASP IS RUBICUNDA
DIASTYLIS ABBREVIATA
DIASTYLIS BISP1NOSA
[ DIASTYLIS SCULPTA
; EUDORELLA PUSILLA
PETALOSARSIA DECLIVIS
1SOPOOA EDOTEA TRILOBA
JAERA MARINA
PLEUROGOHIUH SPINOSISSIHUH
POLITOLAHA CONCHARUH
PTILANTHURA SP.
AHPHIPOOA AEG1N1NA LONfilCORNIS
AHPELISCA HACROCEPHALA
AHPELISCA SP.
AHPHIPOOA
ANONYX LILJEBORGI
ANONYX SARSI
ARGISSA HAHAT1PES
BYBLIS SERRATA
BOSTON LIGHTSHIP HEISBURGER 2 | KEISBURGER 7 |
	 * 	 	 + 	 i
HABITAT HABITAT j HABITAT |
vii ! viii v ! vii ! viu i v \ vi ! vn |

9.4
15.6
6.3
31.3

3.1

40.6
3.1




43.8
6.3
3.1
18.8


3.1
CASCO BIGELOyi |
COROPHIIOAE
COROPHIUH CRASSICORNE
ERICHTHON1US FASCIATUS
ERICHTHONIUS SP.
GAHHARUS LAURENCIANUS
GAHHARUS SP.
HAPLOOPS SP.


6.3









33.3

8.3









8.3

8.3

75.0






50.0










4.2
16.7
4.2


8.3

4.2
50.0

8.3

58.3
16.7
8,3


16.7

! 1
12.5J
!
25.0




75.0


6.3!
J 25.0




I !
100.0!
6.3J

! 25.0
112.5 j
i
i i
25.0J !
! 12.5

ia.s|
12.5
4.2!
! 1
! 4.2!
!
100.0


18.8!
j
i
6.3!
! 125.0
i
i
i
i
8.3! 162.5 37.5} 12.5! 25.0
62. 5j 150.0 J j
12.5J 12.5J
i ! «-2i ! I
6.3J !
! 16.7 ! 4.2
HAPLOQPS TUBICOLA 81.3 175.0
HARPINIA PROPINQUA 18.8J 25.0
HIPPOHEDON SERRATUS 6.3 ! 8.3
JASSA MARHORATA
LEHBOS WEBSTER I
LEPTOCHEIRUS PINGUIS 15.6
LYSIANASSIDAE
HONOCULOOES SP. 3.1
MONOCULOOES TUBERCULATUS


108.3


! 212.5
! 8.3


400.0
25.0
i
i
1
162.5
25.0
12.5!
i
!
1
f
! 25.0
6.3!
75.0! 50.0! 56-3! 25-0
62.5 125.0 25.0! 6.3!
4.2} 25.0 j
At
i i o.j
! ! 4.2,' 25. Oj 12.5!
OEDICEROTIDAE it! ! 25.0!
PHOT IS POLLEX
STENOPLEUSTES SP.
{ 4.2| 12.5 !
i 4.2! !
SYRRHOE CRENULATA j | 25. Oj 6.3J 25.0
UNCIOLA 1NERHIS
UNCIOLA IRRORATA
UNCIOLA SP.
! 1250.0J 129,2! 50.0! 1618.8!
6.3

! 37.5] 312.5J 550.0! 25.0
! so.o! 100.0; i 43.8;
-------
                       APPENDIX TABLE E-3. MEAN ABUNDANCE (NO.An') BY HABITAT OF BENTHIC INFAUNA RETAINED  ON A
                                          O.Smm-HESH SIEVE COLLECTED FROM LOCATIONS OFFSHORE FROM BOSTON HARBOR, OCTOBER 1994.
o
GROUP SPECIES
I J.
BOSTON LIGHTSHIP j HEISBURGER 2
HABITAT j HABITAT
VII VIII j V VII | VIII
DECAPODA CANCER IRRORATUS
PA6URUS LONG I CARPUS
S1PUNCULA GOLFING1A SP.
SIPUNCULA
PHORONIDA PHORONIS ARCHITECTA
[BRYOZOA ANGUINELLA PALHATA
| BUGULA TURRITA


15.6
34.4


i !

8.3

16.7

P
CRISIA EBURNEA
ELECTRA PILOSA j |
| EUCRATEA LORICATA
j HiPPOTNOA HYAL1NA
P
P


OPHIUROIOEA OPHIOPHOLIS ACULEATA j |
OPHIURA ROBUSTA
OPH1URA SARSI
OPHIUROIOEA
62.5
6.3
ECHIHOIOEA STRONGYLOCENTROTUS
DROEBACHIENSIS |
ICHORDATA CHORD ATA
IASCIDIACEA APLIDIUH SP.
i ASCIDIA SP.
| CORELLA BOREAL IS
X NO. Of INDIV TOTAL



33.3




P
4.2

8.3
25.0 258.3
P




87.5


! P !
! P i
p
P
4.2
" 4.2

8.3
i
i 4.2
4.2
i
! 8.3| !
6.3! ! ! *-2
9066.5
[X PORIFERA TOTAL |
|X HYDROZOA TOTAL
|X ANTHOZOA TOTAL
X NEMERTINEA TOTAL
X NEHATOOA TOTAL
,X ARCHIANNELIDA TOTAL
|X POLYCHAETA TOTAL
P
4732.7! 11075.01 9534.4
i j 12.5
P ! P
34.4 50.0| 75.0 116.7
62.5J 50.0! 137.5
71 .9| j i 91.7
i 45.8
7947.2! 3433.1! 8600.0 j 6863.0
;X QLIGOCHAETA TOTAL 3.1
X GASTROPODA TOTAL 31.2
X POLYPLACOPHORA TOTAL
X BIVALVIA TOTAL 462.6
;X CIRRIPEDIA TOTAL
X HYSIDACEA TOTAL
X CUMACEA TOTAL
X 1SOPODA TOTAL

9.4
56.3
43.7
|X AHPHIPODA TOTAL 219.1
|X DECAPOOA TOTAL
X SIPUNCULA TOTAL 15. 6
X PHORONIDA TOTAL 34,4
X BRYOZOA TOTAL P
X OPHIUROIOEA TOTAL 68.8

24.9

716.6



41.6
! 12.1
200.QJ 33.4
i
275. OJ 1020.9
j 4.2

P


12.5







17925.0


62.5
162.5


15675.0

37.5

862.5

75. OJ 16.7J 12.5
16.7 25.0
50.0 116.6 187.5
349.9! 1775.0! 746. 1| 800.0
i ! *.2|
8.3 8.3!
16.7| 25.0! 258.3! 87.5
P I ! P ! P
33.3J ! 16.7
JX ECHINOIDEA TOTAL j j 4.2
X CHORDATA TOTAL j j \ 4,2
12.5


HEISBURGER 7 j
K 	
HABITAT
V VI VI 1
6.3







37.5 12.5J 75.0

j














4962.5

P
37.5
12.5


4137.5
25.0
12.5

150.0




550.0


37.5



i
i
!
i
i





18.8




6396.7













7150.0


150.0
31.3J
31.3J
12.5
3364.2
25.0
18.8
6.3

6225.0

50.0

475. 4j 250.0

6.3
j 25.0
6.3J 125.0
2381.7 250.0
6.3
i
12.5 75.0
i
i
18.8!
i
            (CONTINUED)
-------
o
                          APPENDIX TABLE i-3. HEAH ABUNDANCE (HO./m1) BY HABITAT OF BENTB1C INFAUNA RETAINED  OH A
                                              0.5f!tn-H6SH SIEVE COLLECTED FROH LOCATIONS OFFSHORE FROM BOSTON HARBOR, OCTOBER 1994.
               1GROUP
SPECIES
[BOSTON LIGHTSHIP j
HEISBURGER 2
ME1SSURCER 7
I
j
1
IJ
HABITAT
•VII
	 + 	
IX ASC10IACEA TOTAL I 6.:
JMO. OF TAXA ZTOTAL j 125.1
i
I
S!
)|
VIII
8
76
I
1
31

v f
55.0}
HABITAT
VII
15o!

I
!|
I
VIII j
!
88. OJ
HABITAT
V i VI |
61. OJ 92.0 |

VII
45


,0
               (CONTINUED)
-------
APPENDIX TABLE E-3. MEAN ABUNDANCE (N0./m») BY HABITAT OF 6ENTHIC INFAUNA RETAINED  ON A
                    O.Smm-HESH SIEVE COLLECTED FROM LOCATIONS OFFSHORE FROM BOSTON HARBOR, OCTOBER 1994.
                    {GROUP
                     NO. OF SAMPLES
                     PORIFERA
                     HYDROZOA
                    i
                     ANTHOZOA
                     NENERT1NEA
                     NENATODA
                     ARCHIANNELIDA
                     POLYCHAETA
SPECIES
JMEISBUR-I
  GER 7  !
                                                                          HABITAT
                                                                            VIII
TOTAL
SCYPHA CILIATA
CLYTIA GRACILIS
EUDENDRIUK RUGOSUM
EUDENDRIUN SP.
SERTULARIA CUPRESSINA
ANTHOZOA
CERIANTHEOPSIS AHERICANUS
CERIANTHEOPSIS SP.
EDUARDSIA SP.
NEMERTINEA
HEHATOOA
ARCHIANNELIDA
AGLAOPHAHUS CIRC I NATA
AHPHARETE ACUTIFRONS
AHPHARETE ARCTICA
ANPHARETE SP.
AHPHARETIDAE
AHPHITRITE CIRRATA
ANAITIDES ARENAE
ANAITIDES HACULATA
ANAITIDES HUCOSA
ANOBOTHRUS GRACILIS
APHELOCHAETA MARIOHI
APHELOCHAETA HONILAR1S
APISTOBRANCHUS TULLBERGI
ARCTEQBIA ANTICOSTIENSIS
ARICIDEA (ACHIRA)
CATHERINAE
ARICIDEA QUADRILOBATA
ASABELLIDES OCULATA
BARANTOLLA AMERICANA
CAPITELLA CAPITATA
CAULLERIELLA CF.
KILLARIEHSIS
CHAETOZONE SETOSA
CHONE DUNER1
ORKATULIDAE
CIRRATULUS CIRRATUS
COSSURA LONGOCIRRATA
ORILONEREIS LONGA
ORILONEREIS MAGNA
ENIPO TORELLI
ETEONE LONGA
      2.0
                                                                              62.5
     SO.Oj
                                                                              25.0
                                                                              75.0
                                                                              37
                                                                              12.
                                                                              12
                                                                             112.5
                                                                              12
                                                                              12
                    (CONTINUED)
-------
                      APPENDIX TABLE  E-3. MEAN ABUNDANCE  (HO./m1)  BY  HABITAT OF  BEHTHIC  IMFAUNA RETAINED   OH A
                                          0.5KTO-KESH  SIEVE  COLLECTED  FROM LOCATIONS OFFSHORE  FROM BOSTON  HARBOR,  OCTOBER 1994.
                                           GROUP
                                           PQLYCHAETA
o
SPECIES
IHEISBUR-!
!  GER 7  !
                                                                                                (HABITAT
                                                                                                   VIII
EUCHONE ELEGANS
EUCHONE IHCOLQR
lUCHOdi SP.
EUCLYHENE COLLARIS
EULALIA BILINEATA
EUSYLLIS SP.
EXOGONE DISPAR
EXOGONE HEBES
EXOGOHE SP.
EXQGONE VERUGERA
GALATHOUENIA OCULATA
GATTYANA AMONDSEN1
GATTYANA CIRROSA
GLYCERA CAPITATA
GOH1ADA MACULATA
HARHOTHOE IHBRICATA
HETEROHASTUS F1L1FORHIS
LAGISCA IXTENUATA
LAONICE CIRRATA
LAONOME KROYERI
LE1TOSCOLOPLOS ACUTUS
LEVIHSEHIA GRACILIS
LYS1LLA LOVENI
MALOANE SARSI
HALDANIDAE                |
HAREN2ELLERIA V1RIDIS     |
HED1OHASTUS CALIFORHIEHS1SJ
HICROPHTHALMUS ABERKAMS   |
H1HUSPIO CIRRIFERA
HONTICELLINA BAPTISTAE    {
HONTICELLINA
OORSOBRAHCHIAL1S
HYRIOCHELE HEERI
NEPHTYIDAE
NEPHTYS CAECA
NEPHTYS CILIATA
NEPHTYS INCISA
HEREIS GRAYI
NEREIS SP.
MEREIS ZONATA
NINOE NIGRIPES
OPHELINA ACUMINATA
ORBIN1IDAE
OWEN!A FUSIFORHIS
                                                                                                     62,
                                                                                                    125.

                                                                                                     37,
                                                                                                     12,
                                                                                                    237.5
                                                                                                     25

                                                                                                     75,
                                                                                                     62.5
                                                                                                    700.0
-------
                       APPENDIX TABLE E-3. MEAN ABUNDANCE (NO./m1) BY HABITAT OF BENTHIC 1NFMJNA RETAINED  ON A
                                           0.5rm-HESH SIEVE COLLECTED FROM LOCATIONS OFFSHORE FROM BOSTON HARBOR, OCTOBER 1994.
                                                                    10
GROUP SPECIES

•
HE1SBUR-
CER 7
HABITAT
VIII
L. .......
                                           IPOLTCHAETA
o
PARAOONEIS LYRA
PARAPlONOSYLLiS
LONGICIRRATA
PECTINAR1A GRANULATA
PHERUSA AFFINIS
PNOLOE HINUTA
PHYLLOOOC1DAE
POLYCIRRUS MEDUSA
POLYCIRRUS PHOSPHOREUS
POLYCIRRUS SP.
POLYDORA CAULLERYI
POLYDORA CONCHARUM
POLYDORA CORNUTA
POLYOORA QUADRILOBATA
POLYDORA SOCIAL IS
POLYDORA SP.
POLYNOIDAE
PRAXILLEUA PRAETERHISSA
PRAXILLURA ORNAIA
PRIONOSPIO STEENSTRUPI
PROTODORVILLEA GASPEENS1S
RHOOINE BITORQUATA
SABELLIDAE
SCALIBREGMA INFLATUM
SCH1STOMERINGOS CAECA
SCOLETOMA ACICULARUH
SCOLETOMA FRAGILIS
SCOLETOMA HEBES
SCOLOPIOS ARMIGER
SPHAEROSYLLIS SP.
SPIO FILICORNIS
SPIO LIMICOLA
SPIO SETOSA
SPIO SP.
SPIO THULINI
SPIONIDAE
SP10PHANES BOMBYX
SPIOPHANES KROYERI
STERNAPSIS SCUTATA
SYLLIDAE
SYLLIS
(TYPOSYLLIS)ALTERNATA
TEREBELLIDAE
TEREBELLIOES ATLANTIS
                                                                                                     25.Oj
                                                                                                     12.5
                                                                                                     12.5
                                                                                                    237.5

                                                                                                     12.5

                                                                                                     12.5
                                           (CONTINUED)
-------
                 APPENDIX TABLE E-3. MEAN ABUHOANCE (HO./*») BY HABITAT Of BEHTNIC IMFAUHA RETAINED  ON A
                                     O.Saw-HESH SIEVE COLLECTED FROM LOCATIONS OFFSHORE  FROM BOSTON  HARBOR, OCTOBER  1994.
                                                                    11
o
                                     {GROUP
                                      POLYCHAETA
                                     IOLIGOCHAETA
                                     |GASTROPODA
                                     IPOLYPLACOPHORA
                                     JBIVALV1A
SPECIES
IKEISBUR-
  CER 7
                                                                                           HABITAT
                                                                                          !   viii
TEREBELLIDES STROEHI      I
THARYX ACUTUS             j     87.5
TR1CH08RAMCHUS ROSEUS     !
TROCHOCHAETA HULT1SETOSA  j
TROCHOCHAETA SP.
TYPOSYLLIS SP.            |
OLIGOCHAETA
ALVANIA IXARATA
BUCCINUH UNDATUH
COLUS PUBESCENS
COLUS SP.
CREPIOULA FORN1CATA
GASTROPODA
LACUNA V1NCTA
LUNATIA HERDS
HARGARITES HELICINUS
NASSARIUS TRIVITTATUS
OEHOPOTA DECUSSATA
RETUSA OBTUSA
TURR1DAE
ISCHNOCH1TON AL8US
AHOMIA SP.
ARCTICA ISLANDICA
ASTARTE BOREAL IS
ASTARTE SP.
ASTARTE UNDATA
B1VALVIA                  i     87.5
CERASTOOERHA PINNULATUH   j
CRENELLA DECUSSATA        |
CRENELLA GLANDULA         |
CRENELLA SP.
H1ATELLA SP.
LYONSIA KYALIHA
HUSCULUS NIGER
HYA ARENARIA
HYSELLA PLANULATA         j
HYTILIDAE                 j
NUCULA SP.                I
NUCULA TENUIS             j     50,
PECTIN1DAE                !
PERIPLOHA LEANUK          j
PERIPLOHA SP.             |     12,
PLACOPECTEH MAGE
THRAC1A HYOPSIS
                                     (CONTINUED)
-------
                     APPENDIX  TABLE  E-3.  MEAN ABUNDANCE (NO./m1)  BY HABITAT  OF  BENTHIC  INFAUNA RETAINED  ON A
                                         O.Slim-MESH SIEVE COLLECTED FROM LOCATIONS  OFFSHORE  FROM BOSTON HARBOR,  OCTOBER 1994.
                                                                    12
GROUP


BIVALVIA
SPECIES


THYASIRA FLEXUOSA
YOLDIA SAPOTILLA
HEISBUR-j
GER 7 |
HABITAT
VIII
h 	
i
i
i
i
                                          CIRRIPEOIA
                                         IHYSIDACEA
                                          CUHACEA
                                          ISOPODA
o
                                          AHPH1PODA
YOLDIA SP.
CIRRIPEDIA
HYSIDACEA
CAHPYLASPIS RUBICUNDA
DIASTYLIS ABBREVIATA
DIASTYLIS BISPINOSA
DIASTYLIS SCULPTA
EUDORELLA PUSILLA
PETALOSARSIA DECLIVIS
EDOTEA TRILOBA
JAERA MARINA
PLEUROGONIUN SPINOSISSIHUH
POLITOLANA CONCHARUH
PTILANTHURA SP.
AEGININA LONGICORNIS
AHPELISCA HACROCEPHALA
AHPELISCA SP.
AHPHIPODA
ANONYX LILJEBORGI
ANONYX SARSI
ARGISSA HAHATIPES
BYBLIS SERRATA
CASCO BIGELOUI
COROPHIIDAE
COROPHIUH CRASSICORNE
ERICHTHONIUS FASCIATUS
ERICHTHONIUS SP.
GAHHARUS LAURENCIANUS
GAHHARUS SP.
HAPLOOPS SP.
HAPLOOPS TUBICOLA
HARPINIA PROPINQUA
HIPPOHEDON SERRATUS
JASSA HARHORATA
LEHBOS WEBSTERI
LEPTOCHEIRUS PINGUIS
LYSIANASSIDAE
HONOCULODES SP.
HONOCULODES TUBERCULATUS
OEDICEROTIDAE
PHOT IS POLLEX
STENOPLEUSTES SP.
                                                                                                   12.5
12.5
                                                                                                  137.5
                                         (CONTINUED)
-------
APPENDIX TABLE E-3. HEAN ABUNDANCE (MO./*1) BY HABITAT OF BEHTHIC  IHFAUHA RETAINED  ON A
                    O.Siw-KiSH SIEVE COLLECTED FROM LOCATION OFFSHORE FIOH BOSTON HARBOR, OCTOBER 1994.
13
AHPHIPQOA



DECAPODA
!
SIPUHCULA

PHORONIDA
BRY020A





OPHIOROIDEA



ECHIN01DEA

CHORDATA
ASC1D1ACEA
i
i
,X NO. OF INDIV
X PQRIFERA
[X HYDROZOA
|X ANTHOZOA
;X NEHERT1HEA
X NEHATOOA
X ARCH 1 ANNELIDA
|X POLVCHAETA
[X OLIGOCHAETA
X GASTROPODA
X POLYPLACOPHORA
;X BIVALVIA
[X CIRSIPEDIA
;X HYSIDACEA
[X CUHACEA
|X 1SOPOOA
{X AHPHIPOOA
|X DECAPODA
X SIPUNCULA
SYRRHOE CfiEHULATA
UHCIOLA IKERH1S
UHCIOLA 1RRORATA
UHCIOLA SP.
CANCER IRRORATUS
PAGURUS LONG 1 CARPUS
GOLFINQ1A SP.
SIPUHCULA
PHOROH1S ARCHITECTA
ANGUINELLA PALNATA
BUQULA TURRITA
CR1S1A ESURNEA
ELECTRA PILOSA
EUCRATEA LORI CAT A
HIPPOTHOA NYALINA
OPH10PHOL1S ACULEATA
OPHIURA ROBU5TA
OPH1URA SARSI
OPHIUROIDEA
STRONGYLOCENTROTUS
DROEBACH1ENS1S
CHORDATA
APLI01UM SP.
ASCID1A SP.
CORELLA BOREAL IS
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL



12.5




37.5

i
I
i
i












2512.5

P !
62.5
50.0


2037.5

i
i
!
162.5


i
i
12.5
150.0


                    (CONTINUED)
-------
APPENDIX TABLE E-3. MEAN ABUNDANCE (HO./m1) BY HABITAT OF BENTHiC IHFAUNA RETAINED  ON A
                    0.5mm-MESH SIEVE COLLECTED FROM LOCATIONS OFFSHORE FROM BOSTON HARBOR, OCTOBER 1994.
                                                                    14
                    ! GROUP

SPECIES
ME1SBUR-
 GER 7
                                                                          HABITAT
                                                                         j   VIII
                    JX PHORONIDA
                    JX BRYOZOA
                    JX OPHIUROIOEA
                    JX ICHINOIDEA
                    JX CHORDATA
                    |X ASCIDIACEA
                    JNO. OF TAXA
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
ZTOTAL
    37.5
    35.0!
-------
      ENVIRONMENT STUDIES FOR THE
BOSTON HARBOR NAVIGATION/IMPROVEMENT
           AND BERTH DREDGING
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/STATEMENT

         TASK 2 LOBSTER SAMPLING

          Contract DACW33-92-D-0004
           Delivery Order #32, Task 3
                 Prepared for

       U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
               Planning Division
               424 Trapelo Road
          Waltham, Massachusetts 02154
                 Prepared by

         NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES
               25 Nashua Road
       Bedford, New Hampshire 03110-5500
                 R-13116.032
                February 1995
-------
                         TABLE OF CONTENTS


                                                                 PAGE

1.0   INTRODUCTION	   1


2.0   METHODOLOGY	   2


3.0   RESULTS	   3

     3.1  CPUE DATA	   4

         3.1.1  Sublegal Sized Lobsters	   4
         3.1.2  Legal Sized Lobsters	   6

     3.2  BIOMASS DATA 	   7

         3.2.1  Sublegal Sized Lobsters	   1
         3.2.2  Legal Sized Lobsters	   7
         3.2.3  Total Biomass Catch per Unit Effort	   7

     3.3  MEAN BIOMASS RESULTS	   7

     3.4  SUBSTRATE CONDITIONS	   8


4.0   DISCUSSION	   9


5.0   LITERATURE CITED 	  14


TABLES/MAPS

FIGURES

APPENDIX A
                                   "  .  -3  If
-------
1.0        INTRODUCTION

           In response to the Scope of Work (SOW) presented to Normandeau Associates
(NAI) by the Corps of Engineers - New England Division (COENED),  dated August 30,
1994, NAI conducted the following evaluation of lobster resources at several of the proposed
dredged material disposal sites.

           As stated in the SOW, much of Boston Harbor and Massachusetts Bay contain
significant lobster habitat which is important to understand as it relates to the disposal of
dredged material. The purpose of this lobster sampling effort is to generate information to
describe the relative importance of various disposal sites as lobster resource.  For the purpose
of this evaluation, an understanding of general lobster habits, movements and growth is
important.

           Lobsters are invertebrates that inhabit both inshore and offshore marine habitats of
unconsolidated sands and gravels to hard bottom  substrates. Coastal lobsters are typically
concentrated in rocky areas where shelter is available, although local concentrations occur in
mud substrates suitable for burrowing (NMFS 1993). Tagging experiments on coastal lobsters
suggest that small lobsters undertake a limited offshore migration in the winter and move back
inshore in the summer.  Larger individuals may travel more extensively (NMFS 1993).
Lobsters, especially males, can exist in the salinity ranges typically associated with the lower
portions of the estuarine environment (pers. conv. B. Estrella and M. Armstrong MADMF on
November 23,  1994).

           An understanding of the life stages of the lobster is important to evaluate potential
impacts.  Lobster spawn approximately once every two years and eggs generally hatch during
late spring and early summer. The pelagic larvae, which are associated with the surface layer
of the water, undergo four molts before  attaining adult characteristics and settling on the
bottom (NMFS 1993).

           The following narrative on  "early benthic phase" (EBP) lobsters is based on the
work of Wahle and Steneck (1991). The newly hatched larvae are planktonic for three  to five
'
                                                   5)5
-------
weeks or until they are 5 to 40 mm (0.2-1.4 inches) in carapace length (CL), when they sink
to the bottom as the EBP form.  The early benthic phase of a lobster represents the most
vulnerable period  in the lobster life cycle.  EBP lobsters require shelter for early growth and
survival.  Larger individuals can survive in less protective habitats. EBP lobsters prefer cobble
substratum and are conspicuously absent from featureless substrates. The presence of
vegetation or mussels does not enhance the attractiveness of a soft bottom for EBP recruit-
ment. However, the  presence of mussels over a cobble substratum is attractive habitat to EBP
lobsters. EBP lobsters live under the cover of rocks and stones in shallow waters and small
inlets where they are out of reach of predators.

           The adult lobster is a benthic resident and feeder and can move rapidly from place
to place.  Individual migrations typically are local and limited to random movements along
shore. Lobsters generally migrate seasonally from cool deeper waters in  winter to warmer
inshore  waters during the summer.  Localized migration may also occur in response to
available feeding resources.  In late autumn they  typically move offshore to avoid the severe
cold inshore temperatures of winter (Burrill and Burrill 1981).

           Lobsters are opportunistic feeders  and may be considered cannibalistic.  Their diets
are based  on fish (dead or alive) and fixed or slow moving benthic organisms. Seaweed has
been found in lobster guts.  Adult lobsters avoid  light and reside in holes and crevices, or
among rocks or in shady spots.  Scientists believe that lobsters have limited neurological
sensitivities. Aside from differentiation between  light and dark, they appear to have limited
sight. Lobsters appear sensitive to vibrations and pressure changes which trigger sensory hairs
and appendages to respond.
2.0        METHODOLOGY

           The trapping methodology employed by NA1 included the placement of three
baited lobster pots at nine inner harbor locations (Reserved Channel, Logan 02, Little Mystic
Channel, Inner Confluence, Chelsea 01, Chelsea River, Mystic River, Revere Sugar (Figure 1)
and Outer Harbor (Figure 2)).  The Outer Harbor location is located at the Subaqueous E site.
-------
Five baited lobster pots were placed at each of three offshore locations (Meisburger 2
Meisburger 7, and Boston Lightship, Figure 3) and one inshore location (Spectacle Island
CAD).  Pots were modified (escape vent closed) to collect sublegal as well as legal sized
lobsters and remained in place for seventy-two hours.  The traps were harvested every 24-
hours and the weight, carapace length, sex, and reproductive state were recorded for each
lobster. Ail lobsters were returned to the water after the data were recorded.  Any other
organisms collected in the traps were recorded and described (Appendix A).  The lobster
sampling effort occurred between October 13 and 15, 1994 and only represents inshore and
offshore distribution for that period because lobsters are migratory and will move in response
to thermal conditions and available feeding resources.
3.0        RESULTS

           Catch data are presented in Tables 1 - 4. A summary description of each table
includes the following:
                  Table 1: Length frequencies presented by sex and size classification
                  (sublegal and legal) for each location.
                  Table 2: Catch per Unit Effort (CPUE) presented as number per trap-day
                  for legal and sublegal catches by sex and location.
                  Table 3: CPUE weight comparison (kg per trap-day) for legal and sub-
                  legal catches, at each location.
                  Table 4: Mean weight, number of lobsters and number of trap days for
                  both legal and sublegal catches at each location.
           In analyzing the BHNIP lobster resource data, the study sites were grouped as
follows:
                  River Stations - Located in the upper portion of the Project Area and
                  include the following six (6) sites:
                                                  3/7
-------
                  - Little Mystic Channel,     - Chelsea River,
                  - Inner Confluence,         - Mystic River, and
                  - Chelsea Ol,               - Revere Sugar.
                  Harbor Stations extend from the Inner Harbor out to President Roads and
                  include the Reserved Channel, Logan 02, Outer Harbor and Spectacle
                  CAD.
                  Offshore Stations include Meisburger 2, Meisburger 7, and Boston Light-
                  ship (BLS).
3.1        CPUE DATA

           The CPUE data presented only provide an indication of abundance trends for the
sampling period.  The catch data were standardized to a consistent effort unit of "trap-day"
because five traps were set each day at the Offshore stations and Spectacle Island CAD, and
three traps were set each day at the rest of the Harbor stations and the River stations. A trap-
day is the catch from one trap set for approximately 24-hours.
3.1.1       Snblegal Sized Lobsters

           The majority of the lobsters captured at each station were sublegal, with the
exception of the Little Mystic Channel (Table 1).  Count data indicated that for sublegal
lobsters (<83 mm or 3,25 in. CL), CPUE (noVtrap-day) was highest at the Offshore stations
for males, females and total counts (Table 2).
           River Stations

           Trap data for sublegal males in the River Stations ranged from 0.0 - 0.8
males/trap-day. Catches of males at upstream locations (Chelsea 01, Chelsea River, Mystic
River and Revere Sugar) were less (0.0 - 0.2 males/trap-day) than the downstream river
                                                  sit
-------
locations (Little Mystic Channel and the Inner Confluence) where catches ranged from 0.4 -
0.8 males/trap-day.

           CPUE for females was less than males at the River Stations.  CPUE ranged from
0.0 - 0.1  females/trap-day with no apparent trend toward upstream or downstream locations.
Given the variability in male CPUE versus the consistent female CPUE, total sublegal trap
data closely mimicked the upstream and downstream pattern depicted by the male trap data
and ranged  from 0.1  - 0.2 sublegal lobsters/trap-day (upstream) to 0.6 - 0.9 sublegal lob-
sters/trap-day (downstream).  The total range of sublegal lobsters/trap-day at the River Stations
was 0.1 - 0.9.
           Harbor Stations

           Catches of males were higher within the inner harbor sites (Reserved Channel and
Logan 02) where CPUE was 0.7 males/trap-day, than in the outer harbor (Outer Harbor and
Spectacle Island) where CPUE was 0.0 - 0.2 males/trap-day.  Females were also more
abundant in the inner harbor stations, where CPUE ranged from  0.1 - 0.6 females/trap-day.
No females were captured in the outer harbor stations.

           Total CPUE of sublegals at the Harbor Stations was  0.0 - 1.2 lobsters/trap-day.
The Reserved Channel had the highest CPUE of sublegal lobsters at 1.2 lobsters/trap-day, and
no sublegal lobsters were captured at the Outer Harbor station.
           Offshore Stations

           CPUE of both male and female sublegal lobsters was higher at the Offshore
stations compared to the River or Harbor Stations (Table 2).   Within the Offshore stations,
CPUE of males, females and total CPUE was highest at Meisburger 2 followed by Meisburger
7 and BLS.  Male CPUE ranged from 1.3 to 2.8 lobsters/trap-day and female CPUE ranged
-------
from 1.5 to 3.5 lobsters/trap-day. Total CPUE ranged from 2.8 to 6.3 lobsters per trap-day
with the highest CPUE at Meisburger 2.
3-1-2      Legal Sized Lobsters

           Only 5% (14/267) of the total catch was legal sized (Table I).  CPUE of legal
sized lobsters was lower than sublegal lobsters at each station with the exception of the Little
Mystic Channel where five sublegal and five legal lobsters were captured, and the Chelsea
River where one sublegal and one legal lobster were captured.
           River Stations

           CPUE of legal sized lobsters ranged from 0.0 to 0.6 lobsters/trap-day with males
more abundant (Table 2). CPUE was greatest at Little Mystic Channel and no legal sized
lobsters were captured at the Inner Confluence, Chelsea 01  and the Mystic River stations
(Table 2).
           Harbor Stations

           At the Harbor Stations, CPUE of legal sized lobsters ranged from 0.0 at Spectacle
Island CAD and Outer Harbor to 0.2 at the Reserved Channel (Table 2).  Males were more
abundant than females.
           Offshore Stations

           CPUE of legal sized lobsters was uniformly low (0.1 lobsters/trap-day) at
Meisburger 2, Meisburger 7 and the Boston Lightship. Male legal sized lobsters were more
abundant than female legal lobsters.
-------
3.2        BIOMASS DATA

3.2.1       Sublegal Sized Lobsters

           CPUE of biomass (kg/trap-day) was similar to count CPUE (lobsters/trap-day).
Biomass CPUE was highest at the Offshore stations (0.90 -2.15 kg/trap-day) followed by the
River stations (0.04 - 0.74 kg/trap-day) and the Harbor stations (0.00 - 0.46 kg/trap-day).
Biomass CPUE was highest at Meisburger 2 than all other sites sampled. These results were
consistent with count data.
3.2.2       Legal Sized Lobsters

           CPUE of biomass for legal sized lobsters ranged from  0.0 - 0.21 kg/trap-day at all
sites except for Little Mystic Channel, where biomass CPUE was  0.54 kg/trap-day (Table 3).
The latter was a result of the capture of two legal sized males (0.7 and 1.0 Kg).
3.2.3       Total Biomass Catch per Unit Effort

           Total biomass CPUE followed a pattern similar to the sublegal biomass CPUE.
Total biomass CPUE was highest at the Offshore stations (0.97 - 2.19 kg/trap-day) followed
by the River stations (0.04 - 0.74 kg/trap-day), and the Harbor stations (0.00 - 0.46 kg/trap-
day).  The results from the Harbor stations are heavily influenced by the capture of two large
lobsters at the Little Mystic Channel.
3.3        MEAN BIOMASS RESULTS

           The mean biomass (kg/lobster) are presented in Table 4. In contrast to total
biomass CPUE, mean biomass was lower at the Offshore stations (0.28 -0.34 kg/lobster)
-------
compared to the Harbor stations (0.28 - 0,66 kg/lobster) due to the large number of small
lobsters captured offshore.  Mean bioniass was intermediate at the Harbor stations (0.0 -0.32
kg/lobster).
3.4        SUBSTRATE CONDITIONS

           Under a separate task required by the SOW, NAI evaluated substrate conditions
using REMOTS technology at several of the proposed materials disposal sites. The general
results include the following conditions:
           RiverStations

           AH River stations sampled for lobsters were also evaluated for substrate conditions.
Sediments at the River stations were characterized as fine grained (mud and silts) substrate
with limited cover, and limited evidence of tube or burrow development. REMOTS indicated
that benthic communities were at a pioneer successional stage. These conditions appear to
provide limited suitable lobster habitat The presence of abandoned piers, especially at the
Little Mystic Channel and Revere Sugar stations may have provided shelter for lobsters.
           Harbor Stations

           Three of the four lobster sampling locations were also evaluated for substrate
conditions. These included Spectacle Island CAD, Outer Harbor (Subaqueous E) and Logan
02. The Reserved Channel was not evaluated.  Logan 02 sediment conditions appeared to be
similar to the River station substrates: muds, with few tubes and no burrows and the benthic
community is at a pioneer stage. Both the Spectacle Island CAD and Outer Harbor were
characterized by fine grained sediments (silts and fine sands), with limited sands, gravels and
shell hash.  These stations supported several tubes and burrows and  exhibit an enhanced
intermediate successional community.
                                           s
-------
           Offshore Stations

           Each of the Offshore stations sampled for lobsters were also evaluated for
substrate condition.  Each site appeared to have varying substrates and were characterized as
follows:
           Meisburger 2:  Fine sands to sand with silt, gravel and rock; several tubes and
           few burrows were evident.  Over much of the site, community stage was indeter-
           minant.  Where the community stage was evident, an intermediate successional
           community was present.
           Meisburger 7:  Rock with fine sands, silts and gravel, several tubes and some
           burrows were evident; and as with Meisburger 2, where evident, an intermediate
           successional community existed.
           BLS:  Fine sands with silts and clays; many tubes and some burrows; and an
           intermediate successional community.
           It would appear that the Spectacle Island CAD, Outer Harbor, and the Offshore
Stations provided more varied, and somewhat enhanced substrate conditions and therefore
better biological habitat than conditions at Logan 02 and the River stations. Sediments at the
River stations and at Logan 02 appeared to provide limited or stressed biological resources.
4.0        DISCUSSION

           These data represent a portion of the Boston Harbor lobster resource at a point in
time, and therefore are best utilized in a relative framework.  These data were collected during
the annual offshore migration of lobsters in response to falling water temperatures, and can not
present a year-round description of the lobster resource in Boston Harbor.  However, despite
these limitations, several finding are apparent:

           (1)     Lobster numbers and biomass is highest at the Offshore stations.
           (2)     Within the Offshore stations, abundance and biomass is highest
                  at Meisburger 2 followed by Meisburger 7 and BLS.
-------
           3)     Trap data for sublegal sized lobsters indicated the following:
                  • Females outnumber males at Offshore stations;
                  • Males generally outnumber females at the River and Harbor stations.
                  • CPUE of both males and females was lowest at the upstream River
                    Stations, Outer Harbor and the Spectacle Island CAD sites.
           4)     CPUE of legal sized male lobsters was slightly  higher than females
                  throughout the BHNIP project area, except at Little Mystic Channel, where
                  CPUE of males was much higher than females and legal males at all other
                  locations.
           5)     Sublegal sized lobster CPUE exceed legal sized lobster CPUE trapped in
                  all locations, except for Little Mystic Channel.
           6)     A greater proportion of the lobsters trapped at the River Stations, especial-
                  ly Little Mystic Channel, were  legal sized, compared to either the Harbor
                  or Offshore Stations; this was a function of finding fewer juveniles in the
                  River stations.

           The higher CPUE at the Offshore stations than at  the Harbor or River stations
could be a reflection of the seasonal pattern  of lobsters migrating offshore in response to
falling water temperatures inshore.  Within the Offshore stations, the differences in CPUE
were probably a response to localized habitat conditions.  The overwhelming abundance of
sublegal lobsters is not surprising. Legal sized lobsters are subjected to heavy fishing pressure
that reduces their abundance as soon as they reach legal size (NMFS 1993).

           One finding which was unexpected and found to be of particular  interest was the
abundance of lobsters at Little Mystic Channel and the Inner Confluence compared to other
stations within this area of the harbor.  Abandoned piers may  provide additional habitat not
present at other stations. Little Mystic Channel and the Inner  Confluence are also proximal to
combined sewer overflows and abundant organic matter and food may be available.

           According to MADMF offshore  lobster sampling database (Estrella and Armstrong
1993 and Estrella and McKiernan 1989), Boston Harbor CPUE results for marketable lobsters
have been reported in several formats.  These variable formats have been  established over time
to correct CPUE results based on the relationship between catch and immersion time (duration
                                           10
-------
of trap set between fishing).  MADMF uses the services of several local lobsterman who more
than likely have variable schedules in fishing their pots. Therefore, the data collected during
the  MADMF sampling program was standardized for time.  MADMF uses the corrected CPUE
index CHT'3 which translates to the  catch per trap haul, standardized to three set-over-days.
Estrella and  McKiernan (1989) reports that CHT'3 reduces the variability in trap results.

          The lobster data from this study is reported as catch per 24-hour trap day as
opposed to the MADMF data which  is catch per three days.  To be comparable with the
MADMF data our data would have to be multiplied by a factor of 3  to obtain an adjusted
CPUE that is comparable with the MADMF data.  Furthermore, the traps used in this study
were unvented which increased the catch of sublegal lobsters compared to the MADMF data
which used vented traps. Therefore the only meaningful comparisons between our data and
the  MADMF data is for legal sized lobsters.

          MADMF reports that CHT'3 results for Boston Harbor have ranged between 0.7-
0.8  for legal lobsters during the period of 1981-1992,  with peaks during 1983, 1985-86, 1988
and 1990. No results were available for sublegal size lobsters.

          Adjusted CPUE for legal sized lobsters in this study at River stations ranged from
1 .8  at Little  Mystic Channel to 0.0 at the Inner Confluence, Chelsea River, and Mystic River.
This range encompasses the range of CPUE the reported by MADMF (0.7-0.8 CPUE).
Adjusted CPUE for the Harbor stations ranged from 0.0 to 0.6 which is less than the MADMF
data of 0.7-0.8 CPUE. Adjusted CPUE for legal lobsters at the offshore stations (0.3) were
less than the MADMF results, at all  locations.

          In general, adjusted CPUE in this study was less than the CPUE reported by
MADMF. The MADMF data were collected over three seasons during an 1 1-year period
while the data from this study are from October 1994 only.  It is difficult to compare the
results from  one seasonal sampling to a multi-year sampling effort because the single sampling
effort does not integrate over any seasonal or annual differences in lobster abundance.  With
these limitations in mind, the results from our sampling effort are probably not substantially
different  from the MADMF data.
                                           „
-------
           According to B/PB (1990) commercial lobster pot distribution to the north and east
of Spectacle Island, and west of Long Island was fairly concentrated during the 1990 fishing
season. In contrast, during informal discussions with local lobstermen at the time of the recent
NAI sampling effort, NAI personnel were questioned as to why they were fishing in the area
of Spectacle Island CAD and at the Outer Harbor sites during the sampling event, since
according to the lobstermen, lobsters have not been present in these locations for several years.
NAI field personnel also reported that during the sampling, NAI pots were the only gear at
both locations, a condition which supports the CPUE trap results.

           NAI has also included maps of the MADMF lobster trap sampling sites in Boston
Harbor for 1991 through 1993.  MADMF contracts the services of several Boston Harbor
based lobsterman to conduct these annual sampling programs. Each map indicates the
seasonal fishing grounds and patterns of the commercial fishery during each study year.  The
key to the symbols is as follows:
           May,   
-------
the River and Harbor stations.  However, these generalizations are dependent on the time of
year that sampling took place.  The River stations are at the upstream extent of suitable
estuarine conditions, and therefore would not be expected to be as productive as Harbor  and
Offshore locations.

           The Outer Harbor,  Chelsea 01, Chelsea River, Mystic River, and Spectacle Island
stations had the lowest CPUE of lobsters.   No lobsters were captured at the Outer Harbor
station and lobstermen commented that both the Outer Harbor and Spectacle Island stations
were generally not good areas for lobstering at any time of year.  The Outer Harbor and
Spectacle Island stations probably were the lowest quality lobster habitat.  Dredge disposal at
the Outer Harbor and Spectacle Island sites would probably have the smallest adverse effects
on the commercial lobster fishing industry, among the areas investigated.  Although CPUE
was low at Chelsea 01, Chelsea River, and Mystic River stations, this is probably due to  the
time of year we conducted the  sampling. Lobster CPUE at these inner harbor stations might
be higher in the summer when  lobsters migrate into these areas.

           CPUE was highest  at the offshore sites (Meisburger 2, Meisburger 7,  and BLS).
In addition, numerous commercial lobster traps were observed at Meisburger 2 and 7, with
slightly fewer traps observed at BLS. Based on the data collected, impacts to the commercial
fishing industry would appear to be greatest if these areas were used as dredge disposal sites.

           Disposal of dredge  material  at the Revere Sugar, Little Mystic Channel, and
Reserved Channel sites would require these areas to be filled and bulkheaded, and would result
in the permanent loss of lobster habitat. Although commercial lobstering occurs in the vicinity
of these sites, no lobster traps were observed directly  in the footprint of these proposed dredge
disposal sites.  Dredge disposal at the other sites is  anticipated to take place over an 18 month
period. If any of the above areas (except Revere Sugar, Little Mystic Channel and Reserved
Channel) are used for dredge disposal, the primary  impacts would occur during that 18 month
period. Long term impacts should be minimal, assuming that the capping procedure works  as
planned. During the 18 month disposal period lobsters will probably avoid the  immediate area
of disposal and be displaced to adjacent areas.  During the 18 month disposal period the
dredge disposal site will not be available as habitat for the settling of early benthic phase

                                           13
-------
                 lobsters. Lobsters will return to the disposal area after disposal activities cease, assuming that

                 the substrate is restored to its original condition.


                           While short-term impacts to the lobster resource may not be severe, individual

                 lobstermen could be strongly affected during dredge disposal. Lobstermen have unofficial

                 territories in which they can set their gear (B. Estrella, MADMF, pers. comm.). A lobsterman

                 who traditionally uses a potential dredge disposal site may not be able to set gear in a different

                 area without encroaching on the territory of a different lobsterman. This may result in a

                 concentration of gear in a given area and potential conflicts between users of the resource.
                5.0        LITERATURE CITED


                Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff (B/PB). 1990.  The Aquatic Resources of Spectacle Island.
                      Prepared for Massachusetts Highway Division.

                Burrill, M. and D. Burrill. 1981.  The North Atlantic Coast - Cape Cod to Newfoundland.  A
                      Sierra Club Naturalists Guide. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, CA. pp. 302.

                Estrella, B.T. and M.P. Armstrong.  1993. Massachusetts  Coastal Commercial Lobster Trap
                      Sampling Program. Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, pp.24.

                Estrella, B.T. and D.J. McKiernan.  1989. Catch per unit effort and biological parameters
                      from the Massachusetts coastal lobster (Homarus americanus") resource: Description and
                      trends. NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS 81.   21 pp.

                National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).  1993.  Status of fishery resources off the
                      Northeastern United States for 1993. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-F/NEC-101.

                Wahle, R.A. and R.S. Steneck.  1991. Recruitment  habitats and nursery grounds of the
                      American lobster (Homarus americanus):  A demographic bottleneck.  Marine Ecology
                      Progress Series 69:231-243.
                                                          14
3ft
-------
TABLES
 MAPS
-------
-------
Table 1. Length Frequencies by sex for lobsters captured
         In Boston Harbor, October 1994.
SUB/LEGAL LENGTHCmn}


SUBLEGALS .
51
54
56
57
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
TOTAL
LEGALS
84
85
86
87
88
" 89
95
105
109
135
TOTAL
SUB/ LEGAL TOTAL


HALES
.






2



2
2
2

2
»
2
3
.
1
1
2
1




20



1





,
.
1
21
LOCATION
8LS
FEMALES


1


1
1





1
1
»
*
.
3
2
2
1
2

2
3
1

1
22



1






.
1
25


TOTAt


1


1
1
2
»
»

2
3
3

2

5
5
2
2
3
""2
3
3
1
.
1
42
.


2

.
.
.
.
.
.
2
44
-------
                                     Table 1.  Length Frequencies by sex for lobsters captured
                                              in Boston Harbor, October 1994.
! SIB/ LEGAL LENGTH (m)
I
i
i
i
!
!
•
iSUBLCGALS .
! 51
I 54
1 56
} 57
i £0
! 61
i 62
: 63
} 64
! 65
! 66
! 67
I 68
! 69
I 70
I 71
1 72
! 73
i 74
! 75
! 76
! 77
! 78
! 79
! 80
! 81
i 82
I TOTAL
iLEGALS
! 84
I 85
! 86
I 87
: 88
I 89
! 95
! 105
i 109
! 135
! TOTAL
ISUB/LEGAL TOTAL
LOCATION
LMCh.
HALES

m
,












p
p


*



«

1
f

4

2
*


*
•
1
1
*
1
C
9
FEMALES







*

B







„
„





1



1

*



*



.


1
TOTAL















2

*





1
1
<|




2


m
^

1
1

1
5
10
InnerConf.
HALES

»
B
1
„
•
*
9
^
„
,
»
.
m
*
*
1
.
.
»
4
*
•i
^
^
,
.
3
^





4
.
,
.
,
.
.
7
FEMALES



.
.
*
*
•
*
B
1
„
.
B
*
,,
*
*
^
4
«
„
*
^
#
.
.
4
1

„
»
*
„
„
*
^
.
„

*
1
TOTAL



1






1

f



1


s
•1

1



.
3
8
f
f

t
.




,
.
,
8
Che 1-01
KALES

.
B
B
B
*
*
,
m
%
„
.
.
B
B
.
„
„
.
w
»
.
«
^
w
B





.

w
m
»
>
.
.
m
.
.
FEMALES


.


.
.
m
f




f
*
»

.
,

1




r


1







.
,
.
*
.
i
TOTAL

f
*
f
f
9
^
.
B
a
«
.

a
*
,
%
.


1
.
»





1



.




•
,
,
.
1
Chel.Riv.
HALES

.

,
.
,
.
f
a
f
f
.
f
t
f
.
a
,
.
1
,
,
»
.
f
m
*
B
1
m
^
.
»

.
.
.
*

,
m
1
FEMALES



,
»

f
•r






*
«
,

.




*
^
.







,
,
,
.

1
.
1
1
TOTAL

«
«







^


*
.
.


























(CONTINUED)
-------
                                Table 1. Length Frequencies by sex for lobsters captured
                                         in Boston Harbor,  October 1994.
EGAL LENGTH (mm)
GALS .
51
54
56
57
£0
61
62
65
64
65
66
67
68-
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
TOTAL
G*
.*> .
84
85
86
87
88
89
95
105
109
135
TOTAL
.EGAL TOTAL
LOCATION
HysticR.
MALES

1
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
»
«
.
«
,
.
.
.
»
.
.
.
,
,
»
.
.

1
2

.

.



.
.
.
.
2
FEMALES

*
*
„
.
„
*
*
*
»
,
*

»
„
.

„

.
.
«













,

.
.
*
.
TOTAL

1



•














.

»



.
1
2

»
.
.
,
«
.
.


«
2
RevSug.
MALES

*
.
*
„
•
*
«
*
,
.
»
*
»
«
»
.
1
,
.
,
,
.
*
.
.
»
»
1

.

„
1

«

,
.
1
2
FEMALES


.

,

.


.
f
.
*


»
.
*

V
1
m

.
•



1






.
,
.
.
*
1
TOTAL

„
.
„
.
.
»
»
*
.
,
.
m
*
,
.
,
1
.
»
1
,
,
„

»

m
2

.


1
.
,
.
.
.
1
3
ResCh
MALES

,
1
,
.
»
,
,
»
»
»
«
1
.
,
*
1
.
1
t
*
1
.
«
*
,
.
1
6

.
.
2
.


.

.
2
8
FEMALES



1
«



1








,

1


1
1



«
5

.
.
.
,
»
.
.
.
.
.
5
TOTAL


1
1
*
„
*
»
1
.
»
*
1
,
»
»
1
*
1
1
„
1
1
1
.
,
.
1
11


.
2





.
2
13
Log02
HALES




*
,

1
,
.
»
.
*
1
.
.
1
2
.
„
.
*
.
„
1
.
.
,
6






,
.
,
.
.
6
FEMALES

,

.
»
.
.
,



1

.
.
»
»
„
„
»
,
»
.
„
.
»
.
»
1


1






.
i
2
TOTAL

„





1



1

1

«,
1
2





*
'1
»


7


1





»
*
1
8
1NUE0J
-------
                             Table 1.  Length Frequencies by sex for Lobsters captured
                                     in Boston Harbor, October 1994.
SUB/ LEGAL LENGTH (mm)
SUBLEGALS .
51
54
56
57
60
61
62
62
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
TOTAL
LEGALS
84
85
86,
87
88
89
95
105
109
135
TOTAL
SUB/ LEGAL TOTAL
LOCATION
OuterHbr.
HALES
.
.
.
,
»
.
*
*

























.







m
FEMALES

*

*


*
•








*

„




















,
«
„
TOTAL



«





.


„
»
„
•
^
,
.
,
„
*
,
.
«
.
,
.
.
.
„
.
f
*
»
-
„


*


Specls,
HALES
.
„
„
»
»
.
1
*
*
,
1
.
*
1

„










*
.
3








„
.
*
,
3
FEMALES

*




..
,





»
.















»
*
•

*




.
,
r
TOTAL
.
*




1



1


1
*












.
3










.
.
3
Heis#2
MALES
.
„
.
*
.
*
«
*
j
*
1
*
1
•j
m
"2
2
4
2
1
3
8
3
3
3
1
*

42
^
t
^
,
.
w
it
w
*
»
.
1
43
FEMALES

1
*
*
*
1
*
*
*
*
,
2
1
4
4
1
4
3
1
6
2
8
6
3
e
1
*
,
53
*
*
»
„
,
*
„
.


.
«
53
TOTAL

1

.
*
1
1
„
1

1
*.
2
6
5
4
6

3
7
5
16
9
6
8
2
1

95






1
»
,
„
,
1
96
Heis#7
MALES
.
.
1
t
,
2
1
1
3
1
4
.
1
1
2
1
3
1
2
4
*
2

1
.
2
«
.
35
.

1
.
.
»
,
.
,
„
.
1
36
FEMALES
.
.
2
1
1

1
2
1
4
3


1
2
3

4
1
3
2
3
.
1
2
1
«
1
40
.
.
»
,
.
.
«
.
*
.
,
.
40
TOTAL










































CCOMTIHUE03
                                             33?
-------
                              Table 2. Catch per unit effort (number/trap-day)  by sex
                                       for  subLegal and legal  sized lobsters captured in
                                       Boston  Harbor, October  1994.
 mis



5
.LES
J.

i
i
LMCh. !
0.4!
0.1!
0.6!

Inner—
Conf.
0.8
0,1
0.9

1 1
1 I
!ttiel-01 !
! O.Oi
! 0.1!
i 0.1!

chel.- ! i !
Riv. JMysticR. iRevSug. !
0.1! 0.2! 0.1!
0.0! 0.0! 0.1!
0.1! 0.2! 0.2!
LOCATION
i
ResCh !
0.7!
0.6!
1-2!

i
i
Log02 '
0.7!
0.1!
0.8!

Outer-
Hbr.
0.0
0.0
0.0

I 1
ISpecIs. !
i 0.2!
• 0.0!
! 0.2!

I
1
Meis#2 i
2.8!
3.5!
6.3!

I
Meis#7 !
2.3!
2.7!
5.0!


BLS
1.3
1.5
2.8
.s



•s
HLES
\L

i
LHCh. !
0.6S
0.0!
0.6!

Inner- f
Conf. !
0.0!
0.0!
0.0!

j
Chel-01 !
0.0!
o.o!
o.o!

Chel.-
Riv.
0.0
0.1
0.1

i i
i i
iHysticR, iRevSug.
! 0.0! 0.
! O.Oi 0.
i 0.0! 0.
LOCATION
i i
! ResCh !
1! 0.2!
0! 0.0!
1! 0.2!

I
1
Log02 !
0.0!
0.1!
0.1!

Outer- I '
Hbr. SSpecIs. !
0.0! 0.0!
0.0! 0.0!
0.0! 0.0!

•
Meis?2 !
0.1!
0.0!
0.1!

I
1
Meis#7 !
0.1!
0.0!
0.1!


BLS
0.1
0.1
0.1
                                                            LOCATION
              !  Inner-  !         ! Chel.- !         !         !         !         !  Outer- !         i        !         !
       LMCh.   I  Conf.   !Chel-01  '  Riv.   [MysticR. iRevSug.  !  ResCh  !  Log02  !   Hbr.   SSpecIs. ! Meis?2 !  Meis#7 !   BLS
             ' i       	I-	   i	  i      i   i	1         i	1        'i  •••'•'    i   ' i    i        	|..  -
ES
ALES
M
1.0!     0.8!     0.0!      0.1!     0.2!     0.2!     0.9!     0.7!     0.0!     0.2!     2.9!     2.4!     1.4
0.1!     0.1!     0.1!      0.1!     0.0!     0.1!     0.6!     0.2!     0.0!     0.0!     3.5!     2.7!     1.5
1.1!     0.9!     0.1!      0.2!     0.2!     0.3!     1.4!     0.9!     0.0!     0.2!     6.4!     5.1!     2.9
-------
      Table 3. Catch per unit effort for weight (kg/trap-day3
               for sub Legal and legal sized lobsters captured  in
               Boston Harbor, October 1994,
llEHGTH
t
i
I
i
i
iSUBLEGALS
ILEGALS
! TOTAL

i
i
IHCh. !

0.20!
0.54!
0.74!

Inner-
Conf.

0.31
0.00
0.31

i i
i i
SChel-01!

! 0.04!
! 0.00!
! 0.04!

Chel.-l
Riv. !
,
0.03!
0.121
0.15!

Mystic-!
R. iRevSug,
,
0.06! 0.07
0.00! 0.21
0.06! 0.27
LOCATION
i i
i i
' ResCh j
, ,
! 0.37!
! 0.09!
! 0.46!


Log02

0.22
0.06
0.27

Outer-
Hbr.

0.00
0.00
0.00

t i
Jspecls. !
, ,
! 0.04!
! 0.00!
! 0.04!

i
j
Meis#2 !Meis£7
,
2.1i! 1.40
0.04! 0.04
2.19! 1.43


BLS

0.90
0.07
0.97
Table 4. Hean weight, number of lobsters and units of effort (trap-days)
        for lobsters captured in Boston Harbor,  October 1994.
                                          LOCATION
i
I
I
t
t
!



BON WEIGHT
HO. LOBSTERS
1
LHCh. !

0.66!
10!
NO. TRAP DAYS 9!
Inner-! i
conf. ! Che 1-01!
t
0.34! 0.40!
8! 1!
9! 9\
Chel.-'.Mystic-! !
Riv. !

0.68!
2!
9S
R. SRevSug.
.
0.28! 0.61
2! 4
ResCh !

0.32!
13!
9! 9 9!
1
I
Log02 !

0.31!
8!
9!
Outer—!
Hbr. Ispecls.

. ! 0.22
.! 3
9! 15
•
!Heis#2

! 0.34
! 96
! 15
I t
!Meis?7 !

! 0.28!
! 76!
! 15!

8LS

0.5
4-
1:
-------
   o •
Lobster trap
sampling sites
1992, Boston Harbor
                  El
                    EJ
          ' Boston Light
-------
 •flolsberger 7
o cP
     Lobster trap
     sampling sites.
     1993, Boston Harbor
               Boston Light
-------
Lobster trap
sampling sites
1991, Boston Harbor
        Boston Light
-------
 FIGURES
33?
-------
         EVERETT
                                 CHELSEA
                                         Chelsea 01
                                                Chelsea
                                           ^      N_ Chelsea River
                                                   laser Confluence
                                             31* Channel
Revere Sugar
                                                 EAST  BOSTOM
Mystic River
    CHARLESTOWN
         Little Mystic Channel
                                                CTner and Caflahan Tunnels
                                                                               Logan
                                                                              Airport
                                                                          ^ThW Haiior Tunnel (under const)
                                                                                            Logan 02
                       BOSTON
                                                                         Reserved Channel
                                                     SOUTH  BOSTON
                                                     Figure 1. Lobster sampling locations in Inner
                                                               Boston Harbor, October 1994,
            Seslt:
                                 Satires:
                          2000'      4CCO'
                        Scale in Fest
                                       New Eagiasd Divisioc. Corps of Eagiaesrs
-------
                                  Outer Harbor
                                                President Roads
                                    Figure 2. Lobster sampling locations in outer
                                             Boston Harbor, October 1994.
Scale:
           Scale in Yards
 500
0
1000
                   Source:
                               NOS Chart No. 13270
                      Sediment Classifications from Cortell 1990.
-------
APPENDIX A
                             4
-------
®
r
i
(A
1
Source:
Boston t
1
I
tr.
3
E



1
U)
t
II
n 2
• sampling
husetts Ba
V! >— «
* O
00
g
o o
Is.
        Deposlllonal substrates within the disposal sites.
'BIDS approximate proposed disposal location
42'19'N
70« 40' W
           Melsburger 2 approximate location  - 42° 25' N
                                             70° 50' W
           Melsburger 7 approximate location
42'21'N
70° 47' W
-------
   APPENDIX A. INCIDENTAL CATCH OF ORGANISMS IN LOBSTER TRAPS
                 DURING BOSTON HARBOR LOBSTER SAMPLING EFFORT,
                 OCTOBER 1994.
STATION

13 OCTOBER
SAMPLING DATE
14 OCTOBER

15 OCTOBER
Little Mystic Channel

Inner Confluence

Chelsea 01

Chelsea River


Mystic River

Revere Sugar

Reserved Channel

Logan 02

Outer Harbor

Spectacle Island

Meisburger 2

Meisburger 7

Boston Lightship
Green crabs
Cancer crabs

Spider crabs, Cancer
crabs, Green crabs
Green crabs, Spider  Spider crabs, Green
crabs, Cancer crabs  crabs, Cancer crabs,
                   Horseshoe crab

Green crabs, Spider  Spider crabs, Cancer   Cancer crabs, Spider
crabs, Cancer crabs  crabs, Green crabs     crabs

Green crabs
Trap full of Cancer
crabs
Cancer crabs
Spider crabs, Cancer
crabs
Trap full of Cancer  Trap foil of Cancer
crabs
crabs

Gunner in trap
Cancer crabs

Trap full of Cancer
crabs
Trap full of Cancer
crabs
-------
     ENVIRONMENT STUDIES FOR THE
BOSTON HARBOR NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENT
           AND BERTH DREDGING
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/STATEMENT

    FINFISH SAMPLING AND DESCRIPTION
        CONTRACT DACW33-92-D-0004
       DELIVERY ORDER #32, TASK 3
                Prepared for

     U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
              Planning Division
              424 Trapeio Road
         Waltham, Massachusetts 02154
                Prepared by

        NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES
              25 Nashua Road
      Bedford, New Hampshire 03110-5500
                R-13116.032
                 May 1995
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES
                        TABLE OF CONTENTS


                                                             PAGE


1.0   INTRODUCTION	  1


2.0   METHODOLOGY	  2


3.0   RESULTS	.	  4

     3.1   TRAWL DATA  	  4

     3.2   GILL NET DATA	  6


4.0   DISCUSSION	  8

     4.1   FALL 1994 DATA 	,	;..	  8

     42   OTHER STUDIES	 12


5.0 CONCLUSION	 17


6.0 REFERENCES	 20
I3II6.032/FTNMK
   2, 199S
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES
                                 LIST OF FIGURES


1.    Finfish sampling locations in inner Boston Harbor, October 1994	  24

2.    Finfish sampling locations in outer Boston Harbor, October 1994	  25

3.    Finfish sampling locations in Massachusetts Bay, October 1994 ..	  26
1311&032/FIH.OOC
May 12, 199S                                  \\\
-------
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES
                         LIST OF TABLES
1.   REPRESENTATIVE FINFISH SPECIES LIST BOSTON INNER AND
    OUTER HARBOR	 28

2.   STANDARDIZED MEAN CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT (CATCH PER 20
    MINUTE TRAWL) BY STATION IN BOSTON HARBOR AND
    MASSACHUSETTS BAY, OCTOBER 1994	 30

3.   LENGTH FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR WINTER FLOUNDER IN
    BOSTON HARBOR AND MASSACHUSETTS BAY, OCTOBER 1994	 31

4.   LENGTH FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR ATLANTIC TOMCOD IN
    BOSTON HARBOR AND MASSACHUSETTS BAY, OCTOBER 1994	 33

5.   LENGTH FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR RAINBOW SMELT IN
    BOSTON HARBOR AND MASSACHUSETTS BAY, OCTOBER 1994	 34

6.   LENGTH FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR SKATE SP. IN
    BOSTON HARBOR AND MASSACHUSETTS BAY, OCTOBER 1994	 35

7.   LENGTH FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR SCUP IN BOSTON
    HARBOR AND MASSACHUSETTS BAY, OCTOBER 1994  	 36

8.   STANDARDIZED CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT (FISH PER
    24-HOUR SET) IN GILL NET COLLECTIONS FROM BOSTON
    HARBOR AND MASSACHUSETTS BAY, OCTOBER 1994  	 37

9.   SEASONAL CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT AT FIVE STATIONS
    IN BOSTON HARBORDURING 1993	 38

10.  FISHERIES DATA AT FIVE STATIONS IN BOSTON HARBOR
    ASSOCIATED WITH THE CA/T BOSTON HARBOR WATER-QUALITY
    MONITORING PROGRAM DURING 1993 AND 1994 	 39

11.  NUMBER OF FISH, SQUID AND LOBSTERS CAPTURED, AND
    CATCH PER 20 MINUTE TOW, FOR THE SK MASSACHUSETTS
    DIVISION OF MARINE FISHERIES FALL GROUNDFISH SURVEY
    SAMPLES TAKEN IN MASSACHUSETTS BAY WATERS LESS
    THAN 15 m DEEP, 1989 THROUGH 1993  	 40
13/1&032/F1N.D0C                           *^? {_/_ **/
May 12, I99S                         IV    Jx /  /
-------
-------
NOftMANDEAU ASSOCIATES
1.0        INTRODUCTION

           In response to the Scope of Work (SOW) presented to Normandeau Associates
(NAI) by the Corps of Engineers - New England Division (COE/NED), dated August 30,
1994, NAI prepared the following evaluation of finfish resources at several of the alternative
dredged material aquatic disposal sites under consideration for the Boston Harbor Navigation
Improvement Project (BHNIP).

           Both Boston Harbor and Massachusetts Bay provide important habitats for fisheries
resources.  The principal finfish sought within Boston Harbor is the winter flounder (Pleuro-
nectes americanus). Outside Boston Harbor the principal species fished, in addition to winter
flounder, include the yellowtail flounder (Limanda ferruginea) and cod (Gadits morhua).
Other species of commercial and recreational interest include alewives (Alosa pseudo-
harengus),  Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus), American plaice (Hippoglossoides plates-
soides), gray sole (Glyptocephalus cynoglossvs), haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus),
summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus), ocean pout (Macrozoarces americanus), Atlantic
mackerel (Scomber scombnts), pollock (Pottachius virens), rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax),
red hake (Urophycis chuss), silver hake (Merluccius bilinearis), white hake (Urophycis tenuis),
and menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), (MWRA 1988).  Table I identifies a representative
finfish species list for both the inshore and offshore areas (B/PB 1990).

           Finfish can be divided into two major categories based on their habitat:

           Demersal - sometimes referred to as groundfish, which reside close to the sub-
           strate.
           Pelagic Fish - reside within  the water column or near the  surface of the water.

           The finfish resource evaluation was established to evaluate both categories within
the project area. Sampling was conducted to provide data specific to potential disposal sites
and to serve as a comparative data set to previous studies.
May 12, 199S
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIA TES	

2.0        METHODOLOGY

           The SOW required three 20 minute otter trawls at each of the outer harbor
(Spectacle Island  CAD) and offshore disposal sites (Meisburger 2, Meisburger 7, and Boston
Lightship). Three fish traps were to be deployed for seventy-two hours at each of the inner
harbor disposal sites (Amstar, Little Mystic Channel, Mystic Piers, Reserved Channel, Revere
Sugar), The catch from the fish traps would be processed every twenty-four hours.  The
species, weight, length, sex, age, and general overall appearance of the individuals were
recorded and displayed in a tabular format  Given the transient nature of finfish communities
in Boston Harbor and Massachusetts Bay, the data acquired through this sampling effort  will
depict instantaneous conditions.

           Because of physical and fishing gear restrictions at the sampling sites, modifica-
tions to the SOW were required and coordinated with COE/NED.  Three, 20-minute otter
trawls would be conducted  at Boston Lightship. Three, five minute trawls would be conducted
at Spectacle Island (CAD),  Chelsea River, Mystic River, the Inner Confluence and Subaqueous
E. The five minute trawl duration was recommended due to the lack of fisbable bottom  to
conduct a 20 minute trawl.  Sampling locations are depicted on Figures  1, 2 and 3.

           Otter  trawls are designed to capture demersal species (Tait and DeSanto 1975).  A
9 m footrope otter trawl with roller gear was used on this project.  Specifications for this trawl
were:

           Head  rope length             6.9 m
           Foot rope length (Sweep)     9.0 m
           Legs (between doors and net) 6.0 m
           Approximate vertical lift      3.6 m
           Doors (steel V-doors)          1.0 m
           Net body length             5.2 m
           Cod end section             2.3 m
           Mesh  - body of net         7.6 cm (stretch) mesh polypropylene;
                                           polypropylene; 3 mm diameter twine
                  - cod end            0.64 cm (stretch) mesh, knotless
                                               polypropylene; 3 mm diameter twine
           Roller Gear                 25.4 cm rollers spaced with  5 cm
                                               cookie disks
1311S.t32fftff.DOC
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES
Trawling occurred at the Boston Lightship on October 6, 1994, and occurred at the other sites
during October 19 through 21, 1994.

           Catch data is presented as the mean Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) of three
replicate trawls.  Trawl duration was five minutes at all stations except for Boston Lightship
where trawl duration was 20 minutes. The outer harbor station is most closely aligned with
Subaqueous E, so for ease of labeling has been given this identification in this report.  To
allow meaningful comparisons between stations with different tow duration, the catch was
standardized to a 20 minute tow.  Stations sampled were:

                  Boston Lightship                     Mystic River
                  Chelsea River                       Spectacle Island CAD
                  Inner Confluence                     Outer Harbor (Subaqueous E).

           Boston Lightship was an offshore station, Spectacle Island CAD and Subaqueous E
were outer harbor stations, and Chelsea River, Inner Confluence, and Mystic River were inner
harbor stations.

           A second modification to the SOW was required for sampling at both Meisburger
2 and 7. Trawling could not occur at either location due to the deployment of fixed gear by
lobstermen. Therefore, gill nets were set at each site for a  total of 72 hours with plans to fish
the nets every 24-hours between November 9 and 12, 1994. Due to poor weather conditions,
the nets were not hauled on November 11  so the catch from November 12 represents a 48-
hour set.

           Gill nets were also set in the Harbor (in lieu of traps) at Reserved Channel, Little
Mystic Channel, Revere Sugar, Chelsea 01, and two representative shoreline  main ship channel
stations, identified herein as Logan 02 and the Fish Pier for ease of reference. This was done
because gill nets were considered a more appropriate method for the fish being sought. These
nets were set for three 24-hour periods between October 19 and 21, 1994. At all sites two
multiple-mesh size gill nets were set, one at the surface and one just off the bottom.
l31tf.H32mN.DOC
May 12,199S
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES
           Specifications for the gill nets were:
           Total panels        4 per net.
           Panel dimensions  8.25 m x 3.03 m
           Mesh sizes        2.5 cm in panel 1
                             5.1 cm in panel 2
                            10.2 cm in panel 3
                            15.2 cm in panel 4
Total net dimension            30.3 m x 3.03 m
3.0        RESULTS

3.1        TRAWL DATA

           There was a concern expressed by NMFS and DMF that fishing in the Harbor not
be conducted until dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations reach a level that could support fish
life. During the October sampling, DO concentrations levels in the Mystic River Channel had
reached an acceptable level (6.0-6.5 mg/1).

           A comparison of standardized CPUE data indicates that total catches (including
lobster) were highest at Subaqueous E, Chelsea River, Boston Lightship and Mystic River,
followed by Inner Confluence and Spectacle Island (Table 2).  The high CPUE at Boston
Lightship is due partially to high catches of lobsters.  When only finfish are counted, CPUE
ranking was as follows:

           (1)  Subaqueous E, Chelsea River  (2)  Mystic River
           (3)  Inner Confluence            (4)  Boston Lightship
           (5)  Spectacle Island CAD

           Winter flounder were the most numerous finfish at each station, although lobster
surveys were conducted  using other gear (see lobster report). Lobster were more abundant
than winter flounder in trawls at the Boston Lightship site.  Winter flounder CPUE was also
highest over all stations  combined.  Following  winter flounder in overall abundance were
lobster, Atlantic tomcod, skate sp., rainbow smelt and scup. Lobsters were collected primarily
at Boston Lightship, and were present at all stations except Mystic River.   Atlantic tomcod
M*j 12,199S
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES
was caught at only two inshore stations (Chelsea River and Mystic River). Skate sp. and
rainbow smelt were collected at the inner harbor and outer harbor (Subaqueous E) sites.
Neither were found offshore (Boston Lightship). Scup were collected only at Mystic River.
Although Atlantic silverside and alewives were not among the six most numerous species, they
were  caught at four and three, respectively, of the six sites (both in-and offshore).  Atlantic
silverside were present at inner harbor and outer harbor stations, and alewives were present at
inner harbor and offshore (Boston Lightship) stations.  AH other species were located at one or
two stations and  in relatively low numbers. A single striped bass was caught at the Subaque-
ous E site.

           Length frequencies of the five most abundant fish species captured are presented in
Tables 3 through 7.  All fish were measured to total length in mm.  Sizes of fish captured in
the trawl are a function of the trawl mesh size.  The otter trawl used for this sampling  effort
was designed to capture both adult and young-of-the-year (YOY) finfish. YOY fish were
spawned during the year of capture and are designated Age 0.  Age 0 fish can usually be
identified in length frequency tables as a discrete modal group of smaller fish within the larger
distribution.

           The 147 winter flounder measured ranged hi length from 65 to 384 mm (Table 3).
Approximately 7% of the winter flounder measured were Age 0, assuming winter flounder less
than 100 mm were spawned this year (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953).

           Assuming that winter flounder less than 200 mm were either juvenile or YOY
(Pearcy 1962), more juvenile and YOY winter flounder were found at the Chelsea River and
Mystic River stations than any other station (Table 3).  The lowest number of juvenile  and
YOY winter flounder were found at the Boston Lightship station. The occurrence of juvenile
winter flounder in inner Boston Harbor is not surprising, because adults tend to spawn in
inshore waters.  Winter flounder do not move extensively in their first year (Saucerman and
Deegan 1991). As water temperatures  decrease in the winter, juvenile winter flounder will
probably move to deeper water areas of Boston Harbor where temperatures will remain higher.

           All Atlantic tomcod measured during this study were less than 188 mm (Table 4).
It is difficult to make any generalizations regarding the  age, however the majority of these fish
13116.032/FIN.D0C
Mayl2,l»9S
5V
-------
NORMANDEAUASSOCIA TBS	

were Age 0. This age estimate is based on a comparison of lengths of Boston Harbor Atlantic
tomcod to Atlantic tomcod from the Hudson River that were aged using otoliths (Normandeau
Associates 1994).

           The 16 rainbow smelt captured ranged in length from 71 to 121 mm (Table 5).
Rainbow smelt spawn in the early spring and are generally less man 70 mm by the autumn of
their first year (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953).  Therefore, the majority of the fish captured in
this study were probably Age 1 or older fish.
                                                                         s
           A total of 22 skate sp. were measured ranging fa length from 107 to 553 mm
(Table 6).  It is difficult to estimate the ages of these fish because the category "skate sp."
comprises more man one species. However, it appeared that only one fish (4.5%) was Age 0
and the rest were yearling or older fish (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953).

           Seven scup were measured during the study and their lengths ranged from 78 to
109 mm (Table 7).  These fish were most likely Age 0 (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953;
Finkelstein  1969).
3.2       GILL NET DATA

          Gill net data are presented as the mean CPUE (catch per 24-hour set) for the two
nets (surface and off-bottom) combined. Gill netting is generally considered a fishing method
for pelagic species (Tait and DeSanto 1975).

          Surface  and off-bottom gill were set at the following locations:

                 Meisburger 2               Meisburger 7
                 Chelsea 01                  Logan 02
                 Fish Pier                   Reserved Channel
                 Little Mystic Channel        Revere Sugar
     IftS
355
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES
           At the Meisburger 2 and Meisburger 7 sites, the first set was a 24-hour set while
the second was a 48-hour set due to poor weather conditions during the collection period.
Data from these collections were standardized to catch per 24-hour set.

           Table 8 presents mean CPUE from the gill net sampling effort.
CPUE was highest in the Reserved Channel, primarily due to large catches of alewife and
blueback herring.  The Reserved Channel also provided the most number of species. CPUE
from the Reserved Channel approached 50% of the CPUE from all stations combined.

           Chelsea 01, Meisburger 7, Fish Pier, and Meisburger 2 followed the Reserved
Channel in magnitude of CPUE (Table 8). CPUE at these stations represented 11%, 11%,
10%,  and 9%, respectively, of the total gill net CPUE. Among these stations, rainbow smelt
were the most common fish captured  inshore (Chelsea 01, Fish Pier 1) while Atlantic
mackerel predominated offshore (Meisburger 7 and Meisburger 2).

           The lowest CPUE occurred at Logan 02, Little Mystic Channel, and Revere Sugar
(Table 8). CPUE at these stations was 7%, 4% and 2% respectively of the total CPUE.  As
with the other inshore stations, rainbow smelt were the most common fish captured.

           Over all stations combined, blueback herring (26%), rainbow smelt (25%),
alewives (15%), and Atlantic mackerel (9%) were the most abundant species (Table 8).
Although they were present at several sampling locations, the majority of the blueback herring
(98%) and alewife (93%) were caught in the Reserved Channel. Similarly 98% of the total
Atlantic mackerel catch occurred at the Meisburger sites (33% at Meisburger 2 and 65% at
Meisburger 7).  Rainbow smelt were present at all sampling locations except for the Meis-
burger (offshore) sites. Although limited in overall abundance, cunner, winter flounder,
striped bass, and skate sp. were captured at several sampling locations.

           Gill nets are a very size selective gear because the mesh in the panels will only
retain individuals of a given size or larger.  Therefore any estimates of age class distribution
based on the lengths of fish captured in gill nets will be representative only of the fishes
captured, and not of the population at large.
May 12, 199S
-------
 NORMANDEAU ASSOC/A T£S	

           The following age class trends, based on age class descriptions reported by
 Bigelow and Schroeder (1953), were evident in the most abundant species caught in gill nets.

           •      Blueback herring - Of the 76 total individuals measured, 57% were
                  between 125-137 mm.  These appeared to be Age 0 fish.
           •      Rainbow smelt -  Of the 127 total individuals measured, 76% ranged from
                  163-188 mm. This size class represented Age 1 and older age classes.
           »      Alewife - Of the 64 total individuals measured, 72% fell within 111-122
                  mm size class. These appeared to be Age 0 fish.
           •      Atlantic mackerel - Of the 56 total individuals measured, 41% fell within
                  the 290-303 mm size class and 18% were between 30-31 mm size classes.
                  The former size class appeared to be Age 1 or older, while the latter
                  appeared to be Age 0.
                  Winter flounder - Of the 21 total individuals measured, 38% fell within
                  the 76-83 mm size class and would be considered Age 0 individuals.
4.0        DISCUSSION

4.1        WAUL 1994 DATA

           The demersal fish resources of Boston Harbor were primarily sampled by the otter
trawl.  Trawl CPUE was higher at Subaqueous E and Chelsea River than the single offshore
station (Boston Lightship), and lowest at Spectacle Island CAD. The data presented here
represent instantaneous conditions in October, 1994. It is recognized that scaling the five
minute tows to 20 minutes to standardize CPUE could affect these results, but these are the
constraints inherent in the Harbor sites. Twenty minute tows were not possible in the inner
harbor due to the lack of fishable bottom. Therefore, trawl duration was limited to five
minutes. Winter flounder were present at all stations and were the most abundant fish
captured.  Winter flounder were followed by skate sp., Atlantic tomcod, rainbow smelt and
scup in relative abundance.  Of these species, winter flounder is the most important commer-
cial resource.  Rainbow smelt is a recreationally important fish and is ecologically important as
a forage fish.  Neither Atlantic tomcod, scup or skates sp. have any important commercial or
Mty 12, Iff!
                                                357
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES
recreational significance in Boston Harbor (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953), but this does not
diminish their ecological value.

           CPUE for pelagic fishes was intermediate at the Meisburger 2 and Meisburger 7
offshore stations and at Logan 02 located in the outer harbor. The pelagic fish resources were
primarily sampled by the gill  nets.  CPUE in the gill net samples was highest at the Reserved
Channel followed by Chelsea 01, Meisburger 7 and the Fish Pier.  The  lowest gill net CPUE
occurred at Little Mystic Channel and Revere Sugar.

           Blueback herring were the dominant pelagic fish captured and the largest catches
occurred in the Reserved Channel.  Following blueback herring  in abundance were rainbow
smelt, alewife, and Atlantic mackerel. Blueback herring, rainbow smelt and alewife were
primarily captured in the inshore stations, while Atlantic mackerel predominated at the
offshore stations (Meisburger  2 and Meisburger 7).

           Pelagic fishes inhabit the water column and many pelagic fishes travel in schools.
They probably are not as closely linked to specific bottom habitats as demersal fish.  The
capture of a school of pelagic fish in a gill net is often a result of a random encounter between
the school and the sampling gear.  A short duration sampling effort may not indicate a
significant  association between a pelagic fish species and a given location.  Therefore, the high
CPUE for pelagic fish in the Reserved Channel, due to large catches of blueback herring, does
not necessarily indicate that the Reserved Channel provides better habitat for pelagic species
than other areas in the inner harbor. It  is possible that this high CPUE  could have occurred at
other areas in the inner harbor.

           Demersal fishes live in close association with the bottom and probably have more
specific bottom habitat requirements than pelagic fishes. The occurrence of demersal fishes in
an area is probably a better indicator of habitat preferences for a specific location than the
occurrence of pelagic fish.  Demersal fish resources as measured by CPUE was highest at
Subaqueous E and Chelsea River followed by the remaining inner harbor stations (Mystic
River and Inner Confluence) and Boston Lightship. CPUE was lowest at Spectacle Island
CAD. As noted earlier, demersal fish could not be sampled at the Meisburger sites due to the
13116.03ZV1N.DOC
May 12, I99f
                                                                                                    ,
-------
                NORMANDEAU ASSOC/A 7ES	

                extent of fixed commercial gear; lobster catches at these stations indicate their relative
                importance to the commercial fishing communities in this area.
                HABITAT OF JUVENILE WINTER FLOUNDER

                           Winter flounder are one of the most commercially and recreationally important
                fishes found in New England waters. The following is a description of juvenile winter
                flounder habitat derived from the literature, and an application of that description to inner
                Boston Harbor.

                           Winter flounder spawn in New England north of Cape Cod from February through
                May (Klein-MacPhee 1978). The spawning habitat is not well described, but Bigelow and
                Schroeder (1953) state that winter flounder spawn over sandy bottom in water as shallow as 2
                to 6 m.  It is probable that they will spawn over other substrates also, but this is not docu-
                mented in the literature. Winter flounder will also spawn in deeper water as evidenced by an
                offshore population on Georges Bank. Eggs are demersal and adhesive (Pearcy 1962).  Larvae
                tend to orient to the bottom and are more common in the upper reaches of the Mystic River
                (CT) estuary early in the larval phase than in the lower estuary (Pearcy 1962).  As winter
                flounder larvae mature and metamorphose into juveniles, they tend to move to the lower
                estuary (Pearcy 1962).

                           Juvenile winter flounder (<4 years old) are common in shallow waters along the
                New England coast.  In Great Peconic and Shmnecock Bays on Long Island, Poole (1966)
                found that young-of-the-year (YOY) winter flounder were more abundant in shallow cove
                stations compared to paired open water stations.  In Waquoit Bay on Cape Cod, YOY winter
                flounder did not exhibit any large scale movements (<100 m) within the estuary during the
                summer (Saucerman and Deegan 1991). As the season progresses, and water temperatures
                increase, juvenile fish will move to deeper and colder water (McCracken 1966; Howe and
                Coates 1975; Massachusetts Division of Marine  Fisheries in Klein-MacPhee 1978). Juveniles
                will begin to move out of the estuary in the late fall and winter when water temperatures
                approach the yearly minimum (Pearcy 1962). Winter flounder tend to return to their natal
                estuary the following spring (Saila 1961; Howe and Coates 1975).
                                                         10
&4
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES
           In summary, the generalized life history model for winter flounder north of Cape
Cod starts with adults spawning in shallow estuaries during February through May. Eggs are
demersal and adhesive and may be deposited on sandy substrate, but eggs are probably
deposited on other substrates. Larvae move to the lower reaches of the estuary in the spring
as they grow and mature. Juveniles may move to deeper portions of the estuary during the
summer when water temperatures are maximum.  Movements by juveniles appear to be on the
order of 100 m (Saucerman and Deegan 1991). Juveniles and adults will leave the estuary
during the winter as water temperatures reach the annual minimum. Movements of winter
flounder north of Cape Cod appear to be localized.

           Inner Boston Harbor appears to be habitat for juvenile winter flounder based on
the results of this trawling study and Haedrich and Haedrich (1974). Winter flounder were the
most common species captured by Haedrich and Haedrich (1974) and many of these were
juveniles. Inner Boston Harbor substrate is generally very silty and the waters are near
oceanic in salinity.  This habitat does not fit the classic estuarine description of juvenile winter
flounder habitat, (i.e. sand or silty sand) but the area is obviously used by juvenile winter
flounder.  If it is assumed that juvenile winter flounder do not move far from the spawning
area, then inner Boston Harbor is probably spawning habitat also. Very little work has been
done on the winter flounder habitat in urban estuaries, but it appears that winter flounder can
use habitat that is markedly different from  the classic, relatively undisturbed estuarine habitat
described in the literature.
SEASONALITY

           The Central Artery/Tunnel (CA/T) project conducted seasonal trawling in Boston
Harbor at five stations in Boston Harbor in 1993 (Table 9).  Three replicate samples were
collected at each station using a 16 foot headrope and a mesh size of 1 3/8 inch throughout the
net (ENSR 1992).  CPUE in the winter was the lowest at each station except for the Reserved
Channel station (Table 9).  Spring CPUE increased over the low winter CPUE at each station.
Summer CPUE was generally slightly higher or comparable to the spring CPUE, with the
exception of the Reserved Channel when summer CPUE decreased to an annual low. Catch
13I16.032fFIN.DOC                                        ^\ l^. f\
May 12, 199S                                   1 1        <	' ¥-* \S
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIA TES	

per unit effort (CPUE) was highest in the fell, except for the Spectacle Island Station when
CPUE was slightly higher in the spring.

           Winter flounder were generally the most numerous fish captured at each station,
each season.  In the fall, winter flounder were especially numerous as they made up the
majority of the catch at the Reserved Channel, Aquarium, and Charles River stations.

           The fall sampling in this study probably captured the annual peak in CPUE in
Boston Harbor, based on the seasonal data from the CA/T project The proposed spring
sampling will capture the seasonal increase in CPUE from the low winter catches. CPUE in
the summer is generally intermediate between the spring and fall, or slightly lower, with the
exception of the Reserved Channel when CPUE was lowest in the summer.
           OTHER STUDIES
           The following is a narrative of several previous biological resource studies
conducted with Boston Harbor, and Massachusetts Bay where finfish resources were evaluated.
MYSTIC MVER FINMSH SURVEY i
           Haedrich and Haedrich (1974) conducted trawl and gill net surveys in the Mystic
River in four seasons (1972-1973).  While they collected 23 species, only six occurred in more
than one season.  Winter flounder, rainbow smelt, and alewife occurred during every sampling
period; ocean pout occurred in three sampling periods; blueback herring and Atlantic tomcod
each occurred in two sampling periods.  Winter flounder ranked first or second in abundance
year round.  Rainbow smelt was more abundant in late winter (March), and alewife was more
abundant in late spring (June). Species richness was lowest in August and highest in Novem-
ber whereas standing crop (based on biomass) was lowest in June and similar in the other
months. Spatial distribution of the fishes tended to be related to temperature. During the
summer the fish were concentrated towards the mouth of the river.  Haedrich and Haedrich
131I&.OJZTFIKDOC
Mty 12, I9»t
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES
(1974) calculated pooled annual diversity and concluded that the Mystic River exhibited low
finfish diversity. However, they did not compare total standing crop to other areas.

           A tidal flat on the Mystic River adjacent to the Schrafft Center (Charlestown, MA)
was sampled by seine in the summer of 1985 (NAI  1985). Results were generally consistent
with the fish community observed by Haedrich and  Haedrich (1974).
                                RESOURCE PROGRAM
           The spatial distribution and relative abundance of finfish in several North Atlantic
estuaries, including Boston Harbor and Massachusetts Bay were evaluated in this report based
on a literature review. Relative abundance was evaluated for each of the major finfish life
stages (e.g. adults, spawning adults, juveniles, larvae and eggs). The three most abundant
finfish in the fall  1994 sampling, winter flounder, Atlantic tomcod, and skate sp., were
classified as either abundant, or highly abundant in Jury et al. (1994).  Atlantic  silverside,
winter flounder, and American plaice were the most common species in Massachusetts Bay,
and Atlantic silverside, winter flounder, and mummichog were  the most common species in
Boston Harbor according to Jury et al. (1994).
DSEIS - BOSTON HARBOR WASTEWATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM. USEPA AND
COE/NED 1988

           The DSEIS states that "understanding the population dynamics of fish in the Gulf
of Maine as well as Massachusetts Bay is important because of the cosmopolitan and migrato-
ry nature of fish".  Seasonal temperature variations influence fish migration. The geographic
position of Boston Harbor and Massachusetts Bay place the BHNIP project area in a transi-
tional area. Temperature conditions within the project area include the physical segregation of
the cold waters of the Gulf of Maine from the warmer waters of the Mid-Atlantic Bight by
Cape Cod.  This creates a sharp temperature differential during the summer, but during the rest
of the year, a temperature continuity exists.
                                           13
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIA TES	

           USEPA and COE/NED (1988) report that winter flounder was the most abundant
species at all depth intervals collected during sampling efforts in Massachusetts Bay.
Sampling was conducted during May and September 1978 through 1986,  Abundance
consistently tended to decrease during the September sampling efforts.

           Based on the catch data presented in USEPA and COE/NED (1988), the five most
abundant species were winter flounder, butterfish, longhom sculpin, ocean pout, and Atlantic
cod. Winter flounder were abundant throughout Boston Harbor and appeared to dominate in
the northern part of the Harbor (west of Deer Island).  Demersal fish  densities were high in the
northern part of Boston Harbor but species diversity was low.  In the  southern part of Boston
Harbor (in the vicinity of Nut Island), density offish is lower than the northern harbor but
diversity is higher.  Pollock, cod, skate, and cunner were also relatively abundant in the
southern portion of Boston Harbor. Haedrieh and Haedrich (1974) reported that winter
flounder dominated  the fish population within the upper reaches of the inner harbor at the
mouth of the Mystic River. In spring and early summer smelt and alewife were also abundant
in this area.  Both Boston Harbor and Massachusetts Bay fishing resources are clearly
dominated by demersal species.
CENTRAL ARTERY/THIRD HARBOR TUNNEL PROJECT FISHERIES
MONITORING PROGRAM

           The Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project monitored fish abundance at five
stations in Boston Harbor (Table 10).  Three ten-minute trawls were collected at each station
using a trawl with a 16 foot headrope and a mesh size of 1  3/8 inch throughout the net (ENSR
1992).  CPUE was highest at the Charles River station, located approximately 400 ft down-
stream  of the Charlestown Bridge, followed by the Reserved Channel station. CPUE was
lowest  at the Spectacle Island station located approximately 2,000 ft east of the southern tip of
Spectacle Island.  Winter flounder were the most numerous species caught at each station, with
the highest abundances occurring at the Charles River station.  Winter flounder abundance was
lowest  at the Spectacle Island station.  Mean lengths of fish indicated that the majority of the
winter  flounder captured were young-of-the-year or yearling fish.
13I1S.032/FMDOC
                                    •      14
-------
NORMANDBAU ASSOCIATES
WINTHROP HARBOR BORROW PIT FISHERY SAMPLING PROGRAM,
CHASE (1994)

          MADMF used a shrimp trawl to sample demersal finfish in both Winthrop Harbor
and Logan Borrow Pits (Chase 1994).  Winter flounder were caught in the highest frequency
of all finfish (73% of total catch). This was consistent with several early Boston Harbor
finfish surveys.  Several other species were caught in lesser abundances and included rainbow
smelt, grubby, tomcod and yellowtail flounder.

          Chase (1994) concluded that both sample areas contain a productive bottom
community of finfish.  Two  fishes, winter flounder and rainbow smelt, were recreationally and
commercially important.
MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF MARINE FISHERIES GROUNDFISH SURVEYS
(1989-1992)

           The Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (MADMF) conducts a survey of
the inshore groundfish resources each spring and fall.  Data reviewed here is limited to the fall
survey during the most recent five years available (1989-1993) to ensure comparability this
survey.  The survey encompasses the entire Massachusetts Coast, but for this review was
subset to Massachusetts Bay as defined by the area north of the North River in Scituate, south
of Marblehead, and west of a line approximately 2 nautical miles east of the Massachusetts
Bay disposal site.  The easternmost area sampled by MADMF was in the vicinity of Nahant,
and no samples were taken by MADMF in Boston Harbor or at any of the offshore sites
sampled in this study (Meisburger 2, Meisburger 7, Boston Lightship). However, the
MADMF data do provide a description of the fishery resources of Massachusetts Bay.

           The MADMF survey used a larger otter trawl than the trawl used in our study.
The footrope dimension was 15.5 m, 42% larger than the 9 m footrope used in this study.
Both trawls had the same mesh (0.64 cm) liner in the cod end.  A smaller trawl was necessary
to sample the Boston Harbor stations and using this gear consistently in this study allowed
quantitative comparisons among all stations. The trawl duration was generally 20 minutes for
May 12, 199$                   •               15
                                               "£2 /  J-,L
                                               (__,) M?  f^
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES
the MADMF survey and in this study ranged from five minutes at the Boston Harbor stations
to 20 minutes at the Outer Harbor and Boston Lightship stations.  Due to its size, it was
expected that the MADMF trawl would capture more fish and a greater number of species than
the trawl used in this study.

           Longfin squid, American plaice, lobster, butterfish and silver hake accounted for
83% of the organisms captured during the MADMF fall groundfish survey between 1989 and
1993.  Longfin squid alone accounted for 34% of the total catch between 1989 and 1993,  and
most of these came from several large catches in 1993, Catches of American plaice were
relatively consistent between 1989 and 1993, and this species ranked in the top four in
abundance each year.  Lobster catches varied widely. In 1990 it was the most numerous
species captured, and other years it accounted for less than 3% of the total catch, Butterfish
catch also varied greatly as it composed less than 1% of the catch in 1989 and as much as
28% of the catch in 1990 when 3,326 were captured. The wide variation in butterfish catches
is to be expected for a semi-pelagic schooling species that may encounter the trawl in great
numbers.  Silver hake made up between 0.5 and 16.5% of the total catch with highest catches
in 1992.

           The MADMF catch data is different from the data collected  in this study.  With
the exception of lobster, none of the five most abundant organisms captured  in this study
(winter flounder, lobster, Atlantic tomcod, skate sp., and rainbow  smelt) were among the five
most abundant species hi the MADMF data (longfin squid, American plaice, lobster, butterfish
and silver hake). However, with the exception of Boston Lightship, all the sampling done in
this study was at inshore stations at depths less than 15 m,  and the majority of the MADMF
sampling was done at depths greater than 20 m. The differences in the species composition is
primarily due to the different depth habitats sampled.  The MADMF data is more similar to
the catch at Boston Lightship ( 50 m) where lobster and silver hake were among the five most
abundant species.

           It is difficult to compare data among fisheries surveys quantitatively due to
differences in gear and methods of sampling. Table 10 presents the catch data from the
MADMF trawl  survey for the six, 20-mmute duration samples taken in Massachusetts Bay at
locations less than 15m deep. MADMF did not sample at any of the offshore sites sampled
l31l&.»32/FJfiDOC
M*r 12,199f                                  16
                                                                 345
•iff
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIA TES
during this study.  The catch per 20 minute tow (CPUE) in the MADMF data (Table 11) is
much higher than the CPUE in the present study (Table 2).  Without a gear comparison study
it is unknown whether the larger CPUE in the MADMF data is due to the larger gear used, or
due to differences  in fish populations among the sites sampled.
DISPOSAL AREA MONITORING SYSTEM (DAMOSX COE/NED (1979)

           Commercial draggers originating from areas between Boston and the New
Hampshire border typically fished areas north of the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site.  Vessels
from Scituate tended to fish east and southeast of the disposal site  and boats out of Boston
and Weymouth typically fished shoreward of the Boston Lightship.

           Atlantic cod were caught through the winter and spring, or until driven off the
grounds by spiny dogfish in the summer.  American plaice and gray sole were caught through
the spring and summer. Yellowtail flounder were  caught to the north of both the Massachu-
setts Bay Disposal Site and Boston Lightship during the winter and spring, and silver hake
were caught to the west of Stellwagen Bank from June through November.

           DAMOS also reported that a disadvantage of fishing in the vicinity of any of the
dumping grounds was the possibility of catching waste material  which could include concrete
containers and barrels of radioactive and chemical  wastes.
5.0 CONCLUSION

           A review of historical data indicate an overall consistency in inshore and offshore
finfish community structure during the past 10-15 years.  Winter flounder are the most
important demersal fish species throughout the BHNIP project area. Other flatfish encountered
in the project area include yellowtail flounder, American dab and windowpane flounders.  In
less abundance than the flatfish, cod family appears to be abundant, especially in the offshore
area where the Atlantic cod, silver and red hake, and pollock were  consistently present in all
catch results.
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSQC1A TES	

           Data from the present study indicated that among the areas investigated during the
fall of 1994, abundance of demersal fishes was highest at Subaqueous E and Chelsea River
followed by the Mystic River, Inner Confluence and Boston Lightship stations. CPUE was
lowest at Spectacle Island CAD.  Pelagic species located at the inner harbor areas included
rainbow smelt, alewives and blueback herring. Several  baitfish were also evident in all of the
catch results of this and previous studies.  These included the Atlantic silverside, mummichog,
fourspine stickleback and the American sand lance.

           Other species which were reported throughout all studies were skates sp., Atlantic
mackerel, menhaden, ocean pout, butterfish, scup, grubby, cunner and longhom sculpins. Of
specific interest to the recreational fisherman, neither bluefish nor striped  bass were abundant,
but were present in some catches.

           Data from our study indicated mat 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.

           The catch results from this sampling effort,  and the findings reported in Haedrich
and Haedrich (1974), NAI (1985) and USEPA and COE/NED (1988), indicated that the lower
Mystic River and Inner Confluence areas have been identified as areas heavily used by finfish,
and are designated fish runs (EOEA 1978). This compares favorably to the site ranking for
trawl data (according to mean CPUE results), which indicated that the Chelsea and Mystic
Rivers, and the Inner Confluence were relatively productive finfish sampling locations.

           The relatively high CPUE at the Subaqueous E,  Chelsea River, Mystic River and
Inner Confluence stations may be influenced by the scaling factors used to standardize the
five-minute tows at these stations to 20-minute tows.  Carothers and Chittenden (1985) found
that tow duration accounted for only a small proportion of the variability  in otter trawl catches
of demersal shrimp.  Furthermore, although it is a standard practice, scaling CPUE from tows
of shorter duration to a longer tow duration often overestimates the CPUE of the shorter tows
(Carothers and Chittenden 1985). Therefore, the standardized CPUE from Subaqueous E,
Chelsea, Mystic River, Inner Confluence, and Spectacle Island CAD stations may be overesti-
mated.
13U&01VFIKDOC                                     X^ (ft  I
M*yl2.ms                                  18   <-^ ^ '
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES	^

           With these limitations in mind, demersal fish habitat quality is probably greatest at
Boston Lightship, REMOTE sampling indicated that this area has a well developed benthic
community and is heavily bioturbated.  The CPUE at Subaqueous E, Chelsea River, Mystic
River and Inner Confluence stations may be an artifact of the scaling factors used; however,
Chelsea River, Mystic River and Inner Confluence appear to provide habitat for juvenile
winter flounder.  REMOTS sampling indicated that the benthic community in these areas was
in an indeterminate successional stage, with homogeneous muddy sediments and little
bioturbation.  Demersal fish CPUE was lowest at Spectacle Island CAD and Subaqueous E
where the REMOTS sampling indicated that the benthic community was well-developed,
similar to Boston Lightship.
l3H6.032fFlft.DOC
May 12.199S                                  19
-------
MORMANDEAU ASSOCtA TES
6,0 REFERENCES


Bigelow, H.B. and W.C. Schroeder.  1953. Fishes of the Gulf of Maine. Fishery Bulletin of
    the Fish and Wildlife Service 74:53.

Carothers, P.E. and M.E. Chittenden, Jr.  1985. Relationships between trawl catch and tow
    duration for peraeid shrimp. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
    114(6):851-856.

Chase, B.C. 1994. Final Report on Fishery Resource and Water Chemistry Sampling at the
    Winthrop Harbor Borrow Pit: 1993. MADMF - Cat Cove Marine Laboratory. STAP Doc.
    No. 94-01 pp 10

ENSR Consulting and Engineering (ENSR).  1992. Central Artery (I-93)/Tunnel ((-90)
    Project Third Harbor Tunnel Baseline Monitoring Report. Prepared for the Massachu-
    setts Highway Department under contract to Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff.  June, 1992.

	.  1993a.  Central Artery (I-93)/Tunnel (1-90) Project Boston Harbor Water
    Quality Monitoring Report, Winter 1993.  Prepared for the Massachusetts Highway
    Department under contract to Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff.  July, 1993.

	__.  1993b.  Central Artery (I-93)/Tunnel (1-90) Project. Boston Harbor Water
    Quality Monitoring Report; Spring 1993.  Prepared for the Massachusetts Highway
    Department under contract to Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff.  October, 1993.

	.  1993c.  Central Artery (I-93)/Tunnel (1-90) Project. Boston Harbor Water
    Quality Monitoring Report; Summer 1993. Prepared for the Massachusetts Highway
    Department under contract to Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff.  November, 1993.

	.  1994a  Boston Harbor Water Quality/Fisheries, December 15 Sampling. CA/T
    Letter No. CL202-060.  Prepared for the Massachusetts Highway Department under
    contract to Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff.

	.  1994b.  Boston Harbor Water Quality/Fisheries, March 30 Sampling. CA/T
    Letter No. CL202-069.  Prepared for the Massachusetts Highway Department under
    contract to Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff.

	.  I994c.  Boston Harbor Water Quality/Fisheries, June 15 Sampling. CA/T Letter
    No. CL202-081 Prepared for the Massachusetts Highway Department under contract to
    Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff.

	    .  1995. Boston Harbor Water Quality/Fisheries, September 21-22 Sampling.
    CA/T Letter No. CL202-097. Prepared for the Massachusetts Highway Department under
    contract to Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff.

Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (Comm. of Mass.).  1978. Shellfish Resources of
    the Massachusetts Coast. Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, Massachusetts
    Division of Marine  Fisheries, Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management.
13JH.t32/FIftDOC
      9S                                  20
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES
Finkelstein, S.L. 1969. Age and growth of scup from waters of eastern Long Island.  N.Y.
    Fish and Game Journal. 16:84-110.

Haedrich, R.L. and S.O. Haedrich.  1974.  A seasonal survey of the fishes in the Mystic River,
    a polluted estuary in downtown Boston, Massachusetts. Estuarine and Coastal Marine
    Science.  2:59-73.

Howe, A.B. and P.G. Coates.  1975. Winter flounder movements, growth, and mortality off
    Massachusetts.  Transactions of the American Fish. Soc. 104:13-29.

Jason Cortell Associates. 1990.  Aquatic Resources Functions and Values, Vol. II: Disposal Site
    Alternatives Assessment.  Prepared for Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff.

Jury, S.H., J.D. Field, S.L. Stone, D.M. Nelson and M.E. Monaco. 1994.  Distribution and
    Abundance of Fishes and Invertebrates in North Atlantic Estuaries. ELMR Rep. No. 13.
    NOAA/NOS Strategic Environmental Assessment Division, Silver Spring, MD. pp 221.

Klein-MacPhee, G. 1978. Synopsis of biological data for the winter flounder,
    Pseudopleuronectes americanus (Walbaum). NOAA Technical Report NMFS Circular
    414. US DepL of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
    National  Marine Fisheries Service.

McCracken, F.D. 1963.  Seasonal movements of .winter flounder Pseudopleuronectes
    americanus (Walbaum), on the Atlantic coast.  Journal of Fish Res. Bd. of Canada
    20:551-586.

Normandeau Associates. 1994. Abundance and stock characteristics of the Atlantic tomcod
    spawning population in the Hudson River, winter 1992-1993.  Prepared for the New York
    Power Authority, White Plains, NY.

Normandeau Associates, Inc. 1985. Biological and Hydraulic Evaluation of the Proposed
    Dredge and Fill Plan at the Schrafft Center, Mystic River, Charlestown, MA.

Pearcy, W.G. 1962.  Ecology of an  estuarine population of winter flounder
    Psevdopleuronectes americanus (Walbaum). Bull. Bingham Oceanogr. Collect., Yale
    Univ. 11(2), 92 p.

Poole,  J.C.  1966. The use of salt-water coves as winter flounder nursery grounds. NY Fish
    and Game Journal  13:221-225.

Saila, S.B. 1961. A study of winter flounder movements.  Limnology and Oceanography.
    6:292-298.

Saucerman, S.E. and L.A. Deegan.  1991. Lateral and cross-channel movement of young-of-
    the-year winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) in Waquoit Bay, Massachu-
    setts. Estuaries 14(4):440-446.

Tail, R.V. and R.S. DeSanto. 1975.  Elements of Marine Ecology. Springer-Verlag, New York.
    pp. 209-223.
l31lf.033ff-lN.DOC
May 12,1995                                  21
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSQCIA T£S
USEPA and COE/NED.  1988. Boston Harbor Wastewater Conveyance System, Vol. II
    DSEIS.  USEPA and COE/NED and Metcalf and Eddy, Wakefield, MA.

United States of America. 1979. Disposal Area Monitoring System Annual Data Report
    1978. COE/NED and Naval Underwater System Center. Newport, RI.
131tf.032fFlttDOC
M*f It, 199S                                22
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES
                              APPENDIX A




                                FIGURES
Mia 12,1995                            23
-------
         EVERETT
  My***
                                CHELSEA
                          Tobin
                          Bridoe
                                                      Chelsea River
                                                         (Trawl)
                                                  Inner Confl&ence
                                               Channel (Trawl)
severe Sugar
 (Gill Net)
 EAST  BOSTON
              Mystic River
                (Trawl)

CHARLESTOWN
         Little Mystic Channel -J
             (GIH Net)
isnner and CaSahan Tunnels

     MSTA Tunnel
                                                                               Logan
                                                                              Airport
                      BOSTON
                                                    Fish Pier
                                                    (GUI Net)
                                                    SOUTH  BOSTON

©
iealer ^^^^^
0 2000" 4CCO'
Scale is Fe=t
Figure 1. Finfish sampling locations in inner
Boston Harbor, October 1994.
Source:
New Eagiaad Division. Corps of Eagiuees
-------
                                  Outer Harbor (Trawl)
                                                President Roads
                                            Spectacle Island (Trawl)
                                   Rgure 2. Finfish sampling locations in outer
                                            Boston Harbor, October 1994.
Scale:
           Scale in Yards
 500
1000
      Source:
                   NOS Chart No. 13270
         Sediment Classifications from Cortell 1990.
                                25
-------
to
S
B
     SI
     g.
   bS
   if
   VO
                  >/?!' ••^VO'W^-'^*; ^
                 y^^i^M^r^
                 J1'^. im^^
                  • • Q:.:<; J-;J.i??; •:".\/^\ <••' .: • \.  :.
                   . : »;• ( % > • -..M_ .^-UM.J/' I ..'..,... .!'•'_
                                    ^&§JiiiKlimK§H^  /••' •  •
                              Deposlllonal substrates within the disposal sites.
'BIDS approximate proposed disposal location » 42" 19' N
                               70° 40' W

        Melsburger 2 approximate location « 42'25'N
                               70' 50' W

        Melsburger 7 approximate location - 42'21'N
                               70° 47' W
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIA TES
                              APPENDIX B

                                TABLES
l3IH.032ffiN.DQC
Mty II, 1991                             27
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES
TABLE 1. REPRESENTATIVE FINFISH SPECIES LIST BOSTON INNER
AND OUTER HARBOR
Common Name
Alewife
American eel
American sand lance
Atlantic cod
Atlantic herring
Atlantic mackerel
Atlantic menhaden
Atlantic silverside*
Atlantic tomcod*
Bhiefish
Blueback herring
Butterfish
Gunner
Cusk
Fourspine stickleback*
Grubby
Hake
Little skate
Longhorn sculpin*
Lumpfish
Mummichog*
Ninespine stickleback*
Northern pipefish
Ocean pout
Scientific Name
Alosa pseitdoharsngus
Anguttla rostrata
Ammodytes americanus
Gadus morfma
Clupea harengus harengus
Scomber scombrus
Brevoortia iyrannus
Menidia menidia
Mtcrogadvs tomcod
Pomatomus saltatrix.
Alosa aestivalis
Peprilus triacanthus
Tautoglabrus adspersus
Brosme brosme
Apeltes quadracus
MyoxQcephahts aeneits
Urophycis sp.
Raja erinacea
Myoxocephalus octodecemspinosus
Cyclopterus lumpm
Fimdulus heteroclitus
Pangitius pungitius
Syngnathus fiiscus
Macrozoarces americanus
l3H6.Of2fFlfi.DOC
May 12, 1995
28
377
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIA TBS
TABLE 1. REPRESENTATIVE FINflSH SPECIES LIST BOSTON INNER
AND OUTER HARBOR (continued)
Pollock
Rainbow smelt
Red hake
Sea snail
Sea raven
Searobin
Sculpin
Shad
Silver hake
Smooth flounder*
Spiny dogfish .
Striped anchovy
Striped bass
Striped killifish*
Threespine stickleback*
Weakfish
Windowpane*
White perch
Winter flounder*
Winter skate
Yellowtail flounder*
Pollachius virens
Osmerm mordax
Urophycis chuss
Liparis atlanticus
Hemitriptems americanus
Prionottts sp.
Myoxocephalvs sp.
Alosa sapidissima
Merlucchts bilinearis
Liopsetta putnami
Squalus acanthias
Anchoa hepsettes
Morons saxatilis
Fimdulits majalis
Gasterosteus aculeatus
Cynoscion regalis
Scophthalmm aqousus
Morone americana
Pseudopleuronectes americanus
Raja ocellata
Limanda ferruginea
* Indicates fish species that are most likely to frequent shallow water areas.
Source: Massachusetts Port Authority, March 1980 and modified by Jason M. Cortell and
Associates Inc.
J3llf.03Z/FJKDOC
Mn 12. 199S
29
-------
Table 2. Standardized mean catch per unit effortCcatch per 20 minute trawl}
        by station in Boston Harbor and Massachusetts Bay, October 1994.
SPECIES



ALEWIFE
ATLANTIC COD
ATLANTIC MCONFISH
ATLANTIC SILVERSIDE
ATLANTIC TOMCOD
BUTTERFISH
GUNNER
GRUBBY
HAKE SP.
LOBSTER
LONGHORN SCULP IN
RAINBOW SMELT
SCUP
SHORTHORN SCULPIN
SILVER HAKE
SKATE SP.
STRIPED BASS
WINDOUPANE
WINTER FLOUNDER
YELLOWTAIL FLOUNDER
STATION TOTAL
PERCENT STATION-
COMPOSITION
STATION
j
BOSTON- !
LIGHTSHIP !
0.3{
o.o;
o.o;
o.o!
o.oj
4.0)
o.o!
o.o!
1.7]
37.7!
0.7J
O.Oj
o.oj
Q.O.]
0.7!
o.o!
o.o!
o.o!
17.7!
1.75
64.3]
]
18.4|
t
i
SUBAQUEOUS- \
i
i
SPECTACLE- !
i
i
INNER- [
E* ! I. CAD* [CONFLUENCE*!
O.Oj
5.3!
o.o;
9.3;
o.o;
o.o;
o.o;
o.o;
o.oj
14.7;
o.o;
10.7;
o.o;
o.o;
o.o;
20.0;
1.3;
1.3J
20.0;
o.o;
82.7J
1
23.6!
o.o;
o.o;
o.o;
1.3J
o.o;
o.o;
o.o;
o.o;
O.Oj
6.7[
O.Oj
4.0;
o.o;
o.o;
o.o;
6.7;
o.o;
O.Oj
9.3;
o.o;
28.0 j
i
i
8.0[
1.3{
o.o;
O.Oj
1.3!
o.o;
o.o;
o.o;
1.3;
O.Oj
2.7;
o.o;
4.0;
O.Oj
O.Oj
O.Oj
1.3}
o.o;
5.3J
22.7J
o.oj
40.0J
1
11.4J
1
1
MYSTIC- j
RIVER* [
4.0J
o.o;
5.3;
2.7!
10.7]
o.o;
1.35
O.Oj
o.o;
o.o;
o.o;
2.7;
9.3;
O.Oj
o.o;
o.o;
o.o;
O.Oj
26.7;
o.o;
62.7;
;
17.9!
I
1
CHELSEA- i
RIVER* J
o.o;
o.o;
O.Oj
0.0 [
16.0 ;
O.Oj
o.o;
2.7!
o.o;
4.0;
o.o;
O.Oj
O.Oj
1-3!
o.o;
1.35
O.Oj
O.Oj
46.7[
o.o;
72.0J
[
20.6;
1
1
SPECIES- [
1
1
1
PERCENT- j
SPECIES- J
TOTAL [COMPOSITION;
5.7[
5.3!
5.3{
14.7!
26.7J
4.0;
1.3!
4.0;
1.7J
65.7J
0.7!
21.3!
9.3!
1.3[
0.7!
29.3J
1.3J
6.7!
143.0!
1.7[
349.7;
1
1
1
. I
1.6!
1.5J
1.5!
4.2!
7.6 j
1.1J
0.4J
1.1!
0.5J
18.8J
0.2[
6.1 j
2.7J
0.4]
0.2J
8.4J
0.4]
1.9J
40.9!
o-S!
t
• i
i
i
100.0J
          *  Five minute tows standardized to 20-minute tows.
                               30
37?
-------
Table 3. Length frequency distribution for Winter flounder
         in ffoston Harbor and Massachusetts  Bay, October 1994.
[LENGTH GROW (im»
i
i
i
i
i. _.-___. ....___..__....

{65-69
[70-74
[75-79
[80-84
[95-99
[100-104
[105-109
{115-119
[120-124
{125-129
[130-134
{135-139
{140-144
{155-159
{160-164
{170-174
{175-179
{180-184
{185-189
J 190-194
{195-199
J200-204
{205-209
{210-214
[215-219
[220-224
[225-229
[230-234
[235-239
[240-244
[245-249
{250-254
{255-259
{260-264
{265-269
[270-274
[275-279
[280-284
{285-289
{295-299
[300-304
{305-309
{310-314
{320-324

BOSTON-
LIGHTSHIP





.
n
.
,
.
„

»
,
.
.
.
„
.
.
»
.
1
2
2
2
4
1
4
2
2
5
1
3
3
1
4
2
3
3
3

2
1
.

SUBAOUEOUS-
E

1
1
1
1
1
1

1


1











.
,
1



.
.

*
.
.
.
,
1
,
1
.
.
3
„
.

SPECTAGLE-

.
,
,
.

,


1


1


*
.

,
*




*


*





.
«

,

f
i

1

,
1
STATION
INNER-
CONFLUENCE

.
.
.
1
*
,
.
.

,
,
.
.
1


1
1

1
1
1
.
1
4
1
1

1
»


.
.
1
_
.
»
.
.
.
»
„
.

MYSTIC-
RIVE8

.



«
1
.
*
*
9
z
1
1
*
,
*
*
.
1
3
1
,

1
2
1
1
1
1


1
1
.
1










CHELSEA-
RIVER

1
„
»
•
*

1
1
1
1
2

1
1
4
1
1

3
1
1
1
3
2
3
»
2
1
2



.
.
2

1
1



*
*
.
1
	 	 i
SPECIES- |
TOTAL {
1
2J
1{
11
2\
1!
2j
1:
2{
2[
1{
5{
2j
2{
2{
1!
1|
2!
1!
4{
5!
3'
3!
5J
6|
12[
6!
5j
6|
6{
2|
5!
2[
4j
3!
5{
4{
4[
4]
5!
3{
1!
5!
1!
1!
                             31
                                                                            (CONTINUED)
-------
Table 3.   (Continued}
{LENGTH GROUP (mm)
|
1
1
i
i
i
• 	 ,H
{330-334
J350-354
{355-359
[365-369
{370-374
{380-384
{TOTAL
{MEAN LENGTH
{STANDARD DEVIATION

BOSTON-
LIGHTSHIP
1
*
1


.
53
247
34

SUBAQUEOUS -
E



1


15
180
106

SPECTACLE-
I. CAD

1



1
7
263
103
STATION
INNER-
CONFLUENCE
m
.
.
.
1

17
202
56

HTSTIC-
RIVER


.
,

.
20
187
46

CHELSEA-
RIVER




.

35
182
51
i
SPECIES- j
TOTAL !
>. 	 •
1!
1|
H
i{
1!
1!
1*7 j
212{
64{
                                                  32
-------
Table 4. Length frequency distribution for Atlantic tomcod
         in Boston Harbor and Massachusetts Bay,  October  1994.
{LENGTH (inn}
i
i
i
i

1116
1117
1130
1 134
1145
{151
1153
1157
1158
1160
1161
1173
1180
J182
1188 .
! TOTAL
[MEAN LENGTH
{STANDARD DEVIATION

MYSTIC-
RIVER

1
1
.
1
1
2



1
1




8
142
18
STATION
CHELSEA- ,'
RIVER j

i
i
• i
1{
i
• i
i
-!
'I
3!
1!
.]
_ i
1!
3!
1!
1!
12[
166J
17!
i
SPECIES- !
TOTAL !
i
i!
1!
i!
1!
1!
2!
1!
3!
1!
i!
11
1!
3!
1!
i!
20}
157!
21}
                            33
-------
Table 5. Length frequency distribution for Rainbow smelt
         in Boston Harbor and Massachusetts Bay, October 1994.
LENGTH (nnt)


71
89
96
J99
[100
|102
103
|105
106
J111
',116
|120
J121
[TOTAL
IHEAN LENGTH
STANDARD DEVIATION

SUBAQUEOUS- ,'
E !
i
i
- 1
1!
1
* 1
1|
1!
1!
1|
i
i
• i
1!
1!
1!
8!
IDS;
10|

SPECTACLE-
I. CAD
f
.
.
1
.
.
.
.
1
1
.
.
.
3
105
6
STATION
; INNER- ;
{CONFLUENCE j
i i
i • i
> 1 1
i ' i
i i
i • i
i i
i • i
i i
i • i
t i
i • i
i i
i • i
i pi
i 'i
i i
i • i
i i
i • i
i i
i • i
i i
i • i
i t
i • i
! 3!
i 100!
! 9!

MYSTIC-
RIVER
1








1



2
91
28
i
i
i
SPECIES- j
TOTAL J
>. 	 1
H
1!
1!
1!
1!
1!
1!
3!
1!
2!
1!
1!
1!
16{
104;
12!
                             34
-------
Table 6, Length frequency distribution for Skate sp.
         In Boston Harbor and Massachusetts Bay, October 1994.
j LENGTH (.ma)
i
i
i
t
i
t
J107
J337
|394
{440
[460
{479
|489
[495
',499
J505
{509
J511
,'512
J513
!525
|526
J533
,'536
J542
,'546
|553
j TOTAL
JHEAH LENGTH
j STANDARD DEVIATION

SUBAQUEOUS- ',
H !
11
1!
1!
11
1!
i!
1|
.f
1!
.|
.{
.{
.j
. j
.j
1!
1!
2!
1"
1!
1!
15 {
465J
117!

SPECTACLE-
I. CAD
.



.
.
.
.
.
.
1
1
1
1
1
.
*
,
.
.
.
5
514
6
STATION
INNER-
CONFLUENCE

.
.
.





1











1
505


CHELSEA-
RIVER
.
.
.

.

.
1
.
.
.
. ,
.
.
• ,
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
495
•
i
i
... . (
SPECIES- \
TOTAL !
y 	 (
1J
1!
1J
4 I
' 1
1 j
1j
1!
1!
1!
1!
1!
1!
II
1!
1!
1 I
1 I
2!
1|
* I
1!
22|
479!
98|
                           35
-------
Table 7.  Length  frequency distribution  for Scup
         in Boston Harbor and Massachusetts Say, October 1994.
j LENGTH (mm)
i
i
i
i
i
1 	 H
\78
{81
! 8?
[90
|95
J102
J109
I TOTAL
{MEAN LENGTH
(STANDARD DEVIATION
STATION j
i
MYSTIC- ! SPECIES- \
RIVER j TOTAL j
» 	 + 	 j
i ' 1 '
'! "I
11 11
1 1 ' 1
1
1
^
*
1
7
91
12
1!
1!
1!
1!
1!
7!
91]
12}
                       36
-------
                      Table 8, Standardized catch per unit effortCfish per 24-hour set) in gill net
                              collections from Boston Harbor and Massachusetts Bay, October 1994.
JSPECIES
STATION
i
i
t
I
!
. 	 .. 	 H
JALEUIFE
(AMERICAN SHAD
{ATLANTIC COO
{ATLANTIC TOMCOO
JBLUE RUNNER
JBLUEBACK HERRING
JBLUEFISH
JBUTTERFISH
[OWNER
j GREEN CRAB
{GSUBSY
JHAKE SP.
1 HORSESHOE CRAB
{LOBSTER
JLONCHORN SCULP I H
{MACKEREL
j MACKEREL SCAD
JRAINBOU SMELT
SSCUP
JS1LVER HAKE
JSKATE SP.
{SPIDER CRAB
{STRIPED BASS
JUIHTER FLOUNDER
[STATION TOTAL
{PERCENT STATIQN-
{COHPOSITIQN
i
i
i
RESERVED-! CHELSEA
CHANNEL { 01

28.7J
0.7{
•!
0.7!
0.3{
52.0{ 0.3
3.7{ 0.3
0.3J
.J 1.7
.! 2.0
i
•i •
i.o!
i
• i *
.! -0.3
1
* t
i
• I *
0.3{
3.3J 15.3
i
•i
i
• i *
1.0J
1.0}
1.0; o-3
2.7! 2.0
96.7{ 22-3
i
47.4! 10-9
FISH PIER

0.3
.
*
0.3

0.7


0.3








18.3
.
«
.
.
.

20.3

10.0
LOGAN 2

.
.
.
.
.
0.3

.


0.3


0.3

•
.
6.3
.

1.7
.
0.7
3.7
13.7

6.7
LITTLE-
MYSTIC-
CHANNEL

0.3
.
.
1.0
.
.
.
0.7
0.3

.

0.3




4.7



*


7.3

3.6
REVERE-
SUGAR

0.3


»











0.3
.
3.0
.
.
.
.
.
0.3
4.7

2.3
HEIS-
BURGER 2

0.7


.
.
.
.
.
3.0
.
.
.
.
5.0
2.0
6.3


.



.
0.3
17.3

8.5
MEIS-
BURGER 7

0.3

1.3





0.3
.

1.0

4.3
0.7
12.3


0.3
0.3
0.7


.
21.7

10.6
i
! PERCENT- !
SPECIES-! SPECIES- i
TOTAL ! COMP. j
K 	 +~ 	 - ]
30.7J 15.0!
0.7J 0-3!
1.3} 0.7!
2.0! 1.0!
0.3J 0-2!
53.3J 26.1J
4.0| 2.0!
1.0! 0-5!
5.7! Z.B!
2.0! LOS
0.3! 0.2!
2.0! 1.0!
0.3! 0.2!
10.0! 4.9!
2.7J 1.3!
19.0! 9-3!
0.3', 0.2!
51.0! 25.0!
0.3! 0-2!
0.3; o.2|
3.3J 1-6!
1.0} 0.5!
2.0! 1-Oj
9.0! 4-4 !
204.0| -I
1 t
1 1
.\ 100. Oj
                                                         37
-------
            TABLE 9. SEASONAL CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT AT FIVE STATIONS IN BOSTON HARBOR DURING 1993.
 w
 oo
U)
SPECTACLE ISLAND

Winter Flounder
Total Fish
Number of Tows
Total Catch per
10-Minute Tow

Winter
0
1
3
0.3

Spring
10
26
3
8.7

Summer
11
19
3
6.3

Fall
3
19
3
6.3

AQUARIUM

Winter Flounder
Total Fish
Number of Tows
Total Catch per
10-Minute Tow
Winter
7
7
3
2.3
Spring
13
18
3
6.0
Summer
5
10
3
3.3
Fall
69
79
3
26.3
GOVERNORS ISLAND
Winter
5
7
3
2.3

Spring
7
10
3
"3.3

Summer
9
15
. 3
5.0

Fall
10
26
3
8.7

RESERVED CHANNEL
Winter Spring Summer Fall
3 67 1 116
16 70 1 205
33 33
5.3 23.3 0.3 68.3

CHARLES RIVER
Winter
1
1
3
0.3
Spring
1
2
3
0.7
Summer
8
19
3
6.3
Fall
112
235
3
78.3




      Sources: ENSR (I993a, 1993b, 1993c, I994a)
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIA TES
     TABLE 10. FISHERIES DATA AT FIVE STATIONS IN BOSTON HARBOR
               ASSOCIATED WITH THE CA/T BOSTON HARBOR WATER-
               QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM DURING 1993 AND 1994.
STATION3
SPECIES
Alewife
Atlantic cod
Atlantic mackerel
Atlantic tomcod
Blueback herring
Fourspot flounder
Little skate
Longnose cusk eel
Lumpfish
Moustache sculpin
Ocean perch
Rainbow smelt
Red hake
Rock gunnel
Sea robin
Shorthorn sculpin
Tautog
Windowpane
Winter flounder
Total Fish Collected
Number of Tows
Catch per 10-Minute Tow
SI






23

4


4

2
8
1

6
43
91
18
5.1
GI



28


4

4
1
1

1
9

23

2
82
155
21
7.4
RC

2

4
29
1
6
1


1
9
18


57

9
281
418
21
19.9
AO






2



1
5


1
8

8
141
166
21
7.9
CH
7
2
2
9
2





2
111



9
1
5
272
422
21
20.1
TOTAL
FISH
7
4
2
41
31
1
35
1
8
1
5
129
19
- 11
9
98
1
30
819
1252


*SI = Spectacle Island, GI = Governor's Island, RC = Reserved Channel, AQ = Aquarium,
 CH = Charles River.

Sources:  ENSR 1993a,b,c; 1994a,b,c; 1995.
Miy 12,199S                              3 5
-------
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES
TABLE II. NUMBER OF FISH, SQUID AND LOBSTERS CAPTURED, AND CATCH PER 20
          MINUTE TOW, FOR THE SIX MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF MARINE
          FISHERIES FALL GROUNDFISH SURVEY SAMPLES TAKEN IN
          MASSACHUSETTS BAY WATERS LESS THAN 15 m DEEP, 1989
          THROUGH 1993.
SPECIES
American Lobster
Atlantic cod
Atlantic herring
Atlantic mackerel
Biueback herring
Butterfish
Gunner
Little skate
Longhom sculpin
Longfin squid
Lumpfish
Northern pipefish
Ocean pout
Rainbow smelt
Red hake
Rock gunnel
Sea raven
Silver hake
Spiny dogfish
White hake
Windowpane
Winter flounder
Winter skate
Yellowtail flounder
TOTAL
NUMBER
MINIMUM
91
1
0
0
0
0
0
24
0
• 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
36
0
0
PER YEAR
MAXIMUM
5,136
195
4
2
4
739
1
400
5
7,932
1
1
1
71
54
1
1
50
1
5
97
135
155
10
TOTAL
NUMBER
CAPTURED
(1989-1993)
6,624
232
5
3
4
897
1
850
6
9372
1
1
1
109
54
1
1
57
1
6
203
391
279
20
19,119
NUMBER PER 20
MINUTE TOW
1,104.0
38.7
0.8
0.5
0.7
149.5
0.2
141.7
1.0
1,562.0
0.2
02
02
182
9.0
02
02
9.5
02
1.0
33.8
652
46.5
33
3,186.5
131/&032/FIIV.DOC
May 11, 1995
40
-------
APPENDIX F - WATER QUALITY MODELING REPORT
-------
        MODELING RESULTS TO ASSESS WATER QUALITY IMPACTS FROM
      DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL OPERATIONS FOR THE BOSTON HARBOR
                    NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
                              Submitted to:

                          Normandeau Associates
                            25 Nashua Road
                           Bedford, NH 03110
                             Submitted by:

                            J. Craig Swanson
                            Daniel Mendelsohn
                        Applied Science Associates
                          70 Dean Knauss Drive
                          Narragansett, Rl  02882
                           ASA Project 95-012
                              26 May 1995
Applied Science Associates, Inc.
3ft
-------
                          TABLE OF CONTENTS


LIST OF FIGURES	Ji

LIST OF TABLES  	iv

1.  INTRODUCTION	1

2.  MODEL INPUTS	3
     2.1  Model System Description	3
     2.2  Hydrodynamic Model	4
     2.3  Pollutant Transport Model	4

3.  MODELING RESULTS  	10
     3.1  Continuous Release Scenario	10
     3.2  Instantaneous Release Scenario	 10
     3.3  Mixing Zone Analysis	 12

4.  CONCLUSIONS	18

5.  REFERENCES
       	19

Appendix 1  Memorandum from Michael Wade, Wade Research Inc. (31 March 1995)
-------
                                 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1    Proposed dredging sites in the Mystic and Chelsea Rivers and
             the Inner Confluence of Inner Boston Harbor	
Figure 12    Disposal sites in the greater Boston Harbor area including
             offshore sites	
Figure 2.1    WQMAP grid of quadrilaterals covering the Boston Harbor area.
             Surface elevation, currents and constituent concentration are
             determined for each quadrilateral over time  	
Figure 2.2    WQMAP grid covering the Inner Harbor area
Figure 3.1    Maximum predicted concentrations of TSS based on a
             continuous release at the Inner Confluence disposal site
Figure 3.2    Time series of TSS concentrations based on a instantaneous
             release at the Inner Confluence disposal site	
Figure 3.3    Maximum mixing zone (greater than 42 mg/L) for TSS based on
             a typical multiple instantaneous release scenario (DS3000 [~6000
             yd3/day]) at the Mystic River disposal site	
Figure 3.4    Maximum mixing zone (greater than 42 mg/L) for TSS based on
             a typical multiple instantaneous release scenario (DS3000 [~6000
             yd3/day]) at the Chelsea River disposal site  	
Figure 3.5    Maximum mixing zone (greater than 42 mg/L) for TSS based on
             a typical multiple instantaneous release scenario (DS3000 [~600Q
             yd3/day]) at the Inner Confluence disposal site	
Figure 3.6    Maximum mixing zone (greater than 42 mg/L) for TSS based on
             a typical multiple instantaneous release scenario (DS3000 [~6000
             yd3/day]) at the Spectacle Island disposal site	
Figure 3.7    Maximum mixing zone (greater than 42 mg/L) for TSS based on
             a typical multiple instantaneous release scenario (DS3000 [~6000
             yd3/day]) at the Subaqueous E disposal site  	
Figure 3.8    Maximum mixing zone (greater than 42 mg/L) for TSS based on
             a typical multiple instantaneous release scenario (DS3000 [~6000
             yd3/day]) at the Subaqueous B disposal site  	
Figure 3.9    Maximum mixing zone (greater than 42 mg/L) for TSS based on
             a typical multiple instantaneous release scenario (DS3000 [""6000
             yds/day]) at the Meisberger disposal site   	
-------
Figure 3.10   Maximum mixing zone (greater than 42 mg/L) for TSS based on
             a typical dredging and worst case multiple instantaneous release
             scenario (DSS + DSMAX [""10000 yd3/day]) at the Mystic River
             disposal site	
Figure 3.11   Maximum mixing zone (greater than 42 mg/L) for TSS based on
             a typical dredging and worst case multiple instantaneous release
             scenario (DSS + DSMAX [~ 10000 yd3/day]) at the Inner
             Confluence disposal site  .  ,	
Figure 3.12   Maximum mixing zone (greater man 23 ng/L) for PCB for the
             highest 25% (2.28 ppb) of sediment based on a typical dredging
             and multiple instantaneous release scenario (DSS •*• DS3000
             [~6000 yd3/day]) at the Mystic River disposal site	
Figure 3.13   Maximum mixing zone (greater than 23 ng/L) for PCB for the
             lowest 75% (0.15 ppb)  of sediment based on a typical dredging
             and multiple instantaneous release scenario (DSS + DS3000
             [~6000 yd3/day]) at the Chelsea River disposal site	
Figure 3.14   Maximum mixing zone (greater than 23 ng/L) for PCB for the
             lowest 75% (0.15 ppb) of sediment based on a typical dredging
             and multiple instantaneous release scenario (DSS + DS3000
             [~6000 yd3/day]) at the Inner Confluence disposal site	
Figure 3.15   Maximum mixing zone (greater than 23 ng/L) for PCB for the
             highest 25% (2.28 ppb) of sediment based on a typical dredging
             and multiple instantaneous release scenario (DS3000 ["6000
             yd'/day]) at the Spectacle bland disposal site	
Figure 3.16   Maximum mixing zone (greater than 23 ng/L) for PCB for the
             highest 25% (2.28 ppb) of sediment based on a typical dredging
             and multiple instantaneous release scenario (DS3000 [~6000
             yd3/day]) at the Subaqueous E disposal site  	
Figure 3.17   Maximum mixing zone (greater than 23 ng/L) for PCB for the
             highest 25% (2.28 ppb) of sediment based on a typical dredging
             and multiple instantaneous release scenario (DS3000 ["6000
             yd'/day]) at the Subaqueous B disposal site	
Figure 3.18   Maximum mixing zone (greater than 23 ng/L) for PCB for the
             highest 25% (2.28 ppb) of sediment based on a typical dredging
             and multiple instantaneous release scenario (DS3000 [~6000
             yd3/day]) at the Meisberger disposal site 	
                                          111
-------
Figure 3.19   Maximum mixing zone (greater than 23 ng/L) for PCB for the
             highest 25% (2.28 ppb) of sediment based on a typical dredging
             and multiple instantaneous release scenario (DSS + DS3000
             [~6000 yd3/day]) at the Mystic River disposal site	
Figure 3.20   Maximum mixing zone (greater than 23 ng/L) for PCB for the
             highest 25% (2.28 ppb) of sediment based on a typical dredging
             and worst case multiple instantaneous release scenario (DSS +
             DSMAX [~10000 yd3/dayj) at the Mystic River disposal site  . .
                                          IV
-------
                                  LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1    Model input parameters	

Table 2.2    Fall velocities for various materials	

Table 2.3    TSS release rates as a function of release volume, solid fraction,
             stripping fraction, sediment density, release amount and release
             time	

Table 2.4    Variation of loss rate and half life for mercury (Hg) by season ..

Table 2.5    Release rates for various constituents based on elutriate
             concentrations and a 3000 yd release of dredged material  	

Table 3.1    Modeled maximum excess constituent concentrations assuming a
             continuous source of dredged material disposed at the Boston
             Harbor alternative disposal sites compared with ambient
             concentrations and water quality criteria	

Table 3.2    Modeled maximum excess constituent concentrations from
             multiple instantaneous sources after four hours for each of the
             Boston Harbor alternative disposal sites compared with ambient
             concentrations and water quality criteria	

Table 3.3    Summary of TSS based mixing zone attributes based on 42 ng/L
             (equivalent to concern level of 50 ng/L less 8 ng/L ambient)   . . .

Table 3.4    Summary of PCB based mixing zone attributes based on 23 ng/L
             (equivalent to chronic level of 30 ng/L less 7 ng/L ambient)  . . .
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
       The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE) and the project's local sponsor, the
Massachusetts Port Authority, have proposed to dredge portions of Inner Boston Harbor to
improve navigational conditions in the harbor. As part of the EIR/S process, Applied Science
Associates (ASA) was tasked to estimate the water quality impacts of these operations
through the use of computer models which predict the transport and fate of pollutants  in the
dredged material.
       The proposed dredging plan encompasses four areas in the Inner Harbor: the Mystic
and Chelsea Rivers, the Inner Confluence and the Reserved Channel area (Figure 1.1). Both
channel and berth areas are to be dredged. Approximately 1.1  x 10* yd3 (840,000 m3) of
maintenance (silt) material are scheduled to be removed after which the channel will be
deepened to 40  ft (12.2 m).  The modeling analysis deals with the transport and fate of the
silt materials only.
       Disposal of the dredged material is proposed to be at one or more alternative sites in
Boston Harbor or offshore (Figure 1.2). One option is to overdredge the Mystic and Chelsea
Rivers and the Inner Confluence to a depth from 45 ft (13.7m) to 70 ft (21.3 m), depending
on the area,  and place the silt material into the resulting disposal cells.  Other alternatives
include creating a subtidal borrow pit on the east side of Spectacle Island or disposal at one
of the offshore  sites:  Meisberger 2 and 7. Filling subaqueous depressions in the outer
harbor, at the subaqueous E and B sites, is also being considered. Disposal at the Boston
Light Ship Disposal Site was addressed in the DEIS (with the ADDAMS model [Johnson,
1990]) but was  not repeated for the FEIS.
       The modeling effort uses three computer models.  The first is the USCOE STFATE
model, also known as the ADDAMS model (Johnson, 1990) which simulates single releases
of material in an unbounded region with steady flow and tracks the evolution of the resulting
plume as it sinks through the water column, contacts the bottom and is dispersed. The model
is designed to predict  bottom accumulation of material and to predict the size and extent of a
tracer cloud of  stripped material in open water.
       The ASA WQMAP model system (Mendelsohn et al, 1995) estimates the far field
distribution of pollutants based on time and space varying currents which occur at the harbor
sites. The system consists of a hydrodynamic model which predicts the currents in  Boston
-------
Harbor as a result of tides and river flow and a pollutant transport model which predicts the
concentration levels throughout the harbor over time.  The model utilizes a settling velocity
and loss rate depending on the specific constituent being modeled.
       The USCOE LTFATES model system (Scheffher et al, 1994) estimates the long term
stability of a dredged material mound on the ocean bottom.  The model is driven by local
wind and current conditions, either in a climatological or storm event mode.  It handles both
cohesive and noncohesive sediments. Model output consists of bathymetric changes over
time.
       This report summarizes the water quality concentration levels and mixing zones
estimated from the model applications as a result of both dredging and disposal operations.
The focus is on the results from the WQMAP system which predicts concentration levels over
time in the water column of constituents from the dredged material.  The constituents
examined include total suspended sediment (TSS), copper (Cu), mercury (Hg), polyehlorinated
biphenyls (PCB) and a polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) congener, naphthalene.
These parameters were chosen for a variety of reasons:  elevated concentrations in the
sediments compared with low water quality criteria (i.e. when in the dissolved phase),
potential toxicity, or potential interference with natural biological processes (i.e. TSS).
-------
2. MODEL INPUTS
2.1 Model System Description
       WQMAP predicts the far field levels of dredged material constituents and requires the
use of two models:  a hydrodynamic model to predict the currents and a pollutant transport
model to predict the resulting concentrations of material. Both models use a boundary fitted
finite difference approach which matches the model coordinates with the shoreline boundaries
of the water body.  This approach is consistent with the highly variable geometry of Boston
Harbor. The boundary fitted method uses a set of coupled quasi-linear elliptic transformation
equations to map an arbitrary horizontal multi-connected region from physical space to a
rectangular mesh structure in the transformed horizontal plane (Spaulding, 1984).  The three
dimensional conservation of mass, momentum equations and constituent, with approximations
suitable for lakes, rivers, and estuaries (Swanson, 1986; Muin and Spaulding, 1993) that form
the basis of the model, are then solved in this transformed space.  In addition an algebraic
transformation is used in the vertical to map the free surface and bottom onto coordinate
surfaces (Gordon, 1982).
       The resulting hydrodynamic equations are solved using an efficient semi-implicit finite
difference algorithm for the  exterior mode (two dimensional vertically averaged) and by an
explicit finite difference leveled algorithm for the vertical structure of the interior mode (three
dimensional) (Madala and Piascsek, 1977; Swanson,  1986).  The resulting constituent
transport equations are solved using an explicit finite difference algorithm on the same grid
and timestep as the hydrodynamic model. A detailed description of the models with
associated test cases is found in Muin and Spaulding (1993).
       Figure 2.1 shows the grid of quadrilaterals covering the entire Boston Harbor and
Figure 2.2 shows the finer grid utilized for the Inner Harbor.  Each model requires an input
data set which is explained below.  A third  simple square grid was used to simulate the
offshore site known as Meisberger.
       The models  are three dimensional but were run in a vertically averaged mode for this
application for the following reasons.  The observed  stratification (DWPC, 1985; Dallaire,
1990), seen in the upper reaches of the harbor is due to the thin (~1 m) surface lenses of
freshwater which do not appreciably affect the water column.  The dredging operations would
inject material from the bottom to the surface so the entire water column is effected at the
-------
same time. The disposal operation would inject material below this surface lense due to the
draft of the barge.
2.2 Hydrodynamic Model
       The hydrodynamic model calculates the currents and free surface elevation. For this
application the vertically averaged currents were predicted.  The model requires information
on tidal forcing at the open boundary and river flow into the area since both influence
flushing in the harbor.
       The tidal constituents for the open boundary extending from Hull to Outer Brewster
Island to Nahant are required.  For mis simulation a composite tide with a mean amplitude of
1.465 m (4.8 ft) and a period of 12.42 hrs (MJ was used (NOAA, 1994).
       The river flow used for this simulation consisted of the annual mean flows of the
Mystic River (2.4 m3/s), the Charles River (12.3 ms/s) and the Neponset River (5.3 m3/s) for a
total average flow of 20 m3/s (Alber and Chan, 1994).
       A summary of input values is provided in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1  Model input parameters
Parameter
Run Time
Time Step
Quadratic Bottom Drag Coefficient
Horizontal Diffusity
Value
5 to 30 days
465.75 to 621 sec
0.001
0.10 m2/s
Model Grid Dimensions
Inner Harbor Grid
Greater Harbor Grid
Offshore Grid
100 by 99
59 by 98
21 by 101
23 Pollutant Transport Model
      The pollutant transport model calculates the concentration of a pollutant on the same
grid as the hydrodynamic model. The model requires information on the material source
strength, the settling velocity, if any, and the loss rate, if any. Each input value is discussed
                                                      H
-------
generally and then, later in the section, specifically for each constituent. A summary of
model parameters used for each model run is presented later in this section.

Source  Strength
      Hie source strength is the amount of pollutant entering the system on a rate basis
(mg/s).  The source strength can be assumed to be an instantaneous release to the water
column, a constant release over time, or a variable release over tune. Multiple locations can
be input.
      The instantaneous source can be assumed to be the amount of material released to the
water column from one barge release.  The constant source is the mean loading to the water
column from multiple barge releases.  The variable source is the tune varying loading to the
water column as individual barge releases occur according to a set time schedule.
      The Corps of Engineers (COE) disposal plan estimates that over the entire construction
period of 440 days, an average disposal rate of 3000  yd3 per day will be necessary to dispose
of all the silt dredged material. The parent (clay) material will be dredged during the same
period and would need to average 4,200 yds3 per day. Due to construction sequences to
produce subaqueous disposal cells, an average disposal rate of approximately 6,000 yds3/day
for silt may be necessary to account for days when only clay is dredged or other construction
activities are required.
      The amount of pollutant released from the disposal of dredged material can be
estimated based on the elutriate concentration (EPA,  1991).  Elutriate testing results are
reported on a mass of pollutant to volume of water basis (mg/L).  Based on the COE
SPATES modeling approach  (EPA, 1991; Johnson, 1990), the amount of pollutant released is
the triple product of the elutriate concentration, the liquid fraction of the sediment and the
total sediment volume released.  For instance, with an elutriate concentration of 10 ppb (10
Hg/L), a typical liquid fraction of 0.55 and a 3000 yd3 release, the amount of pollutant
released is
      M  = (10. |ig/L) (0.55) (3000 yd3) (KfL/m3)  (0.7646 m'/yd3) (g/lO^g)  - 12-616 g
On a continuous loading basis the rate  is
      R - (12.616 g/day) (day/86400 s) (103 mg/g)  = 0.146  mg/s
      It should be noted that, for all parameters, dredge site water was utilized in the
elutriate tests,  so the elutriate concentrations include this  "ambient" portion.
-------
Fall Velocity
      The fall velocity acts as a mechanism to remove suspended sediment from the water
column.  It varies with the type (cohesive or noncohesive) of material and particle size. For
noncohesive sediments the following table shows fall velocity as a function of material type.
This information was taken from the ADDAMS user's manual and shown in Table 2.2. For
cohesive sediments the fall velocity is a function of the concentration of sediment in the water
column.  For natural detritus in the water column a typical range is 0.8 to  1.0 m/day (3.9 to
8.1 x 10-* m/s).

Table 2.2 Fall velocities for various materials.
Material
Clumps
Sand
Silt
Clay
Natural
Detritus
Fall Velocity
(ft/s)
3.0
0.1
0.01
0.002
2.8 x 1(T*- 3.5 x ID"6
Fall Velocity
(m/day)
79000.
2600.
260.
53.
0.8 - 1.0
Fall Velocity
(m/s)
0.91
0.030
0.0030
0.00061
3.9 x 1(T* - 8.1 x 10-*
Loss Rate
      A loss rate, defined as the rate of decay or transformation of a constituent, was
calculated to account for loss of the constituent from the dissolved phase and ultimately it
loss from the water column, to reflect natural conditions. This value is expressed in units of
reciprocal time.  The half life is the time it takes for a constituent to degrade to one half of
its initial concentration.  It is related to the loss rate by
              T - 0.693/k
where T is the half life and k is the loss rate.
23 Modeled Constituents
Total Suspended Sediment (TSS)
      Material is released to the water column during both dredging and disposal operations.
During dredging operations a small portion (~2%) of the dredged material is released into the
-------
water column (Tovalaro, 1984 cited in ENSR, 1991).  This fraction accounts for both material
suspended by the dredge (1.2%) and dredge scow overflow (0.8%).  During disposal
operations, most of the dredged material falls to the bottom relatively quickly with some
small fraction stripped from the falling cloud.  The ADDAMS model user's manual (Johnson,
1990) suggests that 3 to 5% of the sediment volume is stripped from the plume in water
depths of 100 ft (30 m) or less.
      The amount of TSS released to the water column can be estimated as:
      M = (Dredged volume) (Solid fraction) (Released fraction) (Sediment density)
      Table 2.3 summarizes the release amount of TSS under different volumes, released
fractions and release times. The solid fraction of 45% is suggested by the USCOE NED
(Tom Fredette, COE, personal communication) and the sediment density from the STFATE
model description of sediment characteristics (Johnson, 1990). A typical barge volume is
3000yds3.

Table 2.3     TSS release rates as a function of dredged volume, solid fraction, released
             fraction, sediment density, release amount and release time.
Dredged
Volume
(yd3)
3000
3000
6000
6000
3000
6000
Solid
Fraction
(%)
45
45
45
45
45
45
Released
Fraction
(%)
3
5
3
5
2
2
Sediment
Density
(g/caf)
2.65
2.65
2.65
2.65
2.65
2.65
Release
Amount
(kg)
82061
136768
164122
273536
54707
109415
Release
Time
(s)
-
-
.
-
86400
86400
Release
Rate
(kg/s)
-
-
—
-
0.63319
06637
      For the model runs, it was assumed that the release from dredging operations was
continuous. The fall velocity was chosen as either 3.048 xlO"3 m/s (silt) or 6.096 x 10~* m/s
(clay (parent)] as shown in Table 2.2. For disposal operations of silt, two scenarios were
assumed:  that a continuous release occurs or that multiple instantaneous releases periodically
occur.
                                                                                             A
-------
Copper (Cu)
      The calculation of Cu loading from dredged material disposal operations was based on
the elutriate test results. Elutriate testing was performed on a series of samples taken from
the Mystic and Chelsea Rivers and the Inner Confluence (COE, 1986).  The results showed a
maximum value of 3 ppb at Location B  (rep Rl) in. the Reserved Channel. AE other values
were <1,0 ppb except for one value of 1 ppb. It was assumed that no settling occurs nor was
there any loss rate.

Mercury (Hg)
      The calculation of Hg loading was also based on the elutriate test results (COE,  1986).
The test results showed a maximum value of 1.6 ppb at Location F (rep Rl) in the Chelsea
River.  Other values ranged from <0.5 to 1.4 ppb.
       A Hg loss rate was calculated based on a technical memo from Wade Research, Inc.
(Appendix 1).  A set of half lives for winter and summer months was calculated from the
literature which were converted to loss rates shown in Table 2.4. No settling velocity was
assumed.
Table 2.4  Variation of loss rate and half life for mercury (Hg) by season.
Season
Winter
Summer
Half Life
(days)
10-20
2- 3
Mean Half Life
(days)
15
2.5
Loss Rate
(sec'1)
5.3472xlO-7
3.2083x10-*
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)
      The calculation of PCB loads from dredged material disposal operations was also based
on the elutriate test results from the Mystic and Chelsea Rivers and the Inner Confluence
(COE, 1986). The results showed a maximum average value of 2.28 ppb from the Mystic
River. This material includes approximately 278,800 yd3 or 25% of the total silt material.
The remaining 75% of the silt material (approximately 820,000 yd3) was assumed to have a
-------
mean elutriate concentration of 0.15 ppb» based on results from the Chelsea River and the
Federal Channel.  No loss functions were assumed although some do exist.

Naphthalene
      Hie calculation of naphthalene loads from dredged material disposal operations was
based on the analysis performed by Wade (1995) relying on recent MASSBAY data as well
as other published data.  A water column concentration estimate was developed from
measurements of sediment concentration.
      Table 4 of Wade (1995) presented a set of calculated mean water column
concentrations for naphthalene at six sites in Boston Harbor. These estimates were calculated
from potential re-equilibration of the sediments with the surrounding water.  The highest
naphthalene concentration, 2.69x10"2 mg/L, was estimated to be found in the Federal Channel
in the Chelsea River.
      Table 2.5 summarizes the continuous and instantaneous release rates for the various
constituents in the sediments.  The Cu, Hg and PCB constituent loadings were based on
elutriate concentrations.  Naphthalene was based on a re-equilibration calculation and TSS
was based on the actual solids volume release.
Table 2.5     Continuous and instantaneous release rates for various constituents based on
             3000yds3.
Material
TSS (dredging)
TSS (disposal)
Copper
Copper
Mercury
Mercury
PCB
PCB
Naphthalene
Elutriate
Concentration
(ppb)
-
1.0
3.0
0.5
1.6
0.15
2.28
26.9*
Continuous Release
Rate (mg/s)
633.19
0.01460
0.04380
0.00730
0.02336
0.0000444
0.0006658
0.39279
Instantaneous
Release Rates (mg)
136768
63075.
189227.
31538.
100921.
189.2385
2876.425
169695.
*  Based on re-equfflbration calculation.
                                               HO 5"
-------
3. MODELING RESULTS
      The model system was ran for a series of constituents, release scenarios and disposal
sites. Three sets of runs were made:  a continuous loading scenario for all constituents and
harbor sites, an instantaneous loading scenario for all constituents and harbor disposal sites
and a mixing zone analysis using both continuous loading from dredging operations and
instantaneous loading from disposal operations at all disposal sites for TSS and PCB.  All
results are presented as concentrations in excess of ambient levels. Ambient levels were
derived from data reports and can be added to the "excess" values to derive a total predicted
concentration.

3.1  Continuous Release Scenario
      The first set of runs was a screening analysis using continuous loading. The disposal
locations were chosen to be coincident to the four Boston Harbor disposal sites: the Inner
Confluence, Spectacle Island, Subaqueous E and B. The model simulation time varied from
10 to 30 days, depending on how quickly the resulting concentration reached steady state.
      A typical result is shown in Figure 3.1 for a TSS release in the Inner  Confluence. The
results show a thin ribbon of elevated concentration extending south from the site  in the
middle of the Inner Harbor channel and a more diffuse cloud north of the site extending into
the confluence of the Mystic and Chelsea Rivers. Peak concentration was predicted to be 39
mg/L at this disposal site.
      The results for all constituents and disposal locations are summarized  in Table 3.1
which compares peak excess  concentration (in the quadrilateral grid corresponding to the
source location) to ambient conditions and chronic water quality criteria, if available. If
material were to be released continuously (up to 3000 yd'/day), no water quality criteria were
predicted to be exceeded.  This is shown by the final column which indicates no exceedance
if the value is less than one.

3.2  Instantaneous Release Scenario
      The next set of runs assumed that  a 3000 yd3 release of material occurred every noon.
The  disposal locations were again chosen to be coincident to the four Boston Harbor disposal
sites: the Inner Confluence, Spectacle Island, Subaqueous E and B.  The model simulation
                                          10
-------
Table 3.1      Modeled maximum excess constituent concentrations assuming a continuous source of
                dredged material disposed at the Boston Harbor alternative disposal sites compared
                with ambient concentrations and water quality criteria.
Material
TSS
TSS
TSS
TSS
Cu
Cu
Cu
Cu
Hg
Hg
Hg
Hg
PCB(75%/25%)1
PCB(75%/25%)
PCB(75%/25%)
PCB(75%/25%)
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
Site
bmer Confluence
Spectacle Island
Subaqueous E
Subaqueous B
Inner Confluence
Spectacle Island
Subaqueous E
Subaqueous B
Inner Confluence
Spectacle Island
Subaqueous E
Subaqueous B
Inner Confluence
Spectacle Island
Subaqueous E
Subaqueous B
Inner Confluence
Spectacle Island
Subaqueous E
Subaqueous B
Maximum
Excess
Concentration1
39ppm>
IS ppm
9.3 ppm
7.3 ppm
5.7 pptr*
l.lpptr
0.69 pptr
0.56 pptr
3.2 pptr
0.83 pptr
0.46 pptr
0.37 pptr
0.71/11 pptr
0.12/2.6 pptr
0.096/1.5 pptr
0.076/1.2 pptr
86 pptr
24 pptr
14 pptr
12 pptr
Ambient
(Shea,
1993)
(pptr)
8s
8
8
8
300
300
300
300
4
4
4
4
7
7
7
7
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
Water Quality
Criteria (pptr)
None
None
None
None
2900 (acute)
2900 (acute)
2900 (acute)
2900 (acute)
25 (chronic)
25 (chronic)
25 (chronic)
25 (chronic)
30 (chronic)
30 (chronic)
30 (chronic)
30 (chronic)
2350000
(LOEL)6
2350000
(LOEL)
2350000
(LOEL)
2350000
(LOEL)
Max* Amb
WQC




0.105
0.104
0.104
0.104
0.288
0.193
0.178
0.175
OJ257/0.600
0.237/0320
0.237/0.283
0.236/0.273
3.7 x ia5
1.0 x ID"5
6.1 x 10*
5.3 x 10*
1      25% is the Mystic River channel and berths silt volumes based on 23& ppb elutriate test results.
       75% is the remainder of the project silt volumes based on 0.15 ppb elutriate test results.
2      Once steady state conditions are reached
3      ppm " parts per million « mg/L
4      pptr - parts per trillion - ng/L
5      Ambient TSS concentrations determined from Inner Harbor data reported in DWPC (1986) and Dallaire (1990)
6      Lowest Observed Effects Level
                                                      11
-------
time varied from 10 to 30 days, depending on how quickly the resulting concentration reached steady
state.
      A typical time series of modeled concentrations is shown in Figure 3.2 for a TSS release in
the Inner Confluence. The results show a narrow peak of elevated concentration which quickly  drop
down to a relatively low level. Peak concentration was estimated to be 1397 mg/L at this disposal
site but dropped to a maximum of 3 mg/L after four hours.
      The results for all constituents and disposal locations are summarized in Table 3.2 which
compares modeled peak excess concentration after four hours to ambient conditions and acute water
quality criteria, if available.  No acute water quality criteria were predicted to be exceeded.  This is
shown by the final column which indicates no exceedance if the value is less than one.

33 Mixing Zone Analysis
      The Massachusetts water quality certification process requires that a mixing zone, which
defines the boundary where chronic water quality criteria are not violated, be established and that
this zone not interfere with nor impact local natural resources. To address this issue a series of  runs
were made to determine the size of the mixing zone.  This zone was calculated from model results
by determining which model grids exceeded an excess concentration equal to greater than the
appropriate water quality standard less the ambient water quality conditions.
      Two constituents were identified for this analysis:  TSS, since in high concentrations it can
potentially interfere with natural biological processes, and PCB, which from the previous scenarios is
the constituent most likely to exceed water quality criteria.
      The ambient level of TSS was calculated from data (DWPC, 1986; DaUaire, 1990) to average
8 mg/L.  The level of concern for TSS, although not an actual water quality criteria, was taken from
previous projects as 50 mg/L.  This leaves an allowable excess concentration of less than 42 mg/L.
The ambient  levels of PCBs were estimated by Shea (1993) to be 7 ng/L. Using a chronic criteria of
30 ng/L leaves  an excess PCB concentration of less than  23 ng/L.
Release Scenario Description
      A set of release scenarios was developed for the mixing zone analysis and are described
below.
-------
Table 3.2      Modeled maximum excess constituent concentrations from multiple instantaneous
                sources after four hours for each of the Boston Harbor alternative disposal sites
                compared with ambient concentrations  and water quality criteria.
Material
TSS
•res
TSS
TSS
Cu
Cu
Cu
Cu
Hg
Hg
Hg
Hg
¥CBV5%[25%y
PCB(75%/25%)
PCB(75%/25?6)
PCB(75%/25%)
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
Site
Inner Confluence
Spectacle Island
Subaqueous E
Subaqueous B
Inner Confluence
Spectacle Island
Subaqueous B
Subaqueous B
Inner Confluence
Spectacle Island
Subaqueous E
Subaqueous B
Inner Confluence
Spectacle Island
Subaqueous E
Subaqueous B
Inner Confluence
Spectacle Island
Subaqueous E
Subaqueous B
Maximum
Excess
Concentration
After 4 hr*.
13ppm*
0,31 ppm
0.70 ppm
1.2 ppm
26PPH3
2.3 pptr
2Jpptr
2.2 pptr
lOpptr
LI pptr
L2pptr
1.0 pptr
2.4/36 pptr
0.24/3.6 pptr
0.27/3.9 pptr
0.22132 pptr
246 pptr
20 pptr
22 pptr
19 pptr
Ambient
(Shea,
1993)
-------
Dredging Scenario DSS
      A portion estimated as 2% of the silt being dredged could be lost during the process of filling
and raising the bucket through the water column (1.2%) and spillover from the scow (0.8%).  This
scenario was used in the analysis of the Central Artery dredging project (Tovalaro, 1984 cited in
ENSR, 1991).  The load was based  on 6000 yd3/day dredging and was assumed to be continuous
since the dredging operation is continuous. A silt settling velocity of 0.003048 m/s was used.

DredgingScenario PSC
      This is the same as DSS except that a clay settling velocity of 0.0006096 m/s was used.

Disposal Scenario PS3QOO
      This release scenario assumed that 3000 yd3 was released at approximately every high tide.
Since a tidal period is 12.42 hrs this works out to slightly less than two releases (i.e., 6000 yd3) per
day. This scenario was chosen after review of the USCOE draft dredging operations plan (Peter
Jackson, personal communication).

Disposal Scenario PSMAX
      Discussions with the USCOE determined that there would be periods when additional dredged
material may have to be disposed. Periodically a two day period could occur where a total of 10,000
yd'/day must be disposed. A worst case scenario was developed where 3000 yd3 was disposed at
each high tide (i.e., 6000 yd3/day) for five days, then four subsequent 10000 yd3/day releases of 6000
yd3, 4000 yd3, 6000 yd3 and 4000 yd3 all at high tide, then back to the 6000 yd3/day release for seven
days and finally two more days of 10,000 yd3/day releases.

Total Suspended Sediments
      The amounts of TSS for each release scenario areas follows:
DSS:        A TSS silt loading rate of 1.26637 kg/s was used.
DSC        A TSS clay loading rate of 1.26637 kg/s was used.
DS3000:     An instantaneous release at every high tide of 136767.8 kg f~6000 yd3/day) of silt was
             used.
                                                  4
                                             14   T
-------
DSMAX:     A variable instantaneous release was used based on 3000 yd3 giving 136767.8 kg,
              6000 yd3 giving 273535.6 kg and 4000 yd3 giving 182357.1 kg.
      The mixing zone summary is given in Table 3.3 for the various scenarios and disposal sites.
The peak concentration reported was that estimated immediately following the release  at no time lag.
The length and width of the mixing zone were maximum estimates scaled from the computer
generated figures while the mixing  zone area was automatically determined. It is seen that the
dredging (Scenario DSC) operations create relatively small areas exceeding concern levels of 50
mg/L while disposal operations create larger zones.
      Figures 3.3 through 3.9 show the areas exceeding 42 mg/L for the seven disposal sites:
Mystic River, Chelsea River, Inner  Confluence, Spectacle Island, Subaqueous E, Subaqueous B and
Meisberger, respectively. In general the shape of the mixing zone is oriented along the predominate
ebb tidal direction. Thickness of the zone is primarily a function of the strength of the currents:
higher currents cause narrower zones.
      The Mystic River and Inner  Confluence are of special concern since fish passage is not to be
interrupted by dredging or disposal  operations. A finer model grid was developed to provide better
resolution in these areas. Figure 3.10 shows the Mystic River under worst case scenario conditions
(DSMAX + DSS). Approximately  one half the river width exceeds 42 mg/L.  Figure  3.11 shows the
Inner Confluence under worst case  scenario conditions (DSMAX + DSS). Here again, approximately
one half the river width exceeds 42 mg/L. The patchiness in the contours is due to the fact that
concentrations were saved only at one hour intervals.
Table 3.3      Summary of TSS based mixing zone attributes based on 42 ng/L (equivalent to
              concern level of 50 ng/L less 8 ng/L ambient).
Disposal Site
Mystic
Chelsea
Inner Confluence
Spectacle Island
Subaqueous E
Subaqueous B
Scenario
DS3000
DS3000
DS3000
DS3000
DS3000
DS3000
Peak TSS Con-
centration
(ng/L)
518
818
1397
774
414
361
Mixing Zone Dimensions
Maximum
Length
(m)
285
300
285
215
205
225
Maximum
Width (m)
125
95
80
150
175
200
Areadn*)
>42 mg/L
33540
25850
19550
31250
36080
42250
Figure
Reference
3.3
3.4
35
3.6
3.7
3.8
                                             15
-------
Disposal Site
Meisbcrger
Mystic
Chelsea
Inner Confluence
Mystic
Mystic
Mystic
Mystic
Chelsea
Inner Confluence
Scenario
DS3000
DSC
DSC
DSC
DS3000
DSS plus DS3000
DSMAX
DSS plus DSMAX
DSS plus DSMAX
DSS plus DSMAX
Peak TSS Con-
centration
(ng/L)
345
43
57
50
1476
2095
2952
4137
6898
10270
Mixing Zone Dimensions
Maximum
Length
(m)
350
140
145
95
280
215
480
355
1190
590
Maximum
Width (m)
110
125
90
80
185
185
185
185
140
140
Area (m2)
>42 mg/L
38980
17330
13040
6430
50440
38690
50440
38690
121500
59530
Figure
Reference
3.9
_
_
—
_
_
_
3,10
—
3.11
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)

      The amounts of PCB for each release scenario follows.
DSS:
DSC

DS3000:
DSMAX:
For the Mystic River material (with an elutriate concentration (EC) of 2.28 ppb) a
PCB loading rate of 0.0013316 mg/s was used.  For the Chelsea River and Inner
Confluence material (EC of 0.15 ppb) a PCB loading rate of 0.0000876 mg/s was
used.

Parent (clay) material was assumed free of any PCB concentrations.

For the Mystic River material (EC of 2.28 ppb) an instantaneous release at every high
tide of 2876.425 mg was used.  For the Chelsea River and Inner Confluence material
(EC of 0.15 ppb) an instantaneous release at every high tide of 189.238 mg/s was
used.

A variable instantaneous release was used based on 3000 yd3 giving 2876.425 mg,
6000 yd3 giving 5752.85 mg and 4000 yd3 giving  3835.32 mg.
      The mixing zone summary is given in Table 3.4 for the various scenarios and disposal sites.

The peak concentration reported was estimated immediately following the release at no time lag.

The mixing zone length and width were maximum estimates over the entire simulation period scaled

from the computer generated figures while the mixing zone area was automatically determined. It is
                                            16
-------
seen that the dredging operations create relatively small areas exceeding concern levels of 23 ng/L
while disposal operations create larger zones.
      Figures 3.12 through 3.18 show the areas exceeding 23 ng/L for the eight disposal sites:
Mystic River, Chelsea River, Inner Confluence, Spectacle Island, Subaqueous E, Subaqueous B and
Meisberger, respectively. As with the TSS mixing zones, the shape of the mixing zone is oriented
along the predominate ebb tidal direction. Thickness of the zone is primarily a function of the
strength of the currents: higher currents cause narrower zones.
      The Mystic River is of special concern since the sediments with higher PCB concentrations
(2.28 ppb in the channel) are found there. The finer model grid was used to provide better resolution
in this area. Figure 3.19 shows the Mystic River under mean conditions (DSS + DS3000).  Less
than one sixth of the river width was impacted. Figure 3.20 shows the worst case scenario
conditions (DSS + DSMAX).  Approximately one sixth the river width exceeded 23 ng/L but the
maximum length doubled over mean conditions.
Table 3.4.     Summary of PCB based mixing zone attributes based on 23 ng/L (equivalent to
              chronic level of 30 ng/L less 7 ng/L ambient).
Disposal Site
Mystic
Chelsea
Inner Confluence
Spectacle Island
Subaqueous E
Subaqueous B
Meisberger
Mystic
Mystic
Mystic
Mystic
Scenario
DSS + DS3000 (2.28 ppb)
DSS + DS3000 (0.!5 ppb)
DSS + DS3000 (0.15 ppb)
DS3000 (2.28 ppb)
DS3000 (2.28 ppb)
DS3000 (2.28 ppb)
DS3000 (2.28 ppb)
DS3000 (2.28 ppb)
DSS plus DS3000 (2.28 ppb)
DSMAX (2^8 ppb)
DSS plus DSMAX (2.28 ppb)
Peak PCB
Concentration
(ng/L)
16
1.9
22
16
8.8
7.8
8.9
49.7
50.0
93.7
94.0
Mixing Zone Dimension
Maximum
Length (m)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
75
75
150
150
Maximum
Width (m)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
60
60
60
60
Areadn2)
>23 mg/L
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4425
4425
8710
8710
Figure
Reference
3.12
3.13
3.14
3.15
3.16
3.17
3.18
-
3.19
-
3.20
                                              17
111
-------
4. CONCLUSIONS
      A series of analyses have been performed to determine the water quality impacts of the
proposed dredging and disposal operations for the Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement Project.
A model system, WQMAP, was used to estimate the water column concentrations of a series of
constituents:  TSS, Hg, Cu, PCBs, and naphthalene (PAH) known to be present in the sediments.
The model simulated the transport and fate of these materials at the following disposal sites:  Mystic
River, Chelsea River, Inner Confluence, Spectacle Island, Subaqueous E, Subaqueous B, and
Meisberger. Different release scenarios were developed and run:  continuous loading, instantaneous
loading and variable instantaneous loading.
      The continuous loading runs were designed to provide a screening analysis to determine which
constituents may potentially cause a water quality problem.  No constituents were found to exceed
chronic water quality criteria, under the tested scenario.
      The instantaneous loading runs were designed to more closely simulate the actual disposal
operations. A series of instantaneous releases were tracked to determine the maximum concentration
four hours after release and then compared to acute water quality criteria, if available.  No
exccedances were found under these scenarios.
      A analysis to determine the mixing zone based on TSS and PCB loadings  was also conducted.
Areas greater than the chronic water quality criteria less ambient concentrations were calculated from
the model results.  It was found that both the Mystic River and Inner Confluence mixing zones
extend approximately one sixth the distance across their respective widths for the worst case disposal
scenario (i.e., Mystic River).
                                              18
-------
5. REFERENCES

Alber, M. and A.B. Chan, 1994.  Sources of contaminants to Boston Harbor:  Revised loading
      estimates. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Environmental Quality Dept., Technical
      Report No. 94-1, March, 1994.

COE, 1988.  Feasibility report and environmental assessment for deep draft navigation improvements
      to Boston Harbor including Mystic River, Chelsea River and Reserved channel. New England
      District,  Corps of Engineers,  Waltham, MA.

Dallaire, T.R., 1990.  Boston Harbor 1987 and 1988 water quality data, wastewater discharge data,
      sediment data. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection.  Division of Water
      Pollution Control, Technical Services Branch, Westborough, Massachusetts.

EPA, 1991.  Evaluation of dredged material proposed for ocean disposal (testing manual). EPA
      503/6-91/001, Environmental Protection Agency and Department of the Army.  Washington,
      DC.  February 1991.

ENSR, 1991. Boston Harbor/Third Harbor tunnel mechanical dredge sediment resuspension analysis.
       ENSR Consulting and Engineering and Hartman Associates. April 1991.

Johnson, B.H., 1990. User's guide for models of dredged material disposal in open water. Technical
      Report D-90-5.  Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
      February 1990.

DWPC, 1986.  Boston Harbor 1985 water quality data, wastewater discharge data.  Massachusetts
      Department of Environmental Quality Engineering, Division of Water Pollution Control,
      Technical Services Branch, Westborough, Massachusetts, March 1986.

Mendelsohn, D., J. C. Swanson, and E. Hewlett.  WQMAP in a Windows environment To be
      presented at the 4th International Conference on Estuarine and Coastal Modeling, October 26-
      28, 1995.  San Diego, CA.

Muin, M. and M. Spaulding,  1993.  Development and application of a three-dimensional boundary-
      fitted circulation model in Providence River. Presented at the Estuarine and Coastal Modeling
      ffl. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference, Oak Brook, Illinois, September 8-10,
      1993.

NOAA, 1994. Tide tables 1995, high and low water predictions.  East coast of North and South
      America, including Greenland. U.S.  Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and
      National  Atmospheric  Administration, 1994.

Scheffner, N. W., M. M. Thevenot, J.R. Tallent, and J.M. Mason, 1994. LTFATE: A model to
      investigate the long-term fate and stability of dredged material disposal sites — user's guide.
      Dredging Research Program Report DRP-94-XX.  Waterways Experiment Station, Army
      Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS.
                                             19
-------
Shea, D., 1993. Annual review of toxic contaminants discharged by MWRA: 1993. MWRA
      Enviro. Quality Dept. Tech. Rpt. Series No. 93-18. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority,
      Boston, MA, 63 pp + appendices.

Tovalaro, J.F., 1984.  A sediment budget study of clamshell dredging and ocean disposal activities in
      the New York Bight Environmental Geology and Water Science, Volume 6, No. 3.
                                            20
-------
FIGURES
                      /
-------
                     i?--;s» *-.*.—     - •»  .  , - -'  ;-^s-^-';-" ^"T^ T^n:,,^ ^r^-^f'_--:O^gJ
                      «•» t-*' *  i        " .,*—* *F&  *~~£jp 2 p»- ' ' V""'* "*J^35*~5x^:'""£S'-'VF  **s r   '   -"  "^-^ir-.f^v, , .^•**~"'?^C' ^ ~*"^i,"*!-

                  ^•^r--.-:'-v: • r?:;v^tH-ffil^C^ /^
                      ^>  *• -    ,    "••   ,*  "y^ #' ^iii?-"^s. u /glT'fv^--" ^KKt   '<^-
                  - -- %^   l ~ -  •-> ^ ^ -*. X"-^ 9  "^ Jir^^-Vs>•!»•«-'*  ^n*   ii -^  ' '-
                      -,-s*         -   x   *ls»* t?-   —"*  *** "** *" "*l **"•« ""   "*—•  4 T.  ]^r_m "**53—** ^  *^ftf"- T1
                    *-" *  "^ , -  _-_    *    « *-*-*    '- .   v <~-^1  O^-  43^c ^s-W>
                      vr<'^'C .-  •    ,-  --,.C . ' .4,^  '^V '    V/*-V~-'l5«i, -    s-~*3«
                  SSS993!*                  '               ^  <-5a-t- - >" ~ :y
                                                                 „»*,•«
                                                                 ^f^Ji«-- —-f J " ^f
                                                                *«4,.,   - £> r-f ^'i,
                                                                *•" -^ ^  ***   •**" X^-'j
                                                              ^&*"wft5 »~-   £jC-^ -,.^5.^ ^^J
                                                     -{J^«-«-«» ^tfflfWS^Jr^j^-ts. ^ -•>*<|f'«4^».. i-
Hgure 1.1    Proposed dredging sites in the Mystic and Chelsea Rivers and the Inner
            Confluence of Inner Boston Harbor.
-------
mmiimm tiaBismsBiSMi

      Figure 1^    Disposal sites in the greater Boston Harbor area including offshore sites.
-------
Figure 2.1    WQMAP grid of quadrilaterals covering the Boston Harbor area. Surface
             elevation, currents and constituent concentration axe determined for each
             quadrilateral over time.
-------

                                               • ,>'•>••; •,,.•'  r-'"'1,1"-•"<• '.-•.,.''V. jh1?" -/^SvVW»/ -"!]'''-" ,-.•'
                                               i.»'»  • »'  "" • 'ti,.;;"%, 'V,'k,-,. . ifMEM.?^^/ .. l"--''«'
                                               V^v"".(':%'^-:'~^^-?«''V^;;J'\'f'''^^^:^,.\'':,Ak''.''\
••'•.-•'  s:--;'
'r'^S;:>g^;gllf^
;,«H
                                              i '4"1 /.- >" >'".r,' '* •'*•"''<•;<''^~>",s»\ vVv .^r.K.-'t •'
                                              fvc'- !..:'V^'':;'  r*'&&w:*£.; •

                                                                 "' ;vi'"
                           .
s<" *-'«•',..,' J'j ;  "',

i *•'?'"•,.•. '"'»"V "&.  •
   n.4 '^'! ' , •.  ''P 1 » " '
 _%V;,,,o;V ,^
>,iL: ,::-.*"^vv :/,*:,:.' vi\ - '''.;•.
i'^-?^^-'^/^'"^*-
• &M'
             .,-•*•.„
              Hgure 2JE   WQMAP grid covering the Liner Harbor area.
-------
                           %
                           ^OT1*^
                              *4^v/---Vir

Hgnre 3.1    Maximom predicted cxattcentrations of TSS based on a continuous release at the

            Inner Confluence disposal site.
-------
              TSS Concentration Over Time for
              Various Distances Downstream
   1400
CO

CO
p
    200
    100 -
                                i
                               3
                                      	Om
                                      	347m
                                      	694m
                                      	 1041 m
                            Time (hr)

      Rgure 32   Time series of TSS concentrations based on a instantaneous
                release at the Inner Confluence disposal site
-------
                                                                                         ,t>\;
Charlestown
Excess Suspended
Sediment,  
 ^ ^\   <  2+0
_• __; ^2+0  < 12+0
Q!! 12+0  < 22+0
    22+0  < 32+0
    32+0  < 42+0
          > 42+0
                                                                                        r9 J.O-
                                                                             ^•••.^.«s-«^^
                                                                             •£=;:::?^;9,^?;:if^5;i
                                                                           v ' ^'y^-^^m^ssj
• t  t  t
.50  km
        Hgure 3.3    Maxkrann mixing zone (greater than 42 mg/L) for TSS based on
                    a typical multiple instantaneous release scenario (DS3000 [~6000
                    yd3/day]) at the Mystic River disposal site
-------
Figure 3,4    Maximum mixing zone (greater than 42 mg/L) for TSS based on
             a typical multiple instantaneous release scenario (DS3000 [~6000
             yd3/day]) at the Chelsea River disposal site
-------
                                                            •*""",•, i" 4^ -

                                                                                _-<-- -  ^-r
                                                                                * •  "  »  V*4
                                                                                      -
Charlestown
Excess Suspended   I—
Sediment  
                                                     2*0 <
                                               I-ll! 12*0 < 22*0
                                                    22*0 < 32*0
                                                    32*0 < 42*~0
                                                          > 42*0
 .59 km
                                                                                     >  -%>-"•'
                                                                                     -.  ---**
                                                                                       ~ "k,  * " 't-
                                                                                      .»  ^2- J:
                                                                        « ^ -S
      Figure 3.5    Maximum mixing zone (greater than 42 mg/L) for TSS based on
                   a typical multiple instantaneous release scenario (DS30QO ["6000
                   yd3/day]) at the Inner Confluence disposal site
-------
                                                                           -* - -w  -v <-  ^ -
                                                                           ' ^,1^  *">,*>  ^
                                                                           f" "*.   ^.  r
                                                                 Illl! £2^ ,<'^22+0 ./"  ;
Figure 3.6    Maxiraani mixing 2»ne (greater than 42 mg/L) for 1SS based on
             a typical multiple instantaneous release scenario (DS3000 ["6000
             yd3/day]) at the Spectacle Island disposal site
-------
                                                                   Excess Suspended   t-
                                                                   Sediroerrb    42.0
.50 km
      Kgure 3.7    Maximum mixing zone (greater than 42 mg/L) for TSS based on
                  a typical multiple instantaneous release scenario (DS3000 [~6000
                  yd3/day]) at the Subaqueous E disposal site
-------
                                                                Excess Suspended   I-
                                                                Sediment *
                                                                 :>;: /2»0 < 12+0 \
                                                                        O X,
                                                                        .  => 42^0
km
   Rgure 3.8    Maximum mixing zone (greater than 42 mg/L) for TSS based on
                a typical multiple instantaneous release scenario (DS3000 [**6000
                yd3/day]) at the Subaqueous B disposal site
-------
.50 km
1
                                                 •Excess-Suspended. • I—
                                                 Sediment  Cmg/Li
                                                 Hill 12*0 <'22*0 J
                                                 HH 22+0 <-32»0
                                                      32;XX < 42*0
                                                           > 42*0
       Hgure 3.9    Maximum mixing zone (greater than 42 mg/L) for TSS based on
                   a typical multiple instantaneous release scenario (DS3000 [~6000
                   yd3/day]) at the Meisberger disposal site
                                          //30
-------
                                                                                   «, j-.



                                                                                   *V" »•"««?&*•'
                                                    .i*..-
                                          v?
                                                                                <**v
            **$f^*£^M "• ;5*        -'- , VT^t-y Tt' *•  W* MM. 32*0~ ?'42.pylsfe%!- '.^^yli^^     "      *  7 mrifrWi

                     ^^.....,.:,... .    ->V--^ >ffe,-^t?.':^r r-C^^ ^:^M

                   .:...;;.;.i.;iiiiPn?:-i;:    "^	li -^  - --  ^ - -; ^i-l.' ^^'^:?v-^' - -jv.-^ ^  ^-   -^r^  •--  •
       '.SiU-t^t ^ix»-->  Vs-'^iiC /     Ar ~-   -^~'~   « -, sOtS
      •>.,-.-,^ -4,• 3?4,   <^^~ vr- • - ^- •.      s«-^-      ?

   •  or ^^^'^^^'r^-^'c'i;?^ ,S'~  '€. ~,  -':>
       "V- ?^=J^'^Cir'"^r^-^ "s^ >^x fe^'^ -

^^•y^t^^tlfl  ^^^"™"^-?'i1f-§f  '  '  %„
         "" _.
                        \ -KI  "t."

                        §*£*--

      ->H   >;._3*.  ;: f-Tx^   ,
""-_"rA^ -,\t^'-^v,. '.
• «*-<• j/ t
.!- -^
                                   4~  A-. *    *    ^

                                   >«' ^ ~  ^ "^  ;
            ,fe-
km
  Figure 3.10  Maximum mixing zone (greater than 42 mg/L) for TSS based on

              a typical dredging and worst case multiple instantaneous release

              scenario (DSS + DSMAX [~10000 yds/day]) at the Mystic River

              disposal site
-------
                                                                                        JK
                                                                                        <.'
                                                                  Excess Suspended
                                                                  Sediment   
                                                                  _~  ;  -   <  2+0"
                                                                  :•":.:•  2+0  < 12+O
                                                                      22*0  < "32.0
                                                                            < 42*0
                                                                            > 42+0-
                                                                               -t •+ Ar -« -»   K
                                                                                   f "*"   *
                                                                                 '->:..:-..
                                                                                i-tyjt'  .  ^, -
                                                                                   <.{->,
         i	•
.50 km
       Hgure 3.11   ^feximum mixing zone (greater than 42 mg/L) for TSS based on
                   a Apical dredging and worst case multiple instantaneous release
                   scenario (DSS + DSMAX ["10000 yd3/day]) at the Inner
                   Confluence disposal site
-------
                                 ,  y-  -Cr/v ^i^Krv**-^ **?2i-
                    <  <
                                  -v
                                           V-
                                           ".— -
 ••  "*•*, x  ?
* -. -' t*  v
«•  *' *>. *:.
                                                             ^^  *  ^r.
                                                     ^ H  T^-*i.
                                                     * t^-55 *•
                                           East Boston
                                  c-x^  ~") -Cja, ,1
                                  rfuj, - * , «i. « t


                                      >> ' r»
                                                  r^<1
                                                        Excess  Concentration"  1—
                                                             ,8^< 13.0'^ -


                                                             18+$ <,237<>eii^
                                                                           V1   f
                                                                      t~tfff^
                                                                  X     >^ <• *~~  -"'
                                                                   -/  '-^T-s.r'- -,^-

                                                                    _\ 'K-   ^">
                                                                        •^.*.\
                                                                       c "4^   c
                                                     ,
                                                    *-^'   >
 Figure 3.12   Maximum mixing zone (greater than 23 ng/L) for PCB for the
             highest 25% (2.28 ppb) of sediment based on a typical dredging
             and multiple instantaneous release scenario (DSS •*• DS3000
             [~6000 yd3/day]) at the Mystic River disposal site
-------
                                                       f   „ *. *- NV *«- •* 1

                                                             * ~ *^ »
                                              „• - „.* ,** „  -

                                             •in?  ,-  ' ,g- v>-.
                                                                      -/. s •-••
      Charlestown
                                                    East Bostor
                                                                                   * jwti);*™1 I VKf#WP*ii
                                                                  Excess Conoent.rat.iort
                                                                        3*0  <  8+0
                                                                        8*0  < 13*0
                                                                       13*0  < 18*0
                                                                       18*0  < 23*0
                                                                             > 23*0
,50 km
       Kgure 3.13   Maximum mixing zone (greater than 23 ng/L) for PCB for the
                    lowest 75% (0.15 ppb)  of sediment based on a typical dredging
                    and multiple instantaneous release scenario (DSS + DS3000
                    [~6000 yd3/day]) at the Chelsea River disposal site
-------
                                                ~~s^\
       "5"X« \4
       -•^t:4''-fc
              A -
                ,  *    _t --i-i «?*
                '   ^-   -   "•'•??,
                  **"      J jf   i*»** "• , ^«?L^ >'?*^SSfe-r*^^^^>s'^ r

                        f .*--"* -*"\.  ^          "^-^sr'^Il
          r v
*,  *>^ ^. ™
^^
  «£
                                                   <-<.->  i
                                                                     '  ~4
-iv f
,1*^::
-^i
  Chariest-own
                                               East Bostor
                                                                   «-o*^;-Ic«j* „   f4.jfe ;a ,-t •
                                                                   'AW3«:-^4V-.^^^5 '•
                                                                   p^-^-'-jaS jr**v  J'   ^'•'Spfr  i/*"
               I3SEBBBB
                                                                                  •rTT"
                                                              Excess Concentration
                                                                    8»0 <  13*0
                                                                  13*0 <  18*0
                                                                        >  23.0
                                                                                    .^r'-
                                                                                      '>-—*
km
  Figure 3.14   Maximum mixing zone (greater than 23 ng/L) for PCB for the
               lowest 75% (0.15 ppb) of sediment based on a typical dredging
               and multiple instantaneous release scenario (DSS + DS3000
               [~6000 yd3/day]) at the Inner Confluence disposal site
-------
                    East- Boston
Excess Concentration
- - Xng/L>
	 i r < 3+0 '
fliT- 3+0 ,< 8+0
ii'i! 8+0 < 13+0
13+0 < 18+0
IBB 1S+0 < 23+0
•• . > 23+0
L

1.80  km
       Figure 3.15  Maximum mixing zone (greater than 23 ng/L) for PCB for the
                    highest 25% (2.28 ppb) of sediment based on a typical dredging
                    and multiple instantaneous release scenario (DS3000 [~6000
                    yd3/day]) at the Spectacle Island disposal site
-------
             East. Bost-or
 i-p
.>*-
  ,-t^T
                                        Excess t
                                           '
                                                   <
                                                   <
                                                 " -  ^> Kfta.
                                                 : > 123*0
Figure 3.16   Maximum mixing zone (greater than 23 ng/L) for PCB for the
             highest 25% (2.28 ppb) of sediment based on a typical dredging
             and multiple instantaneous release scenario (DS3000 [~6000
             yd3/day]) at the Subaqueous E disposal site
-------
                      East. Bostor
                                                Excess Concentration"
                                                       -u ™  j. *T "* iri~i1' ™jk, '
                                                      ", ^. 1-  3*0
                                                      3*0  < '8*0
                                                      8*0  < 13*0
                                                     13*0  < 18*0
                                                     18*0  < 23*0
                                                           > 23*0
    1.00 km
          Figure 3.17  Maximum mixing zone (greater than 23 ng/L) for PCB for the
                      highest 25% (2.28 ppb) of sediment based on a typical dredging
                      and multiple instantaneous release scenario (DS3000 ["6000
                      yd3/day]) at the Subaqueous B disposal site
Oft
-------
                                                Excess' Concent ration
                                                          :<  3*0
                                                          ;'.<  8*0
                                                           •< 13+0
                                                           < 18*0
                                                          \< ,23+0
Figure 3.18   Maximum mixing KMie (greater than 23 ng/L) for PCB fco: the
             highest 25% (2.28 ppb) of sediment based on a typical dredging
             and multiple instantaneous release scenario (DS3000 ["6000
             yd3/day]) at the Meisberger disposal site
-------
                                                                                 ' ',
                                                           Excess Concentration
Hgnre 3.19   Maximum, mixing aMie (greater than 23 ng/L) for PCB for the
             highest 25% (2.28 ppb) of sediment based on a typical dredging
             and multiple instantaneous release scenario (DSS + DS3000
             T6000 yd3/day]) at the Mystic River disposal site
-------
                                                                    Excess' Goncenbr-ation
                                                                                £
                                                                                <
     ""*•"-*»"-*-"•  •* ****"**?*!!*^**-"-***!"S-;;5;S;S*;;S;SI»;*;;»«*%
                               Ei*»S«!*S*S*»******* ****.*.***.•,

    "t*^  ^      *~^  ., ***?** 1C *S^-VX'"V .s^iu t ^~"""     - rV^"'^^*^:®^:^^-:
     - "" ^       *v  *  /  sf > ' 4  •5*3^;5 ' _      "-- 4 ^ij  **  " *:-:!:-ii:i: I


        S/^   i   ^    i*j-i.'c  _^, "*        «&     "  -ti.  *^**5 ~ -i   * • "**"*
      ^       »^, -±_,     .                          -S    >«.  -»   ...
          - 4 • r< ^
                                                                                                    -„,, <_?-
Rgure 3^0   Maxinnim mixing zone (greater than 23 ng/L) for FOB for the
               highest 25% (2.28 ppb) of sediment based on a typical dredging
               and worst case multiple instantaneous release scenario (DSS +
               DSMAX riOOOO yd*/day]) at the Mystic River disposal site
-------
          Appendix 1

Memorandum from Michael Wade,
      Wade Research  Inc.
        (31 March 1995)
-------
I                                                WRI  Memorandum I
       To:  John Shipman, NAI
     From:  Michael J. Wade, i
     Date:  March 27,  1995
                             'j
  Subject:  U.S. Army  Corps  of Engineers/MassPort Boston Harbor Navigation
             Improvement Project; PAH Source Terms
  Enclosed are PAH source terms for various individual PAH and £PAH16 for the
  computer modeling related to disposal operations planned for the above-
  referenced  project. These data come from the latest information available on the
  Massachusetts Bays  Project, a joint  project from the Commonwealth of
  Massachusetts and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. These specific data
  come from  a paper that I presented  at the American Chemical Society Summer
  Meeting in  Boston in  1993, and can be referenced in other work. There are actually
  four different references that can be used for these data, as presented at the end
  of this memo.

  These data include PAH data on rivers that discharge into either Boston Harbor
  and/or Massachusetts Bay. These are the Charles, Danvers, Merrimack, and  Mystic
  Rivers. In addition, we can get data on  MWRA's POTW Effluent as well as storm
  water data and CSO data for various inputs into Boston Harbor. However, the
  major sources are the rivers and MWRA's POTW effluent.

  For the rivers, the detailed data are  included in a separate attachment to this
  memo. Sampling points are  important here as well. The sampling points were
  checked  to ensure that they were only fresh water and did not include any salt
  water influence. Table 1 provides information on the sampling locations for river
  and POTW effluent. Appendix A includes all necessary data on the rivers and the
  POTW effluents for MWRA.

  I have not included data for minor POTWs such as South Essex and Lynn, or from
  CSO and stormwater discharges  into Boston Harbor. I can provide such data on
  short order, if necessary. The next subject that I will be working on is the issue of
  PAH degradation, focusing on the naphthalene  problem. Thus far, I have expended
  as total of  five (5) hours on selection evaluation of these MassBays data  and the
  preparation of the submittal to NAI.  If you  have something from Craig Swanson or
  a list of source terms that he needs, I  could use a copy of it to guide my work.
-------




WRI Memorandum
Date:
Subject:
Page:
March 27, 1995
PAH Source Terms
2



The PAH data included in Appendix A represent the best PAH data available to the
scientific community at this time on this issue. Use of these data should obviate any
criticism of the use of the much more imprecise data provided by previous loadings
estimates  from MWRA or the MassBays program. These data are simply the best
available.

Table 1.     Sampling Locations for River and POTW effluent from the
            Massachusetts  Bays Program for Freshwater and Sewage Effluent
            PAH Data.
Rivers/Sources
Sampling Location
Charles
Danvers

Merrimack
Mystic
MWRA, Dear Island

MWRA, Nut Island
Immediately upstream of the Charles River Dam
Sampled from a public pier, opposite the Route 107 Bridge,
sampled on an outgoing tide out of the  salt water lens
Immediately downstream  of the City of  Newburyport
Immediately upstream of the Amelia Ehrhardt Dam
Downstream of all treatment activities, upstream of final
discharge opening
Downstream of all treatment activities, upstream of final
discharge opening
-------

Date:
Subject:
Page:

March 27, 1995
PAH Source Terms
3
WRl Memorandum 1



References

Wade, MJ. 1993. Questions on the Distribution of Chlorinated and Poiynuclear
Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Boston Harbor and Massachusetts Bay Sediments.
Presented at the 23rd  Northeast Regional Meeting of the American Chemical
Society, June 22-25, 1993, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts.

Menzie-Gura & Associates, Inc. 1994. Organic Loadings from the Merrimack River
to Massachusetts  Bay. Prepared for Massachusetts Bays Program. Massachusetts
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, Coastal Zone Management Office, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency - Water Management Division.

Menzie-Cura & Associates, Inc. 1995. Final Draft Report Nonpoint Source Runoff
PAH Loading Analysis. Prepared for  Massachusetts Bays Program. Massachusetts
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, Coastal Zone Management Office, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency - Water Management Division.

Wade, M.J., G.B. Gardner, D. Phinney, and J.J. Cura. 1995. Transport and Distribution
of Polycyclic Aromatic  Hydrocarbons, Chlorinated Pesticides and Polychlorinated
Biphenyls from the Merrimack River to Massachusetts  Bay USA. Submitted to
Environmental Science and Technology.
Appendix A follows:
-------
4:
Calculation of PAH Means for
MassPort Source Modeling

Sample
CharlesRiver
CharlesRiver
CharlesRiver
Mean

DanversRiver
DanversRiver
DanversRiver
Mean

DeerlsIPOTW
DeerlslPOTW
DeerlsIPOTW
Mean

Merrimack River, Freshwater
Merrimack River, Freshwater
Merrimack River, Freshwater
Merrimack River, Freshwater
Merrimack River, Freshwater
Merrimack River, Freshwater
Merrimack River, Freshwater
Merrimack River, Freshwater
Merrimack River, Freshwater
Merrimack River, Freshwater
Merrimack River, Freshwater
Merrimack River, Freshwater
Mean
Units Napthalene Acenaphylhylene^cenaphthene
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
232,23
16.21
3.4
84
27.48
44.91
12
28
1799
860
1500
1386
7.1
23
39
0
123
32.46
31.26
58.05
58.51
40.21
28.75
88
44
36.4
9.14
33
26
7.84
4.01
0
4
0
46
42
29
0
0
0
0
2.8
6.9
5.92
5.21
8.46
6.96
0
1.9
3
86.32
0
83
56
7.68
6.67
0
5
205.44
99
170
158
0
0
0
0
3.2
5.76
5.92
0
0
4.78
5.17
3.6
2
Flurorene Phenanthrene Anthracene
118.95
5.2
120
81
9.17
4.63
0
5
191.08
35
190
139
0
0
0
0
3.3
4.98
3.43
4.35
3.07
0
0
2.8
2
860.24
23.78
590
491
73.47
13.2
5.6
31
495.85
190
290
325
3.7
5.3
5.5
29
72
18.43
15.55
9.41
14.7
12,47
6.98
58
21
67.21
8.17
30
35
12.16
0
0
4
125.28
0
34
•53
0
1.4
0
0
2.7
6.91
5.99
0
6.29
5.34
3.18
0
3
-------
4:
Calculation of PAH Means for
MassPort Source Modeling

Sample
MysticRiver
MysticRiver
MysticRiver
Mean

NutlslPOTW
NutlslPOTW
NutlslPOTW
Mean

Merrimack River, Saltwater
Merrimack River, Saltwater
Merrimack River, Saltwater
Merrimack River, Saltwater
Merrimack River, Saltwater
Mean

TSS, MassBays, Station2
TSS, MassBays, Station4
TSS, MassBays, Stations
TSS, MassBays, Stations
TSS, MassBays, StationBb
TSS, MassBays, Stations
Mean
Units Napthalene Acenaphythylene^cenaphthene Flurorene Phenanthrene Anthracene
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L •
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
ng/L
62.62
36.5
15
38
576.87
370
350
432
9.8
19
71
9.28
10.65
24
0.32
0.35
0.39
0.43
0.13
0.31
0.322
15.28
14.93
5.8
12
0
690
8.8
233
0
13
0.93
0
0
3
0.06
0
0
0
0
0
0.010
39.12
7.4
0
16
0
18
42
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.000
39.23
8.32
0
16
78.64
76
37
64
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.000
217.31
27.28
7.7
84
138.85
120
78
112
0
26
49
2.76
7.11
17
0.24
0.07
0
0.075
0.049
0
0.072
28.04
15.44
10
18
30.29
24
5.4
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.2
0
0
0
0
0
0.033
-------
  Y^,
— *—
Calculation of PAH Means for
MassPort Source Modeling

Sample
ChartesRiver
CharlesRIver
ChartesRiver
Mean

DanversRiver
DanversRiver
DanversRiver
Mean
DeertslPOTW
DeerlslPOTW
DeerlslPOTW
Mean

Merrimack River, Freshwater
Merrimack River, Freshwater
Merrimack River, Freshwater
Merrimack River, Freshwater
Merrimack River, Freshwater
Merrimack River, Freshwater
Merrimack River, Freshwater
Merrimack River, Freshwater
Merrimack River, Freshwater
Merrimack River, Freshwater
Merrimack River, Freshwater
Merrimack River, Freshwater
Mean
Fluoranthene   Pyrene  Benzo(a)anthracene Chrysene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(k)fluoranthene
     691.06   421.7              24.38    121.5              91.71               25.46
      32.67   43.48               9.83    18.33              14.53                10.5
        550     340                33     100                 71                  23
        425     268                22      80                 59                 20
84.51
12.45
24
40
240.7
0
86
109
4.5
7.6
8.8
52
28
36.96
25.59
12.54
20.06
17.49
6.54
15
20
56.08
6.86
20
28
266.2
0
95
120
3.1
5.7
5.2
38
17
31.75
21.39
9,08
17.01
13.99
6.63
6.6
15
10.23
1.61
7.7
7
91.79
0
25
39
1.8
3.4
0
0
7.1
16.91
9.04
2.67
6.41
6.5
0
3.2
5
24.92
3.86
8.9
13
0
0
32
11
1.4
4
0
0
15
20.25
12.69
5.13
11.11
9.07
3.24
7.1
7
 23.6
 2.67
   1 1
   12

71.61
   27
   23
   41

  1.4
  3.1
  5.6
   38
   12
16.42
10.97
 3.68
 7.45
 6.69
 2.75
  6.1
   10
                                                                                  7.32
                                                                                  2,29
                                                                                    3.8
                                                                                     4

                                                                                 58.91
                                                                                     0
                                                                                    13
                                                                                    24

                                                                                     0
                                                                                     0
                                                                                    3.4
                                                                                    15
                                                                                    4.7
                                                                                 16.21
                                                                                  10.2
                                                                                  3.72
                                                                                  6.63
                                                                                    6.6
                                                                                  1.99
                                                                                    1.6
                                                                                     6
-------
Calculation of PAH Means for
MassPort Source Modeling

Sample                      Fluoranthene   Pyrene  Benzo(a)anthracene Chrysene  Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(k)fluoranthene
MysticRiver                      194.35  110.08               9.38   34.48               28.53                8.11
MysticRiver                       55.27   47.23             10.86   21.59               15.93               15.09
MysticRiver                          30      46                10      17                  18                 6.3
Mean                                93      68                10      24                  21                 10

NutlslPOTW                        42.4   46.36                 0       0                9.69               10.99
NutlslPOTW                           0      24                12     6.9                  11                  3
NutlslPOTW                          37      31                 8      12                  12                 4.3
Mean                                2634                 76                  11                  6

Merrimack  River, Saltwater                                         00                   0                  0
Merrimack  River, Saltwater              4430                12      21                  23                 15
Merrimack  River, Saltwater              13     3.7                2.3     6.2                 4.2                 1.8
Merrimack  River, Saltwater            2.41    1.86                 00                   0                  0
Merrimack  River, Saltwater            5.813.89                 0       0                   0                  0
Mean                                16      10                 35                   5                  3

TSS, MassBays, Station2             0.33    0.23               0.21    0.19                0.15                0.14
TSS, MassBays, Station4             0.06    0.05               0.17    0.05                0.05                0.04
TSS, MassBays, Stations             0.07    0.05               0.11    0.06                0.05                0.04
TSS, MassBays, Station6            0.048    0.03               0.07   0.032               0.039               0.028
TSS, MassBays, Station6b               0   0.036             0.024   0.035                0.03               0.013
TSS, MassBays, Stations             0.05    0.04               0.13    0.03                0.03                0.03
Mean                             0.093   0.073             0.119   0.066               0.058               0.049
-------
     Calculation of PAH Means for
     MassPort Source Modeling
tn
Sample
CharlesRiver
CharlesRiver
CharlesRiver
Mean
DanversRiver
DanversRiver
DanversRiver
Mean
DeerlslPOTW
DeerlslPOTW
DeerlslPOTW
Mean
Merrimack River, Freshwater
Merrimack River, Freshwater
Merrimack River, Freshwater
Merrimack River, Freshwater
Merrimack River, Freshwater
Merrimack River, Freshwater
Merrimack River, Freshwater
Merrimack River, Freshwater
Merrimack River, Freshwater
Merrimack River, Freshwater
Merrimack River, Freshwater
Merrimack River, Freshwater
Mean
Benzo(a)pyrene
14.1
8.74
20
14
6.32
0
7.3
5
0
0
9.7
3
0
2.3
3.4
18
7.6
17.19
9.97
3.42
5
5.3
0
1.6
6
                                 Benzo(a)pyrene  ldeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene  Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
                                                              22.77
                                                                6.75
                                                                 13
                                                                 14

                                                              10.93
                                                                2.48
                                                                 3.3
                                                                  6
                                                                  0
                                                                  0
                                                                 15
                                                                  5

                                                                  0
                                                                  0
                                                                  0
                                                                 17
                                                                 5.6
                                                                11.8
                                                                7.67
                                                                  0
                                                                4.38
                                                                4.71
                                                                  0
                                                                 1.5
                                                                  4
icene Benzo(ghl)perylene
4.29
0
2.7
2
2.35
0
0
1
0
2.7
0
1
0
0
0
0
1.5
2.29
2.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
21.52
7.58
12
14
10.83
1.94
4.3
6
45.64
15
0
20
0
1.7
5.9
23
5.4
12.35
8.49
0
4.58
4.43
0
2.3
6
TotalPAH16
2839.84
214.91
2024.1
1693
374.89
107.58
107.9
197
3591.5
1274.7
2524.7
2464
23
57.5
76.8
230
310.9
257.57
186.24
117.26
173.66
144.54
65.23
199.3
154
-------
-t
 Calculation of PAH Means for
 MassPort Source Modeling

 Sample
 MysticRiver
 MysticRiver
 MysticRiver
.Mean

 NutlslPOTW
 NutlslPOTW
 NutlslPOTW
 Mean

 Merrimack  River, Saltwater
 Merrimack  River, Saltwater
 Merrimack  River, Saltwater
 Merrimack  River, Saltwater
 Merrimack  River, Saltwater
 Mean

 TSS, MassBays, Station2
 TSS, MassBays, Station4
 TSS, MassBays, Stations
 TSS, MassBays, Stations
 TSS, MassBays, StationSb
 TSS, MassBays, Stations
 Mean
                                  Benzo(a)pyrene  ldeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
                                             5.8                 9.62
                                           11.55                10.13
                                              11                  8.2
                                               9                    9
12.49
  7.6
  9.6
   10

    0
   12
  2.2
    0
    0
    3

 0.15
    0
    0
    0
0.025
    0
0.029
    0
   12
  8.1
    7

    0
   14
    0
    0
    0
    3

 0.13
 0.04
 0.05
    0
0.022
    0
0.040
racene Benzo(ghi)perylene TotalPAH16
1.94
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.008
0
0.001
9.77
11.24
7.6
10
6.25
6.1
6.7
6
0
21
1.7
0
0
5
0.13
0
0
0
0.026
0
0.026
813.66
308.76
192.6
438
952.83
1380.6
649.9
994
9.8
250
156.03
16.31
27.46
92
2.48
0.88
0.82
0.752
0.398
0.62
0.992
-------
APPENDIX G - PROP WASH VELOCITY CALCULATIONS
-------
 BOSTON HARBOR NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

      CHARACTERIZATION OF
NEAR BOTTOM WATER VELOCITIES
         GENERATED BY
  TYPICAL VESSEL OPERATIONS
             IN THE
   IMPROVED BOSTON HARBOR
              Submitted To

        NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES INC.
            25 Nashua Road
          Bedford, NH 03110-5500
             March 21,1995
             Submitted By
              OCEAN AND COASTAL
             oc/c
              CONSULTANTS, INC.
      35 Corporate Drive. Trumbull, CT 06611 (203) 268-5007 FAX 268-8821
-------
Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement Project                                   Page 1
Characterization Of Vessel Generated Velocities
 1.0   INTRODUCTION

As vessels transit the improved channels of Boston Harbor, the propeller slipstreams will generate
extensive fields of relatively high velocity flows. These vessel induced flows could have significant
impacts upon the sedimentation processes within the project reach. An analysis of these flow fields
was developed for a range of typical vessels. These vessels included:

              (1)    LNG Tanker
              (2)    APL C8 Container Ship
              (3)    41,000 DWT Tanker
              (4)    Ocean Tug
              (5)    Harbor Tug

The slipstream velocity field  generated by each of these vessels was determined for a  range of
propeller shaft power levels by simulating the propeller slipstream as a submerged hydraulic jet. The
specific magnitudes of water velocities were determined, in this  two-dimensional numerical
simulation,  over the full range of water depth and at  incremental distances from the stern of the
vessels.

Typical vessel operating parameters, as described by active Boston Harbor pilots, are quantified.
Actual observations of vessel slipstream impacts are summarized and critical channel reaches are
identified. A spatial description of potential vessel induced, near bottom velocities throughout the
project area is presented.

2.0   VESSEL SIMULATION

Vessel propeller slipstream velocities were  approximated using an  analogy with a  submerged
hydraulic jet emerging from an orifice with constant exit velocity (Blaauw, H.G. and Van de Kaa,
E.J., 1978).  The simulation is based upon several general assumptions: (1) vessels have little or no
speed; (2) pressure is hydrostatically distributed; (3) the jet diffusion process is dynamically similar
under all flow conditions; (4) the propeller thrust is equivalent to the  delivered thrust; and (5) the
axial velocity distribution is represented by the normal probability function. The formulation which
was used to simulate the velocity fields for the various vessels is described in the accompanying
computation sheets.

The vessel draft and installed power parameters, which were employed for these simulations, were
based upon typical values for vessels which frequent  Boston Harbor. No attempts were made to
characterize the  effects of multiple propellers or the influence of vessel hull geometry on the
slipstream flow fields.
                                                                                               ,11
-------
 Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement Project                                  Page 2
 Characterization Of Vessel Generated Velocities
3.0   TYPICAL OPERATING CONDITIONS

Typical vessel transit procedures and tug operations within the channel ways of Boston Harbor were
characterized by Messrs. Dave Galman, Docking Master, and George Lee, Tug Captain, of the
Boston Docking Pilots Association. The following description is a synopsis of discussions with these
vessel operations experts.

Assisting tugs can be provided with a range of onboard power.  Typical tugs will have between 1,600
HP (1,225 kW) and 3,000 HP (2,300 kW) onboard. Tug draft is typically around 13'-6". Most new
tugs are being delivered with twin propellers, although many single screw tugs continue to operate.
In-bound vessels pick up the Pilot and all required and necessary assisting tugs prior to entering the
channel. Large vessels may require as many as five (5) tugs to assist with both transit and berthing
maneuvers.

Deep draft vessels, with tug assist, transit the inner channel ways at less than five (5) knots and
typically utilize less than 25 % of the onboard power. These vessels will typically transit with no assist
by the tugs. The Pilot will call for assist only as necessary and typically during turning and slowing.
Tug assistance is normally required when turning a deep draft vessel into the Reserved Channel. Tugs
also are utilized for maneuvering out of the Inner Confluence and into the Mystic River and Chelsea
Creek.  As noted, tugs may be used during slowing maneuvers while transitting the channel and for
preparing the vessel for berthing. Slowing of the deep draft vessels will typically be accomplished by
placing the power train at "half-a-stern" or putting 50 % power to the propeller shaft while turning
in reverse. This  maneuver likely generates the most potential for relatively high near  bottom
velocities.

The vessel transitting operations, including tug maneuvers, will typically generate turbidity plumes
coincident with the propeller slipstream. Turbidity plumes have been observed throughout the channel
reach and in most berths. The most highly impacted area is the Inner Confluence,  and the channel
reaches extending almost all the way up the Mystic River channel, and to just beyond the McArdie
Bridge in Chelsea Creek.

4.0   SIMULATION RESULTS

Vessel slipstream velocity fields were simulated for each of the representative vessels. A fixed depth
of 45 ft (13.72 m) was used for all of the simulations. Velocity fields corresponding to 20%, 40%,
60%, 80%, and 100% installed power levels were generated for each of the vessels. The detailed two-
dimensional velocity fields are tabulated on the attached computation sheets and summarized on the
following Table I. This Table identifies the approximate maximum velocities experienced on the
channel bottom and at the water surface, and the approximate  distance from the propeller that these
occur for each  of the power levels and vessels simulated.
                                  455
-------
Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement Project
Characterization Of Vessel Generated Velocities
Page3
                                     TABLE 1
                        Propeller Slipstream Velocity Summary
20 % Installed Power
Vessel
LNG
Tanker
APLC8
Container Ship
41k DWT
Tanker
Ocean
Tug
Harbor
Tug
Maximum
Surface
Velocity, ft/s
5.1
4.5
3.8
4.6
3.7
Surface
Distance From
Propeller, ft
131
131
131
65
33
Maximum
Bottom
Velocity, ft/s
7.9
6.2
5.9
1.2
0.9
Bottom
Distance From
Propeller, ft
98
98
98
197
197
40 % Installed Power
Vessel
LNG
Tanker
APLC8
Container Ship
41k DWT
Tanker
Ocean
Tug
Harbor
Tug
Maximum
Surface
Velocity, ft/s
6.3
5.7
4.7
5.8
4.6
Surface
Distance From
Propeller, ft
131
131
131
65
33
Maximum
Bottom
Velocity, ft/s
9.9
7.8
7.4
1.6
1.1
Bottom
Distance From
Propeller, ft
98
98
98
197
197
-------
Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement Project
Characterization Of Vessel Generated Velocities
Page 4
                                TABLE 1 (Cont'd)
                        Propeller Slipstream Velocity Summary
60 % Installed Power
Vessel
LNG
Tanker
APLC8
Container Ship
41k DWT
Tanker
Ocean
Tug
Harbor
Tug
Maximum
Surface
Velocity, ft/s
7.3
6.5
5.4
6.7
5.3
Surface
Distance From
Propeller, ft
13.1
131
131
65
33
Maximum
Bottom
Velocity, ft/s
11.4
8.9
8.5
1.8
1.2
Bottom
Distance From
Propeller, ft
98
98
98
197
197
80 % Installed Power
Vessel
LNG
Tanker
APLC8
Container Ship
41k DWT
Tanker
Ocean
Tug
Harbor
Tug
Maximum
Surface
Velocity, ft/s
8.1
7.2
5.9
7.3
5.8
Surface
Distance From
Propeller, ft
131
131
131
65
33
Maximum
Bottom
Velocity, ft/s
12.6
9.8
9.3
2.1
1.4
Bottom
Distance From
Propeller, ft
98
98
98
197
197
-------
Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement Project
Characterization Of Vessel Generated Velocities
PageS
                                  TABLE 1 (Confd)
                         Propeller Slipstream Velocity Summary
100 % Installed Power
Vessel
LNG
Tanker
APLC8
Container Ship
41k DWT
Tanker
Ocean
Tug
Harbor
Tug
Maximum
Surface
Velocity, ft/s
8.6
7.7
6.4
7.9
6.3
Surface
Distance From
Propeller, ft
131
131
131
65
33
Maximum
Bottom
Velocity, ft/s
13.5
10.6
10.1
2.1
1.5
Bottom
Distance From
Propeller, ft
98
98
98
197
197
These analyses do not reflect any modification to the slipstream flow field by the vessel hull, when
the propeller and consequently the efflux jet direction is reversed.

5.0   SUMMARY

Maximum surface and near bottom velocities generated by typical transitting vessels were determined
using a simulation technique which compared the two-dimensional vessel propeller slipstream with
the velocity field generated by a submerged hydraulic jet. A review of typical vessel operating
procedures demonstrated that deep draft vessels will rarely exceed 20-25% of onboard power during
transit operations. These vessels do, however, utilize up to 50% power in reverse thrust during
breaking procedures for berthing. Tug generated velocities resulting from shaft powers approaching
100% are typical throughout the upper harbor and most typical during vessel turning operations
through  the Inner Confluence, throughout the Mystic  River Channel, and during all berthing
maneuvers.
-------
OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Project;   Boston Harbor Navigation
                Improvements
Subject:   Vessel Slipstream Velocities
                    Sheet No.
                    Job No.
                    Made By
                    Chkd. By
    1         of
94051.000000
   JCR    Date
          Date
03-0&-95
   1.0    EVALUATION OF WATER VELOCITIES GENERATED BY TYPICAL
            VESSEL OPERATIONS IN THE IMPROVED BOSTON HARBOR

          The vertical water velocity profiles generated by various typical vessels
          were produced using a simple two-dimensional numerical simulation,
          based upon momentum theory and representing the propeller slipstream
          as a submerged jet. Several general assumptions were made :

                    (1)  Pressure is hydrostatically distributed throughout.
                    (2)  The diffusion process is dynamically similar under
                         all flow conditions.
                    (3)  The longitudinal velocity component within the area
                         of diffusion varies as the normal probability function
                         over each vertical section.

          The analyses were performed only over the zone of established flow and
          employed empirically determined (Ref. 1) constants which fit measured
          slipstream velocities to the Gaussian normal distribution.

          Five distinct vessels were evaluated, including three (3) deep draft transports
          and two (2) tugs. Each vessel was evaluated at power output levels ranging
          from 20% to 100%.     IT SHOULD  BE EMPHASIZED THAT THE
          POWER LEVELS OF THE DEEP DRAFT VESSELS WILL NOT
          LIKELY EVER EXCEED 20% WHEN TRANSITTING THE BOSTON
          CHANNEL REACHES.          The data is presented for information
          only and should be utilized as a comparison of vessel operations. Specific
          vessel power utilization should be verified with the Boston Docking Pilots,
          MASSPORT, or the USA COE.
Rev. No.
Made By
Date
                              File Ref.:   vesveIO.wk4
-------
OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Project:   Boston Harbor Navigation
                Improvements
Subject:   Vessel Slipstream Velocities
                              Sheet No.
                              Job No.
                              Made By
                              Chkd. By
    2         of
94051.000000
   JCR   Date
          Date
03-01-95
   2.0
   2.1
Rev. No.
Made By
Determination of Vessel Slipstream Velocity

This analysis employs empirically developed formulation, based upon simple
momentum theory and uses an analogy with a three-dimensional jet.

References
    (1)    Blaauw, H.G. and Van DeKaa, E J., "Erosion of Bottom and Sloping
          Banks Caused By the Screw  Race of Manoevering Ships", Delft,
          Netherlands, Pub. No. 202, July 1978.
    (2)    "Draft EIR / EIS, Boston Harbor, Massachusetts, Navigation
          Improvement Project and Berth Dredging Project", US Army
          Corps of Engineers, NED, MASSPORT, Vol 2 of 2, Appendix D,
          Ship Simulation Study, April 1994.

Numerical Simulation

Computation of propeller axial efflux velocity (Ref. 1)

        For ducted propellers:       Vo =    1.17 * (Pd / (0*2)5*0.33

        For non-ducted propellers :    Vo =    1.48 * ( Pd / (DA2})*0.33

Computation of radial velocities (Ref. 1)

          Vx / Vo «  2.78 * (Do / x) exp [ -15.43 * ((z*2) / (x*2))]

           Legend
              Vo    Propeller axial efflux velocity
              Pd    Installed engine power, kW
                    Axial veloxity, distance z from centeriine
                    Diameter of vessel propeller
                    Propeller slipstream diameter
                    Do = 0.71 * D , For non-ducted propellers
                    Do - D, For ducted propellers

                    Note : If the propeller diameter is not known, it can be
                           approximated as 0.7 * (Loaded Vessel  Draft)
                        Vx
                        D
                        Do
          Date
                                         File Ref.:   vesvel 1 .wk4
-------
OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Projec^:    Boston Harbor Navigation
                  Improvements
Subject:    Vessel Slipstream Velocities
                     Sheet No.      3         of
                     Job No.    94051.000000
                     Made By     JCR    Date
                     Chkd. By             Date
03-01-95
    2.2    Vessel Characteristics

          Reference (2) describes the various vessels which were considered for the
          development  of the ship handling model simulation. The following Table
          identifies those vessels and the critical characteristics which were employed
          for the analyses which follow. Tug characteristics are referenced below.
Rev. No.
Made By
Vessel
LNG
APL
C8
Container
41K
DWT
Tanker
Ocean
Tug
Harbor
Tug
Draft, m
12.8
12.2
12.8
4.3
3.7
Length, m
286.5
240.2
178.3
62.5
30.5
Beam, m
42.7
30.5
27.4
10.1
8.8
Power ,kW
(Note)
29,900
18,650
12,310
2,835
1,195
Prop Dia.m
9.0
8.5
9.0
3.0
2.6
          1 m = 3.2808 ft        Vessel Dimension Data in Table from Ref. (2)
          1kW= 1.3405 HP
                       Note:   Vessel kW Rating Approximated - Typical Values
                               From :    Handbook of Ocean and Underwater
                               Engineering ed. Myers, Holm & McAllister, McGraw-
                               Hill, New York, 1969.

   2.3    Environmental Conditions

          Vessel operating conditions were developed for fixed water depths of 45-ft.
          No consideration was given to the effects of wind, tidal, or other currents.
          The vessels were assumed to be very slow moving.
Date
                               File Ref.:   vesve!2.wk4
-------
OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Project;    Boston Harbor Navigation
                 Improvements
Subject:   Vessel Slipstream Velocities
                    Sheet No.      4        of
                    Job No.   94051.000000
                    Made By     JCR    Date
                    Chkd. By             Date
03-03-95
   2.4    Computations

          Velocity profiles, extending from the water surface to the channel bottom
          at -45-FT and computed at various distances from the propeller hub, were
          determined for each of the typical vessels described in the Table Section
          1.2 of these analyses. Each vessel was evaluated at power output levels
          of 20%, 40%, 60%, 80 %, and 100% installed HP.

          Propeller diameter was assumed to be 0.7 x Vessel Draft

          Propeller Hub , i.e. center line of efflux jet, was located,
          0.65 x Vessel Draft, below the Water Surface.
                                Water Surface
                 Vessel
             Shaft Center Line
              T              0.3 D     T

                      	]'        o.e


                             0.7 D     T
                                                          0.65 D
                                                                 Draft, D
                                                4
                        Design Depth = 45 ft (13.72 m)
                                           Channel Bottom
                           VESSEL PROPELLER SCHEMATIC
Rev. No.
Made By
Date
                             File Ref.:   vesve!3.wk4
-------
OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Project^    Boston Harbor Navigation
               Improvements
Subject:    Vessel Slipstream Velocities
                     Sheet No.
                     Job No.
                     Made By
                     Chkd. By
    5        of
94051.000000
   JCR    Date
           Date
03-03-95
    2.5    Presentation of Numerical Results

          The data is presented in tabular format, showing computed water velocities
          as function of: (1) water depth ; and (2) distance, x , from the propeller, for
          each of the four (4) vessels at five (5) distinct power output levels.
                       Water Surface
 Propeller
                     Vmax
                          Zone or Established Flow
          Normal distribution of velocity over each
          vertical section.
                        Channel Bottom
                     DEVELOPMENT OF VELOCITY PROFILE

          The radial distance from the propeller center line, z, to the water surface and
          to the channel bottom will vary with the draft of each vessel. These maximum
          distances  represent the limiting values for the  numerical simulation.
Vessel
LNG
APLC8
Tanker
OCTug
Hrbr Tug
L Draft.m
12.8
12.2
12.8
4.3
3.7
z max , surface , m
8.320
7.930
8.320
2.795
2.405
z max , bottom , m
5.400
5.790
5.400
10.925
11.315
Rev. No.
Made By
Date
                               File Ret:  vesve!4.wk4
-------
OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Project:      Boston Harbor Navigation
                 Improvements
Subject:      Vessel Slipstream Velocities
Sheet No.    6    of
Job No.    94051.000000
Made By    JCR Date   03-04-95
Chkd. By        Date



































SIMULATION NO. 1
Induced Water Velocities, m/s
Vessel : 41 K DWT Tanker
Power Level : 20 %
Installed kW : 12,310
Test Run kW : 2,462
Vessel Draft , m: 12.80
Water Depth , m: 13.72

Depth, m

0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
7.50
8.00
8.50
9.00
9.50
10.00
10.50
11.00
11.50
12.00
12.50
13.50
13.72
x , Distance Behind Propeller, m
5
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.14
0.66
2.33
6.12
11.80
17.82
17.82
13.42
7.58
3.15
0.96
0.22
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.12
0.25
0.51
0.95
1.64
2.63
3.90
5.36
6.82
8.04
8.91
8.91
8.30
7.20
5.78
4.30
2.96
1.89
1.12
0.61
0.15
0.10
20
0.31
0.43
0.57
0.75
0.96
1.22
1.50
1.83
2.18
2.55
2.92
3.28
3.62
3.92
4.17
4.34
4.46
4.46
1.64
4.22
4.00
3.71
3.38
3.02
2.65
2.28
1.59
1.46
25
0.65
0.79
0.96
1.14
1.34
1.55
1.78
2.02
2.25
2.49
2.72
2.93
3.12
3.29
3.41
3.51
3.56
3.56
3.56
3.46
3.33
3.17
2.99
2.78
2.56
2.32
1.84
1.74

Rev. No.
Made By Date
30
0.91
1.05
1.19
1.34
1.50
1.67
1.83
2.00
2.16
2.32
2.46
2.59
2.71
2.81
2.88
2.94
2.97
2.97
2.95
2.90
2.83
2.74
2.63
2.50
2.36
2.21
1.88
1.81
40
1.15
1.24
1.33
1.43
1.52
1.61
1.70
1.78
1.86
1.94
2.00
2.06
2.12
2.16
2.19
2.21
2.23
2.23
2.22
2.20
2.17
2.13
2.08
2.02
1.96
1.88
1.72
1.68
60
1.11
1.14
1.18
1.22
1.25
1.29
1.32
1.35
1.37
1.40
1.42
1.44
1.45
1.46
1.47
1.48
1.49
1.49
1.48
1.48
1.47
1.46
1.44
1.42
1.40
1.38
1.32
1.31
100
0.80
0.81
0.82
0.83
0.84
0.85
0.85
0.86
0.87
0.87
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.87
0.87
0.86
0.85
200
0.43
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
300
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
400
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22






























Rle Ref.: bhnive!1.wk4

-------
OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Project^      Boston Harbor Navigation
                 Improvements
Subject      Vessel Slipstream velocities
Sheet No.
Job No.
Made By
Chkd. By
 7    of

JCR Date   03-04-95
    Date


(SIMULATION NO. 2
Induced Water Velocities, m/s
Vessel : 41 K DWT Tanker
Power Level : 40 %






























Installed kW : 12,310
Test Run kW : 4,924
Vessel Draft , m: 12.80
Water Depth , m: 13.72

Depth, m

0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
7.50
8.00
8.50
9.00
9.50
10.00
10.50
11.00
11.50
12.00
12.50
13.50
13.72
x , Distance Behind Propeller, m
5
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.17
0.82
2.93
7.69
14.83
22.40
22.40
16.87
9.53
3.96
1.21
0.27
0.05
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.06
0.15
0.32
0.64
1.19
2.06
3.31
4.91
6.74
8.57
10.10
11.20
11.20
10.43
9.05
7.26
5.40
3.72
2.37
1.40
0.77
0.18
0.13
20
0.39
0.54
0.72
0.94
1.21
1.53
1.89
2.30
2.74
3.20
3.67
4.13
4.56
4.93
5.24
5.46
5.60
5.60
0.34
5.31
5.03
4.67
4.25
3.80
3.33
2.87
2.00
1.83
25
0.82
1.00
1.20
1.43
1.68
1.95
2.24
2.53
2.83
3.13
3.42
3.69
3.93
4.13
4.29
4.41
4.48
4.48
4.01
4.42
4.18
3.99
3.76
3.50
3.21
2.92
2.32
2.19

Rev. No.
Made By Date
30
1.15
1.32
1.50
1.69
1.89
2.10
2.30
2.51
2.72
2.91
3.09
3.26
3.41
3.53
3.62
3.69
3.73
3.73
3.70
3.65
3.56
3.44
3.30
3.14
2.96
2.77
2.36
2.27
40
1.44
1.56
1.68
1.79
1.91
2.02
2.13
2.24
2.34
2.43
2.52
2.59
2.66
2.71
2.75
2.78
2.80
2.80
2.79
2.76
2.73
2.68
2.61
2.54
2.46
2.37
2.16
2.12
60
1.39
1.44
1.49
1.53
1.57
1.62
1.65
1.69
1.72
1.75
1.78
1.80
1.82
1.84
1.85
1.86
1.87
1.87
1.86
1.86
1.84
1.83
1.81
1.79
1.76
1.73
1.67
1.65
100
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.10
1.11
1.11
1.11
1.12
1.12
1.12
1.12
1.12
"1.12
1.12
1.11
1.11
1.10
1.10
1.09
1.07
1.07
200
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.55
0.55
300
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
400
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28






























File Ref.: bhnive!2.wk4

-------
OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Project:      Boston Harbor Navigation
                 Improvements
Subject:      Vessel Slipstream Velocities
Sheet No.    8   of
Job No.    94051.000000
Made By   JCR  Date   03-04-95
Crtkd. By        Date



































SIMULATION NO. 3
Induced Water Velocities, m/s
Vessel : 41 K DWT Tanker
Power Level : 60 %
Installed kW : 12,310
Test Run kW : 7,386
Vessel Draft , m: 12.80
Water Depth . m: 13.72

Depth, m

0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
7.50
8.00
8.50
9.00
9.50
10.00
10.50
11.00
11.50
12.00
12.50
13.50
13.72
x , Distance Behind Propeller, m
5
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.19
0.94
3.35
8.79
16.95
25.61
25.61
19.28
10.90
4.53
1.39
0.31
0.05
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.07
0.17
0.36
0.73
1.37
2.36
3.78
5.61
7.70
9.80
11.55
12.80
12.80
11.93
10.34
8.30
6.18
4.25
2.71
1.60
0.88
0.21
0.15
20
0.45
0.61
0.82
1.08
1.38
1.75
2.16
2.63
3.13
3.66
4.19
4.72
5.21
5.64
5.99
6.24
6.40
6.40
0.06
6.07
5.75
5.34
4.86
4.34
3.81
3.28
2.29
2.09
25
0.94
1.14
1.37
1.64
1.92
2.23
2.56
2.90
3.24
3.58
3.91
4.21
4.49
4.72
4.91
5.04
5.12
5.12
3.72
4.63
4.78
4.56
4.29
4,00
3.67
3.34
2.65
2.50

Rev. No.
Made By Date
30
1.31
1.51
1.71
1.93
2.16
2.40
2.63
2.87
3.11
3.33
3.54
3.73
3.89
4.03
4.14
4.22
4.27
4.27
4.23
4.17
4.07
3.94
3.78
3.59
3.39
3.17
2.70
2.60
40
1.65
1.78
1.92
2.05
2.18
2.31
2.44
2.56
2.68
2.78
2.88
2.97
3.04
3.10
3.15
3.18
3.20
3.20
3.19
3.16
3.12
3.06
2.99
2.91
2.81
2.71
2.47
2.42
60
1.59
1.64
1.70
1.75
1.80
1.85
1.89
1.93
1.97
2.01
2.04
2.06
2.09
2.10
2.12
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.12
2.11
2.09
2.07
2.04
2.01
1.98
1.90
1.88
100
1.15
1.17
1.18
1.19
1.20
1.22
1.23
1.24
1.24
1.25
1.26
1.26
1.27
1.27
1.28
1.28
1.28
1.28
1.28
1.28
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.26
1.25
1.25
1.23
1.22
200
0.62
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.63
0.63
300
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.42
0.42
400
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32






























File Ref.: bhnive!3.wk4

-------
OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Project      Boston Harbor Navigation
                 Improvements
Subject:      Vessel Slipstream Velocities
Sheet No.
Job No.
Made By
Chkd. By
  9   of
94051.000000
 JCR Date
     Date
03-04-95



































SIMULATION NO. 4
Induced Water Velocities, m/s
Vessel : 41 K DWT Tanker
Power Level : 80 %
Installed kW : 12,310
Test Run kW : 9,848
Vessel Draft , m: 12.80
Water Depth , m: 13.72

Depth, m

0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
7.50
8.00
8.50
9.00
9.50
10.00
10.50
11.00
11.50
12.00
12.50
13.50
13.72
x , Distance Behind Propeller, m
5
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.21
1.04
3.69
9.67
18.64
28.16
28.16
21.20
11.98
4.98
1.52
0.34
0.06
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.08
0.18
0.40
0.80
1.50
2.60
4.16
6.17
8.47
10.78
12.70
14.08
14.08
13.11
11.37
9.13
6.79
4.68
2.98
1.76
0.97
0.23
0.16
20
0.50
0.67
0.90
1.18
1.52
1.92
2.38
2.89
3.44
4.02
4.61
5.19
5.73
6.20
6.58
6.86
7.04
7.04
0.01
6.67
6.32
5.87
5.34
4.78
4.19
3.60
2.52
2.30
25
1.03
1.26
1.51
1.80
2.11
2.45
2.81
3.18
3.56
3.94
4.30
4.63
4.93
5.19
5.40
5.54
5.63
5.63
3.20
4.48
5.25
5.01
4.72
4.39
4.04
3.67
2.91
2.75

Rev. No,
Made By Date
30
1.44
1.65
1.88
2.12
2.38
2.63
2.90
3.16
3.41
3.66
3.89
4.10
4.28
4.44
4.56
4.64
4.69
4.69
4.66
4.58
4.47
4.33
4.15
3.95
3.73
3.48
2.97
2.85
40
1.81
1.96
2.11
2.25
2.40
2.54
2.68
2.82
2.94
3.06
3,17
3.26
3.34
3.41
3.46
3.50
3.52
3.52
3.50
3.47
3.43
3.36
3.29
3.19
3.09
2.98
2.72
2.66
60
1.75
1.81
1.87
1.92
1.98
2.03
2.08
2.13
2.17
2.21
2.24
2.27
2.29
2.31
2.33
2.34
2.35
2.35
2.34
2.33
2.32
2.30
2.28
2.25
2.21
2.18
2.09
2.07
100
1.27
1.28
1.30
1.31
1.32
1.34
1.35
1.36
1.37
1.38
1.38
1.39
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.41
1.41
1.41
1.41
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.39
1.39
1.38
1.37
1.35
1.35
200
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
300
0.46
0.46
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
400
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35






























File Ret: bhnive!4.wk4

-------
OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Project^      Boston Harbor Navigation
                 Improvements
Subject      Vessel Slipstream Velocities
Sheet No.
Job No.
Made By
Chkd. By
 10   of
94051.000000
 JCR Date
     Date
03-04-95



































SIMULATION NO. 5
Induced Water Velocities, m/s
Vessel : 41 K DWT Tanker
Power Level : 1 00 %
Installed kW: 12,310
Test Run kW: 12,310
Vessel Draft , m: 12.80
Water Depth , m: 13.72

Depth, m

0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
6,50
7.00
7.50
8.00
8.50
9.00
9.50
10.00
10.50
11.00
11.50
12.00
12.50
13.50
13.72
x , Distance Behind Propeller, m
5
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.23
1.11
3.97
10.41
20.06
30.31
30.31
22.82
12.90
5.36
1.64
0.37
0.06
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.08
0.20
0.43
0.87
1.62
2.79
4.47
6.64
9.12
11.60
13.67
15.15
15.15
14.12
12.24
9.83
7.31
5.04
3.21
1.90
1.04
0.25
0.17
20
0.53
0.73
0.97
1.27
1.64
2.07
2.56
3.11
3.70
4.33
4.97
5.59
6.16
6.67
7.09
7.38
7.58
7.58
0.00
7.18
6.80
6.31
5.75
5.14
4.51
3.88
2.71
2.48
25
1.11
1.35
1.63
1.94
2.27
2.64
3.03
3.43
3.83
4.24
4.63
4.99
5.31
5.59
5.81
5.96
6.06
6.06
2.66
4.16
5.66
5.39
5.08
4.73
4.35
3.95
3.14
2.96

Rev. No.
Made By Date
30
1.55
1.78
2.03
2.29
2.56
2.84
3.12
3.40
3.68
3.94
4.19
4.41
4.61
4.77
4.90
4.99
5.05
5.05
5.01
4.93
4.81
4.66
4.47
4.25
4.01
3.75
3.20
3.07
40
1.95
2.11
2.27
2.43
2.58
2.74
2.89
3.03
3.17
3.29
3.41
3.51
3.60
3.67
3.73
3.76
3.79
3.79
3.77
3.74
3.69
3.62
3.54
3.44
3.33
3.20
2.93
2.86
60
1.88
1.95
2.01
2.07
2.13
2.19
2.24
2.29
2.33
2.37
2.41
2.44
2.47
2.49
2.51
2.52
2.53
2.53
2.52
2.51
2.50
2.48
2.45
2.42
2.38
2.34
2.25
2.23
100
1.36
1.38
1.40
1.41
1.43
1.44
1.45
1.46
1.47
1.48
1.49
1.50
1.50
1.51
1.51
1.51
1.52
1.52
1.51
1.51
1.51
1.50
1.50
1.49
1.48
1.48
1.45
1.45
200
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
300
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
400
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38






























File Ref.: bhnivel5.wk4

-------
OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Project^      Boston Harbor Navigation
                 Improvements
Subject:      Vessel Slipstream Velocities
Sheet No.   11   of
Job No.    94051.000000
Made By   JCR Date    03-04-95
Chkd. By        Date


(SIMULATION NO. 6
| Induced Water Velocities, m/s
I Vessel: LNG Carrier
P Power Level: 20 %






























Installed kW : 29,900
Test Run kW : 5,980
Vessel Draft , m: 12.80
Water Depth , m: 13.72

Depth, m

0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
7.50
8.00
8.50
9.00
9.50
10.00
10.50
11.00
11.50
12.00
12.50
13.50
13.72
x , Distance Behind Propeller, m
5
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.18
0.88
3.13
8.20
15.81
23.88
23.88
17.98
10.16
4.23
1.29
0.29
0.05
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,01
0.03
0.07
0.16
0.34
0.68
1.27
2.20
3.53
5.23
7.18
9.14
10.77
11.94
11.94
11.12
9.65
7.75
5.76
3.97
2.53
1.50
0.82
0.19
0.14
20
0.42
0.57
0.76
1.00
1.29
1.63
2.02
2.45
2.92
3.41
3.91
4.40
4.86
5.26
5.59
5.82
5.97
5.97
0.17
5.66
5.36
4.98
4.53
4.05
3.55
3.06
2.13
1.95
25
0.87
1.06
1.28
1.53
1.79
2.08
2.38
2.70
3.02
3.34
3.64
3.93
4.19
4.40
4.58
4.70
4,78
4.78
3.94
4.58
4.46
4.25
4.00
3.73
3.43
3.11
2.47
2.34

Rev. No.
Made By Date
30
1.22
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.02
2.23
2.46
2.68
2.90
3.10
3.30
3.48
3.63
3,76
3.86
3.94
3.98
3.98
3.95
3.89
3.79
3.67
3,52
3.35
3.16
2.96
2.52
2.42
40
1.54
1.66
1.79
1.91
2.04
2.16
2.28
2.39
2.50
2.60
2.69
2.77
2.84
2,89
2.94
2.97
2.99
2.99
2.97
2.95
2.91
2.85
2.79
2.71
2.62
2.53
2.31
2.26
60
1.48
1.53
1.58
1.63
1.68
1.72
1.76
1.80
1.84
1.87
1.90
1.92
1.95
1.96
1.98
1.98
1.99
1.99
1.99
1.98
1.97
1.95
1.93
1.91
1.88
1.85
1.78
1.76
100
1.07
1.09
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.17
1.18
1.18
1.19
1.19
1.19
1.19
1.19
1.19
1.19
1.19
1.19
1.18
1.18
1.17
1.16
1.15
1.14
200
0.58
0.58
0.58
0,59
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.59
300
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
400
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30






























File Ref.: bhnive!6.wk4

-------
OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Project:      Boston Harbor Navigation
                 Improvements
Subject:      Vessel Slipstream Velocities
Sheet No.    12   of
Job No.   94051.000000
Made By    JCR Date    03-04-95
Cnkd. By        Date



































SIMULATION NO. 7
Induced Water Velocities, m/s
Vessel : LNG Carrier
Power Level : 40 %
Installed kW : 29,900
Test Run kW : 11,960
Vessel Draft , m: 12.80
Water Depth , m: 13.72

Depth, m

0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
7.50
8.00
8.50
9.00
9.50
10.00
10.50
11.00
11.50
12.00
12.50
13.50
13.72
x , Distance Behind Propeller, m
5
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.23
1.10
3.93
10.31
19.87
30.02
30.02
22.61
12.78
5.31
1.63
0.37
0.06
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.08
0.20
0.43
0.86
1.60
2.77
4.43
6.57
9.03
11.49
13.54
15.01
15.01
13.98
12.12
9.74
7.24
4.99
3.18
1.88
1.03
0.24
0.17
20
0.53
0.72
0.96
1.26
1.62
2.05
2.54
3.08
3.67
4.29
4.92
5.53
6.11
6.61
7.02
7.31
7.51
7.51
0.00
7.12
6.74
6.26
5.70
5.09
4.47
3.84
2.68
2.45
25
1.10
1.34
1.61
1.92
2.25
2.61
3.00
3.39
3.80
4.20
4.58
4.94
5.26
5.54
5.75
5.91
6.00
6.00
2.73
4.21
5.60
5.34
5.03
4.68
4.31
3.91
3.11
2.94

Rev. No.
Made By Date
30
1.54
1.76
2.01
2.26
2.53
2.81
3.09
3.37
3.64
3.90
4.15
4.37
4.57
4.73
4.86
4.95
5.00
5.00
4.96
4.89
4.77
4.61
4.43
4.21
3.97
3.71
3.17
3.04
40
1.93
2.09
2.25
2.40
2.56
2.71
2.86
3.00
3.14
3.26
3.38
3.48
3.56
3.64
3.69
3.73
3.75
3.75
3.74
3.70
3.65
3.59
3.50
3.41
3.30
3.17
2.90
2.84
60
1.86
1.93
1.99
2.05
2.11
2.17
2.22
2.27
2.31
2.35
2.39
2.42
2.45
2.47
2.48
2.49
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.49
2.47
2.45
2.43
2.40
2.36
2.32
2.23
2.21
100
1.35
1.37
1.38
1.40
1.41
1.43
1.44
1.45
1.46
1.47
1.48
1.48
1.49
1.49
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.49
1.49
1.48
1.48
1.47
1.46
1.44
1.44
200
0.73
0.73
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.74
0.74
300
0.49
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
400
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37






























File Ref.: bhnive!7.wk4

                                  HID
-------
OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Project      Boston Harbor Navigation
                 Improvements
Subject      Vessel Slipstream Velocities
Sheet No.
Job No.
Made By
Chkd. By
 13   of
94051.000000
JCR Date
     Date
03-04-95


{SIMULATION NO. 8
| Induced Water Velocities, m/s
I Vessel: LNG Carrier
jl Power Level: 60 %






























Installed kW : 29,900
Test Run kW : 17,940
Vessel Draft , m: 12.80
Water Depth , m: 13.72

Depth, m

0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
- 5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
7.50
8.00
8.50
9.00
9.50
10.00
10.50
11.00
11.50
12.00
12.50
13.50
13.72
x , Distance Behind Propeller, m
5
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.26
1.26
4.50
11.78
22.72
34.32
34.32
25.84
14.61
6.07
1.86
0.42
0.07
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.04
0.10
0.22
0.49
0.98
1.83
3.16
5.07
7.52
10.32
13.14
15.48
17.16
17.16
15.99
13.86
11.13
8.28
5.70
3.64
2.15
1.18
0.28
0.20
20
0.60
0.82
1.10
1.44
1.85
2.34
2.90
3.52
4.19
4.90
5.62
6.32
6.98
7.56
8.03
8.36
8.58
8.58
0.00
8.13
7.70
7.15
6.51
5.82
5.10
4.39
3.07
2.80
25
1.26
1.53
1.84
2.19
2.58
2.99
3.43
3.88
4.34
4.80
5.24
5.65
6.01
6.33
6.58
6.75
6.86
6.86
1.62
3.23
6.40
6.11
5.75
5.36
4.92
4.47
3.55
3.36

Rev. No.
Made By Date
30
1.76
2.02
2.29
2.59
2.90
3.21
3.53
3.85
4.16
4.46
4.74
5.00
5.22
5.41
5.55
5.65
5.72
5.72
5.68
5.59
5.45
5.28
5.06
4.81
4.54
4.25
3.62
3.48
40
2.21
2.39
2.57
2.75
2.93
3.10
3.27
3.43
3.59
3.73
3.86
3.98
4.07
4.16
4.22
4.26
4.29
4.29
4.27
4.23
4.18
4.10
4.00
3.89
3.77
3.63
3.32
3.24
60
2.13
2.20
2.28
2.35
2.41
2.48
2.54
2.59
2.64
2.69
2.73
2.76
2.80
2.82
2.84
2.85
2.86
2.86
2.85
2.84
2.83
2.80
2.77
2.74
2.70
2.65
2.55
2.53
100
1.54
1.56
1.58
1.60
1.61
1.63
1.64
1.66
1.67
1.68
1.69
1.70
1.70
1.71
1.71
1.71
1.72
1.72
1.71
1.71
1.71
1.70
1.70
1.69
1.68
1.67
1.65
1.64
200
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
300
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
400
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43






























File Ref.: bhnive!8.wk4

-------
OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Project^      Boston Harbor Navigation
                 Improvements
Subject:      Vessel Slipstream Velocities
Sheet No.   14   of
Job No.    94051.000000
Made By    JCR Date    03-04-95
Chkd. By        Date



































SIMULATION NO. 9
Induced Water Velocities, m/s
Vessel : LNG Carrier
Power Level : fiO %
Installed kW : 29,900
Test Run kW : 23,920
Vessel Draft . m: 12.80
Water Depth , m: 13.72

Depth, m

0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
7.50
8.00
8.50
9.00
9.50
10.00
10.50
11.00
11.50
12.00
12.50
13.50
13.72
x , Distance Behind Propeller, m
5
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.29
1.39
4.94
12.96
24.98
37.74
37.74
28.42
16.06
6.68
2.04
0.46
0.08
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
10
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.04
0.10
0.25
0.53
1.08
2.01
3.48
5.57
8.26
11.35
14.44
17.02
18.87
18.87
17.58
15.24
12.24
9.10
6.27
4.00
2.36
1.29
0.31
0.22
20
0.66
0.90
1.21
1.59
2.04
2.57
3.19
3.87
4.61
5.39
6.18
6.95
7.68
8.31
8.82
9.19
9.43
9.43
0.00
8.94
8.47
7.86
7.16
6.40
5.61
4.83
3.37
3.08
25
1.38
1.68
2.03
2.41
2.83
3.29
3.77
4.27
4.77
5.28
5.76
6.21
6.61
6.96
7.23
7.42
7.55
7.55
0.92
2.33
7.04
6.72
6.33
5.89
5.41
4.92
3.91
3.69

Rev. No.
Made By Date
30
1.93
2.22
2.52
2.85
3.18
3.53
3.88
4.23
4.58
4.90
5.21
5.49
5.74
5.94
6.11
6.22
6.29
6.29
6.24
6.14
5.99
5.80
5.57
5.29
4.99
4.67
3.98
3.83
40
2.43
2.62
2.82
3.02
3.22
3.41
3.60
3.78
3.94
4.10
4.24
4.37
4.48
4.57
4.64
4.69
4.72
4.72
4.70
4.65
4.59
4.51
4.40
4.28
4.14
3.99
3.65
3.57
60
2.34
2.42
2.50
2.58
2.65
2.72
2.79
2.85
2.90
2.96
3.00
3.04
3.07
3.10
3.12
3.14
3.14
3.14
3.14
3.13
3.11
3.08
3.05
3.01
2.97
2.92
2.81
2.78
100
1.70
1.72
1.74
1.76
1.77
1.79
1.81
1.82
1.83
1.85
1.86
1.86
1.87
1.88
1.88
1.88
1.89
1.89
1.89
1.88
1.88
1.87
1.87
1.86
1.85
1.84
1.81
1.80
200
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.93
0.93
300
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
400
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47






























File Ref.: bhniveI9.wk4

-------
OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Project:      Boston Harbor Navigation
                 Improvements
Subject      Vessel Slipstream Velocities
Sheet No.   15   of
Job No.    94051.000000
Made By   JCR Date    03-04-95
Chkd. By        Date



































SIMULATION NO. 10
I Installed kW: 29,900
Induced Water Velocities, m/s II Test Run kW: 29,900
Vessel : LNG Carrier Vessel Draft , m: 12.80
Power Level: 100 % II Water Depth , m: 13.72

Depth, m

0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
7.50
8.00
8.50
9.00
9.50
10.00
10.50
11.00
11.50
12.00
12.50
13.50
13.72
x , Distance Behind Propeller, m
5
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.05
0.31
1.49
5.32
13.95
26.89
40.62
40.62
30.59
17.29
7.19
2.20
0.50
0.08
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
10
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.04
0.11
0.26
0.58
1.16
2.17
3.74
6.00
8.90
12.22
15.55
18.32
20.31
20.31
18.92
16.40
13.17
9.80
6.75
4.31
2.54
1.39
0.33
0.23
20
0.71
0.97
1.30
1.71
2.20
2.77
3.43
4.17
4.96
5.80
6.65
7.49
8.26
8.94
9.50
9.90
10.16
10.16
0.00
9.63
9.11
8.46
7.71
6.89
6.04
5.20
3.63
3.32
25
1.49
1.81
2.18
2.59
3.05
3.54
4.06
4.59
5.14
5.68
6.20
6.68
7.12
7.49
7.78
7.99
8.12
8.12
0.52
1.63
7.58
7.23
6.81
6.34
5.83
5.29
4.21
3.97

Rev. No. I
30
2.08
2.39
2.72
3.06
3.43
3.80
4.18
4.56
4.93
5.28
5.61
5.91
6.18
6.40
6.57
6.69
6.77
6.77
6.72
6.61
6.45
6.24
5.99
5.70
5.37
5.03
4.29
4.12
40
2.61
2.83
3.04
3.25
3.46
3.67
3.87
4.06
4.25
4.41
4.57
4.71
4.82
4.92
4.99
5.05
5.08
5.08
5.06
5.01
4.94
4.85
4.74
4.61
4.46
4.29
3.93
3.84
60
2.52
2.61
2.69
2.78
2.86
2.93
3.00
3.07
3.13
3.18
3.23
3.27
3.31
3.34
3.36
3.38
3.39
3.39
3.38
3.37
3.34
3.32
3.28
3.24
3.20
3.14
3.02
2.99
100
1.83
1.85
1.87
1.89
1.91
1.93
1.94
1.96
1.97
1.99
2.00
2.01
2.01
2.02
2.03
2.03
2.03
2.03
2.03
2.03
2.02
2.02
2.01
2.00
1.99
1.98
1.95
1.94
200
0.99
0.99
0.99
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.00
300
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.67
0.67
400
0.50
0.50
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51






























File Ref.: bhnve!10.wk4
Made By Date I
-------
OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Project:      Boston Harbor Navigation
                 Improvements
Subject      Vessel Slipstream Velocities
Sheet No.    16   of
Job No.    94051.000000
Made By    JCR Date   03-04-95
Chkd. By        Date



































SIMULATION NO. 11
Induced Water Velocities, m/s
Vessel : C8 Container
Power Level : 20 %
Installed kW : 18,650
Test Run kW : 3,730
Vessel Draft , m: 12.20
Water Depth , m: 13.72

Depth, in

0,00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3,50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
7.50
8.00
8.50
9.00
9.50
10.00
10.50
11.00
11.50
12.00
12.50
13.50
13.72
x , Distance Behind Propeller, m
5
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.10
0.54
2.05
5.74
11.83
17.96
20.06
16.48
9.97
4.43
1.45
0.35
0.06
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.11
0.24
0.50
0.94
1.65
2.70
4.07
5.68
7.35
8.81
9.78
10.05
9.57
8.44
6.89
5.21
3.65
2.37
1.42
0.79
0.41
0.09
0.06
20
0.45
0.61
0.80
1.03
1.31
1.62
1.98
2.37
2.78
3.20
3.62
4.01
4.36
4.65
4.87
4.99
5.03
4.97
4.29
4.58
4.27
3.90
3.50
3.08
2.66
2.26
1.53
1.39
25
0.86
1.04
1.24
1.46
1.70
1.95
2.22
2.49
2.75
3.01
3.26
3.48
3.67
3.83
3.94
4.01
4.02
3.99
4.00
3.92
3.62
3.42
3.19
2.94
2.68
2.41
1.88
1.77

Rev. No.
Made By Date
30
1.15
1.31
1.48
1.66
1.84
2.03
2.22
2.40
2.58
2.74
2.90
3.03
3.15
3.24
3.30
3.34
3.35
3.33
3.29
3.21
3.12
3.00
2.86
2.70
2.53
2.35
1.98
1.89
40
1.38
1.48
1.59
1.69
1.80
1.90
1.99
2.08
2.17
2.25
2.32
2.38
2.43
2.47
2.49
2.51
2.51
2.51
2.49
2.46
2.41
2.36
2.30
2.23
2.15
2.06
1.87
1.82
60
1.28
1.33
1.37
1.41
1.44
1.48
1.51
1.54
1.57
1.59
1.62
1.63
1.65
1.66
1.67
1.68
1.68
1.67
1.67
1.66
1.65
1.63
1.61
1.59
1.56
1.53
1.47
1.45
100
0.91
0.92
0.93
0.94
0.95
0.96
0.97
0.98
0.98
0.99
0.99
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.99
0.99
0.98
0.97
0.96
0.96
200
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
300
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
400
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25






























File Ret: bhnvel11.wk4

-------
OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Project^      Boston Harbor Navigation
                 Improvements
Subject      Vessel Slipstream Velocities
Sheet No.
Job No.
Made By
Chkd. By
 17   of
94051.000000
 JCR Date
     Date
03-04-95



































SIMULATION NO. 12
Induced Water Velocities, m/s
Vessel : C8 Container
Power Level : 40 %
Installed kW : 18,650
Test Run kW : 7,460
Vessel Draft , m: 12.20
Water Depth , m: 13.72

Depth, m

0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
7.50
8.00
8.50
9.00
9.50
10.00
10.50
11.00
11.50
12.00
12.50
13.50
13.72
x , Distance Behind Propeller, m
5
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.13
0.68
2.57
7.21
14.87
22.58
25.21
20.72
12.53
5.57
1.82
0.44
0.08
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.06
0.14
0.30
0.62
1.18
2.08
3.39
5.11
7.14
9.24
11.07
12.29
12.63
12.03
10.61
8.66
6.55
4.59
2.98
1.79
1.00
0.51
0.11
0.07
20
0.57
0.76
1.00
1.29
1.64
2.04
2.49
2.98
3.50
4.03
4.55
5.04
5.48
5.85
6.12
6.28
6.32
6.24
2.81
5.75
5.36
4.91
4.40
3.88
3.35
2.84
1.92
1.75
25
1.08
1.30
1.56
1.83
2.13
2.45
2.79
3.12
3.46
3.79
4.10
4.38
4.62
4.81
4.95
5.03
5.06
5.02
4.24
4.99
4.55
4.30
4.01
3.70
3.37
3.03
2.36
2.22

Rev. No.
Made By Date
30
1.44
1.64
1.86
2.08
2.31
2.55
2.79
3.02
3.24
3.45
3.64
3.81
3.96
4.07
4.15
4.20
4.21
4.19
4.13
4.04
3.92
3.77
3.59
3.39
3.18
2.95
2.48
2.38
40
1.73
1.86
1.99
2.13
2.26
2.38
2.50
2.62
2.73
2.82
2.91
2.99
3.05
3.10
3.13
3,16
3.16
3.15
3.13
3.09
3.03
2.97
2.89
2.80
2.70
2.59
2.35
2.29
60
1.61
1.67
1.72
1.77
1.81
1.86
1.90
1.94
1.97
2.00
2.03
2.05
2.07
2.09
2.10
2.11
2.11
2.10
2.10
2.09
2.07
2.05
2.02
2.00
1.96
1.93
1.85
1.83
100
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.19
1.20
1.21
1.22
1.23
1.23
1.24
1.25
1.25
1.26
1.26
1.26
1.26
1.26
1.26
1.26
1.26
1,26
1.25
1.25
1.24
1.23
1.22
1.21
1.20
200
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.62
0.62
300
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
400
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32






























File Ref.: bhnvei12.wk4

-------
OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Project      Boston Harbor Navigation
                 Improvements
Subject:      Vessel Slipstream Velocities
Sheet No.   18   of
Job No.    94051.000000
Made By    JCR Date    03-04-95
Chkd. By        Date


(SIMULATION NO. 13
Induced Water Velocities, m/s
Vessel : C8 Container
|| Power Level : 60 %






























Installed kW : 18,650
Test Run kW: 11,190
Vessel Draft , m: 1 2.20
Water Depth , m: 13.72

Depth, m

0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
7.50
8.00
8.50
9.00
9.50
10.00
10.50
11.00
11.50
12.00
12.50
13.50
13.72
x , Distance Behind Propeller, m
5
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.15
0.77
2.94
8.24
17.00
25.81
28.82
23.68
14.32
6.37
2.09
0.50
0.09
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.07
0.16
0.35
0.71
1.35
2.38
3.87
5.84
8.16
10.56
12.66
14.05
14.44
13.75
12.13
9.90
7.49
5.25
3.40
2.05
1.14
0.59
0.12
0.08
20
0.65
0.87
1.15
1.48
1.88
2.33
2.85
3.40
4.00
4.60
5.20
5.76
6.27
6.68
6.99
7.18
7.23
7.14
1.51
6.58
6.13
5.61
5.03
4.43
3.83
3.24
2.20
2.00
25
1.24
1.49
1.78
2.10
2.44
2.80
3.18
3.57
3.96
4.33
4.68
5.00
5.28
5.50
5.66
5.76
5.78
5.74
3.75
5.25
5.20
4.92
4.59
4.23
3.85
3.46
2.70
2.54

Rev. No.
Made By Date
30
1.65
1.88
2.13
2.38
2.65
2.91
3.18
3.45
3.70
3.94
4.16
4.36
4.52
4.65
4.75
4.80
4.82
4.79
4.72
4.62
4.48
4.31
4.10
3.88
3.63
3.38
2.84
2.72
40
1.98
2.13
2.28
2.43
2.58
2.72
2.86
2.99
3.12
3.23
3.33
3.41
3.49
3.54
3.58
3.61
3.61
3.60
3.57
3.53
3.47
3.39
3.30
3.20
3.08
2.96
2.68
2.62
60
1.84
1.90
1.96
2.02
2.07
2.12
2.17
2.22
2.26
2.29
2.32
2.35
2.37
2.39
2.40
2.41
2.41
2.41
2.40
2.38
2.37
2.34
2.31
2.28
2.24
2.20
2.11
2.09
100
1.31
1.33
1.34
1.36
1.37
1.38
1.39
1.40
1.41
1.42
1.43
1.43
1.44
1.44
1.44
1.45
1.45
1.44
1.44
1.44
1.44
1.43
1.42
1.42
1.41
1.40
1.38
1.37
200
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.71
0.71
300
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
400
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36






























FileRef.: bhnve!13.wk4

                                                                           •Jft
-------
OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Project      Boston Harbor Navigation
                 improvements
Subject      Vessel Slipstream Velocities
Sheet No.
Job No.
Made By
Chkd. By
 19   of
94051.000000
 JCR Date
     Date
03-04-95



































SIMULATION NO. 14
Induced Water Velocities, m/s
Vessel : C8 Container
Power Level : 80 %
Installed kW : 18,650
Test Run kW : 14,920
Vessel Draft , m: 12.20
Water Depth , m: 13.72

Depth, m

0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
7.50
8.00
8.50
9.00
9.50
10.00
10.50
11.00
11.50
12.00
12.50
13.50
13.72
x , Distance Behind Propeller, m
5
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.16
0.85
3.23
9.06
18.70
28.38
31.69
26.04
15.75
7.00
2.29
0.55
0.10
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.07
0.17
0.38
0.78
1.49
2.61
4.26
6.42
8.98
11.61
13.92
15.45
15.88
15.12
13.33
10.89
8.24
5.77
3.74
2.25
1.25
0.65
0.14
0.09
20
0.71
0.96
1.26
1.63
2.06
2.57
3.13
3.74
4.39
5.06
5.72
6.34
6.89
7.35
7.69
7.89
7.95
7.85
0.76
7.23
6.74
6.17
5.54
4.87
4.21
3.57
2.42
2.20
25
1.36
1.64
1.96
2.30
2.68
3.08
3.50
3.93
4.35
4.76
5.15
5.50
5.80
6.05
6.22
6.33
6.36
6.31
3.10
5.13
5.72
5.41
5.04
4.65
4.23
3.81
2.97
2.79

Rev. No.
Made By Date
30
1.81
2.07
2.34
2.62
2.91
3.21
3.50
3.79
4.07
4.34
4.58
4.79
4.97
5.12
5.22
5.28
5.30
5.27
5.20
5.08
4.92
4.73
4.51
4.26
3.99
3.71
3.12
2.99
40
2.17
2.34
2.51
2.67
2.84
2.99
3.15
3.29
3.43
3.55
3.66
3.75
3.83
3.90
3.94
3.97
3.97
3.96
3.93
3.88
3.81
3.73
3.63
3.52
3.39
3.25
2.95
2.88
60
2.03
2.09
2.16
2.22
2.28
2.34
2.39
2.44
2.48
2.52
2.55
2.58
2.61
2.63
2.64
2.65
2.65
2.65
2.64
2.62
2.60
2.58
2.54
2.51
2.47
2.42
2.32
2.30
100
1.44
1.46
1.48
1.49
1.51
1.52
1.53
1.54
1.55
1.56
1.57
1.58
1.58
1.58
1.59
1.59
1.59
1.59
1.59
1.58
1.58
1.57
1.57
1.56
1.55
1.54
1.52
1.51
200
0.78
0.78
0.78
0.78
0.78
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.78
300
0.52
0.52
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
400
0.39
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40






























File Ref.: bhnve!14.wk4

                                     n
-------
OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Project:      Boston Harbor Navigation
                 Improvements
Subject:      Vessel Slipstream Velocities
Sheet No.   20    of
Job No.    94051.000000
Made By    JCR Date   03-04-95
Chkd. By        Date



































SIMULATION NO. 15
Induced Water Velocities, m/s
Vessel : C8 Container
Power Level: 100 %
Installed kW : 18,650
Test Run kW: 18,650
Vessel Draft , m: 12.20
Water Depth , m: 13.72

Depth, m

0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
7.50
8.00
8.50
9.00
9.50
10.00
10.50
11.00
11.50
12.00
12.50
13.50
13.72
x , Distance Behind Propeller, m
5
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.18
0.91
3.48
9.76
20.13
30.55
34.11
28.03
16.95
7.54
2.47
0.59
0.11
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.08
0.19
0.41
0.84
1.60
2.81
4.58
6.92
9.66
12.50
14.98
16.63
17.10
16.28
14.35
11.72
8.87
6.21
4.03
2.42
1.35
0.69
0.15
0.10
20
0.77
1.03
1.36
1.75
2.22
2.76
3.37
4.03
4.73
5.45
6.15
6.82
7.42
7.91
8.28
8.49
8.55
8.45
0.38
7.78
7.26
6.64
5.96
5.25
4.53
3.84
2.60
2.36
25
1.46
1.77
2.11
2.48
2.89
3.32
3.77
4.23
4.68
5.13
5.54
5.92
6.25
6.51
6.70
6.81
6.84
6.79
2.49
4.81
6.16
5.82
5.43
5.01
4.56
4.10
3.20
3.01

Rev. No.
Made By Date
30
1.95
2.23
2.52
2.82
3.13
3.45
3.77
4.08
4.38
4.67
4.93
5.16
5.35
5.51
5.62
5.68
5.70
5.67
5.59
5.47
5.30
5.10
4.86
4.59
4.30
3.99
3.36
3.22
40
2.34
2.52
2.70
2.88
3.05
3.22
3.39
3.54
3.69
3.82
3.94
4.04
4.13
4.19
4.24
4.27
4.28
4.26
4.23
4.18
4.10
4.01
3.91
3.79
3.65
3.50
3.18
3.10
60
2.18
2.25
2.32
2.39
2.45
2.51
2.57
2.62
2.67
2.71
2.75
2.78
2.81
2.83
2.84
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.84
2.82
2.80
2.77
2.74
2.70
2.66
2.61
2.50
2.47
100
1.55
1.57
1.59
1.61
1.62
1.64
1.65
1.66
1.67
1.68
1.69
1.70
1.70
1.71
1.71
1.71
1.71
1.71
1.71
1.70
1.70
1.69
1.69
1.68
1.67
1.66
1.63
1.63
200
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.84
300
0.56
0.56
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
400
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43






























FileRef.: bhnve!15.wk4

                                                                            <$•
-------
OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Project*      Boston Harbor Navigation
                 Improvements
Subject      Vessel Slipstream Velocities
Sheet No.   21   of
Job No.    94051.000000
Made By   JCR Date   03-04-95
Chkd. By        Date



































SIMULATION NO. 16
Induced Water Velocities, m/s
Vessel : Tug
Power Level : 20 %
Installed kW : 2,835
Test Run kW : 567
Vessel Draft , m: 4.30
Water Depth , m: 13.72

Depth, m

0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
7.50
8.00
8.50
9.00
9.50
10.00
10.50
11.00
11.50
12.00
12.50
13.50
13.72
x , Distance Behind Propeller, m
5
0.06
0.30
1.06
2.74
5.20
7.26
7.46
5.65
3.14
1.29
0.39
0.09
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10
1.16
1.71
2.34
2.96
3.48
3.78
3.80
3.55
3.06
2.45
1.82
1.25
0.79
0.47
0.25
0.13
0.06
0.03
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
20
1.42
1.56
1.69
1.80
1.87
1.91
1.91
1.88
1.81
1.71
1.59
1.45
1.29
1.13
0.97
0.82
0.68
0.55
1.42
0.34
0.26
0.20
0.14
0.10
0.07
0.05
0.02
0.02
25
1.26
1.35
1.42
1.47
1.51
1.53
1.53
1.51
1.48
1.43
1.36
1.28
1.19
1.09
0.99
0.89
0.79
0.69
1.27
1.27
0.43
0.36
0.29
0.24
0.19
0.15
0.09
0.08

Rev. No.
Made By Date
30
1.12
1.17
1.21
1.24
1.26
1.27
1.28
1.27
1.25
1.21
1.17
1.13
1.07
1.01
0.94
0.88
0.80
0.73
0.66
0.59
0.53
0.46
0.41
0.35
0.30
0.26
0.18
0.17
40
0.89
0.91
0.93
0.94
0.95
0.96
0.96
0.95
0.94
0.93
0.91
0.89
0.87
0.84
0.81
0.77
0.74
0.70
0.66
0.62
0.58
0.54
0.50
0.46
0.42
0.39
0.32
0.30
60
0.62
0.62
0.63
0.63
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.62
0.61
0.60
0.59
0.58
0.57
0.56
0.54
0.53
0.51
0.50
0.48
0.46
0.44
0.43
0.39
0.38
100
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.34
0.34
0.33
0.32
0.32
200
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.18
0.18
0.18
300
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
400
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09






























FileRef.: bhnvel16.wk4

-------
OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Project      Boston Harbor Navigation
                 Improvements
Subject:      Vessel Slipstream Velocities
Sheet No.
Job No.
Made By
Chkd. By
 22   of
94051.000000
 JCR Date
     Date
03-04-95



































SIMULATION NO. 17
Induced Water Velocities, m/s
Vessel : Tug
Power Level : 40 %
installed kW : 2,835
Test Run kW: 1,134
Vessel Draft , m: 4.30
Water Depth , m: 13.72

Depth, m

0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
7.50
8.00
8.50
9.00
9.50
10.00
10.50
11.00
11.50
12.00
12.50
13.50
13.72
x , Distance Behind Propeller, m
5
0.08
0.38
1.33
3.44
6.53
9.13
9.38
7.10
3.95
1.62
0.49
0.11
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
10
1.45
2.15
2.94
3.72
4.37
4.75
4.78
4.46
3.85
3.08
2.28
1.57
1.00
0.59
0.32
0.16
0.08
0.03
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
20
1.78
1.97
2.13
2.26
2.35
2.40
2.40
2.36
2.28
2.15
2.00
1.82
1.62
1.42
1.22
1.03
0.85
0.69
1.78
0.43
0.33
0.25
0.18
0.13
0.09
0.06
0.03
0.02
25
1.59
1.69
1.78
1.85
1.90
1.92
1.92
1.90
1.86
1.79
1.71
1.61
1.50
1.37
1.25
1.12
0.99
0.87
1.59
1.59
0.54
0.45
0.37
0.30
0.24
0.19
0.12
0.10

Rev. No.
Made By Date
30
1.40
1.47
1.52
1.56
1.59
1.60
1.60
1.59
1.57
1.53
1.48
1.42
1.35
1.27
1.19
1.10
1.01
0.92
0.83
0.75
0.66
0.58
0.51
0.44
0.38
0.32
0.23
0.21
40
1.12
1.14
1.17
1.18
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.19
1.17
1.15
1.12
1.09
1.05
1.02
0.97
0.93
0.88
0.83
0.78
0.73
0.68
0.63
0.58
0.53
0.49
0.40
0.38
60
0.78
0.78
0.79
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.79
0.79
0.78
0.77
0.76
0.74
0.73
0.71
0.70
0.68
0.66
0.64
0.62
0.60
0.58
0.56
0.54
0.49
0.48
100
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.46
0.46
0.45
0.45
0.44
0.44
0.43
0.43
0.42
0.42
0.40
0.40
200
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
300
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
400
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0,12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12






























File Ret: bhnve!17.wk4

                                                                        -,J
-------
OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Project      Boston Harbor Navigation
                 Improvements
Subject      Vessel Slipstream Velocities
Sheet No.
Job No.
Made By
Chkd. By
  23  of
94051.000000
JCR Date
     Date
03-04-95



































SIMULATION NO. 18
Induced Water Velocities, rn/s
Vessel : Tug
Power Level : 60 %
Installed kW : 2,835
Test Run kW: 1,701
Vessel Draft , m: 4.30
Water Depth , m: 13.72

Depth, m

0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
7.50
8,00
8.50
9.00
9.50
10.00
10.50
11.00
11.50
12.00
12.50
13.50
13.72
x , Distance Behind Propeller, m
5
0.09
0.43
1.52
3.93
7.47
10.43
10.72
8.11
4.51
1.85
0.56
0.12
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10
1.66
2.45
3.36
4.25
4.99
5.43
5.47
5.10
4.40
3.52
2.61
1.79
1.14
0.67
0.37
0.18
0.09
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
20
2.04
2.25
2.43
2.58
2.69
2.74
2.75
2.70
2.60
2.46
2.28
2.08
1.86
1.63
1.40
1.18
0.97
0.79
2.04
0.49
0.38
0.28
0.21
0.15
0.11
0.07
0.03
0.03
25
1.82
1.93
2.03
2.11
2.17
2.20
2.20
2.17
2.12
2.05
1.95
1.84
1.71
1.57
1.43
1.28
1.13
0.99
1.82
1.82
0.62
0.51
0.42
0.34
0.28
0.22
0.13
0.12

Rev. No. I
30
1.61
1.68
1.74
1.78
1.81
1.83
1.83
1.82
1.79
1.75
1.69
1.62
1.54
1.45
1.36
1.26
1.16
1.05
0.95
0.85
0.76
0.67
0.58
0.50
0.43
0.37
0.26
0.24
40
1.28
1.31
1.33
1.35
1.37
1.37
1.38
1.37
1.36
1.34
1.31
1.28
1.25
1.21
1.16
1.11
1.06
1.01
0.95
0.89
0.84
0.78
0.72
0.67
0.61
0.56
0.46
0.44
6JL
0.89
0.90
0.90
0.91
0.91
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.91
0.91
0.90
0.89
0.88
0.86
0.85
0.83
0.82
0.80
0.78
0.76
0.74
0.71
0.69
0.66
0.64
0.61
0.56
0.55
100
0.54
0.55
0,55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.53
0.53
0.52
0.52
0.51
0.51
0.50
0.50
0.49
0.48
0.48
0.46
0.46
200
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.26
0.26
300
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0,18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
400
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0,14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14






























File Ret: bhnvef18.wk4
Made By Date I
-------
OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Project;      Boston Harbor Navigation
                 Improvements
Subject      Vessel Slipstream Velocities
Sheet No.   24   of
Job No.    94051.000000
Made By   JCR Date    03-04-95
Chkd. By        Date


[SIMULATION NO. 19
installed kW: 2,835
I Induced Water Velocities, m/s [I Test Run kW : 2,268
Vessel: Tug Vessel Draft , m: 4.30
jl Power Level: 80 % l| Water Depth , m: 13.72































Depth, m

0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
7.50
8.00
8.50
9.00
9.50
10.00
10.50
11.00
11.50
12.00
12.50
13,50
13.72
x , Distance Behind Propeller, m
5
0.10
0.48
1.68
4.32
8.21
11.47
11.79
8.92
4.96
2.03
0.61
0.14
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10
1.83
2.70
3.69
4.68
5.49
5.97
6.01
5.61
4.84
3.87
2.87
1.97
1.25
0.74
0.40
0.20
0.09
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
20
2.24
2.47
2.67
2.84
2.95
3.02
3.02
2.97
2.86
2.71
2.51
2.29
2.04
1.79
1.54
1.29
1.07
0.87
2.24
0.54
0.41
0.31
0.23
0.17
0.12
0.08
0.04
0.03
25
2.00
2.13
2.24
2.32
2.38
2.42
2.42
2.39
2.34
2.25
2.15
2.02
1.88
1.73
1.57
1.41
1.24
1.09
2.00
2.00
0.68
0.56
0.46
0.38
0.30
0.24
0.15
0.13

Rev. No.
Made By Date
30
1.77
1.84
1.91
1.96
2.00
2.01
2.02
2.00
1.97
1.92
1.86
1.78
1.69
1.60
1.49
1.38
1.27
1.16
1.05
0.94
0.83
0.73
0.64
0.55
0.48
0.41
0.29
0.26
40
1.40
1.44
1.47
1.49
1.50
1.51
1.51
1.51
1.49
1.47
1.44
1.41
1.37
1.33
1.28
1.22
1.17
1.11
1.05
0.98
0.92
0.86
0.79
0.73
0.67
0.61
0.50
0.48
60
0.98
0.99
0.99
1.00
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.00
1.00
0.99
0.98
0.97
0.95
0.94
0.92
0.90
0.88
0.86
0.83
0.81
0.78
0.76
0.73
0.70
0.68
0.62
0.61
100
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.61
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.59
0.59
0.58
0.58
0.58
0.57
0.56
0.56
0.55
0.55
0.54
0.53
0.52
0.51
0.50
200
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
300
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
400
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15






























File Ref.: bhnve!19.wk4

-------
OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Project      Boston Harbor Navigation
                 Improvements
Subject      Vessel Slipstream Velocities
Sheet No.   25   of
Job No.    94051.000000
Made By   JCR Date   03-04-95
Chkd. By        Date



































SIMULATION NO. 20
Induced Water Velocities, m/s
Vessel : Tug
Power Level: 100 %
Installed kW : 2,835
Test Run kW : 2,835
Vessel Draft , m: 4.30
Water Depth , m: 13.72

Depth, m

0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
7.50
8.00
8.50
9.00
9.50
10.00
10.50
11.00
11.50
12.00
12.50
13.50
13.72
x , Distance Behind Propeller, m
5
0.11
0.51
1.80
4.65
8.84
12.35
12.69
9.60
5.34
2.19
0.66
0.15
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10
1.96
2.90
3.97
5.04
5.91
6.43
6.47
6.03
5.21
4.17
3.09
2.12
1.35
0.79
0.43
0.22
0.10
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
20
2.41
2.66
2.88
3.05
3.18
3.25
3.25
3.19
3.08
2.91
2.70
2.46
2.20
1.92
1.65
1.39
1.15
0.93
2.41
0.58
0.44
0.33
0.25
0.18
0.13
0.09
0.04
0.03
25
2.15
2.29
2.41
2.50
2.57
2.60
2.60
2.57
2.51
2.43
2.31
2.18
2.02
1.86
1.69
1.51
1.34
1.17
2.16
2.15
0.73
0.61
0.50
0.41
0.33
0.26
0.16
0.14

Rev. No.
Made By Date
30
1.90
1.98
2.05
2.11
2.15
2.17
2.17
2.15
2.12
2.07
2.00
1.92
1.82
1.72
1.61
1.49
1.37
1.25
1.13
1.01
0.90
0.79
0.69
0.60
0.51
0.44
0.31
0.28
40
1.51
1.55
1.58
1.60
1.62
1.63
1.63
1.62
1.61
1.58
1.55
1.52
1.48
1.43
1.37
1.32
1.26
1.19
1.13
1.06
0.99
0.92
0.85
0.79
0.72
0.66
0.54
0.52
60
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.08
1.09
1.09
1.08
1.08
1.07
1.06
1.05
1.04
1.02
1.01
0.99
0.97
0.94
0.92
0.90
0.87
0.84
0.81
0.79
0.76
0.73
0.67
0.65
100
0.64
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.63
0.63
0.62
0.62
0.61
0.61
0.60
0.59
0.59
0.58
0.57
0.56
0.55
0.54
200
0.32
0.32
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.31
0.31
0.31
300
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
400
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16






























Rle Ret: bhnve!20.wk4

-------
OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Project:      Boston Harbor Navigation
                 improvements
Subject:      Vessel Slipstream Velocities
Sheet No.   26   of
Job NO.    94051.000000
Made By   JCR Date    03-06-95
Chkd. By        Date



































SIMULATION NO. 21
I Installed kW:
Induced Water Velocities, m/s j Test Run kW:
Vessel : Harbor Tug Vessel Draft , m:
Power Level: %.lW& % l| Water Depth , m:

Depth, m

0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
7.50
8.00
8.50
9.00
9.50
10.00
10.50
11.00
11.50
12.00
12.50
13.50
13.72
x , Distance Behind Propeller, m
5
0.16
0.59
1.63
3.32
4.96
5.45
4.41
2.63
1.15
0.37
0.09
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10
1.13
1.57
2.02
2.42
2.67
2.74
2.60
2.28
1.85
1.40
0.98
0.63
0.38
0.21
0.11
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
20
1.10
1.19
1.27
1.33
1.36
1.37
1.35
1.31
1.24
1.16
1.06
0.95
0.83
0.72
0.61
0.51
0.41
0.33
1.10
0.20
0.15
0.11
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.03
0.01
0.01
25
0.95
1.00
1.04
1.07
1.09
1.10
1.09
1.06
1.03
0.98
0.93
0.87
0.80
0.73
0.65
0.58
0.51
0.44
0.95
0.95
0.27
0.22
0.18
0.14
0.11
0.09
0.05
0.05

Rev. No.
Made By Date
30
0.83
0.86
0.88
0.90
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.89
0.87
0.85
0.81
0.78
0.73
0.69
0.64
0.59
0.54
0.48
0.44
0.39
0.34
0.30
0.26
0.22
0.19
0.16
0.11
0.10
40
0.65
0.66
0.67
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.67
0.66
0.64
0.62
0.61
0.58
0.56
0.53
0.51
0.48
0.45
0.42
0.39
0.37
0.34
0.31
0.28
0.26
0.21
0.20
60
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.44
0.44
0.43
0.43
0.42
0.41
0.40
0.39
0.38
0.37
0.36
0.35
0.33
0.32
0.31
0.30
0.27
0.26
100,
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.23
0.23
0.23
200
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
300
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
400
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07






























FileRef.: bhnve!21.wk4

-------
OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Project^       Boston Harbor Navigation
                  Improvements
Subject:       Vessel Slipstream Velocities
Sheet No.   27    of
Job No.    94051.000000
Made By    JCR Date   03-06-95
Chkd. By        Date



































SIMULATION NO. 22
Induced Water Velocities, m/s
Vessel : Harbor Tug
Power Level : ''• ^40 %
Installed kW : • i,jt9s
Test Run kW: ;4t8^
Vessel Draft , m: 3.7D
Water Depth , m: 13-f 2

Depth, m

0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
7.50
8.00
8.50
9.00
9.50
10.00
10.50
11.00
11.50
12.00
12.50
13.50
13.72
x , Distance Behind Propeller, m
5
0.20
0.74
2.05
4.17
6.23
6.85
5.54
3.30
1.45
0.47
0.11
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10
1.42
1.97
2.54
3.04
3.36
3.44
3.26
2.87
2.33
1.76
1.23
0.79
0.47
0.26
0.14
0.06
0.03
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
20
1.38
1.50
1.60
1.67
1.71
1.72
1.70
1.64
1.56
1.46
1.33
1.19
1.05
0.91
0.77
0.64
0.52
0.41
1.38
0.25
0.19
0.14
0.10
0.07
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.01
25
1.20
1.26
1.31
1.35
1.37
1.38
1.37
1.34
1.29
1.24
1.17
1.09
1.00
0.91
0.82
0.73
0.64
0.55
1.20
1.20
0.33
0.28
0.22
0.18
0.14
0.11
0.07
0.06

Rev. No.
Made By Date
30
1.04
1.08
1.11
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.14
1.12
1.10
1.07
1.02
0.98
0.92
0.86
0.80
0.74
0.67
0.61
0.55
0.49
0.43
0.38
0.33
0.28
0.24
0.20
0.14
0.13
40
0.81
0.83
0.84
0.85
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.85
0.84
0.83
0.81
0.79
0.76
0.73
0.70
0.67
0.64
0.60
0.57
0.53
0.50
0.46
0.42
0.39
0.36
0.32
0.26
0.25
60
0.56
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.56
0.56
0.55
0.54
0.53
0.52
0.51
0.50
0.49
0.48
0.46
0.45
0.43
0.42
0.40
0.39
0.37
0.34
0.33
100
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.31
0.31
0.30
0.30
0.29
0.29
0.28
200
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.16
0.16
300
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
400
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09






























File Ref.: bhnve!22.wk4

-------
OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Project:      Boston Harbor Navigation
                 improvements
Subject:      Vessel Slipstream Velocities
Sheet No.   28   of
Job No,    94051.000000
Made By   JCR Date    03-06-95
Chkd. By        Date



































SIMULATION NO. .23
I installed kW: Ifltfi
Induced Water Velocities, m/s I Test Run kW : :HB
Vessel : Harbor Tug Vessel Draft , m: ':-3tI(l
Power Level: :60 % l| Water Depth , m: iHHl

Depth, m

0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
7.50
8.00
8.50
9.00
9.50
10.00
10.50
11.00
11.50
12.00
12.50
13.50
13.72
x , Distance Behind Propeller, m
5
0.23
0.85
2.35
4.76
7.12
7.83
6.34
3.77
1.65
0.53
0.13
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10
1.62
2.26
2.91
3.47
3.84
3.93
3.73
3.28
2.67
2.01
1.40
0.91
0.54
0.30
0.15
0.07
0.03
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
20
1.58
1.71
1.83
1.91
1.96
1.97
1.94
1.88
1.79
1.66
1.52
1.36
1.20
1.03
0.88
0.73
0.59
0.47
1.58
0.29
0.22
0.16
0.12
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.01
25
1.37
1.44
1.50
1.54
1.57
1.57
1.56
1.53
1.48
1.41
1.34
1.24
1.15
1.04
0.94
0.83
0.73
0.63
1.37
1.37
0.38
0.32
0.26
0.21
0.16
0.13
0.08
0.07

Rev. No.
30
1.19
1.23
1.27
1.29
1.31
1.31
1.30
1.29
1.26
1.22
1.17
1.11
1.05
0.99
0.92
0.84
0.77
0.70
0.63
0.56
0.49
0.43
0.37
0.32
0.27
0.23
0.16
0.15
40
0.93
0.95
0.97
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.97
0.96
0.94
0.92
0.90
0.87
0.84
0.80
0.77
0.73
0.69
0.65
0.61
0.57
0.53
0.48
0.45
0.41
0.37
0.30
0.29
60
0.64
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.65
0.65
0.64
0.64
0.63
0.62
0.61
0.60
0.59
0.57
0.56
0.55
0.53
0.51
0.50
0.48
0.46
0.44
0.43
0.39
0.38
100
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.37
0.37
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.35
0.35
0.34
0.34
0.33
0.32
200
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
300
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
400
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10






























File Ref.: bhnve!23.wk4
Made By Date I
-------
OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Project:      Boston Harbor Navigation
      *            Improvements
Subject      Vessel Slipstream Velocities
Sheet No.
Job No.
Made By
Chkd. By
 29   of
94051.000000
JCR Date
     Date
03-06-95



































SIMULATION NO. ,24v
Induced Water Velocities, mis
Vessel : Harbor Tug
Power Level: 80 %
Installed kW : «;ift9'i <
TestRun kW:
Vessel Draft , m:
Water Depth , m: fttlilll

Depth, m

0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
7.50
8.00
8.50
9.00
9.50
10.00
10.50
11.00
11.50
12.00
12.50
13.50
13.72
x , Distance Behind Propeller, m
5
0.25
0.93
2.58
5.24
7.83
8.61
6.97
4.15
1.82
0.59
0.14
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10
1.78
2.48
3.20
3.82
4.22
4.32
4.10
3.60
2.93
2.21
1.54
1.00
0.60
0.33
0.17
0.08
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
20
1.73
1.88
2.01
2.10
2.15
2.16
2.14
2.07
1.96
1.83
1.67
1.50
1.32
1.14
0.96
0.80
0.65
0.52
1.73
0.31
0.24
0.18
0.13
0.09
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.02
25
1.50
1.58
1.65
1.70
1.72
1.73
1.72
1.68
1.63
1.55
1.47
1.37
1.26
1.15
1.03
0.92
0.80
0.70
1.50
1.50
0.42
0.35
0.28
0.23
0.18
0.14
0.08
0.07

Rev. No.
Made By Date
30
1.31
1.36
1.40
1.42
1.44
1.44
1.43
1.41
1.38
1.34
1.29
1.23
1.16
1.08
1.01
0.93
0.85
0.77
0.69
0.61
0.54
0.47
0.41
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.18
0.16
40
1.02
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.08
1.08
1.07
1.06
1.04
1.01
0.99
0.96
0.92
0.88
0.84
0.80
0.76
0.71
0.67
0.62
0.58
0.53
0.49
0.45
0.41
0.33
0.32
60
0.70
0.71
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.71
0.71
0.70
0.69
0.68
0.67
0.66
0.65
0.63
0.62
0.60
0.58
0.56
0.55
0.53
0.51
0.49
0.47
0.43
0.42
100
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.40
0.40
0.39
0.39
0.38
0.38
0.37
0.36
0.36
200
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
300
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0,14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
400
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11






























File Ref.: bhnvel24.wk4

-------
OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Project:      Boston Harbor Navigation
      *           improvements
Subject:      Vessel Slipstream Velocities
Sheet No.
Job No.
Made By
Chkd. By
 30   of
94051.000000
 JCR Date
     Date
03-06-95



































SIMULATION NO. J25;
Induced Water Velocities, m/s
Vessel : Harbor Tug
Power Level: 1100 %
Installed kW :
Test Run kW : 11111
Vessel Draft , m: 'itliliSi
Water Depth , m: ililll!

Depth, m

0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
7.50
8.00
8.50
9.00
9.50
10.00
10.50
11.00
11.50
12.00
12.50
13.50
13.72
x , Distance Behind Propeller, m
5
0.27
1.01
2.78
5.64
8.43
9.27
7.50
4.47
1.96
0.63
0.15
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10
1.92
2.67
3.44
4.11
4.54
4.65
4.41
3.88
3.15
2.38
1.66
1.07
0.64
0.36
0.18
0.09
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
20
1.87
2.03
2.16
2.26
2.32
2.33
2.30
2.23
2.11
1.97
1.80
1.61
1.42
1.22
1.04
0.86
0.70
0.56
1.87
0.34
0.26
0.19
0.14
0.10
0.07
0.05
0.02
0.02
25
1.62
1.71
1.78
1.83
1.86
1.86
1.85
1.81
1.75
1.67
1.58
1.47
1.36
1.24
1.11
0.99
0.86
0.75
1.62
1.62
0.45
0.37
0.30
0.24
0.19
0.15
0.09
0.08

Rev. No.
30
1.41
1.46
1.50
1.53
1.55
1.55
1.54
1.52
1.49
1.44
1.39
1.32
1.25
1.17
1.08
1.00
0.91
0.82
0.74
0.66
0.58
0.51
0.44
0.38
0.32
0.27
0.19
0.18
40
1.10
1.13
1.14
1.16
1.16
1.16
1.16
1.15
1.14
1.12
1.09
1.06
1.03
0.99
0.95
0.91
0.86
0.82
0.77
0.72
0.67
0.62
0.57
0.53
0.48
0.44
0.36
0.34
60
0.76
0.76
0.77
0.77
0.78
0.78
0.78
0.77
0.77
0.76
0.75
0.75
0.74
0.72
0.71
0.70
0.68
0.66
0.65
0.63
0.61
0.59
0.57
0.55
0.52
0.50
0.46
0.45
100
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.43
0.43
0.42
0.42
0.41
0.40
0.40
0.39
,0.38
200
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
300
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
400
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12












•

















File Ret: bhnve!25.wk4
Made By Date I
                                                                             \\
-------
OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.

Project:   MASSPORT                  Sheet No.   Cover      of
                                    Job No.
Subject:   Alternative Disposal Sites        Made By  JCR       Date     03-15-95
          Potential Wave Effects         Chkd. By            Date
                  ANALYSIS OF WAVE INDUCED BOTTOM
                              VELOCITIES
          BOSTON HARBOR NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

                   FIVE ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL SITES
                              March 15,1995
                     Ocean and Coastal Consultants, Inc.
                          35 Corporate Drive
                       Trumfaull, Connecticut 06611
                             (203) 268-5007
                           FAX (203) 268-8821
Rev. No.
Made By	Pate
-------
OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.

Project:   MASSPORT

Subject:   Alternative Disposal Sites
          Potential Wave Effects
                    Sheet No.
                    Job No.
                    Made By   JCR
                    Chkd. By
                                   of
                               Date
                               Date
03-13-95
    1.0    PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION
              1.1
Location:
Five (5) potential in-water dredged material disposal sites
located in outer Boston Harbor, designated as :
Site
Spectacle island CAD
Meisburger 2
Meisburger 7
Subaqueous B
Subaqueous E
Final Water Depth.MLW
10-ft
95-ft
85-ft
15-ft
8-ft
              1.2    Water Surface Levels:
                                                   Draft EIR/EIS, 1994
                    Water surface elevations, based upon
                    19 year series of tidal observations by
                    NOS (1978)
                                  BOSTON OUTER HARBOR
                    Tidal Flood Frequency
                         of Return (yrs)
                             1
                            10
                            50
                           100
                             Tidal Flood Elev. (ft)
                                   MLW
                                  11.7
                                  13.6
                                  14.5
                                  14.8
                                          USACOE, New England Division
                                                  September 1988

                    The tabulated water surface elevation is a result of astronomical
                    tides and storm surge. Does not include Wave Height or Wave
                    set-up components.
Rev. No.
Made By
Date
                               naispi01.wk4
-------
OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Project:    MASSPORT

Subject:    Spectacle Island Disposal
             Potential wave Effects
                     Sheet No.
                     Job No.
                     Made By   JCR
                     Chkd. By
        of
   Date
   Date
03-13-95
               1.3
Rev. No.
Made By
Wave Conditions at Site

No historical Wave Climatology data exists for this site. Wind data,
for maximum design conditions, fetch limitations, and shallow water
conditions will be used for wave forecasting. The effect of shoaling
and wave refraction will be quantified.

Design Wind Speed

From :     "Handbook of Ocean and Underwater Engineering",
           ed. Myers, Holm & McAllister, McGraw-Hill, 1969.
Period Of Return (yrs)
1
2
50
100
Wind Speed (ft/s)
58
81
147
154
                                   Wind Speed measured 30 - ft above surface

                     Duration Analysis

                     With no Wind Speed / Duration data for this site, analysis was based
                     upon typical storm track passage; Assuming that Maximum wind
                     speed would be associated with a large tropical disturbance or
                     hurricane moving across Massachusetts Bay with forward speed, Vf
                     and has a core radius of R.
                     t = time for storm passage = Wind Duration
                     t = R / Vf   Where:
                     R =
                     Vf =
40  Naut. Miles
15  Knots
                         t = R/Vf  or   t =
                           2.67 Hr
Date
                                          naispi02.wk4
-------
OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Project:   MASSPORT

Subject:   Alternative Disposal Sites
           Potential Wave Effects
Sheet No.
Job No.
Made By
Chkd. By
 3

JCR
of
Date
Date
      03-13-95
1.3
Wave Conditions at Site (CONTD)
Wind Generated Desian Wave

As shown on the attached Figure, the Fetch Lengths for the pre-
dominant wind origin directions are summarized in the following
Table.
FETCH LENGTHS

Site
Spectacle
Isl.
Sub. B
Sub. E
M. 2
M.7
Direction From True
North (Degrees)
ENE (60)
E (80)
E (95)
N/A
N/A
Distance
(N.M.)
160
4.6
4.0
Unlimited
Unlimited
These wind directions and fetch lengths were identified as maximum
values for each site and do not represent the results of any statistical
analysis of wind records.
Average .Depth Over Design Fetch Reach
From NOS Chart No. 13267 and 13270

Spectacle
isl.
Sub. B
Sub. E
M. 2
M.7
140-ft
45-ft
45-ft
300-tt
300-ft

Rev. No.
Made By Date
naispi03.wk4
-------
OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Project:   MASSPORT

Subject:   Alternative Disposal Sites
           Potential Wave Effects
                    Sheet No.
                    Job No.
                    Made By   JCR
                    Chkd. By

         of
     Date
     Date
      03-13-95
Rev. No.
Made By
          Wind Generated Design Wave (cont'd)         SPECTACLE ISLAND

          From: US Army Engineer, CERC, "Shore Protection Manual", 1973

          H = (0.283*Uexp2 / g) * tanh [ A] * tanh [ B / tanh A ]

                    Where:    A = 0.53* (g*d / UA2) A 0.75

                             B= 0.0125* (g* F / UA2) A 0.42

                             d =            140.0 ft
                             F =

                             U =
                          160 N.M.*6080f   972,800ft

                           58 ft/sec      1-YR RETURN
                 A =   0.66012
             tanh A =   0.57844
                 B =   0.58063
                          H =
13.05
ft
          T = (1.2*2Pi*U / g) * tanh [ C ] * tanh [ D / tanh C]

                    Where:    C = 0.833* (g*d / UA 2)A 0.375

                             D = 0.077* (g*F / UA 2)A 0.25
                C =   0.92965
             tanh C =   0.73043
                D =   0.75639
          SUMMARY OF DESIGN WAVE (DEEP WATER)
T =
7.7
sec
                          H =     13.05     ft

                          T =       7.7    sec
Date
                                        naispi04.wk4
                                                                                  A
-------
OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Project:   MASSPORT

Subject:   Alternative Disposal Sites
            Potential Wave Effects
Rev. No.
Made By
                    Sheet No.
                    Job No.
                    Made By   JCR
                    Chkd. By

        of
     Date
     Date
      03-13-95
          Wind Generated Design Wave (cont'd)         Subaqueous B

          From: US Army Engineer, CERC, "Shore Protection Manual", 1973

          H = (0.283*Uexp2 / g) * tanh [ A] * tanh [ B / tanh A ]

                    Where:     A = 0.53* (g*d / UA2)A 0.75

                              B= 0.0125* (g* F / UA2) A 0.42
                              d =
                              U =
                         45.0 ft

                          4.6 N.M.*6080 f    27,968 ft

                           58 ft/sec      1-YR RETURN
                 A=   0.28180
             tanh A =   0.27457
                 B =   0.13078
                          H =
3.60
ft
          T = (1.2*2Pi*U / g) * tanh [ C J * tanh [ D / tanh C]

                    Where:   C = 0.833* (g*d / UA 2}A 0.375

                             D = 0.077* (g*F / UA 2}A 0.25
                 C =   0.60740
             tanh C =   0.54229
                 D=   0.31146
          SUMMARY OF DESIGN WAVE fDEEP WATER)
T =
3.8
sec
                           H =      3.60     ft

                           T =       3.8    sec
Date
                                        naispi05.wk4
-------
OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Project:   MASSPORT

Subject:   Alternative Disposal Sites
            Potential Wave Effects
                    Sheet No.
                    Job No.
                    Made By   JCR
                    Chkd. By
    of
Date
Date
03-13-95
Rev. No.
Made By
          Wind Generated Design Wave (cont'd)         Subaqueous E

          From: US Army Engineer, CERC, "Shore Protection Manual", 1973

          H = (0.283*Uexp2 / g) * tanh [ A] * tanh [ B / tanh A ]

                    Where:    A = 0.53* (g*d / UA2) A 0.75

                              B= 0.0125* {g* F / UA2) A 0.42
                              d =

                              P =

                              U =
                         45.0 ft

                         	4_N.M.*6080f    24,320ft

                           58 ft/sec     1-YR RETURN
                 A=   0.28180
             tanh A =   0.27457
                 B =   0.12332
                                   3.42
    ft
          T = (1.2*2PPU / g) * tanh [ C ] * tanh [ D / tanh C]

                    Where:    C = 0.833* (g*d / UA 2)A 0.375

                              D = 0.077* (g*F / UA 2)A 0.25
                 C =   0.60740
             tanh C =   0.54229
                 D =   0.30077
          SUMMARY OF DESIGN WAVE (DEEP WATER)
T =
3.7
sec
                           H =     3.42     ft

                           T -      3.7    sec
Date
                                       naispi06.wk4
-------
OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Project:   MASSPORT

Subject:   Alternative Disposal Sites
            Potential Wave Effects
Rev. No.
Made By
                    Sheet No.
                    Job No.
                    Made By   JCR
                    Chkd. By
                   of
               Date
               Date
      03-13-95
          Wind Generated Design Wave (cont'd)         Meisburger 2

          From: US Army Engineer, CERC, "Shore Protection Manual", 1973

          H = (0.283*Uexp2 / g) * tanh [ A] * tanh [ B / tanh A ]

                    Where:    A = 0.53* (g*d / UA2) A 0.75

                              B= 0.0125* (g* F / UA2)A 0.42
                    Assume
          d =

          F =

          U =
300.0 ft

 1000 N.M.*6080f  6,080,000ft

  58 ft/sec      1-YR RETURN
                 A=   1.16914
             tanh A =   0.82400
                 B=   1.25363
                           H =
          22.14
ft
          T = (1.2*2Pi*U / g) * tanh [ C ] * tanh [ D / tanh C]

                    Where:    C = 0.833* (g*d / UA 2}A 0.375

                              D = 0.077* (g*F / UA 2}A 0.25
                 C=   1.23720
             tanh C =   0.84466
                 D=   1.19596
               /IARY OF DESIGN WAVE (DEEP WATER)
T = 10.2
sec
                           H =    22.14     ft

                           T =      10.2    sec
Date
                                       naispi07.wk4
-------
OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Project:    MASSPORT

Subject:   Alternative Disposal Sites
            Potential Wave Effects
                    Sheet No.
                    Job No.
                    Made By
                    Chkd. By
8
                    of
      JCR
  Date
  Date
03-13-95
Rev. No.
Made By
          Wind Generated Design Wave (cont'd)         Meisburger 7

          From: US Army Engineer, CERC, "Shore Protection Manual", 1973

          H = (0.283*Uexp2 / g) * tanh [ A] * tanh [ B / tanh A ]

                    Where:    A = 0.53* (g*d / UA2) A 0.75

                              B= 0.0125* (g* F / UA2) A 0.42
                    Assume
          d =

          C? <~


          u =
300.0 ft

 1000 N.M.*6080f  6,080,000ft

   58 ft/sec      1-YR RETURN
                 A=   1.16914
             tanh A =   0.82400
                 B=   1.25363
                          H =
          22.14
      ft
          T = (1.2*2Pi*U / g) * tanh [ C ] * tanh [ D / tanh C]

                    Where:    C = 0.833* (g*d / UA 2)A 0.375

                              D = 0.077* (g*F / UA 2)A 0.25
                 C=   1.23720
             tanhC=   0.84466
                 D=   1.19596
          SUMMARY OF DESIGN WAVE (DEEP WATER)
T =
10.2
sec
                           H =     22,14     ft

                           T=      10.2    sec
Date
                                        naispi08.wk4
-------
OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
                                                    FiK Rtf.: cotcprtl
Project:

Subject:

MASSPORT

Alternative Disposal Sites
Potential Wave Effects
Sheet No.
Job No.
Made By JCR
Chkd. By
24 of

Date
Date


03-13-95


Return
Period, yrs
1
2
50
100

Wave

Ht,ft
T, sec
Ht.ft
T.sec
Ht,ft
T.sec
Ht,ft
T, sec


Spec Isl
13.1
7,7
18.0
9.1
28.6
11.9
29.5
12.1


M.2
22.1
10.2
32.1
12.4
51.8
16.6
53.3
16.9

Site
M. 7
22.1
10.2
32.1
12.4
51.8
16.6
53.3
16.9


Sub. B
3.6
3.8
5.1
4.5
9.2
5.9
9.6
6.0


Sub. E
3.4
3.7
4.9
4.4
8.9
5.7
9.3
5.9


Note




              SUMMARY OF DEEP WATER WAVE CONDITIONS
                    FOR RANGE OF RETURN PERIODS
         These waves are unaltered by the effects of shoaling and refraction.
Rev. No.
Made By
Date
                                   naispi24.wk4
-------

OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Project:   MASSPORT

Subject:   Alternative Disposal Sites
             Potential Wave Effects
                    Sheet No.
                    Job No.
                    Made By
                    Chkd. By
       25
    of
JCR
Date
Date
03-13-95
Rev. No.
Made By
          Effects of Shoaling and Refraction   EXAMPLE COMPUTATION

          Depth At Structure:           10.0ft(MLW)   Spectacle island
                                     11.7 ft (1 - Yr Tidal Flood El., MLW)
                              	0.0 ft (Correction NGVD to MLW Datum)
          Shoalina
   d =          21.7 ft at structure


SHOALING COEFFICIENT, Ks = H/Ho'

          Where:
                                            H =    Shallow Water Wave Height
                                            Ho1 =    Wave Height in Deep Water
                                                   If Unaffected by Refraction
                    Lo = 5.12*TA2

                    d/Lo=       0.0715
                        ForT =
                          Lo=~
       7.7
     303.6
   sec
    ft
                     From: US Army Corps of Engineers, CERC, "Shore Protection
                     Manual", 1973  TABLE C - 1, page C -5

                     Shoaling Coefficient Corresponding to d / Lo will be :
                                  Ks =
                        0.9683
          Refraction - By Bathymetry

          Wave celerity is a function of water depth. Variation in the velocity of a wave
          along a wave crest, moving at an angle to the underwater contours, will cause
          the wave crest to bend toward alignment with the contours. This bending, or
          REFRACTION, is dependent upon the relation of water depth to wavelength.

          Refraction, coupled with shoaling, determines the wave height in any specific
          depth of water and a given set of incident deepwater wave conditions.
Date
                                         naispi25.wk4
-------
OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Project:    MASSPORT

Subject:    Alternative Disposal Sites
            Potential Wave Effects
Rev. No.
Made By
                     Sheet No.
                     Job No.
                     Made By
                     Chkd. By
                26
    of
        JCR
Date
Date
03-14-95
           Refraction - By Bathymetry (Cont'd)  EXAMPLE REVISE

           From Table, pg. 27, at approximate design depth at structure (22 - ft), wave
           will be transitional [ d/L = 0.1155].
           Due to relatively small wave height and for CONSERVATIVE design, minor
           refraction effects will be realized.
                     REFRACTION COEFFICIENT, Kr = (bo / b ) A 0.5

                               Where:     bo =

                                          b =
                               distance between wave
                               orthogonals in deepwater
                               distance between wave
                               orthogonals in shallow
                               water after refraction
                     Refraction Coefficient will be:
                                  Kr =
                        0.9000
                                                        Ref.: Attached Refraction
                                                               Analysis
           Resign Wave Height at Site

           H design = Ho1 * Ks * K, Where :
Ho' =
Ks =
                                    13.10 ft
                                   0.9685
                                   0.9000
                                          H design =
                                    11.42
                       ft
                     Waves will impact the project site at an oblique angle.
                     Approximate angle of incidence at the structure, based upon
                     the refraction analysis, will be:
                                              60 degrees east of north
Date
                                          naispi25.wk4
-------
OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Project:   MASSPORT

Subject:   Alternative Disposal Sites
          Potential Wave Effects
Sheet No.
Job No.
Made By
Chkd. By
27
of
JCR
   Date
   Date
     03-14-95
Refraction - By Bathymetry (Cont'd) EXAMPLE COMPUTATION
SPECTACLE ISLAND
REFRACTION ANALYSIS
HURRICANE GENERATED WAVE ORIGINATING FROM
East { 80 Degrees From True North)
Deepwater Wave Conditions: T =
7.7
sec
Lo = 303.6 ft




















d,(ft)
140

120

100

80

70

60

50

40

30

20
d/Lo
0.4612

0.3953

0.3294

0.2635

0.2306

0.1977

0.1647

0.1318

0.0988

0.0659
tanh (A)
0.9941

0.9871

0.9721

0.9421

0.9181

0.8861

0.8421

0.7829

0.7058

0.5989
C1/C2

1.0071

1.0154

1.0318

1.0261

1.0361

1.0523

1.0756

1.1092

1.1785

C2/C1

0.9930

0.9848

0.9691

0.9745

0.9651

0.9503

0.9297

0.9015

0.8485




















"
Note: A = 2 * (Pi) * d/L
From Table C - 1 , US Army Corps of Engineers
CERC, "Shore Protection Manual", 1973
Rev. No.
Made By Date
naispi27.wk4
-------
                                                         fOt R»t: TOmpdll
OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.

Project:
MASSPORT
Subject:   Alternative Disposal Sites
           Potential Wave Effects
Sheet No.
Job No.
Made By
Chkd. By
28
of
                                      JCR
   Date
   Date
      03-15-95
Rev. No.
Made By
SUMMARY OF WAVE CONDITIONS AT
ALTERNATIVE SITES
Return
Period, yrs
1
2
50
100
Wave
Character
Design depth, ft
Deep Water Ht, ft
Deep Water Per., sec
Shoaling Coefficient
Refraction Coefficient
Wave Ht at Site, ft
Design depth, ft
Deep Water Ht, ft
Deep Water Per., sec
Shoaling Coefficient
Refraction Coefficient
Wave Ht at Site, ft
Design depth, ft
Deep Water Ht, ft
Deep Water Per., sec
Shoaling Coefficient
Refraction Coefficient
Wave Ht at Site, ft
Design depth, ft
Deep Water Ht, ft
Deep Water Per., sec
Shoaling Coefficient
Refraction Coefficient
Wave Ht at Site, ft
Site
Spec Isl
21.7
13.1
7.7
0.9685
0.9000
11.4
22.0
18.0
9.1
1.0170
0.9000
16.5
24.5
28.6
11.9
1.1000
0.9000
28.3
24.8
29.5
12.1
1.1050
0.9000
29.3
M2
106.7
22.1
10.2
0.9182
1.0000
20.3
107.0
32.1
12.4
0.9154
1.0000
29.4
109.5
51.8
16.6
0.9582
1.0000
49.6
109.8
53.3
16.9
0.9619
1.0000
51.3
M7
96.7
22.1
10.2
0.9147
1.0000
20.2
97.0
32.1
12.4
0.9190
1.0000
29.5
99.5
51.8
16.6
0.9704
1.0000
50.3
99.8
53.3
16.9
0.9748
1.0000
52.0
SubB
26.7
3.6
3.8
0.9671
1.0000
3.5
27.0
5.1
4.5
0.9357
1.0000
4.8
29.5
9.2
5.9
0.9131
1.0000
8.4
29.8
9.6
6.0
0.9130
1.0000
8.8
SubE
19.7
3.4
3.7
0.9427
1.0000
3.2
20.0
4.9
4.4
0.9185
1.0000
4.5
22.5
8.9
5.7
0.9155
1.0000
8.1
22.8
9.3
5.9
0.9175
1.0000
8.5

         Date
                                                naispi28.wk4
-------
EAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
act:

ect:

MASSPORT

Alternative Disposal Sites
Potential Wave Effects
Sheet No.
Job No.
Made By JCR
Chkd. By
29 of

Date
Date


03-15-95

                EXAMPLE COMPUTATION - SPECTACLE ISLAND
      MAXIMUM WATER PARTICLE VELOCITIES BENEATH DESIGN WAVE
                            AT STRUCTURE
      SITE CONDITIONS :
H wave =
T wave =
L wave =
d, depth =
11.4
7.7
188.9
21.7
ft
sec
ft
ft
                                                      (See NOTE)
Depth, Ft
21.7
20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
12.0
11.0
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Umax, Ft/sec
5.88
5.89
5.93
5.99
6.08
6.19
6.26
6.33
6.42
6.50
6.60
6.70
6.81
6.93
7.06
7.19
7.33
7.48
      Maximum Water Particle Velocities will occur in coincidence with the passing
      of the wave crest and / or trough. Design must consider the relative direction
      of the water particle motion.
      NOTE :    d / Lo { For Design Conditions} =
                                0.0715
                Wavelength at Structure, L, can be determined from Tables
                Showing Functions of d / L for Increments of d /Lo.
. No.
e By
Date
                             File Ref.: orbvel
                                                                             Or'
-------
                                                           : 11.7
M 7 Sub B Sub E
3.6 0.6 0.9
6.3 1.2 1.6
12.1 2.9 3.5
12.6 3.0 3.7
Shaded quantities indicate that the effects
of wave refraction were approximated and
may require revision, pending further needs
assessment.
Rev. No.
Made By Date
natspiSO. wk4
-------

OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Project:    MASSPORT

Subject:    Alternative Disposal Sites
           Potential Wave Effects
                   Sheet No.
                   Job No.
                   Made By  JCR
                   Chkd. By
                                                    of
                                                Date
                                                Date
      03-13-95
Rev. No.
Made By
Wind Generated Design Wave (cont'd)         SPECTACLE ISLAND

From: US Army Engineer, CERC, "Shore Protection Manual", 1973

H = (0.283*Uexp2 / g) * tanh [ A] * tanh [ B / tanh A ]

          Where:    A = 0.53* (g*d / UA2) A 0.75

                   B= 0.0125* (g* F / UA2) A 0.42

                   d =            140.0  ft

                   F=             160  N.M.*6080f   972,800ft

                                                2-YR RETURN
                             u =
                          81 ft/sec
                A =   0.39998
            tanh A =   0.37993
                B =   0.43858
                          H =
                                           17.95
ft
         T = (1.2*2Pi*U / g) * tanh [ C ] * tanh [ D / tanh C]

                   Where:    C = 0.833* (g*d / UA 2)A 0.375

                             D = 0.077* (g*F / UA 2)A 0.25
                C =   0.72364
            tanh C =   0.61916
                D =   0.64006
          SUMMARY OF DESIGN WAVE (DEEP WATER)
T =
9.1
sec
                          H =      17.95     ft

                          T =       9.1    sec
Date
                                       naispi09.wk4
                                 505
-------
OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.

Project:

MASSPORT
Subject:   Alternative Disposal Sites
            Potential Wave Effects
Rev. No.
Made By
Sheet No.         10     of
Job No.
Made By   JCR       Date      03-13-95
Chkd. By             Date
          Wind Generated Design Wave (cont'd)         Subaqueous B

          From: US Army Engineer, CERC, "Shore Protection Manual", 1973

          H = (0.283*Uexp2 / g) * tanh [ A] * tanh [ B / tanh A ]

                    Where:    A = 0.53* (g*d / UA2)A 0.75

                              B= 0.0125* (g* F / UA2) A 0.42
                              d =
                              U =
                                   45.0 ft

                                    4.6_N.M.*6Q80f    27,968ft

                                     81 ft/sec     2-YR RETURN
                 A =   0.17075
             tanh A =   0.16911
                 B =   0.09878
                                    H =
               5.13
 ft
          T = (1.2*2PPU / g) * tanh [ C ] * tanh [ D / tanh C]

                    Where:   C = 0.833* (g*d / UA 2)A 0.375

                             D = 0.077* (g*F / UA 2)A 0.25
                 C =   0.47280
             tanh C =   0.44046
                 D =   0.26356
                                    T =
                4.5
sec
          SUMMARY OF DESIGN WAVE (DEEP WATER)
                           H=      5.13     ft

                           T -       4.5    sec
         Date
                                                 naispi10.wk4
-------

OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Project:    MASSPORT

Subject:   Alternative Disposal Sites
           Potential Wave Effects
                    Sheet No.         11     of
                    Job No.
                    Made By  JCR      Date      03-13-95
                    Chkd. By            Date
Rev. No.
Made By
          Wind Generated Design Wave (cont'd)         Subaqueous E

          From: US Army Engineer, CERC, "Shore Protection Manual", 1973

          H = (0.283*Uexp2 / g) * tanh [ A] * tanh [ B / tanh A J

                   Where:    A = 0.53* (g*d / UA2) A 0.75

                             B= 0.0125* (g* F / UA2) A 0.42

                             d =            45.0 ft
                             F*
                           4_N.M.*6080f    24,320ft

                          81 ft/sec      2-YR RETURN
                A=   0.17075
             tanh A =   0.16911
                B =   0.09315
                          H =
4.89
 ft
          T = (1.2*2PPU / g) * tanh [ C ] * tanh [ D / tanh CJ

                   Where:    C = 0.833* (g*d / UA 2)A 0.375

                             D = 0.077* (g*F / UA 2)A 0.25
                C =   0.47280
            tanh C =   0.44046
                D =   0.25451
                          T =
 4.4
sec
          SUMMARY OF DESIGN WAVE (DEEP WATER)
                          H =      4.89     ft

                          T =       4.4    sec
Date
                                       naispi11.wk4
                            50$
-------
OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Project:   MASSPORT

Subject:   Alternative Disposal Sites
            Potential Wave Effects
Rev. No.
Made By
                    Sheet No.         12     of
                    Job No.
                    Made By  JCR      Date      03-13-95
                    Chkd. By            Date
          Wind Generated Design Wave (cont'd)         Meisburger 2

          From: US Army Engineer, CERC, "Shore Protection Manual", 1973

          H = (0.283*Uexp2 / g) * tanh [ A] * tanh [ B / tanh A ]

                    Where:     A = 0.53* (g*d / UA2) A 0.75

                              B= 0.0125* (g* F / UA2) A 0.42
                              d =
                    Assume
                              U =
                         300.0 ft

                         1000 N.M.*6080f  6,080,000ft

                           81 ft/sec      2-YR RETURN
                 A =   0.70840
             tanh A =   0.60968
                 B =   0.94694
                                  32.14
ft
          T = (1.2*2Pi*U / g) * tanh [ C ] * tanh [ D / tanh C]

                    Where:    C = 0.833" (g*d / UA 2)A 0.375

                              D = 0.077* (g*F / UA 2)A 0.25
                 C =   0.96305
             tanh C =   0.74563
                 D=   1.01202
          SUMMARY OF DESIGN WAVE (DEEP WATER)
T =
12.4 sec
                           H =     32.14     ft

                           T =       12.4    sec
Date
                                        naispi12.wk4
-------
OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Project:   MASSPORT

Subject:   Alternative Disposal Sites
            Potential Wave Effects
                    Sheet No.         13    of
                    Job No.
                    Made By   JCR       Date      03-13-95
                    Chkd. By             Date
Rev. No.
Made By
          Wind Generated Design Wave (cont'd)         Meisburger 7

          From: US Army Engineer, CERC, "Shore Protection Manual", 1973

          H = (0.283*Uexp2 / g) * tanh IAJ * tanh [ B / tanh A ]

                    Where:     A = 0.53* (g*d / UA2) A 0.75

                              B= 0.0125* {g* F / UA2) A 0.42
                              d =
                    Assume
                        300.0 ft

                         1000 N.M.*6080f 6,080,000ft

                           81 ft/sec     2-YR RETURN
                 A =   0.70840
             tanh A =   0.60968
                 B =   0.94694
                                  32.14
ft
          T = (1.2*2Pi*U / g) * tanh [ C ] * tanh [ D / tanh C]

                    Where:    C = 0.833* (g*d / U* 2)A 0.375

                              D = 0.077* {g*F / UA 2)A 0.25
                 C =   0.96305
             tanh C =   0.74563
                 D=   1.01202
          SUMMARY OF DESIGN WAVE (DEEP WATER)
T =
12.4
sec
                           H =     32.14     ft

                           T =      12.4    sec
Date
                                        naispi13.wk4
-------
OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Project:   MASSPORT

Subject:   Alternative Disposal Sites
            Potential Wave Effects
Rev. No.
Made By
                    Sheet No.         14    of
                    Job No.
                    Made By   JCR       Date      03-13-95
                    Chkd. By             Date
          Wind Generated Design Wave (cont'd)         SPECTACLE ISLAND

          From: US Army Engineer, CERC, "Shore Protection Manual", 1973

          H = (0.283*Uexp2 / g) * tanh [ A] * tanh [ B / tanh A ]

                    Where:    A = 0.53* (g*d / UA2)A 0.75

                              B= 0.0125* (g* F / UA2)A 0.42

                              d =            140.0 ft
                              U =
                          160 N.M.*6080f   972,800ft

                          147 ft/sec     50-YR RETURN
                 A =   0.16360
             tanh A =   0.16216
                 B =   0.26585
                           H =
28.56
 ft
          T = (1.2*2PPU / g) * tanh [ C ] * tanh {D / tanh C]

                    Where:    C = 0.833* (g*d / UA 2}A 0.375

                              D = 0.077* (g*F / UA 2)A 0.25
                 C =   0.46281
             tanh C =   0.43237
                 D =   0.47512
                           T =
 11.9
sec
          SUMMARY OF DESIGN WAVE (DEEP WATER)
                           H =     28.56     ft

                           T=      11.9    sec
Date
                                        naispi14.wk4
-------
                                                            lotn^cr/cen^xkt
OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Project:    MASSPORT

Subject:   Alternative Disposal Sites
            Potential Wave Effects
                    Sheet No.         15     of
                    Job No.
                    Made By   JCR       Date      03-13-95
                    Chkd. By             Date
Rev. No.
Made By
          Wind Generated Design Wave (cont'd)         Subaqueous B

          From: US Army Engineer, CERC, "Shore Protection Manual", 1973

          H = (0.283*Uexp2 / g) * tanh [ A] * tanh [ B / tanh A ]

                    Where:    A = 0.53* (g*d / UA2)A 0.75

                              B= 0.0125* (g* F / UA2) A 0.42
                              d =

                              r™* mat
                         45.0 ft

                          4.6 N.M.*6080f    27,968ft

                          147 ft/sec      50-YR RETURN
                 A =   0.06984
             tanh A =   0.06973
                 B =   0.05988
                          H =
9.21
ft
          T = (1.2*2Pi*U / g) * tanh [ C ] * tanh [ D / tanh C]

                    Where:    C = 0.833* (g*d / UA 2)A 0.375

                              D = 0.077* (g*F / UA 2)A 0.25
                 C =   0.30238
             tanh C =   0.29349
                 D =   0.19564
                                    5.9
        sec
          SUMMARY OF DESIGN WAVE (DEEP WATER)
                           H =      9.21     ft

                           T =       5.9    sec
Date
                                        naispi15.wk4
-------
OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.

Project:   MASSPORT

Subject;   Alternative Disposal Sites
            Potential Wave Effects
                    Sheet No.
                    Job No.
                    Made By
                    Chkd. By
JCR
16    of

   Date
   Date
03-13-95
Rev. No.
Made By
          Wind Generated Design Wave (cont'd)         Subaqueous E

          From: US Army Engineer, CERC, "Shore Protection Manual", 1973

          H = (0.283*Uexp2 / g) * tanh [ A] * tanh [ B / tanh A ]

                    Where:    A = 0.53* (g*d / UA2) A 0.75

                              B= 0.0125* (g* F / UA2) A 0.42
                              d =
                              U =
                         45.0 ft

                         	4_N.M.*6080f   24,320 ft

                          147 ft/sec      50-YR RETURN
                 A =   0.06984
             tanh A =   0.06973
                 B =   0.05646
                           H =
      8.87
      ft
          T = (1.2*2Pi*U / g) * tanh [ C ] * tanh [ D / tanh C]

                    Where:    C = 0.833* (g*d / UA 2)A 0.375

                              D = 0.077* (g*F / UA 2)A 0.25
                 C =   0.30238
             tanh C =   0.29349
                 D =   0.18892
          SUMMARY OF DESIGN WAVE (DEEP WATER)
T =
5.7
sec
                           H =      8.87     ft

                           T -       5.7    sec
Date
                                        naispi16.wk4
-------

OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Project:    MASSPORT

Subject:   Alternative Disposal Sites
           Potential Wave Effects
                    Sheet No.
                    Job No.
                    Made By
                    Chkd. By
             17
    Of
     JCR
Date
Date
03-13-95
Rev. No.
Made By
          Wind Generated Design Wave (cont'd)         Meisburger 2

          From: US Army Engineer, CERC, "Shore Protection Manual", 1973

          H = (0.283*Uexp2 / g) * tanh [ A] * tanh [ B / tanh A ]

                   Where:    A = 0.53* (g*d / UA2) A 0.75

                             B= 0.0125* (g*F/UA2)A 0.42
                   Assume
          d —

          F =

          U =
300.0 ft

 1000 N.M.*6080f 6,080,000ft

  147 ft/sec      50-YR RETURN
                A =   0.28976
            tanh A =   0.28191
                B =   0.57399
                          H =
          51.75
    ft
          T = (1.2*2Pi*U / g) * tanh [ C ] * tanh [ D / tanh C]

                   Where:    C = 0.833* (g*d / UA 2)A 0.375

                             D = 0.077* (g*F / UA 2)A 0.25
                C=   0.61592
            tanh C =   0.54828
                D =   0.75123
TT — •
16.6 sec
          SUMMARY OF DESIGN WAVE (DEEP WATER)
                          H=     51.75     ft

                          T =      16.6    sec
Date  '•
                                       naispi17.wk4
                                  573
-------
          OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
          Project:    MASSPORT

          Subject:   Alternative Disposal Sites
                     Potential Wave Effects
          Rev. No.
          Made By
33*
                    Sheet No,         18     of
                    Job No.
                    Made By   JCR       Date      03-13-95
                    Chkd. By             Date
                    Wind Generated Design Wave (cont'd)        Meisburger 7

                    From: US Army Engineer, CERC, "Shore Protection Manual", 1973

                    H = (0.283*Uexp2 / g) * tanh [ A]* tanh [ B / tanh A ]

                              Where:     A = 0.53* (g*d / UA2) A 0.75

                                        B= 0.0125* (g* F / UA2) A 0.42
                              Assume
          d =

          F =

          U =
300.0 ft

 1000 N.M.*6080 f 6,080,000 ft

  147 ft/sec     50-YR RETURN
                           A =   0.28976
                      tanh A =   0.28191
                           B =   0.57399
                          H =
          51.75
ft
                    T = (1.2*2PPU / g) * tanh [ C ] * tanh [ D / tanh C]

                              Where:    C = 0.833* (g*d / UA 2)A 0.375

                                        D = 0.077* (g*F / UA 2)A 0.25
                          C =   0.61592
                      tanh C =   0.54828
                          D =   0.75123
                    SUMMARY OF DESIGN WAVE (DEEP WATER)
T =
16.6
sec
                                     H =     51.75     ft

                                     T =      16.6    sec
Date
                                        naispi18.wk4
-------
OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Project:    MASSPORT

Subject:   Alternative Disposal Sites
           Potential Wave Effects
Sheet No.
Job No.
Made By
Chkd. By
   19
                                            of
JCR
      Date
      Date
                                                  03-13-95
Rev. No.
Made By
          Wind Generated Design Wave (cont'd)         SPECTACLE ISLAND

          From: US Army Engineer, CERC, "Shore Protection Manual", 1973

          H = (0.283*Uexp2 / g) * tanh [ A] * tanh [ B / tanh A ]
           •

                    Where:     A = 0.53* (g*d / UA2) A 0.75

                              B= 0.0125* (g* F / UA2) A 0.42
                              d =

                              F =

                              U =
                         140.0 ft

                          160 N.M.*6080f   972,800ft

                          154 ft/sec      100-YR RETURN
                A=   0.15257
             tanh A =   0.15140
                B =   0.25566
                           H =
29.47
              ft
          T = (1.2*2Pi*U / g) * tanh [ C ] * tanh [ D / tanh C]

                   Where:     C = 0.833* (g*d / UA 2)A 0.375

                              D = 0.077* (g*F / UA 2)A 0.25
                C =   0.44694
            tanh C =   0.41938
                D =   0.46419
                           T =
 12.1
             sec
          SLLMMARY..QF.DESIG.N WAVE_(P.E,EP WATER)
                           H =     29.47     ft

                           T =      12.1    sec
Date
                                        naispi19.wk4
                                                                                •ffi
-------
OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Project:   MASSPORT

Subject:   Alternative Disposal Sites
            Potential Wave Effects
                    Sheet No.          20     of
                    Job No.
                    Made By  JCR      Date      03-13-95
                    Chkd. By            Date
Rev. No.
Made By
          Wind Generated Design Wave (cont'd)         Subaqueous B

          From: US Army Engineer, CERC, "Shore Protection Manual", 1973

          H = (0.283*Uexp2 / g) * tanh [ A] * tanh {B / tanh A ]

                    Where:    A = 0.53* (g*d / UA2) A 0.75

                              B= 0.0125* (g* F / UA2)A 0.42
                              d =

                              C —
                         45.0 ft

                          4.6 N.M.*6080f    27,968ft

                          154 ft/sec      100-YR RETURN
                 A=   0.06513
             tanh A =   0.06504
                 B =   0.05758
                           H =
9.61
 ft
          T = (1.2*2Pi*U / g) * tanh [ C ] * tanh [ D / tanh C]

                    Where:    C = 0.833* (g*d / UA 2)A 0.375

                              D = 0.077* (g*F / UA 2)A 0.25
                 C =   0.29201
             tanh C =   0.28399
                 D=   0.19114
                           T =
 6.0
sec
          SUMMARY OF DESIGN WAVE (DEEP WATER)
                           H =      9.61     ft

                           T =       6.0    sec
Date
                                        naispi20.wk4
-------
OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Project:    MASSPORT

Subject:   Alternative Disposal Sites
            Potential Wave Effects
                    Sheet No.
                    Job No.
                    Made By
                    Chkd. By
21
              of
JCR
   Date
   Date
03-13-95
Rev. No.
Made By
          Wind Generated Design Wave (cont'd)         Subaqueous E

          From: US Army Engineer, CERC, "Shore Protection Manual", 1973

          H = (0.283*Uexp2 / g) * tanh [ A] * tanh [ B / tanh AI

                    Where:     A = 0.53* (g*d / UA2)A 0.75

                              B= 0.0125* (g* F / UA2) * 0.42
                              d =
                              U =
                         45.0 ft

                        	4_N.M.*6080 f    24,320 ft

                          154 ft/sec     100-YR RETURN
                 A=   0.06513
             tanh A =   0.06504
                 B =   0.05430
                          rj _
                                   9.26
              ft
          T = (1.2*2PPU / g) * tanh [ C ] * tanh [ D / tanh C]

                    Where:    C = 0.833* (g*d / UA 2)A 0.375

                              D = 0.077* (g*F / UA 2)A 0.25
                 C =   0.29201
             tanh C =   0.28399
                 D =   0.18458
T =
5.9
sec
          SUMMARY OF DESIGN WAVE (DEEP WATER)
                           H =

                           T =
                9.26     ft

                 5.9    sec
Date
                                       naispi21 ,wk4
                              577
-------
OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Project:   MASSPORT

Subject:   Alternative Disposal Sites
            Potential Wave Effects
Rev. No.
Made By
                    Sheet No.
                    Job No.
                    Made By
                    Chkd. By
22
                    of
      JCR
   Date
   Date
03-13-95
          Wind Generated Design Wave (cont'd)         Meisburger 2

          From: US Army Engineer, CERC, "Shore Protection Manual", 1973

          H = (0.283*Uexp2 / g) * tanh [ A] * tanh [ B / tanh A ]

                    Where:     A = 0.53* (g*d / UA2) A 0.75

                              B= 0.0125* (g* F / UA2) A 0.42
                    Assume
          d ^

          F =

          U =
 300.0 ft

_JOCX)_N.M.*6080f  6,080,000ft

  154 ft/sec      100-YR RETURN
                 A =   0.27023
             tanh A =   0.26384
                 B=   0.55199
                          H =
          53.34
       ft
          T = (1.2*2Pi*U / g) * tanh [ C ] * tanh [ D / tanh C]

                    Where:    C = 0.833* (g*d / UA 2)A 0.375

                              D = 0.077* (g*F / UA 2)A 0.25
                 C =   0.59480
             tanh C =   0.53334
                 D =   0.73396

                                   16.9
                   sec
          SUMMARY OF DESIGN WAVE (DEEP WATER)
                           H =    53.34     ft

                           T =      16.9    sec
Date
                                       naispi22.wk4
                           SI
-------
OCEAN AND COASTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.

Project:    MASSPORT

Subject:   Alternative Disposal Sites
           Potential Wave Effects
                    Sheet No.
                    Job No.
                    Made By
                    Chkd. By
             23
    of
     JCR
Date
Date
03-13-95
Rev. No.
Made By
          Wind Generated Design Wave (cont'd)         Meisburger 7

          From: US Army Engineer, CERC, "Shore Protection Manual", 1973

          H = (0.283*Uexp2 / g) * tanh [ A] * tanh [ B / tanh A ]

                   Where:    A = 0.53* (g*d / UA2) A 0.75

                             B= 0.0125* (g* F / UA2) A 0.42
                   Assume
          d =

          •~ LL_


          U =
300.0 ft

 1000 N.M.*6080f 6,080,000ft

  154 ft/sec     100-YR RETURN
                A =   0.27023
             tanh A =   0.26384
                B =   0.55199
                                  53.34
                   ft
          T = (1.2*2PPU / g) * tanh [ C ] * tanh [ D / tanh C]

                   Where:    C = 0.833* (g*d / UA 2)A 0.375

                             D = 0.077* (g*F / UA 2)A 0.25
                C =   0.59480
             tanh C =   0.53334
                D =   0.73396
T =
16.9 sec
          SUMMARY OF DESIGN WAVE (DEEP WATER)
                          H =     53.34     ft

                          T =      16.9    sec
Date
                                        naispi23.wk4
-------
•oil tv
 "  "**-*--
              \-.^\ .Jff  '=7?  Park -HtA*   1 .*—
              \ -.|VV|f«T5-iffi^'V.chi CluEV; gC . ,i-
             X cV^C V ^^ Jrf£->"    ~f

                  ''
Reproduced from NOS chart no.
13270J corrected to April 19,1986.
For additional update informa-
tion, see appendix A.
                                                  "f^fg)
                                                  I I33  3*1 f  *3
                                                 «*      /yzaV
-------
APPENDIX H - CA/T LANDFILL CAPPING PROGRAM APPLICATION
-------
                               GUIDE for COMPLETING Ik* APPLICATION for
                        SOLICITATION OF INTEREST for RECEIPT OF CLAY frm*tiu
                                   CENTRAL ARTERY/TUNNEL PROJECT


Please respond to every question. Failure to provide aU cccesiary infonnatioc may n^t in tbe application bong rejected.
Doe to the «hort time flame available to npvfcnf tfa> application* K9Bfr"lnf, thwP ™fll IWt bf m «^y»*"™«y «" «n|ipl«m«iitf
fcif «pp|ioit»fin  Faftr tn lh* fhriiig prinr to «n»nplj*4»»g any nf «h^ ^IfrtiflBt IB **"« ApTfyftK^T


L   Appliocnt lafonmtiaD

      a. OivethetddreMoftbe£Kilityortbebe«tk)oatx3Q^ckaKa^>tian.
      b. Give the riBny »"^ tide of tbe rm curreotly uoo^ped. Uncapped zne«ni «ay mita that hat not reoeived
              final eowar in aooordanae with • DBP approrved plan.
              5. CHvetbe«iMoftaelaiKffiflc«axrimoooKlii^toajBap^
              Please attach detailed de«aiption if portion* of site vore copped but M* approved/certified.
      B.   Openttkoal Status
              2. a. Indict whediff the baximidow not ukis MS W but coot^
                           s.ete.
              3. identify asdoady as possible wbm&eiandfilloeuDd to be active.
-------
                              GUIDE fir COMPLETING the APPLICATION for
                       SOLICITATION OF INTEREST far RECEIPT OF CLAY from the
                                 CENTRAL ARTERY/TUNNEL PROJECT

     C,   Other Infonnaticc

             1. a. Indicate if tbe lite impartially capped.

               b. Indicate if the ate wiUiOTain active white c»i^^
               and explain toe projected schedule and pita for capping.

             2. Indicate tbc volume of capping material requested.

             (Oancn%30COouticyardiofiMrterial|»acn?bc»tinMt^ If different, plows explain.)


M.  Regulatory Statm

     A.   AuessneDt Stains
                  lid waste repilaticro require that an as»Pttn^
             final dotUR of die facility. Preferably tfaeas»t»*mcm a ocgnpleted prior to coostru^
             but it can also be oaoducced cancarrently with or subaequeot to eoaftmotka of tbe cap. Indicate wbetber
             a np<«haibe««^«mtt«i, date «xjbtnJttrfawiI^P approval. Fbaae provide documentation of die
             Rim Ktrnrt toanmiiirt t>» •«•<••nuinl


             [Nate: A hjii ••lagfe al report was «PC ^cvdeped «r sobmlttcd prtar ta PEP  l^i^ial tmijunmtwmt* mmm rl. ^ fa. «.•»!»»* th>- >»j. at rt^. ^wryL*^ l^vtfill  Tbeffefafe a COnWpMal
             doai^n plan is not a final daa%n oloaun plan and ooa not be uaod as the plan to cap thelandfilL
             Coooeptual doaure plana won required as put of tbe existing nKOitrnpcnnhaibrmttalj.
                                                                               •M(l)3fMrlwiM«l
      C.

             1. PoatT/WOPtainVApproval

             A find deaifn down plan » a plan that eoBtuw a ftdl Mt of dc«iiloddnwi^B>cl^ieeifi8«iom winch
             baw bom approved or win be rabmh^ for approval aDdwbkhciCKifarmtolhecaraatregolatay
             raqumDMots foraaapdaat^n. Indicate wMtnataocn plan has bacDOCinpMlBd,a(ib
             by I^EP aid provide dooaoMoianati. Abo indicate the cxnsultant who IMS dcvwcrndcirag the deaign.
                                                  55-3
-------
                              GUIDE for COMPLETING Ou APPLICATION/*
                       SOLICITATION OF INTEREST frr RECEIPT OF CLAY jnm At
                                  CENTRAL ARTERY/TUNNEL PROJECT

             2.  Pre 7/1/90 Plan

             a. Identify whether a pro 7/1/90 plan was admitted and approved. Provide documentation of such
             appro*!

             b. Identify whether filling taken place beyond the boundaries of nidi plan so that the conceptual closure
             grades are no longer valid.
             (Natefc AMyiliimi/ca»»fat»4aa»a»pr*rWaaMlB*
-------
                            GUIDEf»r COMPLETING tke APPLICATION for
                     SOLICITATION OF INTERESTS* RECEIPT OF CLAY/nm the
                                CENTRAL ARTERY/TUNNEL PROJECT

            3. Sac tfaciequiieu>BUif(y«prelimintiy«todyilicg plan included with the application. Ibis stockpiling
            pUnmurt be filed with the application. A nxrcdeUilodi^xn may be nx^uii^ where erotica ooatrol,
            Wetinxfe Probx*kn, CatMTVBtko Conminkc, D£P W                            All
                    ire
            4.
            ttS •gnNBMDt tonoBVB
V*
            lie ^pplkctkn must be signed fcy the penaa duly mthorized to reprw«rt the municipality in this regard
            bc/sbe is aotborized to sign tot fee
-------
      SOLICITATION OF INTEREST aid MUNICIPAL APPLICATION FOR REC&PT OF CLAY from the
                                 CENTRAL ARTERY /TUNNEL PROJECT

se respond to every question. Failure to provide aU necessary information nut) result in the application being rejected.
to the short tune frame available to ieview the applications received, there wiU not be an qpportunrty to supplement
application. Refer to the Guide prior 10 completing any of the questions in this Application.
L City /Town     -

  Location of Facility

>. Name of person filing Application

  Title/Position

;. Name of Contaa Person

  Tide/Position

  Telephone Number
Project Description

  A. Size of Landfill

         1, Total Acreage of Site which is site assigned         ________

         2. Total Acreage of Site under control of the municipality

         3. Total Acres of waste deposited                    ________

         4, Acres Uncapped                               ________

         5. Acres Previously Capped                        ________

  B. Operational Stitnt

         1. a. Is I-UKtfiUoirrently receiving MS W?            Yes                 No

           b. What is the projected date for ceasing to accept waste?         _________

         2. a. IsIamdfflloffrenllynxwvingwaste«_Aasshid»e,DPW wastes, street smiepiiMts, denx> debrn, etc.
            (but not MS W)
                                                         Yes                 No
            b. What is the projected date for ceasing to accept such wastes
-------
          SOLICITATION OF INTEREST **d MUNICIPAL APPLICATION FOR RECEIPT OF CLAY from the
                                   CENTRAL ARTERY/TUNNEL PROJECT
           3. Inactive Landfill
              When did Landfill cease accepting all wastes
     C Other Information

           1. a. Is the she currently partially capped?
                                                          Yes                 No
              b. Does the nrankapatity intend to cap the whole lite or to cper^

                                                          Whole               Partial

              Provide a brief explanation of site ftatos (see guide)
           2. Volume of capping material requested                        cubic yards

           3. What is the anticipated date initiation capping will be undertaken?
HL Regulatory Status

     A. AMcnment Status

           1. Has a Hydrologicil Report been tobmined?

                    _ (Y/N)                Approved?(Y/N)                 Date Submitted

           2. Has an Initial Site Augment been robmined?

                    _ (Y/N)                Approved7(Y/N)       _ Date Submitted

           3. Hat a draft Cuunndicnnve Site AiaemoeHt been aohniitied?

                    _ (Y/N)      _ Appnwe4?(Y/N)       _ DateSobnmted

           4.
                           (YW)                Approvcd7(Y/N)       _ Date Sobmitted

                                      ^ih«nltt«W «f>H appt
-------
     SOLfCITA WON OF INTEREST and MUNICIPAL APPLICATION FOR RECEIPT OF CLAYfrem the
                              CENTRAL ARTERY/TUNNEL PROJECT
B. Conceptual Closure Plan

      a.  Has a conceptual plan been completed?

                                           	Yes      	No


         Date completed           „______«______

         (Sobmit a copy of latest conceptual closure or Ceil grading plan if previooriyfotenittedtoDEP)

      b.  His the conceptual plan been submitted to DEP?

                                           	Yes      	No


         Date submitted           _______________

      c.  Has the plan been approved by DEP?

                                           	Yes      	No

         Date of approval letter       	

      (attach a copy of DEP approval letter)

C. Permits or Plan Approvals

      1. Post 7/1/90 permits/approvals

          a. Has a final design closure plan been completed?

                                           	Yes       	No


                Date completed    ______________

          b. Has the final design closure plan been submitted to DEP?

                                           	Yes       	No

                     «uhmiti--d
                I SUDIEUt ft OODV OK flftCll
          c  Has the final design closure plaa been approved by DEP?

                                           _ Yes      _ No

                Date of approval letter        ______________
          (attach a copy of DEP approval letter)
-------
    SOLICITATION OF INTEREST *nd MUNICIPAL APPLICATION FOR RECEIPT OF CLAY from Ae
                               CENTRAL ARTERY/TUNNEL PROJECT
         
-------
      SOLICITATION OFINTEREST m* MUNICIPAL APPLICATIONFOR RECEIPTOFCLAVfrom II*
                                 CENTRAL ARTERY/TUNNEL PROJECT


 Municipal readiness to undertake project

  A. Local Appropriations

        1. Have tods been appropriated for the following purposes:


           PURPOSE                           AMOUNT           DATE APPROPRIATED

           Initial Site A
           Final Design Closure Plan*            ___________         ____________

           Contpicbensive Site Assessment        ________

           Cap Construction                    	         ____________________

ot a conceptual closure plan

  (Please provide documentation for the above funding information including a certified copy of the appropriation.
  Please attach a discussion as to whether a debt exclusion or override will be required, or has been accomplished,)


  B.  Local Restrictions

        1. Indicate the hours of operation and the days of the week that your municipality is willing to allow
        clay delivery and stockpiling operations.
        2. A«»eh « map «h«f
        through school zone).
                                    	Yes       	No

        3. AssodqpiKagplanstaiiipedtyaPEorRLSmaoc^
        yppliealinn package tmift \ff- fwfryjfd Hat TOCh S pUffl tffTB HflnilittffP

                                              Yes                 No
         4. Attach » detailed description of any otha oosrfitiotu the mmuctpoliry i^^
         agreement to receive the day.
                                                             S  3  O
-------
          SOLICITATION OF INTEREST ml MUNICIPAL APPLICATION FOR RECEIPT OF CLAt fromthe
                                    CENTRAL ARTERY /nWNm PROJECT


V. Authorization and Certification

     T certify that T haw p*r«nn«Hy mminrA and am familiar ^yjt|| Hn> information jffrfnniTtfd '" t^'P tfOCWfff -**< 9"4 a11
               anrf that haiierl on my inqirity nf t\tmr mrfryi^^t immivliatriy
     infoimitloo, I believe that the infonmtion is true, accurate and conQ>!ete. lalcoceitifythatlainadulyaothohzed
     reprejenliiive of the within nimed legal entity, M evidenced ly the aqaestod eafy
     body.

     (ttach authorization to file ty thp executive aolbority in your rmmicipality)
Prim Name
Authorized Signature
Position/Titk
Date
                                                    Ptftfi
-------
                             REQUIREMENTS
                                  TOR
                  CENTRAL ARTERY/THIRD HARBOR TUNNEL
                   CLAY MANAGEMENT AND STOCKPILING
                                  AT
                         MUNICIPAL  LANDTILLB
                            APRIL 15,  1994


This document discusses the  requirements  for temporary stockpiling of
clay from  the Central  Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel  (CA/T)  project at
municipal  landfills  in the  Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts.   A plan
meeting these requirements must be submitted with the clay application.
The requirements stated in this document are strictly for the purposes
of stockpiling clay  from  the CA/T project.  All DEP  requirements for
placement of the  cap  ns stated in 310 CMR 19.000 and associated guidance
must be adhered to.


1.   PLAN PREPARATION

     A conceptual stockpile/site  plan shall be prepared and submitted
     with the application for CA/T clay.  No unapproved stockpiling of
     CA/T clay will be allowed.  The  plan shall identify the location of
     the stockpile,  ,  approximate property lines, recent topography,
     horizontal  and  vertical  controls,  estimated edge of waste and
     wetlands, an on-site haul route, any facilities on site (buildings,
     scales, composting operations  etc),  and the  location of proposed
     erosion  control features.   At a  minimum,  haybales  and/or silt
     fencing  shall  be placed  along  the  downgradient  side  of the
     stockpile area  (see  attached standard details).   The plan scale
     shall be at or between plan scales  of 1" — 100' and 1" « 20'.  The
     plan must be stamped by a MA licensed PE or PLS.

     Applicant must indicate  that the proposed stockpiling  location will
     not be within any of the locational restrictions noted below:

     -o    Non site-assigned/landfill parcels
     o    Federally designated wetlands, or 100 year floodplain
     o    Within  100'  of  State wetland unless  approved  by  the  local
          conservation commission
     o    Within 50'  of the Property line  unless local zoning, existing
          site assignment, or other restrictions are more stringent
     o    Within  areas designated by the  State as containing rare and
          endangered species
     o    On  top  of  capped portions  of  landfills,  unless  special
          approval has been granted by the Department.

     To  assist  in planning for stockpile location the following clay
     volume estimates and stockpile dimensions assuming 2:1 sideslopes
     and a 15% front face are as  follows:
                                   5" &<
-------
                                                       APRIL 15, 1994

     Landfill Size    Clay Volume       stockpile Dimensions
     (acres)          (cubic yards)     (length x width x height)

     4   acres         12,000 cy        150' x 200' x 20'
     10  acres         30,000 cy        200' x 300' x 20'
     25  acres         75,000 cy        250' x 400' x 40'
     50  acres        150,000 cy        200' x 800' x 40'

     Ho applicant may receive more clay than is necessary  to cap the
     landfill.  A maximum of 3,000 cubic yards per acre vill be allowed.


2.   STOCKPILE C9JE&ZXOV REQUIREMENTS
                         •%
     MHD and/or  its  Contractors will manage  the clay as it  is being
     delivered to the landfill.  Management will include oversight of
     the trucks while they are  on  the landfill  property,  managing the
     clay loads as th-?y  are delivered and  dumped,  grading and shaping
     the stockpile, and  providing  and maintaining  erosion controls as
     required, during the period when clay is being delivered to the
     landfill.  Applicant will be required to continue to maintain clay
     stockpile once  facility  is turned over  to the landfill  owner.
     Applicant  must  indicate  a  commitment  to  cooperate  with  the
     operation of the stockpile including  ensuring that  access to the
     stockpile area be provided  at all times acceptable to both parties.
     Applicant may elect to be responsible for grading and shaping the
     stockpile and providing and maintaining erosion.


3.   OTHER PERMITS

     The owner of the  landfill shall be  responsible  to  obtain any
     additional permits  or  approvals.  The owner  is advised  to check
     with the applicable local agencies  including the  zoning board,
     planning board, and conservation commission to determine if these
     agencies  have jurisdiction over any  aspects of this activity.
     Increased stormwater runoff, road siltation, haul routes, cutting
     of trees, work within a wetlands buffer zone, height restrictions
     and noise restrictions may trigger local approvals  not presently
     covered  by the  ongoing  or deactivated  solid, waste  operation.
     Applicants are  advised that any  interruption of  clay  deliveries
     which result from the applicants failure to obtain,  or revocation
     of, necessary permits and  approvals may result in MHD contractors
     halting all further clay deliveries to the site.


4.   PHYSICAL QUALITY CONTROL TESTING

     Physical quality control testing will be performed  by  MHD and or
     its contractors. Clay testing will not be required for  the initial
     clay application, but will be  required by the  DEP prior to hauling
     and stockpiling.  Please note the following special conditions:
-------
                                                  APRIL 15. 1994

o    CA/T clay stockpiles  shall not include stone  sizes greater
     than  12"  in  any dimension.    The Applicant  must  however
     understand that  the  DEP requirements  for  clay caps  do not
     allow  stone  sizes  greater than  3"  and  that  the  total
     percentage of coarse fragments must remain  less  than 10% by
     weight  (retained on a  #4  sieve).   The  Applicant must be
     prepared to  screen the clay of possible  stones greater than 3"
     (in diameter)  prior  to use as a cap material.

o    Stockpiling of  clay will  not  be  allowed  when the  clay's
     moisture content exceeds 10% of its  plastic limit or is within
     5% of its liquid limit.   Exceptions to this may be granted
     where the  landfill  owpcr has  demonstrated in  their  plan
     submittal  that adequate erosion control measures will be in
     place to handle a high water content clay.

CHEMICAL QUALITY CONTROL  TESTING

Chemical quality control testing will not be required as part of
this initial CA/T clay  application.   Chemical  quality  control
testing  will be performed  by  the Contractor  and  or  MHD  in
accordance with DEP required sampling protocols.  Please note that
one clay sample  will be  tested for TPH, Chlorides  (Cl),  Arsenic
(As), and permeability every 10,000  cy's.


CLAY COVERING REQUIREMENTS

If the clay stockpile is to remain exposed for more than three (3)
months, and there are wetlands,  streams or water bodies within 200
feet,  the MHD  and  or  its  Contractors  will either cover  the
stockpile  with  a  plastic tarp (20 mil Poly  or  10 mil  nylon
reinforced poly)  and adequate anchoring or they will loam and seed
the stockpile.  The Applicant must commit to maintain the stockpile
upon completion of the clay covering requirements indicated above.
 The Applicant  must  recognize  that if  the clay  is  exposed to
sunlight (including under a tarp) for an  extended period of time
the top layer will desiccate and become unusable.   The extent of
desiccation will be a function of surface area exposure, length of
exposure and weather conditions.  Applicants may elect to perform
stockpile covering or learning and seeding themselves  in place of
the contractor.  This must be indicated in the application.


COMPACTION

Kneading compaction  (tamping foot compactors or sheepsfoot) shall
not occur during the  stockpile creation so as not to overwork the
clay.  Placement of  the clay during capping of the landfill will
however require significant quality  control  including compaction.
                              53
-------
                        ATTACHMENT 3


                 CA/T CLAY DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM

                  APPROVED MUNICIPAL LANDFILLS


                          JULY 5, 1994
Acton
Andover
Ashby
Attleboro
Ayer
Barnstable
Bedford
BoIton
Boston
Bourne
Buckland
Chatham
Cohasset
Concord
Dartmouth
Dennis
Dunstable
Duxbury
£ Bridgewater
Eastham
Easton
Fairhaven
Falmouth
Foxborough
Franklin
Freetown
Gloucester
Greenfield
Harwich
Haverhill
Holbrook
Kingston
Lakeville
Lee
Lowell
Marshfield
Mashpee
Mattapoisett
Merrimac
Middleborough
Kiddleton
Milford
Millis
Milton
Natick
Needham
New Bedford
New Salem
Newton
Norfolk
Norwood
N. Attleboro
Oak Bluffs
Orleans -
Otis
Pepperell
Plymouth
Raynham
Reading
Rockland
Rockport
Rowley
Salisbury
Scituate
Seekonk
Sharon
Shirley
Southampton
Springfield
Sudbury
Sunderland
Sutton
Taunton
TopsfieId
Walpole
Wendell
Westport
Weymouth
Winchendon
Woburn
Worcester
Yarmouth
                       535
-------
APPENDIX I - DREDGED MATERIALS DEWATERMG STUDY
-------
                          BOSTON HARBOR NAVIGATION
                             IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

                        DISCUSSION OF DRYING METHODS
                            FOR DREDGED MATERIALS
INTRODUCTION

Unconfined  open water disposal is typically the most cost effective method of disposing of
dredged soils.  However, based on conclusions cited in the Executive Summary, "the sediment
bulk chemistry data, in combination with test organism toxicity and bioaccumulation  testing,
indicated that the silt was generally not suitable for unconflned open water disposal".

If land based disposal of the dredged material is required, the material would likely be loaded
into scows and brought to shore for transfer to gasketed trucks. The trucks would deliver the
material to one or more processing sites that would prepare the silts for disposal.  Hydraulic
dredging has  been eliminated as an extraction method due  to the potential  for  disturbing
surrounding silts, therefore, an environmental clamshell bucket would probably be used to dredge
the harbor.

Silt and clay dredged from Boston Harbor for the Navigation Improvement project, has a water
content ranging from 19.8%  to 74.7% with an average water content of 51%."

There are several different methods available to dewater the dredged materials, including air
drying, heat drying, chemical treatment, mechanical drying and mixing with dry material.  Each
method has benefits and disadvantages that make it more or less practical than other methods for
dewatering dredged materials for this project.  These methods are described in more detail
below.

AIR DRYING

Air drying involves spreading material,  typically 1 '-2' thick, within a diked containment area.
The  containment area would consist of an  impervious bottom and surrounding berm with
monitoring wells to detect breaching of the containment, A bituminous paved parking lot is a
good site  for preparation of  a containment area and a surrounding berm.  Stockpiled dredged
material is allowed to air dry through evaporation.  Material is "worked" daily to open the top
layer for drying, using a sheepsfoot roller or a rubber-tired machine.  The stockpile  may be
protected from re-saturation during inclement weather by "skinning over" the top surface prior
to any forecasted  rainfall,   A loader or dozer back  drags and smooths  over  the top of the
stockpile  creating a seal that prevents significant rainfall from  re-saturating the material.
Skinning also  crowns the surface to direct and control runoff.
-------
Drying time typically ranges from 2 to 7 days depending on the composition of the material,
ambient air temperature,  relative humidity  and other atmospheric factors.   Clay materials
typically dry more quickly than silts.  Once dredged material has reached the desired water
content, it is collected and deposited in trucks for disposal using a clamshell or backhoe/loader
if the containment area is on firm ground such as a paved area as discussed above.

This can be an economical method for dewatering the dredged  material provided one or more
satisfactory containment areas can be identified; however, containment areas should be large,
easily accessible and reasonably close to the area being dredged, to minimize hauling costs which
may be prohibitively expensive  on the Boston waterfront.  Assuming a five-acre site, material
stacked two feet thick and a one week turnaround, a five acre site can handle 10,000 to 15,000
cubic yards of material per week, which is the approximate production for one dredge.  Air
drying can be augmented with chemical stabilization or mixing with dry material to accelerate
the drying process. These methods are discussed in more detail later in this report.

A benefit of this process is that water is removed through evaporation, consequently no water
effluent needs to be treated. A concern with this process is odor control.  Nuisance odors may
be generated during drying which can be controlled  with chemical odor  controls or daily cover,
both of which can impede evaporation.   Air  pollution regulations should  be reviewed in
conjunction with other criteria mentioned above when reviewing possible containment sites.

HEAT DRYING

Heat drying of rock and soils is commonly used to remove moisture  from aggregates in the
production of bituminous and cement based concrete products.  This same technology has been
used in dredging operations with success.

An aggregate dryer consists of a rotary drum surrounded by an  air space and a jacket.  Heat is
introduced to the area around the drum using an oil or gas burner.  The drum rotates, mixing
the aggregate inside, while heat is introduced causing the water in the  aggregate to evaporate.
Material is fed to the dryer through a hopper or conveyor.

This technology is typically used to dry rock and coarse gravel materials with a maximum
amount of tines not exceeding 7-8% passing a #200  sieve. Material finer than this tends to cake
on the sides of the drum. Sieve analysis of the dredged materials indicate that the bast majority
of material is too fine to  be processed using an aggregate dryer.  This technology would be
appropriate for processing blasted rock and any coarse gravel material obtained during dredging.
Other dryer technologies exist within the clay industry to process finer  silts
and clays.  Some segregation of material to separate fine from coarse material may be required
if heat drying is considered.

A benefit of this method is that  there is no water effluent to treat and dispose of, because water
is evaporated and  released to the atmosphere. The drying operation is also relatively mobile.
Problems with this method may  result, if the level of PCB and other contaminants escaping into
the atmosphere during drying exceed the  amounts allowed to  be released.  The cost of fuel
-------
consumption is also a major consideration. Compared to other dewatering processes, heat drying
has a very low throughput, especially for finer textured materials such as the BHNIP silts.
CHEMICAL STABILIZATION

Chemical stabilization generally consists of adding lime or a limo derivative to the dredged
material in a pugmill.  Lime reacts with the water, generating heat and increasing the pH. This
not only lowers the water content of the material, but also elevates the pH of the material.  The
higher pH Mils micro-organisms that may be contained in the soil  Once lime is added, material
is stockpiled and allowed to "work" before transporting for disposal.

As a primary dewatering method, this procedure may not be practical due to the shear volume
of material to  be processed.   Any free water segregated from the dredged  material  during
transport to the pugmill would require collection and treatment, therefore this process is typically
used in conjunction with a primary dewatering system. However, there may be benefits to using
this procedure in conjunction with air drying, especially if increasing the pH is a benefit. Lime
could be spread over the stockpile of dredged material to be air dried.  The lime would then be
mixed into  the dredged material when the stockpile is mechanically disturbed to bring moist
layers to the surface. The area necessary for this operation would be slightly less than that for
normal air drying as noted above, because it can be stockpiled higher.  This process relies less
on surface contact with air for evaporation.

MECHANICAL DEWATERING

There are several different methods  to dry material  mechanically.   Mechanical equipment
generally consists of belt presses, plate and frame presses, clarifers, centrifuges and vacuum
dewatering  methods. In most cases, dredged material is pumped into the dewatering equipment.
Water is then separated using mechanical force.  The  remaining  "cake" is collected and
transported to a  disposal site.  Pumping dredged  material to any of this equipment can be a
problem, because of the moisture content of the dredged material. The water content should be
at least 90% for  efficient pumping.  Water would need to be added to  the majority of dredged
material to  enable it to be pumped efficiently for dewatering.

Presses

a)    Belt filter presses could typically reduce water content of treated material to 75-80%.
That material with a high clay content as may be found in portions of the BHNIP silts and which
already has a water content  less than this may not  be effectively dried using belt filter presses.
These portions of the silts may be effectively dried by adding polymer to the press inflow stream.
b)    Plate and frame presses take liquid with a water content of 92% or higher and reduce
water content to 40-50%. This method may not effectively reduce the water content of the dim
to the desired level  of no  free water.   Operation of plate and  frame presses is also labor
                                                5-3*?
-------
intensive, since the remaining "cake" is usually removed from the press manually.

Clarifier technology is commonly  used  in  design and  construction  of dredged  material
containment facilities to separate sediment from  water  by gravity  techniques in dredging
operations where a  slurry is generated and the process water requires treatment prior to the
discharge of water effluent.  If hydraulic dredging was an option, this method may be practical
as a primary step in separating water from the soils. The sediment collected from this process
would require further treatment to remove excess water. Since the dredging method is limited
to a gasketed clamshell bucket, this method would not be appropriate for this project.

Centrifugal dewatering utilizes centrifugal force to increase the speed of gravity sedimentation.
Sediment is forced against the outside wall of a circulating  drum,  while water is skimmed off.
Like clarifer technology, it is not likely that adequate drying of the sediment would be achieved
without supplemental drying using some other method.

Vacuum dewatering technology  introduces a  vacuum  pressure that increases the speed of
evaporation. This technology is relatively new and untested for dewatering dredged materials.
Throughput rates are unknown since these methods have not been field tested.  A benefit to this
technology is that it is  relatively portable.  Disadvantages  include very high energy costs for
operation and questions concerning reliability because of limited experience using this  technology
for  dewatering dredged material.

MIXING WITH DRY MATERIAL

Mixing wet material with dry material is another commonly  used method for dewatering.  A dry
sand or other readily available and inexpensive material is purchased and combined with the
dredge material, in a pug mill or by stockpiling together and mixing with a backhoe or loader.
The proportions will vary depending on the type of material used and how well it will mix with
the  dredged material, but a one to one ratio can be anticipated.

A benefit  of this method is that it dilutes the level  of contaminants in the final product by
increasing volume without contributing to the level of contaminants in the dredged material.\

This option would be practical on a small scale,  or if space  if tight,  drying time must be
minimized, dry material is readily available and inexpensive and disposal costs are not a major
cost factor. However, due to the large quantity of material to be dredged, it is likely
to be cost prohibitive as a primary method of dewatering.  Not only is sand or other material
purchased to mix with the dredged material, but the volume of material that needs to be disposed
of when dry is increased by the amount of material added.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the sediment characteristics of the material to be dredged, it is apparent that some form
of dewatering wfll be required to reduce water content to a level that makes it economical to
handle and dispose of the dredged material.  Heat drying, chemical stabilization and mixing with
-------
dry material are all methods that can be used, however, due to the shear volume of material to
be handled, it is likely that air drying is the most practical and economical option. Air drying,
mechanical dewatering or a combination of the two may be practicable depending on productivity
requirements and costs. Air drying, though technically feasible is limited in BHNIP due to the
large area needed.  Regardless of the system selected, careful consideration  must be made to air
and  water pollution control requirements for both  air and water  discharge from the drying
process.

Refer to the attached exhibit  for a matrix analysis of each method  described  above and the
associated  merits and disadvantages of each method.
Footnotes:                                         (1) The source of this data is the Draft Environmental
             Impact report
                (EOEA File No. 8695) and Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
                Volume 2 of 2 - Appendix; Boston Harbor, Massachusetts, Naviga-
                tion Improvement Project and Berth Dredging Project; April 1994;
                Appendix C-3, Table 2.1
-------
     BOSTON HARBOR

     NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

     MATRK ANALYSIS
     DRYING METHODS FOR DREDGED MATERIALS
u\
Evaluation Criteria
Can Achieve Realistic Water Content
, Can Handle Large Volumes
Low Energy Consumption
Minimal Labor Required
Minimal Air Emissions
Requires Additional Water
Satisfactory Processing Rate
Minimal Space Requirements
Process is Mobile
Can Handle Silts
Can Handle Clays
Doesn't Increase Disposal Vol
Air Dry
+
+
+
+
+
0
+
-
-
+
+
+
Heat Dry
+
0
-
0
-
+
0
+
+
-
0
+
Chem.
Stab,
+
+
+
+
0
0
•f
-
0
+
•f
-
Belt
Press
+
+
-
-
+
-
-
+
+
+
+
+
Plate
Press
+
-
-
-
+
-
-
+
+
+
+
+
Clarifier
-
-
-
-
-j-
-
-
+
+
+
+
+
Centrifuge
0
-
-
-
+
-
-
+
+
+
+
+
Vacuum
+
0
.
0
0
•f
-
•f
+
+
+
+
Mix Dry
Material
•f
.
+
0
+
0
+
.
.
+
•f
-
    Symbols Legend
    + Positive
    0 Neutral
    - Negative
-------
APPENDIX J - IN-CHANNEL DISPOSAL OPTION SEQUENCING
-------
    BOSTON HARBOR
     MASSACHUSETTS
IN - CHANNEL CEIL LOCATIONS
     INNER CONFLUENCE
-------
1
f r~
©

I 	
II rt* UHM IKtll
               BOSTON HARBOR
                MUSSACHUSETTS
           IN - CHMIItL CEll LOCUTIONS
                IWItR CtMTLUCNCE
-------
    BOSTON HARBOR
     MASSACHUSETTS
IN - CHANNEL CELL LOCATIONS
            RIVER
-------
    BOSTON HARBOR
     M*SS*CHUSEIIS
IN - CB»HNti. CEU tOe*I!OH5
      MYSTIC RIVER
-------
    BOSTON  HAHBOH
     MASSACHUSETTS
IN - CNtNNEL CCLL LOCATIONS
      CHCLSE* CB££«
-------
OHMC K«I
                                                            BOSTON  HARBOR
                                                             MASSACHUSETTS
                                                        IN - CHANNEL  CELL LOCATIONS
                                                              CHELSEA CREEH
                                                          ImlClltllOi mMti   (PUT KIMMCtl
-------
    BOSTON HARBOR
     MASSACHUSETTS
IN - CHANNEL CELL LOCAriOtfi
      CHELSEA CREEK
-------
Dredge Sequence Database
06/07/95
09:23 All
Chelsea River
Cell
No.



I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
to
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Assured
Depth



60
58
56
56
S3
55
55
55
65
65
58
58
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
Silt
Retoved



9,300
9,300
9,300
9,300
9,300
9,300
9,300
9,300
9,300
9,300
9,300
9,300
7,300
7,300
7,300
7,300
7,300
7,300
7,300
Parent
Rewved



16,100
16,100
16,100
16,100
16,100
16,100
16,100
16,100
16,100
16,100
16,100
16,100
12,200
12,200
12,200
12,200
12,200
12,200
12,200
Extra
Parent
Relieved


44,000
41,100
37,800
37,800
41,100
36,000
36,000
36,000
49,400
49,400
41,100
41,100
16,100
16,100
16,100
16,100
16,100
16,100
16,100
Silt
Capacity



33,600
30,700
27,400
27,400
30,700
25,600
25,600
25,600
39,000
39,000
30,700
30,700
8,400
8,400
8,400
8,400
8,400
8,400
8,400
3 'Cap
Required



10,400
10.400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
7,700
7,700
7,700
7,700
7,700
7,700
7,700
Days to
Dredge
Silt
6000
CY/Day
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Days to
Dredge
Parent
6000
CY/Day
10
10
9
9
10
9
9
9
11
11
10
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Inner Confluence
Cell
No.



2
3
3a
4
S
6
7
8
9
Assumed
Depth



60
55
55
60
48
55
60
60
55
Silt
Rewved



9,300
9,300
9,300
9,300
9,300
9,300
9,300
9,300
9,300
Parent
Removed



16,100
16,000
16,000
16,100
16,100
16,000
16,100
16,100
16,000
Extra
Parent
Removed


44,000
36,000
36,000
44,000
19,500
36,000
44,000
44,000
36,000
Silt
Capacity



33,600
25,600
25,600
33,600
9,100
25,600
33,600
33,600
25,600
3 'Cap
Required



10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
Days to
Dredge
Silt
6000
CY/Day
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Days to
Dredge
Parent
6000
CY/Day
10
9
9
10
6
9
10
10
9
55.1
-------
flystic River
Cell
No.



1
3
5
2
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Assumed
Depth



55
70
60
55
70
70
55
55
56
65
60
65
60
70
65
65
55
65
65
55
65
50
55
48
48
Silt
Renewed



7,300
7,300
7,300
9,300
9,300
9,300
9,300
9,300
9,300
9,300
9,300
9,300
9,300
9,300
9,300
9,300
9,300
9,300
9,300
9,300
9,300
9,300
9,300
9,300
9,300
Parent
Renewed



12,300
12,300
12,300
16,100
16,100
16,100
16,100
16,100
16,100
16,100
16,100
16,100
16,100
16,100
16,100
16,100
16,100
16,100
16,100
16,100
16,100
16,100
16,100
16,100
16,100
Extra
Parent
Renewed


24,900
30,900
29,200
36,000
52,500
52,500
36,000
36,000
37,800
49,400
44,000
49,400
44,000
52,500
49,400
49,400
36,000
49,400
49,400
36,000
49,400
24,900
36,000
19,500
19,500
Silt
Capacity



17,200
23,200
21,500
25,600
42,100
42,100
25,600
25,600
27,400
39,000
33,600
39,000
33,600
42,100
39,000
39,000
25,600
39,000
39,000
25,600
39,000
14,500
25,600
9,100
9,100
3'Cap
Required



7,700
7,700
7,700
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
Bays to
Dredge
Silt
6000
CY/Day
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Days to
Dredge
Parent
6000
CY/Day
6
7
7
9
11
11
9
9
9
11
10
11
10
11
11
11
9
11
11
9
11
7
9
6
6
                                         1,412,800
                                    55$-
-------
                                      Boston Harbor In Channel Dredgina/Disposal Sequence
                        Dredge No. 1
     < 111 H III11 H IIII HH 111111 H 11H t m-H-H-H-H*++mm*t
Days     Silt   Silt to   Parent      Cell     Cell Regaining
      Removed      Cell  Removed   Created     Silt Capacity
                                           Capacity
                                                                                             Dredge No.
                                                                           n m t n n HM »HH i M i H t H
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
                                                                              Silt   Silt to   Parent      Cell     Cell Re«ainimj
                                                                           Removed      Cell  Resoved   Created     Silt Capacity
                                                                                                                Capacity
             9300
                 (c-12)
                 stored
                               57100
                                      c-12    30700
             9300
                   c-12
                                                           30700
                                                           19540
                                                            8380
                               57100
             9300
                       c-12
                       c-11
c-11
6983
2317
                                              30700    39080
                                                       27920
Honthlv
   Total
            27900
Cuoulative
   Total    27900
                          114200
                          114200
                                            61400
                                            61400
-------
     (lay
                                  Boston Harbor In Channel Dredging/Dispo§al Sequence
                        Dredge No. 1
     •H-H-tH* Ht++H*H'H-H-H"Ht+++l It H 111111 HIM HI til t ^ tt
3ays     Silt   Silt to   Parent      Cell     Cell Remaining
      Reisoved      Cell  Reioved   Created     Silt Capacity
                                           Capacity
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
                                                                           m tnn 1 1
                                                                                       Dredge No. 2
                                                                                         » H H »+++++++f
                                                                                                        H+4+H M t 1 1 1 1 1 1 n >
   Silt
Removed
                                                                               Silt to
                                                                                  Cell
                                                                                  Parent
                                                                                 Removed
                                                                                                     Cell     Cell Reaaining
                                                                                                  Created     Silt Capacity
                                                                                                          Capacity
                         65400
9300
                 c-10
9300
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
I?
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28'
29
30
31
hly
otal    18600

lative
otal    46500
                           65400
                                      c-10    39000    45320

                                                       19760

                                                        5360
  18000

  12000

  120(iO
c-11
c-li
c-10

c-10
5267
6733
45320

19760

 5360
                                                                                            42000
                    c-9
                                     c-9    39000    29960

                                                      4400
                                                                12000 !
  12000 !
c-10
 c-9

 c-9
                                4467
                                7533
                 29960

                  4400
                           52000
                        182800
                        297000
                              c-8    25600    30000
                                    103600
                                    165000
                                                                       66000
                                                                       66000
                                                                                          54000
                     96000
                     96000
-------
           June
          Boston Harbor In Channel Dredging/Disposal Sequence

Dredp No. 1
                                                                                               Dredge No,
1 TTfTTTTf
Days Silt
Re«oved

1
2 9300
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
to
11
12
13 9300
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 9300
25
26
27
28
29
30
"TTTTT TTTT TTT TTTT"TT TTTT TT T T T TT TTT r T TT T T
Silt to Parent Cell Cell
Cell Removed Created Silt
Capacity
! c-9 3667
! c-8 5633








52000 c-7 25600
*
t
t c-7







52000 c-6 25600
HOVE TO MYSTIC
! c-7 6433
! c-6 2867
I
1
!
i
t
35500 ! i-25 9100
t
                                                                                                           hH-H-H
                                                                                                                    K H
                                                                                                                           t HH-H-H-
                                                  Silt
                                               Reaoved
                                                                                       Silt to
                                                                                          Cell
                                             Parent
                                            Removed
                              Cell     Cell  Remaining
                           Created     Silt  Capacity
                                   Capacity
                                                             25600
                                                             15700
                                                              3700
                                                 12000
                                       c-8
                                                3700
                                                                                                  12000  !
                                                                                     MOVE TO INNER CONFLUENCE
                                                                 0
                                                             15733
                                                              6433
                                                  9300
                                       c-8
                                       c-7
                              3700
                              5600
                                                              18466
                                                              9166
                                                                     6000«)
                                0
                            15733
                             6433
                                                          ic-2
                                      33600
                                                                                9300
                                                             ic-2
                                0
                            18466

                            18700
  Monthly
      Total    27900

  Cumulative
      Total    74400
   139500
   436500
 60300
225300
30600
96600
 72000
168000
33600
33600
"VJ/
-------
                                Boston Harbor In Channel Dredging/Disposal Sequence
   July
                      Dredge No. 1
   + H + + M + 4IHH H tmH + f M M + +M H M H I H-H-H-H-H-+++++-H
ys     Silt   Silt to   Parent      Cell      Cell  Regaining
    Removed      Cell  Removed   Created      Silt  Capacity
                                          Capacity
                                                                                         Dredge No.
   Silt   Silt to
Reaoved      Cell
                                                      Parent
                                                     Removed
                                                                                                Cell
                                                                                             Created
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
 10
 11
 12
 13
 14
 15
 16
 17
 18
 19
 20
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31

ty
tal
                                                                                                                Cell Reaaining
                                                                                                                Silt Capacity
                                                                                                            Capacity
9300 !c-6
      fli-25
                  35500
9166
 134
                                                       7449
                                                                                     52000 !ic-3
                                                                           25600
                                                                  9300  !ic-2
                                                                                     9400
     lra-25
9300 ldi-24
ut-24
7449
1851
                                              9100
                                                          0
                                                       5732
                  52000
                                                                                     52000  ic-3a
                                                                           25600
                                                                  9300  !ic-2
                                                                                      100
     !a-24
9300 lm-23
(n-23
5732
w'JOu
                                             25600
                                                          0
                                                      17765
        9300 !i-23
       37200
                          52000
                  13950t)
                                                                                            60000  ic-4
                              m-20    25600
                                           !ic-2
                                     9300  iic-3
                                                8465
         60300
                                                                         27900
                     16*300
                                                                                                               33600
                                                                                                                 100        0
                                                                                                                9200    12133
 94100
ative
tal   111600
                  576000
        2856i)0
                                                                        124500
                     332000
127700
-------
         August
                                     Boston  Harbor In Channel  Dredtjino/Dispasai Sequence
                            Dredge No.  1
         mtHHHMHt H H I I HI 1111 HI I It I I 1111111 H HHH H 11 I
   Days
Monthlv
   Total
   Silt
Renoved
                    Silt  to
                       Cell
 Parent      Cell     Cell Reaaining
Retoved   Created     Silt Capacity
                  Capacity
                                            Dredge No.
                                                 +444 +
                             Silt    Silt  to   Parent
                          Removed       Cell  Removed
                                                                             Cell     Cell Regaining
                                                                          Created     Silt Capacity
                                                                                  Capacity
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
!8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
28
29
30
31











!«-23
9300 !«-20







t
1
9300 !*-20








                                                                                                35500  ic-5
                                                                                      9100
                                                                              9300 !:c-3
                                                                                               2S33
                              65400  «-21         39000
                                         8465
                                           835
                                 0
                             20498
                              40900   a-22
                                                                  52000  ic-6
                                                                                                                   25600
                                                                                   !ic-3
                                                                              9300 !ic-3a
                                                                             6467
                                                                               0
                                                                           14866
                    14500
                                                           11198
                                                                                                60000  ic-7
                                                                                      33600
                                                                              9300 !ic-3a
                                                                                               5566
            18600
Cuaulativt
   Total   130200
106300
682300

339100
                            27900
                                                                   152400
                                                                                                147500
                                                                                                479500
                                                                                                          68300
                                                                                      196000
-------
September
                             Boston Harbor  In Channel  Dredging/Disposal Sequence
Dredge No. 1
T T T T T T T T T T T T T T' "T' T T' 'f " 'T
i¥5 Silt Silt to
Remwed Cell

1
2
3 :
4 9300 !ffl-20
5
6
7
8
f
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 !(n-20
17 9300 !ft-21
18
If
20
21
^n
ii
23
24
25
26
27 !
28 9300 la-21
29
30
ly
tal 27900
ative
tal 158100
TTTTTTT'TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT'TTTTTTT'T
Parent Cell Cell Remaining
KanovaJ Created Silt Capacity
Capacity
;
65400 lin-19 39000

1898










65400 si-18 39000
1898 0
7402 25098









52000 ffl-17 25600

15798
t
I
i

182800 103600

824200 442700
                                                                                     Dredge No. 2
                                                                  •H-H-H-t *++tt+ 1 » + HHtHIMMHimUH + i +++++»++•>•»+++ < * t
                                                                      Silt   Silt to   Parent      Cell     Cell Regaining
                                                                   fteioved      Cell  Removed   Created     Silt Capacity
                                                                                                        Capacity
                                                                      9300 !ic-4
                                                                      9300 iic-4
                                                                     18000
                                                        !ic-4
                                                        !ic-5
                                                        !ic-5
                                                  12000 !ic-6
                                                                     12CXW
                                                                     12000
                                                        !ic-6
                                                        !ic-7
                                                                     72600
                                                                    225000
                                                                                        60000
                                                                            ic-8
 39000
                                                                                5566
                                                                                3734
              0
          24266
                                                                                        52000
                                                                             ic-9
 25600
                                                                                                  14966
14966
3034 .
4549
7451



0
4549
0
13882
1882
0
17882
                                                                     112000
                                                                    591500
 64600
260600
-------
         October
                                      Boston Harbor In Channel Dredging/Disposal Sequence
                            Dredge No.  1
T T TT TT'T'f TT " T T T T T T T T T
Cays Silt Silt to
ReMVfd Cell

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 !
10 9300 !i-21
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 !s-21
23 9300 St-22
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Monthly
Total 18600
TM 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 rTTTTTTTTT* TTT TTTTTTT f'TTTT
Parent Cell Cell Regaining
ftewved Created Silt Capacity
Capacity







60000 a-13 33600

6498










68000 »-14 42100
6498 0
2802 9281









128000 75700

Silt
Removed
Dredge No.
Silt to Parent
Cell Resoved
                                                                                                           Cell     Cell Retaining
                                                                                                        Created     Silt Capacity
                                                                                                                Capacity
                                                                             12000
                                                                             12000
                                                                             24000
                                                                              1200
                                                      ic-7
                                                      ic-7
                                                      ic-8
                                                      ic-8
                                                      ic-8
                                                          5882
                                                          6118
                                                 5882
                                                    0
                                                26382
                                                                            2382
                                                                            1182
Cumulative
   Total   176700
952200
518400
                                                                             49200
274200
 24000



 24000



 24000



 24000



 24000

 12000


132000


723500
260600
                                                           55?
-------
                             Boston Harbor In Channel Dredging/Disposal Sequence
November
Dredge No. 1
fcitiltfcliiillit I44l4 + 
-------
                             Boston Harbor  In  Channel Dredging/Disposal  Sequence
Decetber
                   Dredae Not 1
                                                                                              Dredge No. 2
"1 t 1 IT 1 1 f ¥ T 1 T IT 1 T T'f "T
Days Silt Silt to
Remved Cell

i 9300 !*-18
2 t-17
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 in-14
13 9300 !»-15
14
IS
16
17
ie
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 !
26 9300 i*-12
27
28
29
30
31
Hoflthly
Total 27900
T 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 i i 1 1 1 1 i i 1 1 * i T * i 1 1 1 r 1 1 » f T i
Parent Cell Cell tenainim
Removed Created Silt Capacity
Capacity
6196 0
3104 18229
0




0
27083

60000 •-!! 33600
9083 9083
217
32283
14283

2283
0
22783



0
65400 n-10 39000 31283

9983
0
! 19983
i
l
»
l
! 1983

125400 72600
                                                                                                            IIHHI
                                                                               Silt
                                                                            Removed
                                                                             Silt to
                                                                                Cell
                                              Parent
                                             Reaoved
Cumulative
   Total   223200
                    1273800
708000
 18229



 24000

 12000


 18000


 18000

 12000

 12000



 24000

 12000


 18000


 isooo


186229


532429
                                                                                     ii-17
                                                                                     •-13
                                                                                     •-13
                                                                                     ft-14
                                                                                     i»-14
                                                                                     •-15

                                                                                     •-15
                                                                                     B-15
                                                                                     ns-16
                                                                                     •-16
                                                                                     n-12

                                                                                     m-12

                                                                                     n-12
                                                                                     m-il
                                                                                     *-li
            Cell      Cell Retaining
         Created      Silt Capacity
                 Capacity

                                 0
                             18229
                                 0
                                                                                                  23771
                                                                                                   4000
                                                                                                   8000
                                                                                                   2283
                                                                                                   9717
                                                                                                  22713
                                                                                                   1217
                                                                                                   9983
                                                                                                   8017
                                                                                0
                                                                            27083


                                                                             9083

                                                                            32213
                                                                            14283

                                                                             2283
                                                                                0
                                                                            22783
                                                                            31283
                                                                            19283
                                                                             9983
                                                                                0
                                                                            19983
                                                                                                                      1983
819600
260600
-------
                                 Boston  Harbor  In  Channel  Dredging/Disposal  Sequence
    January
                       Dredge No. 1                                                     Dredge No. 2
    < m I MM 1 1 H 1 1 1 It It HHHH H H I H M-H-H 1 1 It It HM t H It          I-H-H 'Hi MM I H-H+++t+++4+*>m»W+»»+t+++++»+HH I M It
iys     Silt   Silt to   Parent     Cell     Cell Remaining              Silt    Silt  to   Parent       Cell      Cell  Reraining
     Removed      Cell  Removed  Created     Silt Capacity           Removed       Cell  Removed   Created      Silt  Capacity
                                          Capacity                                                        Capacity
  1
  2
  3
  4
  5
  6
  7
  8
  9
 10
 11
 12
 13
 14
 15

 17
 18
 19
 20
 21

 23
 24
 25
 26
 27
 28
 2?
 30
 31

ily
rtal
                                                       1983
                          53800 !«-9
                       MOVE TO OCLSEA
                                     1983
                    27400
        9300 !t-10
        9300 !a-IO
        9300 ln-10
        9300 !«-9
        9300  ia-9
       10816
c-5

c-4

c-3

c-2

c-1
            7317
            6583
            2717
                                0
                           25183

                            15883

                             6583
                                0
                            20116

                            10816

                                0
57200
                                 c-5
                    30700
        57316
   111000
                    58100
                                                                                          186000
                                                                186000
.ative
Jtal    280516
1384800
                  766100
                                                                       484429
                                                                  1053600
260600
-------
         February
                                      Boston Harbor In Channel  Dredging/Disposal Sequence
Dredge No.  1
                                                                                             Dredge No. 2
         + H I M HI I H 11 H H H I It H H H I H HHH H I (f *H HIHH m
    Days     Silt   Silt to   Parent      Cell     Cell  Retaining
          RcMved      Cell  Reaoved   Created     Silt  Capacity
                                               Capacity

       1
       2
       3
       4
       5                       53900  c-4        27400
       6
       7
       8
       9
      10
      11
      12
      13
      14                       53900  c-3        27400
      15
      16
      17
      18
      19
      20
      21
      22
      23
      24                       57200  c-2         30700
      25
      26
      27
      28
                                              •H t « H I MO M t •! IHtH I"H f
                                                  Silt   Silt to   Parent      Cell      Cell Remaining
                                               fteaoved      Cell  Reaoved   Created      Silt Capacity
                                                                                    Capacity
                                                                   138000
                                                                    30000
Monthly
   Total        0

Cumulative
   Total   280516
  165000
 1549800
 85500
851600
484429
                   168000
1221600
260600
-------
March
                              Boston  Harbor In Channel Dredging/Disposal Sequence
                    Dredge  No.  1
jys


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
ily
ital
TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT-TTT
Silt Silt to Parent
Removed Cell Removed






60000



24000

12000

12416

7300

7300

7300

7300

7300

7300

7300


18000



c-5
c-5
c-4

C-4

c-3 c-13

c-3 c-14

c-3 c-15
c-3
c-2 c-16

c-2 c-17

c-2 c-18
c-2
c-1 c-19


c-1

117516 60000
TT'T TTTTTTT T T T T'T T T TT'T I" T T 'I1 T T T T
Cell Cell Remaining
Created Silt Capacity
Capacity





c-1 33600



1583
1583 0
10417 12416

0

15533

8233

933
933
6367 19216

11916

4616
4616
2684 25316


7316

33600
.ative
3tal
398032 1609800
885200
                                                                    t H *
 Dredge No. 2
4-HHt'MliiHIIII
                                                                                                       t»++fff+»«»»»*'
                                                                      Silt   Silt to   Parent      Cell     Cell Reaaining
                                                                   Resoved      Cell  Removed   Created     Silt Capacity
                                                                                                        Capacity
                                                                                        18000
                                                                            DEMOBILIZE DRED6E NO. 2
                                                                     484429
                                                                                         18000
  1239600
260600
-------
                                       Boston  Harbor  In Channel Dredoina/Disoosal Sequence
         April
                            Dredge No.  1
T1 I t'T"f'TTTT"TTTT"TTTTT"T"TTT'TT"TTT"
Days Silt Silt to Parent
Rewved Cell Removed

1 !
2 7316 !c-l
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13 66000
14
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30 1020i)0
Honthly
Total 7316 168000
F T TT'T TTTT T T !' T T T T T TT T'T TTTT T T T
Cell Cell Remaining
Created Silt Capacity
Capacity

0



























0
                                                                 Dredge No.
                                             -H-H > fM++*m*»+m+++**H4+
                                                                               Silt
                                                                            Removed
                                                         Silt to
                                                            Cell
                                                        -H4HH + t'H'H mH+++++»+»
                                               Parent      Cell      Cell  Retaining
                                              Removed   Created      Silt  Capacity
                                                               Capacity
Cumulative
   Mil   405348
1777800
385200
484429
1239600
260600
-------
    hay
                            Boston Harbor In Channel Dredging/Disposal Sequence

                  Dredge  No.  1                                                      Dredge  (to.  2
    +-H
ays
   Silt
Removed
  1
  2
  3
  4
  5
  6
  7
  8
  9
  10
  11
  12
  13
  14
  15
  16
  17
  18
  19
  20
  21
  T»
  U.
  23
  24
  25
  26
  27
  29  '
  29
  30
  31

ily
ital         0

ative
ital   405348
4 H t++»»tM m 11 H 1111 m t H +++++++++1*^ n n»»
 Silt to   Parent      Cell      Cell Remaining
    Cell  Removed   Created      Silt Capacity
                            Capacity
                       6000
                   MOVE TO RESERVED FOR ROCK
                                                                       t tmttm-m
-------
                                      Boston Harbor In Channel Dredging/Disposal Sequence
         June
                        Dredge No. 1
     11H M > I H H t HI ••> < > t H-H-ttf * t f < t*»tt4»»4t<-H HH f H t 
  17           stored
  28
  19
  20
  21
  22                       36000  si-8
  23          !                                          12033
  24     9300 !»-B                                       2733
  25
  26
  27
  28
  29
  30                       36000  •-?
                                                                                 Dredge No. 2
                                                                     H HH I i I »+m*H-H4+++» t It 1 1 HH
                                                                  Silt   Silt to   Parent      Cell
                                                               Removed      Cell  Removed   Created
                                                                                                                    Cell Retaining
                                                                                                                   "Silt Capacity
                                                                                                                Capacity
Monthly
   Total
18600
                           72000
25600
emulative
   Total   423948
                 1855800
                                             910800
                          484429
1239600
260600
                                                           S fc
-------
    July
                                  Boston  Harbor In Channel  Dredging/Disposal  Sequence
                  Dredge No.  1
                                                                                         Dredge No. 2
     < nminnnm<
                                 -«•++«+»++«•
                                                                                                      H+++++> t H H t » H-f-H-t-H-
avs
  1
  2
  3
  4
  5
  6
  7
  8
  9
 10
 11
 12
 13
 14
 15
   Silt
Removed
               Silt to
                  Cell
        !m-8
   9300 !»-7
 Parent      Cell     Cell Remaining
Removed   Created     Silt Capacity
                  Capacity

                                  0
                              14766
   Silt   Silt to   Parent       Cell      Cell  Remaining
Removed      Cell  Removed   Created      Silt  Capacity
                                      Capacity
                     52500  orb
                                             42100
   7300 !*-7
                                                       7466
 17
 18
 19
 20
 21
 22
 23
 24
 25
 26
 27
 28
 29
 30
                     29200
                                              21500
   7300 !«-7
                                                         166
                     30900  lin-3
                                              23200
   9300 lm-6
                                                           0
                                                       25949
ital    33200
                          112600
                                        86800
ative
.tal   457148
                   1860400
                                             997600
                                               434429
                                                                                     1239600
                                        260600
-------
August
                                      Boston Harbor In Channel  Dredging/Disposal Sequence

                           Dredge No, I                                                     Dredge Mo,  2
TT T TT T T T T T TT T T T T T T"T
Days Silt Silt to
Renoved Cell
1
2
3
5
6
7 !
8 9300 J*-6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 !
16 7300 !*-&
17
18
19
20
21 !«-6
22 12000 !«-5
23 !
24 !t-5
25 18000 !«-4
26 !
27 :
28 '18000 !t-4
29 !
30 !t-4
31 18000 !»-3
Monthly
Total 82600
1 III 1 1 1 1 ft T 1 ! 1 T 1 1 1 1 1 1 TTl 1 1 I M 1 TTf 1 f T-T
Parent Cell Cell Reiaininf
Reooved Created Silt Capacity
Capacity




52500 «-4 42100

16649





36000 n-2 25600

9349
l
I
1
I
1
I
24900 !«-! 17200
9349 0
2651 15266

15266
2734 32349


14349

14349
3651 15682

113400 84900
                             Silt
                          Removed
                                                                            Silt to   Parent      Cell
                                                                               Cell  Removed   Created
                                                                                                                   Cell Retaining
                                                                                                                   Silt Capacity
                                                                                                               Capacity
emulative
   Total   539748
                    1973800
1082500
484429
1239600
260600
-------
        Boston Harbor In Channel Dredging/Disposal Sequence
     September
                        Dredge No,  1
     •H4M41 H Hi t-H-H-M > H 111 M H U M I M t '<
Davs     Silt   Silt to   Parent       Cell
      Removed
Cell  Removed   Created
                  « 4 *M-H-H-H t * t »+»»
                      Cell Remaining
                      Silt Capacity
                  Capacity
                                                                Dredge No,
                                             •H
                                                                                 « HH( M
   Silt   Silt to   Parent
Removed      Cell  Removed
                               Cell      Cell Regaining
                            Created      Silt Capacity
                                    Capacity
3
4
5
6
•»
/
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
My
otal
lative
otal
18000 !ffl-2
1
i
I
!«-2
24000 la-l
4
9348 !i-l






















51348

591096
                                  0
                              19015
                                  0
                               9348
                           46800
                        MOVE TO
             CGfFLUEICE FOR ROCK REMOVAL
            36000
  46800
2020600
                                             1032500
484429
                                                                        1239600
                                       260600
                                                                                                  -Xfcl
-------
        October
                          Boston Harbor In Channel Dredging/Disposal Sequence

                 Dredge No. i                                                  Dredge Mo.  2
        HH+H-H-H-H-H -Ht4f f f fH I i HIM I » U H4-M HI HI I H It Mil
   Bays
      I
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
     10
     11
     12
     :3
     14
     IS
     16
     17
     18
     19
     20
     21
     22
     23
     24
     25
     26
     27
     28
     29
     30
   Silt   Silt to  Parent      Cell     Cell Retaining
Revved      Cell Reaoved   Created     Silt Capacity
                                  Capacity
                             12000
                 MOVE TO MYSTIC FOR ROCK REMOVAL

                              6000
                 DEMOBILIZE       NO.  1
                       •H H HH H I I H 11 It M++»»+» H H (11 H H H
                           Silt   Silt to   Parent     Cell     Cell Resainint
                        Removed      Cell  Removed   Created     Silt Capacity
                                                           Capacity
Mwthlv
   Total        0

Cumulative
   Total   591096
                  2020600
1082500
484429
                                                                               1239600
260600
                                                      571-
-------
APPENDIX K - PRINCIPAL VALUABLE FUNCTIONS EVALUATION
-------
            PRINCIPAL
  VALUABLE FUNCTIONS EVALUATION
     AND CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR
JURISDICTIONAL RESOURCE MITIGATION
              May 1995
-------
                                PRINCIPAL
                   VALUABLE FUNCTIONS EVALUATION
                       AND CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR
                 JURISDICTIONAL RESOURCE MITIGATION
                           TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                PAGE NO.

1.0    INTRODUCTION                                                 1

      1.1   Proposed BHNIP Project Actions                               2

      1.2   Jurisdictional Resources Evaluated at the Project Sites                2

2.0    FUNCTION AND VALUES DESCRIPTION                           5

      2.1   Methodology                                               6

      2.2   Selection of Principal Valuable Functions                         7

3.0    PRINCIPAL VALUABLE FUNCTIONS EVALUATION                  11

      3.1   Principal Valuable Functions Descriptions                         11

      3.2   Pre-Projeet Conditions                                        13

      3.2.1 In-Channel                                                 14

      3.2.2 Mystic Piers 49-50                                          16

      3.2.3 Revere Sugar                                               18

      3.2.4 Little Mystic Channel (LMC)                                  19

      3.2.5 Reserved Channel  Areas A and B                               21

      3.2.5.1      Reserved Channel Area A                               21

      3.2.5.2      Reserved Channel Area B                               22
-------
                                PRINCIPAL
                   VALUABLE FUNCTIONS EVALUATION
                       AND CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR
                 JURISDICTIONAL RESOURCE MITIGATION
                        TABLE OF CONTENTS cont'd

                                                               PAGE NO.

      3.2.6 Spectacle Island CAD                                        24

      3.2.7 Meisburger Sites 2 and 7 (M2 and M7)                          26

      3.2.8 Subaqueous Containment Sites                                 28

      3.2.8.1      Subaqueous Containment Site B (Subaq B)                  28

      3.2.8.2      Subaqueous Containment Site E (Subaq E)                  30

      3.3   Anticipated Project Effects                                    32

      3.3.1 In-Channel                                                32

      3.3.2 Little Mystic Channel                                        34

      3.4   Proposed On-Site Mitigation Conditions                          36

      3.4.1 In-Channel                                                37

      3.4.2 Little Mystic Channel                                        39

4.0   SUMMARY OF FINDINGS                                        42

      4.1   Summary of PVF Conditions at the In-Channel Site                42

      4.2   Summary of PVF Conditions at LMC                           44


REFERENCES

APPENDICES
                           5.7,5
                                    11
-------
                                    PRINCIPAL
                      VALUABLE FUNCTIONS EVALUATION
                          AND CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR
                   JURISDICTIONAL RESOURCE MITIGATION
1.0    INTRODUCTION

       The purpose of the Principal Valuable Functions (PVF) Evaluation is to provide a process
to assess real pre-project functional conditions at a universe of selected sites; and to compare
impacts to those functional conditions caused by the Boston Harbor Navigational Improvement
Project (BHNIP). Based on this comparison, conceptual on and off site mitigation considerations
(if necessary) can be developed to offset anticipated impacts.

       For the purposes  of this report, PVF's are defined as those significant functions and
values which currently exist or are being performed at one or more of the identified resources
located within the Federal Channel (in-channel) at the Lower Mystic River (upstream to opposite
the Prolerized Site),  the Inner  Confluence,  the Chelsea Creek  (upstream  to  opposite the
Northeast Petroleum,  Coastal Oil, Gibbs and Global terminals), and several nearshore and open
water sites within the Boston  Harbor system or Massachusetts Bay.  Sites are identified in
Section 3.0 and represent the short-listed locations for the recommended in-channel and remote
site disposal of the 1.3 million cubic yards of contaminated dredge  material  (silt) generated
during the BHNIP  dredging.   The recommended PVF's are identified in Section 2.2 of this
report.

       Recently,  some questions have arisen on the  appropriateness and/or suitability of
traditional functions and  values assessment methods (e.g. Wetland Evaluation  Techniques 1.0
and 2.0) in clearly  identifying  relevant and appropriate project impacts to function and values
and appropriate compensatory mitigation  needs at  coastal  and marine sites.  Given  these
concerns, the New England Division Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) has begun to suggest
that projects evaluate only selected and relevant functions and values at proposed project and
mitigation sites.1

       This report describes the BHNIP's PVF evaluation during the pre-project, project effect,
and on-site resource mitigation scenarios. This analysis provides a database for existing PVF
conditions and potential project impacts  to  actual and  observed  resource  conditions and
performance, and  also  guidance for compensatory  on-site  mitigation needs  under the
jurisdictional "no-net-loss" policy for wetland resource functions and values.  State and local
mitigation issues relative to presumptions of significance and protectable interests will also be
addressed herein.
       e.g. Central Artery/Tunnel Project.
-------
       The results are presented in narrative form, and are addressed in "ecological terms" as
opposed to the common generic rating system of most functions and values assessments (high,
moderate and low).  Summary tables are included as appendices, and illustrate existing  PVF
conditions, impacted PVF's, and on-site for compensatory mitigation.
1.1  Proposed BHNIP Project Actions

       For the purpose of this PVF evaluation, the proposed project consists of the dredging and
disposal of 1.3 million cubic yards (bulked volume) of contaminated dredge material (silts).
Disposal of these materials is proposed to occur at 54 subaqueous cells located within the federal
channel, and possibly in one or more remote aquatic locations.

       The current design indicates that the entire volume can be disposed of within the in-
channel cells.  The BHNIP also proposes that limited filling to intertidal elevations, in the Little
Mystic Channel, would serve as a contingency disposal site.
1.2  Jurisdictional Resources Evaluated at the Project Sites

       The BHNIP has evaluated intertidal and subtidal water resources, which are protectable
under  federal jurisdiction; and land under the ocean, designated port areas,  land containing
shellfish and an anadromous fish run, which are protectable under state jurisdiction.

       Under both jurisdiction specific functions and values  (federal)  or presumptions of
significance (state) are assigned to the specific and identified protectable resources.  Within
federal jurisdiction, each aquatic site subject to project action contains Tidal Waters which are
considered Waters of the United States subject to the ebb and flow of the tide (40 CFR 203.4).
Characteristics significant to Tidal Water and relative to dredging, and dredge material disposal
include the following:

       •     Substrate;                  »      Wildlife;
       •     TSS/turbidity;              *      Threatened and Endangered species, and
       *     Water quality, circulation,   •      Food web and fisheries.
             and fluctuation;
       •     Salinity

Also of concern are issues related to project effects on Special Aquatic Sites which include the
following:

       *     Sanctuaries and  refuges,     *      Vegetated shallows, and
       »     Wetlands,                  •      Coral reefs.
       •     Mudflats,
-------
       The FHR/S details methods and means for dealing with specific characteristics and/or
special resources as identified in the BHNIP project.

       Within state jurisdiction, each aquatic site subject to project action contains some or all
of the four resources listed below:

       •      Land Under the Ocean,     *     Land Containing Shellfish, and
       •      Designated Port Areas,     »     Anadromous Fish Run.

       Presumptions of significance are assigned to each protectable coastal resource under the
Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act and implementing regulations (MQL c.131, s.40 and 310
CMR 10.00).  Relative to the BHNIP, these presumptions of significance include the following:

       •      Land under the Ocean:    Protection of marine fisheries
              (nearshore areas)          (finfish and shellfish),

                                        Protection of wildlife habitat,

                                        Storm damage protection.

       *      Land under the Ocean:    Protection of marine fisheries
                                        (finfish and shellfish)

       Improvement dredging for navigational purposes affecting land under the ocean shall be
       designed and carried out using the best available measures so as to minimize adverse
       effects on such interests caused by changes in:

       a)      bottom topography which will result in increased flooding or erosion caused by
              an increase in the height or velocity of waves impacting the shore;

       b)      sediment transport processes which will increase flood or erosion hazards by
              affecting the natural  replenishment of beaches;

       c)      water  circulation which  will result in  an adverse change in  flushing rate,
              temperature, or turbidity levels; or

       d)      marine productivity  which will  result from  the suspension or transport of
              pollutants, the smothering of bottom organisms, the accumulation of pollutants by
              organisms, or the destruction of marine fisheries habitat or wildlife habitat.

       •      Designated Port Area:     Protection of marine fisheries
                                        (finfish and shellfish),

                                        Storm damage protection.
-------
       Projects  shall be designed and constructed, using  best practical measures,  so  as to
       minimize adverse effects on marine fisheries caused  by changes in:

       a)      water circulation;

       b)      water quality, including, but not limited to, other than natural fluctuations in the
              level of dissolved oxygen, temperature or turbidity, or the addition of pollutants.

       c)      minimize adverse effects on storm damage prevention or flood control caused by
              changes in  such land's ability to provide support for adjacent coastal  banks or
              adjacent coastal engineering structures.

       *      Land containing shellfish: Protection of marine fisheries
                                         (finfish and shellfish).

       Interests  critical to land containing shell fish include:

       a)      species specificity,

       b)      water quality protection,

       c)      water circulation condition,

       d)      the natural relief and grain size distribution.

       *      Anadromous Fish Run:    Protection of marine fisheries.

       Interests  critical to anadromous fish runs include:

       a)      species specifically,

       b)      accessibility to spawn areas,

       c)      water circulation and velocities,

       d)      spawning and nursery ground protection.

       Functions and values evaluations serve to assess characteristics or resource features which
may be synonymous with, or closely associated with  resource value,  presumed significance or
interests (based  on jurisdictional nomenclature).  In this case, the PVF's recommended herein
should serve to evaluate said values, significance and interests, as exists within the BHNIP
project area.
-------
       Specific jurisdictional resources will be identified for each site evaluated under each
scenario.
2.0 FUNCTIONS AND VALUES DESCRIPTION

       Functions  and  values  are  traditionally evaluated  using software-based modelling
approaches which qualitatively rate the presumed functions and values of given wetland or water
resources.  At the federal level, and among several state agencies, a no-net-loss policy exists
which is not strictly based on surface area, or in-kind mitigation,  but on mitigation of impacts
to provide compensatory functions and values (personal conversations with the Corps in 1990-
91). The most common, and  widely  accepted, wetland modelling methods are those which
predict and evaluate functional benefit or quality.  During the planning process, the BHNIP
commenced with several preliminary aquatic and fishery resource, and water quality evaluations.
Traditional functions  and values evaluations  have been generally based  on  the Wetlands
Evaluation  Techniques  (WET  1.0  and 2.0)   developed by Adamus  et  al  (1987).   This
methodology has been modified by the Corps and the BHNIP for this analysis to evaluate the
aforementioned estuarine and marines resources; which are protectable under the definition of
"Waters of the United States"  (33 CFR 328 and 40 CFR 230),  and are protectable wetland
resource areas (310 CMR 10.00); and to reflect functions and values of concern in "ecological
terms".

       Traditional evaluations assess the following functions and values.
             Groundwater Recharge,
             Groundwater Discharge,
             Groundwater Supply,
             Flood Storage and
             Desynchronization,
             Sediment and Shoreline
             Stabilization,
             Nutrient Retention and
             Transformation,
Surface Water Supply,
Nutrient Export,
Aquatic Diversity/Abundance,
Shellfish Habitat,
Fish Habitat,
Wildlife Habitat, and
Endangered Species.
These functions and values were developed for, are skewed toward land based or shoreline
resource evaluations, and are not specifically representative of coastal, nearshore, or open water
resource values.   Therefore, several are clearly not applicable to an analysis of the BHNIP
project conditions or sites.
-------
2.1 Methodology

       Below are the descriptions of the aforementioned functions and  values traditionally
evaluated for pre-project and impact conditions, and potential mitigation requirements.  Also
described is the rationale for evaluating each function and value.
       Groundwater Recharge

       Groundwater recharge is the downward movement of the surface water to groundwater.
       It is generally considered  that tidal  resources do not perform groundwater  recharge
       functions and are, therefore, rated as  non-functional. Resource areas capable of having
       high recharge values are those with no outlet, are perched above the surrounding terrain,
       and occur high in watersheds.  Should at least one of these characteristics exist, the
       resource is considered to function moderately, and if none of the conditions exist, then
       the resource considered to be of low  functional value.
       GroundwaterDischarge

       Groundwater discharge is generally the vertical and/or lateral movement of groundwater
       to the surface.  The primary importance of groundwater discharge is the maintenance of
       surface water flows. The maintenance of surface water base flow serves to both maintain
       wet areas, as well as serving to introduce nutrients from groundwater back to the surface.
       This criteria, therefore, includes both the likelihood that groundwater discharge occurs
       as well as the importance to maintenance of base flows and nutrient supply.  Coastal
       waterbodies are generally considered to be of low functional value, since the hydrology
       is predominantly sustained by surface waters.
       Groundwater Supply

       The  groundwater  supply  function applies to resource areas which contribute  to
       groundwater quantity and/or quality.   Tidal  waters  are  assumed  to not perform
       groundwater recharge functions.
       Flood Storage and Desynchronization

       Flood storage refers to the physical ability of a resource area to store flood waters.
       Storage can be  either long term, when the resource area acts as a retention basin, or
       short term, when the resource area acts as a detention basin. Flood desynchronization
       refers to the alteration of flood peaks, which can be accomplished by either long term
       storage of flood waters, or by a more gradual release of flood waters than would happen
                                          581'
-------
if the resource area was not present.  Important characteristics in determining the value
of a resource area for this function are topography and hydrologic conditions, although
size is also a consideration.  Resources which occur in basins with restricted outlets and
with recognizable floodplains are rated high,  isolated resources areas, i.e., areas into
which flood waters enter but cannot exit, will also be rated high.  Resource areas which
are open to tidal action are generally rated low  since their storage capacity is limited.
The exception to this would be a coastal wetland resource, should it have considerable
tidal creek/ditch basin  area which may store flood waters,  or serve to release flood
waters at a slower rate.
Sediment and Shoreline Stabilization

This function refers to both the ability of a resource area to protect adjacent lands from
storm damage and/or to nourish, through sediment transport to downgradient resources,
to protect  adjacent lands.  Conditions which are critical include:   the  presence of
vegetation which can bind the soils as well as reduce water flow velocity, the presence
of obstructions which can also reduce water velocity, the presence of man-made barriers
within the resource area which  serve  to  stabilize the shoreline or the potential for
resource sediments to be transported to downgradient landforms.  Resource areas which
have erosion protection structures such as man-made banks and bulkheads, are rated high
for this function.   Resources  which are exposed to large bodies of open water, wave
action, or high velocities will also be rated high. Resource areas which are not adjacent
to potentially erosive water features will be rated low.  All other resource areas will be
rated moderate.
Sediment/Toxicant Retention

Resource areas  may  serve as settling basins which accumulate sediments, which can
affect water  quality of downstream areas.  Toxicants are often  adsorbed to sediment
particles, such that the removal of sediments from the aquatic system would also serve
to remove toxicants.  Resource areas which are hydrologically isolated, (i.e., cannot
release sediments into adjacent waters), and which have a sediment load are considered
to be highly  functional.  Resource areas which have demonstrated abilities of sediment
retention from water quality  data will also be considered high  functional as well as
resource areas with flowing waters and a depositional environment.  Large shellfish beds
which may filter the surrounding water will be rated either high  or moderate based on
estimates of their effectiveness for filtration of adjacent waters.
-------
Nutrient Retention/Transformation

Nutrient retention refers to the long or short term storage of nutrients, most particularly
nitrogen and phosphorus in vegetation or sediments.  Transformation of nutrients results
from the conversion of nutrients from inorganic forms to organic or gaseous  forms.
Evaluation of resource areas for this function is similar to  that for sediment/toxicant
retention.
Surface Water Supply

This function  relates to the presence and protection of surface water supplies.   This
includes both drinking water supplies, which would encompass entire inland resource
areas, as well as use of water for industrial purposes.  Resource areas which serve as
surface water supplies are significant. Resource areas which may affect the quantity or
quality of adjacent surface water supplies are moderately significant. All other resource
areas are presumed insignificant.
Nutrient Export

Nutrient export is the movement of nutrients out of a resource area. These nutrients may
represent an important component in the food chain of aquatic species.  Only vegetated
wetlands are considered highly functional; therefore, tidal waters are rated  low.  The
only vegetated wetlands which will be rated high are those  larger wetlands which are
subject to fluctuating water levels, allowing for the accumulation and then dispersion of
biomass available for export.
Aquatic Diversity/Abundance

This function was interpreted to relate to the aquatic benthic habitat for invertebrates.
Aquatic invertebrate abundance data was used to evaluate resource areas. Substrate and
water quality data can also be used to evaluate the ability of an area to support a diverse
population of invertebrates.
Fish Habitat

This function pertains directly to the physical characteristics of a resource area which
may make it suitable as a fish habitat.  Habitat needs include feeding, nesting, shelter,
resting and rearing.  Therefore, tidal waters are generally rated high or moderate for this
value.   Vegetated wetlands with a minimum  of open water or a constricted outlet to
surface water, generally are considered of minimal significance.


                                    8
-------
       Shellfish Habitat

       This function pertains directly to the physical characteristics of a  resource area which
       may make it  suitable as shellfish habitat,  including crustaceans and molluscs.  Inland
       resource areas are assumed  to not function as shellfish habitat.  An exception  to this
       would only be made if direct observations  of fresh  water mussels occur.  Coastal
       resource areas with either mapped or documented shellfish  beds are considered either
       high or moderate.  All other areas are considered insignificant  for shellfish habitat.
       Distinguishing characteristics are size and condition of the shellfish bed, location relative
       to other shellfish beds, and whether or not the beds are commercially valuable.
       Wildlife Habitat

       This function pertains directly to the physical  and/or biological characteristics of a
       resource area which may make it suitable as wildlife habitat.   Habitat needs include
       feeding, nesting,  shelter, resting  and rearing.   Wildlife  here is  defined  to include
       mammals, birds, reptiles and  amphibians.  Any resource area with an observed high
       wildlife diversity and abundance  are rated  highly.   Where wildlife counts  are not
       available, habitat characteristics become important.  These include vegetation type and
       distribution, presence and distribution of open water,  surrounding  land use, and size.
       Generally, only vegetated wetlands with high vegetative diversity and at least one acre
       in size are significant.
       Endangered Species

       Endangered species functions relate to the ability of a resource area to provide important
       habitat,  either  seasonally  or  year-round, to an  endangered  or threatened species.
       Resource areas with  observed or recorded  endangered  species  use are rated  high.
       Resource areas  which may effect the quality of adjacent endangered species habitat are
       rated moderate.  All other resource areas are rated low.
2.2  Selection of Principal Valuable Functions

       Functions and values methods (e.g. WET 2.0 1987) qualitatively rate functions and values
as being high, moderate or low and provide evaluation  results in this same form.  Recently,
agencies,  inclusive of the Corps and the Environmental  Protection Agency-Region 1 have
expressed concern that these very general and qualitative ratings do not provide enough detail
to allow for any  comprehensive analysis of compensatory mitigation proposals against proposed
impacts under the jurisdictional no-net-loss policy.  Also, such methods evaluate functions and
values which may have little or no significance to the resources of concern.
-------
       In an attempt to streamline the process relative to the BHNIP, the Corps has selected only
those functions and values which they have determined to be significant where proposed project
activities may occur.   As mentioned earlier in this report, these are referred as "Principal
Valuable Functions" (PVF's).

       Again, the purpose for such an analysis is to evaluate only those functions and values
which display a significance in the identified jurisdictional resources of the proposed project
sites, during the pre-projeet, project impact, and potential on-site mitigation.  Pre-prqject PVF's
have been evaluated for those sites which were short-listed during the BHNIP site selection
process, as described in the FEIR/S. Both the project impact and on-site mitigation evaluations
have been conducted only for the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternatives
(LEDPA sites)  for dredge material disposal recommended by the Corps.   The LEDPA sites
include both the in-channel subaqueous cells and Little Mystic Channel.

       The Corps recommended the following PVF's, based on the findings of several aquatic
resources evaluations prepared by Normandeau Associates (NA), under a current task order
contract, and which are described in NAI (1995 a-d).  These PVF's trend toward biological and
public interest resources.

             Benthic Habitat,                  •      Wildlife Habitat,
             Shellfish/Lobster Habitat,          «      Endangered Species
             Finfish Habitat,                         Habitat,
             Production Export,                •      Education Scientific
             Sediment/Shoreline                      Value,
             Stabilization,                     •      Uniqueness/Heritage, and
             Visual Quality/Aesthetics,         •      Recreation.
       The BHNIP has reviewed the Corp's recommended PVF's and suggests that since the
proposed  project  includes subtidal  dredging and dredge  material  disposal  in  both  an
industrial/commercial harbor setting, and may include offshore locations, several of the Corp's
recommended PVF's do not appear relevant. The BHNIP questions the applicability of several
recommended PVF's, and presents the following arguments to remove them from consideration:
       Visual Quality and Aesthetics

       Both the dredging and material disposal processes will occur in subtidal conditions and
       in areas of heavy commercial shipping and industrial activity,  or in remote offshore
       locations.  Activities in nearshore areas (e.g. abandoned piers and watersheet areas) will
       serve to clean up and eliminate potentially unattractive and hazardous existing conditions.
       Actual construction processes  and effects will be limited and isolated to only areas of
       activity.
                                          10

-------
      Education and Scientific Value

      Given the locations of the proposed project activities, it would appear that the proposed
      sites do not provide any specific or unique attributes which are not evident in other areas
      of Boston Harbor or the Massachusetts Bay.  The restricted and remote access also does
      not provide additional significance to any of these proposed project sites.
      Uniqueness/Heritage

      Again, given the locations of the proposed project activities, it would appear that the
      proposed sites do not provide any specific or unique or historic attributes, which are not
      evident in other areas of Boston Harbor or the Massachusetts Bay,
      Recreation

      The locations of the proposed  project sites do not appear to provide any specific or
      unique recreational attributes, which are not realized in other areas of Boston Harbor or
      the Massachusetts Bay.  Also, proposed project activities will be limited to small areas
      of the overall project area at any one time, therefore, as with navigation, recreation
      activities should not be impaired or interrupted.

      Given this further review, the BHNIP proposes to evaluate the following revised PVF
list, relative to the project:
             Benthlc Habitat,
             Shellfish/Lobster Habitat,
             Finfish Habitat,
             Production Export,
Sediment/Shoreline
Stabilization,
Wildlife Habitat, and
Endangered  Species Habitat.
The  functional  significance  of the  revised  PVF's are described in narrative form  and in
"ecological terms" below.  Again, summary tables are included in the Appendices of this report
for reference and convenience.
3.0 PRINCIPAL VALUABLE FUNCTIONS EVALUATION


3.1 Principal Valuable Function Descriptions

       PVF's included in the revised list proposed by the BHNIP are described as follows:
                                          11
-------
Benthic Habitat

Benthic habitat is defined as any bottom substrate (soft or hard) which is located in
estuarine or  marine conditions,  and is suitable to supporting a benthic community.
Recorded evidence of existing populations of specific species and their relative numbers
will serve to enhance any sites particular level of function or value.
Shellfish/Lobster Habitat

Any benthic habitat specifically suited to supporting both soft substrate shellfish  (e.g.
soft-shelled clams), hard substrate shellfish  (e.g. blue mussels); and substrates with
suitable refuge and breeding sites for spawning, early benthic phase, sub-legal, and legal
sized lobster; would be considered functional.  Recorded evidence of existing populations
of specific species and their relative numbers will serve to enhance any sites particular
level of function or value.
Finfish Habitat

Any portion of the Boston Harbor or Massachusetts Bay water column specifically suited
to supporting both resident and transient, demersal and pelagic finfish species; would be
considered functional.  Recorded evidence of existing populations of specific species and
their relative numbers will  serve to enhance any  sites particular level of  function or
value.
Production Export

Production  or nutrient export  is  the  movement of nutrients  out  of a wetland or
waterbody.  These nutrients may represent an important component in the food chain of
aquatic species.  Only vegetated wetlands are considered highly functional; therefore,
tidal waters are typically rated non-functional. The only vegetated wetlands which will
be rated high are those larger wetlands which are subject  to fluctuating water levels,
allowing for the accumulation and then  dispersion of biomass available for export.
Sediment and Shoreline Stabilization

This function refers to both the ability of a resource area to protect adjacent lands from
storm damage and/or to nourish, through sediment transport to downgradient resources,
to protect  adjacent lands.  Conditions  which are critical include:   the presence of
vegetation  which can bind the soils as well as reduce water flow velocity, the presence
of obstructions which can also reduce water velocity, the presence of man-made barriers


                                    12
-------
       within the resource area  which serve to stabilize the shoreline or the potential for
       resource sediments to be transported to downgradient landforms. Resource areas which
       have erosion protection structures such as man-made banks and bulkheads, are rated high
       for this function. Coastal resources which are exposed to large bodies of open water,
       wave action, or high velocities are considered significant. Coastal resource areas which
       are not adjacent to potentially erosive water features, and  offshore features are not
       typically considered functional.
       Wildlife Habitat

       This function pertains directly to the physical and/or biological characteristics  of a
       resource which may make it suitable as wildlife habitat. Habitat needs include feeding,
       nesting, shelter, resting and breeding resources.  Wildlife is defined to include mammals,
       birds, reptiles  and amphibians.  Any resource area with an  observed high wildlife
       diversity  and abundance are rated  highly.  Where wildlife  counts  are not  available,
       habitat characteristics become important.  These include vegetation type and distribution,
       presence and distribution of open water,  surrounding land use, and size.
       Endangered Species Habitat

       Endangered species habitats  relate to  the  ability  of a resource  to  provide important
       habitat, either  seasonally  or year-round,  to  an  endangered  or threatened species.
       Resource areas with observed or recorded endangered species use, or which may effect
       the quality of adjacent endangered species habitat are considered important.
3.2  Pre-Project Conditions

       The pre-projeet PVF evaluation has been conducted on all of the proposed short listed
disposal sites,  developed from the BHNIP site selection process.  These sites include:

       *      In-ehannel sites,2                  •      Spectacle Island Confined
       *      Mystic Piers (49-50),                      Aquatic Disposal (CAD),
       «      Revere Sugar,                     •      Meisburger Sites 2 and 7, and
       •      Little Mystic Channel (LMC),      *      Subaqueous Containment
       *      Reserved Channel, Areas A and B,         Sites B and E (Subaq B and E).
       Cell locations within the Lower Mystic River, the Lower portion of Chelsea Creek, and
       the Inner Confluence.
                                           13
-------
These sites represent all of the potential options available to the BHNIP, and were the sites
evaluated by the Corps, to identify the LEDPA sites.

       Aside from the previously cited NAI (1995 a-d), this PVF evaluation relied on several
additional technical resources as referenced herein.  Pre-project PVF's results for each short
listed site are presented in the following narrative, and in summary table contained in Appendix
A.
       3.2. LINT-CHANNEL

       The in-channel site includes 54 cell locations (200 x 500' or 150 x 500') within the
Lower Mystic River, the Lower portion of Chelsea Creek,  and the Inner Confluence.  The
overriding jurisdictional resources present at the in-Channel  area include: Tidal waters under
federal jurisdiction and designated port areas (DPA) under state jurisdiction.  Water  quality
within the area is designated as SB waters.  According to the surface water quality regulations
(314 CMR 4.05).  SB waters are defined as habitat for fish, other aquatic life and wildlife for
primary and secondary contract recreation. In approved areas they shall be suitable for shellfish
harvesting and depuration (Restricted Shellfish Areas).  These waters shall have consistently
good aesthetic value.  Pre- project PVF conditions include the following:
       Benthic Habitat

       Sampling conducted in April of 1993 indicated that the benthic fauna was dominated by
       taxa classified as opportunistic and pioneer types.   Each are early settlers  and are
       typically associated with organically enriched, stresses environments. No amphipods or
       live molluscs were collected.   Channel areas within the Lower Mystic River were
       dominated by Nematodes, Oligochaetes and Capitella capitata; and within the Chelsea
       Creek and Inner Confluence were dominated by Polychaetes. Sampling in October 1994
       indicated two types of benthic habitat which included a muddy pit and mound topography
       (depositional), and fine sand overlaying  silt (eroding).   Polychaetes were again the
       dominant taxa, followed by oligochaetes, and limited bivalves and gastropods.  Dominant
       species included Polydora cornuta, Streblaspio benedicti and Nassarius trivittatus.
       Shellfish/Lobster Habitat

       EOEA (1978) maps the site as contaminated waters, but is not specific to any shellfish
       resource.  Limited molluscs were collected at this site.  Catch data for lobster from
       October 1994 indicates limited CPUE3 data. Trap data from the Mystic River yielded
       CPUE - Catch per unit effort.

                                           14
-------
two sublegal males (51 and 82 mm.4).  Trap data from the Chelsea Creek area yielded
one sublegal male and female (74-75 mm., respectively), and one legal female (109
mm.). Inner confluence trap data was significantly higher and yielded 0.8 sublegal males
(ranging from 56 to 82 mm.), and one sublegal female (65 mm.).  CPUE trap data for
lobsters is reported as number per trap day.
Finfish Habitat

Finfish surveys in the Mystic River and at the Inner Confluence indicate that several
species could transit this area.  A trawl survey of demersal fish during the fall  1994
collected winter flounder, Atlantic tomcod, windowpane, scup and rainbow smelt. These
findings were consistent with those observed by Haedrich and Haedrich (1974). Species
caught in Chelsea Creek were similar to those caught  in the Mystic River and Inner
Confluence.  CPUE catch data for the 1994 sample trawls indicates highest catches in
the Chelsea Creek, followed by the Mystic River and the Inner Confluence (25.03,
21.78, and 13.9, catch per 20 minute trawl, respectively).
Production Export

There is little evidence that any significant populations of rooted or attached aquatic
vegetation exists in this location.  Since the in-channel sites are sub tidal, they would not
be expected to provide significant function for production export.
Sediment/Shoreline Stabilization

The existing reinforced bulkheads and wharf structures  throughout  the area provide
substantial shoreline reinforcement, and should buffet the shoreline from wave or current
action.  In-channel sediments probably are re-suspended and re-distributed frequently by
currents and ship thrusts during docking maneuvers.
Wildlife Habitat

The aquatic area of Boston Inner Harbor may be useful to waterfowl that dive for food,
birds that hunt fish in the water, or those which hunt fish from the air.  Abandoned piers
provide roosting sites for gulls and terns. Rodents are common in abandoned waterfront
structures.  Harbor seals could also transit the area.
Carapace length.

                                    15
-------
       Endangered Species Habitat

       No federally or state-listed  threatened or  endangered species  are  identified or  are
       anticipated to occur within Boston Inner Harbor.  Although, common terns have been
       observed nesting in the Boston Harbor area, no nests have been observed within the Inner
       Harbor area.
       3.2.2 MYSTIC PIERS 49-50

       Mystic Piers 49-50 and include 3.0 acres of subtidal area potentially available to fill with
130,000 cy of dredge materials to create fastland.5 Jurisdictional resources include tidal waters
(federal), and DPA (state).  Even as a DPA, the overlay resource of the anadromous fish run,
relative to the protection of marine fisheries, remains an issue. Water quality within the site is
designated as SB (314 CMR 4.05). Pre- project PVF conditions include the following:
       Benthic Habitat

       Sampling conducted in April of 1993 indicated that the benthic fauna was dominated by
       nematodes (67%).   Capitetta capitata and oligochaetes were also found in significant
       numbers.  These taxa are classified as opportunistic and pioneer taxa.  Each are early
       settlers and are typically associated with organically enriched,  stressed environments.
       No amphipods or live molluscs were collected. Sampling during October 1994 indicated
       two  types of benthic habitat which included a muddy  pit and  mound topography
       (depositional), and fine sand overlaying silt (eroding).  Some indications of bioturbation
       (infaunal tubes and anoxic voids) were present. The number of taxa were very limited
       (5) and total abundance were among the lowest in the harbor. Nassarius trtvittatus was
       the most notable species present.
       Shellfish/Lobster Habitat

       EOEA (1978) maps the site as contaminated waters, but is not specific to any shellfish
       resource.  No molluscs were collected at this site. CPUE data for lobster from October
       1994 at the Inner Confluence yielded 0.8 sublegal males (ranging from 56 to 82 mm.),
       and one sublegal female (65 mm.).
       Designation given to fill placed in structural shoreline features to create useable upland
       for marine industrial or maritime usage.

                                          16
-------
Finfish...Habitat

Historic finfish surveys in the Mystic River and at the Inner Confluence indicate that
several species could move into this area. A trawl survey of demersal fish during the
fall 1994  collected winter flounder, Atlantic tomcod, windowpane, scup and rainbow
smelt.  These findings were consistent with those observed by Haedrich and Haedrich
(1974).    Pilings  and  wharf  structures, and  the  physical orientation of the site
perpendicular to the main channel currents should provide shelter.  Both subtidal and
intertidal benthic resources should provide prey  items.  The adjacent Mystic River also
functions as an anadromous alewife fish run.
Production JExpQrt

There is little evidence that any significant populations of rooted or attached aquatic
vegetation exists in this location.
Sediment/Shoreline Stabilization

The existing  reinforced bulkheads  and wharf structure should provide  substantial
shoreline reinforcement, and should buffet the shoreline from wave or current action.
Wildlife Habitat

The aquatic area of the Mystic Piers may be useful to waterfowl that dive for food, birds
that hunt  fish in the water, or those which hunt fish from the air.  Abandoned piers
provide roosting sites for gulls and terns.  Rodents are common in abandoned waterfront
structures. Harbor seals could also transit the area.
Endangered Species Habitat

No federally  or state-listed  threatened or endangered species  are  identified or are
anticipated to occur within the boundaries of the Mystic Piers. Although, common terns
have been observed nesting in the Boston Harbor area, no nests have been observed at
the Mystic Piers.
-------
       3.2.3  REVERE SUGAR

       The Revere Sugar site includes 3,7 acres of subtidal area potentially available to fill with
136,000 cy of dredge materials to create fastland. Jurisdictional resources include tidal waters
(federal), and DPA (state).  Even as a DPA, the overlay resource of the anadromous fish run,
relative to the protection of marine fisheries remains an issue.  Water quality within the site is
designated as SB (314 CMR 4.05). Pre- project PVF conditions include the following:
       Benthic Habitat

       Sampling conducted in April of 1993 indicated that the benthic fauna was dominated by
       nematodes (80%).  Capitella capitata and oligochaetes were also found in significant
       numbers. Again, these taxa are classified as opportunistic and pioneer taxa. Freshwater
       insects were collected in low numbers.  No amphipods or live molluscs were collected.
       Sampling during October 1994 indicated a homogeneous benthic habitat of a muddy pit
       and mound  topography (depositional).  Polyehaetes, oligochaetes, and nematodes were
       the most abundant taxa,  similar to the 1993 collections.   The epifaunal  amphipod
       Micodeutopus gryllotalpa and the motile sand shrimp Crangon septemspinosa were also
       collected. The benthic infauna suggests that the habitat is under environmental stress.
       Shellfish/Lobster Habitat

       EOEA (1978) maps the site as contaminated waters, but is not specific to any shellfish
       resource.  No molluscs collections were recorded at this site. Catch  data for lobster
       from October 1994 indicates limited CPUE data for the Revere Sugar site. One sublegal
       male (72 mm.) and one sublegal female (74 mm.) were caught, and one legal male (88
       mm.) was also caught.
       Finfish Habitat

       Finfish surveys  (historic and current) in the Mystic River and at the Inner Confluence
       indicate that several species could move into this area. A gill net survey of demersal fish
       during  the fall 1994 collected rainbow smelt, alewife, mackerel and winter flounder.
       Pilings and wharf structures, and physical orientation of the site perpendicular to the
       main channel currents should provide shelter.  Species feeding indiscriminately should
       encounter prey.   Species that prefer to browse on hard substrate would  find little food
       resource, while winter flounder could spawn in this area.  Revere Sugar is located well
       below the head of the tide so it would not provide spawning habitat for the anadromous
       fish run.
                                          18
-------
       Production Export

       There is little evidence that any significant populations of rooted or attached aquatic
       vegetation exists in this location.
       Sediment/Shoreline Stabilization

       The existing  reinforced bulkheads  and wharf  structures  should  provide substantial
       shoreline reinforcement, and should buffet the shoreline from wave or current action.
       Wildlife Habitat

       The aquatic area of Revere Sugar may be useful to waterfowl that dive for food, birds
       that hunt fish in the water, or those which hunt fish from the air.  Abandoned piers
       provide roosting sites for gulls and terns.  Rodents are common in abandoned waterfront
       structures.  Harbor seals could also transit the area.
       Endangered Species Habitat

       No  federally or state-listed threatened or  endangered species are identified  or are
       anticipated to occur within the boundaries of the Mystic Piers. Although, common terns
       have been observed nesting in the Boston Harbor area, no nests have been observed at
       Revere Sugar.
       3.2.4  LITTLE MYSTIC CHANNEL (LMO

       LMC includes 15 acres of subtidal area potentially available to fill with dredge materials
and capped at an elevation suitable to create intertidal habitat.   The site could handle up to
303,000 cy of material as proposed. Jurisdictional resources include tidal waters (federal), and
DPA (state).  Water quality within the site is designated as SB (314 CMR 4.05).  Pre- project
PVF conditions include the following:
       Benthic Habitat

       Composition of the benthic infauna sampled April  1993 indicated several taxa in low
       abundances. Oligochaeta was the dominant taxa followed by nematodes, Tharyx acutus
       and S. benedicti. These taxa indicating a stressed environment.  Sediment samples at that
       time indicated  a fine paniculate grayish-black material (silt or mud), with a mild sulfur
       odor.  Data from October 1994 indicated homogeneous mud sediments, with a mound


                                          19
-------
and pit topography (depositional) throughout the area.  Limited species abundances and
indications of bioturbation revealed a poorly developed benthic community. Very limited
observations of the surface dwelling bivalve (Muttnia lateralis), the hydrozoan (Obelia
sp.)t and the amphipod (Gammarus lawrencianus) were also made.
Shellfish/Lobster Habitat

EOEA (1978) maps the site as contaminated waters, but is not specific to any shellfish
resource.  A total of 0.5  sublegal and 0.6 legal-sized lobsters CPUE were collected
during the fall collection 1994. Total CPUE was higher than that recorded from either
the Mystic River and Chelsea Creek, similar to that recorded at the harbor stations, but
lower than the offshore stations.  Males predominated over females (NAI 1995c). LMC
had the highest  recorded legal catch per trap day 0.6, all males.
Finfish Habitat

Gill net collections conducted during October 1994 captured low numbers of rainbow
smelt, Atlantic tomcod, alewife, cunner and butterfish. There is probably movement of
finfish, some anadromous, and other species in and out of LMC.  Finfish could use the
wooden bridge pilings, submerged logs, a sunken boat hull, and Fucus sp. for shelter
from predators.    The sandy/silt  substrate  may provide  suitable  habitat for  winter
flounder.
Production Export

Fucus sp. is evident in LMC and may provide some very limited level production export
to the Mystic River and the Inner Confluence.
Sediment/ShorelineStabilization

The existing reinforced bulkheads and rip-rapped shoreline should provide substantial
shoreline reinforcement, and should buffet the shoreline from wave or current action.
Wildlife Habitat

The aquatic area of LMC may be useful to waterfowl that dive for food, birds that hunt
fish in the water, or those which hunt fish from the air.
                                   20
                                5?
-------
       Endangered Species Habitat

       No  federally  or state-listed threatened  or  endangered species are identified or are
       anticipated to occur within the boundaries of LMC.  Although, common terns have been
       observed nesting in the Boston Harbor area, no nests have been observed at LMC.
       3.2.5  RESERVED CHANNEL AREAS A AND B
       3.2.5.1  Reserved Channel Area A

       Area A is approximately 8.9 acres in size.  Area A is potentially available for filling with
disposed contaminated dredge material  (14,000 cy) and will be capped at an elevation suitable
to create intertidal habitat and resource. Jurisdictional resources include tidal waters (federal),
and land under the ocean and land containing shellfish (state). Water quality within Area A is
designated as SB.  Pre-project  PVF conditions include the following:
       Benthic Habitat

       The composition of the Benthic infauna from 1993 indicated that Oligochaeta and 5.
       benedicti were the two most abundant taxa at all sampling locations in Area A. Each are
       indicative of stressed environmental conditions.   Species abundances relative to other
       sites sampled, were low.
       Shellfish/Lobster Habitat

       EOEA (1978) maps the site as contaminated waters, but is not specific to any shellfish
       resource.  Limited numbers of the soft-shell clam were collected.  Lobster CPUE in the
       Reserved Channel was moderate at 1.2 per trap day for sublegals, and evenly distributed
       between males and females; and 0.2 per trap day for legal males.
       Finfish Habitat

       Gill net collections during October 1994, in the Reserved Channel were the highest of
       all stations sampled in Boston Harbor.  An average of 96.7 fish were collected per 24
       hour set.  Dominant species included blueback herring, and alewives.   Other species
       caught included striped bass, American shad, bluefish, and rainbow smelt. These species
       are typically pelagic, and transient. Their capture is more likely random than indicative
       of habitat. Finfish could use the wooden bridge pilings, floating dock, and Fucus sp. for
       shelter from predators.  The substrate may provide suitable habitat for winter flounder.

                                           21

                                          5?
-------
       Production Export

       Fucus sp,  is evident in Area A and may provide some level production export to the
       Boston Harbor.
       Sediment/ShorelineStabilization

       The existing reinforced bulkheads and rip-rapped shoreline should provide substantial
       shoreline reinforcement, and should buffet the shoreline from wave or current action.
       Wildlife Habitat

       The Area A watershed may be useful to waterfowl that dive for food, birds that hunt fish
       in the water, or those which hunt fish from the air.
       Endangered Species Habitat

       No  federally or state-listed threatened or endangered species  are identified  or are
       anticipated to occur within the boundaries of the Reserved Channel.  Although, common
       terns have been observed nesting in the Boston Harbor area, no nests have been observed
       at Aiea A,
       3.2.5.2  Reserved Channel Area B

       Area B is approximately 7.7 acres in size. Area B is also potentially available for filling
with disposed contaminated dredge material (185,000 cy) and will be capped at an elevation
suitable to create intertidal habitat and resource.  Jurisdictional resources include tidal waters
(federal), and land under the ocean and land containing shellfish (state).  Water quality within
Area B is designated as SB.  Pre-project PVF conditions include the following:
       Benthic Habitat                                                                   ,

       The composition of the Benthic infauna  from 1993 indicated that Oligochaeta and S,
       benedictl were the two most abundant taxa at all sampling locations in Area B. Each are
                                           22
-------
indicative of stressed environmental conditions. Species abundance relative to other sites
sampled, were low.
Shellfish/Lobster Habitat

EOEA (1978) maps the site as contaminated waters, but is not specific to any shellfish
resource.  Limited numbers of the soft-shell clam were collected. Lobster CPUE in the
Reserved Channel was moderate at 1,2 per trap day for sublegals, and evenly distributed
between males and females; and 0.2 per trap day for legal males.
Finfish Habitat

Gill net collections during October 1994, in the Reserved Channel were the highest of
all stations sampled in Boston Harbor.  An average of 96,7 fish were collected per 24
hour set.  Dominant species  included blueback herring, and alewives.  Other species
caught included striped bass, American shad, bluefish, and rainbow smelt. These species
are typically pelagic, and are transient species. Their capture is more likely random than
indicative of habitat. Finfish could use the wooden bridge pilings, floating dock, and
Fucm sp. for  shelter from predators.   The substrate may provide suitable habitat for
winter flounder.
ProductionExport

Fucus sp. is evident in  Area B and may provide some level production  export to the
Boston Harbor.
Sediment/Shoreline Stabilization
The existing reinforced bulkheads and rip-rapped shoreline should provide substantial
shoreline reinforcement, and should buffet the shoreline from wave or current action.
Wildlife Habitat

The Area B watersheet may be useful to waterfowl that dive for food, birds that hunt fish
in the water, or those which hunt fish from the air.
                                    23
-------
       Endangered Species Habitat

       No  federally or state-listed threatened or endangered species are  identified or  are
       anticipated to occur within the boundaries of the Reserved Channel.  Although, common
       terns have been observed nesting in the Boston Harbor area, no nests have been observed
       at Area B.
       3.2.6  SPECTACLE ISLAND CAD

       Spectacle Island CAD provides a potential opportunity to dispose and sequester up to
1.45 million  cubic yards of contaminated dredge material at a 50 acre subtidal open water
location.   Final  subtidal elevations should  remain consistent  in both  the  pre- and post
construction scenarios.  Jurisdiction resources  include tidal water (federal), and land under the
ocean and land containing shellfish (state). Water quality is designated as SB.  Pre- project PVF
conditions are described as follows:
       Benthic Habitat

       Benthic resources were examined by the CA/T project (Cortell 1990b).  The findings
       indicated that this area was dominated by the tube dwelling amphipod Ampelisca abdita
       and the gastropod N. trivittatus, reflecting relatively clean, sandy sediments.  Nephtyid
       polychaetes were also numerically important at Spectacle Island CAD.  Abundances were
       comparatively low as related to other sandy areas in Massachusetts Bay.  The offshore
       portions of these transects also supported sand worms, hermit crabs, mud crabs and rock
       crabs. Sampling during the fall of 1994 confirmed a well developed benthic community,
       falling  between  a pioneering and equilibrium  stage.   Dominant  species  included
       polychaetes (Aricidia catherinae and  P.  comma), and the  amphipod A,  abdita.  The
       majority of the areas has a silt substrate, with some fine sand, shell hash and gravel.
       Bioturbation was also evident.
       Shellfish/Lobster Habitat

       EOEA (1978) maps the site as contaminated waters and soft shell clam resource. CA/T
       findings (Cortell  1990b) indicated the presence of soft-shell  clam habitat  and also
       observed mussel beds throughout the area.  Several lobster transect surveys were also
       conducted around Spectacle Island related to CA/T work (Cortell 1990a and Wahle and
       Steneck 1991).  Abundances of free-living lobsters were relatively low along the island's
       eastside (0.0003-0.0004/ft2).   Most lobsters were found farther offshore, at the deeper
       ends of the sampling transects. No early benthic phase (EBP) lobster were found at any
       of the transects.  An additional lobster survey conducted during October 1994 collected
                                          24
-------
0.2 lobsters per trap-day, all were sublegal. This CPUE was among the lowest of the
stations sampled during the entire sampling event.
Finfish Habitat

A ttawl survey of demersal fish during October 1994 collected an average of 21.3 fmfish
per 20 minute trawl, one of the lowest catches in Boston Harbor.  Winter flounder was
the predominant species, followed by skate sp. Rainbow smelt and Atlantic silverside
(pelagics) were also collected.
Production Export

There is little evidence that any significant populations of rooted or attached aquatic
vegetation exists in this location. Since Spectacle Island CAD is an offshore and subtidal
site, it is not expected to provide significant function for productive export.
Sediment/Shoreline Stabilization

Spectacle Island  CAD  is an  offshore  site,  and should not provide any significant
sediment/shoreline stabilization value
Wildlife Habitat

Waterfowl, including great cormorants, herring gulls, white winged scoters, common
goldeneyes, buffleheads,  mallards,  black ducks, mergansers  and scaup  have  been
observed in the vicinity of Spectacle Island.  Each  if these species feed on fish and
invertebrates.
Endangered Species Habitat

No federally  or state-listed  threatened  or  endangered species  are  identified  or are
anticipated to occur in the area of the Spectacle Island CAD.  Although, common terns
have been observed nesting on dilapidated piles on the northwestern end of Long Island,
approximately 0.6 miles to the northeast of Spectacle Island CAD. Harbor seals, harbor
porpoises and grampuses occur occasionally in Boston Harbor.  These are protected
under the Federal Marine Mammals Protection Act, but none are listed as threatened or
endangered species. There is also no exposed ledge in the area which could be suitable
as a seal haul  out area.
                                    25
-------
       3.2.7  MEISBURGER SITES 2 AND 7 (M2 AND M7)

       M2 provides an opportunity to dispose and sequester up to 4.6 million cubic yards, and
M7 also provides an opportunity to dispose and sequester up to 6.1 million cubic yards, of
contaminated dredge material at either an 86 acre, and a 121 acre subtidal and remote open
water location.  Jurisdictional resources include tidal waters (federal) and land under the ocean
(state).  Pre-projeet PVF conditions include the following:
       BenthicHabitat

       Blake et al. (1993) indicates that the benthic community in the area of M2 was composed
       mainly of a polychaete assemblage dominated by Spio limicola, Polydora socialis, and
       Mediomastius californiensis. Sampling at both M2 and M7 in 1994 indicated moderately
       abundant communities of tube dwelling amphipods and spionid polychaetes. Several of
       the polychaete  species observed were deep dwelling organisms indicative of a healthy
       benthic community.  Approximately 50% of the sampling stations at M2 and M7 contain
       primarily rock sediments  intermixed with sand and gravel, indicating a high-energy,
       erosional bottom habitat.  One third of the substrate at M2 contains sand overlying silt.
       Most of the remaining substrate at M7 is a gravel substrate mixed with sand and rock.
       Dominant taxa included polychaetes,  amphipods, and bivalve molluscs.
       Shellfish/Lobster Habitat

       EOEA (1978) does not map either M2 or M7 as shellfish habitat. Blue mussels and soft-
       shelled clams were evident at both sites.  This is typical of offshore, deep water areas.
       A lobster survey was conducted in October 1994, and M2 had the highest CPUE of all
       stations sampled, and M7 had the second highest CPUE.  A total of 6.4 lobsters per trap-
       day were collected at M2, of which 0.1  met the legal size limit (83 mm.);  while M7
       yielded 5.1  lobsters per trap-day, also only 0.1 met the legal size limit.  Both M2 and
       M7 are  situated  within the area of  greatest  territorial  harvest  for coastal  the
       Massachusetts lobster fishery.
       Finfish Habitat

       Trawl data provided by MADMF (unpublished 1991-92) for offshore areas near M2 and
       M7 indicated that winter flounder, Atlantic cod and yellowtail flounder comprised up to
       60% of the total catch (655 fish) during 13 min tows. Rock and Jonah crab were found
       in  small numbers.   A gill  net  survey during October  1994 indicated CPUE results
       averaging 12.3 fish per 24 hour set at M2 and 17.4 at M7. These result were moderate
                                          26
-------
as compared to other gill net and trawl surveys conducted during the period. Mackerel,
longhorn sculpin, cunner and Atlantic cod, all demersal species were predominant.
Production Export

There is little evidence that any significant populations of rooted or attached aquatic
vegetation exists in this location.  Since M2 and M7 are offshore and subtidal sites,  it
is not expected that either should provide significant function for production support.
Sediment/Shoreline Stabilization

Offshore sites do not provide any sediment/shoreline stabilization value.


Wildlife Habitat

Approximately 35 species of marine mammals, 5 species of marine turtles and 40 species
of seabirds occur within  the Gulf of Maine.   Aerial surveys were conducted for the
Corps to assess the use of the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (MBDS) by marine
mammals, reptiles and seabirds (MBO  1987).  The dominant species observed within
Massachusetts  Bay  Disposal Site  (MBDS) are  typical of the offshore  waters  of
Massachusetts  (Meisburger and Boston Lightship  sites).  Seabirds observed include
northern fulmar, shearwater, storm petrels, northern gaument, pomarine jaeger, gulls and
Alcids. Dominant non-endangered mammals include minke whale, white-sided dolphin,
and harbor porpoise.  Although five species of turtles potentially occur in Massachusetts
Bay, Kemp's ridley and the Loggerhead are the most regularly observed in the area.


Endangered Species Habitat

The following threatened and endangered aquatic species can occur in the Western North
Atlantic including parts of Massachusetts Bay (U.S. Department of the Interior 1991):

Cetaceans

right whale (Endangered),         sei  whale  (Endangered),
humpback whale (Endangered),    sperm whale (Endangered), and
finback whale  (Endangered),      blue whale (Endangered).
                                    27
-------
       Turtles

       Kemp's ridley (Endangered),      loggerhead (Threatened), and
       leatherback (Endangered),         green (Threatened).
       hawksbill (Endangered),

       Fish

       shortnose sturgeon (Endangered).

       Sightings offshore from Boston Harbor are typically concentrated eastward of the MBDS,
       within the newly designated Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (ADL 1992).
       The Meisburger sites are approximately halfway between Boston Harbor and the MBDS
       and are not a reported area of concentration for these species. Of the five threatened or
       endangered turtles that may occur in this area, the  leatherback, Kemp's ridley and the
       Loggerhead are the most regularly observed in Massachusetts and Cape Cod  Bays.
       There is nothing unique about the Meisburger 2 and 7 sites that would attract these
       species. NAI is not aware of any specific sightings in this area.  The shortnose sturgeon
       inhabits estuarine and freshwater areas along the  eastern coast of the U.S. and Canada
       and would not inhabit these open water sites.
       3.2.8 SUBAQUEOUS CONTAINMENT SITES
       3.2.8.1  Subaqueous Containment Site B (Subaq B)

       Subaq B provides an  opportunity to dispose and sequester 609,000 cubic yards of
contaminated dredge material at a 83 acre subtidal, open water location.  Jurisdictional resources
include tidal waters (federal), and land under the ocean and land containing shellfish (state).
Water quality is designated as SB. Pre-project PVF conditions include the following:
       Benthic Habitat

       Sampling at Subaq B during 1994, and just south of the shipping channel revealed a silty
       substrate covered with a mat of Ampelisca amphipod tubes.  Other species such as the
       spionid polychaete Polydora cornuta and the amphipod Phoxocephalus  holbolli were
       evident.  There were indications of subsurface bioturbation,  including burrows, worm
       tubes, and oxic and anoxic voids.  Results suggest a healthy benthic community in
       between pioneering and successional equilibrium stages.
                                          28
-------
Shellfish/Lobster Habitat

EOEA (1978) maps the site as contaminated waters, but is not specific to any shellfish
resource.  However, soft-shell clam (M. arenaria) spat and razor clams (E. directus)
were encountered during previous benthic sampling events. Lobster fishing activity in
the vicinity of Subaq B was examined during the summer of 1990 (Cortell 1990a),  Pot
markers were observed  on  each of the three  dates examined.   Despite being in  a
navigational channel, pot markers were as numerous at Subaq B as at other areas around
Spectacle Island.  Lobsters occurred at an approximate density of 0.0012/ft2) in the area
of Subaq B.  Most lobsters were observed at the deeper portions of the transects.  No
EBP lobsters were observed.  Recent lobster trapping surveys around the Spectacle Island
area collected low numbers of lobsters (0.2 per trap-day), one of the lowest in Boston
Harbor.  In the trawl survey, approximately 6.7 lobsters were collected per 20 minute
tow.
Finfish Habitat

A recent trawl survey near Spectacle Island collected mainly winter flounder, along with
skate sp., rainbow smelt, and Atlantic silversides.  The number of fish (21.3 per 20
minute tow) was among the lowest in Boston Harbor.  Based on the on-going develop-
ment of the CA/T artificial reef design (ACOE Individual Permit No. 199202207), target
fish  species in the area of Subaq B include forage species such as Atlantic menhaden,
Atlantic herring and rainbow smelt, and predator species such as winter flounder, striped
bass, bluefish, pollock, Atlantic  cod, tautog and cunner.
Production Export

There is little evidence that any significant populations of rooted or attached aquatic
vegetation exists in this location. Since Subaq B is an offshore and subtidal site, it is not
expected to provide production export.
Sediment/ShorelineStabilization

Offshore sites do not provide sediment/shoreline stabilization value.


Wildlife Habitat

Waterfowl, including  great cormorant, herring gull,  white  winged scoter, common
goldeneye, bufflehead, mallard, black duck, merganser and scaup have been observed
in the vicinity of Spectacle Island (Cortell 1990a). It is likely that these same species of


                                    29
-------
      waterfowl use Subaq B area for feeding and resting.  Each of these species feed on fish
      and invertebrates that occur in the area.
      Endangered Species Habitat

      No threatened or endangered species listed by federal or state authorities are identified
      or anticipated to occur within the boundaries of Subaq B. Several marine mammals not
      listed  as threatened  or  endangered, including  harbor seals, harbor  porpoise, and
      grampuses, occur occasionally in the area.  These species are all protected under the
      Federal Marine Mammals Protection Act.
      3.2.8.2  Subaqueous Containment Site E (Subaq E)

      Subaq E provides  an opportunity to dispose and sequester 614,000 cubic  yards of
contaminated dredge material at a 79 acre subtidal, open water location.  Jurisdictional resources
include tidal waters (federal), and land under the ocean and land containing shellfish (state).
Water quality is designated as SB.  Pre-project PVF conditions include the following:
      Benthic Habitat

      Sampling at Subaq E during October 1994 revealed two habitats.  At 4 of the 6 sampling
      locations, silt substrate was overlain with a matrix of Ampelisca sp. tubes, indicating a
      healthy degree of sediment oxygenation.  There  was some evidence of subsurface
      biological activity, including  an occasional  worm tube and  anoxic  void.   Benthic
      sampling results  showed  the  amphipod Ampelisca sp. was the dominant organism,
      composing 45%  of the total  abundance.   Spionid polychaete Polydom cornuta and
      cirratulid Tharyx acutus composed 18% and 12% of the total communities, respectively.
      Two locating at Subaqueous E  had silt substrate, covered either by a matrix of Ampelisca
      sp. tubes or a layer of Mytilus  edulis shell hash.  Worm tubes and oxic and anoxic voids
      were observed underneath  the Ampelisca mat, indicating bioturbation occurs.  Benthic
      samples contained low numbers of organisms,  (975/m2, the lowest observed in the Outer
      Harbor area).  The mud snail  Nassarius trivittatus and polychaete Nephtys ciliata were
      the  most numerous  organisms collected.  All benthic communities at Subaq E were
      intermediate between a disturbed or stressed community and an equilibrium community.
       Shellfish/Lobster Habitat

       EOEA (1978) maps the site as contaminated waters, but is not specific to any shellfish
       resource.  Benthic samples at Subaq E contained low numbers of soft shell clam,
                                          30
-------
although this species tends to be most abundant at slightly above mean low water.  Blue
mussels were somewhat more abundant.  Subaq E is located  within approximately 1
nautical mile of the intertidal mud flats, along the perimeter of Logan Airport, which are
harvested by commercial clammers. These mudflats also support extensive beds of blue
mussels (M. edulis), a species also capable of subtidal existence.
Finfish Habitat

Otter trawl collections during October 1994 collected an average of 82.68 individuals per
20 minute tow, of which 3.7 were lobster.  These catches were the highest of all stations
sampled.  Winter flounder and skate sp. each composed approximately one third of the
catch.  Rainbow smelt and Atlantic  silverside were secondary dominants.
Production Export

There is little evidence that any significant populations of rooted or attached  aquatic
vegetation exists in this location. Since Subaq E is an offshore and subtidal site, it is not
expected to provide significant function for production export.
Sediment/Shoreline Stabilization

Offshore sites do not provide any significant sediment/shoreline stabilization value.


Wildlife Habitat

Waterfowl,  including great cormorant, herring gull, white  winged scoter, common
goldeneye, bufflehead, mallard, black duck, merganser and scaup have been observed
in the vicinity of Spectacle Island (Cortell 1990a). It is likely that these same species of
waterfowl also use the Subaq E site for feeding and resting. Each of these species feed
on fish and invertebrates that occur in the general area.


Endangered Species Habitat

No threatened or endangered species listed by federal or state authorities are identified
or anticipated to occur within the boundaries of Subaq E.  Several marine mammals  not
listed as  threatened or  endangered, including harbor seals,  harbor  porpoise, and
grampuses,  occur occasionally in the area.  These  species are  all protected under  the
Federal Marine Mammals Protection Act.
                                    31
-------
3.3  Anticipated Project Effects

       Based on the LEDPA evaluation using Pre-Project conditions, and current project design
specifications, the Corps has determined that the disposal of the entire 1.3 million cubic yards
(bulked volume) of contaminated dredge material should be completely handled, and sequestered
with a cap, within the proposed 54 in-channel cells. Also included as a backup site, the LEDPA
evaluation  indicated that LMC should serve to provide an additional disposal volume of for
303,000 cy. The disposal volume is limited since the proposal for the use of LMC recommends
to fill and  cap within the entire waterbody  footprint, and existing subtidal habitat, to a final
elevation suitable to establish an  intertidal condition.   This  proposal  will allow for  the
aforementioned  backup disposal volume, while  maintaining, and  potentially enhancing, an
aquatic habitat; as opposed to permanent displacement of aquatic habitat.

       Project effects related  to  substrate; TSS/turbidity;  water  quality,  circulation  and
fluctuation; and salinity are discussed in section 6.0 of the FEIR/S,  Design and operational
mitigation is discussed and detailed in section 5.0, the proposed dredge management plan of the
FEIR/S.

       Project effects to PVF's can include several scenarios. The two major subdivisions for
environmental effects are direct and indirect effects.  Direct effects are those which occur within
the actual project or activity footprint, whereas indirect effects are those which occur outside of
the disposal footprint.  Within the scope of these  scenarios, both  permanent and temporary
effects are of concern. Anticipated project effects to the PVF's for each recommended LEDPA
site are presented in the following narrative, and in summary tables contained in Appendix B.
       3.3.1  IN-CHANNEL

       Of the total in-channel acreage (202 acres6), 152± 75% acres will be filled with dredge
material, and capped with clean soft sediments.  In the areas where swift currents and potential
erosive exposure from ship thrust may exist, the Corps proposes to fill with dredge material, cap
with clean soft sediments, and armor the cells with rock generated during the project subaqueous
blasting operations. It is anticipated that 50± 25% acres within the in-channel area will require
armoring.  All final cap elevations, clean soft sediment or rock cap, will be at -42 ft. mean low
water (MLW) within the Lower Mystic River and the Inner Confluence; and -40 ft.  MLW in
the Chelsea Creek.  It is anticipated that all final substrates will  be either clean soft sediments
or clean hard substrate.  This should provide an opportunity to enhance existing aquatic ecology.
However, any potential enhancement realized through the BHNIP project activities could be
limited by  area! harbor water quality,  should proposed or on-going harborwide water quality
initiatives fail to change existing water quality conditions.
       Section 6.0 of the FEIR/S.
                                           32
-------
Benthic Habitat

The in-situ disposal of the dredge material within the in-channel cells should provide an
opportunity to expose clean soft substrate parent material over 152± acres of presently
stressed benthic habitat. Existing low species abundances, and opportunistic/pioneer taxa
could develop further toward a more varied and abundant equilibrium community within
this acreage.  To provide suitable conditions for this to occur, the BHNIP must restore
affected substrates to (or near) original conditions  and depths.  Any presence of
contaminants in the post-disposal sediments could limit the re-colonizing benthic fauna
to an opportunistic and pioneering community.  The remaining 50± acres of the in-
channel area will be capped/armored with rock, altering pre-existing soft bottom substrate
conditions. Benthic fauna capable of inhabiting the rock cap would likely differ from the
infauna present in the fine-grained sediments currently in place. The rock would provide
suitable substrate for  the attachment of fouling organisms, which are now present on the
subtidal portions of area! bulkheads and pilings. Water quality in the immediate vicinity
and downstream (ebb of flood) may temporarily be impacted by project activities, but this
should be limited to a short-termed condition.  No extensive or long-term project related
degradation is anticipated.
Shellfish/Lobster Habitat

Following the disposal activities, the restored and clean soft sediments should provide
suitable habitat for burrowing shellfish, and the rock cap should provide a additional
opportunity to establish additional hard substrate communities (e.g. mussel beds).  The
project should not change EOEA's (1978) designation as non  specific  contaminated
waters.  The existing lobster habitat would temporarily be displaced by the dredging and
disposal activities, but should return following the completion of the entire project,  or
at a minimum when work in specific in-channel areas is completed. The rock armoring
should provide enhanced feeding, resting, refuge and breeding sites for the areal lobster
community.
Finfish Habitat

Changes in the benthic habitat should have certain effects on the post-disposal finfish
habitat.  The placement of 50 ± acres of rock cap will partially displace winter flounder
habitat.   Until the rock is silted over, it should also serve as a fouling site (e.g.  an
artificial reef), a finfish feeding  site, and may provide attachment sites for fish eggs.
Construction activities will temporarily disturb finfish usage during the dredging and
disposal activities. These effects will be localized and short-termed.  Redistribution and
re-suspension  of sediments and contaminant constituents into the water column could
temporarily  degrade area! water  quality, and affect current demersal and pelagic fish
distribution, and more over effect one or more of the seasonal anadromous fish runs
                                   33
                                          1*0$
-------
       during and post construction.  Also should transient fish bioaceumulate any constituent
       re-suspended during construction or shipping activities, there may be a an increased risk,
       be it minimal, to environmental and human health.
       ProductionExport

       No  effects  are anticipated  since this  a non-functional element in the pre-existing
       condition.
       Sediment/Shoreline Stabilization

       No effects are anticipated since no shoreline alterations are proposed.  Armoring of a
       segment of the post-project channel substrate will stabilize a 50+ acre portion of the
       channel bottom.
       Wildlife Habitat

       Construction activities will temporarily disturb wildlife usage during the dredging and
       disposal activities.  These effects will be localized and short-termed.  Should existing
       finfish usage remain relatively consistent there should be no effects or changes to existing
       wildlife usage.
       Endangered Species Habitat

       No  effects  are anticipated since this  a non-functional element  in  the pre-existing
       condition.
       3.3.2  LITTLE MYSTIC CHANNEL

       LMC  has been selected as  a backup LEDPA site, should  the  in-channel disposal
alternative not be able to contain and sequester the entire 1.3 million cubic yards of contaminated
dredge material.  As currently designed, LMC can handle 303,000 cy of material over a spatial
area of 15 acres.  The BHNIP has limited the total volume available for disposal since it is
proposed to only fill and cap (with clean parent material) to an elevation suitable to develop an
intertidal aquatic habitat (0-4.5 NGVD).  Average tidal range within Boston Harbor is 9.5 ft.
(White and White 1995).  These conditions should be suitable for semi-diurnal inundation over
the 24+ hr. tidal cycle. Inundation will occur during flood tide conditions following mid-tide
conditions, and will recede on each ebb. The placement of the dredge material will permanently
render the abandoned boat ramp, at the head of LMC useless.

                                         34
-------
       Again, project effects related to substrate; TSS/turbidity; water quality, circulation and
fluctuation; and salinity are discussed  in sections 6.0 of the FEIR/S.  Construction mitigation
is discussed and detailed in section 5.0, the proposed dredge management plan, of the FEIR/S.

       It is anticipated that the final substrates will be clean soft sediments.  This should provide
an opportunity to  enhance existing aquatic  ecology.   However, any potential enhancement
realized through  the BHNIP project activities could be limited by area! harbor water quality,
should proposed  or on-going harborwide water quality initiatives fail to change existing water
quality conditions.
       Benthic Habitat

       The disposal of dredge material at LMC will permanently displace an opportunistic and
       pioneer subtidal benthic community of low abundance.  The final elevations of the
       proposed cap of clean parent material will be set within a suitable range to promote tidal
       flat/mudflat or vegetated conditions. The proposed post-project intertidal habitat could
       provide an opportunity to enhance the aquatic ecology of LMC.
       Shellfish/Lobster Habitat

       The disposal of dredge material at LMC will permanently  displace limited  shellfish
       habitat.  The final elevations of the proposed cap of clean parent material will be set
       within a suitable  range to promote tidal  flat/mudflat or vegetated conditions.   The
       proposed post-project intertidal habitat could provide an opportunity to enhance the
       shellfish ecology of LMC,  The project should not change EOEA's (1978) designation
       as  non specific contaminated waters.  Changing  the aquatic habitat from subtidal to
       intertidal conditions will eliminate existing lobster habitat. However, the existing habitat
       is not a current commercially utilized habitat and existing populations are more than
       likely transient.
       Finfish Habitat

       The disposal of dredge material at LMC  will permanently displace limited demersal
       finfish habitat. The final elevations of the proposed cap of clean parent material will be
       set within a suitable range to promote tidal flat/mudflat or vegetated conditions.  The
       proposed post-project intertidal habitat could provide  an opportunity to enhance the
       intertidal forage fish ecology of LMC.   The existing  finfish habitat is not a current
       commercially utilized resource and existing populations are more than likely transient.
                                           35
-------
       ProductionExport

       The disposal of dredge material at LMC will not displace any production habitat.  The
       final elevations of the proposed cap of clean parent material will be set within a suitable
       range to promote tidal flat/mudflat or vegetated conditions.  This should allow for the
       natural recruitment of rooted and attached estuarine plant types  (e.g. marsh grasses and
       alga).
       Sediment/ShQrelSne Stabilization

       Shoreline bulkheading will remain intact and intertidal conditions should further buffet
       any wave or current energies.
       Wildlife Habitat

       Proposed intertidal conditions should provide an additional feeding habitat for wading and
       shore species. Intertidal conditions will limit the period of existing feeding of waterfowl,
       dabbling and diving birds to only periods of tidal flooding.
       Endangered Species Habitat

       No  effects are anticipated since this  a non-functional  element during  the  existing
       conditions evaluation.
3.4  Proposed On-Site Mitigation Conditions

       Prior  to  the  BHNIP  proposing any off-site  mitigation activities,  an evaluation  of
enhancement  activities within the scope of the proposed project is necessary.  A review of the
project effect PVF evaluation indicates that there are limited negative effects anticipated. These
include:

       *     Conversion of 50 ± acres of soft substrate to hard substrate at the in-channel site;

       •     Conversion of up to 15 acres of subtidal conditions to the intertidal conditions at
             LMC;

       •     Displacement of up to 15 acres of unused lobster habitat at LMC;
                                           36
-------
       »     Conversion of up to 15 acres of subtidal finfish habitat to intertidal habitat at
             LUC, and

       •     Limiting feeding periods for waterfowl and waterbirds at LMC.

       The proposed  project includes several opportunities  for enhancement as part of the
dredging and disposal design. This section of the report will re-evaluate both the in-channel and
LMC proposal  and will highlight those areas  of PVF enhancement which are anticipated.
Results are described below and presented in summary tables in Appendix C.
       3.4.1  IN-CHANNEL

       Again, 152+ 75% acres will be filled with contaminated dredge material, and capped
with clean soft sediments.  In the areas where swift currents and potential erosive exposure from
ship thrust may exist,  the Corps proposes to fill with dredge material, cap with clean soft
sediments,  and armor  the cells with  rock generated during the  project subaqueous blasting
operations.  It is anticipated  that 50+ 25%  acres within the in-channel area will require
armoring.  This proposed disposal alternative will place and sequester all contaminants in-situ.
The BHNIP proposes to place the most contaminated materials in those cells where the rock
armoring is proposed.  This should insure that the most degraded of dredge materials will be
permanently sequestered and secured.  All final cap elevations, clean soft sediment or rock cap,
will be at  -42 ft.  mean low  water (MLW) within the Lower Mystic River and  the Inner
Confluence; and -40 ft.  MLW in the Chelsea Creek. It is anticipated that all final substrates will
be either clean soft sediments or clean hard substrate.   This should provide an opportunity to
enhance existing aquatic ecology.  However, any potential  enhancement realized through the
BHNIP project activities could be limited by area! harbor water quality,  should proposed or on-
going harborwide water quality initiatives fail to  change existing water  quality conditions.
       Benthic Habitat

       The soft sediment capping material will provide 152± acres of clean substrate for the
       natural recruitment of benthic organisms and an enhancement of the benthic community
       and species abundance.  Given the estuarine conditions of the in-channel area, the BHNIP
       would expect that the  re-established benthic community could be comprised of surface
       and burrowing deposit/suspension feeding polychaetes, burrowing bivalves, and possibly
       urchins.  The proposed 50 ± acres of hard substrate will provide additional surface area
       for fouling sites.  The target community anticipated for the  rock cap is  a fouling
       community dominated by Mytilus edutis.   Barnacles  and  macroalgae (e.g.,  Chondrus
       crispus, kelp), and to a lesser extent bryozoans, and sponges (Proifera) are also expected
       to occur.  This target community is expected to be similar in  abundance and species
       composition to the epibenthic community typically found throughout Boston Harbor.
                                          37
-------
Shellfish/Lobster Habitat

Shellfish and lobsters should naturally re-populate the remaining soft sediments of the in-
channel area,  however, given the enhanced sediment conditions, greater community
development and diversity should occur.  Soft-shell clams are more typically expected
on tidal flats, but can exist in deep water conditions (fielding 1916). The project should
not change  EOEA's (1978) designation as non specific contaminated waters.  The
placement of 50± acres of rock capping will enhance shellfish diversity since the cap
should attract additional species such as blue  mussels.  Also,  the rock cap  should
significantly enhance lobster resource by creating greater feeding, resting,  refuge and
breeding habitat.  However,  these enhancements may be tempered  by the degree in
harborwide water quality improvements, and based on projects unrelated to the BHNIP.
Finfish Habitat

One hundred fifty two± acres of clean soft substrate and the conversion of 50+ acres
to clean hard substrate (rock capping) should provide greater diversity in fmfish habitat;
and create an artificial reef-like structure providing extensive surface area for benthic
fouling.  As stated above, the BHNIP would expect fouling organisms to include:

       »      Blue mussel,               *      bryozoans, and
       »      Barnacles,                 *      sponges (Porifera).
       *      Macroalgae,
This fouling will provide an increase in finfish feeding resource within the open water
area of Boston Inner Harbor, and the Lower portion of the Mystic River, an anadromous
fish run; and the Chelsea Creek. Each of which currently support typical demersal and
pelagic species.
Production Export

The placement of 50± acres of hard substrate will increase the surface area available for
the attachment of deep water aquatic vegetation (e.g. red and brown alga).  These species
could minimally enhance production export from the area.
Sedi ment/Shoreline Stabilization

Armoring of the 50± acre portion of the post-project channel substrate will stabilize that
area portion of the channel bottom.
                                    38
-------
      Wildlife Habitat

      Wildlife habitat is most greatly effected by the surrounding environment, and since the
      BHNIP will have no effect on areal environmental conditions, no enhancement of wildlife
      habitat is expected.
       Endangered Species Habitat

       Like wildlife habitat areal environment is the limiting variable in this case, so no
       enhancement is anticipated to this non-functional condition.
       3.4.2  OTTLE MYSTIC CHANNEL

       Should LMC be required for disposal, the BHNIP proposes to fill and cap (with clean
parent material) up to 15 acres of sub tidal habitat to an elevation suitable to develop an intertidal
aquatic habitat (0-4.5 NGVD).  This will permanently sequester and secure contaminated dredge
material. Average tidal range within Boston Harbor is 9.5 ft.  (White and White 1995). These
conditions should be  suitable for semi-diurnal  inundation over  the 24+  hr.  tidal cycle.
Inundation will occur during flood tide conditions following mid-tide conditions, and will recede
on each ebb.  The placement of the dredge material will permanently render the abandoned boat
ramp, at the  head of  LMC useless.  Also the proposed site  usage will require the potential
realignment and/or re-construction of fine storm  drain  discharges; and are  combined sewer
overflow (CSO).

       It is anticipated that the final substrates will be clean soft sediments, and should provide
an opportunity to enhance existing aquatic ecology.   However, any potential enhancement
realized through the BHNIP project activities could be limited by areal harbor water quality,
should proposed or on-going harborwide water quality initiatives fail to change existing water
quality conditions.
       Benthic Habitat

       The final elevations of the proposed cap of clean parent material will be set within a
       suitable range to promote tidal flat/mudflat or vegetated conditions. The proposed post-
       project intertidal habitat  could provide an opportunity to enhance and vary the  aquatic
       ecology of LMC.  The BHNIP anticipates that the following intertidal community could
       develop on the clean parent material:
                                          39
-------
Vegetation (rooted)

•      Spartina alterniflom,

•      S. patens,

Vegetation (attached)

•      Ulva lactuca,

*      Fucus sp., and

Tidal/Mudflat Conditions (Infauna)

*      Surface dwelling
       polychaetes,

•      Burrowing polycheates,

•      Suspension and deposit
       feeders,

•      Ribbed mussel,
Distichlis spicata, and

Zostera marina.



Enteromorpha sp.
Urchins,
Burrowing bivalves, and

Various estuarine crabs
(fiddler, spider, and green).
However, any potential enhancement realized through the BHNIP project activities could
be limited by area! harbor water quality, should proposed or on-going harborwide water
quality initiatives fail to change existing water quality conditions.
Shellfish/Lobster Habitat

The proposed post-project intertidal habitat could provide an opportunity to enhance the
shellfish ecology of LMC.  Soft-shell clams could recolonize the area.  The project
should not change EOEA's (1978) designation  as non specific  contaminated waters.
Changing the aquatic habitat from subtidal to intertidal conditions will eliminate existing
lobster habitat.  However, the existing habitat is not a current commercially utilized
resource and  existing populations are  more than  likely transient.   Any  potential
enhancement realized through the BHNIP project activities could be limited by areal
harbor water quality, should proposed or on-going harborwide water quality initiatives
fail to change existing water quality conditions.
                                    40
-------
Finfish Habitat

The proposed post-project intertidal habitat could provide an opportunity to enhance the
intertidal  forage  fish ecology  of LMC.   Species anticipated  to  inhabit the created
intertidal habitat include, but not limited to:

•      Mummichog,                             »     Sticklebacks, and

*      Sheepshead minnow,                      •     Atlantic silversides.
The existing subtidal finfish habitat  will be  eliminated, is not a specifically  current
commercially utilized resource and existing populations more than likely  transient in
nature.
Production Export

The final elevations of the proposed cap of clean parent material will be set within a
suitable range to promote tidal flat/mudflat or vegetated conditions.  This should allow
for the natural recruitment of rooted and attached estuarine plant types  (e.g.  marsh
grasses and alga).
Sediment/ShorelineStabilization

Shoreline bulkheading will remain intact and intertidal conditions should further buffet
any wave or current energies.
Wildlife Habitat

Proposed intertidal conditions should provide an additional feeding habitat for wading and
shore  species.   Intertidal conditions will limit the period of  existing feeding  for
waterfowl, dabbling and diving birds to only periods of tidal flooding. However, wildlife
habitat is more likely effected by the surrounding environment, and since the BHNIP will
have no effect on area! environmental conditions, no enhancement of wildlife habitat is
expected.
Endangered Species Habitat

Like  wildlife habitat area!  environment  is the limiting variable in  this case,  so no
enhancement is anticipated to this non-functional condition.


                                     41
-------
4.0  SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
       Based on the findings of the BHNlP's site selection process, the existing PVF conditions
were evaluated to develop a preliminary database of findings.  The Pre-Project Conditions were
evaluated for the following sites:

•      In-channel sites,                  •      Spectacle Island CAD,
•      Mystic Piers (49-50),              »      Meisburger Sites 2 and 7,
*      Revere Sugar                           and
*      Little Mystic Channel,             »      Subaqueous Sites A and B.
*      Reserved Channel Areas A
       andB,

PVF conditions for each of these sites are  presented  in section  3.2 of this report, and in
Appendix A.  Since two LEDPA sites were selected from this short-list,  the results for the
remaining sites will serve solely as a backup database at this time, and have no significance to
the proposed project as currently conceived.

       Again, the Corps conducted a LEDPA evaluation of the aforementioned short-listed sites
to establish a primary and backup site.  Their conclusion was that the in-channel site shall serve
as the primary disposal site, and LMC shall serve as the backup site, if needed.  One objective
of the LEDPA evaluation was to contain and sequester the entire dredge material volume at as
few sites as possible.   The current design suggests that the entire 1.3 million cubic yards of
material can be disposed of, and sequestered at the in-channel site.  LMC will  provide an
additional 303,000 cy of backup disposal volume. LMC's capacity represents 23%  of the total
bulked volume of the silts.

       Therefore, the BHNIP has only carried the in-channel and LMC sites through the Pre-
Project,  Project Effects, and On-site Mitigation conditions  evaluation.   These findings are
presented in sections 3.2-3.4, and Appendices A-C, and will establish the anticipated pre- and
post project PVF conditions in ecological terms.
4.1  Summary of PVF Conditions at the In-Channel Site

Benthic Habitat:    Benthic habitat exists in each of the evaluation scenarios.  Pre-Project
                    conditions  include  an opportunistic and pioneer community  of low
                    abundance, over the entire 202 acres.  The project will establish  152 ±
                    acres of clean soft parent material substrate and 50 ± acres of clean hard
                    rock substrate.  These project conditions will provide a more varied
                    habitat (soft and hard substrates), and should support a more abundant and
                    varied community (burrowing and epibenthic).

                                          42
-------
Shellfish/Lobster
Habitat:
Shellfish/lobster habitat exists in each of the evaluation scenarios.
Pre-project conditions include the area being mapped by EOEA (1978) as
shellfish habitat, and yielded moderate CPUE catch data for lobster 1.4
per trap day. The project will establish 152+ acres of clean soft parent
material substrate and 50± acres  of clean hard rock substrate.  Project
effects should not alter EOEA's mapping of the shellfish resource. These
conditions  should enhance existing  shellfish habitat,  and attract  hard
substrate species  (e.g. blue  mussels);  and improve existing feeding,
resting, refuge and breeding habitat for lobster.
Finfish Habitat:
Finfish habitat exists in each of the evaluation  scenarios.  Pre-Project
conditions indicate  a low abundance of demersal and pelagic species
typically found in the Boston Harbor area. An anadromous fish run exists
through the Inner Confluence and Lower Mystic  River portion of the in-
channel area.  Project activities may pose  short-termed disruptions to
existing finfish activities, but these should be limited in terms of time and
location of activity.  The clean soft substrates and the fouling sites created
by the 50+ acres of rock cap should enhance finfish habitat following
completion of the project.
Production Export: Production export does not exist in the Pre-Project and Project Effect
                    evaluation scenarios.  As part of the fouling community anticipated at the
                    50± acres of rock cap, attached aquatic vegetation should provide some
                    additional, but limited  production export function, in the post project
                    condition.
Sediment/Shoreline Sediment/Shoreline Stabilization occurs, and will continue to occur in each
Stabilization:       of the evaluation scenarios.  Area! bulkheads and wharves currently and
                    will continue to stabilize the shoreline.   The proposed rock cap  will
                    further stabilize 50+ acres of soft channel  bottom.
Wildlife Habitat:
Wildlife habitat will exist in each of the evaluation scenarios. Currently
feeding habitat for waterfowl,  dabbling and diving birds; and some
roosting sites exist. Project activities may pose short-termed disruptions
to existing wildlife activities, but these should be limited in terms of time
and location.  No enhancement of habitat conditions is anticipated.
                                           43
-------
Endangered
Species Habitat:
Endangered species habitat does not, and is not anticipated to occur at this
site.
       Any anticipated enhancement of PVF conditions as at LMC may be limited by area!
water quality, should proposed or on-going harborwide water quality initiatives fail to change
existing water quality conditions.
4.2  Summary of PVF Conditions at IMC
Benthic Habitat:
Benthic habitat exists in each of the evaluation scenarios.  Pre-Project
conditions include an opportunistic and pioneer subtidal community of low
abundance, over the entire 15 acres. The project will change the entire
site from contaminated subtidal substrate to clean intertidal substrate, and
therefore should provide an opportunity for a more diverse and abundant
benthic community structure.
Shellfish/Lobster
Habitat:
Shellfish/lobster habitat  currently exists in  the Pre-Project condition.
Shellfish habitat will continue to exist in each of the evaluation scenarios,
but lobster habitat will be eliminated  due to the  project.  Pre-Project
conditions include the area being mapped by EOEA (1978) as shellfish
habitat, and yielded moderate CPUE catch data for lobster 1.1 per trap
day. The project will establish up to 15 acres of clean soft parent material
intertidal substrate.  Project effects should not alter EOEA's mapping of
the shellfish resource. These conditions should enhance existing shellfish
habitat for soft-shell clams and ribbed  mussels, and again  will eliminate
transient lobster habitat.
Finfish Habitat:
Finfish  habitat exists in each of the evaluation scenarios.  Pre-Project
conditions  indicate a low  abundance  of demersal and pelagic species
typically found in the  Boston Harbor  area, and is adjacent  to an
anadromous fish run in the Lower Mystic River. Project activities convert
the site  from transient demersal and pelagic habitat to an intertidal forage
fish habitat.
Production Export: Production export should not exist in the Pre-Project and Project Effect
                    evaluation scenarios.   The  establishment of  clean intertidal  substrate
                    should attract both rooted and attached aquatic vegetation, and should
                    provide some additional, but limited production export function.
                                           44
-------
Sediment/Shoreline Sediment/Shoreline Stabilization occurs, and will continue to occur in each
Stabilization:       of the evaluation scenarios.   Areal bulkheads and rip-rap stabilize  the
                    shoreline. The proposed intertidal conditions will also provide additional
                    buffeting from wave and current energy.
Wildlife Habitat:
Wildlife habitat exists in each of the evaluation  scenarios.   Currently
feeding habitat for waterfowl,  dabbling and  diving  birds; and  some
roosting sites exist.  Project activities may pose short-termed disruptions
to existing wildlife activities, but these should be limited in terms of time
and location.  Proposed intertidal conditions  should provide additional
feeding habitat for wading and shorebirds.  However, wildlife usage is
highly dependent on areal land uses, and in this case, the urban and
maritime usage may limit the amount of achievable enhancement.
Endangered
Species Habitat:
Endangered species habitat does not, and is
not anticipated to occur at this site.
       Any anticipated enhancement of PVF conditions at LMC above may be limited by areal
water quality, should proposed or on-going harborwide water quality initiatives fail to change
existing water quality conditions.
4.3  Conclusion

       Given the findings provided herein, the BHNIP should pose only limited negative effects
to either the in-channel or LMC PVF's, as established.  In fact the project as designed appears
to provide significant on-site mitigation (enhancement) of project specific PVF's.  Given these
findings, the BHNIP would conclude that the project, as proposed will provide limited negative
effect, and compensate for those negative effects with project designed on-site mitigation.

       Therefore, no offsite resource mitigation should be required under either federal or state
wetland or waterbody jurisdictions.
                                          45
-------
REFEKEHCES
             Adamus, P.R., Clairain, E.J.,  Jr., Smith, R.D.,  and Young,  R.E. 1987.
             "Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET); Volume II: Methodology," Operational
             Draft Technical Report Y-87-	, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
             Station, Vicksburg, Miss.

             Arthur D. Little (ADL). 1992.  Draft technical review for natural  history of
             endangered/threatened species in Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays. Draft
             6/17/93. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, Water
             Quality Branch. 42 pp.

             fielding,  D.L.  1916.    The soft-shelled  clam  fishery  of Massachusetts.
             Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 65 pp.

             Blake, J.A., Hilbig,  B.  and  Rhoads, D.C. 1993.   Massachusetts Bay outfall
             monitoring program.   Soft bottom  benthic biology  and sedimentology;  1992
             baseline conditions in  Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays,  Draft Report (5/15/93)
             prepared for MWRA  Environmental Quality Department.

             Cortell, J.M., and Associates, Inc. 1990a.   The aquatic resources of Spectacle
             Island.  Central Artery (I-93)/Third Harbor Tunnel (1-90) Project. Prepared for
             Massachusetts Department of Public Works.

             Cortell, J.M., and Associates, Inc. 1990b. Aquatic resources functions and
             values.  Vol.  2: Disposal  sites  alternatives assessment.   Central Artery (I-
             93)/Third Harbor Tunnel (1-90) Project.  Prepared for Massachusetts Department
             of Public Works.

             Executive  Office of Environmental Affairs  (EOEA).  1978.  Shellfish Resources
             of the Massachusetts Coast. EOEA.  MADMF and MACZM.

             Haedrich, R.L., and S.O. Haedrich.  1974. A seasonal survey of the fished in the
             Mystic River, a polluted estuary in Downtown Boston, Massachusetts. Est. Coast
             Mar. Sci. 2:59-73.

             Manomet Bird Observatory (MBO).  1987.  Characterization of whale use of the
             Massachusetts Bay and Cape Arundel, Maine areas.  In Association with Sanford
             Ecological Services, prepared for the New England Division, U.S. Army Corps
             of Engineers, January, 1987.

             Normandeau Associates. 1995a.  Environmental studies  for the Boston Harbor
             mitigation/improvement and berth dredging environmental impact report/statement
             Task 1 Benthic sampling and  description. COENED, Waltham, MA. pp 16.
-------
•     Normandeau  Associates. 1995b. Environmental  studies  for the Boston Harbor
      mitigation/improvement and berth dredging environmental impact report/statement
      Task 2 Lobster sampling and description. COENED, Waltham, MA. pp 15 with
      tables and maps.

•     Normandeau  Associates. 1995c. Environmental  studies  for the Boston Harbor
      mitigation/improvement and berth dredging environmental impact report/statement
      Task 3 Finfish sampling and description. COENED, Waltham, MA. pp.15 with
      tables.

•     Normandeau  Associates.   1995d.  Affected  environment  and environmental
      consequences evaluation at potential dredging and disposal sites - Attachment 1
      to the FEIR/S, BHNIP. MEPA File No. 8695. pp. 218.

•     U.S. Department of the Interior. 1991. Outer continental shelf natural gas and oil
      resource management comprehensive program 1992-1997. Draft Environmental
      Impact Statement, Vol. I, U.S. Dept of Interior,  Minerals Management Service,
      Herndon, VA.

•     Wahle, R.A., and R.S. Steneck. 1991. Recruitment habitats and nursery grounds
      of the American lobster Homarus americanus: a demographic bottleneck? Mar.
      Ecol. Progr. Ser.  69:231-243.

•     White, MJ. and R.E. White.  1995. Eldridge Tide and Pilot Book. 1995. Boston,
      MA. pgs. 12-17.
                                  47
-------
APPENDICES
-------
      APPENDIX A

    SUMMARY TABLES
PRE-PROJECT PVF RESULTS
-------
                         DISPOSAL SITE FUNCTION-VALUE ASSESSMENT FORM
Name of Site; In-Channel
Body of Water;  Boston Inner Harbor



Area of Disposal Site; 202 ac	
Type of Site;  Nearshore



Prepared by:  NA (M.TG)



Volume Capacity;  L3 mcy
Evaluation:  Pre-Project
Date;  4/28/95
Bottom Type: Borrow Pit
Principal Valuable Functions
Benthic Habitat
Shellfish/Lobster Habitat
Finfish Habitat
Production Export
Sediment/Shoreline Stabilization
Wildlife Habitat
Endangered Species Habitat
Occurrence
Y N
X
X
X

X
X




X


X
Comments
Abundance low, taxa represent opportunistic and pioneer community.
EOEA (1978) non specific contaminated water, lobster CPUE catch
data 1 .3 per trap day (sublegal males and females), and 0. 1 per trap
day (sublegal female).
Trawl survey (1994) indicates typical demersal and pelagic fmfish
species (Boston Harbor) could move in and out from the site,
adjacent to an anadromous fish run.
No evidence of rooted or attached aquatic vegetation, and a
predominately subtidal site.
Area! bulkheads and wharves should stabilize shoreline.
Feeding for waterfowl, dabbling and diving birds, some roosting
sites.
No identified or recorded federally and state-listed species.
-------
                         DISPOSAL SITE FUNCTION-VALUE ASSESSMENT FORM
Name of Site;  Mvstic Piers 49-50



Body of Water; Boston Inner Harbor



Area of Disposal Site! 3.0 -t ac	
Type of Site; Nearshore



Prepared bv; NA (MTG)



Volume Capacity: 135.000 cv
Evaluation;  Pre-Proiect



Date;  4/27/95	



Bottom Type;  Level
Principal Valuable Functions
Benthic Habitat
Shellfish/Lobster Habitat
Finfish Habitat
Production Export
Sediment/Shoreline Stabilization
Wildlife Habitat
Endangered Species Habitat
Occurrence
Y N
X
X
X

X
X




X


X
Comments
Abundance low, taxa represent opportunistic and pioneer community.
EOEA (1978) non specific contaminated waters, lobster CPUE catch
data 0.8 per trap day (sublegal males), and 0.1 per trap day (sublegal
female).
Area! trawl survey indicates typical demersal and pelagic finfish
species (Boston Harbor) could move in and out from the site,
adjacent to an anadromous fish run.
No evidence of significant rooted or attached aquatic vegetation, and
a predominantly subtidal site.
Bulkheads and wharves present, perpendicular orientation to
currents.
Feeding for waterfowl, dabbling and diving birds, some roosting
sites.
No identified or recorded federally or state-listed species.
-------
                         DISPOSAL SITE FUNCTION-VALUE ASSESSMENT FORM
Name of Site;  Revere Sugar	



Body of Water; Lower Mystic River



Area of Disposal Site; 3,7 ac	
Type of Site;  Near-shore



Prepared bv:  NA (MTG)



Volume Capacity; 136.000 cv
Evaluation;  Pre-Project



Date;  4/27/95	



Bottom Type;  Level
Principal Valuable Functions
Benthic Habitat
Shellfish/Lobster Habitat
Finfish Habitat
Production Export
Sediment/Shoreline Stabilization
Wildlife Habitat
Endangered Species Habitat
Occurrence
Y N
X
X
X

X
X




X


X
Comments
Abundance low, taxa represent opportunistic and pioneer community.
EOEA (1978) non specific contaminated waters, lobster CPUE catch
data 0.2 per trap day (sublegal males), and 0.1 per trap day (sublegal
female).
Areal trawl survey indicates typical demersal and pelagic finfish
species (Boston Harbor) could move in and out from the site,
adjacent to an anadromous fish run.
No evidence of significant rooted or attached aquatic vegetation, and
a predominantly subtidal site.
Bulkheads and wharves present, perpendicular orientation to
currents.
Feeding for waterfowl, dabbling and diving birds, some roosting
sites.
No identified or recorded federally or state-listed species.
-------
fc.
>Q
                                  DISPOSAL SITE FUNCTION-VALUE ASSESSMENT FORM
         Name of Site; Little Mvstic Channel



         Body of Water;  Lower Mystic River



         Area of Disposal Site;  15 ac	
Type of Site; Nearshore



Prepared bv; NA (M.TG)



Volume Capacity; 303.000 cy
Evaluation;  Pre-Project



Date;  4/27/95	



Bottom Type:  Level
Principal Valuable Functions
Benthic Habitat
Shellfish/Lobster Habitat
Finfish Habitat
Production Export
Sediment/Shoreline Stabilization
Wildlife Habitat
Endangered Species Habitat
Occurrence
Y N
X
X
X

X
X




X


X
Comments
Abundance low, taxa represent opportunistic and pioneer community.
EOEA (1978) non specific contaminated waters, lobster CPUE catch
data 0.5 per trap day (sublegal males 0.4, and females 0.1), and 0.6
per top day (legal males).
Gill net survey indicates low numbers of typical demersal and
pelagic finfish species (Boston Harbor) at the site, adjacent to an
anadromous fish run.
Fucus sp. may provide some minimal level of production export,
although site is subtidal.
Bulkheads and rip-rapped shoreline present, perpendicular orientation
to currents.
Feeding for waterfowl, dabbling and diving birds.
No identified or recorded federally or state-listed species.
-------
                         DISPOSAL SITE FUNCTION-VALUE ASSESSMENT FORM
Name of Site; Reserved Channel Area B




Body of Water;  Main Ship Channel



Area of Disposal Site: 7.7 ac	
Type of Site;  Nearshore



Prepared by;  NA (MTG)



Volume Capacity:  185.000 cv
Evaluation;  Pre-Pro|ect



Date; 4/27/95	



Bottom Type; Level
Principal Valuable Functions
Benthic Habitat
Shellfish/Lobster Habitat
FinfLsh Habitat
Production Export
Sediment/Shoreline Stabilization
Wildlife Habitat
Endangered Species Habitat
Occurrence
Y N
X
X
X

X
X




X


X
Comments
Abundance low, taxa indicate a stressed environment.
EOEA (1978) non specific contaminated waters, lobster CPUE catch
data 1.2 per trap day (sublegal), and 0,2 per trap day (legal).
Gill net survey (1994) indicates high numbers of typical demersal
and pelagic finfish species (Boston Harbor) at the site, adjacent to an
anadromous fish run.
Fucm sp, may provide some minimal level of production export,
although site is subtidal.
Bulkheads and rip-rapped shoreline present, perpendicular orientation
to currents.
Feeding for waterfowl, dabbling and diving birds.
No identified or recorded federally or state-listed species.
-------
                             DISPOSAL SITE FUNCTION-VALUE ASSESSMENT FORM
    Name of Site; Reserved Channel Area B



    Body of Water; Main Ship Channel



    Area of Disposal Site; 7.7 ac	
Type of Site;  Nearshore



Prepared bv;  NA fMIGl



Volume Capacity:  185.000 cy
Evaluation!  Pre-Proiect




Date;  4/27/95	



Bottom Type: Level
Principal Valuable Functions
Benthic Habitat
Shellfish/Lobster Habitat
Finfish Habitat
Production Export
Sediment/Shoreline Stabilization
Wildlife Habitat
Endangered Species Habitat
Occurrence
Y N
X
X
X

X
X




X


X
Comments
Abundance low, taxa indicate a stressed environment.
EOEA (1978) non specific contaminated waters, lobster CPUE catch
data 1.2 per trap day (sublegal), and 0.2 per trap day (legal).
Gill net survey (1994) indicates high numbers of typical demersal
and pelagic finfish species (Boston Harbor) at the site, adjacent to an
anadromous fish run.
Fucus sp. may provide some minimal level of production export,
although site is sub tidal.
Bulkheads and rip-rapped shoreline present, perpendicular orientation
to currents.
Feeding for waterfowl, dabbling and diving birds.
No identified or recorded federally or state-listed species.
Cs
-------
                         DISPOSAL SITE FUNCTION-VALUE ASSESSMENT FORM
Name of Site;  Spectacle Island CAD



Body of Water; Sculpin Ledge Channel




Area of Disposal Site; up to 50 ac
Type of Site;  Nearshore



      Prepared bv;  NA (M.TG1




Volume Capacity; 1.45 mcy
Evaluation;   Pre-Project



      Date;  4/27/95
Bottom Type:  Borrow Pit
Principal Valuable Function
Benthic Habitat
Shellfish/Lobster Habitat
Finflsh Habitat
Production Export
Sediment/Shoreline Stabilization
Wildlife Habitat
Endangered Species Habitat
Occurrence
Y N
X
X
X


X




X
X

X
Comments
Existing benthic community indicates a relatively clean sandy
environment, and a well developed community.
EOEA (1978) maps soft-shell clam resource and non specific
contaminated waters, lobster catch data was low (0.2 per trap day,
all sublegal).
The 1994 trawl survey collected a low abundance of typical demersal
and pelagic fish.
No evidence of rooted or attached aquatic vegetation, and a subtidal
site.
Open water sites are non-functional.
Several species of waterfowl and water birds have been observed in
the arear
No identified or recorded federally or state-listed species. Common
terns nest within 0,6 mi. of site.
-------
                               DISPOSAL SITE FUNCTION-VALUE ASSESSMENT FORM
      Name of Site; Meisburger Sites 2 and 7



      Body of Water; Massachusetts Bay
Type of Site;  Open Water



Prepared bv;  NA fMJG>
Evaluation;  Pre-Project



Date;  4/27/95	
      Area of Disposal Site;  M2 86 ac/M7 121 ac    Volume Capacity:  4.6" mcv/6.1 mcv    Bottom Type:  Borrow Pit
Principal Valuable Functions
Benthic Habitat
Shellfish/Lobster Habitat
Finfish Habitat
Production Export
Sediment/Shoreline Stabilization
Wildlife Habitat
Endangered Species Habitat
Occurrence
Y N
X
X
X

X
X




X


X
Comments
Existing benthic community indicates a relatively clean sandy
environment, and a well developed community.
Offshore areas not typically considered as regulated shellfish
resource, lobster catch data was the highest at M2 (6.4 per trap day),
and second highest at M7 (5.5 per trap day).
The 1994 trawl and gill net surveys collected a moderate abundance
of typical demersal and pelagic fish (Boston Harbor, Massachusetts
Bay, and Gulf of Maine).
No evidence of rooted or attached aquatic vegetation, and a subtidal
site.
Open water sites are non-functional.
Several species of waterfowl and water birds have been observed in
the area.
Several federally and state-listed marine mammals and reptiles could
transit the sites.
V
-------
                         DISPOSAL SITE FUNCTION-VALUE ASSESSMENT FORM
Name of Site; Subag B
Body of Water; Boston Harbor



Area of Disposal Site: 83 ac
Type of Site;  Open Water



Prepared bv;  NA (MTG)



Volume Capacity: 609.000 cy
Evaluation;  Pre-Project



Pate;  4/27/95	



Bottom Type;  Borrow Pit
Principal Valuable Functions
Benthic Habitat
Shellfish/Lobster Habitat
Finfish Habitat
Production Export
Sediment/Shoreline Stabilization
Wildlife Habitat
Endangered Species Habitat
Occurrence
Y N
X
X
X

X
X




X


X
Comments
Abundance and community structure indicates a healthy benthic
community approaching equilibrium.
EOEA (1978) non specific contaminated water, soft-shell and razor
clams have been evident, area! lobster trap data (1994) as CPUE was
low (0.2 per trap day), finfish trawl (1994) collected 6.7 lobsters.
Areal finfish trawl data (1994) indicated a low abundance of typical
demersal species (21.3 fish collected per 20 minute tow).
No evidence of rooted or attached aquatic vegetation, and a subtidal
site.
Open water sites are non-functional.
Several species of waterfowl and water birds have been observed in
the area.
No identified or recorded federally and state-listed species.
-------
                         DISPOSAL SITE FUNCTION-VALUE ASSESSMENT FORM
Name of Site; Subaa E
Body of Waten Boston Outer Harbor



Area of Disposal Site; 79 ac	
Type of Site;  Open Water



Prepared by;  NA (M.TG)



Volume Capacity:  614.000 cv
Evaluation;  Pre-Project



Date;  4/27/95	



Bottom Type: Borrow Pit
c--
od
-fc
Principal Valuable Functions
Benthic Habitat
Shellfish/Lobster Habitat
Finfish Habitat
Production Export
Sediment/Shoreline Stabilization
Wildlife Habitat
Endangered Species Habitat
Occurrence
Y N
X
X
X

X
X




X


X
Comments
Abundance and community structure indicates a healthy benthic
community approaching equilibrium.
EOEA (1978) non specific contaminated water, blue mussels are
evident, areal lobster trap data (1994) as CPUE was low (0.2 per
trap day), fmfish trawl (1994) collected 3.7 lobsters.
Areal finftsh trawl data (1994) indicated a low abundance of typical
demersal species (82.7 fish collected per 20 minute tow).
No evidence of rooted or attached aquatic vegetation, and a subtidal
site.
Open water sites are non-functional.
Several species of waterfowl and water birds have been observed in
the area.
No identified or recorded federally and state-listed species.
-------
        APPENDIX B

     SUMMARY TABLES
PROJECT EFFECTS PVF RESULTS
-------
                         DISPOSAL SITE FUNCTION-VALUE ASSESSMENT FORM
Name of Site; In-Channel	



Body of Water;  Boston Inner Harbor



Area of Disposal Site;  202+ ac
Type of Site; Nearshore



Prepared by: NA CM.IG)



Volume Capacity:  1.3 mcy
Evaluation;  Project Effects
Date; 5/1/95
Bottom Type: Borrow
Principal Valuable Functions
Benthic Habitat
Shellfish/Lobster Habitat
Finfish Habitat
Production Export
Sediment/Shoreline Stabilization
Wildlife Habitat
Endangered Species Habitat
Occurrence
Y N
X
X
X

X
X




X


X
Comments
Of the 202 acres of existing contaminated soft sediments, 152 acres
will be converted to clean soft sediment (capping material) and 50
acres will be converted to clean hard substrate (rock), at proposed
elevations of -40 to -42 MLW.
Proposed 152 acres of clean soft substrate could enhance quality of
shellfish habitat, rock substrate should enhance shellfish diversity and
lobster feeding, resting, refuge, and breeding habitat.
Construction activities will temporarily disturb fmfish usage.
Proposed 50 acres of rock substrate will displace a portion of soft
bottom fmfish habitat (e.g. winter flounder), however, will function
as a fouling site and could enhance overall fmfish habitat.
No effects are anticipated.
Fifty acres of rock capping will stabilize a portion of the channel
bottom.
Construction activities will temporarily disturb wildlife usage. No
long-termed effects are anticipated.
No effects are anticipated.
-------
                         DISPOSAL SITE FUNCTION-VALUE ASSESSMENT FORM
Name of Site:  Little Mvstic Channel



Body of Water; Lower Mvstic River



Area of Disposal Site; 15 ac	
Type of Site; Nearshore




Prepared bv; NA (M.TG)




Volume Capacity: 303.000 cv
Evaluation!  Project Effects



Date;  5/1/95	



Bottom Type:  Level	
Principal Valuable Functions
Benthic Habitat
Shellfish/Lobster Habitat
Finfish Habitat
Production Export
Sediment/Shoreline Stabilization
Wildlife Habitat
Endangered Species Habitat
Occurrence
Y N
X
X
X
X
X
X







X
Comments
An opportunistic and pioneer subtidal benthic community of low
abundance will be converted to a clean substrate, intertidal habitat.
An opportunistic and pioneer subtidal benthic community of low
abundance will be converted to a clean substrate, intertidal habitat.
Lobster habitat (non-fished) will be permanently displaced.
A subtidal aquatic condition will be converted to an intertidal aquatic
condition.
Intertidal conditions should attract rooted and attached aquatic
vegetation.
No effects are anticipated, possibly limited enhancement.
Wildlife usage could become more variable with the additional usage
of wading and shorebirds, in addition to limited waterfowl and
waterbird issues.
No effects are anticipated.
-------
          APPENDIX C

       SUMMARY TABLES
ON-SITE MITIGATION PVF RESULTS
-------
                         DISPOSAL SITE FUNCTION-VALUE ASSESSMENT FORM
Name of Site;  In-Channel	




Body of Water; Boston Inner Harbor



Area of Disposal Site; 202+ ac
Type of Site; Nearshore



Prepared by; NA (MJG)



Volume Capacity: 1.3 mcy
Evaluation;  Mitigation (on-site)
Date;  5/2/95
Bottom Type:  Borrow
Principal Valuable Functions
Benthic Habitat
Shellfish/Lobster Habitat
Finfish Habitat
Production Export
Sediment/Shoreline Stabilization
Wildlife Habitat
Endangered Species Habitat
Occurrence
Y N
X
X
X
X
X
X







X
Comments
Project will provide 152 acres of clean, soft benthic substrate and 50
acres of clean hard substrate. Hard substrate will create more
diverse benthic habitat conditions (burrowing and epibenthic
communities).
Clean, soft sediments should enhance existing shellfish habitat;
clean, hard substrate should foul with blue mussels and enhance
lobster habitat.
Clean, soft substrate should enhance demersal fmfish habitat and the
hard substrate cap will serve as a fouling site for an epibenthic
community and should enhance fmfish habitat.
Hard substrate will provide surface area for the attachment of deep
water aquatic vegetation (e.g. red and brown alga).
Rock cap will further stabilize channel conditions.
No enhancement of wildlife habitat is anticipated.
No enhancement of endangered species habitat is anticipated.
-------
                                                                             \
                          DISPOSAL SITE FUNCTION-VALUE ASSESSMENT FORM
Name of Site;  Little Mvstic Channel




Body of Water; Lower Mystic River



Area of Disposal Site;  15-t- ac	
Type of Site; Neat-shore



Prepared bv; NA fMTG)



Volume Capacity: 303.000 cv
Evaluation;  Mitigation (on-site)



Date;  5/2/95	



Bottom Type: Level	
Principal Valuable Functions
Benthic Habitat
Shellfish/Lobster Habitat
Finfish Habitat
Production Export
Sediment/Shoreline Stabilization
Wildlife Habitat
Endangered Species Habitat
Occurrence
Y N
X
X
X
X
X
X







X
Comments
Intertidal conditions should provide an opportunity for a more
diverse and abundant benthic community structure.
Intertidal conditions should enhance soft-shell clam and ribbed
mussel habitat, transient lobster resource will not be re-established.
Changes in fmfish resources should include elimination of subtidal
transient habitat, and development of a resident estuarine forage fish
environment.
Intertidal conditions should be suitable for the establishment and/or
increase in rooted and attached vegetation.
Intertidal conditions should further buffet any wave or current
energies.
Wildlife usage could become more variable with the additional usage
of wading and shorebirds, in addition to limited waterfowl and
waterbird issues.
No enhancement of endangered species habitat is expected.
-------