SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE DESIGNATION OF
DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE
IN MASSACHUSETTS BAY
ALTERNATIVE SITE SCREENING
JULY 1990
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I
Marine and Estuary Protection Section
John F. Kennedy Federal Building (WQE-1900)
Boston, MA 02203-2211
-------
PROPOSED ACTION:
LOCATION:
DATE :
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
LEAD AGENCY:
COOPERATING AGENCIES:
TECHNICAL CONSULTANT:
COMMENT PERIOD ENDS:
COPIES OF THIS DOCUMENT
MAY BE VIEWED AT:
DESIGNATION OF AN OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL
DISPOSAL SITE WITHIN MASSACHUSETTS BAY
MASSACHUSETTS BAY
JULY 1990
THIS SUPPLEMENT EXPANDS THE ANALYSIS OF
ALTERNATIVES IN THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT DATED SEPTEMBER 1989
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION I
JFK FEDERAL BUILDING
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02203-2211
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
METCALF & EDDY, INC.
10 HARVARD MILL SQUARE
WAKEFIELD, MA 01880
AUGUST
2-0
1990
SEE NEXT PAGE FOR REPOSITORIES
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR
TO OBTAIN A COPY OF THIS
DOCUMENT PLEASE CONTACT: KYMBERLEE KECKLER, CHEMICAL ENGINEER
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION I
JFK FEDERAL BUILDING (WQE-1900C)
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02203-2211
TELEPHONE:
(617) 565-4432 OR FTS 835-4432
-------
REPOSITORIES
Abbott Public Library
235 Pleasant Street
Marblehead, MA 01945
(617) 631-1480
Mon-Thu: 10-9
Fri-Sat: 10-6
Boston Public Library
666 Boylston Street
Boston, MA 02117
(617) 536-5400
Mon-Thu: 9-9
Fri-Sat: 9-5 Sun: 2-6
Sawyer Free Public Library
2 Dale Avenue
Gloucester, MA 01930
(508) 283-0376
Mon-Fri: 9-8
Sat| 9-5
Nahant Public Library
15 Pleasant Street
Nahant, MA 01908
(617) 581-0306
Mon-Thu: 2-8
Fri-Sun: 2-5
Plymouth Public Library
11 North Street
Plymouth, MA 02360
(508) 746-1927
Mon-Thu: 9-8:30
Fri: 9-5:30
Provincetown Public Library
330 Commercial Street
Provincetown, MA 02657
(508) 487-0850
Mon-Thu: 10-5 & 7-9
Revere Public Library
179 Beach Street
Revere, MA 02151
(617) 284-0102
Mon-Thu: 9-9
Fri-Sat: 9-5
Saugus Public Library
295 Central Street
Saugus, MA 01906
(617) 233-0530
Mon, Wed, & Thu: 8:30-8:30
Tue: 8:30-5:30 Fri: 1-5:30
Swampscott Public Library
61 Burrill Street
Swampscott, MA 01907
(617) 593-8380
Mon, Tue, & Thu: 9-9
Wed & Fri: 9-5
Sat: 9-5 (Closed in winter)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
New England Division
Regulatory Branch
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA 02254
U.S. EPA
Public Information Reference
Unit, Room 204
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
U.S. EPA Technical Library
JFK Federal Building
15th Floor
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 565-3715
Mon-Fri: 8:30-4:30
-------
LIST OF PREPARERS AND REVIEWERS:
Preparers:
USEPA, Region I: Kymberlee Keckler, BS
Metcalf & Eddy:
Reviewers;
USFWS:
NMFS:
CEQ;
USACOE:
USEPA, Region I;
Kevin McMannus, MS
James Maughn, Ph.p
Richard Baker, SM
Kenneth Carr, MS
Vernon Lang, BS
Christopher Mantzaris, BS
Carl Bausch, JD
Thomas Fredette, Ph.D
Gwen Ruta, BS
David Tomey, MS
Mark Stein, JD
Ronald Manfredonia, MS
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents. . . , i
List of Figures . iii
List of Tables. ...'.*.- . . . iv
1.0 Introduction ..... 1
2.0 Methods 1
3.0 Phase I: Determine Zone of Siting Feasibility.. 2
3.1 Cost of Material Dredging, Transport and Disposal 2
3.2 Navigation Restrictions. 12
3.3 Distance to the Edge of the Continental Shelf. 12
3.4 Existing Political Boundaries........... f 12
3.5 Environmentally-Sensitive Areas , 12
3.5.1 Critical Living Marine Resource Habitats 13
3.5.2 Threatened/Endangered Species Habitats 16
3.5.3 Marine Sanctuaries 17
3.5.4 Historic Sites , 20
3.6 Areas of Incompatible Uses 20
3.6.1 Fishing Areas 20
3.6.1.1 Commercial Fishing Areas., 2 0
3.6.1.2 Recreational Fishing Areas 21
3.6.2 Other Recreational Uses. 21
3.6.3 Shipping Lanes 22
3.6.4 Other Uses .22
3.7 Final Zone of Siting Feasibility 22
4.0 Phase II: Alternative Site Selection and Evaluation. .... ...24
4.1 Location, Bathymetry and Access from Dredging Site...24
-------
4.2 Location Relative to Critical Living Marine
Resource Habitats. . .27
4.3 Impacts to Beaches/Amenity Areas ..... 28
4.4 Monitoring Feasibility ,... .28
4.5 Dispersal/Transport Rates 29
4.6 Historic Use as a Disposal Site 30
4.7 Other User Group Impacts ..31
4.8 Existing Water Qual ity 31
4.9 Potential for Development of Nuisance Species... 32
4.10 Existence of Historical Sites in Area...............32
5.0 Conclusions 33
References
ii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Economic Zone of Siting Feasibility and
Territorial Sea Boundary. 4
Spawning and Concentration Areas for Selected
Commercially important Species in Massachusetts
Bay and the Southwest Gulf of Maine 5
NOAA/NMFS Designated Areas of Biological and
Economic Importance (based upon Research Survey
TrawlData) . . 6
Preferred Marine Mammal Areas in Massachusetts
Bay and the Southwest Gulf of Maine 7
Existing and Proposed Marine Sanctuaries in
MassachusettsBay
8
High-Use Commercial and Sportfishing Areas in
Massachusetts Bay and Southwest Gulf of Maine.....9
Shipping Lanes and Precautionary Area in
MassachusettsBay
10
Final Zone of Siting Feasibility and Proposed
Alternative Site Locations 23
Proposed Location of an Ocean Dredged Material
Disposal Site in Massachusetts Bay 35
iii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Criteria Applied to Determine Zone of Siting
Feasibility. 3
Commonly Observed Marine Species Within
Massachusetts Bay and the Southwest Gulf
of Maine........ ..... 14
Stratified Mean Catch per Tow (kg) for
Selected NMFS Depth Strata in the
Gulf of Maine..., , ......15
Evaluation of Alternative Dredged Material
Disposal Areas Within Massachusetts Bay
and Gulf of Maine .25
iv
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS") for the continued
use of the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site ("MBDS") has evaluated
the potential environmental, ecological, and economic impacts of
the continued use of the MBDS for disposal of dredged material.
In response to several comments on the DEIS which urged an expanded
consideration of alternative sites to the present MBDS, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") has prepared this document
to greatly expand its evaluation of such alternatives. This report
is intended to augment the analyses presented in the DEIS published
in September 1989.
This analysis consists of two distinct phases. First, EPA
developed a Zone of Siting Feasibility ("ZSF"). Second, EPA
identified and evaluated alternative potential disposal sites
within the ZSF. The ZSF is delineated based upon guidelines within
the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act ("MPRSA"), its
accompanying regulations, and the site selection guidelines
prepared by the EPA, in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers ("COE"), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS"),
and the National Marine Fisheries Service ("NMFS"). MPRSA
specifically prohibits the ocean disposal of materials which
"...may unreasonably degrade or endanger human health, welfare, or
amenities, or the marine environment, ecological systems, and
economic potentialities...." '
The ZSF is intended to include candidate dredged material disposal
areas which: i) are located at an economically and operationally
feasible distance from potential dredging areas, ii) do not contain
environmentally sensitive resources, and iii) are not presently
used for incompatible activities. Thus, the ZSF represents the
area from within which a range of reasonable specific alternatives
may be selected for evaluation. Once the ZSF was delineated, EPA
identified and evaluated a range of such reasonable specific
disposal site alternatives found within the ZSF. The suitability
of these alternatives has been evaluated using the five general and
eleven specific criteria for disposal site designation at 40 CFR
§§228.5 and 228.6. This analysis has subjected this range of
reasonable alternatives to a rigorous and objective evaluation.
For those alternatives which were eliminated from detailed study,
a brief discussion of the reasons for their elimination is
presented.
2.0 METHODS
This analysis was prepared pursuant to guidelines prepared by EPA
and COE for dredged material site designation (EPA Handbook, 1986).
Information was gathered from a variety of sources, including: i)
review of available published and unpublished resource data; ii)
interviews with marine dredging contractors and fishing industry
representatives; and iii) consultation with federal and state
resource agencies and private research organizations.
-------
3.0 PHASE I: DETERMINATION OF THE ZONE OF SITING FEASIBILITY
The ZSF is an area within an economically and operationally
feasible radius from the point of dredging (EPA, 1986). The
selection of the ZSF is dictated by several criteria, including:
Cost of Material Dredging, Transport, and Disposal
Navigation Restrictions (shoals or rock ledges)
Distance to the Edge of the Continental Shelf
Existing Political Boundaries
Environmentally Sensitive Areas
Areas of Incompatible Uses
These criteria, and their application to an appropriate ZSF for
Massachusetts Bay dredging projects, are shown in Table 1 and are
considered below. Based upon these criteria, Figures 1 to 7 have
been prepared to define the geographic extent of the ZSF and to
depict the available resources.
3.1 COST OF MATERIAL DREDGING, TRANSPORT, AND DISPOSAL
The cost of .material dredging, transport and disposal, is a
critical component in the selection of the ZSF, as any designated
site must be available for use by dredging project proponents in
the region of concern. These potential site users range from small
marina operators to large state and federally funded construction
or dredging projects. The final costs of dredged material removal
is governed by numerous factors, including:
Type and amount of dredged material
Quality (degree of contamination) of material
Dredging location
Dredging Method
Equipment (and Contractor) availability
Dredging Schedule (and seasonal requirements)
Disposal Site
'«
As each dredging project presents a unique set of opportunities
and constraints, a typical project cost is very difficult to
define. Recent examples of dredging project costs indicate that
costs can vary widely, from smaller jobs requiring minimal
transport (in the range of $2.50 to $5.00/yd3) to larger more
complex projects requiring longer haul distances (in the range of
$16.00 to $19.00/yd3) (EPA, 1987, costs updated to present).
Recent examples in the Massachusetts Bay region include the
dredging project for the piers at the Massachusetts Water Resources
Authority's new treatment plant facilities at Deer Island, which
cost $10.00/yd3 for disposal of 200,000 yd of clays and silts at
the present MBDS, and Nut Island, which cost $16.00/yd for
disposal of 50,000 yd3 of clays at the present MBDS. Discussions
with local marine industry representatives confirm that "typical"
dredging and transport costs range from $8.00/yd3 to $12.00/yd
(Scays, pers. comm.; Hill, pers. comm.), given the region's present
-------
TABLE l: Criteria to be Applied to Selection of Zone of Siting
Feasibility
Criteria
Cost of material transport to
disposal site
Navigation restrictions
Distance to edge of continental
shelf
Location relative to political
boundaries
Location relative to environ-
mentally-sensitive areas
Location relative to areas of
incompatible ocean uses
Application to Study Area
Eliminate areas where costs
exceed $18.00 to 20.00/yd3
Eliminate shoals, restricted
areas
Eliminate off-shelf areas only
if area is considered infeasible
Eliminate areas within
state sanctuaries
Eliminate areas which impact:
critical marine habitats
uncommon/unique habitats
preferred habitats of
endangered species
marine sanctuaries
historic sites
Eliminate areas which impact:
sustained commercial & sport
fishing
shipping lanes
recreational use areas
military or research areas
-------
FIGURE
1. ECONOMIC ZONE OF SITING FEASIBILITY
AND TERRITORIAL SEA BOUNDARY.
TERRITORIAL SI1 BOUNDARY
XSF FOR J8-12/CO. YD.
(20-11 RADIOS)
ZSF FOR JU-20/CU. YD,
(55-11 RADIOS)
\
-------
FIGURE 2 .
SPAINING AND CONCENTRATION AREAS FOR
SELECTED COMMERC1ALLY-IMPORTANT
SPECIE'S. "IN MASSACHUSETTS BAY AND
THE SOUTHWEST GULF OF MAINE.
(Sources: ligley and Gabriel, 1980. Lui and Kelly, 1978
Backus, 1987. N.E. Fisher; Management Counci1 , 1 985 . )
a INSHORE
HABITAT
LOBSTER
IIIIilT'MIIH1
SPAINING AREAS
COD
POLLOCI
SILVER BAIE
HADDOCI
-------
FIGURE 3. NOAA/NMFS DESIGNATED AREAS OF BIOLOGICAL
AND ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE (BASED UPON
RESEARCH SURVEY AND TRAIL DATA).
IOSTON
-------
FIGURE 4.
PREFERRED MARINE MAMMAL AREAS IN
MASSACHUSETTS BAY AND THE
SOUTH1EST GULF OF MAINE.
(Sources: Bureau of Land Management (CETAP), 1982
Payne, 1990, Unpublished data.)
PREFERRED BABITAT
ICI IHALE
RIGHT HALE
-------
FIGURE 5.
EXISTING AND PROPOSED MARINE SANCTUARIES
IN MASSACHUSETTS BAY.
(Sources: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
1969. Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management, 1988.)
IOSTON
711
41M
ROPOSED STILLIAGEN BiNI
ANCTOiRY (STUDY AREA)
MASSACHUSETTS
SANCTUARIES
OCEAN
8
-------
FIGURE 6.
HIGH-USE COMMERCIAL AND SPORTFISH1NG
AREAS IN MASSACHUSETTS BAY AND
SOUTHWEST GULF OF MAINE .
(Sources: Lux and Kelly, 1978. NMPS, Unpublished later
Management UniI DocumenI. Backus, 1987.
Hill, Personal Communication.)
BING AREAS
-------
FIGURE 7. SHIPPING LANES AND PRECAUTIONARY
AREA IN MASSACHUSETTS BAY.
(Source: National Ocean Service Chart 13260.)
OEAS
10
-------
economic conditions and dredging equipment availability.
Selection of the seaward limit of the ZSF must consider: i) the
ability of potential users to pay for transport and disposal at
the site, and ii) the safety and operational requirements for scows
and tow vessels. Although MPRSA specifies that off-shelf sites
should be considered when feasible, in Massachusetts Bay the
required travel distances (150 to 200 miles each way) to a true
off-shelf site offshore of George's Bank would not be economically
feasible, based upon current dredged material transport costs and
equipment rates as costs typically increase with longer haul
distances. U.S. Coast Guard vessel certification and safety
requirements could preclude the use of much of the more common
inshore and coastal barge/scows and towboats which are typically
used on the area's dredging projects. Larger self-propelled
seagoing dredging vessels would likely be needed for disposal at
an off-shelf site. The use of an off-shelf site would require
higher cost contingency for weather shut-downs, as existing winter
weather conditions could frequently prevent or interrupt barge tows
and disposal operations.
The closest site with water depths which could be considered
similar to an off-shelf site is Murray Basin (water depths of 600
to 900 feet), in the Gulf of Maine, approximately 50 to 60 miles
east of Boston (see Figure 1) . Massachusetts Bay dredging projects
using this area for disposal would be expected to spend
approximately $18.00 to $20.00/yd3, based upon current equipment
rates after a survey among dredging contractors. This estimate is
consistent with the approximations derived from the Rhode Island
Sound project. This cost substantially exceeds the most recent
costs incurred for the Boston Harbor dredging, but does not
necessarily represent an upper limit for dredging costs.
Transport costs associated with the use of confined upland disposal
sites are generally higher than those associated with barge
transport, for everything except the smallest jobs requiring
minimal transport distances. In the past, small dredging projects
have utilized truck transport successfully, because of the historic
availability of local landfills. However, landfills are currently
being closed at a rapid pace, and many are only accepting certain
clean impermeable materials for capping operations (Dominic, pers.
comm.). Additionally, the salinity of most marine dredged
materials exceeds current Massachusetts upland disposal criteria,
which would preclude the use of in-state upland areas.
Consequently, land-based alternatives may be infeasible causing
ocean disposal to be the preferred alternative in some cases. The
availability of upland disposal capacity is further discussed in
Chapter 2 of the DEIS.
The size of the potential marine ZSF would increase (in response
to these higher transport costs associated with upland
alternatives). Thus, the seaward limit of the Massachusetts Bay
ZSF should account for these trends in upland alternative cost
requirements and include the Murray Basin area, approximately 55
to 60 miles from the point of dredging (see Figure 1).
' . . 11 ' ''..
-------
3.2 NAVIGATION RESTRICTIONS
Areas which present significant navigation restrictions for dredged
material disposal, such as shoals, rock ledges, or channels subject
to siltation or deposition, are generally removed from
consideration within the ZSF. These areas are primarily located
within the coastal embayments and nearshore areas of Massachusetts
Bay, within state waters. No known navigation restrictions exist
in federal waters, and this criterion does not further limit the
ZSF.
3.3 DISTANCE TO THE EDGE OF THE CONTINENTAL SHELF
MPRSA and its accompanying regulations and guidelines for site
designation require consideration, wherever feasible, of ocean
disposal sites beyond the edge of the continental shelf. However,
as mentioned above, the distance to the southern side of George's
Bank, the nearest edge of the continental shelf from Massachusetts
Bay, is approximately 200 miles. Use of this area for a dredged
material disposal site is not considered practicable from an
economic standpoint, and would also potentially impact important
fisheries and marine mammal habitats. The nearest deep water area
(water depths greater than 100 fathoms) to Massachusetts Bay occurs
in the southwest Gulf of Maine, in Murray Basin, approximately 60
miles east of Boston. Murray Basin is included in the ZSF.
3.4 EXISTING POLITICAL BOUNDARIES
Designation of a federal dredged material disposal site should be
limited to areas where dumping will not cause significant adverse
impacts. Environmental concerns prevail over site feasibility
considerations when the latter would unduly restrict sites to areas
where unacceptable adverse effects would occur. The limits of the
ZSF are generally confined to offshore areas in order to minimize
the potential for shoreline impacts, navigational conflicts,
institutional constraints, and adverse effects to state
sanctuaries. Inshore areas of Massachusetts Bay also typically
have heavier recreational use and more productive fisheries and,
therefore, should generally be avoided. Cost and management
considerations generally favor areas closer inshore.
3.5 ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS
The ZSF should exclude environmentally sensitive areas where
important living marine resources and their habitats could be
adversely affected by dredged material disposal. These areas are
discussed separately below and include:
Critical areas for living marine resources (e.g.,
breeding, spawning, nursery, feeding)
Unique marine habitats
Threatened and Endangered Species Habitats
Marine Sanctuaries
Historic Sites
12
-------
3.5.1 CRITICAL LIVING MARINE RESOURCE HABITATS
Figure 2 summarizes the most recent research trawl data (NMFS
Fisherman Reports) and available published literature for selected
species in Massachusetts Bay and Gulf of Maine. Table 2 lists the
commercially valuable species most commonly observed in the region.
The coastal and nearshore waters (out to the 50 to 100 fathom
isobath) provide important spawning and nursery areas for a number
of commercially valuable species, including haddock, cod, winter
flounder, pollack, and hake. Some species, such as cod and winter
flounder, appear to spawn very close to shore, or within estuaries,
while others, such as pollack and haddock appear to spawn over a
wide area within the southwest Gulf of Maine. The prevailing
counterclockwise gyre within the Gulf of Maine appears to transport
fish eggs and larvae into Massachusetts Bay over a wide area (Lux
and Kelly, 1978).
The commercially important demersal and pelagic species, such as
cod, pollack, haddock, yellowtail flounder, and mackerel are found
most commonly on sand or hard bottom habitats within the 50 fathom
isobath, including Jeffrey's Ledge, Stellwagen Bank, and smaller
submarine ridges or knolls, such as Wildcat Knoll and Tillies Bank
(TRIGOM, 1974) (see Figure 2). Further offshore, in the Gulf of
Maine, the most common fish species include white and silver hake,
cusk, witch flounder, pollack, American plaice, spiny dogfish, and
redfish. These species, which are also commercially valuable,
prefer deeper water (up to 200 fathoms) with clay/mud bottom types.
NMFS research trawl data for the past five years, when aggregated
for individual depth strata (See Table 3), indicate that all depth
strata sampled, from Massachusetts Bay to the central Gulf of
Maine, contain comparable densities for total biomass (expressed
in kg per tow) (Mayo, pers. comm.). Highest densities appear to
be centered within the Stellwagen Bank/Jeffrey's Ledge strata, with
roughly equivalent totals for both Massachusetts Bay and the
southwest Gulf of Maine.
Thus, while it appears that much of the area within the zone of
economic feasibility provide important spawning, nursery and
feeding habitat for living marine resources, the heaviest
concentrations of such living resources are found in: i) the
nearshore coastal areas and estuaries, which provide critical
habitat for a number of finfish and shellfish and ii) the
Stellwagen Bank and Jeffrey's Ledge areas (out to the 100 fathom
isobath), which support a diverse assemblage of benthic infauna,
prey species, and commercially important shellfish and finfish.
Adverse effects associated with dredged material disposal include
the alteration of bottom substrate resulting in a modification of
benthic community structure or diverse benthic faunal assemblages.
Because of the potential danger of adversely affecting these
sensitive areas by disposing of dredged material, they have been
eliminated from the ZSF.
13
-------
TABLE 2. COMMONLY OBSERVED MARINE SPECIES IN MASSACHUSETTS BAY
AND THE SOUTHWEST GULF OF MAINE
FISH AND SHELLFISH
Common Name
Spiny dogfish
Atlantic menhaden
Atlantic herring
Atlantic cod
Haddock
Silver hake
Pollack
Red hake
White Hake
Cusk
Atlantic mackerel
Bluefin tuna
Redfish
Witch flounder
American plaice
Yellowtail flounder
Winter flounder
American lobster
Bluefish
Scientific Name
Squalus acanthias
Brevoortia tvrannus
Clupea harengus
Gadus morhua
Melanogrammus aeglefinus
Merluccius bilinearis
Pollachius virens
Urophycis chuss
Urophycis tenuis
Brosme brosme
Scomber scombrus
Thunnus thynnus
Sebastes marinus
Glyptocephalus cynoglossus
Hippoglossoides plattesoides
Limanda ferruginea
Pseudopleuronectes americanus
Homarus americanus
Pomatomus saltatrix
ENDANGERED MARINE MAMMALS COMMONLY FOUND IN
MASSACHUSETTS BAY AND SOUTHWEST GULF OF MAINE
Finback whale
Sei whale
Humpback whale
Northern right whale
Balaenoptera physalus
Balaenoptera borealis
Megaptera novaeangliae
Eubalaena glacialis
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED MARINE TURTLES FOUND
IN THE GULF OF MAINE
Loggerhead turtle
Green turtle
Atlantic Ridley's turtle
Hawksbill turtle
Leatherback turtle
Caretta caretta
Chelonia mydas
Lepidochelvs kempi
Eretmochelys imbricata
Dermochelvs coriacea
OTHER MARINE MAMMALS COMMONLY FOUND
IN THE GULF OF MAINE
Minke whale
White-sided dolphin
White-beaked dolphin
Common dolphin
Pilot whale
Harbor porpoise
Balaenoptera acutorostrata
Lagenorhynchus acutus
Lagenorhynchus albirostris
Delphinus delphis
Globicephala melaena
Phocoena phocoena
14
-------
TABLE 3. Stratified Mean Catch (Kg) Per Tow For Selected NMFS
Depth Strata1
NMFS Strata #
Year
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
26
116.7
44.7
15.5
97.1
98.1
27
72.3
25.4
46.3
45.0
50.0
28
45.0
28.0
23.2
27.1
18.3
37
38.7
49.6
39.2
18.8
26.3
40
36.3
128.6
60.3
22.3
33.4
See map (above) for strata location
Source: NMFS Northeast Fisheries Center, Personal Communication,
Summary of MARMAP Research Autumn Trawl Data for 1985-1989
15
-------
Spawning and migratory patterns for finfish species prevail
throughout the Gulf of Maine. This area may not be eliminated solely
on the basis of the existence of these patterns, however, because the
intensity, and therefore the importance, of spawning and migration
activity varies across the area. Consequently, only well-documented
areas of high use will be eliminated from the ZSF. The area shown
in Figure 3 was designated by NOAA/NMFS as an area of biologic and
economic importance to be avoided during consideration of offshore
oil leasing by the Department of the Interior (DOI) in 1984. This
designation was based upon a compilation of total fisheries spawning
and trawl survey information for the U.S. North Atlantic Continental
Shelf (NOAA-NOS data cited in DOI, 1984). In order to preclude
adverse impacts to this area, it has also been eliminated from the
ZSF owing to its critical importance as fisheries habitat.
3.5.2 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES HABITATS
A number of threatened or endangered marine mammals utilize large
areas of Massachusetts Bay and the Gulf of Maine during part or all
of their migratory cycle (Table 2). Figure 4 indicates that at least
three species of endangered whales (finback, humpback, and right
whales) use the waters of Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts Bay, and the
western Gulf of Maine. The areas of highest whale concentrations
extend from the Great South Channel (east of outer Cape Cod)
northward along the 50 to 100 fathom isobath to include Stellwagen
Bank and the Jeffrey's Ledge areas (Kenney et al., 1985). Right
whales have also been observed commonly in eastern Cape Cod Bay, and
were also observed during one summer within Stellwagen Basin,
approximately 12 miles northwest of Provincetown (Figure 4).
Humpback whale populations are almost always observed in waters
shallower than 50 fathoms, on both Stellwagen Bank and Jeffrey's
Ledge (Payne, unpublished data). However, both finback and right
whales are also commonly found in the eastern portion of Wilkinson
Basin in waters greater than 100 fathoms (Payne, unpublished data;
CETAP, 1982). Summaries of whale sighting data (Payne, pers. comm.)
indicate that numerous observations of small groups (2 to 5
individuals) of right whales have occurred directly south of Murray
Basin, and larger groups (6 to 10 individuals) of right whales have
also been observed on the northwestern edge of Cape Cod Bay.
The seasonal variability in sighting data indicates that prey
availability strongly influences the selection of whale feeding,
migration and calving/nursing areas (Payne, pers. comm.). However,
it appears that annual migrations occur from the Great South Channel
(east of Cape Cod), along the 50 to 100 fathom isobath, to summer
feeding and nursery grounds on Stellwagen Bank, Cape Cod Bay, and
Jeffrey's Ledge (CETAP, 1982; Weinrich, pers. comm.).
The importance of these areas for these species has been noted by
the NMFS in its comments on Outer Continental Shelf lease sales and
on the New England Fisheries Management Council's most recent
Northeast Multispecies Fisheries Management Plan (NMFS, 1983; NEFMC,
16
-------
1985). This migratory route is used by these species from early
spring to late fall and is also utilized for resting and feeding
(NMFS, 1982). The NMFS stated, in a 1982 Biological Opinion for the
April, 1984 North Atlantic oil and gas lease offering that these
preferred areas should be "...protected from disturbance and
degradation..." because of their importance to these endangered
species. In fact, the humpback concentrations observed on Stellwagen
Bank and Jeffrey's Ledge indicate these areas are the only known
congregation areas for this species along the entire U.S. East Coast
(NMFS, 1982). The areas shown in Figure 4 are considered to provide
critical feeding, migration and nursery habitat for right, finback,
and humpback whales, and are thus excluded from the ZSF.
There are also five threatened or endangered turtle species which
may occur within Massachusetts Bay and the Gulf of Maine (Table 2).
Endangered turtle species include the hawksbill, leatherback, green,
and Atlantic ridley; threatened species include the loggerhead. Of
these species the loggerhead is most abundant, although it is rarely
observed in the Gulf of Maine and is usually found south of Cape Cod.
Leatherbacks have been observed within the Gulf of Maine and southern
portion of Stellwagen Bank, but are also concentrated south of Cape
Cod (CETAP, 1982). The severely endangered Atlantic ridley is
usually found in shallow coastal waters as far north as Nova Scotia,
although observations in the area are quite low. Green and hawksbill
turtles are rare migrants into the George's Bank and Gulf of Maine
waters (CETAP, 1982). George's Bank and the Great South Channel
appear to represent the warm season northern extension for these
turtle species, as their populations are centered in more southerly
waters (CETAP, 1982). The presence of marine turtles has not been
a limiting factor in delineating the ZSF because based on observed
data, there are no known critical habitats in the area under
consideration for designation of a dredged material disposal site.
3.5.3 MARINE SANCTUARIES
Although there are currently no federally designated national marine
sanctuaries within Massachusetts Bay or the Gulf of Maine, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ("NOAA") is presently
considering areas around Stellwagen Bank for inclusion within the
National Marine Sanctuary Program (VNMSP"). Figure 5 illustrates the
study area which is presently under consideration for sanctuary
designation. Pursuant to Title III of the Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 ("MPRSA"), national marine
sanctuaries may be designated to provide comprehensive and
coordinated conservation and management for areas of the marine
environment (or the Great Lakes) possessing "...conservation,
recreational, ecological, historical, research, educational, or
aesthetic qualities..." which give them special national
significance. The U.S. congress has directed NOAA to prepare a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement and Management Plan ("DEIS/MP") and
a Prospectus to Congress on the proposed designation by not later
than September 30, 1990 (NOAA, 1989). The DEIS/MP will discuss: the
17
-------
characteristics of the area that give it conservation, recreational,
ecological, historical, research, educational, or aesthetic value;
the geographic area to be included in the sanctuary; and the types
of activities that would be subject to regulation in order to protect
those characteristics. The DEIS/MP document presented to the public
for review and comment will include a draft sanctuary management plan
and draft regulations for governing activities in the sanctuary. EPA
plans to provide assistance to NOAA in its environmental review
process, and has been granted "cooperating agency" status by NOAA for
the purposes of exchange of information and discussion regarding both
NOAA's proposed sanctuary and EPA's proposed MBDS.
Pursuant to 40 CFR §228.5 (b), EPA must choose the locations and
boundaries of disposal sites such that temporary perturbations in
water quality or other environmental conditions during initial mixing
caused by disposal operations anywhere within the site "...can be
expected to be reduced to normal ambient seawater levels or to
undetectable contaminant concentrations or effects before reaching
any beach, shoreline, marine sanctuary, or known geographically
limited fishery pr shellfishery...." Although no national marine
sanctuary has been designated yet, it is reasonably foreseeable that
one may be so designated. Currently there is no definitive boundary
set for the proposed Stellwagen Bank Marine Sanctuary, and therefore
it is not known: i) whether or to what extent its boundary will
overlap with that of the final MBDS or ii) the extent to which
management of the two areas will be affected by their final
boundaries. Although, a small eastern portion of the existing MBDS
is located within the study area, the actual sanctuary, if one is
designated, will not necessarily be identical to the study area.
Various boundary delineations and management plans will be thoroughly
evaluated, with EPA's participation, in NOAA's DEIS. Ultimately,
sanctuary designation and regulations could affect the issuance of
permits by the COE for actual disposal proposals.
Under Title III of the MPRSA, NOAA is authorized to "...issue
necessary and reasonable regulations to implement the terms of the
designation and control the activities described in it, except that
all permits, licenses, and other authorizations issued pursuant to
any other authority shall be valid unless such regulations otherwise
provide...." Since no sanctuary has yet been designated, no
regulations are presently in place governing general management of
the Stellwagen Bank area.
As noted above, EPA is working with NOAA as a cooperating agency on
preparation of its DEIS. Under 40 CFR §§1501.6, the NEPA regulations
germane to cooperating agencies, it is required that "...the lead
agency use the environmental analyses and proposals of cooperating
agencies with jurisdiction by law or special expertise, to the
maximum extent possible...." As a cooperating agency with NOAA, EPA
would, in addition to reviewing draft and final EISs, review and
comment on preliminary documents relating to EPA's proposed disposal
site, exchange pertinent information with NOAA, and participate in
18
-------
any meetings or discussions that may be necessary to identify and
attempt to resolve any outstanding issues as early as possible in
NOAA's management process. This effort by EPA and NOAA should ensure
that discussions of the relationship between the proposed marine
sanctuary designation and any future disposal activities at a
designated disposal site are fully incorporated by both agencies into
their NEPA documents. Through this process, NOAA will be able to
take advantage of EPA's expertise concerning the Massachusetts Bay
environment, while EPA will be kept closely apprised of NOAA's
sanctuary designation process.
EPA supports the designation of Stellwagen Bank to ensure that the
Bank's resources are protected through comprehensive planning and
management. However, EPA believes that dredged material disposal at
the existing MBDS will not significantly adversely affect the marine
resources of Stellwagen Bank. As discussed in detail in the DEIS,
the combination of the COE's permitting process, adequate disposal
site monitoring, use of the revised dredged material testing
protocol, evaluation of the existing reference site, and continuing
research programs will ensure proper management of the site.
Furthermore, EPA believes that existing statutes provide adequate
protection of the marine resources of Massachusetts Bay from dredged
material disposal and that, based on the present information,
additional regulation, restriction, or prohibition of this activity
is not warranted. These existing laws and programs include, but are
not limited to, the MPRSA, the Federal Clean Water Act, the London
Dumping Convention, the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, the
Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act, the Endangered
Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act. These laws
required the evaluation contained in the EIS, the on-going monitoring
and testing described above, and a stringent permit process
administered by the COE for any actual individual disposal proposal.
Therefore, the EPA has not reduced the ZSF because of the possible
future designation of the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary.
It should be noted, however, that the actual area of Stellwagen Bank
has been excluded from the ZSF to protect marine fisheries resources
and threatened or endangered species, as discussed in detail in
sections 3.6.1 and 3.5.2 respectively (see also figures 2, 3, 4, and
6) . This minimizes the potential for conflicts between dredged
material disposal and any future sanctuary designation.
Several Massachusetts state ocean sanctuaries are located within
Massachusetts Bay. Figure 5 outlines the boundaries of the North
Shore, South Essex, Cape Cod Bay and Cape Cod Ocean Sanctuaries.
The state has designated these sanctuaries to protect the areas from
any exploitation, development, or activity that would alter or
endanger their ecology or appearance (MCZM, 1988). These areas have
been excluded from the ZSF because of their importance with respect
to inshore lobster habitat, spawning areas, winter flounder nursery
grounds, and use as a sportfishing area.
19
-------
3.5.4 HISTORICAL SITES
The available information on historic marine sites indicates that
there are scattered shipwrecks throughout the Gulf of Maine, but none
are sufficiently extensive or significant to effectively limit the
size of the ZSF (Mastone, pers. comm.). Final site designation will
avoid these locations, if necessary. During extensive bottom surveys
conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at the existing MBDS,
no evidence was revealed concerning the presence of historic
shipwrecks.
3.6 AREAS OF INCOMPATIBLE USES
Selection of alternative sites must take into account the existing
use patterns in the area. Several activities are currently conducted
in the area, including commercial and recreational fishing,
commercial shipping, and other recreational activities (e.g. whale
watching and recreational boating). Military training or exclusion
areas and research activities can also potentially limit the size of
the ZSF. The impacts of these activities to the Massachusetts
Bay/Gulf of Maine ZSF are discussed below.
3.6.1 FISHING
3.6.1.1 Commercial Fishing Areas
All of the nearshore areas of Massachusetts Bay, extending seaward
to the Gulf of Maine, are under significant fishing pressure,
according to both industry representatives and fisheries managers
(Massachusetts DMF, 1985; NMFS, 1989; NEFMC, 1985). A number of
factors, including: i) overfishing; ii) dwindling offshore stocks;
and iii) the recent offshore border designation between the U.S. and
Canada, have resulted in an unprecedented increase in nearshore and
coastal fisheries for flounder, cod, hake, haddock, and other
commercially important species. Although fishing is conducted
regularly throughout the region, particular pressure is focused on:
i) the nearshore areas of Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bay (for
lobsters, flounder, herring, and menhaden); ii) Stellwagen Bank,
extending north to Cape Ann and Jeffrey's Ledge; and iii) the eastern
side of Stellwagen Bank, on numerous hard-bottom and sand habitats
out to the 100 fathom isobath (NOAA, 1989; Hill, pers. comm.; NEFMC,
1985). The areas of highest fishing pressure east of Stellwagen Bank
include the submarine knolls and ridges such as Tillies Bank, Wildcat
Knoll, and the outer coast of Cape Cod (see Figure 6). These areas
support seasonally abundant concentrations of cod, haddock, pollack,
yellowtail flounder, silver hake, winter flounder, mackerel, and
herring. Further offshore, in Murray and Wilkinson Basin, the
fisheries are dominated by deepwater species, such as redfish, spiny
dogfish, red and white hake, and American plaice, as well as highly
migratory pelagic species such as herring, bluefish, and tuna.
NMFS commercial trawl data for 1988 confirm the importance of the
20
-------
nearshore areas for a number of fisheries. Data from four ten minute
blocks ranging from nearshore Massachusetts Bay to Wilkinson Basin
indicated that over 90% (by weight) of the total catch tabulated came
from nearshore areas (primarily herring, menhaden, cod, and flounder)
(NMFS, 1990). As shown in Figure 6, the areas of highest fishing use
(Stellwagen Bank, nearshore areas, and hard-bottom habitats out to
100 fathoms) are eliminated from the ZSF.
3.6.1.2 RECREATIONAL FISHING AREAS
Sportfishing is a popular and economically important activity along
the entire Massachusetts coastline, but it is focused particularly
on three areas which are closely correlated to the areas previously
discussed for commercial fishing. First, the nearshore and estuarine
areas are fished seasonally for a variety of pelagic and demersal
finfish such as cod, bluefish, flounder, and pollack (Massachusetts
DMF, 1985). Additionally, recreational lobster fishing and clamming
are generally conducted in the nearshore areas within 1 to 3 miles
of the coast (Lux and Kelly, 1978). These areas are fished by shore-
based anglers or small private vessels in a variety of habitats. The
second area of concentrated activity is Stellwagen Bank and Jeffrey's
Ledge, particularly the northeastern edge of Stellwagen Bank (NMFS,
undated; Hill, pers. comm.) (see Figure 6). Stellwagen Bank is
fished primarily by larger private or charter boats (40 to 100 feet
in length) which are angling for bluefish, flounder, scup, pollack,
cod, or mackerel. The third area is the eastern flank of Stellwagen
Bank, out to the 100 fathom isobath, on the same hard-bottom and sand
habitats which are favored by commercial fisheries (NMFS, undated).
Charter boats from Gloucester, Provincetown, Boston, Lynn, and
Plymouth all participate in this fishery. Therefore, these areas
have been omitted from the ZSF.
Preferred sportfishing areas have been excluded from the ZSF and
correspond closely to preferred commercial fishing areas as well.
Other recreational fishing, which is directed at the highly mobile
pelagic species such as tuna and swordfish, can occur throughout the
region, and varies widely from year to year, depending upon water
temperature and prey species availability. This variability
precludes designation of specific ZSF exclusion areas.
3.6.2 OTHER RECREATIONAL USES
The most important recreational use of the offshore area, aside from
sportfishing, is whale watching. Whale watch cruises are focused
primarily on Stellwagen Bank and Jeffrey's Ledge, in waters of 50
fathoms or less, where large aggregations of humpback, finback, and
other whales are regularly observed. In 1986, over 40 whale watch
vessels were engaged in these activities in the summer months (a
total of over 8,500 trips) (NOAA, 1989). It is estimated that
approximately 1,000,000 people participated in this activity over a
single season, generating over $16 million in revenue for the area's
economy (NOAA, 1989). Although dredged material disposal activities
21
-------
are likely to be conducted in fall or winter, when these cruises are
not normally conducted, Stellwagen Bank and other popular whale
concentration and observation areas have been excluded from the ZSF
in order to prevent possible habitat disruption. Recreational
boating is conducted primarily within three miles of the coastline,
and would thus not further limit the size of the ZSF.
3.6.3 SHIPPING LANES
The precautionary area, separation zones, and main shipping channels
for Boston (see Figure 7) have been established by the U.S. Coast
Guard in order to prevent vessel collisions, and any transits or use
of these designated areas are to be conducted with extreme care (NOS,
1990). Approximately 12,000 vessel transits were recorded in and out
of Boston in 1986 (NOAA, 1989), indicating that these lanes and the
precautionary areas are used frequently and could potentially
conflict with dredged material disposal activities. As a result,
these areas have been removed from the ZSF.
3.6.4 OTHER USES
There are no designated military training areas in which access is
restricted within Massachusetts Bay or the Gulf of Maine, (U.S. Coast
Guard, pers. comiri.) , although a submarine lane is located to the east
of Murray Basin, running north from the Great South Channel (Murphy,
1984). The Stellwagen Bank and Jeffrey's Ledge areas have been, and
will continue to be the subject of marine mammal and fisheries
research activities by a number of federal, state, and private
research organizations. Sites located within the ZSF will not
conflict with these uses.
3.7 ZONE OF SITING FEASIBILITY
The ZSF for analysis of new marine alternative disposal sites (see
Figure 8) is centered on Boston Harbor, where the bulk of dredged
material has come from in the past, with northern and southern
boundaries of Cape Ann and Gurnet Point, respectively. The seaward
boundary extends beyond the 100 fathom (183 m) isobath to include
Murray Basin, the nearest area which most closely resembles deeper
"off-shelf" waters beyond George's Bank. Inclusion of the Murray
Basin site extends the range disposal site types to be studied and
constitutes a full spectrum of alternatives. This study area's
seaward boundary was selected under the assumption (discussed
earlier) that the logistical, economic, and environmental constraints
on dredged material disposal preclude consideration of a true off-
shelf study area. The closest off-shelf area is approximately 200
miles from Boston, adjacent to the biologically productive and
economically important George's Bank shelf/slope areas.
The landward boundary for the study area is assumed to be the seaward
limit of the Massachusetts territorial sea (see Figure 1), as: i)
efforts are currently underway to designate an inshore disposal area
22
-------
FIGURE 8. FINAL ZONE OF SITING FEASIBILITY AND
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE SITE LOCATIONS
IIH
'
23
-------
(within state waters) in Gape Cod Bay (Cz, 1987); ii) the potential
impacts to shorelines and user groups would increase significantly
at sites within these biologically productive, heavily utilized
shallow water areas; and iii) Massachusetts has designated four ocean
sanctuaries within these waters which could preclude use of these
areas for material disposal. The ZSF also excludes Stellwagen Bank
and the associated shallow bank habitats extending north to Jeffrey's
Ledge, out to the 100 fathom isobath, because of their importance as
critical fisheries habitat, commercial and recreational fishing, and
marine mammal usage. This also minimizes the potential for the
disposal site conflicting with any possible future ocean sanctuary
designation for the Stellwagen Bank area. In addition, the shipping
lanes and precautionary area for the port of Boston have been
excluded from the ZSF, to minimize potential impacts between dredged
material disposal and shipping activities.
4.0 PHASE II: ALTERNATIVE SITE SELECTION AND EVALUATION
THe remaining area within the ZSF can be broken into three general
regions in which a dredged material disposal site may be feasible
(see Figure 8). These regions are: i) Northern Massachusetts Bay
("NMB"), which includes the interim MBDS; ii) Southern Massachusetts
Bay ("SMB"), south of the shipping lanes, between Scituate and
Provincetown; and iii) Murray Basin ("MB"), located in the Gulf of
Maine, east of the 100 fathom isobath, approximately 55 miles east
of Boston. For purposes of analysis, a potential site has been
evaluated within each of these areas (including the present MBDS),
using the MPRSA site selection criteria (40 CFR §§228.5 and 228.6).
Table 4 presents a comparison of the principal concerns abstracted
from these criteria. The application of each of these criteria to
these potential site alternatives is discussed in the following
sections.
f
4.1 LOCATION, BATHYMETRY, AND ACCESS FROM DREDGING SITE
The location and configuration of a site are critical factors in
determining a site's suitability. The present MBDS site and former
industrial waste site is located approximately twenty miles east of
Boston, within a broad depression near the northwest flank of
Stellwagen Bank. The SMB site is located south of the Boston
Shipping Channel, approximately lO^miles east of Scituate and twenty-
five miles southeast of Boston, with water depths of approximately
35 fathoms. The potential MB site is located in the center of a
north-south trending depression with water depths of approximately
150 fathoms, and is located approximately fifty miles east of Boston.
Access to the NMB site would be considered best, while use of the
SMB site would be less desirable (because of longer hauls from Boston
and the North Shpre) , and use of the MB site would be more costly
from all potential dredging areas (with the exception of Outer Cape
Cod) . The bathymetry at the current site is considered to be
moderately favorable, as the broad basin appears to aid in the
24
-------
TABLE 4. Evaluation of Alternative Dredged Material Disposal Areas
Within Massachusetts Bay and Gulf of Maine
Application of Criteria
MPRSA
Site Criteria
1. Topography
& distance from
the site
2. Location
relative to
critical marine
habitats
N. Mass. Bay
Site
S. Mass. Bay
Site
3. Location
relative to
beaches, other
amenity areas
4. Ease of
monitoring
Broad depress-
ion 50-100 m
depths,20
miles from
Boston
FAIR provides
suitable benthic
and pelagic
habitat for
several species,-
but moderately
disturbed in
some areas
GOOD no past
impacts
observed
GOOD easily
accessible and
wel1-documented
Broad shelf
50-60 m depths,
25 miles from
Boston
FAIR similar
substrates as
MBDS, but less
disturbed
directly west
of known right
whale congre-
gation areas
GOOD similar
conditions as
MBDS
GOOD-FAIR
easily
accessible;
not documented
5. Sediment
dispersal/
transport
GOOD resuspen- GOOD similar
sion and trans- conditions as
port minimal MBDS
Murray Basin
Site1
N-S basin
275 m depths,
50 miles from
Boston
FAIR-POOR
mod. product-
ive; located
directly east
of migratory
and feeding
habitat for
right, finback,
& humpback
whales; high
vessel/whale
collision risk
GOOD No
impacts
expected due
to distance
FAIR-POOR
access dif-
ficult, area
poorly under-
stood ; too
deep; greater
area of bottom
impact ,
GOOD-FAIR tidal
transport &
eastward net flow
may initially
disperse material
over wide area;
depth allows for
transport during
dumping
25
-------
TABLE 4 (continued). Evaluation of Alternative Dredged Material
Disposal Areas within Massachusetts Bay and Gulf of Maine
6. Historic
use as disposal
site
7. Potential
impacts to
other user
groups
8. Existing
water quality
9. Potential
for nuisance
species
recruitment
10. Potential
for impacts to
historic sites
11. Types and
quantities of
wastes
EXCELLENT site
has been used
in the past
MODERATE
fishing tends
to avoid area;
outside ship-
ping lanes,
not used exten-
sively for
research and
recreation
GOOD some
exceedances of
chronic criteria
for Hg, PAHs, &
PCBs inside the
site based on
water quality
model
FAIR not used
FAIR-POOR
fished
intensively,
near shipping
lanes, and
sport fishing
whale watch
areas
GOOD-EXCELLENT
no exceedances
expected, dis-
tant from
coastal sources;
probably exceeds
PCBs & Hg
LOW impacts LOW same as
minimized for present
through material site
testing protocol
LOW LOW
vicinity of similar to
several reported MBDS, but less
wrecks, but bot- survey informa-
torn intensively tion
surveyed and
dragged
Variable pre- Same as
dominantly silt/ existing site
clays and sands;
approximately
3 million cubic
yards per
decade
POOR not
used, rela-
tively pristine
environment
FAIR fishing
pressure mod-
erate, marine
mammal re-
search in
area, some
shipping
GOOD-EXCELLENT
no exceed-
ances expect-
ed; distant
from coastal
sources; rela-
tively low
bottom water
transport
LOW same as
for present
site
LOW not
heavily used
historically;
below pre-
historic sea
levels
Same as
existing site
See Figure 8 for site locations
26
-------
containment of material. The MB site would provide the most
favorable containment conditions because wind-induced sediment
resuspension is less likely to occur owing to the depths and north-
south configuration of the Basin (however dispersal of the material
could occur during dumping, see section 4.5), while the 8MB site
would be least favorable for containment of deposited material (based
upon available bathymetric information), as it appears to be a
relatively flat area with no known bathymetric depressions.
4.2 LOCATION RELATIVE TO CRITICAL MARINE RESOURCE HABITATS
The importance of the Gulf of Maine marine habitats for a variety of
species, throughout their life histories, is well known (Lux and
Kelly, 1978; Backus, 1984). The entire region provides critical
functions for fisheries and marine mammals; these include migration,
spawning, breeding, nursery, and feeding areas. These areas are not
fixed, and change both seasonally (in response to current and water
temperature changes) and annually (according to the distribution of
prey species). Although selection of the ZSF has attempted to
eliminate areas of highest or most consistent usage, any site is
likely to result in some impacts to these habitats. However, the
severity of impacts will vary.
The present MBDS is located on the western edge of an apparent whale
migratory corridor extending from George's Bank north to Jeffrey's
Ledge. The area directly east of the site appears to be used on a
regular basis by both humpback and finback whales (EPA, 1989; CETAP,
1982; Payne, pers. comm.).
The proposed SMB site alternative site is located directly within
known spawning and nursery grounds for both cod and pollack, and is
also located^on the western edge of important marine mammal habitat.
CETAP and unpublished data (Payne, pers. comm.) indicate that this
area has been regularly used by both finback and humpback whales,
and may be frequented by right whales during some seasons which are
thought to move between Cape Cod Bay and the Bay of Fundy (CETAP,
1982; Payne, pers. comm.).
The MB alternative site is also used as a spawning and nursery area
for other species, such as hakes, witch flounder, redfish, and
American plaice (Wigley and Gabriel, 1980). It has also been used
by marine ^mammals, most notably by right whales, as a preferred
feeding and migratory habitat (NMFS, 1982; Payne, pers. comm.).
Because it is located on the eastern edge of the right whale's
preferred migratory habitat, collisions with dredged material scows
and tow vessels are a significant concern. Vessel collisions are
considered to be the highest risk to recovery of the North Atlantic's
right whale populations (Weinrich, pers. comm.).
No site emerges as a clearly preferred alternative given the
available information on habitat usage. Although a higher risk of
right whale impacts due to vessel collisions exists for the MB site,
27
-------
each supports or is adjacent to importance fisheries and marine
mammal habitats.
4.3 IMPACTS TO BEACHES AND AMENITY AREAS
An acceptable dredged material disposal site will reduce or prevent
resuspension and transport (and ultimately shoreline impacts) of
disposed dredged materials. As stated in the MBDS DEIS, the
potential for resuspension is a function of current patterns,
particle diameter, expected wave periods, and water depth. Near
shore areas having lower depths and higher current speeds Would
greatly increase the potential for suspension and transport of
material. Ocean storm events have a higher potential for
resuspending significant amounts of fine-grained material at
shallower (e.g., less than 60 foot) water depths. Obviously, the
nearshore areas also receive the heaviest commercial and recreational
activities, and dredged material disposal in these areas would
present the greatest potential for conflict with other user groups
as well.
The NMB area is considered to have relatively low potential for
coastal impacts, due to the low frequency of resuspension (every 3
to 4 years) and the distance to coastal beaches (15 to 25 miles)
lA(EPA, 1989). Use of a new site within SMB would likely result in a
"similar frequency of resuspension as the present MBDS, as water
depths and distances to shore are comparable. The more limited fetch
from the southeast (due to outer Cape Cod) would make resuspension
less likely from southeast storm events, but the area would be fully
exposed to northeast storm events. As with the present site,
resuspension would not be expected to impact beaches or other amenity
areas. Distances to the coastline are comparable, and resuspension
would occur very infrequently, in response to individual large storm
events. The existing water depths and bathymetric conditions in the
MB area would be likely to preclude significant resuspension from
wave action, and no impacts to beaches or coastal areas would be
expected from this site.
4.4 MONITORING FEASIBILITY
Accurate monitoring of dredged material disposal impacts requires:
i) a through understanding of the physical, chemical, biological, and
geological processes (including synthetic inputs) which affect the
site and ii) reasonable access from the shore (to reduce monitoring
costs and minimize transit distance). A complete baseline assessment
of the sediments, water column, and biological resources (both
resident and migratory) which could be affected at a proposed
disposal site are needed prior to dredged material disposal (to
determine baseline conditions) and during operation (to monitor
impacts). These assessment and monitoring costs (which will be
borne, at least partially, by the potential site users) are an
important component to be factored into the decision on the economic
feasibility of a site.
28
-------
Monitoring costs and feasibility are considered to be relatively
equal at sites within both NMB and 8MB, as both areas are relatively
close to the shore (15 to 25 miles), in shallower waters where the
baseline conditions are well-established. These areas have already
been studied intensively for several years for fisheries and marine
mammal distributions.
Monitoring costs would be expected to increase significantly at a
site within MB, further offshore, within deeper waters which are
subject to higher wave heights because it would require larger
vessels, longer transit times, and more intensive monitoring
equipment. Also, for a given current velocity, the net horizontal
transport of dredged material will be greater as water depth
increases, requiring more monitoring stations to accurately document
impacts, and therefore increase monitoring costs at the MB site. In
addition, relatively little site-specific oceanographic or biological
baseline data is available for the region outside the 100 fathom
isobath, as previous work has been focused on near shore habitats
(Bigford, pers. comm.).
Although economic costs or ease of monitoring are not alone
sufficient reasons to exclude areas from further consideration, these
factors are likely to make the proposed Murray Basin site or another
"off-shelf" »disposal site in the Gulf of Maine (e.g., with water
depths greater than 100 fathoms and travel distances beyond 100
miles) less desirable as disposal site alternatives.
4.5 DISPERSAL AND TRANSPORT RATES
A suitable containment site must exhibit low dispersal or sediment
transport rates in order to ensure proper placement and retention of
dredged material. Surface, mid-depth and near-bottom currents must
be low enough to prevent a widely dispersed sediment plume from
occurring. As water depths increase, the potential currents acting
on a given particle of descending dredged material have a longer
opportunity to displace the material. In addition, near-bottom
currents must be low enough to prevent continued resuspension and
transport of deposited material. Sites should also be able to
maintain low near-bottom currents during high frequency storm events
(e.g., 1 month storms), or seasonal fluctuations in circulation
patterns.
Information gathered on the NMB area indicates that resuspension
would only occur in response to infrequent large storm events.
Additionally, resuspension is expected to be limited to a small
amount of the site material. The potential for resuspension in the
SMB area is considered to be roughly equal to the NMB area, as the
site is in somewhat shallower water, but subject to less intense wave
action from the southeast. The surficial sediments for both sites
are similar (COE, 1985), with a high percentage of silts, indicating
that typical near-bottom currents are likely to be relatively low.
29
-------
However, northeast storm events would have a higher potential for
resuspension at the 8MB site, as the available fetch is slightly
higher.
A preliminary review of physical oceanographic data for the MB site
indicates that the site is west of the origin for a "jetlike" current
approximately 6 to 12 miles wide (10 to 20 km) moving at relatively
high velocities (30 to 42 cm/sec near the surface, and 21 cm/sec at
80 meters depth) eastward. This is thought to be part of the
boundary flow between the semi-permanent counterclockwise Gulf of
Maine and clockwise George's Bank circulation gyres (Butman et al.,
1982; EG&G, 1979 cited in DOI, 1983). These relatively high current
velocities, the depth of water in the area (200 to 300 meters), and
the relatively strong tidal oscillatory circulation (estimated north-
south tidal excursion is approximately two nautical miles) indicate
that disposed dredged material would likely be distributed over large
areas.
The greater water depths at this location may also create a situation
where the descending dumped material could become neutrally buoyant,
having passed beyond the convective transport phase (see DEIS Section
4.1.1.1) before reaching the ocean bottom. This would also tend to
increase the size and horizontal transport of the dredged material
plume and resulting deposition pattern. t
The high percentage of fine-grained sediments in the area (Backus,
1984) suggests that resuspension, even from the combined effects of
wave, tidal, and non-tidal net transport forces, would be highly
unlikely in MB if the material is deposited within the deeper reaches
of the Basin (up to 300 meters) . This is in part owing to the
uncommon event of wind-induced waves.
4.6 HISTORIC USE OF A DISPOSAL SITE
The MPRSA states that EPA will, whenever feasible, designate ocean
dumping sites beyond the edge of the continental shelf or at sites
which have been historically used (40 CFR §228.5(e)) for disposal of
dredged materials. As the MBDS DEIS states, the present "Foul Area"
site, the adjacent industrial waste site, and the Boston Lightship
Disposal Site have been used in the past for disposal of dredged
material as well as industrial wastes. Continued use of the present
MBDS or these other sites would concentrate potential impacts to
already disturbed habitats, minimizing conflicts with established
user groups, and protecting the existing biological productivity at
other locations within the study area. As discussed in the DEIS,
capping the existing material at the present site could, if feasible,
assist in preventing further contamination and restoring in part the
biological productivity of the immediate disposal area.
Both the 8MB and the MB sites are considered relatively pristine
environments, and thus any new disposal of dredged material would
create higher initial impacts. Impacts to the deeper reaches of MB
30
-------
could be particularly high, as these offshore basin floors, while
less subject to the direct impacts of coastal pollution and runoff,
are, as depositional environments, more likely to function as "sinks"
for accumulation of contaminants.
4.7 OTHER USER GROUP IMPACTS
Known shipping lanes, fishing areas, recreational areas, mineral
extraction areas, fish/shellfish culture areas, scientific study
areas, and other utilized resource areas should be avoided during
site selection. This constraint would discourage siting within: i)
the Boston Harbor Traffic Lane (see Figure 7) ; ii) nearshore and
offshore habitats used by commercial and recreational fishermen; and
iii) known marine mammal concentration areas (e.g. feeding or
migration routes) on or adjacent to Stellwagen Bank and Jeffrey's
Ledge, many of which are frequented by scientific researchers and
whale watch cruises. These concentration areas are shown on Figure
4.
According to interviews with NMFS and industry representatives, one
of the only areas in Massachusetts Bay not extensively fished is the
current MBDS because of the presently degraded condition of the
bottom and prevalence of "snags" (debris) for fishing nets. Sport
fishing is occasionally conducted within the area, but it is not
considered a prime fishing ground (Hill, pers. comm.). Commercial
shipping occurs primarily to the south of the MBDS, and commercial
whale watching is concentrated to the east, at the northern edge of
Stellwagen Bank.
The highest level of existing use would occur in SMB, due to the
existing use of the area for commercial fishing, sport fishing,
marine shipping (for traffic between Boston and the Cape Cod Canal),
and to a lesser extent, whale watching and recreational boating.
The MB area, like most of the Gulf of Maine, is also fished
commercially, although apparently not as intensively as the nearshore
shallow bank and hard-bottom habitats of Massachusetts Bay (Hill,
pers. comm.; NMFS catch data from Palmer, pers. comm.). The decline
of nearshore and offshore finfish and shellfish catches (MDMF, 1985)
indicates that existing grounds are already heavily fished by the
region's fishing fleets. Additionally, more intensive fishing is
occurring inshore, in response to declining offshore stocks. The
Murray Basin area would also be subject to some commercial shipping
use (for trans-Atlantic shipping) and whale research activities
(principally for the right whale). Sportfishing or other
recreational uses are relatively low, due to the distances from major
coastal harbors.
4.8 EXISTING WATER QUALITY
Use of a site for dredged material disposal should seek to minimize
impacts to existing ambient water quality, particularly for sensitive
31
-------
biological resources in the area which can be adversely affected by
short-term changes in water quality. Although water quality data at
the existing MBDS may be conservative, it is considered good, with
no exceedances of EPA acute criteria for metals or organic compounds.
Although site-specific data for 8MB is not available, the water
quality is expected to be similar, and characteristic of relatively
unstressed pristine Massachusetts Bay/Cape Cod Bay environments.
The MB site is relatively distant from anthropogenic sources, and
thus should have relatively high water quality. However, studies in
the Gulf of Maine indicate that relatively high levels of metals such
as cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, and lead, comparable to those
found in near shore areas, are already found in the deep sediments
of Wilkinson Basin (Bothner et al., 1984) and have indicated that
these basins are low energy depositional environments for fine-
grained sediments where seasonal or episodic transport is relatively
low. As a result, contaminant levels may be dispersed more slowly
than within higher energy coastal environments.
4.9 POTENTIAL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF NUISANCE SPECIES
The characteristics of dredged materials can result in changes in a
disposal site's faunal assemblages, and shifts toward more pollutant-
tolerant species. At present, the MBDS site is considered an Impact
Category II site, indicating that no detectable changes in species
composition or population have occurred to habitats immediately
outside the deposition area.
Assuming that future dredged material quality and grain size will be
similar to or better than the past dredged material, it is not
considered likely that the recruitment or development of nuisance
species will occur outside the immediate disposal area with future
dumping at the present site. In view of the expected similarity in
bottom type (approximately 40 to 60% silt content in surficial
sediments) at both the 8MB (COE, 1985) and MB sites (Bothner, et al.,
1984) and the lack of significant environmental stresses to the
benthic ecology of alternative sites, no significant recruitment of
nuisance species is expected in the immediate vicinity of these sites
either.
4.10 EXISTENCE OF HISTORICAL SITES IN AREA
Site selection should avoid, to the maximum extent possible, areas
which: i) contain known prehistoric or historic resources or ii)
exhibit a high probability of prehistoric or historic resource finds
(based upon the geologic record and past patterns of ocean and
coastal usage). According to the Massachusetts Board of Underwater
Archaeology ("MBUA") , there are no known historical shipwrecks within
the areas under consideration, although there are numerous recent
records of shipwrecks (principally commercial fishing and cargo
vessels) noted near the sites on the National Ocean Service
navigation charts. These wrecks are not generally considered to be
32
-------
historically valuable (Mastone, pers. comm.).
Records from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers indicate that existence
of a historically valuable wreck within or near the MBDS is not
likely. Additional field investigations, utilizing random bottom
probes or other techniques would be needed to positively identify a
historic site (Mastone, pers. comm.). Given the intensive use (by
fishing and research vessels) of the areas under consideration, the
possibility of impacting an unknown and previously undetected site
(particularly an unburied historic site) is expected to be low based
on existing knowledge for 8MB and MB, and low for the MBDS based on
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers survey information.
The MBUA indicated that the probability of prehistoric and historic
finds is lowest within Murray Basin, due to the historic use patterns
and geologic conditions for the area. The probability of finding
previously unknown prehistoric or historic resources within the
Massachusetts Bay potential sites is higher, as records indicate the
sinking of numerous historic vessels in the general region.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
The Zone of Siting Feasibility for a dredged material disposal site
to serve the Boston area can be restricted to the following three
distinct alternative areas:
Northern Massachusetts Bay, including the existing
Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site
Southern Massachusetts Bay (south of Boston shipping
lane)
Murray Basin
When these areas are evaluated and compared based upon the MPRSA
criteria at 40 CFR §§228.5 and 228.6, all remain potentially
acceptable. However, the existing NMB area offers several clear
advantages. These advantages include:
Economic feasibility (as compared to MB)
Containment capabilities
Monitoring capabilities (better baseline data than SMB
or MB, and easier to monitor than MB because of shallower
water depths)
No significant adverse effects from past material
disposal (additional impacts unavoidable in both SMB and
MB)
Less impacts to known fish spawning areas (as compared
to SMB)
Less potential for marine mammal impacts (from both
vessel collisions (MB) and habitat disruption (SMB))
Less impacts to commercial and sportfishing as area is
presently fished less intensively (as compared to SMB)
Historically used and will not degrade pristine areas
33
-------
Use of a site within NMB is known to be economically feasible based
upon information at the existing MBDS, and the biological and
economic impacts of such use would be limited to areas already
directly impacted by past disposal operations. Additional biological
or economic impacts to other resource areas, including Stellwagen
Bank could be avoided. This site is also located outside of the most
critical right whale migratory habitat and the heavily used feeding
areas of humpback and finback whales on the northern edge of
Stellwagen Bank. The historic use of the site has provided extensive
baseline physical and biological data needed for long-term monitoring
studies which would have to be developed for use of any new sites.
Based on these advantages, use of the NMB area is preferred over the
8MB and MB areas, which can therefore be screened from further
consideration. The DEIS prepared previously examined the existing
interim site in detail, and concluded that there were no significant
effects from either existing operations or future use of the site.
Therefore, the other site alternatives identified in the first level
of screening do not need to be reexamined.
The present NMB area represents an acceptable dredged material
disposal site as compared to a reasonable range of alternatives.
EPA is therefore proposing to designate the area of the industrial
waste site, located approximately one nautical mile west, as the
final boundary of the MBDS (see Figure 9) . Moving the boundary
slightly west will have several advantages, including: i) further
distance from the marine sanctuary study area proposed by NOAA and
ii) a beneficial "defacto" capping of the industrial waste site by
disposing dredged material which meets the requirements of the
protocol. Figure 9 illustrates the proposed location for an ocean
dredged material disposal site in Massachusetts Bay, which is a two
nautical mile diameter circle centered at 70° 34.9'W and 42° 25.7'N.
34
-------
FIGURE 9. LOCATION OF PROPOSED OCEAN DREDGED
MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE
IN MASSACHUSETTS BAY.
35
-------
REFERENCES
Backus, R. (ed.), 1987. George's Bank. Massachusetts Institute of
Technology Press, Cambridge, MA.
Beach, Douglas. National Marine Fisheries Service Habitat
Conservation Division, Gloucester, Massachusetts. Personal
communication 20 February 1990.
Bigford, Thomas. National Marine Fisheries Services Habitat
Conservation Division, Gloucester, Massachusetts. Personal
communication 21 December 1989.
Bothner, et al. 1987. "Trace Metals." in Backus, (ed.,), 1987.
George's Bank. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
iCambridge, MA.
Bureau of Land Management, 1982. Characterization of Marine
Mammals in the Mid- and North Atlantic Areas of the U.S. Outer
Continental Shelf. Final Report of the Cetacean and Turtle
Assessment Program (CETAP) prepared by University of Rhode
Island Under contract AA551-CT8-48 for BLM, Washington, DC.
Butman, Bradford, et al., 1982. Recent Observations of the Mean
Circulation on George's Bank. In: Journal of Physical
Oceanography, Vol. 12, No. 6.
, Cz Ocean Sciences, 1987. Environmental Impact Report for the
Identification of Dredged Material Disposal Sites in Cape Cod
Bay, Massachusetts.
Cunningham, Rip. Editor, Salt Water Sportsman, Boston, MA,
Personal Communication, 6 March 1990.
Dominic, James. Great Eastern Marine Contractors. Personal
Communication, 7 March 1990.
Dominic, James. Marine Realty Trust, personal correspondence.
Gloucester, MA. 16 May 1990.
EG & G Environmental Consultants, 1982. Interpretation of the
Physical Oceanography of George's Bank: Preliminary Results.
Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management Contract No. AA851-
CT1-39, Published July 1982.
Emery, K.O. and Uchupi, E., 1972. Western Atlantic Ocean:
Topography, Rocks, Structure, Water, Life and Sediments.
American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Foster, Sherrard. NOAA Marine Sanctuaries Office, Washington, DC.
Personal Communication, 28 February 1990.
Gibson, Barry. Editor, Salt Water Sportsman, Boston, MA. Personal
communication 6 March 1990.
-------
Haight, F.J., 1942. Coastal Currents Along the Atlantic Coast of the
U.S. U.S. Department of Commerce, Coast and Geodetic Survey,
Special Publication No. 230.
Hill, Thomas. Yankee Charters. Gloucester, MA. Personal
communication 8 March 1990.
Hill, Tom, Captain, Operations Manager, The Yankee Fleet,
personal correspondence. Gloucester, MA. 27 May 1990.
Jones, Cliff. New England Charter Boat Operators. Personal
communication 2 March 1990.
Kenney R.D., M.A. Hyman, and H.E. Winn, 1985. Calculation of
standing stocks and energetic reguirements of the cetaceans of
the Northeast United States outer continental shelf. NOAA Tech.
Memo. NMFS-F/NEC-41. 99 pp.
Lux, F.E. and Kelly, G.F., 1978. Fishery Resources of the Cape Cod
and Massachusetts Bay Region. NMFS Northeast Fisheries Center
Laboratory Reference Report 78-1. Woods Hole, MA.
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management, 1988. The Coastalwealth of
Massachusetts: Celebrating a Decade of Coastal Zone Management,
1978-1988. Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office,
Boston, MA.
Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, 1985. Massachusetts
Marine Fisheries: Assessment of Mid-Decade.
Mastone, Victor. Massachusetts Board of Underwater Archaeology.
Boston, MA. Personal communication 19 March 1990.
Mayo, Ralph. NMFS Northeast Fisheries Center, Woods Hole, MA.
Personal communication 19 March 1990.
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., 1984. Southern New England Dredged
Material Disposal EIS, Task B-3-Develop Commercial Fisheries
Baseline. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 1, contract 68-04-1015.
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 1987. Designation of Dredged Material
Disposal Site(s) for Rhode Island and Southeastern
Massachusetts. Reports Prepared for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 1.
Murphy, T., 1984. "Marine Surface Traffic," in Backus (ed.), 1987.
George's Bank. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
Cambridge, MA.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 1989.
Status and Designation Process for the Proposed Stellwagen Bank
National Marine Sanctuary, Marine Sanctuaries Office,
Washington, DC.
-------
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean
Service, 1990. Chart 13260 (Bay of Fundy to Cape Cod).
National Ocean Service, Washington, DC.
National Marine Fisheries Service. (undated). Unpublished Water
Management Unit Document.
National Marine Fisheries Service, 1982. Biological Opinion for
the Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing and Exploration
Program in the U.S. North Atlantic Region. NMFS, Washington,
D.C.
National Marine Fisheries Service, 1989. Status of Fishery
Resources of the Northeastern United States. NMFS-F/NEC-72
Technical Memorandum. Woods Hole, MA.
National Marine Fisheries Service, 1989. Fisherman's Reports for
Spring and Fall for 1985-1989 (Research Trawl Survey Data
Compilations. NMFS Northeast Fisheries Center, Woods Hole, MA.
New England Fishery Management Council, 1985. Fishery Management
Plan, Environmental Impact Statement, Regulatory Impact Review
and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the Northeast
Multispecies Fishery. Saugus, MA.
Palmer, Joan. NMFS Northeast Fisheries Center, Woods Hole, MA.
Personal communication (Commercial Catch Data) 22 March 1990.
Patanjo, Linda. NMFS Northeast Fisheries Center, Woods Hole, MA.
Personal Communication (Trawl data summaries), 3 March 1990.
Payne, Michael. Manomet Bird Observatory, Manomet, MA. Personal
communication 6 March 1990.
Payne, Michael, 1990. Unpublished Data Showing Distribution for
Selected Marine Mammal Species in Northwest Atlantic. (Prepared
for NMFS Publication Summer, 1990).
The Research Institute of the Gulf of Maine (TRIGOM), 1974. A
Socioeconomic and Environmental Inventory of the North Atlantic
Region. Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management under
Contract 08550-CT3-8. South Portland, ME.
Russell, Howard. Biologist, New England Fishery Management Council,
Saugus, MA. Personal communication 8 March 1990. "
Scays, James. J.M. Cashman, Inc. Weymouth, MA. Personal
communication 21 February 1990.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1988. Draft Site Evaluation Studies
of the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site for Ocean Disposal of
Dredged Material, Environmental Resources Section, Impact
Analysis Branch, New England Division.
-------
U.S. Department of the Interior, 1983. Final Environmental Impact
Statement for the Proposed North Atlantic Lease Offering, April
1984. Minerals Management Service, Atlantic OCS Region.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, 1983. Draft Technical Guidance f< r the Designation
of Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986. Ocean Dumping Site
Designation Delegation Handbook for Dredged Material. Office
of Marine and Estuarine Protection, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1989. Draft Environmental
Impact Statement, Evaluation of the Continued Use of the
Massachusetts Bay Dredged Material Disposal Site, Region 1,
Boston, MA.
Van Dusen, K. and Johnson Hayden, A, 1989. The Gulf of Maine:
Sustaining our Common Heritage. Maine State Planning Office,
November, 1989.
Weinrich, Mason. Cetacean Research Unit, Gloucester, MA. Personal
communication 27 March 1990.
Wigley, S. and Gabriel, W., 1980. Distribution of Sexually Immature
Components of Ten Northwest Atlantic Groundfish Species, Based
on Northeast Fisheries Center Bottom Trawl Surveys, 1968-1986.
NMFS Northeast Fisheries Center, Woods Hole, MA.
------- |