THE
COMMONWEALTH
OF
MASSACHUSETTS
Xi ENVIRONMENTAL
1 PROTECTION
* AGENCY
SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT/REPORT
ON
SITING OF
WASTEWATER
TREATMENT FACILITIES
FOR
BOSTON HARBOR
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 1
JFK FEDERAL BUILDING
BOSTON MASS. 02203
-------
ABOUT THE COVER
The photograph on the front cover shows an aerial
view of Boston Harbor and the islands on which
the siting studies concentrated. Logan Airport
can be seen to the left of center, Downtown Boston
is in the lower center, Winthrop is in the upper
left, and Quincy is to the upper right. Cape Cod
is visible along the horizon.
Photos on the back cover show Deer Island, Long
Island, and Nut Island which are the alternative
sites being considered for new wastewater treat-
ment facilities.
Inside the back cover is a map of Boston Harbor
and vicinity showing place names used in the
SDEIS/EIR.
-------
SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
AND
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ON
SITING OF WASTEWATER
TREATMENT FACILITIES IN
BOSTON HARBOR
VOLUME 1
Prepared For:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION I
And Submitted By The
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COMMISSION
To The
MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF
ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
TM
Prepared By:
CE MAGUIRE, INC.
Architects Engineers Planners
One Davol Square, Providence, Rhode Island 02903
~* MICHAEL R. DELANO
Regional Administrator,
U.S. EPA
^
MES S.' HfYTE /
Secretary, Executive Office
of Environmental Affairs
Date
-------
PRELIMINARY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
AND
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ON
SITING OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES IN BOSTON HARBOR
Facility: Expanded PRIMARY or SECONDARY Wastewater
Treatment and Disposal Facilities
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Date: December, 1984
Summary of Action:
This Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) and Draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) considers alternatives for siting of
either primarty or secondary wastewater treatment facilities for the Boston
Metropolitan Area. It is one of many actions presently underway to allevi-
ate pollution problems in Boston Harbor-
Seven of twenty-two alternatives initially studied remain under active
consideration by EPA and the Commonwealth. These seven involve various
combinations of facilities on Deer Island, Long Island, and/or Nut Island.
Four are for secondary treatment of wastewater, as currently required by
law, with discharge to President Roads. Three are for primary treatment, if
a waiver is granted by EPA, with discharge nine miles offshore.
Capital costs of the alternatives (in 1984 dollars) range from $595 million
to $738 million for secondary treatment, and $752 million to $872 million
for for primary treatment. Operations, maintenance and replacement costs
range from $44 million to $53 million annually for secondary and $21 million
to $24 million annually for primary options.
This SDEIS/EIR discusses the impacts of each alternative and describes the
process which will lead to selection of a recommended plan. It is being
distributed by EPA and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to obtain public
comment for incorporation in the final decision. A Final EIS/EIR will be
completed following a public Hearing and comments on this Draft.
Sponsoring State Agency: METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COMMISSION
Sewer Division, Boston, Massachusetts
Lead Federal Agency: U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION I
J.F.K. Federal Building, Boston, MA 02203
Technical Consultant: CE MAGUIRE, INC. ARCHITECTS. ENGINEERS. PLANNER;
1 Davol Square, Providence, Rl 02903
For Further Information Contact:
Mr. Robert Mendoza, Mr. John J. Hamm III
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Metropolitan District Commission
John F. Kennedy Federal Building, 20 Somerset Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02203 Boston, Massachusetts 02108
(617) 223-0841 (617) 727-8882
FINAL DATE BY WHICH
COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED: MAS. 1 &
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME 1
SDEIS/DRAFT EIR TITLE PAGE: Joint U.S. EPA and
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Project Review
PROJECT ABSTRACT
[EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Summary Report is being
distributed under separate cover]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
1.1 Problems Caused by Wastewater Treatment Plant
Discharges
1.2 Actions Resulting from the SDEIS
1.3 Other Pollution Problems in Boston Harbor
1.3.1 Introduction
1.3.2 Problems Caused by Sewer System Overflows
1.3.3 Problems Caused by Stormwater Runoff
1.3.4 Other Pollutant Sources
1.4 Actions Necessary to Achieve Water Quality
Improvements
1.4.1 Introduction
1.4.2 Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent and
Sludge
1.4.3 Sewer Overflows
1.4.4 Other Actions Necessary For a Clean
Boston Harbor
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
2.1 Reason Why No Final Preferred Alternatives
Are Recommended at This Time
2.2 Selection Process for the Alternatives
2.2.1 Introduction
2.2.2 Initial Consideration of Twenty^two
Options
Page No.
none
none
Vll
1-1
1-1
1-6
1-8
1-8
1-12
1-13
1-14
1-15
1-15
1-16
1-18
1-19
2-1
2-1
2-1
2-1
2-2
-------
Page No.
2.2.3 Selection of Eight Alternatives for
Detailed Study 2-3
2.2.4 Screening of Eight Alternatives to
Seven 2-6
2.3 Conditions Placed on the Remaining Alternatives 2-10
2.4 Detailed Descriptions of Seven Remaining
Alternatives 2-12
2.4.1 Four Secondary Treatment Alternatives 2-12
2.4.2 Three Primary Treatment Alternatives 2-17
2.5 How Sludge Siting Relates to the Treatment
Plant Siting Decision 2-21
2.6 How the Final Screening and Selection Decision
Will Be Made 2-23
2.6.1 Harbor Enhancement 2-26
2.6.2 Effects on Neighbors 2-27
2.6.3 Effects on Natural and Cultural Resources 2-28
2.6.4 Implementability 2-30
2.6.5 Cost 2-30
2.6.6 Reliability 2-31
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3-1
3.1 Introduction 3-1
3.2 Boston Harbor Environmental Setting 3-1
3.2.1 Harbor Overview and History 3-1
3.2.2 Recreational Uses and Activities 3-5
3.2.3 Water Quality and Marine Life 3-11
3.2.4 Air Quality and Odors 3-15
3.2.5 Visual Quality 3-15
3.2.6 Land Use Patterns 3-19
3.3 Community Profile 3-21
3.3.1 Winthrop 3-21
3.3.2 Quincy 3-26
3.4 Site Characteristics 3-33
3.4.1 Deer Island 3-33
3.4.2 Nut Island 3-40
3.4.3 Long Island 3-44
11
-------
Page No.
4.0 ALTERNATIVES AND THEIR IMPACTS 4-1
4.1 Secondary Treatment Alternatives 4-1
4.1.1 Impacts Common to All Secondary
Treatment Alternatives 4-1
4.1.2 Impacts of the Individual Secondary
Treatment Alternatives 4-3
4.2 Primary Treatment Alternatives 4-46
4.2.1 Impacts Common to All Primary Treatment
Alternatives 4-49
4.2.2 Impacts of the Individual Primary
Treatment Alternatives 4-49
4.3 Mitigating Measures 4-85
4.3.1 Land Use Considerations 4-85
4.3.2 Traffic 4-87
4.3.3 Recreational Resources 4-92
4.3.4 Archaeological and Historic Resources 4-93
4.3.5 Engineering Considerations 4-94
4.3.6 Financial Impacts 4-96
4.3.7 Visual Impacts 4-97
4.3.8 Construction Impacts 4-98
4.4 Conformance with Federal, Regional, State and
Local Plans and Policies 4-99
4.4.1 Federal Plans and Policies 4-99
4.4.2 State Plans and Policies 4-100
4.4.3 Regional and Local Plans and Policies 4-100
4.4.4 Other Plans and Policy Considerations 4-101
4.5 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of
Resources, Energy Requirements, and Conservation
Measures 4-101
4.6 Adverse Effects Which Cannot be Avoided 4-103
5.0 UNRESOLVED ISSUES 5-1
5.1 Introduction 5-1
5.2 Sludge Disposal 5-2
5.3 Off-Site Transportation Facilities 5-3
5.4 Disposal of Potentially Contaminated Harbor
Sediments 5.4
111
-------
Page No,
5.5 Tunnel Versus Pipeline Construction 5-5
5.6 Control of Growth and Future Wastewater Flows 5-6
6.0 COORDINATION 6-1
7.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY 7-1
8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 8-1
IV
-------
VOLUME 2: APPENDICES Page No.
9.0 PERTINENT STATE LEGISLATION 9-1
o Chapter 742, Acts of 1970
o Chapter 296, Acts of 1977
10.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM 10-1
10.1 Statements by Involved Parties
10.2 Public Participation Program Summary
10.3 Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Recommendations
11.0 PERMITS AND MARINE RESOURCE IMPACTS 11-1
11.1 Federal and State Permits Checklist 11-1
11.2 Actions Requiring Permits Under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act, Section 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act, and Section 103 of the
Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act 11.2-1
11.3 Water Quality Impacts 11.3-1
[Boston Harbor Water Quality Baseline Report
Available Under Separate Cover]
12.0 BASELINE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS AND IMPACT ANALYSES 12-1
12.1 Land Use and Demographics 12.1-1
12.2 Traffic and Access 12.2-1
12.2.1 Baseline Traffic Report 12.2-1
12.2.2 Traffic Requirements of Construction
and Operations 12.2.2-1
12.2.3 Traffic Impact Analysis by Alternative 12.2.2-11
12.3 Recreation Resources and Visual Quality 12.3-1
12.3.1 Baseline Recreation Resources Report 12.3-1
12.3.2 Visual Quality Considerations and Criteria 12.3-34
12.3.3 Visual Impact Analysis by Alternative 12.3-38
12.4 Engineering Cost Estimates 12.4-1
12.5 Financial Impacts by Alternative 12.5-1
12.6 Noise Analysis 12.6-1
12.7 Odor Analysis 12.7-1
12.8 Area Geology 12.8-1
v
-------
Page No.
12.9 Sludge Disposal Overview 12.9-1
12.10 National Historic Preservarion Act (NHPA) 12.10-1
Review Process Summary and Archaeological
and Historical Resources Report
12.11 Legal and Institutional Constraints on Long Island
and Deer Island 12.11-1
12.12 SDEIS Screening Report 12,12-1
SDEIS Reports Printed Separately and Available from EPA:
o Evaluation of Satellite Advanced Wastewater Treatment
Facilities (May 16, 1984)
o Boston Harbor Water Quality Baseline
o SDEIS/EIR Summary Report (December, 1984)
VI
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Chapter Figure No. Title Page No.
1.0 1-1 Point Source Discharges to Boston Harbor 1-2
1-2 Major Wastewater Conveyance and Treatment
Facilities Around Boston Harbor 1-5
1-3 Metropolitan Sewerage District (MSD)
Planned Service Area 1-9
1-4 Shellfish Beds in Boston Harbor 1-10
1-5 Major Beaches of the Harbor 1-11
2.0 2-1 Eight Options Remaining After Screening 2-5
2-2 Consolidated Primary Treatment at Long
Island (52 A) 2-8
2-3 All Secondary Deer Island Alternative 2-14
2-4 Split Secondary Deer Island and Nut
Island Alternative 2-15
2-5 All Secondary Long Island Alternative 2-16
2-6 Split Secondary Deer Island and Long
Island Alternative 2-18
2-7 All Primary Deer Island Alternative 2-19
2-8 Split Primary Deer Island and Nut
Island Alternative 2-20
2-9 Split Primary Deer Island and Long
Island Alternative 2-22
3.0 3-1 Location Map: Shoreline Recreation Areas 3-7
3-2 Location Map: Boston Harbor Islands 3-10
3-3 Shellfish Beds in Boston Harbor 3-14
3-4 Selected Summer Winds 3-16
3-5 Map of Winthrop 3-22
3-6 Map of Quincy 3-27
3-7 Map of Squantum, Moon Island and North
Quincy 3-31
3-8 Existing Conditions: Deer Island Site 3-34
3-9 Ownership of Land on Deer Island 3-36
3-10 Deer Island Photo 3-37
3-10A Deer Island Treatment Facility and
Point Shirley Neighborhood 3-38
3-11 Existing Conditions Nut Island Site 3-41
3-12 Nut Island Photo 3-42
3-12A Nut Island Treatment Facility and
Hough's Neck Neighborhood 3-43
3-13 Existing Conditions Long Island Site 3-45
3-14 Long Island photo 3-46
3-14A Long Island Site and Hospital 3-47
vn
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED)
Chapter Figure No. Title Page No.
4.0 4-1 Secondary Options Remaining After
Screening4- 4-2
4-2 Consolidated Primary/Secondary treatment
at Deer Island (115 A) 4-5
4-3 Nut Island Headworks (2 A) 4-6
4-4 Consolidated Secondary at Deer Island
(115 A) 4-16
4-5 Split Nut Island Primary (18 A) 4-17
4-6 Nut Island Alternative Site Layout
(Primary) 4-23
4-7 Deer Island Headworks/Pump Station (5 A) 4-25
4-8 Consolidated Primary/Secondary Treatment
at Long Island 4-26
4-9 Nut Island Headworks (2 A) 4-27
4-10 Split Primary at Deer Island (52 A) 4-38
4-11 Consolidated Secondary Treatment at Long
Island (82 A) 4-39
4-12 Nut Island Headworks (2 A) 4-40
4-13 Deer Island Alternate Site Layout 4-47
4-14 Primary Options Remaining After Screening 4-48
4-15 Consolidated Primary Treatment at Deer
Island (52 A) 4-51
4-16 Nut Island Headworks (2 A) 4-52
4-17 Split Primary Treatment at Deer Island
(52 A) 4-58
4-18 Split Nut Island Primary (18 A) 4-59
4-19 Split Primary Treatment at Deer Island
(52 A) 4-64
4-20 Split Primary Treatment at Long Island
(18 A) 4-65
4-21 Nut Island Headworks (2 A) 4-66
4-22 Deer Island Headworks/Pumping Station
(5 A) 4-73
4-23 Consolidated Primary Treatment at Long
Island (52 A) 4-74
4-24 Nut Island Headworks (2 A) 4-75
Vlll
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Chapter Table No. Title Page No.
1-0 l-i Pollutant Loadings to Boston Harbor 1-3
3-0 3-1 Existing Recreational Facilities: Boston
Harbor Shoreline 3-8
3-2 Existing Recreational Facilities: Boston
Harbor Islands 3-12
4-0 4-1 Impacts of Secondary Treatment Altern-
atives 4-3a
4-2 Impacts of Primary Treatment Alternatives 4-49a
5.0 5-1 Summary of Infiltration/Inflow Data
South Metropolitan Sewer District 5-9
IX
-------
.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
1.1 Problems Caused by Wastewater Treatment Plant Discharges
1.2 Actions Resulting from the SDEIS
1.3 Other Pollution Problems in Boston Harbor
1.3.1 Introduction
1.3.2 Problems Caused by Sewer System Overflows
1.3.3 Problems Caused by Stormwater Runoff
1.3.4 Other Pollutant Sources
1.4 Actions Necessary to Achieve Water Quality Improvements
1.4.1 Introduction
1.4.2 Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent and Sludge
1.4.3 Sewer Overflows
1.4.4 Other Actions Necessary For a Clean Boston Harbor
-------
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
1.1 PROBLEMS CAUSED BY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT DISCHARGES
Boston Harbor's size, history, natural resources, and recreational
value make it unique among major American seaports. With an area of
about 50 square miles, the harbor is the largest serving a major
metropolitan area on the East Coast. The harbor has national historic
significance as it figures prominently in events leading up to the
Revolutionary War. Natural resources which make this harbor unique among
other urban ports include its natural beauty, a park consisting of 15
essentially undeveloped islands, thousands of acres of saltmarsh and
intertidal habitat, 4,600 acres of shellfish beds, commercially
productive lobster habitat, and an abundance of finfish. While other
coastal cities afford similarly striking views of the sea, only Boston
Harbor affords so many urban dwellers the opportunity for recreation at
the many public beaches, island parks, and fishing and boating areas
within the harbor. This recreational opportunity is threatened, however,
by equipment failures and inadequate flow capacity at the Deer Island and
Nut Island wastewater treatment facilities.
The Deer Island and Nut Island treatment plants contribute
significant pollutant loads to Boston Harbor (Figure 1-1, Table 1-1).
The current average daily flows at Deer and Nut Island facilities are
about 325 and 135 million gallons per day (mgd), respectively. The
hydraulic capacity of the wastewater delivery systems to Deer and Nut
Islands and are 930 and 310 mgd, respectively. At Deer Island actual
peak daily flows are less than current design flows due to hydraulic
limitations in the sewer system. Together, these plants discharge 75
tons of digested sludge solids and 135 tons of effluent solids to the
Harbor daily.
Inadequate operation and maintenance of Deer Island facilities has
led to the decreased effectiveness of many facility components as
described in the MDC's 1984 Deer Island Facilities Plan (Havens &
Emerson/Parsons Brinkerhoff, Volume 1, Fast Track Improvements). The
1-1
-------
H*rk»r
AU wtos> receive
n ruwoPP-
/ vw. i"'
'toKjp.2-17
-------
Source
Treated Effluent
- Deer Island
- Nut Island
Sludge'1'(2>
- Deer Island
- Nut Island
CSO's
(1)
Stormwater
Major Tributaries
- Charles River
- Mystic River
- Neponset River
TABLE 1-1
POLLUTANT LOADINGS TO BOSTON HARBOR
Annual Loads
Flow
mgal
107,800
45,400
5,
8,
18,
69,
7,
11,
100
80
700
800
000
400
300
000
BOD
Ib
82
31
12
5
5
20
3
2
5
x IO3
,700
,000
,600
,800
,900
,200
,000
,900
300
450
SS
Ib x
80,
17,
33,
14,
19,
14,
60,
5,
IO3
900
400
400
100
000
700
000
800
600
900
Total Coliform
No x IO12
2,000
4,100
7 x
3 x
1.1
10
3.4
52,
5,
8,
10^(4)
10D(4)
x IO6
x IO7
x IO5
500
500
300
TOTALS
273,580
164,850
246,800
10.3 x 10
7
(1) Based on fiscal year 1982 records.
(2) Assumes year-round chlorination.
(3) Continuous dry weather overflows (as identified in the late 1970s).
(4) Assumes 1000 billion per pound of raw sludge (some 100% more than digested mass shown) and two log
reduction due to digestion and disinfection with final effluent.
Source: Havens & Emerson/Parsons Brinckerhoff, 1984.
-------
failure of influent pumps at Deer Island causes wastewater to back up in
the Boston Main Drainage Tunnel until overflows are triggered at Moon
Island (Figure 1-2). Other problems include the poor condition of scum,
skimmings, and sludge handling equipment. Equipment problems result in
the discharge of scum and skimmings to President Roads. In addition to
these water quality problems, inadequate operation and maintenance of
equipment has led to hazardous working conditions (particularly at power
and chlorination facilities), air quality violations, odors and noise
affecting nearby residences.
At Nut Island, the primary settling tanks have subsided, and the
influent headworks and effluent outfalls are in poor condition. These
limit the hydraulic capacity of the plant. Flows to the Nut Island
Treatment Plant (130 mgd average, 310 mgd peak) exceed its treatment
capacity (average and peak design flows are 112 mgd and 280 mgd). The
limited capacity and excess flow frequently prevent the facility from
achieving an acceptable primary level of treatment. The old age and
inadequate maintenance of Nut Island facilities also contribute to other
problems, such as power failures, extreme sewage odors, and unsafe
conditions for .plant operators. These facility deficiencies are detailed
in the MDC's 1982 report: Nut Island Immediate Upgrading (Metcalf &
Eddy).
Although raw wastewater bypassing at the harbor treatment facilities
is a major source of local pollution problems, these bypasses are
generally not gauged. The unknown frequency and total amount of
bypassing, coupled with the poor quantification of loadings from other
pollutant sources makes it impossible to determine the extent to which
beach and shellfish bed closures are attributable to plant bypassing.
However, when bypassing occurs at Moon Island and/or Nut Island, plant
operators notify State health officials (DEQE) who close nearby shell
fishing areas.
Plumes of raw sewage and the debris they cast upon the shore are an
aesthetic deterrent to passive and active recreational use of areas
affected. This attitude results from the unsanitary or unhealthy
1-4
-------
LtQEND-
= Treahnent Plant
effluent Discharge.
= Emergency Discharge Only
= Interceptor
Co/umbuSPjfk.
AROUND
-------
condition of water bearing untreated sewage (although chlorination of raw
sewage provides some disinfection, the large size of raw sewage solids
protects some disease causing organisms from disinfection by chlorine).
Also, because sewage derived plastics (such as tampon inserters) do not
break down in the water and are deposited on shorelines, they are likely
to discourage some people from recreational use of the harbor even after
the gross water pollution has dispersed.
1.2 ACTIONS RESULTING FROM THE SDEIS
The proposed action which is the focus of this EIS is the granting
of Federal Clean Water Act funds for the construction, and possible
relocation, of wastewater treatment and disposal facilities to serve
metropolitan Boston in a manner which complies with Federal and State
water pollution control laws. Under the provisions of Section 205(g) of
the Clean Water Act, the administration of the Clean Water Act's
Construction Grants Program for Massachusetts has been largely delegated
to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Commonwealth therefore sets
the priorities, under EPA guidelines, for the allocation of Federal
grants for wastewater treatment facility construction and rehabilitation.
However, under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), the EPA may not allow the granting of funds for major projects
with a potential for significant environmental impacts without first
preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in accordance with NEPA
regulations.
Under NEPA regulations, the EIS must evaluate all the reasonable
alternatives to the proposed action and the impacts of those
alternatives. The preparation of an EIS also requires a comprehensive
public participation program. NEPA regulations specifically require that
federal, state and local laws be considered in the evaluation.
Particular consideration is given to legislation and regulations related
to groundwater, wetlands, floodplains, wild and scenic rivers, coastal
zone resources, marine construction, ocean dumping, fish and wildlife
(especially endangered species), farmlands, and cultural resources.
1-6
-------
This Draft EIS supplements the Draft EIS prepared by EPA in 1978;
this EIS is therefore a Supplemental Draft EIS or, simply, an SDEIS.
Changes in the Federal Clean Water Act allowing a waiver of secondary
treatment requirements under special circumstances led to new facility
planning by the MDC. In response to the new primary treatment
alternatives proposed by the MDC and changes in the population and
wastewater flow projections reflecting 1980 census data, this SDEIS was
initiated. This SDEIS is the result of a joint effort by the EPA and the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts and therefore also serves as an Environ-
mental Impact Report (EIR) which is required by the Massachusetts
Environmental Policy Act (MEPA).
Amendments made to the Clean Water Act in 1977 allowed the
Administrator of EPA to grant waivers, wherever appropriate, from the
Act's requirement that all wastewater treatment facilities provide a
minimum of secondary treatment. In 1979 and 1982, the MDC submitted
their first waiver application under section 301(h) of the Clean Water
Act. On June 8, 1983, EPA issued a tentative decision denying the MDC's
application for a waiver from secondary treatment requirements. The
denial was issued because of expected water quality and marine life
impacts at the proposed outfall location. The MDC has reexar&ined its
facilities planning and resubmitted the application to EPA on June 30,
1984. A final decision by EPA on the MDC Waiver Application will be made
by March, 1985, prior to the Record of Decision on this EIS. This SDEIS
is therefore carrying both primary and secondary treatment alternatives.
The siting of wastewater treatment facilities is a necessary step
towards the overall clean up of Boston Harbor. EPA's record of decision
(ROD) on this EIS will provide a recommendation on cost-effective and
environmentally sound locations for these facilities. The ROD, along
with EPA's decision to allow or deny a waiver from federal requirements
for secondary treatment, will enable the EPA to provide federal funding
assistance to the MDC. These decisions are being made with the benefit
of State involvement. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts will make the
final decision on the funding and implementation of wastewater management
plans for Boston Harbor.
1-7
-------
These EPA and State decisions will allow design and construction of
wastewater treatment facilities to begin. New wastewater treatment and
sludge management facilities will provide a two-thirds reduction in
sewage solids discharged to Boston Harbor. With the ongoing correction
of sewer system overflows, removal of sludge discharges, and reduced
pollutant loading from treatment plant effluent, significant improvements
in harbor-wide water quality are expected. These water quality
improvements will provide aesthetic, recreational, and commercial
benefits to harbor users and shoreline property owners.
1.3 OTHER POLLUTION PROBLEMS IN BOSTON HARBOR
1.3.1 Introduction
The sewage and industrial wastewater from 43 metropolitan commun-
ities is discharged to Boston Harbor from malfunctioning treatment plants
at Deer Island and Nut Island (Figures 1-2 and 1-3). In several
locations, raw sewage from local community systems overflows into the
Harbor daily without any treatment at all. During and after rain,
combined sewers cause raw sewage discharges at approximately 100
locations in the Harbor and its tributaries (Figure 1-1). These
discharges violate Federal and State water pollution control laws.
Stormwater washing over urban lands also carries significant wasteloads
to the harbor. Together these and other sources of pollution have caused
the closure of half the Harbor's shellfish beds (Figure 1-4) and periodic
posting of public beaches (Figure 1-5). These pollution sources have
also contributed to conditions of stress in bottom dwelling marine life.
The major pollutant discharges to Boston Harbor (as shown in Figure
1-1) . Estimated annual loads of several conventional pollutants are
listed by source in Table 1-1. Effluent and sludge discharges from the
previously described treatment plants contribute over half of the
suspended solids and oxygen consuming matter discharged to Boston Harbor.
Other major pollutant sources are summarized below. Detailed
1-8
-------
\
figure 1-3
Area
, H0Z.
Wa&lcwatef Tr»a
-------
^ * *-'
y^^P^k "k^f^
Source: Memo from S. Llpman,
T. McLoughfei. DEQE to Professor
Harr. Oct. 9 1984
SHELLFISH bEDS /M BOSTOKJ HARBOR
-------
O I 2 3 MI'
-------
descriptions of these sources appear in the separate SDEIS report: Boston
Harbor Water Quality Baseline.
1.3.2 Problems Caused by Sewer System Overflows
Dry weather overflows (DWOs) from the sewer system are caused by
occasional blockages with debris, tidegate failures and structural
bottlenecks in the system. Where sewers convey both sewage and
stormwater (combined sewers), rain storms and snowmelt often cause flows
to exceed sewer capacity. Between 50 and 100 storms each year result in
combined sewer overflows (CSOs) at approximately 100 points in Boston
Harbor and its tributaries. Stormwater flowing into the sewers during
wet weather causes about 5.7 billion gallons of sewage, industrial wastes
and urban runoff to discharge to Boston Harbor annually (MDC, 1982, CSO
Study Summary, p. 4). In the recent past, continuous, dry weather over-
flows discharged over 8 billion gallons of wastewater annually to the
Inner Harbor alone (O'Brien and Gere, 1981, p. 1-2). Since then, the
City of Boston has achieved significant reductions in the volume of
sewage discharged from dry weather overflows. "Dry weather overflow was
found to be the single most important pollution influence in (the Inner
Harbor, Dorchester Bay and the lower reaches of their tributaries)" (MDC,
1982, CSO Study Summary, p. 4). Together, these pollutant sources
contribute bacteria, oxygen demanding matter, suspended solids, toxic
chemicals, debris and refuse to harbor waters.
Sewer overflows are primarily responsible for water quality
violations which occur routinely in Boston's Inner Harbor. Water quality
violations in Dorchester Bay and Belle Isle Inlet are also clearly
related to bypasses and overflows from the sewer system (Figure 1-1).
The quality of water in the Inner Harbor (northwest of Castle Island) is
such that swimming and other primary contact recreation is always
prohibited. During the summer, Boston Harbor beaches are occasionally
posted during and after rainfall events which trigger combined sewer
overflows in East Boston, Dorchester Bay, and the Inner Harbor (Figure
1-1). During the summer of 1984, the MDC posted Tenean Beach twice (once
1-12
-------
for three days). Malibu, Wollaston, and Constitution Beaches were each
posted once (one day each).
Overflows and bypasses of raw sewage, poorly treated wastewater from
treatment facilities, and storm drainage have all been implicated as
sources of bacterial contamination in shellfishing areas (Table 1-1).
Sewer overflows and treatment plant bypassing reported by the MDC to
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE) lead
to periodic shellfish bed closures.
Floating sewage, oil, grease, and debris impair the visual quality
of Boston Harbor from many vantage points. These surface plumes are
particularly evident after rains which overtax sewer and treatment plant
capacity. Such plumes are a chronic occurrence near main sewer overflow
points, such as Moon Island, the Cottage Farm Chlorination and Detention
Station, and many points in the Inner Harbor. Tidal flushing in the
outer harbor appears to quickly disperse locally obnoxious plumes,
although shores near overflow points are known to accumulate sewage borne
debris.
1.3.3 Problems Caused by Stormwater Runoff
Stormwater runoff is a significant, but poorly quantified, pollutant
source in Boston Harbor. Urban runoff, Stormwater that has washed over
urban lands, is known to contain high concentrations of: microorganisms
(including those causing human diseases), oxygen demanding matter, plant
nutrients, heavy metals and other toxic chemicals (EPA, 1977, Micro-
organisms in Urban Stormwater). Stormwater drainage systems which are
separate from sanitary sewers discharge to all areas of Boston Harbor.
In the CSO study areas (Inner Harbor, Dorchester Bay, etc.), "while dry
weather overflow and CSO are the major pollutants, separate Stormwater
contributes significantly to violations of the Water Quality Standards at
certain locations" (MDC, 1981, CSO Study Summary, p. 5). Storm drains
discharging to Wollaston Beach in Quincy contain very high bacterial
concentrations and, along with other sources, are implicated in periodic
posting of this beach (MacKinnon, 1983. Note that sewage discharges from
1-13
-------
Moon Island and Nut Island are also implicated in Wollaston Beach
posting).
1.3.4 Other Pollutant Sources
Other sources of harbor pollution are listed below. Recent loadings
from these sources are largely unquantified and are therefore not
discussed further.
River Discharges - Rivers carry domestic and industrial
wastewater, debris and refuse, and the stormwater runoff from
over 322 square miles of urban and suburban lands.
Ships and Pleasure Boats - These contribute various wastes,
including oil and sewage.
Oil Terminals - These terminals have been implicated as a major
source of oil pollution (1978 DEIS, p. 2-29).
Sediments - Although not a primary source for contaminants,
sediments are probably a significant intermediate source of
contamination of overlying waters due to re-release of
accumulated pollutants and represent a primary source for
uptake and bioaccumulation in benthic organisms and sub-
sequently higher orders of marine life. Sediment quality is
described further in sections 11.2 and 11.3, Volume 2 of this
SDEIS, and the separate SDEIS report: Boston Harbor Water
Quality Baseline.
1-14
-------
1.4 ACTIONS NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS
1.4.1 Introduction
The treatment facilities to be improved or replaced are significant
contributors to local and harbor-wide pollution. However, it is apparent
that even total removal of the treatment plant discharges from the harbor
would not alone solve all the pollution problems. Bottlenecks in the
sewer system cause continuous raw sewage discharges at several locations
during dry weather and over 100 locations during wet weather. Urban
stormwater is known to carry significant waste loads to the harbor.
Shipping activity is also thought to be a significant contributor of
pollutants, especially oil.
The total cost of cleanup projects for Boston Harbor approaches $1.7
billion (1984 dollars) over an extended period. The following list
includes major projects which are part of the overall Harbor cleanup
effort:
o Interim rehabilitation of Deer Island and Nut Island wastewater
treatment facilities until new facilities begin operation.
o New, enlarged wastewater treatment facilities providing a
primary or secondary level of treatment for the entire peak
flow of the trunk sewers connected to the Deer Island and Nut
Island treatment plants.
o Interim and long term sewage sludge management facilities.
o Dry weather and combined sewer overflow control with special
priority for those discharges directly impacting swimming,
shellfishing, and recreational areas.
o Reduction of rainwater inflow, and groundwater infiltration
into the sewer system.
1-15
-------
o MDC infrastructure projects, including major pump stations and
interceptors.
Inspection of Table 1-1 and Figure 1-1 shows that different
pollutant sources are responsible for different types of pollution and
affect different locations within Boston Harbor. The actions necessary
to lessen these pollution problems are discussed below.
1.4.2 Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent and Sludge
Treatment plant effluent and sewage sludge are responsible for most
of the sewage solids discharged to the Harbor. These treatment plant
sources are therefore most significant to the long-term accumulation of
organic matter and associated toxic chemicals in Boston Harbor sediments.
With the elimination of sludge discharges and the construction of
secondary treatment facilities discharging to President Roads, or primary
treatment facilities discharging nine miles into Massachusetts Bay, a
two-thirds reduction in the sewage solids discharged to Boston Harbor
will be achieved.
Wastewater treatment and disposal facilities are being addressed by
four distinct efforts: the fast track improvement program, this SDEIS on
treatment plant siting, the evaluation of MDC's 301(h) Waiver
Application, and the evaluation of sludge management alternatives.
a) Fast Track Improvements
The fast track improvement program, also known as the immediate
upgrade program, is intended to provide interim rehabilitation of
machinery and structures at the Deer Island and Nut Island treatment
plants. These improvements are interim measures necessary to abate
pollution and neighborhood problems until the new facilities considered
in this EIS are on-line (about 1995). About $50 million has been
budgeted for these improvements, including 12 projects at Nut Island and
8 projects at Deer Island. Highlights of the upgrade are correction of
pumping problems at Deer Island and modifications to restore Nut Island's
1-16
-------
wastewater design capacity. The upgrade is now underway at Nut Island.
The upgraded treatment plants will discharge a cleaner effluent and
lessen the bypassing, odor and noise problems which have plagued the
adjoining neighborhoods of Houghs Neck in Quincy and Point Shirley in
Winthrop.
b) SDEIS on Treatment Plant Siting
This Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement investigates
alternative locations for wastewater treatment facilities. This impact
statement is required by the National Environmental Policy Act before the
EPA can grant funds to the Commonwealth for the new treatment facilities.
The options have been narrowed down to seven involving various
combinations of Deer Island, Nut Island and Long Island. Under the
provisions of section 301(h) of the Clean Water Act, the MDC has applied
to EPA for a waiver from the Act's requirement of at least a secondary
level of treatment. This EIS considers both primary treatment and
secondary treatment alternatives.
c) 301(h) Waiver Application
Section 301(h) of the Clean Water Act allows the Administrator of
the EPA to grant waivers from the Act's requirement of at least a
secondary level of treatment for municipal discharges where the
environmental impacts of less than secondary treatment are found to be
acceptable under the criteria set out in the Act's regulations. These
regulations allow a municipality, or in this case the MDC, two
opportunities to submit a 301(h) waiver application. The MDC's first
waiver application was submitted in 1979; the waiver request was denied
by EPA in 1983. The MDC submitted a revised waiver application in June
of 1984 with supplemental sampling data provided in October 1984. The
revised waiver application calls for primary treatment with an effluent
discharge about nine miles into Massachusetts Bay. This revised
application is now under separate consideration by EPA and the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. EPA's decision on the 301(h) waiver
application is based solely on the environmental acceptability of the
1-17
-------
proposed discharge. If the waiver is granted, and following a public
hearing, a modified discharge permit may be issued. Water quality and
biological monitoring will be required. EPA may later deny permit
renewal at the primary level if the monitoring indicates that the primary
discharge is environmentally unacceptable.
d) Sludge Management
The MDC is under an Administrative Order from the EPA to cease the
discharge of sludge to Boston Harbor. Currently, both interim and
long-term planning for sludge management is being carried out by the MDC,
Massachusetts DEQE, EOEA, and the EPA. The EPA and the Commonwealth are
aiming for the elimination of all sludge discharges to the Harbor in the
next two to four years. Interim and long-term solutions being studied
for the management of sludge, grit, screenings and skimmings include:
composting, landfilling, incineration, and ocean disposal at an EPA
designated site.
1.4.3 Sewer Overflows
Sewer overflows are responsible for water quality violations in
Boston's Inner Harbor, Dorchester Bay and Belle Isle Inlet. Sewer
overflows (CSOs and DWOs) are the most significant sources of sewage
borne bacteria in the harbor. Control or elimination of sewer overflows
may therefore provide the greatest improvement in presently contaminated
shellfish beds and public swimming areas. Most CSOs are under local
control. The majority are under Boston Water and Sewer Commission
jurisdiction, the remainder come under the jurisdiction of the Cities of
Cambridge, Chelsea, Somerville, the Town of Brookline, and the MDC. Over
50 CSO/DWO control projects are being pursued by the MDC and the Boston
Water and Sewer Commission. Together, these overflow controls are
estimated to cost about $300 million over the next fifteen years.
The objective of the CSO control program is to reduce CSO discharges
from once or twice a week to approximately once per bathing season,
thereby limiting beach postings to a few days per year. Implementation
1-18
-------
of the planned CSO/DWO control projects is expected to eliminate all
chronic dry weather overflows and reduce the volume of combined sewer
overflows hy 75%. The reduced volume of DWO/CSO and disinfection of CSOs
will yield significant reductions of bacteria released to near shore
waters. The reduced volume of discharges and screening of overflows will
remove much of the floating debris presently discharged.
Three major MDC CSO projects being funded provide screening and dis-
infection. The Fox Point project will have a 116 mgd capacity; the
Commercial Point project will handle up to 194 mgd. Together, these two
projects will significantly reduce bacterial loads and floating debris
impacting Malibu and Tenean Beaches in Dorchester. The Constitution
Beach project in East Boston will have a capacity of 20 mgd and will
greatly reduce bacteria discharged to this beach. Funding has been
received for the Fox Point and Constitution Beach projects. Funding for
the Commercial Point project is expected in the summer of 1985. The
Boston Water and Sewer Commission has also received marine CSO funding
for its Neponset Area Sewer Separation Project, and will apply for
additional marine CSO funding for the South End CSO Separation Project.
1.4.4 Other Actions Necessary For A Clean Boston Harbor
The Massachusetts Legislature has recently enacted legislation to
separate the water and sewer authorities from the MDC and replace it with
a new Massachusetts Water Resources Authority. This legislation is a
response to the years of underfunding which has led to the progressive
deterioration of the Metropolitan sewerage facilities and, consequently,
the deterioration of water quality in many parts of Boston Harbor. It is
widely recognized that the present system of funding wastewater projects
from the Massachusetts General Fund through the MDC is inadequate. The
most important parts of the legislation are the requirements for
additonal professional management and staff, and for financial
independence, including the ability to raise revenues through bonds and
sewer use charges.
1-19
-------
The MDC's industrial pretreatment program is another important part
of the Harbor cleanup. This program requires industries to treat their
wastewater before discharging to the MDC sewer system. While secondary
treatment will remove more toxic chemicals from wastewater than primary
treatment, the industrial pretreatment program is seen as the best
opportunity to reduce toxicants in wastewater effluent.
There are, no doubt, other actions which will be necessary to
continue the cleanup of Boston Harbor. These actions may include
measures to reduce the loading of pollutants from such sources as urban
runoff. As wastewater treatment technologies improve along with our
understanding of the environment, new opportunities and priorities will
present themselves for the continued cleanup of Boston Harbor.
1-20
-------
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
2.1 Reason Why No Final Preferred Alternatives Are Recommended at
This Time
2.2 Selection Process for the Alternatives
2.2.1 Introduction
2.2.2 Initial Consideration of Twenty-two Options
2.2.3 Selection of Eight Alternatives for Further Detailed
Study
2.2.4 Further Screening of Eight Alternatives to Seven
2.3 Conditions Placed on the Alternatives Remaining
2.4 Detailed Descriptions of Seven Alternatives Remaining for
Consideration
2.4.1 Four Secondary Treatment Alternatives
2.4.2 Three Primary Treatment Alternatives
2.5 How Sludge Siting Relates to the Treatment Plant Siting
Decision
2.6 How the Final Screening and Selection Decision Will Be Made
1 Harbor Enhancement
Effects on Neighbors
Effects on Natural and Cultural Resources
Implementability
Cost
Reliability
-------
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES
2.1 REASON WHY NO FINAL PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES ARE RECOMMENDED AT THIS
TIME
At this time, the U.S. EPA and Commonwealth of Massachusetts have
narrowed the options remaining under consideration for secondary or
primary treatment from twenty-two to seven alternatives, but have not
arrived at two preferred options, one for secondary treatment and one for
primary treatment alternatives. The most important factor leading to
this outcome was a desire on the part of both EPA and the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts to foster public scrutiny and obtain formal public comment
on all remaining options before selection of two preferred options.
Additionally, to provide a basis for decision-making, this section of the
SDEIS will identify the criteria to be applied in reaching a preferred
siting choice. Those decision criteria and weighting factors which will
serve as a basis for evaluating the remaining seven alternatives are
discussed in the following sections.
2.2 SELECTION PROCESS FOR THE ALTERNATIVES
2.2.1 Introduction
Federal regulations require the SDEIS to rigorously explore all
reasonable alternatives for the siting of wastewater treatment and
disposal facilities serving Metropolitan Boston. The options considered
were those first presented by the MDC in their recent facility plan,
Nut Island Site Options Study (Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 1982). Other
options were also considered at the initial stage of the analysis,
including some from prior studies and those identified during the EPA
scoping meetings for federal and state agencies, local officials and the
public at large.
The following discussion reviews the development and screening of
treatment plant siting options leading to a selection of seven alter-
natives for final consideration. The second volume of this SDEIS report
2-1
-------
details the impact analyses which served as a technical basis for the
screening process.
2.2.2 Initial Consideration of Twenty-two Options
Most of the alternatives identified and investigated in the SDEIS
were derived from both the EPA's 1978 Draft EIS which examined only
secondary treatment options, and the MDC's 1982 Nut Island Site
Options Study. The Site Options Study investigated eleven alternatives,
eight secondary and three primary treatment alternatives, including some
previously examined in the EPA Draft EIS (1978). With these previously
identified options, EPA initiated a public Scoping process to begin the
supplemental analysis to conclude the Draft EIS.
2.2.2.1 Results of Public Scoping Meetings
In September, 1983, EPA and the Commonwealth conducted two public
Scoping meetings to receive comments on alternatives for the MDC treat-
ment system from citizens groups and the public at large, plus federal,
state and local officials. Comments were requested on treatment plant
siting options previously examined, as well as new options, and on the
issues the public felt were central to the evaluation of the impacts of
siting large-scale wastewater treatment facilities in Boston Harbor. The
following siting and treatment options were added as a result of these
meetings:
1. A proposal to consolidate primary and/or secondary wastewater
treatment facilities on Long Island (two new options).
2. A new "satellite" advanced wastewater treatment facilities
proposal, developed by the Quincy Shores Association, Inc.,
with discharge into wetlands for effluent "Polishing" and
groundwater recharge.
3. A proposal to consider new man-made islands in outer Boston
Harbor locations.
2-2
-------
Upon completion of the Scoping meetings, EPA prepared a final scope
of work for the SDEIS. The Commonwealth prepared a separate scope of
work for EIR. The Scope identified twenty-two separate alternatives
selected for analysis and the impact issues that would be addressed in
the first phase of the screening process.
2.2.2.2 The Screening Process and Criteria Applied
To examine such a large number of alternatives, a screening process
was developed. Its objective was to narrow the number of alternatives
being investigated and eliminate those that clearly offered few benefits
or had significant adverse impacts. This initial screening of alter-
natives is summarized here; it is described in detail in a separate
report, EPA, Boston Harbor SDEIS Report of Final Screening Results, May
16, 1984, which appears in Volume 2 of the SDEIS (Section 12.12).
Each alternative's economic, social, and environmental impacts were
studied. In addition, their technical, legal, institutional, and poli-
tical problems were also analyzed. For this phase of the analysis, the
screening process relied on information that had been developed in prior
studies and reports. Specific criteria were developed for comparison and
screening of the options.
In screening the initial alternatives, it became clear that no
alternative was without some potentially adverse impacts. Furthermore,
no alternative satisfied all of the criteria used in the analysis.
Considering the size and complexity of the project and the siting re-
quirements of MDC's existing treatment plants and collection network,
virtually all alternatives were considered to have at least one or more
drawbacks that limited their acceptability to some affected group(s).
2.2.3 Selection of Eight Alternatives for Further Detailed Study
The screening process concluded that of the twenty-two alternatives
studied, four secondary treatment options and four primary options
offered the most advantages in terms of potential siting requirements and
2-3
-------
warranted further, more detailed study. These alternatives offer bene-
fits over the existing situation and reflect different approaches to the
siting requirements of the MDC system. The impacts of these options also
vary in their respective advantages and disadvantages. Figure 2-1
graphically portrays the eight alternatives with their respective
facilities and harbor locations. An estimate of the costs of each
alternative, based on updated information, is presented in
Section 4.2 of this volume.
The reasons for developing both primary and secondary treatment
alternatives separately derive from the independent but concurrent review
by EPA of the MDC's 301(h) waiver application (as described in Section
1.4). To provide a basis for EPA decision-making on treatment plant
siting once a decision on the waiver application is made, a siting
recommendation will be made separately for primary and secondary treat-
ment alternatives. The eight alternatives are identified below according
to their abbreviated names used in the SDEIS. Paranthetical references
refer to the screening report (May 16, 1984) noted previously.
a. Secondary Treatment (Local Outfall) Alternatives:
1. All Secondary Deer Island (la.2).
2. Split Secondary Deer Island and Nut Island (lb.2).
3. All Secondary Long Island (2b.l).
4. Split Secondary Deer Island and Long Island (2b.3).
b. Primary Treatment (Long Outfall) Alternatives:
1. All Primary Deer Island (4a.2).
2. Split Primary Deer Island and Nut Island (4b.2).
3. Split Primary Deer Island and Long Island (5a.2).
4. All Primary Long Island (5b.2).
A detailed assessment of the impacts of these eight alternatives is
provided in Chapter 4.0 of this SDEIS. These data serve as the basis for
further analysis of the alternatives and, after public review and
2-4
-------
Options Remaining
Af+er Screenin
TREATMENT
TREATMENT AUTEPNATIVB5
(4a.2)
0u5$ll
^(5a
W«JWl«^A
VS*t»ntSttl
iS>tv/«cy
KEY'
= haadworka/pumplng only
£=> primary traatment
^sacondary traatmant
-^ Intarlaland tunnal
-------
comment, will serve as a basis for a selection of the preferred primary
and secondary alternatives for the Final EIS.
2.2.4 Further Screening of Eight Alternatives to Seven
During the preparation of this SDEIS, analysis of the data revealed
that one of the four primary treatment alternatives All Primary Long
Island -- suffered from compelling disadvantages when compared with other
primary treatment alternatives. Therefore, the All Primary Long Island
alternative (52 acres) is no longer under active consideration. For
reasons explained at the conclusion of this section, Long Island remains
under active consideration for the siting of a split primary treatment
plant (18 acres) and for siting of secondary treatment facilities (either
82 or 96 acres). However, the public may still wish to comment on the
All Primary Long Island alternative and the reasons it is no longer under
active consideration as set forth below.
(1) The acreage needed for a consolidated primary treatment plant
is available at Deer Island with much less conflict with other
existing or planned public uses or resources, more oppor-
tunities for significant mitigation, and fewer serious legal
and institutional obstacles than at Long Island. The siting of
a 62-acre (or 52-acre) primary treatment plant can be accom-
plished without significant adverse impacts on Winthrop,
provided that major mitigation measures required by EPA and the
Commonwealth are employed.
(2) The legal and institutional obstacles to siting a large (ap-
proximately 52 acres) primary treatment plant on Long Island
would be formidable and perhaps insurmountable.
(3) A large primary treatment plant on Long Island would have
significant adverse impact on the State park now planned by
Massachusetts DEM for that island.
2-6
-------
(4) A large primary treatment plant on Long Island would cause
significant disruption to many natural and cultural resources
which are located there.
(5) A large primary treatment facility on Long Island would impact
the sensitive population of the adjacent Chronic Disease
Hospital.
(6) The location of the hospital near the treatment plant site
would impose additional constraints on construction.
(7) A large primary treatment plant on Long Island would be from
$56 million to $120 million more expensive to construct than
the other three primary options being considered.
The presence and location of natural, cultural and recreational
resources on Long Island, and the location of the existing hospital
there, make the siting of a large primary treatment plant at this site
very difficult. A 52-acre primary plant on Long Island might not totally
preclude the use of the remaining part of the island for a park and a
hospital, but it would substantially impair the value of the park to
visitors and may impact the hospital's patients.
As shown in Figure 2-2, a large primary treatment plant on Long
Island would be located on a major portion of the central-southern part
of the island on land which is now proposed for moderate intensity
natural area park uses. It would potentially disrupt historic burial
grounds and other significant archaeological and historic sites in this
area. To avoid destruction of wetlands and barrier beaches, the plant
would be located with its northern edge adjacent to the hospital. Even
if one attempted to mitigate the impacts on the southern portion of the
island by utilizing the site of the existing hospital (if that were
possible), one would discover not only that certain significant cultural
resources would still be threatened (as the plant would require addi-
tional land, and relocation of the central access road may be necessary),
2-7
-------
HARBOR
8CAUB
rwese 5iTB L>VoonsA«efe
THP HOC S(TE OPTIONS
MAV M6T RtFLeCT THE PeTAJL£O
AWD
BB
4 ft« P«5»
-------
but also that the proposed high intensity major recreational area on the
northern end of the island would now be adversely impacted by the im-
mediately adjacent and highly visible presence of a large primary treat-
ment plant on the slope next to the parade ground area. Though, in
general, treatment plants can be designed and operated so as to be
largely inoffensive, in this case the topography and size of Long Island,
as well as the presence of other valued environmental resources and land
uses, present extraordinary difficulties to the siting of a large primary
treatment plant relative to the other primary options available for such
siting.
The major obstacles to the timely and reliable implementation of a
plan for siting a consolidated primary treatment plant on Long Island are
the stringent requirements of many state and federal environmental laws,
as well as necessary legislative approvals. The numerous federal, state,
and local regulatory reviews and/or approvals are expected to be dif-
ficult and time-consuming in many instances, or might absolutely preclude
the building of a facility of this scale and at this location. Legis-
lative approvals would also be needed to change the public use of Long
Island, to purchase or take the land, and to authorize bonding to finance
construction. These legislative approvals would be very difficult to
obtain in light of the competing public uses of the hospital, the refuge
for homeless, and the proposed State park.
In summary, there are compelling disadvantages with the citing of a
large primary treatment plant on Long Island when compared with the
remaining more viable primary alternatives. Therefore, the All Primary
Long Island alternative is no longer under active consideration.
However, a similar conclusion has not been reached with regard to the
siting of an even larger secondary treatment plant on Long Island. There
may be greater difficulties in siting a 115-acre secondary treatment
plant on Deer Island when compared with siting a 62-acre primary treat-
ment plant on Deer Island. These possible difficulties include greater
conflict with other existing or planned public uses or resources, fewer
opportunities for significant on-site mitigation, more legal and insti-
tutional obstacles and the perceived impact of such a large facility on
2-9
-------
the nearby Point Shirley community. Therefore, the two secondary treat-
ment alternatives which would locate a large treatment plant on Long
Island have been kept under active consideration, despite the diffi-
culties of siting any large treatment facilities on Long Island.
Each of the seven alternatives remaining under active consideration
is described below and in Section 2.4. Chapter 4.0 discusses the impacts
of the All Primary Long Island alternative to facilitate public review
and comment on the assessment presented in this section.
2.3 CONDITIONS PLACED ON THE ALTERNATIVES REMAINING
The process of analyzing and reviewing the remaining alternatives
resulted in refinements to some of them. Such factors as unavoidable
adverse site impacts that were deemed to be unacceptable, available
mitigation measures to minimize adverse impacts, and alternative siting
layouts led to decisions on establishing conditions which are now incor-
porated into the project for the remaining seven alternatives under
active consideration.
The most significant of these conditions which applies to all
options is a joint decision by EPA and the Commonwealth to make barge
transportation of construction materials and equipment, to the maximum
degree feasible, an essential component of the project (either primary or
secondary treatment alternatives), regardless of which site may be
selected. Both EPA and the Commonwealth have concluded that the traffic
impacts of construction on the adjacent communities and nearby residen-
tial areas would be unacceptable without such barging, since resultant
truck volumes would reach several hundred vehicles daily along local
residential streets not designed to accommodate such traffic. This would
pose severe disruption and damage to the areas along the truck routes
leading to the three sites (see Section 12.2 of Vol. 2).
Busing of construction workers to the maximum extent feasible is
also being required in order to limit the number of personal vehicles
being driven to the site each day by construction workers. The lack of
2-10
-------
available on-street parking in the residential neighborhoods adjacent to
the sites and the disruption that would result from large numbers of
workers travelling to the site daily make such traffic unacceptable.
These constraints would be expected to limit the availability of parking
areas on or adjacent to the sites. It is expected, therefore, that
construction workers would not be permitted to drive to the sites.
By developing a barging operation, possibly utilizing a combination
of inland storage facility and lease of several existing barge terminal
sites along the waterfront, the daily volume of construction materials
handling and truck deliveries can be significantly reduced. Likewise,
efforts by the MDC to bus (and ferry) construction workers would minimize
auto traffic to the sites (see Section 12.2.2 of Volume 2).
Another condition adopted, which applies only to Long Island secon-
dary options, was to require relocation of the Long Island Hospital.
This would eliminate the potential conflicts of construction and oper-
ations of a treatment plant on the hospital and on adjacent environ-
mentally sensitive areas. Because of the unacceptable impacts from
siting of treatment facilities which would disrupt wetlands and barrier
beaches, cultural resources, and the hospital, it became necessary to
require relocation of the hospital for secondary facilities ranging in
size from approximately 82 to 96 acres. It remains the responsibility of
the City of Boston to initiate any such relocation of the Long Island
hospital facility to another (as yet undetermined) off-site location.
The siting plans presented in the SDEIS reflect this relocation of the
hospital. The impacts of such siting are described in Chapter 4.0.
Potential noise impacts from construction of treatment facilities at
all sites resulted in another condition being required for the project.
In order to minimize the potentially severe impacts (at some locations)
from excessively noisy construction equipment on-site, two conditions
were required. These apply on Nut Island due to its proximity to the
nearby homes on Quincy Great Hill and on Deer Island due to its proximity
to the prison. Residences on Point Shirley would also benefit from these
requirements, although noise levels reaching this distance are not
2-11
-------
expected to be more than slightly disruptive to residents. The first
condition would be to require additional mufflers or use of special
equipment and construction methods which would reduce equipment noise. A
second requirement, to be applied in combination with the first, would be
a commitment by the MDC to undertake all workable methods to maintain
noise levels during construction at allowable levels according to appli-
cable noise ordinances. Section 12.6 of Volume 2 describes these factors
in greater detail.
Another condition that is made in this SDEIS to modify the prior MDC
facility plans is to include odor control equipment at all sites. Such
equipment was not uniformly included by the MDC previously. This
measure, together with the development of new, modern treatment facil-
ities, would be expected to eliminate most current odor problems experi-
enced at nearby homes on Point Shirley and Quincy Great Hill, and would
minimize potential odor problems at the Deer Island prison and the Long
Island hospital, as well as at nearby residences, under the various
options.
Other refinements and mitigations which may be included as part of
the project are addressed in Section 4.3.3.
2.4 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF SEVEN ALTERNATIVES REMAINING FOR
CONSIDERATION
The following discussion describes in greater detail each of the
seven alternatives selected for further consideration by EPA and the
Commonwealth. A graphic description of the associated facilities and
siting characteristics of each is presented.
2.4.1 FOUR SECONDARY TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
The secondary treatment siting alternatives remaining under active
consideration are as follows (all would have a local harbor discharge):
2-12
-------
1 All Secondary Deer Island
This option includes a consolidated 115-acre primary and secondary
treatment facility on Deer Island. The existing 12-acre Nut Island
treatment plant owned by the MDC would be converted to a 2-acre headworks
to screen waste flows from the southern system of the Metropolitan
Sewerage District (MSD). These flows would then be conveyed via a
conduit across Boston Harbor to Deer Island. Figure 2-3 portrays this
alternative.
2. Split Secondary Deer Island and Nut Island
This option maintains and expands the present MDC treatment facil-
ities at both Deer Island and Nut Island. It is the preferred choice of
the MDC for siting of secondary treatment facilities. The Deer Island
treatment plant would be converted to a 115-acre consolidated secondary
treatment plant, with primary treatment provided for north system flows.
The existing 12-acre Nut Island treatment plant would be converted to a
larger primary treatment plant requiring a total of approximately 18
acres, of which 1 to 3 acres may be filled land added beyond the shore-
line to the Bay. Alternatively, to avoid filing relocation of several
abutting residents may be required to avoid direct impacts and provide
necessary buffer. Flows would be routed via an underwater conduit
between the two sites. Figure 2-4 portrays this alternative.
3. All Secondary Long Island
This option includes a new consolidated primary and secondary
treatment plant of about 96 acres sited on Long Island. The existing
26-acre Deer Island treatment plant would be converted to a pump station
and headworks of about 5 acres for north system flows. The 12-acre Nut
Island treatment plant would become a 2-acre headworks for south system
flows. Flows from the two headworks to Long Island would be conveyed via
separate underwater conduits. Figure 2-5 portrays this alternative.
2-13
-------
M ;
r\r^
crrr local
e*ft*n ^ - "t
5 V ^
% "^-^r \
vTv'j ^
Vr^ T
^
FIG. 2-3
ALL SECONDARY
DEER ISLAND
ALTERNATIVE
DEER ISLAND:
PRIMARY/
SECONDARY
(115 acres)
H A
NUT ISLAND:
HEADWORKS
(2 acres)
A-V
SCALE IN FEET
0 400 000
-------
FIG. 2-4
SPLIT SECONDARY
DEER ISLAND
AND NUT ISLAND
ALTERNATIVE
DEER ISLAND:
PRIMARY/
SECONDARY
(115 acres)
6 A
NUT ISLAND:
PRIMARY
(18 acres)
N
SCALE IN FEET
400 0 400 800
-------
FIG. 2-5
ALL SECONDARY
LONG ISLAND
ALTERNATIVE
DEER ISLAND:
HEADWORKS/
PUMP STATION
(5 acres)
H A a. e
LONG ISLAND:
PRIMARY/
SECONDARY
(96 acres)
NUT ISLAND :
HEADWORKS
(2 acres)
NI
SCALE IN FEET
4OO 0 4OO 800
-------
L<3C-«I
it-fall
ou
FIG. 2-6
SPLIT SECONDARY
DEER ISLAND
AND LONG ISLAND
ALTERNATIVE
DEER ISLAND:
PRIMARY
(52 acres)
LONG ISLAND:
PRIMARY /
SECONDARY
(82 acres)
NUT ISLAND:
HEADWORKS
(2 acres)
SCALE IN FEET
-------
4. Split Secondary Deer Island and Long Island
This option includes consolidated secondary treatment facilities on
Long Island of 82 acres with primary treatment for southern MSB flows.
At Deer Island, a 52-acre expanded primary treatment plant would be sited
to accommodate treatment of northern MSB flows. Nut Island would be
converted to a 2-acre headworks for south system flows, would be con-
veyed to Long Island via two underwater conduits. Figure 2-6 portrays
this alternative.
2.4.2 Primary Treatment Alternatives
The primary treatment siting alternatives remaining under active
consideration are as follows (all would involve an extended outfall 9
miles off Deer Island into Massachusetts Bay):
1. All Primary Deer Island
This option includes a 62-acre consolidated primary treatment plant
on Deer Island, and a 2-acre headworks on Nut Island. Flows would be
conveyed between sites via a conduit in Boston Harbor. As with all
primary options, treated effluent would be conveyed via an extended
outfall conduit to a location approximately nine miles into Massachusetts
Bay. Figure 2-7 portrays this alternative.
2. Split Primary Deer Island and Nut Island
This option maintains and expands primary treatment facilities at
both Deer Island and Nut Island. It is the preferred primary treatment
choice of the MDC in their 301(h) waiver application (see Section 1.4).
At Deer Island, the present 26-acre treatment plant would be expanded to
a 52-acre treatment plant to treat northern MSD flows. The existing
12-acre Nut Island treatment plant would be expanded to an 18-acre plant
to treat southern MSD flows. Figure 2-8 portrays this alternative.
2-18
-------
Sot
FIG. 2-7
ALL PRIMARY
DEER ISLAND
ALTERNATIVE
DEER ISLAND:
PRIMARY
(62 acres)
H A a e> o
NUT ISLAND;
HEADWORKS
(2 acres)
N|
SCALE IN FEET
400 0 400 800
-------
FIG. 2-8
SPLIT PRIMARY
DEER ISLAND
AND NUT ISLAND
ALTERNATIVE
DEER ISLAND:
PRIMARY
(52 acres)
NUT ISLAND:
PRIMARY
(18 acres)
N
SCALE IN FEET
4OO 0 400 800
-------
3. Split Primary Deer Island and Long Island
This option includes a 52-acre treatment plant on Deer Island for
northern MSD flows, a new 18-acre treatment plant on Long Island for
southern MSD flows, and a 2-acre headworks at Nut Island to screen flows
prior to conveyance to Long Island. Figure 2-9 portrays this alterna-
tive .
2.5 HOW SLUDGE SITING RELATES TO THE TREATMENT PLANT SITING DECISION
Under secondary treatment alternatives (if the 301(h) waiver is
denied by EPA) treatment facilities will generate about 200 dry tons of
sewage sludge per day. Primary treatment facilities will generate about
110 dry tons of sludge per day. Discharge of this sludge to the harbor,
as presently occurs, is against the law. Alternatives being considered
for acceptable disposal of the sludge that will be generated by the
proposed wastewater treatment facilities include:
1. processing of the sludge into a compost product;
2. transporting the sludge by barge for disposal at sea at an EPA
approved site;
3. incineration of the sludge; and
4. burial of the sludge in one or more approved landfills at an as
yet undetermined location.
The impacts, acceptability and environmental consequences of any of
these alternatives have not yet been determined. Moreover, each of these
sludge disposal options have advantages and disadvantages which must be
examined in greater detail prior to a decision being made.
These questions are under study as part of a separate sludge facil-
ity study by the Metropolitan District Commission, and each will be
independently reviewed by EPA and the Commonwealth for environmental
2-21
-------
FIG. 2-9
SPLIT PRIMARY
DEER ISLAND
AND LONG ISLAND
ALTERNATIVE
DEER ISLAND:
PRIMARY
(52 acres)
-~
LONG ISLAND:
PRIMARY
(18 acres)
0 R
NUT ISLAND:
HEADWORKS
(2 acres)
N
SCALE IN FEET
4
-------
acceptability. The results of these studies and reviews will be de-
scribed in a separate EIS to be undertaken following the conclusion of
this EIS on siting of wastewater treatment facilities.
During the SDEIS analysis, it was concluded that none of the sludge
disposal alternatives being considered altered the siting conclusions
being made on wastewater treatment facilities. In part, this was due to
the available option of locating sludge facilities off-site away from a
treatment plant. It was also a function of the varied siting require-
ments of each of the sludge alternatives which, although they do not
drive a treatment plant siting decision, require more analysis.
Two of the alternatives, ocean disposal and landfilling, may occur
off-site and would require only a small area for on-site transfer facili-
ties (either for truck or barge transport). Trucking of materials under
such a sludge option may impose added community traffic impacts, and
these would be studied as part of a subsequent sludge siting environ-
mental review process. The remaining two alternatives, composting and
incineration, could be located off-site also, if siting impacts at Deer
Island or Long Island were found to be unacceptable. Given these cir-
cumstances, the decision on siting of wastewater treatment facilities is
not being driven by a choice of sludge options, as none of the sludge
disposal options would alter the respective treatment siting alter-
native's relative impacts, and none of the sewage treatment facility
options would foreclose a sludge management solution.
2.6 HOW THE FINAL SCREENING AND SELECTION DECISION WILL BE MADE
Because of the complexity of the siting decision and the great
number and variety of factors which must be taken into account by
decision-makers, Massachusetts and the EPA have agreed that it is neces-
sary to work within a logical framework to evaluate the components of a
decision.
The first step in this process has been to analyze the various
arguments and considerations that have been brought to bear on the siting
2-23
-------
decision by all concerned parties in order to determine what disparate
objectives they represent. These objectives were used to develop the
decision criteria against which alternatives are evaluated. Briefly
stated, they are the following (in no particular order of importance):
Harbor enhancement
Effects on neighbors
Effects on natural and cultural resources
Implementability
Cost
Reliability
They are more fully discussed, individually, in the following section.
It has been the goal of the SDEIS to make the list short, yet
inclusive of all concerns that have been raised. Public comments are
sought on the adequacy of this list.
It is clear that no option will fully satisfy each of the decision
criteria. The next step, therefore, is to scrutinize each decision
criterion and rate the alternatives remaining under consideration against
it. The purpose of this is to assess the extent to which each decision
criterion will be fulfilled by the various options. The rating process
requires a detailed consideration of the factors that go into each
decision criterion and of the components and impacts of each option.
Since this Draft Supplemental EIS marks the first time the details
of each option and the necessary information concerning impacts have been
presented, the EPA and the Commonwealth have not yet undertaken the
rating process. This will be done after the information in the SDEIS and
the issues and facts brought out in public written and oral testimony are
scrutinized. Nonetheless, the public and local officials are invited to
present their views on how the options rate against the decision
criteria.
2-24
-------
The third essential step in the decision process is the weighting of
the decision criteria. This involves consideration of the importance of
each decision criterion, relative to the other criteria.
As in the case of the rating process, the weighting process has not
yet been carried out by the EPA and the Commonwealth, so that public
comments on the importance of the decision criteria may be taken into
account during the weighting. In addition, some issues which have not
yet been clarified, and the potential for major mitigation actions, will
affect the weighting of the criteria. To cite one example, the like-
lihood of the incorporation of Long Island into the State Park system
will clearly affect the weight which is assigned to the Harbor Enhance-
ment decision criterion, relative to Effects on Neighbors. As another
example, the potential for institutional relocation (of the Long Island
Hospital or the Deer Island House of Correction) will have a bearing on
the relative importance of the Effects on Neighbors criterion.
When the ratings of the options and the weighting of the decision
criteria have been established by the decision makers, these factors may
be combined to assist in arriving at a preferred option. It is important
to remember that the above process is not a mechanical way of arriving at
the "right" decision, rather it is a way of breaking the decision down
into sub-steps so that each sub-step may be considered on its own merits.
The factors relevant to that sub-step may be arrayed and the individual
comments and perceptions from the public and from other officials can be
carefully considered in an orderly, logical fashion. This process also
permits decision-makers, who must reach a joint decision, to compare
their perceptions of the issues so they will understand where there is
common ground and where there is disagreement. Often, this decision-
making process is an iterative process, wherein participants engage in
repetition and discussion of the various elements of the process over a
period of time.
2-25
-------
To summarize, public comment is sought on:
(i) the adequacy of the decision criteria which have been
established;
(ii) how the options should be rated against the decision
criteria; and
(iii) how the decision criteria should be weighted.
The decision criteria arrived at by the EPA and the Commonwealth are
described below.
2.6.1 Harbor Enhancement
Harbor Enhancement is the decision criterion that addresses the
question of how the siting of treatment plants fits in with the enormous
potential of the Harbor in the life of the metropolitan area. It encom-
passes not only recreational goals but also those for fishing, public
access, proper economic development, enhanced water transportation,
scenic values, and many others. Central to them all, however, is an
effort to make a clean harbor a vital part of the experience and daily
life of the community. Fully realized, Boston Harbor could become a
symbol of the rejuvenation of the metropolitan community.
The objective, therefore, is to select final siting options that
are consistent with and, if possible, promote the fulfillment of the
promise of Boston Harbor.
The Commonwealth has developed explicit goals for the overall
enhancement of Boston Harbor. The three major elements of the program to
meet those goals are (1) the economic development of the inner harbor and
increased public access to and long the water's edge of the inner harbor;
(2) improvements to existing recreational facilities and expansion of
recreational opportunities along the shoreline of the outer harbor in
2-26
-------
Winthrop, South Boston, Dorchester, Quincy, Weymouth, and Hingham; and,
(3) the development of the Harbor Islands State Park.
The portion of the overall program that would be most clearly
impacted by the siting decision would be the Harbor Islands State Park.
The Commonwealth's goals for the Harbor Islands, as stated in Chapter 742
of the Massachusetts General Laws, are to encourage recreation and
conservation uses of the islands. In the past ten years, the popularity
of the islands has increased significantly. Even though only a portion
of the islands are currently opened to the public, there have been
estimates that 170,000 visitors per year use the islands park. The goals
on the islands now in park use have been to retain and preserve as much
of their natural and historic resources as possible, while providing
interpretive services, camping, picnicing and, on certain islands,
swimming. Further park development is occurring as additional islands
are added to the State park system.
The three sites where wastewater treatment facilities are contem-
plated are all within the boundary of the state park, but have not yet
been acquired for parkland use by the Commonwealth. While each of the
three islands does have recreational potential, the Department of Envi-
ronmental Management has concluded that, of the three, Long Island has,
by far, the greatest possibility to be opened as a park of metropolitan
and state-wide significance if it could be acquired from the City of
Boston and opened to the public.
2.6.2 Implementability
Implementability is the decision criterion which addresses the
question of how quickly a given option could be started and completed.
Each option requires the successful accomplishment of many steps before
the benefits of new treatment facilities will be realized. Decision-
makers need to consider this criterion, in that a timely completion of
construction will provide substantial benefits from the improved water
quality of the Harbor and the reduced nuisance of the existing facili-
ties, and achieve rapid compliance with the Federal Clean Water Act.
2-27
-------
The objective, therefore, is to select final siting options that
can be implemented in a timely and predictable manner.
Most of the Implementability issues pertain to legal and institu-
tional requirements, many of which vary from one option to another. In
some instances, these requirements call for acquiring federal, state, and
certain local regulatory reviews or approvals. Examples of these are
Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permits, State wetland permits,
Coastal Zone Management consistency review, Department of Environmental
Management approval, and reviews by the Massachusetts Historic Commission
and the federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, to name a few.
The accomplishment of these requirements may be difficult and time-
consuming in many instances, or might, in some cases, absolutely preclude
the implementation of one or more options.
The other very important aspect of this criterion is the ability to
obtain legislative approvals for bonding authority to finance the facili-
ty, to acquire necessary land, and other necessary aspects of the pro-
ject.
2.6.3 Effects on Neighbors
Effects on Neighbors is the decision criterion that deals with the
question of the safety and nuisance impacts of a facility. It encom-
passes traffic impacts, air quality impacts (for the most part, odor),
noise and vibration impacts, visual impacts, and effects on residential
real estate values. It includes both construction impacts and long-term
operational impacts. It also considers the impacts individually and in
combination, including existing "baseline" conditions. In the discussion
which follows, "neighbors" refers to any person who is exposed to an
impact by reason of proximity to a proposed treatment plant or associated
traffic routes. The central question in this category is, what effects
does an alternative have on its neighbors?
2-28
-------
The objective, therefore, is to select final siting options that
minimize the adverse impacts of the facilities on the neighbors, taking
into consideration existing conditions, facility siting impacts and
mitigation measures.
An important factor that must be weighed in the Effects on Neighbors
decision criterion is the adverse environmental and social impacts to
which neighbors are already subject. Impacts of existing treatment
facilities are recognized as part of the current conditions, but will not
be presumed to continue. Such impacts will cease and be replaced by the
impacts of the new facility and these new impacts will be described.
Impacts of other major facilities -- in particular, Logan Airport and the
Deer Island House of Correction -- should also be weighed. The principal
impact from the Airport is noise; the impacts of the House of Correction
involve traffic, visual quality, and social/psychological disruption from
escapes or the reasonable fear thereof.
A number of traditional impact categories related to the project
itself make up the Effects on Neighbors criterion. Principal concerns
are briefly described below:
Traffic will be analyzed both during construction and plant opera-
tion. EPA and the Commonwealth agree that the project must assure
the maximum feasible use of barging for moving equipment and mater-
ials and busing for construction workers, and EPA intends to condi-
tion its grant to this effect.
Noise from construction activities and the treatment plant (as
mitigated by grant conditions) will be considered.
Visual impacts will be included only to the extent they materially
affect the views from homes in the immediate vicinity.
Residential real estate values.
2-29
-------
The above discussion identifies the principal effects of a treatment
plant which will enter into the Effects on Neighbors criterion. Any of
the remaining siting options, if selected, will have some adverse impacts
on some neighbors. Some alternatives locate most adverse impacts on one
site to the benefit of other sites. Other alternatives spread adverse
impacts among various sites. Public comment is sought on how the EPA and
Commonwealth should judge the combined consequences of each alternative
on neighbors.
2.6.4 Effects on Natural and Cultural Resources
Effects on Natural and Cultural Resources is the decision criterion
that addresses the issue of the impacts of a facility on valued natural
and cultural resources. It deals with both construction impacts and
long-term impacts.
The objective, therefore, is to select final siting options that
minimize the impacts of the facilities on natural and cultural resources.
Federal and state laws and regulations recognize the significant
value of certain natural and cultural resources, and require that they be
protected or, at least, that the impacts on them from a proposed activity
be considered and minimized to the extent feasible. The major types of
resources that are of concern in the siting decision are wetlands, flood
plains, barrier beaches, parks, historic and archaeological sites. Other
types of resources may be of concern in specific instances, but the
resource types listed have been designated to be given special consider-
ation whenever they might be impacted.
2.6.5 Costs
Costs is the decision criterion that addresses the issue of the cost
to implement a chosen option. The costs issues are straightforward and
have two aspects: 1) the cost to build the treatment plants (capital
cost); and, 2) the cost to maintain and operate the treatment plants once
2-30
-------
they are built (operation, maintenance and replacement cost). The costs
of all necessary mitigation measures will be included in the analysis.
The objective, therefore, is to select final siting options that
can be built and operated at a most reasonable cost.
2.6.6 Reliability
Reliability is the decision criterion that addresses the question of
how the siting of the treatment plants affects the overall operational
reliability of the MDC's treatment system.
The objective, therefore, is to select final siting options that
maximize the reliability of the entire treatment system.
Two issues that are related to this criterion are: 1) whether
consolidation or splitting of treatment plants helps or hinders relia-
bility; and, 2) the degree to which an option increases the need for
additional major pumping stations.
2-31
-------
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Boston Harbor Environmental Setting
3.2.1 Harbor Overview and History
3.2.2 Recreational Uses and Activities
3.2.3 Water Quality and Marine Life
3.2.4 Air Quality and Odors
3.2.5 Visual Quality
3.2.6 Land Use Patterns
3.3 Community Profile
3.3.1 Winthrop
3.3.2 Quincy
3.4 Site Characteristics
3.4.1 Deer Island
3.4.2 Nut Island
3.4.3 Long Island
-------
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter of the SDEIS describes the existing characteristics
of the study area. It focuses first on the environmental setting of
the entire Boston Harbor area. It then examines the three communities
and adjacent neighborhoods where impacts from construction and
operations of treatment plants would be felt. The specific site
characteristics of the three proposed harbor island locations are then
described. Information on the management and administrative structure
of the MDC, which now operates the harbor treatment plants, is provided
in Volume 2 of the SDEIS (Section 12.5). It describes the current
administration of the metropolitan area wastewater treatment system,
recognizing that legislation has recently been approved and signed by
the Governor establishing an independent water and sewer authority to
replace the existing MDC Sewer Division.
3.2 BOSTON HARBOR ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
3.2.1 Harbor Overview and History
a. Overview
Boston Harbor, with its more than 30 islands, totaling approxi-
mately 1,200 acres, is the largest seaport in New England and the
eleventh busiest in the nation in terms of total trade. The Harbor
also supports a variety of activities, ranging from commercial to
recreational, and is a major natural and visual resource.
The natural resources of Boston Harbor are of considerable
aesthetic, economic, social and ecologic value. Urbanization along 180
miles of shoreline and the drumlin topography around Boston Harbor
afford many striking views of the harbor and its islands. The views of
wooded islands, beaches, and Boston's skyline against the changing
texture of the water and sky are a source of enjoyment and inspiration
3-1
-------
to many. Cumulatively, these views impart a significant value to
residential and commercial properties. Boston Harbor supports
commercial shellfishing and lobstering. Presently, over half of the
4,600 acres of shellfish beds are open to licensed "Master Diggers";
the value of the annual shellfish harvest has been estimated at between
$5 and $6 million. While commercial finfishing is restricted to areas
just outside the harbor, recreational and sport fishing is very popular
throughout Boston Harbor. Area bait and tackle shops boast that the
harbor is the flounder fishing capital of the world. Other common
resident and seasonal fishes include: striped bass, cod, mackerel,
smelt, haddock, pollock, tomcod and red hake. With an average tidal
rise and fall of about 9^ feet, Boston Harbor has a large intertidal
zone. This zone, along with more than 1,200 acres of saltmarsh,
provides a large and productive habitat for the plants and animals that
are the base of the estuarine food chain. Finally, the Harbor's
islands are the unique natural feature of the Harbor. "The Islands
provide an experience of natural wildness at the very heart of the
Boston Metropolitain area." (DEM, 1984).
The proximity of dense residential development to Boston Harbor's
beaches, island parks, fishing and boating facilities is of signifigant
value. "Over three million people in the greater Boston area live
within 25 miles of the Harbor, and in Boston alone, there are over
200,000 people who live within walking distance of the harbor and the
rivers entering the Harbor." (O'Brien & Gere, 1981). The Harbor has
over 30 salt water beaches; many of the larger beaches are operated by
the Metropolitan District Commission and have good public access and
facilities. Ferry services between downtown Boston, the south shore of
the Harbor and the Harbor Islands provide thousands of trips each year.
Fishing from shore and from boats is very popular in Boston Harbor.
The Harbor contains numerous public launching facilities for
fishing and pleasure boats. Moorings and dock spaces are available for
thousands of boats at commercial marinas and private yacht clubs. The
harbor islands provide particularly interesting and scenic views to the
many pleasure boats which travel the Harbor. The islands themselves
3-2
-------
offer many opportunities for recreation. The undeveloped, natural
character of most of these islands provides good beaches, hiking
trails, nature walks, and in some instances camping sites. Many of
these islands are the sites of historic fortifications; interpretive
tours are available at some of these sites. An estimated 170,000
people visited these islands in 1983. While public transportation to
the islands is currently limited to a single ferry and several water
taxis, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management is
planning to improve public access as part of their overall plan to
develop and expand the Boston Harbor Islands State Park.
The features which make Boston Harbor so unique and diverse are
defaced by the urban pollution which flows from the sewers and storm
drains of the metropolis. Bacterial contamination prevents the
harvesting of shellfish from almost half of the Harbor's productive
beds and is responsible for beach closings. Sewage and toxic chemicals
discharged to the Harbor have altered the populations of marine plants
and animals of the Harbor. Bioaccumulation of toxic chemicals in
Harbor fish has brought into question the health effects in humans who
eat these fish. Floating sewage, oil, grease, and debris impair the
visual quality of Boston Harbor and undoubtedly discourage recreation.
As explained in Section 1.0, many of these problems are the result of
old and inadequately maintained wastewater treatment facilities.
b. History
Boston Harbor has played a significant, albeit changing, role in
the identity of the area from the earliest days of settlement and
development. The commercial and economic role of the harbor, as access
point for international shipping with the northeastern seaboard, has
always been of major significance to the metropolitan area. In
colonial times, almost all imports from England bound for New England
were handled by Boston merchants. Shipping and the harbor were clearly
recognized as the source of the area's prosperity and the City's
identity.
3-3
-------
The harbor has also been the historical center of the commercial
fishing industry in New England. Although both transportation and
fishing are no longer the intensive harbor activities of the past, they
still remain important economic functions of the harbor.
Historically, the harbor and its islands have also played impor-
tant roles for defense of the region. The military significance of
Boston Harbor dates back to colonial times. Boston was selected as one
of the first ports of the United States to receive engineering design
assistance for its defenses. Fort Independence on Castle Island dates
from the 1800's. In 1833, work was begun on Fort Warren on Georges
Island. In 1867, Long Island Head was acquired as the site for de-
fensive gun emplacements. The site on Long Island was enlarged and
renamed Fort Strong in 1899. A major military facility on Peddocks
Island and a fort at Lovell's Island were begun in 1900.
When World War II broke out, Fort Dawes, a heavily fortified in-
stallation, was constructed on Deer Island. Outer Brewster, Greater
Brewster, and Calf Islands also played a role in the coastal defenses
of that period. Advances in weapons systems after World War II made
all of these installations obsolete. In the 1950's, a Nike Missile
system battery was installed on Long Island. It became obsolete in the
next decade and, like most of the other defensive military installa-
tions in the harbor, was soon abandoned by the Government.
The harbor and the islands have historically also been the loca-
tion of hospitals, schools, reformatories, poor houses, garbage dumps,
and sewage treatment facilities which were located in the harbor away
from the concentrations of people. Many of these uses were established
in the harbor, as early as the 1600's, because the harbor provided an
isolated location for needed social services.
For example, the rendering plant at Spectacle Island was an
immense public health asset to the City of Boston. Early quarantine
hospitals, and later chronic disease hospitals, were also located in
the harbor, so that the general population could be protected from
3-4
-------
contagious diseases and to afford patients a quiet setting more
conducive to their care. The Moon Island sewage storage tanks were
built as a solution to the inner harbor's pollution problems in 1884
and were an engineering feat that attracted national attention. The
Deer Island House of Correction institutionalized prison use on the
island that dated back to colonial days when hostile Indians were
interned there. At that time, and over the course of the City's
development, the harbor islands were recognized as a resource to be
devoted to valuable and important public health and social service
functions, as well as less desirable though necessary community public
services.
As times and conditions changed, the harbor island locations were
no longer necessary for many of the institutional or military uses that
had been sited there. The islands fell into a long period of neglect
and decline. Reversal of this trend began in the 1950's when the MDC
acquired Georges and Lovells Islands and developed them for recrea-
tional use. In 1970, the State Legislature passed an act establishing
the Boston Harbor Island State Park and providing funds for the
acquisition of islands for recreational and open space purposes
(Chapter 742, Acts of 1970; see Section 9.0 of Volume 2). At the
present time, the harbor and islands represent an immense resource of
well documented economic value, whose visual and recreational potential
is only beginning to be realized.
3.2.2 Recreational Uses and Activities
The predominant recreational resources of Boston Harbor are its
waters, the MDC beaches, local beaches, and the Boston Harbor Islands
State Park. Both the inner and outer areas of Boston Harbor are used
extensively for recreational boating and fishing. Numerous yacht
clubs, marinas and boat liveries in the harbor provide facilities for
thousands of boats. A growing fleet of small commercial craft provide
recreational excursion trips, fishing trips, and transportation.
Fishing is a popular activity that is conducted from shore at numerous
points of access along the harbor and shoreline areas to the north and
3-5
-------
south. Fishing from private boats or from small rental boats is also
very popular.
Swimming at the MDC and local saltwater beaches along the Harbor
shoreline is an activity that provides recreation for thousands of
people in the summer months. Figure 3-1 indicates the location of the
major MDC and municipal beaches in the area. Table 3-1 lists the
existing recreational facilities in shoreline parks and recreational
areas adjacent to the harbor.
Following years of efforts beginning in the 1950's by the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management (DEM) and the MDC,
the Boston Harbor Islands State Park was created by the Massachusetts
Legislature in 1970 (Chapter 742, Acts of 1970). The boundary of the
Boston Harbor Islands State Park is shown in Figure 3-2 and includes
islands not part of the State Park, as well as thirteen full islands
and a portion of another island acquired by DEM as part of the State
Park. The islands under consideration for treatment plant siting are
within the boundaries of the Harbor Islands State Park, but have not
been acquired for parkland use by the State.
Long Island and Deer Island are features, to varying degrees, of
State recreation plans. Long Island is a prominent part of DEM's
Recreational Master Plan Update (1984). The plan for Long Island
encompasses both intensive active uses at Long Island Head and the
Parade Ground areas to the north of the existing hospital site, and
moderate passive uses throughout the remainder of the island's
undeveloped open area to the south of the hospital. The estimated
budget for the island's development during the State's current planning
phase is $7.6 million (excluding acquisition costs). The Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Management has been involved in
negotiations with the City of Boston for use of Long Island.
A portion of Deer Island was considered by the State for park use
in the original 1972 Recreational Comprehensive Plan (prepared by the
Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC)); however, the State has not
3-6
-------
Location map: Shoreline recreational areas
-------
Existing Recreational Facilities:
Boston Harbor Shoreline
Source- MDC
nal
£ CZM
&oston
Access
Constitution Beach
Belle Isle Marsh
Marine Park
Caddy Mem. Park
Quincy Shore Dr.
Nantasket Beach
Hull
Revere Beach
Revere
Nahant Beach
Carson Beach
Wollaston Beach
Malibu Beach
Tenean Beach
Savin Hill Beach
Castle Is. Beach
City Point Beach
M St. Beach
Pleasure Bay Beach
Winthrop-
Shore Beach
Winthrop Public
Landing
Winthrop-
Winthrop Beach
Lovell's Island
George' s Island
Castle Is. Pier/
Fort Independence
City Pt. Beach
Athletic Facilities
Bandstands and Music Shells
Swimming
X
U
ro
OJ
PQ
j-i
OJ
4-1
0)
4_l
iH
rt
W
Launching Areas/Boating
Camping
1 Fishing
Picnic /Refreshments
Historic Sites
> *
;.
Children's playgournd
J.W
Bike Trails
"£
Walking Trails
*
,
1 Lookout Tower
':i
. *-
fr> -'S*
3-1
-------
Existing Recreational Facilities:
Boston Harbor Shoreline
Source5 MPC
4
Yirrell Beach
Coughlin Park
Pico Beach
Donavan Beach
Belle Isle
Reservation Park
Orient Heights/
Constitution Beach
Porzio Park
Lo Presti Park
Connomwealth Pier
Sugar Bowl
Kelleys Landing
L Street Beach
Columbus Park
U. Mass Harbor
Campus
Rainbow Park
Harborside
Condominium Beach
Nickerson Beach
Orchard Beach
Willows Beach
Perry Beach
Edgewater Beach
Baker Beach
Mount St. Beach
Athletic Facilities
Bandstands and Music Shells
Swimming
X
u
co
QJ
pq
M
01
4-1
CO
DC
4-1
iH
tti
C/3
Launching Areas/Boating
Camping
Fishing
1 Picnic/Refreshments
Historic Sites
1 Children's playgournd
1 Bike Trails
1 Walking Trails
1 Lookout Tower
Table
-------
Location map: Boston Harbor Islands
harbor
Harbor i*|**U Sfsnt*
The
Graves
aqurred. by
DEM as parf of S-htfe
('also includes
4
-------
made it a priority of recent State funding and recreational development
plans (see Section 12.3, Volume 2). Table 3-2 summarizes the existing
recreational facilities of the Boston Harbor Islands State Park. In
the most recent year for which statistics are available (1983), more
than 170,000 people visited the various facilities of the Harbor
Islands State Park. It is estimated that several times that number are
attracted to the broader variety of recreational activities and visitor
amenities offered in the harbor area. When the full extent of the
State Harbor Island's plan is implemented, the State projects
visitation at nearly 600,000 persons annually. Section 12.3 of Volume
2 describes the recreational resources of the harbor in greater detail
including a description of the State's recently updated plans for Long
Island.
3.2.3 Water Quality and Marine Life
3.2.3.1 Water Quality
Water quality in Boston Harbor is best around the outer harbor
islands and in Hingham Bay. By contrast, the waters in the northern
area of the Harbor often have the highest concentrations of pollutants.
Inner Harbor waters and other near shore waters frequently fail to meet
minimum water quality standards. Periodic sewer overflows result in
near shore violations of standards in Dorchester and Quincy Bays and in
Belle Isle Inlet.
The most significant harbor uses which are impaired or precluded
by poor water quality are swimming and shellfishing. The quality of
water in the Inner Harbor (northwest of Castle Island) is such that
swimming and other primary contact recreation is always prohibited.
During the summer, Boston Harbor beach postings are a regular occur-
rence during and after rainfall events which trigger combined sewer
overflows in East Boston, Dorchester Bay, and the Inner Harbor.
Mechanical failures at both Nut Island and Deer Island wastewater
treatment plants occasionally result in raw sewage discharges that have
contributed to beach postings. Progressive deterioration in these
3-11
-------
Existing Recreational Facilities:
Boston Harbor Islands
Floyd te&oc.-
Long Island
Sheep Island
Rainsford Island
Slate Island
Spectacle Island
Deer Island
Gallop's Island
George's Island
Calf Island
Gt. Brewster Island
Green Island
Little Brewster Island
Little Calf Island
Thompson Island
Middle Brewster Island
Outer Brewster Island
Bumpkin Island
Grape Island
Hewitts Cove
Peddock's Island
Raccoon Island
\O£-
- £)f(\Ct- Lovell Island
.MOSS. Castle Island
.. %
Ownership
1
Z
1
2
1,2
1,3,4
Z
3
Z
Z
2
4
Z
5
Z
Z
z
z
3
Z
3
Ferry Service
Docking Facilities/Boat Piers
CO
0)
H
4-1
H
i 1
H
O
0)
00
rH
|
Toilets
1 Picnic Areas/Refreshments
Trails
New Structures
«
Existing Historic Structures/Forts
%
1 Beaches (developed or not)
%
Swimming
*
Lifeguard
Fishing Piers
''Ke -fa
3.MDC
4. \\-%. ejov.'-f- 5. Trustees of
-------
plants' treatment capacity has dramatically increased the occurrence of
such bypassing events in recent years.
Over half of the harbor's shellfish beds, approximately 2,000
acres, are closed because of bacterial contamination of overlying
waters or due to their proximity to sources of pollution (Figure 3-3).
The potential annual value lost from closed beds has been estimated to
be $4 million (Lipman, DEQE, c. 1983). In the remaining beds which are
open, shellfish may only be harvested by licensed master diggers who
must transport the shellfish to the Commonwealth's depuration plant
where shellfish are cleansed prior to sale. Overflows and bypasses of
raw sewage from local community systems, poorly treated wastewater from
treatment facilities, and storm drainage have all been implicated as
sources of bacterial contamination in shellfishing areas (see
discussion in Section 1.0). Sewer overflows and treatment plant
bypassing reported by the MDC to Massachusetts Department of Environ-
mental Quality Engineering (DEQE) have lead to periodic shellfish bed
closures. Commercial lobster fishing in Boston Harbor is apparently
not affected by harbor pollution.
More detailed information on water quality is found in Section
11.3 of Volume 2 of this SDEIS, and the separate SDEIS report: Boston
Harbor Water Quality Baseline (available upon request from EPA
Region I).
3.2.3.2 Marine Life
Boston Harbor supports commercial shellfishing (softshell clams)
and lobster fishing, as noted above. Sport fishing and recreational
fishing occurs throughout the harbor.
Winter flounder is the dominant benthic (bottom feeding) finfish
in Boston Harbor, and also one of the most popular fish catches. The
incidence of fin erosion in winter flounder appears to be higher in
Boston Harbor than in flounder populations outside the harbor.
3-13
-------
Source: Memo from S. Lipman,
T. McLoughHn, DEQE to Professor
Harr. Oct. 9 1984
SHELLFISH e>EDS /M BOSTOKJ HARBOR
-------
Biologists have theorized that the disease is caused by some type or
combination of environmental stress. Researchers have also speculated
that toxic chemicals found in relatively high concentrations in harbor
sediments may be responsible for flounder fin erosion.
More detailed information on marine life is found in Section 11.3
of Volume 2 of this SDEIS, and the separate SDEIS report: Boston
Harbor Water Quality Baseline (available on request from EPA Region I)
3.2.4 Air Quality and Odors
The Boston Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) is in attainment, or
meets federal standards, for total suspended particulates, sulfur
dioxide, lead, and nitrogen dioxide standards. It does not achieve
standards for carbon monoxide and photochemical oxidants.
Wind patterns, and particularly the patterns of prevailing winds
at the Deer Island, Long Island and Nut Island sites, are shown in
Figure 3-4. Prevailing summer winds in Boston Harbor are from the
southwest flowing offshore. Prevailing winter winds are from the
northwest, largely flowing away from shore. Easterly onshore breezes
also occur with some frequency, as do summertime inversions when air
currents become slack. The influence on adjacent populations of
potential odors emanating from a treatment plant would depend on the
wind patterns prevalent at the time, as well as the extent of odor
release occurring.
As indicated in these figures, the prevailing winds in Boston
Harbor are, for the most part, offshore and away from adjacent
residential areas and populations nearest to the proposed treatment
plant sites. The influence of onshore breezes occur with less
frequency.
3.2.5 Harbor Setting and Visual Quality
Boston Harbor is a large expanse of open space, approximately 50
3-15
-------
INTEJRNATIONAL\
SELECTED
SUMMER
SHOWING
PREVAILING
WINDS AND
WINDS
AFFECTING
NEARBY
RECEPTORS
13%
SCALE 1:25000
* T/fxes
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET
AT C Y
Arrow* £ percertfaaee, reflect Wind R
in &o&ron Harfrr. The. \r\eAviee*- \\nee>
indicate prevatmQ yvirtl d\recton& and
ft\e\r -
\\r\e?
-------
square miles in size, at the hub of an intensively developed urban
metropolitan area. This relationship is illustrated by the fact that
the distance from the State House west to Route 128 is equal to the
distance from the State House to the Brewster Islands in the outer
harbor. As noted previously, Boston Harbor has over 180 miles of
shoreline within six separate municipalities. Long Island, one of the
closer harbor islands, is nearly equidistant from most shoreline
residential areas (at a distance of about 3 miles).
The visual resources of the harbor are a tremendous value and a
major attraction. Waterfront views contribute a substantial added
value to adjacent property and provide a major attraction to
residential, commercial, recreational, and institutional uses located
along the shoreline. The harbor is seen by thousands of people every
day, and it serves as both a visual orientation point and principal
factor in people's "sense of place" within the Metropolitan area.
Boston Harbor is composed of an inner and outer harbor. The Inner
Harbor, which lies north and west of an imaginary line drawn from Logan
Airport to Castle Island, includes the mouths of the Charles and Mystic
Rivers and is the port and urban center of the metropolitan area. The
Outer Harbor is divided into three major bays: Dorchester, Quincy and
Hingham, and lesser bays which are prominent in their respective geo-
graphic areas.
The peninsulas of Boston, South Boston, and Charlestown are clust-
ered around the Inner Harbor, and all were originally joined to the
mainland by tidal marshes. Much of the individual character and visual
identity of each of the major bays in the harbor, as well as of the
lesser bays and coves, is determined by shoreline land use. The Inner
Harbor is dominated visually by the Boston skyline. There are com-
mercial port and fishing uses along the shore in East Boston, South
Boston, and Charlestown. Logan Airport is another major and dramatic
shoreline use which figures prominently (both in positive and negative
terms) in people's awareness of the harbor. Among the three major
bays, most of the development in the harbor is on Dorchester Bay
3-17
-------
extending from South Boston and the mouth of the Inner Harbor South to
the Neponset neighborhood of Boston at the mouth of the Neponset River.
Squantum and the former U.S. Naval Air Station in Quincy form the
southern boundary of Dorchester Bay.
The shorelines of Quincy and Hingham Bays are predominantly
residential. They are less developed than the shores of Dorchester Bay
and are more suburban in character. Winthrop Harbor, which fronts the
main Boston shipping channel, also reflects an urbanized land use
character.
There are several different aspects to the visual quality of
Boston Harbor. These aspects include the water, the "edge" or shore-
line, the land, and vegetation.
The water exhibits great variability in color and texture, de-
pending on the tide, season, wind and weather. It serves as a symbolic
and literal reminder of the basic setting of the metropolitan area, and
is connected to all manners of active and passive uses as well as
appreciation of the harbor. The perceived changes in color of the
water from blue to green to grey are a key element of its sensory
quality.
The land masses of the Harbor Islands appear in essentially two
forms. There are low, flat areas (near the water) and areas composed
of hills (and of man-made construction on these hills) which provide
spectacular vantage points overlooking the harbor. These also form
prominent visual landmarks. The drumlins on Deer Island and Long
Island are typical of such features.
The built environment is also a significant visual element of the
harbor. The Boston skyline serves as a dramatic point of reference and
a focal point from all areas of the harbor. The skyline is also
symbolic of the recent development trends in the region. Boston and
the adjoining communities in many cases have used the harbor as a frame
of reference and as a marketing tool for a variety of public and
private development projects.
3-18
-------
Logan Airport in Boston Harbor, though low to the water, is a
major harbor land use and one which is visible from many vantage
points. The activity at the airport is a major component of the visual
aspect of the harbor and adds to the visual identity of the City. The
structures of the treatment plants on Deer Island and Nut Island are
also visible over wide areas, as is the Chronic Disease Hospital on
Long Island, and the prison on Deer Island. Numerous other shoreline
and island activities, both positive and negative, occur in Boston
Harbor and combine to set an identity for the harbor which is only now
beginning to be recognized for its multiple resource potential.
Another component of visual quality is the occurrence of
vegetation. There are two predominant plant growth types on the harbor
islands; scrub and forest. Scrubby areas are composed of grasses,
weeds, thickets, brambles, and sumac. In places, they are overgrown
and virtually impenetrable. Forested areas (and trees in general) are
limited, but significant as both wildlife habitat and natural features.
Because the islands have lost most of their original forest cover due
to historical foresting and development, trees are highly valued for
their physical form and contrast and for the shade and screening they
provide. Long Island offers one of the largest growths of successional
vegetation and tree cover on the Harbor Islands.
Section 12.3 of Volume 2 describes the visual quality of the
harbor and of the three alternative sites for treatment facilities in
greater detail; it includes discussions of both visual quality and
recreational resources.
3.2.6 Land Use Patterns
Land uses in the areas surrounding Boston Harbor are as diverse as
might be expected in one of the nation's oldest and most revitalizing
cities. Much of the inner harbor area is devoted to a range of mari-
time commercial and industrial uses, typical of a major port. Recent
waterfront trends, however, include the development of land uses that
do not require a waterfront location, but which derive an increase in
3-19
-------
value and attraction by virtue of their relation to the harbor.
Examples of recent development trends along the harbor are new or
rehabilitated office buildings, restaurants and shops, hotels, and
apartment and condominium complexes. The City of Boston Redevelopment
Authority (BRA) has been a prime force in the redevelopment of the
harbor area. Their redevelopment plans involving the waterfront area
are directly responsible for much of the new open space, office,
commercial, and residential uses so different from the traditional
warehouse and industrial waterfront uses of the past. Similar develop-
ment patterns can be found in the other adjacent waterfront harbor
communities, though residential uses predominate in those suburban
areas.
One of the major harborfront land uses, not typical of major urban
waterfronts, is Logan Airport. The airport and related activities take
up a huge amount of waterfront space in the harbor. The Massachusetts
Port Authority, the agency that operates the airport, also controls a
large portion of other harborfront areas and operates traditional
commercial port facilities.
The major uses of waterfront land in Quincy and Winthrop are resi-
dential. There are also public beaches and recreational uses on the
waterfront in these communities.
The urban roadway transportation network is also oriented to the
waterfront in the "hub and spoke" pattern of access into the City of
Boston.
Sections 12.1 and 12.2 of Volume 2 describe the existing land use
and traffic/access patterns, respectively, of the shoreline communities
and proposed harbor island sites in greater detail.
3-20
-------
3.3 COMMUNITY PROFILES
3.3.1 Winthrop
Winthrop is a largely residential town of approximately 19,000
people situated on a peninsula that forms the northern boundary of
Boston Harbor (Figure 3-5). The chief attractions of the community are
its proximity and access to the shore with the availability of
swimming, fishing and boating activities. Waterfront views and
affordable housing in relatively safe neighborhoods are prime features
Winthrop provides in close proximity to Boston, to Logan Airport, and
to major area employment centers.
3.3.1.1 Point Shirley and Cottage Hill
The Point Shirley and Cottage Hill neighborhoods are closest to
Deer Island. They are situated on a narrow peninsula with Point
Shirley connected to Deer Island and separated from Winthrop by a
causeway. The only access route by land to Deer Island passes through
Winthrop, over Cottage Hill and through Point Shirley.
These neighborhoods are predominantly residential with approxi-
mately 450 residences and a population of about 1,000 in Point Shirley
and 1,400 residences and 3,400 persons in Cottage Hill. Most of the
homes were built as summer cottages, which over the years have been
winterized and used as year-round residences. A few neighborhood
commercial uses are found among the predominantly one- and two-family
homes. The major commercial uses in Winthrop are located along the
main truck route to Deer Island. Approximately 10 homes in Point
Shirley are within a half-mile of the treatment plant. The treatment
plant itself cannot be seen from most of Point Shirley because of the
flat topography and intervening residences from most viewpoints. It is
most prominent from a small number of homes (about 20) along the edge
of Cottage Hill. Land uses in the neighborhoods are described in
greater detail in Section 12.1 of Volume 2.
3-21
-------
W»r .
ccese> Yi(
>*' /. :>.. \o f- tf
Nx. /Drive-in...-''^ i v^^-
s^' Theater'.(:...: Et-/ (S- (»
' /' .\; o ^ <& ^~
T H| R
BOSTON
JIARBOR
.* II // *&~*^fttT\jft
WS^«\^
\~r ?V\ ._.' Vf :::;-:
Prison Control Gate
(Public Access Restricted)
LEGEND
Route 145 FIGURE 3-5
Designated Access Route MAP OF WINTHROP
Existing Truck Route to Deer Island
BOSTON HARBOR
FACILITIES SITING
S D E I S
C. E.Maguire, Inc.
-------
Although a prison and a sewage pumping station have been located
on Deer Island for nearly 100 years, it was after a hurricane in 1936
that these undesirable metropolitan uses on Deer Island began to be
more closely associated with the Point Shirley neighborhood. Prior to
this time, Shirley Gut and its swiftly moving currents physically
separated Deer Island from Winthrop. Access was by ferry. The winds
and tides of the hurricane deposited sand and silt that connected Deer
Island to Winthrop. This was consolidated and made into a causeway
permanently linking the two areas. Loss of the Gut not only reduced
the flushing action around Deer Island, but also more closely
associated the prison, the sewage treatment plant and the entire island
area with the Town of Winthrop (even though Deer Island remained a part
of the City of Boston). Local roads in Winthrop became the principal
access to Deer Island.
The need for military fortifications on Deer Island during World
War II absorbed all the remaining open space on the island south of the
drumlin. This drumlin, a prominent feature of the site at almost 100
feet in elevation, is an important visual reference and barrier on the
island. In spite of its close proximity, the Town of Winthrop lost a
possible opportunity to derive public open space use of the island
because of preemption by all the other activities occurring there and
the jurisdictional separation of the site.
Impacts to the Town, and especially to the two nearby neighbor-
hoods, intensified with the construction of Logan Airport adjacent to
Winthrop. The introduction of jet aircraft added to local noise levels
and created locally adverse noise conditions and disturbance.
Logan International Airport, located in East Boston and adjacent
to the Town of Winthrop, serves as a major airport for New England. It
serves almost 18 million people each year with between 800 and 1,000
total flights departing and arriving daily (this figure includes both
general aviation and jet aircraft). The Point Shirley and Cottage Hill
neighborhoods are in the flight path of the airport. These neighbor-
hoods experience about 19 percent of the overflights daily (an average
3-23
-------
of about 160 aircraft) with planes at an altitude of less than 500
feet. This airport activity results in major noise impacts to the
community and to surrounding shoreline areas.
The operations of the Deer Island House of Corrections, involving
over 4,000 visitors annually, and particularly the periodic escapes
(averaging about 20 a year), have further intensified the community's
dissatisfaction with the closeness of the prison and its operations.
House to house searches undertaken in the neighborhood and the use of
sirens following prison escapes have aggravated this problem. Past
concerns for the prison's problems and proximity to residential areas
have led to local, state and federal efforts to relocate this facility;
however, no resolution has as yet been reached. Current court
proceedings involving problems of overcrowding at the City's Charles
Street Jail include consideration of a possible temporary relocation of
prisoners to the Deer Island House of Correction. This situation is
being addressed as part of a broader solution to overcrowding and
deteriorating conditions in the area's correctional facilities.
The construction of a new sewage treatment plant by the MDC in the
1950's and 1960's was initially perceived as a positive development.
However, the increasing lack of State funds for maintenance has
resulted, more recently, in a gradual deterioration of this facility
and created adverse impacts in the form of odors (predominantly diesel
fumes with occasional escaping septage gases and chlorine fumes),
noise, and disruption due to fires and frequent emergency conditions at
the plant.
Together the cumulative effects of the regional facilities on Deer
Island and at Logan Airport, all in close proximity to Winthrop and
particularly the Point Shirley and Cottage Hill neighborhoods, have
caused a serious decrease in the quality of life for residents.
Zoning in Point Shirley, Cottage Hill, and throughout much of
Winthrop is "Residence A, Single Family Use". Prior to 1955, this
classification allowed lots with a minimum area of 3,500 square feet.
3-24
-------
Between 1955 and 1982, the minimum lot size requirements was increased
to 5,000 square feet. In 1982, the required lot size for single-family
houses in all "Residence A" zones was increased to 7,000 square feet.
Land access to Deer Island is available by only two routes. The
major access route is via Saratoga Street in East Boston. This becomes
Main Street in Winthrop at the bridge crossing Belle Isle Inlet. An
alternate route is through Revere via Winthrop Shore Drive. Both
roadways are part of Route 145 (see Figure 3-5). However, only the
Winthrop route is open to trucks along its entire length which the Town
has designated as a truck route to Deer Island.
Because recent traffic records of the State were not available for
Winthrop, current traffic counts were taken in Winthrop as part of the
SDEIS for use in evaluating impacts. This information is provided
along with a more detailed analysis of existing traffic conditions in
Section 12.2 of Volume 2.
The traffic capacity of the predominantly two-lane local urban
streets in the vicinity of Deer Island is approximately 1,600 vehicles
per hour (total for both directions). Present traffic flows on local
roads are in the range of 150 to 625 vehicles per hour (total for both
directions). While local roads, have more than adequate excess
capacity to accommodate additional traffic from construction, there is
usually congestion at some intersections. This may limit traffic
flows, particularly during peak construction periods and when truck and
bus traffic is involved.
At several unsignalized intersections along the truck route to
Deer Island, additional traffic cannot be accommodated efficiently.
With the addition of traffic signal controls and other improvements
recommended as part of this project (as noted in Section 12.2 of Volume
2), this problem can be alleviated and additional construction vehicles
can be adequately accommodated along these local roadways. Entering
Point Shirley, roadway operating conditions become poor due to the
narrow streets and predominantly residential uses that exist.
3-25
-------
Additional traffic involving trucks and buses requires special con-
sideration in this neighborhood. There is, however, existing truck and
bus traffic through the neighborhood (as noted in Section 12.2.2)
serving the prison and treatment plants. A cause for local concern
also exists with regard to the delivery of chlorine gas by truck to the
Deer Island treatment plant. These deliveries now occur three to four
times weekly and people along the truck route are concerned about the
consequences of a mishap. See Section 12.2 of Volume 2 for a full
discussion of traffic conditions and potential impacts.
3.3.2
Quincy is a large manufacturing city with a 1980 residential popu-
lation of 74,743. It enjoys a rich historical and cultural background
founded on granite quarrying and shipbuilding, and includes several
prominent historical sites that were part of the colonial and early
republic periods of our country.
The chief attractions of the area are its proximity and access to
the shoreline and harbor (Figure 3-6), plus the availability of
swimming, fishing and boating activities. The added amenity of a
regional transportation network is a further attraction to residents
and businesses, providing commuters with short travel times to regional
employment centers and making the quality of life, housing stock, and
rich historical and cultural heritage of Quincy accessible to large
numbers of people.
3.3.2.1 Houghs Neck
Houghs Neck is a peninsula forming the southeastern boundary
between Quincy and Hingham Bays. Is was connected to Nut Island when
the existing treatment plant was built. Houghs Neck is a densely
developed residential area with significant commercial development
along its main streets. The housing in Houghs Neck, and along Quincy
Great Hill closest to the treatment plant, was built originally as
summer residences. Nearly all homes have since been converted to
3-26
-------
-iiy»Sr f c<
-------
year-round residences. Approximately 180 homes on Houghs Neck are
within one-half mile of the Nut Island treatment plant. Population in
Houghs Neck is estimated at approximately 4,000 persons.
Half of the housing stock in Houghs Neck was constructed prior to
1939. There are some neighborhood commercial uses in the area, in-
cluding food stores, restaurants, marinas and boat rentals. These are
located along the major access route. The Quincy Yacht Club, occupying
a section of land facing Hingham Bay, and a boat rental business on
Houghs Neck, provide access for boating and fishing in Quincy and
Hingham Bays. Section 12.1 of Volume 2 describes the land uses on
Houghs Neck in greater detail.
The chief attractions of this neighborhood are its waterfront
location, access to recreation, and views of the harbor. Housing
offers a variety of choices in a range of prices making the area an
affordable and attractive residential location.
The poor operation of the MDC treatment plant on Nut Island has
been a source of problems experienced by residents of Houghs Neck for
several years. The discharge of unscreened and untreated sewage from
the plant is a recurring problem for local residents and those using
the shoreline and harbor areas around the treatment plant. Odors
emanating from the plant are a particular problem resulting in part
from the long distance which the raw sewerage must travel from its
sources throughout the MSB South System before it reaches the plant.
Operations noise levels at the plant are not presently a problem (see
Section 12.6); however, the distance of only 300 feet between the
treatment plant and the nearest residences is a source of continuing
problems due to the limited buffer area and poor access to the Nut
Island site.
Zoning in Houghs Neck is predominantly "Residence A, Single-
Family" with 7,650 square foot lot minimums. There are some "Residence
B, Multi-Family" homes (6,750 square feet minimum lots) and some
"Business B, Neighborhood Commercial" establishments.
3-28
-------
Access to Nut Island is via Sea Street from Route 3A (the Southern
Artery) as shown on Figure 3-6.
Sea Street is a four-lane roadway connecting Route 3A to Houghs
Neck via Adams Shore. All traffic to and from Nut Island must use Sea
Street, passing through portions of Quincy before reaching Houghs Neck.
From Sea Street, Sea Avenue provides access to Nut Island over Quincy
Great Hill. The avenue ascends and descends the hill at a steep grade.
Adjacent land is densely developed for residential use. A variety of
commercial activities are located nearby, with cars parking on the
street. The two lane, two-way portion of Sea Street has a capacity of
1,600 vehicles for both directions of travel. The existing traffic
through this section of the access route is estimated at only 600
vehicles per hour, indicating more than sufficient capacity on Sea
Street for additional traffic. Traffic information is described in
detail in Section 12.2 of Volume 2.
In spite of the excess roadway capacity, the actual operating
conditions on Sea Avenue in Houghs Neck, particularly for heavy trucks,
are difficult to measure because of its existing sharp curves, steep
grades, and limited sight lines. As a result, this segment of Sea
Avenue should be considered adequate for only limited increases in
traffic volumes, especially involving heavy trucks. Existing truck and
bus traffic use these roadways serving the treatment plant and abutting
residential and commercial uses.
Because of the particularly narrow and winding local streets in
Houghs Neck and on Quincy Great Hill, operations of the MDC have also
involved disruption to traffic along the adjacent roads leading to the
plant. Safety concerns have been raised by residents over deliveries
of chlorine gas by truck and possible leaks of chlorine on site.
3-29
-------
3.3.2.2 Squantum
The Squantum section of Quincy is a peninsula that separates Dor-
chester Bay from Quincy Bay. It is connected to North Quincy by a
causeway (Figure 3-7).
The Squantum neighborhood had a 1980 population of 3,080 and is a
relatively densely-developed residential area. Other than limited
neighborhood commercial uses, major land use is single-family resi-
dential development. A few small apartment buildings and a limited
number of two-family houses are in evidence. The nearest homes on
Squantum are approximately 12,000 feet across Quincy Bay from the
proposed site of treatment facilities on Long Island.
The amenities of this neighborhood include its proximity to the
waterfront and the associated views of the harbor. Proximity to
beaches and swimming, fishing, and boating activities are also prime
features of the area.
Squantum is also the site of the former Squantum Naval Air
Station, which, at about 500 acres in size, has a land area nearly as
large as the developed area of Squantum. The Naval Air Station site
was purchased several years ago by Boston Edison. It remains largely
undeveloped, although reuse plans have been proposed for parts of the
site. The Boston Harbor Marina, located on a portion of the Air
Station site, will likely be a permanent component of any future
mixed-use development. Construction has recently begun on a 142-unit
townhouse condominium complex along the shoreline, which may set the
character of future development of the site.
Zoning in Squantum, updated by the City in 1971, is predominantly
"Residence A, Single-Family". Minimum lot size is 7,650 square feet.
There are a small number of "Residence B, Multi-Family" units along
Dorchester Avenue in Squantum and some "Business-B, Neighborhood Com-
mercial" establishments. The large salt marsh adjacent to East Squan-
tum Street is zoned as open space. Current zoning on the Naval Air
3-30
-------
v ,( /|i
-------
Station site is primarily "PUD, Planned Unit Development". Quincy's
PUD zone allows any use except heavy industry. Portions of the site
are also zoned for light industry, general business, and open space.
Long Island is connected to Moon Island and Squantum by the Long
Island Bridge and Moon Island Causeway. All traffic to Long Island
must travel through Squantum and portions of North Quincy to reach
these accessways. A gate and guardhouse at the entrance to the cause-
way control access to Long Island.
The major access routes to Long Island are Hancock Street and
Quincy Shore Drive from the north, or Hancock Street and East Squantum
Street from the south and west. Quincy Shore Drive (Morrisey Boule-
vard) is a four-lane MDC parkway prohibited to trucks and commercial
vehicles. East Squantum Street, between Hancock Street and Quincy
Shore Drive, is a heavily used, narrow roadway through the densely
developed North Quincy residential area. East Squantum Street leads
directly to Dorchester Avenue, which follows the northerly side of the
Squantum Peninsula and connects directly to the Moon Island Causeway
and Long Island Bridge (see Figure 3-7).
The intersections of East Squantum Street with Hancock Street and
Quincy Shore Drive are both signalized. East Squantum Street has two
intersections along its \\ mile length with flashing signals and pedes-
trian actuated crossing lights. The width of East Squantum Street
varies, but is generally two lanes. Due to illegal parking near two
intersections, there is not always a full lane available in each
direction. There are two very sharp curves in that segment of road
between Hancock Street and Quincy Shore Drive.
Due to the lack of development on either side of the causeway
segment of East Squantum Street, the traffic here is free flowing with
one lane in each direction.
3-32
-------
East Squantum Street changes to Dorchester Street in Squantum.
Dorchester Street fronts on Dorchester Bay and has residential develop-
ment on only the southeast side of the street. Dorchester Street
curves very sharply at a steep grade near Squaw Rock. The sharp turn,
narrow street width and steep grade make this area potentially danger-
ous for heavy trucking. Existing truck and bus traffic use these
roadways serving the Long Island Hospital and homeless shelter on Long
Island.
With a two-lane, two-way capacity of 1,600 vehicles for both
directions, the present two-lane facilities with a usage of between 400
and 850 vehicles can readily accommodate more vehicles. Similarly, the
existing four-lane roadways, with a capacity volume of 2,800 vehicles
for one direction are more than adequate for the existing traffic
demands of between 1,225 and 1,400 vehicles. The exceptions to this
are, as noted above, those roadway segments where narrow widths, steep
grades and sharp curves limit the adequacy of the road to accommodate
increases in traffic, particularly heavy trucking. Traffic impact
information is provided in greater detail in Section 12.2 of Volume 2.
The Long Island bridge, connecting Long Island with Moon Island
and the mainland, is currently in need of major structural and surface
repairs and rehabilitation. This must be undertaken before any site
construction, if recommended, can begin on Long Island. The total cost
estimated to bring the bridge to its design condition, which would be
adequate for heavy trucking, is approximately $2.1 million.
3.4 SITE CHARACTERISTICS
3.4.1 Deer Island
Figure 3-8 shows existing major development and uses of Deer
Island. It is a large island with an area of about 210 acres. It is
dominated by a large drumlin rising 100 feet over the site. Major
man-made features on-site include the Deer Island House of Correction,
3-33
-------
X
X
ISIAMD
X
SCALE
EXISTING CONDITIONS DEER ISLAND SITE
. 3-8
-------
owned and operated by the City of Boston, the MDC wastewater treatment
plant, and the remains of U.S. military installations at Fort Dawes.
The island, which ceased to be an actual island in 1936 when
Shirley Gut was filled, is within the corporate boundary of the City of
Boston. A previous section of this chapter described the historical
development and current activities on Deer Island. The City owns about
half of the island's area. The MDC owns about 75 acres and leases
another five acres, in two parcels, from the U.S. Navy. The United
States Government owns the remainder of the area encompassing about 25
acres. Figure 3-9 shows the island's present ownership, while Figures
3-10 and 3-10A are photographs of the island.
The Deer Island House of Correction, the largest single use on the
island, is a complex of 20 structures (the main building was con-
structed in 1852) occupying approximately 40 acres. The prison has an
inmate population of approximately 400 and a staff of 150 guards and
employees. The number of visitors to the Deer Island Prison was 4,350
in 1983; prison escapes in that year were 20.
The prison has deteriorated over the years and has been under a
Court Order to upgrade its detention facilities. Studies by the City
have shown that the most cost-effective solution to upgrading the
prison would be to build a completely new facility, rather than to
rehabilitate the existing collection of old structures. Construction
of a new prison on Deer Island (or at some other off-site location) has
been considered by the City and by federal and state officials in the
past (see correspondence in Section 10.1 of Volume 2). No final deci-
sions on relocation or new construction of prison facilities have been
made.
The MDC sewage treatment plant is the other major land use on Deer
Island. The original sewage pumping station was established in 1889.
The existing plant was designed in the 1950's and completed in 1968.
Wastewater treatment facilities occupy about 26 acres. There are
3-35
-------
hor« Line
400 0 400
SCALE IN FEET
SOURCE: MCD Deer Island
Fast-Track Facilities
Plan, Havens & Emerson/
Parsons Brinkerhoff,
August, 1984.
OWNERSHIP OF LAND
ON DEER ISLAND
PROPERTY LINES
EASEMENTS
MEAN LOW WATER
PARCELS B&C,MDC LEASED FROM NAVY
MDC
CITY OF BOSTON
U.S. NAVY
-------
I&LAMD
. 3-10
-------
BOSTON HARBOR
FACILITIES SITING
S D E I S
FIG. 3-10a
DEER ISLAND TREATMENT FACILITY
& POINT SHIRLEY NEIGHBORHOOD
-------
approximately 120 employees at the facility (over five shifts), with
the largest staff levels during daylight hours.
Fort Dawes was established in 1941 at the southern tip of Deer
Island by the U.S. Government as part of the defenses for President
Roads in Boston Harbor. It is essentially abandoned today. The land
area of Fort Dawes remains under U.S. Government ownership. Remains
include concrete bunkers and gun emplacements. This site has been
proposed for designation as surplus property by the U.S. Government;
however, no final disposition has been made.
The Southern part of Deer Island encompassing the area of Fort
Dawes was proposed as a potential site of park development in the
State's 1972 Boston Harbor Island Comprehensive Plan (MAPC). Such
proposed use would be separated from the continuation of wastewater
treatment facilities by the existing drumlin with additional buffer
areas and screening developed. This plan is no longer a priority of
DEM park development plans (see Section 12.3 of Volume 2).
Deer Island is zoned "B-l, General Business" by the City of
Boston, allowing all commercial and residential uses, but excluding
industrial or other non-conforming uses without a variance. The
existing non-conforming uses of the prison and treatment plant predate
the zoning classifications.
Deer Island has served as a site for a variety of municipal
facilities dating back to colonial times. It was the site of an
internment camp for hostile Indians, later was a reformatory, was the
site of a quarantine hospital, and served as the outlet for the metro-
politan area's sewage in the late 1800's. It also was the site of a
cemetary and burial areas which were periodically disturbed or
relocated by the successive development that occurred on the site.
A majority of Deer Island has been subjected to extensive modi-
fications and disturbance, particularly within the last 100 years. In
particular, the construction of concrete bunkers, radar and radio
3-39
-------
facilities, access roads and related grading of slopes associated with
Fort Dawes (1941) disturbed a substantial amount of the drumlin and
land areas to the south. A historical cemetary on this part of the
island was relocated off-site during this period of construction. No
evidence of remaining grave sites has been found. The subsequent
construction and modifications to the Deer Island Treatment Plant
(1968) added to this disturbance over the central part of the island.
The prison and prior uses in the northern part of the site had
previously disturbed the area to the north and northwest of the
drumlin. A treatment plant reservoir is operated by the MDC at the top
of the drumlin.
Because of the extensive land modification caused by the periodic
construction activity on Deer Island, very little area on the island
has been untouched. As a result, it is very unlikely that archaeo-
logically significant sites will be encountered on Deer Island. An
abandoned MDC pump station exists on MDC property; however, it is not
intact and is not expected to be eligible for historic registration.
Its historical significance and eligibility has not yet been estab-
lished by the State (see Section 12.10 of Volume 2).
3.4.2 Nut Island
Nut Island, in Quincy, was once a four-acre island just north of
Quincy Great Hill on Houghs Neck. In 1893, the MDC built a road to the
island and enlarged it to accommodate a pumping and screening station
and outfall. In 1949, the island was again enlarged to its present
17-acre size. The present primary treatment plant and sedimentation
tanks were constructed in the following years. This treatment facility
encompasses about 12 acres of the total site area. The entire island
is owned by the MDC and is dedicated to the wastewater treatment plant.
Figures 3-11 and 3-12 show the island and nearby areas.
Nut Island is zoned by the City of Quincy as "Industrial B, Heavy
Industry". This classification allows operation of a wastewater treat-
ment plant as a conforming use.
3-40
-------
3.4.3 Long Island
Long Island, approximately 213 acres in size, is the largest
island in Boston Harbor. It is owned by the City of Boston and is
connected to Moon Island and Quincy by a causeway and a two-lane bridge
built in 1951. Figures 3-13 and 3-14 show the island and its present
land uses. Key features on the island include historical burial
grounds, the Long Island Chronic Disease Hospital, an abandoned U.S.
Government Nike missile base, the remains of historical U.S. military
fortifications, and remaining open space areas that are relatively
undisturbed and include environmentally sensitive natural resources.
The Long Island Chronic Disease Hospital, operated by the City of
Boston, Department of Health and Hospitals, occupies about 60 acres on
a drumlin in the middle of the island. The hospital facility is used
to treat alcoholics and provides care for the chronically ill, home-
less, and elderly. A staff of approximately 400 serve a patient
population listed as approximately 400. This island site has been used
to care for and house the City's indigent and sick since 1882. Some of
the structures in the hospital's 28-building complex date from this
period. Some are unused and in disrepair. A preliminary listing of
these buildings with potential historical value is presented in Section
12.10 of Volume 2.
Limited city services are presently available on Long Island,
including fire protection and water service. The hospital operates a
small-scale primary wastewater treatment plant with a capacity of
approximately 200,000 gallons per day. The city has applied to EPA for
a waiver of secondary treatment requirements (Section 301(h)) for this
small primary discharge to President Roads.
Past and present city administrations have considered closing the
Long Island Hospital. The most recent facility review, conducted in
1984 for the administration of Boston Mayor Raymond Flynn, examined a
5-year plan to reorganize the provision of medical and social services
to the City's chronically ill, homeless and elderly (Boston in Tran-
3-44
-------
E 741,0'QQ N4 80.000
N 463,000 E 742.000 4
N 4 a 3,000
xTO SQUANTUM,
QUINCY (12,000 FT.)
HARBOR
EROSION
PIER AND SEAWALLS
BARRIER BEACH
(1900 FT.)
WETLAND
(1 acre)
HOSPITAL SEWAGE
TREATMENT PLANT
LONG
ISLAND
LIGHT
(1819)
PROPOSED
EXISTING CONDITIONS LONG ISLAND SITE
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
Wk """'" ^./"' \ " \^
200 0 300 400 600 BOO FEET
^- ° S6ALE I "'300' """ ^
'V -^^
^^ \
^~v
: \
LONG ISLAND
CE MAGUIRE, INC.
-------
Inland
M&^$jfe^^
-------
BOSTON HARBOR
FACILITIES SITING
S D E I S
North
FIG. 3-14a
LONG ISLAND SITE AND
HOSPITAL
-------
sition, A Program and Policy Analysis, January 20, 1984). This plan
proposed closing the Long Island Hospital in 1989 and consolidating
operations with the City's existing chronic care facilities at the
Mattapan Hospital. No future use for the hospital facility was iden-
tified, and further study was recommended. At the present time, the
Mayor's plans for the hospital facility reportedly include a deemphasis
on provision of medical care and increased use as a shelter for the
City's homeless (See letter from the Mayor in Section 10.1 of Volume
2).
The southern part of Long Isla.nd is occupied by an abandoned Nike
missile base of approximately 12 acres, and includes an historical
cemetery of unknown area (mapped at about four acres). It is reported
that as many as 2,000 graves exist within and beyond the area now gen
erally designated as a cemetery.
The island has served as a burial ground several times in its
history. These include graves of thirty-six British soldiers killed
during the Revolutionary War, 79 Civil War veterans, former patients
and inmates of the facilities on the island, and possibly many of the
former inhabitants of the island dating from the late 17th to 19th
centuries.
The balance of the southern part of the island is presently
undeveloped and in a natural state. This area of Long Island also
includes about five acres of freshwater wetland, about 11 acres of salt
marsh, and about 1,900 feet of barrier beach. The varied topography
and vegetation of the island serve as habitat for a variety of wildlife
found in the harbor area.
The northern part of the island encompasses Long Island Head and
the former Parade Ground area of Fort Strong. It contains numerous
concrete fortifications that date back to the turn of the century. It
was in use until after World War II. A lighthouse that was installed
in 1819 is still in operation. This part of Long Island is the primary
focus for intensive recreational development proposed by the Massachu-
3-4 8
-------
setts Department of Environmental Management (DEM) as part of its
Updated Master Plan (1984) for the Boston Harbor .Islands State Park.
Extensive passive recreational use is also planned for southern por-
tions of the island (see Section 12.3 of Volume 2).
Long Island is currently zoned by the City of Boston (1965 zoning)
as "B-l, General Business" This classification allows any commercial
use, as well as all classifications of residential use. It does not
allow industrial uses or other non-conforming uses without a variance
from the City of Boston, Zoning Board of Appeals.. The hospital on Long
Island predates this zoning.
Significant archaeological and historical resources have been
identified in several areas on Long Island which related to the his-
torical and prehistorical usage of the island. The results of site
investigations on Long Island carried out by the Public Archaeology Lab
and the University of Massachusetts are detailed in Section 12.10 of
Volume 2.
Additionally, the City of Boston has recently prepared a compre-
hensive plan and policy for all significant archaeological sites within
its boundaries (Boston Landmarks Commission, Boston's Archaeological
Legacy: The City's Planning and Policy Document, Draft, August 1984).
This (draft) City plan identifies a broad range of policy issues
relative to preserving and maintaining links with the City's historical
and archaeological past. The primary significance of Long Island is
identified in the plan as related to the Early Archaeic (8,500 to 5,000
years ago) prehistoric evidence found on the island, the only such
archaeologic sites within the boundaries of the City of Boston. Long
Island is cited by the City, along with other Harbor Islands, as
requiring additional survey and long-term study with possible develop-
ment to include use as a "cultural park".
Moon Island is a separate area situated between Long Island and
Squantum. It is a 45-acre island owned by the City of Boston and
connected to Squantum by a two-lane causeway. One-third of the island
3-49
-------
is taken up by four huge granite sewage storage tanks. The tanks were
built in 1884 as an innovative solution to pollution problems of the
inner harbor. They were designed to store 50 million gallons of
wastewater to be released on the outgoing tides. The outfall from
these tanks is now used by the MDC to discharge untreated wastewater
flows during wet weather periods when sewage flows normally routed to
the Deer Island treatment plant exceed the treatment plant's influent
pumping capacity.
The Boston Fire Department operates a fire fighting training
facility on the northern end of Moon Island. The Boston Police Depart-
ment operates an outdoor pistol range on the southern side of the
island. Access to Moon Island and Long Island is restricted by a guard
at a gatehouse located in Squantum at the beginning of the causeway to
Moon Island.
3-50
-------
4.0 ALTERNATIVES AND THEIR IMPACTS
4.1 Secondary Treatment Alternatives
4.1.1 Impacts Common to All Secondary Treatment Alternatives
4.1.2 Impacts of the Individual Secondary Treatment
Alternatives
4.2 Primary Treatment Alternative
4.2.1 Impacts Common to All Primary Treatment Alternatives
4.2.2 Impacts of the Individual Primary Treatment Alternatives
4.3 Mitigating Measures
4.3.1 Land Use Considerations
4.3.2 Traffic
4.3.3 Recreational Resources
4.3.4 Archaeological and Historic Resources
4.3.5 Engineering Considerations
4.3.6 Financial Impacts
4.3.7 Visual Impacts
4.3.8 Construction Impacts
4.4 Conformance with Federal, Regional, State and Local Plans and
Policies
4.4.1 Federal Plans and Policies
4.4.2 State Plans and Policies
4.4.3 Regional and Local Plans and Policies
4.4.4 Other Plans and Policy Considerations
Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources, Energy
Requirements and Conservation Measures
Adverse Effects Which Cannot be Avoided
-------
SECONDARY ALTERNATIVES
4.0 ALTERNATIVES AND THEIR IMPACTS
4.1 SECONDARY TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Four secondary treatment alternatives, shown conceptually in Figure
4-1, remained after screening. They are:
o All Secondary Deer Island Alternative (Option la.2);
o Split Secondary Deer Island and Nut Island Alternative (Option
lb.2);
o All Secondary Long Island Alternative (Option 2b.l); and
o Split Secondary Deer Island and Long Island Alternative (Option
2b.3).
Numbers shown in parenthesis refer to the SDEIS Screening Report
(May 16, 1984), which is included in Volume 2 of this document.
4.1.1 Impacts Common to All Secondary Treatment Alternatives
Several impacts, which are described below, are the same for all of
the secondary treatment alternatives under consideration. The impacts
which are not common to all alternatives are described in the following
section.
Water Quality
All secondary treatment alternatives under consideration would
result in similar impacts on water quality. This is because all would
treat wastewater to the same degree (secondary treatment) with a dis-
charge in the same general vicinity. This level of treatment is required
by federal law, unless a waiver is granted. All alternatives would
discharge from Deer Island or Long Island through a local outfall to
President Roads, the main harbor channel. Several alternative
4-1
-------
ALL SECONDARY
DEER ISLAND
KEY:
SPLIT SECONDARY
DEER ISLAND AND
NUT ISLAND
1= secondary treatment
= he«dworks/puapin| only
= primary treatment
(2b.3) /C^
SPLIT SECONDARY
DEER ISLAND AND
LONG ISLAND
ALL SECONDARY
LONG ISLAND
SECONDARY OPTIONS
REMAINING AFTER SCREENING
FIG. 4-1
-------
discharge locations were studied by the MDC as part of recent facility
planning. All of the locations studied were seaward of the existing Deer
Island discharge (see Figure 11.3-1 in Section 11.3 of Volume 2). The
principal effect would be the improvement in water quality within the
harbor which would result from elimination of existing effluent dis-
charges to the harbor. Water quality impacts are described in greater
detail in Section 11.3 of Volume 2 of the SDEIS.
Chlorine Gas Deliveries
Truck deliveries of chlorine gas, as currently planned, would
occur no more than 3 to 4 times per week. Concerns expressed by resi-
dents about the safety of chlorine trucking have prompted consideration
of other disinfection methods. Other disinfection methods which would
not require frequent truck deliveries will be investigated as part of the
facilities design plans (see Sections 4.3.3.2 and 12.4). The quantity of
chlorine used at new treatment facilities would be no greater than the
quantities now used, and could, in fact, be less.
Inter-island Conveyance and Outfalls
All of the alternatives would require construction of either tunnels
or pipelines. These would convey wastewater flows between islands and to
effluent discharge points. The impacts of tunnels and pipelines differ.
The final choice will be made early during the facility design. Addi-
tional detailed environmental review of the wastewater conveyance options
will be made at that time. The impacts of pipeline and tunnel construc-
tion are described in general in section 11.2 of Volume 2.
4.1.2 Impacts of the Individual Secondary Treatment Alternatives
The impacts of each secondary treatment alternative are described in
the following sections. A summary of these impacts is presented in the
following table. Impacts are discussed under each alternative in the
following order:
4-3
-------
= SECONDARY
O= PRIMARY
9
"<5>NL-Y
IMPACTS OF ALTERN
IMPACT
1. ALL DEER l&LAMD
P.I.
N.I.
n
2. SPLIT DEER. ISLAWP
AND NUT ISLAND
D.I.
, ^
6 15 A)
M.I. / N
O 60 A)
ATIVES: SECONDARY TABLE *-i
3. AU-
n
D.l.
H.S. .
n (2A}
L.l.
SPLIT
ANC?
I&LAUD
ISLAM P
D.I.
a
M.I.
(2/0
L.l.
YJ2&.
GOKISfl
TRAFFIC
TV/ERASE NOs. of
Tfc
Cwi-th
8
SUIQHT
8
SLIGHT
8
4
&LJ3HT
SLIGHT
8>
SLK&HT
8
'/£
SLIGHT
SUAHT
2/2
SLI6HT
SLICiHT
SLIGHT
2/2.
SLIGHT
AYQ./PEAK*
* (&-I2,mo. duration)
CONSTE..
N0IS6
d&A
5^/7
0
85/
|00
720/1^5
205/430
65/7
HOMES/PRISON
46 -5&
72-84
-58 Cpia-76
SLIdHT /MODERATE
72-64
MODERATE
7Z-84
MOP6RATE
PAft-lC
4&-60
SL-I&HT
HOMES
46-5866-70
72-8>4
VALUES
INFfcEQUENT
£>tX5R- PR£)&LEM&
t>E6UME, MAY WOT
EEB^UMP FULLV-
DBC.UN6, MflV MOT
RgBOUMP FULLY
, MAY WOT
FULLY
P£6UWE^ REBOUND
DECLINE AKD
RE&OUMD
DECLINE $
HOMES /PRISOU
MODEJ2ATE
IMPA6T& v
(bperotione)
TOTAL.
SLIGHT
HOMES /
WOP&RATE/ MOD EIZATE
SEVERE
HOME-S/PRISOM
SUI^Mf/MODERAfE
MODERATE
PARK--'
MODERATE
HOMES /
MODERATE MODEKAT5
sevetg
SLIGHT
HOPETZATE
SLIGHT
2
PAILY -SHIFT
;1 16/53
7/345
48 -60
P6CUW6 AHD
R.E BOUND
PAfZ-K. :
MO D£ RATS
SEVERE
ENVIRONMENTALLY
MOME
EXIST
MOM EXIST"
&AY
HONE
EXIST
IMPACB
v^er-
LAMDS ^ BARRIEE.
BEACW
HON/E
No DIRECT
CAPITAL
'
705
738
ANNUAL
-44-
45
45
53
107
14
ftO
131
99
LEGAL ^ INSTITUTIONA
OBSTACLES TO
IMPLEMENTATION
MOPBEATE 't^lUUl pLg
Kiowe
APPROVAL.
40MES TO
seveee TO FILL /(=
Cif'S, AppR£>\/Ai- OR
STATE" AND PEP. PER-
MITS (Z,E4UIR£0; At-T-
EKNAT/VEt-Y, DBMO-
NOME:
(6 LIMITED
severe'. DEM AP-
PROVAL, U5ojlSLAT|V/£
APPROVAL., "5E6T10W
iofc" ^ewew, cny tf
OUOWERSH1P
APPEOVAU
: DEM AP-
iofc
CJTY OP
tee.u>cAno/J op
ISLAWP H6SPITAL-.
CULTURAL
NOME exier
IMPACTED
NONg
NO Me BXIST
NONE exie-r
*
NOMg
ON sire ; HOSPITAL
L-OCATIOHJ.
seve&ei
ARCWA60U5i5ll£Al-.
i HOSPITAL. r
66 Hlt>TOplCAU>{ EL-
I6IBLEJP6AP REI.66ATION
PLAM'?',
NO PLANS i
Mo
PLAM<,;
3EO
5 DSE
/MPACT
NO
PLA*iS
sire
MO PLAN&', 6VTB
F066IBLE FOR
FUTURE SMALL
MAJOfc CoHFUO"
/IMPACT-
uses/
5UIGMT IMPACT
WO pLAH-S 5
SITS POS$I&L&
6MA1.L
STATE
i^PNFU
PROPO
TIOMAL.
IMPACT.
i, these
<=)£>
indv&e, e5fi'm#te& for ix^.> //"^ i
aJf 445 Millioh ("averAqe? co&₯).
or noise
"e, »nc. december 1984
-------
All Secondary Dl
Traffic during construction and operations
Noise from construction and operations
Environmentally sensitive wetlands and barrier beach areas
Recreational resources either in active use or planned for use
Archaeological and historical resources
Legal and institutional obstacles to implementation at each
site
Impacts on property values of nearby homes
Visual quality of treatment plant siting
Odors during operation
Costs of construction and operations
All Secondary Deer Island Alternative
This alternative would site a 115-acre consolidated primary and
secondary treatment plant for north and south system flows at Deer
Island, and a 2-acre headworks for south system flow at Nut Island.
Conceptual site plans are shown in Figures 4-2 and 4-3. This alternative
expands treatment facilities at Deer Island and precludes other possible
future new uses there; it maintains reduced facilities at Nut Island.
Consolidated treatment facilities at Deer Island would occupy the
existing treatment plant site (26 acres adjacent to the Deer Island House
of Corrections) and the entire southern portion of the island. It would
require levelling of the drumlin. The existing digester, gas storage and
thickener tanks would be relocated farther away from the prison under
this alternative. On Nut Island, the existing treatment facilities (12
acres) would be removed. A 2-acre headworks would occupy the northern
edge of the site.
The following discussion identifies the impacts of this alternative.
Further detailed impact assessments for the alternatives are found in
Volume 2 of the SDEIS.
4-4
-------
NORTH SYS. PRIM. SED. TANKS
SOUTH SYS. PRIM. SED. TANKS.
SOUTH SYS. INFL. PUMP STA.
SYS. FINAL SED. TANKS
RTH SYS. PRIM. SED. TANKS
HARBOR
ADMIN. BLDG.
BOSTON
NORTH SYS. FINAL SED. TANKS
CHLOR. STOR.
NOTE; SHADED AREAS DENOTE NEW FACILITIES
UNSHADED FACILITIES TO BE UPGRADED
CROSSHATCHED FACILITIES TO BE REMOVED.
THESE SITE LAYOUTS ARE CONCEPTUAL
;- ONLY, TAKEN FROM THE MDC SITE OPTIONS
STUDY (1982) AND MAY NOT REFLECT THE
DETAILED SITING TO BE DONE (IF THIS SITE
IS SELECTED) DURING FINAL SITE DESIGN-
* DIGESTERS SHOWN AT DEER ISLAND ARE
FROM SITE OPTIONS STUDY AND MAY NOT
REMAIN UNDER SECONDARY OPTIONS,,
Source: Metcalf & Eddy,
Site Options Study,
1982 (Deer Island
Site Layout Option
1, Fig. 3-4 )
CONSOLIDATED PRIMARY/SECONDARY TREATMENT AT DEER ISLAND (115 A)
FIG. 4-2
-------
OUJNCY
SCALE IN FEET
NOTE: THESE SITE LAYOUTS ARE CONCEPTUAL ONLY.
REFLECTING BEST CURRENT INFORMATION -
TAKEN FROM THE MDC SITE OPTIONS STUDY
(1982D AND MAY NOT REFLECT THE DETAILED
SITING TO BE DONE (IF THIS SITE IS SELECTED]
DURING FINAL SITE DESIGN
SHADED AREAS DENOTE NEW FACILITIES.
CROSSHATCHED FACILITIES TO BE REMOVED.
NUT ISLAND HEADWORKS (2A)
TO DEER ISLAND
INLET
TUNNEL
SHAFT
Source: Metcalf & Eddy,
Nut Island Wastewater
Treatment Plant Facilities
Planning Project. June 1982
FIG. 4-3
-------
All Secondary Dl
Traffic
Transport of materials by barge and busing of construction workers
to the maximum extent feasible will be required by EPA and the Common-
wealth as part of this project. It will be made a condition of and
incorporated to the project's construction grant. This would prevent
severe adverse traffic impacts along the truck route, particularly in the
residential neighborhoods adjacent to the sites. Barging and busing
during construction would result in manageable effects of construction
traffic.
Impacts of construction traffic would be negligible on the larger
communities of East Boston and Winthrop, along the access routes to Deer
Island, and in Quincy along the route to Nut Island. The effects of peak
bus traffic would be a slight impact at Houghs Neck in Quincy and moder-
ate impact at Point Shirley in Winthrop, the two residential areas
closest to the sites. Operations traffic impacts would be slight at all
sites.
At Deer Island, the projected 8 trucks daily over a seven-year
construction period would negligibly increase existing traffic levels.
Traffic would be well below roadway capacities in East Boston and Win-
throp (see Section 12.2 of Volume 2). Affected roadways currently
operate at levels ranging from about ten to forty percent of capacity.
Present truck traffic along the truck route is ten to thirty trucks
during the peak hour. Noise and diesel fumes of passing trucks may
periodically annoy and disturb activities of some abuttors along the
traffic route. However, the brief time required for a truck to pass by
will limit such disruption. The impacts on residents along the truck
route and in Point Shirley from this small number of trucks would be
slight.
Because of existing constraints to on-site and off-site parking at
Deer Island, and to minimize impacts on local residents of worker travel *
to and from the site, construction workers should not be permitted to
drive to the job site (see Section 12.2 of Volume 2).
4-7
-------
All Secondary Dl
Between 13 (average) and 26 (peak for 6 to 12 months) buses will be
required to convey construction workers to and from the Deer Island site.
This would not significantly increase existing traffic on local roads,
but may, in the case of peak bus traffic, pose moderately adverse levels
of noise and annoyance to abuttors along the traffic route, especially
those in Point Shirley where residential streets are narrow. It may be
necessary to provide traffic controls, staggered bus departures and
police supervision to maintain smooth flow during peak traffic periods.
The impacts of operations traffic at Deer Island would be a slight
increase in traffic and would result from the additional staff necessary
for expanded treatment facilities (see Table 12.2-3 in Section 12.2.3).
Staff would increase from about 80 persons currently to 93 during the
maximum daily shift. Since current treatment plant staff practice
includes car pooling (a ratio of about 1.33 persons per auto), it is
likely that the increase in autos will be less than the increase in
staff. Trucking to the treatment plant (predominantly for deliveries)
would remain at current levels of four to seven trucks daily out of a
total of 12 to 14 trucks that come and go to the island daily (including
those for prison operations).
At Nut Island, approximately eight trucks would be used daily during
a construction period of three to four years. This option would not
utilize barges for transport of materials to Nut Island. It may be
necessary to construct a pier at this site if the choice is made to
utilize tunnel conveyance of inter-island wastewater flows (see Section
5.5).
Impacts of construction truck traffic on roads in Quincy farthest
from the site would be negligible. These roads operate currently at
levels ranging from about forty percent to seventy percent of their
capacities. The potential does exist for slight disturbance of residents
along local streets in Houghs Neck closest to the site. These roads,
which are narrow, curving and steep, were not designed to accommodate
heavy trucking. Noise and diesel fumes from the trucks will briefly
annoy residents along the route. Traffic control measures can minimize
4-8
-------
All Secondary Dl
such impacts. Approximately two buses would be used to transport con-
struction workers to and from the site daily. These buses would have no
adverse impact on abuttors or local traffic.
Operations traffic will not have an adverse impact at Nut Island,
since staffing levels will be reduced from the current levels (about 47
persons) to about eight. Daily trucking will also be slightly reduced
under this alternative.
Noise
Noise impacts are characterized according to the allowable limits
set by the City of Boston Noise Ordinance. These standards allow noise
levels during construction of between 75 dBA (L10) and 8o dBA (peak) (see
Section 12.6 of Volume 2). For purposes of this analysis, values above
this limit are considered to be of severe impact, values below the
standards but above current ambient levels are considered as moderate
impacts, and values at or below current ambient levels are considered to
be of slight or no impact. State noise standards were also considered;
however, these are not quantified to the same degree as those of the City
of Boston which provided a better measure of projected impacts.
Adverse noise impacts during construction would be slight at Point
Shirley residences, moderate at the Deer Island prison, and moderate at
residences near Nut Island. This assumes all available noise mitigation
measures will be used, so that the natural attenuation of noise by
distance will reduce noise impacts to levels allowable under existing
State and City of Boston noise standards. However, during peak periods
of on-site work, noise levels moderately disturbing to nearby Nut Island
residents and to the Deer Island prison population may occur.
During operations, noise generated by the new treatment facilities
would be slight and generally imperceptible relative to background noise
levels at both sites.
4-9
-------
All Secondary Dl
At Deer Island, with noise mitigation, typical construction noise
levels reaching offsite (66 dBA) would be within the general range of
background noise, and overshadowed by the frequent flyover of jets (see
Sections 3.3.1 of Volume 1 and 12.6 of Volume 2). Peak construction
noise offsite (increasing to 78 dBA) would be an occasional though
moderate increased annoyance on the prison population. Anticipated noise
levels are well within allowable limits set by the City of Boston. At
Point Shirley residences, some half-mile away, mitigated noise (between
46 and 58 dBA) from construction would have only slight impact due to the
natural attenuation of noise by distance.
On Nut Island, noise impacts would be moderate during the 3 to 4
year construction period because of the proximity of residences to the
site. Typical noise levels during construction activities, with miti-
gation, would be moderate (in the range of 72 to 78 dBA) based on ambient
noise levels currently at about 55 dBA (see Section 12.6 of Volume 2).
Construction noise levels will be most disruptive to nearby residents.
Under peak noise conditions (of limited duration) noise levels, even with
mitigation, may increase to 84 dBA, resulting in higher, though still
moderate impacts. While such levels approach allowable limits, they
would be a temporary disruption to nearby residents and others in the
area.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas
There are no sensitive natural areas on Deer Island or Nut Island.
Siting of treatment facilities at these locations would have no impacts
on such areas including wetlands, floodplains, critical wildlife habitat,
prime agricultural land or barrier beaches.
Recreational Resources
There is no currently active recreational use of Deer Island or Nut
Island. In the past, plans were prepared for recreational uses on both
islands (MAPC, Boston Harbor Comprehensive Recreational Plan, 1972).
4-10
-------
All Secondary Dl
These plans are not currently being implemented, nor are they a priority
with the Commonwealth's Department of Environmental Management (DEM).
The plan for Deer Island (1972) considered a combination of recre-
ation to the south of the drumlin and expanded treatment facilities to
the north. This recreational use would be precluded by the expansion of
treatment facilities to the south. Limited recreational use of the
shoreline with access, including bikeways, harbor overlooks, or fishing
piers to take advantage of the site's harbor location would still be
possible. As a result, this impact on Deer Island has been rated moder-
ate.
Removal of the treatment plant from Nut Island, would make possible
the reuse, for recreational purposes, of about 15 acres of land. Poten-
tial recreational uses could be a boat ramp, or a fishing pier with
parking and open space. This would be a benefit at this site.
Archaeological and Historical Resources
No significant archaeological resources have been identified on
either Deer Island or Nut Island. Therefore, no adverse impacts are
anticipated, at this time, on archaeological resources at these two
sites. No historical resources have been identified on Nut Island
resulting in no impacts at that site. On Deer Island, an abandoned 1889
pump station and screening plant has been noted. Further examination of
this building, located on the western shore of the island just south of
the drumlin, is recommended by the Massachusetts Historical Commission to
evaluate its present condition and integrity in order to determine its
historic value and potential effect of the project. Section 12.10 of
Volume 2 details the results of the archaeological surveys conducted as
part of the SDEIS analyses.
4-11
-------
All Secondary Dl
Legal and Institutional Implementability
The legal and institutional obstacles to implementation of treatment
facilities on Deer Island would be moderate. On Nut Island, there are no
legal or institutional obstacles to siting of a headworks facility.
On Deer Island, legal and institutional issues may constrain siting
of a 115-acre secondary treatment facility. The extent of delay, degree
of uncertainty, and likely impediment to construction posed is, however,
limited. The land which would be used for expanded secondary treatment
facilities is owned by the City of Boston, the MDC, and the U.S. Govern-
ment (Department of Defense). Transfer of property from current owners
to the MDC or its successor would be required. Given the lack of active
plans or proposals for reuse of this area, no major obstacles are anti-
cipated. Transfer of the portion of land owned by the federal government
would require conformance with the GSA surplus land disposal process.
Siting of secondary treatment facilities on Deer Island may require
majority approval of the State Legislature under the State's common law
"Prior Public Use Doctrine" (see Section 12.11). Alternatively; the City
of Boston could elect to transfer land from the controlling agency to the
Boston Department of Public Facilities, thereby possibly preempting any
prior public use designation. The land in question is outside of the
immediate area of prison facilities and is vacant. Such a procedure may
be possible only as long as the land remains unused for other purposes.
Land use change on Deer Island requires approval by the Commissioner
of DEM under current State law. The absence of current State recrea-
tional plans for the island and the existing prison use indicate favor-
able circumstances for obtaining approval for expansion of wastewater
facilities at this location.
Impacts on Property Values
The construction of treatment facilities may reduce the selling
price of a limited number of properties adjacent to both sites. This
4-12
-------
All Secondary Dl
potential effect would occur from the impact of daily construction
activities, primarily noise and traffic, and would influence a small
number of homes closest to the site. Property values would be expected
to rebound to pre-construction levels once construction is concluded.
During operations new treatment facilities should abate existing noise,
odor, and traffic nuisances with no adverse effect on property values.
This effect is more likely at Deer Island because of the greater
extent and duration of on-site construction there. It may be that the
expansion of secondary treatment facilities, which under this alternative
precludes future site reuse including possible recreational uses, would
also influence the selling price of some nearby homes.
Property values at Nut Island may also decline temporarily during
construction of a headworks. Any such impacts that occur would be
limited and would rebound once construction is completed because of the
removal of the treatment plant.
Visual Quality
The visual quality of Deer Island would be severely impacted by the
fourfold expansion of treatment works. The drumlin would be levelled,
eliminating a prominent topographic feature of the site and a landmark
for the harbor channel. On Nut Island, visual quality would potentially
improve, but only if the existing plant is removed and unused portions of
the site are landscaped and planted or developed for compatible uses such
as recreation.
A 115-acre secondary treatment plant on Deer Island would dramati-
cally change the site's appearance from the harbor and land viewpoints.
The industrial appearance and vast scale of new secondary treatment
facilities would not be visually appealing. Levelling the drumlin would
eliminate a prominent natural feature which partially screens the
existing treatment facilities and the prison from views from the south.
From nearby residential areas on Point Shirley and Cottage Hill, elimin-
ation of the drumlin and expansion of the treatment facility would have a
4-13
-------
All Secondary Dl
limited impact, as only a few residences on the edges of these neighbor-
hoods have views to the site. Views to the site from more distant areas,
such as Winthrop Beach, would be affected by the levelling of the
drumlin.
Reduction of facilities on Nut Island to a two-acre headworks would
be a slight impact and an improvement of the island's appearance from
nearby views. Views of the island from other parts of Quincy and from
the harbor would be improved, particularly if after the existing facil-
ities are removed the site's open areas were landscaped. This option's
conversion to a headworks would be more compatible with the scale of the
site and may afford opportunities to develop recreation on-site.
Odors
On Deer Island, normal operations of secondary treatment facilities
(with odor controls) will result in slight odor impacts on the population
of the Deer Island prison (some 700 feet away from relocated digester
facilities) and negligible impacts on residents in Point Shirley (about
3,000 feet away). Significant odors could be a problem, however, during
treatment process upsets or when odor control equipment malfunctioned.
The most likely odors caused by problems at the plant can be likened to
the smell of rotten eggs (see Section 12.7). Such events are expected to
be infrequent and of limited duration with well maintained treatment
facilities. When problems occur, occasional and infrequent odors at Deer
Island would be a moderate impact at the prison and in Point Shirley.
Winds that blow in the direction of the nearby populations at Deer
Island occur only about thirteen percent of the time in summer. Pre-
vailing winds at this location, which occur most of the time, are away
from the prison and nearby homes (see Sections 3.2.4 and 12.7), thus
limiting the liklihood of odor problems.
On Nut Island, generally slight odor impacts are expected during
normal operations of headworks facilities. However, the impact of odor
incidents would be occasionally moderate due to the proximity of resi-
4-14
-------
Split Secondary DI/NI
dences to the site (about 300 feet). Prevailing summer winds at this
location would also carry odors away from nearby residents.
Costs
Costs of this alternative would be:
Capital: $595 million (one time expense)
Operation & Maintenance: $ 44 million (annually)
Annualized: $107 million (30 years at 10%)
Costs to an average household user would be $91 annually, assuming
start-up in 1995 (based on a 50% local share).
Split Secondary Deer Island and Nut Island Alternative
This alternative would site a 115-acre treatment plant with primary
treatment for north system flows and consolidated secondary treatment for
all flows at Deer Island. An 18-acre primary treatment plant for south
system flows would be sited at Nut Island. Conceptual site plans are
shown in Figures 4-4 and 4-5. This alternative would expand treatment
facilities at two sites and preclude possible future new uses of both
islands.
Impacts of this alternative at Deer Island would be similar to those
described for the previous alternative. The expanded facilities would
encompass the present treatment plant site, adjacent to the Deer Island
House of Corrections, and the remaining portion of the Island to the
south. The drumlin would be levelled. The slightly smaller facility
requirements under this alternative (compared to the previous one) would
not appreciably reduce the acreage needed.
4-15
-------
NORTH SYS. PRIM.J5ED. TANKS-t
-115-
GRAV. THICK
X
SOUTH SYSTEM INFL. PUMP STATION.
SOUTH SYSTEM FINAL SED. TANKS
CHLOR. STOR.
CHLOR^C0NTACT TANK
NORTH SYSTEM FINAL SED. TANKS
ADMIN. BLDG.
BOSTON
0 200 400
SCALE IN FEET
NOTE! SHADED AREAS DENOTE NEW FACILITIES
UNSHADED FACILITIES TO BE UPGRADED
CROSSHATCHED FACILITIES TO BE REMOVED.
. THESE SITE LAYOUTS ARE CONCEPTUAL ONLY.
REFLECTING BEST CURRENT INFORMATION,
TAKEN FROM THE MD.C SITEJJPTIQNS STUDY
(1982) AND MAY NOT REFLECT THE DETAILED
SITING TO BE DONE (IF THIS SITE IS SELECTED)
DURING FINAL SITE DESIGN,
* DIGESTERS SHOWN AT DEER ISLAND ARE
FROM SITE OPTIONS STUDY AND MAY NOT
REMAIN UNDER SECONDARY OPTIONS,
Source: Metcatf & Eddy,
Site Options Study,
1982 (Deer Island
Site Layout Option
4, Fig. 3-6)
CONSOLIDATED SECONDARY AT DEER ISLAND (115 A)
FIG, 4-4
-------
OUINCY
DEER ISLAND
INLET
TUNNEL
SHAFT
NOTE: SHADED AREA DENOTES NEW FACILITIES
UNSHADED FACILITIES TO BE UPGRADED
NOTE: THESE SITE LAYOUTS ARE CONCEPTUAL ONLY,
REFLECTING BEST CURRENT INFORMATION.
TAKEN FROM THE MDC SITE OPTIONS STUDY
(19823 AND MAY NOT REFLECT THE DETAILED
SITING TO BE DONE (IF THIS SITE IS SELECTED)
DURING FINAL SITE DESIGN.
UNSHADED FACILITIES TO BE UPGRADED.
SHADED AREAS DENOTE NEW FACILITIES.
Source: Metcalf & Eddy,
Nut Island Wastewater
Treatment Plant Facilities
Planning Project, June 1982
SPLIT NUT ISLAND PRIMARY (18A) RG 4_5
-------
Split Secondary DI/NI
On Nut Island, expansion of the existing primary treatment plant
would increase the coverage of the treatment facility to all of the 17
acre site. Either filling of the Bay or greater encroachment into the
abutting residential area would be required to accommodate facilities and
provide a buffer under this option.
Traffic
Overall, construction traffic impacts under this alternative are the
same as those described for the previous alternative. At Deer Island,
the projected 8 trucks daily for a seven year construction period would
negligibly increase existing traffic levels which are currently well
below roadway capacities, comparable to the previous alternative. Noise
and diesel fumes of passing trucks may periodically annoy and disturb the
activities of some abuttors along the traffic route; however, the brief
time required for a truck to pass by will limit such disruption. The
impacts on residents along the truck route and in Point Shirley from this
small number of trucks would be slight.
Between 11 (average) and 25 (peak for 6 to 12 months) buses will be
required to convey construction workers to and from the Deer Island site.
This would not significantly increase existing traffic on local roads,
but may, in the case of the peak bus traffic, pose moderately adverse
levels of noise and annoyance to abuttors along the traffic route,
especially those in Point Shirley. It may be necessary, as noted pre-
viously, to provide traffic control measures to maintain smooth traffic
flows under peak conditions. Traffic impacts during operations would be
slight at Deer Island comparable to the previous alternative.
At Nut Island, approximately four trucks would be used daily during
the five year construction period. Under this option, barging would be
employed. This number of trucks would pose no impact to abuttors of to
local traffic. Approximately two buses daily would be used to transport
construction workers to and from the site. This number of buses would
likewise pose no adverse impacts to abuttors or local traffic.
4-18
-------
Split Secondary DI/NI
Operations traffic would not have an adverse impact at Nut Island.
The increased size of the facility would result in staffing levels still
comparable to those of current operations which are readily accommodated
on local roads, including those closest to the site. Daily trucking
would also be comparable to present levels and accommodated over local
roads without adverse effect.
Noise
Noise impacts during construction would be slight at Point Shirley,
moderate at the Deer Island prison, and moderate at residences nearby to
Nut Island. With the application of available noise mitigation measures,
noise levels would be allowable under applicable State and City of Boston
standards (see Section 12.6 of Volume 2).
At Deer Island, peak construction noise would be a moderate impact
on the nearby prison population, and a slight impact on Point Shirley
residents, according to the criteria described in the previous alter-
native .
At Nut Island, peak construction noise during the 5-year construc-
tion period would be a moderate impact on nearby residents. The small
size of this site results in similar distances between homes and on-site
construction activities regardless of the size of facilities built.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas
There are no sensitive natural areas on Deer Island. Siting of
treatment facilities at this location would have no adverse impacts on
such natural resources. At Nut Island, adverse impacts may result if the
site is expanded by filling of the Bay (see Section 11.2).
Recreational Resources
This alternative would have no impact on currently active recrea-
tional resources, since no such uses exist on Deer Island or Nut Island.
4-19
-------
Split Secondary OI/NI
Future development of recreational uses would be precluded on both Deer
Island and Nut Island under this alternative. This would be a moderate
recreational impact at these sites.
Archaeological and Historical Resources
As noted previously, no significant archaeological or historical
resources have been identified on either Deer Island or Nut Island. No
adverse impacts are, therefore, anticipated.
Legal and Institutional Implementability
Legal and institutional obstacles to implementation of treatment
facilities on Deer Island, as noted previously, would be moderate. Legal
and institutional issues may, to a limited extent, impede construction.
On Nut Island, legal and institutional obstacles to implementation
may be severe. State legislation enacted to limit expansion of Nut
Island prohibits filling of the Bay (see Section 9.0 of Volume 2). State
and federal permits would also be required for filling. Siting new
primary facilities without filling the Bay could eliminate this legal
obstacle, but would require the taking of homes adjacent to Nut Island.
Impacts on Property Values
As noted previously, slight reductions in property values in both
adjacent communities may occur during the construction period. Property
values would be expected to rebound once construction activities are
concluded. Both Deer Island and Nut Island facilities would be signifi-
cantly expanded, leaving little land available for future reuse for
locally beneficial purposes. Therefore, a greater likelihood exists for
adverse impacts on property values in the area under this alternative.
4-20
-------
Split Secondary DI/NI
Visual Quality
Visual impacts of the major expansion of treatment works on
Deer Island would be severe. The drumlin on Deer Island would be
levelled. Adverse impacts would be similar to those described previ-
ously.
On Nut Island, visual impacts would also be severe. The expansion
of facilities would not be in keeping with the scale or character of
other development along this segment of Quincy Bay. Views of the site
from the harbor, from residential areas on Houghs Neck and North Quincy,
and from beaches and recreational areas along the shoreline would be
affected.
Odors
Normal operations of treatment facilities will generally result in
slight odor impacts to the population of the Deer Island prison, and to
residents in Point Shirley and Houghs Neck. During the occasional times
when operational problems result in odor releases, as noted in the
previous alternative, adverse odor impacts would be moderate at the
prison, and at Houghs Neck, and Point Shirley residences. The relatively
limited occurrence at both sites of prevailing winds which may carry
odors towards the respective nearby populations would limit such impacts
to relatively infrequent and brief periods when the plants were not
operating properly.
Costs
Costs of this alternative would be:
Capital: $650 million (one time expense)
Operation & Maintenance: $ 45 million (annually)
Annualized: $114 million (30 years at 10%)
Costs of this project to an average household user would be $96
annually, assuming start-up in 1995 (based on a 50% local share).
4-21
-------
All Secondary LI
Possible Facility Siting Refinements
A primary treatment plant could be constructed at Nut Island without
filling of the Bay. A facility site design which places primary treat-
ment facilities across the entire 17-acre site would require placement of
facilities closer to the nearby homes and would likely necessitate
removal of the nearest homes on Houghs Neck (see Figure 4-6), but would
eliminate the need to fill a portion of the Bay.
Such a plan would establish new buffer areas by taking (by eminent
domain) several of the nearest homes and relocating their residents. A
relocation program, if it is deemed acceptable, must involve appropriate
compensation to all residents affected.
Construction noise would still have significant impacts on the
remaining residents closest to the site. With noise mitigation measures
applied, and with the establishment of buffers (as well as the natural
buffer of the topography of Quincy Great Hill) noise would remain a
moderate impact and within allowable guidelines.
Institutional issues under this option include the need to relocate
families in accordance with established federal and state guidelines.
Impacts may also result from the social disruption of the Houghs Neck
community under such a plan, particularly for those families forced to
relocate. Adjacent property values may likewise be negatively affected
by the demolition of abuttor homes.
All Secondary Long Island Alternative
This alternative would site a 96-acre primary and secondary treat-
ment plant at Long Island for both north and south system flows. A
5-acre headworks/pump station for north system flows would be sited at
Deer Island, and a 2-acre headworks for south system flow would be sited
4-22
-------
QUINCY
TO OUTFALL
PRIMARY SEDIMENTATION TANKS
NOTE: THESE SITE LAYOUTS ARE CONCEPTUAL ONLY.
REFLECTING BEST CURRENT INFORMATION,
TAKEN FROM THE MDC SITE OPTIONS STUDY
(1982) AND MAY NOT REFLECT THE DETAILED
SITING TO BE DONE (IF THIS SITE IS SELECTED)
DURING FINAL SITE DESIGN-
UNSHADED FACILITIES TO BE UPGRADED.
SHADED AREAS DENOTE NEW FACILITIES.
NUT ISLAND ALTERNATE SITE LAYOUT (18A)
PRIMARY TREATMENT AT NUT ISLAND WITHOUT BAY FILLING
FIG. 4-6
-------
AH Secondary LI
at Nut Island. Conceptual site plans are shown in Figures 4-7 through
4-9. This alternative locates new treatment facilities at Long Island
and maintains reduced facilities at both other island sites.
At Deer Island, a new pump station and power building, would remain
at their present location atop the confluence of the three deep tunnel
shafts of the MSB north metropolitan system. The Winthrop Terminal
headworks which screens a portion of the flows to the site would also
remain. It is feasible to maintain and upgrade these existing components
on-site while relocating all other treatment to Long Island.
A new 96-acre consolidated secondary treatment facility would be
located in the center of Long Island. This would occupy almost half of
the island. It would require either relocation of the existing chronic
disease hospital and shelter on Long Island or intrusion into environ-
mentally sensitive areas. Such impacts on sensitive natural resources
are not acceptable. Additionally, if the hospital is not relocated,
there would be adverse impacts of construction and operations of proposed
treatment facilities on the hospital population.
On Nut Island, reduction of existing treatment facilities to a two
acre headworks would be the same as discussed under the All Secondary
Deer Island Alternative.
Traffic
With the barging of materials and busing of construction workers,
the impacts of construction traffic would be slight in Point Shirley and
Houghs Neck, and moderate in Squantum. Impacts would be negligible in
East Boston and Winthrop, along the access route to Deer Island, and in
Quincy along the access route to Long Island and Nut Island. Operations
traffic impacts at all sites would be slight.
At Deer Island, the projected eight trucks daily for five years of
construction would negligibly increase traffic levels and would not
exceed local roadway capacities, comparable to the previous alternatives.
Noise and diesel fumes of passing trucks may periodically annoy and
4-24
-------
X
X
X
X
X
X
INFL.VWUMP STA;
. PUMP STA;
X
SCALE
NOTE: THESE SITE LAYOUTS ARE CONCEPTUAL ONLY,
REFLECTING BEST CURRENT INFORMATION,
TAKEN FROM THE MDC SITE OPTIONS STUDY
(1982) AND MAY NOT REFLECT THE DETAILED
SITING TO BE DONE CIF THIS SITE IS SELECTED)
DJJRING FINAL SITE DESIGN.
SHADED AREAS DENOTE NEW FACILITIES.
CROSSHATCHED FACILITIES TO BE REMOVED.
Source- C6 M»*uiKie, Inc., June
based on situ layouf*
Metc«if4eddy. ]nc.(Srte
option*
X
X
X
X
DEER ISLAND HEADWORKS/PUMP STATION (5A)
FIG. 4-7
-------
HARBOR
BOSTON
CHLOR. TO OUTFALLS
CONTACT
TANK . ,
EFFLUENT PUMP STATION
CHLOR. \ \ . J
SECONDARY TANKS
AERATION TANKS
PRIMARY CLARIFIERS
INFLUENT PUMP STATION,
PRIMARY CLARIFIERS ^ GRIT REMOVAL
SCALE IN FEET
NOTE: THESE SITE LAYOUTS ARE CONCEPTUAL ONLY.
REFLECTING BEST CURRENT INFORMATION,
TAKEN FROM THE MDC SITE QPT1QNS, STUDY
(1982D AND MAY NOT REFLECT THE DETAILED
SITING TO BE DONE CIF THIS SITE IS SELECTED)
DURING FINAL SITE DESIGN.
SHADED AREAS DENOTE NEW FACILITIES.
FURTHER ROADWAY REALIGNMENT IS NEEDED
Sourc=
.rw , (rit., Jwria ,
if* Uy<7uf-&fr<»m
REQUIREMENTS OF THE FACILITIES PLANS.
CONSOLIDATED PRIMARY/SECONDARY TREATMENT AT LONG ISLAND (96A)
'
FIG. 4-8
-------
QUINCY
TO LONG ISLAND
INLET
TUNNEL
SHAFT
NOTE: THESE SITE LAYOUTS ARE CONCEPTUAL ONLY,
REFLECTING BEST CURRENT INFORMATION,
TAKEN FROM THE MDC SITE OPTIONS STUDY
(19823 AND MAY NOT REFLECT THE DETAILED
SITING TO BE DONE CIF THIS SITE IS SELECTED)
DURING. FINAL SITE DESIGN.
SHADED AREAS DENOTE NEW FACILITIES.
CROSSHATCHED FACILITIES TO BE REMOVED.
NUT ISLAND HEADWORKS (2A)
Source: Metcalf & Eddy,
Nut Island Wastewater
Treatment Plant Facilities
Planning Project, June 1982
FIG. 4-9
-------
All Secondary LI
disturb residents along the traffic route. The brief time required for a
truck to pass by will limit disruption. Impacts on the Point Shirley
neighborhood would be slight. This option would not utilize barges at
Deer Island unless tunnel conveyance is chosen for wastewater flows and
effluent.
Approximately two buses will be required to convey construction
workers to and from the Deer Island site. These will minimally increase
traffic on local roads. No adverse impact on or annoyance of residents
along the traffic route or in Point Shirley is expected. Operations
traffic would be slightly reduced from present levels at Deer Island due
to the reduction in facilities.
At Long Island, the projected eight trucks would pass along local
roads in Quincy and Squantum daily for eight to nine years of construc-
tion. These vehicles would be readily accommodated by the local roadway
network with no adverse impact. Existing traffic flows are between 25
and 50 percent of the capacity on roads in the vicinity of the site (see
Section 12.2). The noise and diesel fumes of trucks may temporarily
disturb and annoy residents along the access route and in Squantum,
particularly as vehicles negotiate the sharp curves and steep grades of
Dorchester Avenue (see Section 12.2). The brief time required for a
truck to pass by will limit such disruption. Impacts on residents of
Squantum would be slight.
Between 14 (average) and 28 (peak for 6 to 12 months) buses will be
required to transport construction workers to and from the Long Island
site. These buses can be accommodated on local roads, but may, in the
case of peak bus traffic, have moderately adverse impacts on residents of
Squantum from the noise and annoyance that would be generated. It may be
necessary to provide traffic controls, police supervision, and staggered
bus departures to minimize potential congestion problems and disturbance
during peak traffic periods.
The existing truck route to Long Island passes through residential
sections of North Quincy. These residents may also be disrupted for
4-28
-------
All Secondary LI
brief periods daily by the peak number of buses. An alternate truck
route, which would minimize truck and bus travel along narrow residential
streets, could use a section of Quincy Shore Drive between Neponset
Circle and Squantum Street. This route is currently closed to trucks and
buses. Approval for truck and bus use from the MDC would be required.
Impacts of operations at Long Island would be slight. Traffic
generated by staffing at a secondary treatment plant (projected at about
90 persons during a maximum daily shift) would be less than the existing
traffic levels associated with the Long Island Hospital (see Section
12.2.3).
The eight trucks daily for three to four years of construction at
Nut Island would have only a slight impact. Approximately two buses
would be used daily to transport construction workers to and from the
site. There would be no adverse impacts on abuttors or local traffic.
Operations traffic would likewise have only a slight impact.
Noise
Adverse noise impacts during construction would be slight at Point
Shirley residences, moderate at the Deer Island prison, slight on Long
Island (to possible future park visitors), and moderate at residences
nearby to Nut Island. With noise mitigation measures, the natural
attenuation of noise by distance would reduce these effects to allowable
levels under existing State and City of Boston noise standards. During
peak periods of on-site work, moderate disturbance to nearby Nut Island
residents and to the Deer Island prison population would occur. Noise
generated during operations would be slight and generally imperceptible
relative to background noise levels at all sites.
At Deer Island, as described previously, construction noise impacts
over the five year period would be moderate to the nearby prison popu-
lation. At more distant locations in Winthrop, noise mitigation prac-
tices would reduce typical construction noise levels to within the
general range of background noise. Noise impacts from construction would
4-29
-------
All Secondary LI
be slight at Point Shirley residences some half-mile away. Peak noise
would be an occasional annoyance, but within allowable limits.
Construction noise on Long Island over the eight to nine year period
would impact visitors to the island if planned recreational uses are
developed. Under these conditions, noise levels generated would be
slight, and within allowable standards.
On Nut Island, as described previously, moderate construction noise
impacts would be expected over the three to four year period. Impacts
would result from the proximity of residences to the site. Noise levels
generated would be within the guidelines specified previously.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas
Sensitive natural areas exist on Long Island. Freshwater and
saltwater wetlands and a barrier beach are adjacent to the proposed
treatment plant site (see Section 3.4.3). Siting of treatment facilities
on the hospital grounds would avoid these natural areas. Potential
disruption would depend on the extent of construction activities and land
clearing required on Long Island. Construction controls will minimize
potential disruption of these areas.
Recreational Resources
No recreational uses exist on either Deer, Long or Nut Islands.
This alternative would preclude recreational development of a large part
of Long Island as currently planned by DEM under the Boston Harbor
Islands State Park Plan. The major portion of the island's central and
southern area would be devoted to treatment facilities. These would
conflict severely with proposed passive recreational uses. Active
recreational use of Long Island Head and the adjoining Parade Ground area
will also be adversely affected. Under this alternative, portions of
Deer Island and Nut Island could be made available for possible reuse for
recreational or other purposes.
4-30
-------
All Secondary LI
No current recreational plans exist for Deer Island, as noted
previously. The previous State Comprehensive Recreational Plan (MAPC,
1972) considered a mixed use of recreation south of the drumlin and
expanded treatment facilities in the vicinity of the present treatment
plant site. This alternative would maintain the area south of the
drumlin (approximately 50 acres) as open space, and reduce the size of
treatment works to the north, affording an opportunity for possible
future reuse for recreational purposes. It has the advantage of main-
taining the drumlin for screening and buffer. Screening around the
five-acre pumping/headworks facilities could be provided to enhance
compatibility with recreational use.
Existing recreational plans for Long Island have been updated as
part of the Department of Environmental Management's (DEM) Harbor Island
State Park Master Plan (October 1984; see Section 12.3). Under this
plan, the northern portion of the island (40 acres) would be developed
for intensive, active recreational uses, while the southern portion
(approximately 100 acres) would be developed for passive uses (see figure
in Section 12.3). The proposed treatment plant siting in the center of
the island would severely conflict with planned passive recreational
uses, and may adversely affect planned active recreational uses nearby.
Reduction in the size of facilities on Nut Island would make pos-
sible reuse of about 15 acres of land. Possible recreational reuse could
include a boat ramp, a fishing pier with parking, or open space. This
would be a benefit at this site.
Archaeological and Historical Resources
This alternative would have severe impacts on cultural resources on
Long Island. Evidence of significant archaeological and historical
materials has been found on Long Island. As noted previously, no signi-
ficant archaeological or historical resources have been identified on
Deer or Nut Islands and no adverse impacts are anticipated at those
sites.
4-31
-------
All Secondary LI
Long Island contains important cultural materials from several
thousand years of prehistoric occupation. These include the oldest
evidence of occupation yet found on any of the Harbor Islands and also
the oldest within the limits of the City of Boston.
Long Island contains a historical cemetery with numerous marked and
unmarked graves. Sources indicate that there may be up to 2,000 grave-
sites on Long Island. It is unlikely that the small cemetery area
presently recognized in the center of the island encompasses all such
grave sites. Further archaeological investigations would be required for
any Long Island facilities.
The hospital complex on Long Island may also be eligible for listing
in the National Register of Historic Places as part of a Boston Harbor
Multiple Resource Area. The Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) is
currently preparing National Register nomination forms for the Boston
Harbor Islands Archaeological District. The archaeological District
includes sites on Long Island as well as on several other harbor islands.
The construction of wastewater treatment facilities on Long Island would
lead to the destruction, alteration, and isolation of cultural resources.
These resources would have to be studied and protected according to the
procedures established by Federal and State regulations (36 CFR 800.3(b)
and 950 CMR 71.05).
In accordance with these procedures, detailed survey of the full
extent and significance of these resources (corresponding to a Phase II,
more intensive site survey) must be carried out prior to any final site
design. It would be necessary to determine the locations of potentially
affected unmarked graves, prehistoric archaeological resources, and
historic resources on-site and to determine whether or not these resour-
ces are eligible for the Federal Register of Historic Places. Further-
more, if it is found that this alternative displaces cemeteries or grave
sites, an Act of the Legislature would be needed to allow the use of
those burial sites for wastewater facilities (M.G.L., Chapter 114,
Section 17). Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
mandates that "feasible and prudent" alternatives to mitigate adverse
4-32
-------
All Secondary LI
impacts be considered before a final siting decision can be made (see
discussion below).
Legal and Institutional Implementability
The legal and institutional obstacles to implementation of treatment
facilities on Long Island are severe. A multiplicity of issues and
potential siting conflicts could delay the many regulatory approvals
which will be needed. Legal and institutional issues would not arise on
Deer or Nut Island from the reduction of existing facilities to a head-
works or pump station.
Long Island is owned by the City of Boston and is under the adminis-
trative control of the City's Department of Health and Hospitals. Siting
of wastewater treatment facilities on the hospital grounds would conflict
with the "Prior Public Use" doctrine of Commonwealth law. It will
therefore require a majority approval of the State Legislature. Since
Long Island is within the boundaries of the Boston Harbor Islands State
Park, siting of wastewater treatment facilities on Long Island will also
require land use approval by the Commissioner of the Department of
Environmental Management (DEM). Such siting on Long Island is inconsis-
tent with OEM's recent recreational Master Plan (1984). Both DEM and the
City of Boston favor use of Long Island for recreation along with contin-
uation (for the present) of the hospital use. Both parties are discus-
sing means to implement the first phase of the State's recreational plans
(see Section 10.1 for copy of letter).
Archaeological and historical sites on Long Island, including both
historic and prehistoric elements, are being nominated to the Federal
Register of Historic Places by the Massachusetts Historical Commission
(MHC). A full review of impacts on these sites must be undertaken in
accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA). The National Advisory Council on Historic Preservation must be
consulted. All prudent and feasible alternatives to mitigate adverse
impacts must be evaluated prior to a final siting determination. This
review process will require further archeological testing on Long Island
4-33
-------
All Secondary LI
to establish the extent and significance of resources potentially affec-
ted by the project. This includes effects on the overall context of the
sites. This may delay or impair implementation at Long Island.
Unmarked grave sites on the island and the cemeteries located
adjacent to the proposed site could cause siting problems. Should
relocation of gravesites be necessary approval of the Legislature would
be required (M.G.L. Chapter 114, Section 17). If any human remains are
encountered during construction, regulatory procedures require that all
construction work must stop until the remains are examined and identified
and the extent of any possible burial site is determined. This could
delay the project significantly, possibly until action is taken by the
Legislature as noted above.
Relocation of the Long Island Hospital would be a final impediment
to siting secondary alternatives on Long Island. This would require, at
a minimum, both a plan to relocate the medical and social services of the
hospital, (with its 400 staff and estimated 400 patients), and the
financial resources to accomplish this move. No such plans have yet been
prepared by the City, although in the past some consideration has been
given to relocation of the hospital over the long term. The City pre-
sently proposes maintaining the hospital until long range reuse plans are
developed (see letter in Section 10.1). Acquisition of hospital grounds
would probably be subject to the Commonwealth's Prior Public Use Doc-
trine, in which case legislative approval would be required.
Impact on Property Values
As noted previously reductions in property values may occur in both
Winthrop and Quincy. These would be slight and of a temporary nature
during the construction period. Property values would rebound once
construction activities are concluded.
4-34
-------
All Secondary LI
Visual Quality
Impacts on the visual quality of Deer Island would be slight.
Improved appearance would result from reduction in facility's size if the
site is restored. Severe adverse impacts would result from treatment
facilities on Long Island, particularly in the event of recreational use
of the island. On Nut Island, visual impacts would be slight. Removal
of the existing plant and restoration of the site could lead to improve-
ment.
On Deer Island, conversion to a five acre headworks/pumping facility
would reduce the number of visible structures and potentially improve the
site's appearance from all viewpoints. The headworks/pump station would
be visible from the harbor, but other highly visible elements would be
removed. Only a small number of homes on Point Shirley and Cottage Hill
would have a view of the site. The drumlin would remain a prominent
visual and natural feature of the island. Facilities could be integrated
with the site through use of compatible landscaping.
On Long Island, 96 acres of secondary treatment facilities would
significantly alter the existing visual character and adversely affect
the appearance of the island. Long Island's central location in the
harbor affords a variety of views of the site from numerous locations. A
facility of this size would remove the natural topographic and vegetative
features of the island, creating a broad expanse of industrial facilities
where none now exist (see Section 12.3). The pastoral quality of the
island's southern part and the campus-like setting of the hospital would
be lost. It will be difficult to screen the facility from recreational
visitors on-site. Screening or buffer areas, however, could be developed
to partially mitigate effects on views from the harbor, from locations on
the island and from nearby islands. Siting can also take advantage of
the natural topography of the island to improve the facilities' appear-
ance .
Reduction of facilities to a two acre headworks on Nut Island would
slightly impact and could potentially benefit that site's visual charac-
4-35
-------
All Secondary LI
ter. Nearby views of the island would be more in keeping with the scale
of the site and its shoreline surroundings. Views of the island from
other parts of Quincy and from the harbor would be improved, particularly
if the remaining open areas were replanted and compatible uses, such as
recreation, were developed.
Odors
As noted previously, odor impacts during normal operations would be
slight at all sites. During problems in operations, headworks/pumping
facilities on Deer Island may result in slight to moderate odor impacts
on the adjacent population of the Deer Island prison (depending upon the
extent of such problems) and slight impacts to residents in Point Shirley
about one-half mile away. The infrequent occurrence of winds which blow
towards the prison and the nearby residences would limit such impacts to
relatively brief periods of time.
On Long Island, odor impacts during times of operational problems
are expected to be moderate, affecting only park visitors if the park is
developed. Prevailing winds at this location are towards the proposed
active park use area on the island.
On Nut Island, moderate odor impacts may result during times of
operational problems. This is due to the proximity of residences to the
site. These impacts would be limited by the infrequent occurrence of
winds which would carry odors in the direction of Houghs Neck.
Costs
Costs of this alternative would be:
Capital: $706 million (one time expense)
Operation & Maintenance $ 45 million (annually)
Annualized: $120 million (30 years at 10%)
Costs of this project to an average household user would be $99
annually, assuming start-up in 1995 (based on 50% local share).
4-36
-------
Split Secondary DI/LI
Split Secondary Deer Island and Long Island Alternative
This alternative would site a consolidated secondary treatment plant
for all flows with primary treatment for south system flows at Long
Island, requiring 82 acres. A 52-acre primary treatment plant would be
sited at Deer Island for north system flows, and a two acre headworks at
Nut Island for south system flow. Conceptual site plans are shown in
Figures 4-10 through 4-12. This alternative would expand facilities at
Deer Island, locate substantial new facilities at Long Island, and reduce
treatment facilities at Nut Island.
At Deer Island, the expanded primary facilities would be located
beside the present facility and to the northeast of the drumlin. The
existing digester, gas storage and thickener tanks would be relocated
farther away from the prison to the base of the drumlin.
A new 82-acre secondary treatment facility would be located in the
center of Long Island. As with the previous alternative, it would
require relocation of the existing City of Boston Chronic Disease Hos-
pital and homeless shelter. Long Island is largely undeveloped except
for the Long Island Hospital.
On Nut Island, impacts of a two acre headworks would be the same as
discussed under the All Deer Island Alternative.
Traffic
As with the previous alternative, the impacts of construction
traffic would be slight in Point Shirley and Houghs Neck, and moderate in
Squantum. Impacts would be negligible in East Boston and Winthrop along
the access route to Deer Island, and in Quincy along the access route to
Long Island and Nut Island. Operations traffic impacts would be slight
at all sites.
4-37
-------
PR8M. SED. TANKS
GRAVITY THICK.
SCUM INCIN.
CHLOR.
,X
EFFLUENT PUMP STATION
TO LONG ISLAND
CONTACT TANKS
X
MAINT. BLDG:
BOSTON
X
NOTE: SHADED AREAS DENOTE NEW FACILITIES
UNSHADED FACILITIES TO BE UPGRADED
CROSSHATCHED FACILITIES TO BE REMOVED.
THESE SITE LAYOUTS ARE CONCEPTUAL ONLY,
REFLECTING BEST CURRENT INFORMATION-
TAKEN FROM THg...M.P_C SITEjQPTlQNS STUDY
(19823 AND MAT NOT REFLECT THE DETAILED
SITING TO BE DONE (IF THIS SITE IS SELECTED)
DURING FINAL SITE DESIGN
source;
SPLIT PRIMARY TREATMENT AT DEER ISLAND (52A)
FIG. 4-10
-------
HARBOR
CHLOR.
CONTACT TANK
EFFLUENT PUMP STATION
200 400
SCALE IN FEET
NOTE: THESE SITE LAYOUTS ARE CONCEPTUAL ONLY.
REFLECTING BEST CURRENT INFORMATION,
TAKEN FROM THE MDC SITE OPTIONS STUDY
(19823 AND MAY NOT REFLECT THE DETAILED
SITING TO BE DONE (IF THIS SITE IS SELECTED)
DURING FINAL SITE DESIGN.
SHADED AREAS DENOTE NEW FACILITIES,
FURTHER ROADWAY REALIGNMENT IS NEEDED
NO DIGESTERS ARE SHOWN FOR THESE
SECONDARY FACILITIES CONSISTENT WITH
REQUIREMENTS OF THE FACILITIES PLANS.
CONSOLIDATED SECONDARY TREATMENT AT LONG ISLAND (82 A)
FIG. 4-11
-------
QUINCY
SCALE IN FEET
NOTE: THESE SITE LAYOUTS ARE CONCEPTUAL ONLY,
REFLECTING BEST CURRENT INFORMATION,
TAKEN FROM THE MDC SITE OPTIONS STIJD'i
(1982) AND MAY NOT REFLECT THE DETAILEI
SITING TO BE DONE (IF THIS SITE IS SELECTED)
DURING FINAL SITE DESIGN.
SHADED AREAS DENOTE NEW FACILITIES.
^ILII IE"
u
ED
CROSSHATCHED FACILITIES TO BE REMOVED.
NUT ISLAND HEADWORKS (2A)
LONG ISLAND
INLET
TUNNEL
SHAFT
Source: Metcalf & Eddy,
Nut Island Wastewater
Treatment Plant Faciltties
Planning Project. June 1982
FIG. 4-12
-------
Split Secondary DI/LI
At Deer Island, the projected six trucks daily for a five to six
year construction period would negligibly increase existing traffic
volumes. They would not exceed roadway capacities on roads through East
Boston or Winthrop (see Section 12.2). Noise and diesel fumes of passing
trucks may cause periodic annoyance and disturbance along the traffic
route. The brief time required for truck passage will limit such dis-
turbances .
Between six (average) and nine (peak for 6 to 12 months) buses will
be required to convey construction workers to and from the Deer Island
site. These vehicles will not significantly increase existing traffic on
local roads. It would slightly impact abuttors along the traffic route
and in Point Shirley. It may still be necessary to provide added traffic
control, staggered bus departures and police supervision to maintain
smooth traffic flow during peak traffic periods. Operations impacts
would also be slight, as noted previously.
At Long Island, the projected eight trucks daily would use local
roads in Quincy and Squantum for a construction period of seven to eight
years. These vehicles would be readily accommodated by the local roadway
network with no adverse impacts. Noise and diesel fumes may temporarily
disturb and annoy residents in Squantum as trucks negotiate the sharp
curves and steep grades of Dorchester Avenue (see Section 12.2). How-
ever, the brief time required for truck passage will limit such distur-
bance.
Between 14 (average) and 27 (peak for 6 to 12 months) buses will be
required to transport construction workers to and from the Long Island
site. These buses can be accommodated, but may, in the use of peak bus
traffic, have moderately adverse impacts on residents of Squantum. Noise
and annoyance would be generated. It may be necessary to provide traffic
controls, police supervision, and staggered bus departures to minimize
congestion problems during peak traffic periods. Operational traffic
impacts would be slight, as described for the previous alternative.
4-41
-------
Split Secondary DI/LI
As noted previously, truck access to the Long Island site is pre-
sently obtained through residential sections of North Quincy. These may
be disrupted briefly by peak bus traffic. A possible alternate routing
would use a section of Quincy Shore Drive between Neponset Circle and
Squantum Street. This is presently closed to commercial vehicles. Use
of this route would minimize truck and bus travel along residential
streets.
At Nut Island, approximately eight trucks would be utilized daily
for construction over a period of three to four years. These trucks will
have a slight impact on the local access roads. Approximately two buses
would be used daily to transport construction workers to and from the
site. These buses would have no adverse impacts on abuttors or local
traffic. Barges would not be used to transport materials to Nut Island
for the headworks, unless tunnel construction is also selected.
Noise
Adverse noise impacts during construction would be slight at Point
Shirley residences, moderate at the Deer Island prison, slight to future
park visitors to Long Island, and moderate at residences near to Nut
Island. With noise mitigation measures applied, the natural attenuation
of noise by distance would reduce the adverse effects of construction
noise to levels allowable by State and City of Boston Standards.
Noise generated by improved treatment facilities would be slight
during operations, and would generally be an imperceptible increase over
background noise levels at all three sites.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas
As in the previous alternative, sensitive natural areas exist only
on Long Island where freshwater and saltwater wetlands and a barrier
beach are adjacent to the proposed treatment plant site (see Section
3.4.3). Siting of treatment facilities on the hospital grounds would
avoid these natural areas. Even so, construction controls will be needed
4-42
-------
Split Secondary DI/LI
to minimize potential disruption of these resources by construction
activities. Disruption would depend on the extent of construction, slope
stabilization, and land clearing required on Long Island.
Recreational Resources
Impacts of this alternative on Long Island would be severe, as
described in the previous alternative. They would be slight on Deer
Island and Nut Island , and potentially beneficial at both sites if
recreation areas are developed.
On Long Island, this option would result in severe impacts by
precluding use of a large part of the island for a State park as cur-
rently planned by DEM. The major portion of the island's central and
southern area would be devoted to treatment facilities. These would
conflict with proposed passive recreational uses and may also adversely
affect active recreational uses on Long Island Head and the adjoining
Parade Ground area.
Archaeological and Historical Resources
Severe impacts on archaeological and cultural resources would occur
on Long Island where evidence of significant archaeological and histor-
ical materials has been found. Effects have been detailed in discussion
of the previous alternative. The potential for disturbance of these
resources is great. More detailed site analysis, further identification
of the extent of resources and the value of the resources must be deter-
mined. Adverse impacts may affect the State's efforts to nominate Long
Island to the National Register of Historic Places. Potential impacts at
this site will require a further review in compliance with Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act and assessment of all prudent and
feasible alternatives to mitigate adverse impacts. No impacts are anti-
cipated on Deer Island or Nut Island where surveys indicated no signifi-
cant archaeological or cultural resources.
4-43
-------
Split Secondary DI/LI
Legal and Institutional Implementability
Legal and institutional obstacles to siting of treatment facilities
on Long Island are severe. As detailed in the discussion of the previous
alternative, a multiplicity of issues affecting Long Island may delay or
impair implementation. Since the MDC controls all of the land required
to construct headworks or a pump station on Deer Island and Nut Island,
there are no legal or institutional obstacles to siting of facilities at
these sites.
Impacts on Property Values
As noted previously, reduction of property values in adjacent parts
of Winthrop and Quincy may occur during the construction period, but
would be slight and temporary. Property values would be expected to
rebound once construction activities are concluded.
Visual Quality
As described previously, impacts on visual quality would be moderate
on Deer Island, severe on Long Island, and slight on Nut Island.
On Deer Island, expansion to a 52-acre primary treatment plant would
not appreciably change the site's present appearance. Expanded facili-
ties along the base of the drumlin would not be significantly more
visible from the harbor or from those few residences on Point Shirley and
Cottage Hill with views to the site. The drumlin would remain as a
prominent landmark and natural feature of the island.
On Long Island, 82 acres of secondary treatment facilities would
severely alter the existing appearance of the site and views of the
island. This impact would be the same as the effects discussed under the
previous alternative, even though the facility is slightly smaller in
total acreage. A facility of this size would replace the natural topo-
graphic and vegetative features of the island with a broad expanse of
industrial appearing facilities. The pastoral quality of the island's
4-44
-------
Split Secondary DI/LI
southern part and its diverse features would be lost. Limited screening
or buffer could be achieved to improve views of the island, particularly
from nearby islands, as noted previously.
On Nut Island, reduction of facilities to a two acre headworks would
have a slight impact. It would improve that site's appearance by remov-
ing existing treatment facilities and replacing them with smaller sized
facilities that are more in keeping with the scale of the island and its
shoreline surroundings. Views of the island from the shoreline and from
the harbor would be improved, particularly if the site's open areas are
restored and compatible uses, such as recreation, are developed.
Odors
Normal operation of improved treatment facilities on all three sites
may cause slight odors, respectively, at the Deer Island prison, in Point
Shirley, on Houghs Neck, and on Long Island. As noted previously, during
times of operational problems, moderate odor impacts may be noted on
Deer Island by the adjacent prison population and by nearby residents of
Point Shirley; likewise, there may be occasional moderate odor impacts at
Houghs Neck due to the proximity of residences to the Nut Island site.
The infrequent occurrence at both sites of winds which would carry odors
in the direction of the respective nearby populations would limit such
impacts. On Long Island, potential odor impacts from infrequent opera-
tional problems are likely to be moderate affecting park visitors if
recreation is developed. Prevailing summer wind patterns on Long Island
would carry odors in the direction of intense recreational uses on Long
Island Head.
Costs
Costs of this alternative would be:
Capital: $738 million (one time expense)
Operation & Maintenance: $ 53 million (annually)
Annualized: $131 million (30 years at 10%)
4-45
-------
PRIMARY ALTERNATIVES
Costs of this alternative to the average household user would be
$111 annually, assuming a start-up in 1995 (based on a 50% local share).
Possible Siting Refinements
A primary treatment plant on Deer Island (either 52 acres or 62
acres in size) could be constructed with most of the treatment works
relocated to the south of the drumlin, away from the prison and Point
Shirley (see Figure 4-13). Sedimentation tanks, digesters, administra-
tion building and chlorine facilities could be relocated. Only the
existing two-story Deer Island pump station and power building (and
possibly the on-site Winthrop Terminal headworks facility) would remain
in their present locations.
Such a plan would reduce impacts on the prison population, as well
as nearby residents, by increasing the distance to treatment facilities.
It would, however, preclude development of the southern portion of the
island for other uses, such as recreation. It would be necessary to
acquire land from the federal government to use this part of the island,
adding to implementation problems, possibly increasing site, construction
and project costs, and increasing visual impacts of treatment facilities
from the harbor.
4.2 PRIMARY TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Three primary treatment alternatives remained after screening, while
one primary alternative (All Long Island Alternative) was dropped from
active consideration at this time. However, a full discussion of the
impacts under this alternative is included in this section. The alter-
natives are shown conceptually in Figure 4-14. They are:
o All Primary Deer Island Alternative (Option 4a.2);
o Split Primary Deer Island and Nut Island Alternative (Option
4b.2);
4-46
-------
X
X
X
X
X
HLOR. CONTACT TANKS
X
SOUTH SYS.
INFL. PUMP STA.
GRAV. THICK..
SCALE
NOTE:
SHADED AREAS DENOTE NEW! FACILITIES.
CROSSHATCHED FACILITIES TO BE REMOVED.
THESE SITE LAYOUTS ARE CONCEPTUAL ONLY,
REFLECTING BEST CURRENT INFORMATION,
TAKEN FROM I.tj.E MDC SITE OPTIONS STUDY
(19823 AND MAY NOT REFLECT THE DETAILED
SITING TO BE DONE (IF THIS SITE IS SELECTED)
DURING FINAL SITE DESIGN.
DEER ISLAND ALTERNATE SITE LAYOUT (PRIMARY)
PRIMARY TREATMENT AT DEER ISLAND RELOCATED SOUTH OF DRUMLIN
FIG. 4-13
-------
'evmoLf&i
ALL PRIMARY
DEER ISLAND
KEY:
SPLIT PRIMARY
DEER ISLAND AND
NUT ISLAND
|= secondary treatment
= headvorks/pnpinf only
= priaury treatment
(5a.2) /C
M "U
SPLIT PRIMARY
DEER ISLAND AND
LONG ISLAND
PRJMARY OPTIONS
REMAINING AFTER SCREENING
FIG. 4-14
-------
All Primary Dl
o Split Primary Deer Island and Long Island Alternative (Option
5a.2).
o All Primary Long Island Alternative (Option 5b.2).
4.2.1 Impacts Common to all Primary Treatment Alternatives
Most of the impacts common to all primary treatment alternatives are
common to secondary treatment alternatives as well. These are discussed
in Section 4.1.1 above. They encompass the impacts of inter-island and
outfall conveyance, and truck delivery of chlorine gas.
In the case of Water Quality impacts, however, the effects under
primary treatment alternatives are not comparable to those under secon-
dary treatment. This is because all of the remaining primary alterna-
tives will discharge through an extended outfall originating at Deer
Island and discharging nine miles to the northeast in Massachusetts Bay.
The principal effects of such an action would result from construction of
a nine-mile effluent discharge conduit, providing improvements in water
quality within the harbor through elimination of effluent discharges to
the harbor waters. These alternatives are dependent upon a granting by
EPA of the MDC's pending 301(h) waiver application. These impact issues
are described in greater detail in Section 11.3 of Volume 2 of the SDEIS.
4.2.2 Impacts of the Individual Primary Treatment Alternatives
The impacts of each primary treatment alternative are described in
the following sections. A summary of these impacts is presented in the
following table. Impacts discussed in this section are in the same order
as those identified for the secondary treatment alternatives.
All Primary Deer Island Alternative
This alternative would site a 62-acre consolidated primary treatment
plant for north and south system flows at Deer Island, and a two acre
headworks for south system flow at Nut Island. Conceptual site plans are
4-49
-------
LB6£MP:
\1 = SECONDARY
O = PRJMAKY
IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES- PR I MARY
TA&L6 -4 "2
L-l ' PUMPING
IMPACT
CATEGORIES:
OK*
1. ALL DE6R- I>LAWP
O
D. I.
D
M.S.
(2 A")
2. 3PLIT PEER. INLAND
AMD
O.I.
O (52 A)
N.L
O 00 A)
5. SPLIT DEER. ISLAHID
ANO LOA46
0
D.I
N.I.
O
L..I
4 ALL LONG ISLAND
D.I
D
(5A)
D
N.I.
.
(2A)
O
COMMUNITY'*YEAR&
5-6
3-4YR5.
5-6 Y£&.
5-
3-4YK.S.
3-4 YR6.
7 YR6-
DAILY
DPN'STi
TRAFFIC
7
SLIGHT
a
6
SUSHT
4
SLIGHT
S
SLIGHT
SLIGHT
S
SLiewT
8
SLIGHT
6
5LIQHT
AYERAQE/PBAK:
Number of
)2//3
SLIGHT
SLIGHT
SLIGHT
SL/QMT
SLIGHT
& LIGHT
2/2
6LIQHT
2/2
6LK5HT
14/15
AVA
PROPERTY
VALUBS
^ INFREQUENT
OOOK, PROBLEMS
65/755-
190/
245
85/ 100
HOM6S/PRI50W
4<&-Se/ &-58
SLIGHT /MODERATE
MODERATE
/MOPERAT&
72-84
MOOBRATE
PAEeO4Ne ^ fZEBOUMO
REBOUND FUULY
pecu we 4
DECLINE &F?fJ000NP
PKLlNEcS
HOMS6 PR.) SOU
MODERATEMODBIEATe
MODERATE
MODEEATfijf
OSPITAL
&U3HTM ODEEATE
MODE PA Tt
IM PACTS
SLIGHT
MODERATB
SEVEE-E
SLIGHT
SLIGHT
6LlGHf
STAFF/ MAX.
PAILY.SHIFT
2%
)0/53
20/8
102/4-6
eNVIRONMENlTALLY
eewsirivE
AREAS'-
WOWE EXIST
EXIST
N0WE
EX/5T
OEA6Hj MO
&XI6T
&
NO DIKBC-T
PROJECT
COST*.1
ANNUAL. '
CAPITAL
(million $)
810
87E
M
(million
2.1
2Z
24
22
Cmilli'an
101
IO8
14
74
78
81
82
LEGAL INSTITUTIONAL
OBSTACLES TO
IMPLEMENTATION*-
NOMg
APPROVAL,
SEVERE
APPROVAL FOR
OR, AU.TEP-NATH/E.LY,
OF
HOMES TO
C-EEAT6 8UPFEE.
i& LIMITED OBSTACLE
Leai-bLATiv/6
MODERATE =
APPROVAL-,
VAL
lofo"
- , "seCTIOfJ
NON&
106
CITY" OF
CULTURAL
RESOURCB5».'
W6M6 IMPACTED
IMPACTED
NOME IMPACTED
SIGNI'RCAMT ARCHAEO-
LOCtlCAL ^ HISTORICAL,
RE60UECB& ADJACENT
TO
NOM0 (MPACTEP
i HOSPITAL
MA'*' 66 HI«1»i?lCAtUY
NO
P066I BLB SMALL ecALg
6uiaHT IMPACT
FUTURE USB©/
&LI6HT IMPACT
sire.
PUTUieE 6MAIL
IMPACT
PAEK.
CONFLICT'
WITH
sivs)
MODERATE
PLAN6)
CONFUCT WITH pr?o-
Pfl-bEP
-for
of
, inc.
-------
All Primary Dl
shown in Figures 4-15 through 4-16. This alternative expands treatment
facilities at Deer Island and maintains reduced facilities at a second
island.
An expanded primary treatment plant at Deer Island would occupy the
present 26-acre facility and include land to the northeast of the drum-
lin. The drumlin would remain. The existing digesters, gas storage
tank, and thickener tanks would be relocated farther away from the
prison.
On Nut Island, the existing treatment facilities would be removed
and replaced by a two acre headworks, as discussed previously.
Traffic
As in the case of secondary treatment alternatives, transport of
materials by barge and busing of construction workers to the maximum
extent feasible is being required by EPA and the Commonwealth. This
would prevent the severe adverse impacts on nearby residential areas, and
those along the truck route, that otherwise would result. With barging
and busing during construction, the effects of construction traffic would
be manageable.
Impacts of construction traffic would be negligible on the larger
communities of East Boston and Winthrop along the access route to Deer
Island, and in Quincy along the access route to Nut Island. Impacts of
construction traffic would be slight at Point Shirley in Winthrop and at
Houghs Neck in Quincy.
At Deer Island, the projected seven trucks daily for a five to
six-year construction period would negligibly increase existing traffic
levels. Traffic would be below roadway capacities in East Boston and
Winthrop (see Section 12.2 of Volume 2). These now range from about ten
to forty percent operating capacity. Impacts of construction truck
traffic would be slight at Point Shirley. Noise and diesel fumes of
4-50
-------
NORTH SYS.
PRIM. SED. TANKS
SOUTH SYS.
PRIM. SED. TANKS-
GRAY. THICK.
SOUTH SYS.
INFLUENT PUMP STA.
EFFL. PUMP STA.
CHL0R. STOR.
CHLOR. CONTACT TANK
NORTH SYS.
PRIM. SED. TANKS
0 200 400
SCALE IN FEET
NOTE! SHADED AREAS DENOTE NEW FACILITIES
UNSHADED FACILITIES TO BE UPGRADED
CROSSHATCHED FACILITIES TO BE REMOVED.
THESE SITE LAYOUTS ARE CONCEPTUAL ONLY,
REFLECTING BEST CURRENT INFORMATION
TAKEN FROM THE MDC SITE OPTIONS STUpY
(19823 AND MAY NOT REFLECT THE DETAILED
SITING TO BE DONE OF THIS SITE IS SELECTED]
DURING FINAL SITE DESIGN.
Source: MetcaM & Eddy,
Site Options Study,
1982 (Deer Island
Site Layout Option
8, Fig. 3-13)
CONSOLIDATED PRIMARY TREATMENT AT DEER ISLAND (62 A)
FIG. 4-15
4-51
-------
QUINCY
SCALE IN FEET
NOTE: THESE SITE LAYOUTS ARE CONCEPTUAL ONLY.
REFLECTING BEST CURRENT INFORMATION,
TAKEN FROM THE MDC SITE OPTIONS STUDY
(1982) AND MAY NOT REFLECT THE DETAILED
SITING TO BE DONE CIF THIS SITE IS SELECTED)
DURING FINAL SITE DESIGN.
SHADED AREAS DENOTE NEW FACILITIES.
CROSSHATCHED FACILITIES TO BE REMOVED.
DEER ISLAND
INLET
TUNNEL
SHAFT
NUT ISLAND HEADWORKS (2A)
Source: Metcalf & Eddy,
Nut Island Wastewater
Treatment Plant Facilities
Planning Project, June 1982
FIG. 4-16
-------
All Primary Dl
passing trucks may periodically annoy and disturb activities of some
abuttors along the traffic route. However, the brief time required for a
truck to pass by will limit such disruption.
As noted previously, it is not expected that construction workers
will be permitted to drive to the job site (see Section 12.2). Between
12 (average) and 13 (peak for 6 to 12 months) buses will be required to
convey construction workers to and from the Deer Island site. This would
not significantly increase existing traffic on local roads. Buses during
construction would pose adverse levels of noise and annoyance to Point
Shirley residents or other abuttors along the traffic route. It may be
necessary to provide traffic controls, staggered bus departures, and
police supervision to maintain smooth flows during peak traffic periods.
The impacts of operations traffic would be slight due to the projected
decline in treatment plant staffing levels.
At Nut Island, approximately eight trucks would be used daily during
a construction period of three to four years. This number of trucks
would be a slight impact over local access roads, as noted previously.
As in previous cases, this option would not utilize barging at Nut
Island, although this may change if tunnel conveyance is chosen. Approx-
imately two buses daily would be used to transport construction workers
to and from the site. This number of buses also would have no adverse
impacts on abuttors or local traffic. Operations traffic at Nut Island
would have no adverse impacts due to the reduced facilities under this
alternative.
Noise
Adverse noise impacts during construction would be slight at Point
Shirley residences, moderate at the Deer Island prison, and moderate at
residences nearby to Nut Island, as noted under the previous alter-
natives. With the application of available noise mitigation measures,
noise levels that occur would be allowable under applicable State and
City of Boston standards.
4-53
-------
All Primary Dl
During operations, noise generated by new treatment facilities at
both sites would be slight and generally imperceptible relative to
background noise levels.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas
There are no sensitive natural areas on Deer Island or Nut Island;
therefore, siting of treatment facilities at these locations would have
no adverse impacts on such resources.
Recreational Resources
There is no currently active recreational use on Deer Island or Nut
Island, as noted previously. Past plans that were prepared are not
currently being implemented, nor are they a priority with DEM.
Under this primary option on Deer Island, recreational use is
possible on the remaining area (approximately 50 acres) to the south of
the drumlin. The expanded primary treatment facility would be separated
from possible recreational use by the drumlin, but may slightly affect
recreational use.
Reuse for recreational purposes is possible on Nut Island on about
15 acres of land remaining after construction of a headworks. Potential
recreational uses could be a boat ramp, a fishing pier with parking, and
open space.
Archaeological and Historical Resources
No significant archaeological or historical resources have been
identified on either Deer Island or Nut Island, as noted in the previous
alternatives. No adverse impacts are, therefore, anticipated.
4-54
-------
All Primary Dl
Legal and Institutional Implementability
Legal and institutional obstacles to implementation of treatment
facilities on Deer Island would be moderate, involving required approvals
by controlling state agencies, particularly DEM, and the City of Boston
which own the land proposed for expansion. Legal and institutional
issues arise, as noted previously; however, the extent of delay, degree
of uncertainty, and likely impediment to construction at this site is
moderate. On Nut Island no such obstacles exist to construction of a
headworks.
Impacts on Property Values
As noted previously, slight reductions in property values nearby to
the sites in Winthrop and Quincy may occur. Property values would be
expected to rebound once construction activities are concluded.
Visual Quality
Visual impacts would be moderate on Deer Island, as little appre-
ciable change in that site's appearance will result. On Nut Island,
visual quality would potentially improve from the reduction in size of
treatment facilities.
A 62-acre primary treatment plant on Deer Island would not appre-
ciably change the site's appearance. Expansion of treatment facilities
to the northeast along the base of the drumlin would not be readily
visible from most vantage points in the harbor or onshore. The drumlin
would remain as a prominent visual feature and landmark on the island.
Reduction in size of facilities on Nut Island to a two acre head-
works would improve that site's appearance and be more in keeping with
its scale and shoreline surroundings.
4-55
-------
All Primary Dl
Odors
Normal operations of treatment facilities will generally result in
slight odors potentially affecting the population of the Deer Island
prison, residents in Point Shirley, and residents in Houghs Neck.
However, as noted previously, during times of infrequent operational
problems, odor impacts may become moderate to those at the Deer Island
prison and residents in Point Shirley, and also moderate to residents on
Houghs Neck. The infrequent occurrence at both sites of winds which blow
towards the respective nearby populations would limit such impacts.
Costs
Costs of this alternative would be:
Capital: $752 Million (one time expense)
Operation & Maintenance: $ 21 Million (annually)
Annualized: $101 Million (30 years at 10%)
Costs of this project to an average household user would be $74
annually, assuming start-up in 1995 (based on a 50% local share).
Possible Siting Refinements
Consideration may be given, under this alternative, to relocation of
most of the treatment works on Deer Island to the south of the drumlin,
away from the prison and residences of Point Shirley. As noted previ-
ously (see Figure 4-13), such a plan would afford advantages to prison
staff and inmates, as well as nearby residents, because of the greater
distance that would be established to treatment facilities. It would
also introduce visual impacts, higher construction costs, additional
acquisition requirements, as well as preclude development of the southern
portion of the island for other uses, such as recreation.
4-56
-------
Split Primary DI/N1
Split Primary Deer Island and Nut Island Alternative
This alternative would include a 52-acre primary treatment plant for
north system flows at Deer Island, and an 18-acre primary treatment plant
for south system flows at Nut Island. Conceptual site plans are shown in
Figures 4-17 and 4-18. This alternative would expand treatment facili-
ties at the two sites and preclude other possible uses on both islands.
Expanded facilities on Deer Island would be located alongside the
present facility and to the northeast of the drumlin. Under this alter-
native, the treatment facility would be slightly smaller than a consol-
idated primary plant (as described in the previous alternative) treating
both north and south system flows.
Expansion of Nut Island treatment facilities from the present 12
acres to 18 acres, would cover the entire 17-acre site and might involve
one to three acres of fill to the Bay.
Traffic
Traffic impacts would be negligible in East Boston and Winthrop
along the access routes to Deer Island, and in Quincy along the route to
Nut Island, as noted previously. Construction traffic impacts would be
slight in the two residential areas closest to the sites -- Point Shirley
in Winthrop and Houghs Neck in Quincy. Operations traffic impacts would
be slight at both sites.
At Deer Island, the projected six trucks per day during five to six
years of construction would be a negligible increase resulting in slight
impacts. Noise and diesel fumes of passing trucks will be a periodic
annoyance and disturbance in Point Shirley and along the traffic route.
However, the brief time required for a truck to pass will limit such
disruption.
4-57
-------
PRIM.SED. TANKS-
GRAV. THICK.
X
CHLOR, CONTACT
TANKS
X
X
MAINT. BLOQ.
BOSTON
NOTE: SHADED AREAS DENOTE NEW FACILITIES
UNSHADED FACILITIES TO BE UPGRADED
CROSSHATCHED FACILITIES TO BE REMOVED
THESE SITE LAYOUTS ARE CONCEPTUAL ONLY,
. REFLECTING BEST CURRENT INFORMATION.
' TAKEN FROM THE MDC SITE QPTIQNS STUDY
C19823 AND MAY NOT REFLECT THE DETAILED
SITING TO BE DONE (IF THIS SITE IS SELECTED)
DURING FINAL SITE DESIGN.
source1 pl
SPLIT PRIMARY TREATMENT AT DEER ISLAND (52A)
FIG. 4-1?
4-58
-------
QUINCY
TO DEER ISLAND
INLET
TUNNEL
SHAFT
NOTE: SHADED AREA DENOTES NEW FACILITIES
UNSHADED FACILITIES TO BE UPGRADED.
ZOO
NOTE- THESE SITE LAYOUTS ARE CONCEPTUAL ONLY,
REFLECTING BEST CURRENT INFORMATION,
TAKEN FROM THE MDC SITE OPTIONS STUDY
(1982) AND MAY NOT REFLECT THE DETAILED
SITING TO BE DONE OF THIS SITE IS SELECTED)
DURING FINAL SITE DESIGN.
UNSHADED FACILITIES TO BE UPGRADED.
SHADED AREAS DENOTE NEW FACILITIES.
Source: Metcalf & Eddy,
Nut Island Wastewater
Treatment Plant Facilities
Planning Project. June 1982
SPLIT NUT ISLAND PRIMARY (18A)
FIG. 4-18
-------
Split Primary DI/NI
As described previously, it is not expected that construction
workers will be permitted to drive to the job site (see Section 12.2).
Between six (average) and ten (peak for 6 to 12 months) buses would be
required to convey construction workers to and from the Deer Island site.
This would not significantly increase existing traffic along local roads
and would only have a slight adverse impact in Point Shirley or along the
traffic route. It may be necessary to provide traffic controls, stag-
gered bus departures and police supervision to maintain smooth flows
during peak traffic periods. Operations traffic would slightly decrease
in accordance with the projected slight decline in staffing levels.
At Nut Island, approximately four trucks per day would be used
during the five-year construction period. This number of trucks would
have a slight impact along local access roads and in Houghs Neck.
Approximately two buses per day would be used to transport construction
workers to and from the site. This number of buses would pose no adverse
impacts to abuttors or local traffic. Operational traffic would pose no
adverse impacts along Nut Island access routes.
Noise
As noted previously, construction noise would be slight at Point
Shirley residences, moderate at the Deer Island prison, and moderate at
residences near Nut Island. With the application of available noise
mitigation measures, the natural attenuation of noise by distance would
result in noise levels that would be allowable under existing State and
City of Boston standards.
During operations, noise generated by improved treatment facilities
on Deer Island and Nut Island would be slight. Generally, this noise
would be an imperceptible increase over background noise levels.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas
There are no sensitive natural areas on Deer Island or Nut Island.
Siting of treatment facilities at these locations would have no impacts.
4-60
-------
Split Primary DI/NI
Recreational Resources
This option would have no impact on currently active recreational
resources since no such uses exist on Deer Island or Nut Island. Prior
plans for recreational uses on Deer Island and Nut Island exist (MAPC,
1972); however, these plans are not currently under consideration, nor
are they a priority with DEM.
Under this option, recreational use would be possible on Deer
Island on the 50-acre vacant area south of the drumlin. On Nut Island,
minimal recreational use, such as a fishing pier alongside the treatment
plant, may be possible, but available space is limited.
Archaeological and Historical Resources
As noted previously, no significant archaeological or historical
resources have been identified on either Deer Island or Nut Island. No
adverse impacts to these cultural resources are, therefore, anticipated.
Legal and Institutional Impediments
As previously detailed, legal and institutional obstacles to imple-
mentation of treatment facilities on Deer Island would involve approvals
by controlling state and local governmental agencies. This would not be
expected to pose more than a moderate obstacle to implementation.
On Nut Island, legal and institutional obstacles may be severe.
State legislation enacted to limit expansion on Nut Island may prohibit
the required filling (see Section 9.0). Federal and State permit appro-
vals would also be required for filling.
Impacts on Property Values
As noted previously, slight reduction in property values in both
adjacent communities may occur during the construction period. Property
values would be expected to rebound once construction activities are
4-61
-------
Split Primary DI/NI
concluded. Because Nut Island would be significantly expanded and future
reuse for locally beneficial purposes, such as recreation, would be
precluded, there is a greater likelihood of such impacts on area property
values under this alternative.
Visual Quality
Visual impacts of a 52-acre primary facility on Deer Island would be
moderate and comparable to those identified in the previous alternative.
The appearance of the island would not change appreciably from most
vantage points in spite of the facility's increased size.
On Nut Island, visual impacts would be severe. The expansion of
facilities at this site would not be in keeping with the scale of the
site or character of other development along this segment of Quincy Bay.
Views of the site from the harbor, from recreational areas, and from
residential areas along the shoreline would be degraded.
Odors
As noted previously, during times of infrequent operational prob-
lems, odor impacts would be moderate at the prison on Deer Island and
moderate at Point Shirley residences.
Odors are also expected to be moderate at Nut Island, when opera-
tional problems occur, due to the increased size of the treatment facil-
ity and its proximity to residences.
At both sites, the infrequency of winds which could carry odors in
the direction of the respective nearby populations would generally limit
odor impacts.
Costs
Costs of this alternative would be:
4-62
-------
Split Primary DI/LI
Capital: $810 Million (one time expense)
Operation & Maintenance: $ 22 Million (annually)
Annualized: $108 Million (30 years at 10%)
Costs of this project to an average household user would be $78
annually, assuming start-up in 1995 (based on 50% local share).
Possible Siting Refinement
As previously described (see Figure 4-6), this alternative may be
possible at Nut Island without filling of the Bay. Such filling may be
contrary to existing State legislation and would require federal and
state permits. Consideration has therefore been given to an alternate
site design that would place treatment facilities across the entire
17-acre site and closer to the nearest homes on Houghs Neck. Such a plan
would establish new buffer areas with taking (by eminent domain) several
of the nearest homes and relocating their families. A relocation pro-
gram, if it is deemed acceptable, must involve appropriate compensation
to all residents affected.
This alternative may also involve locating most of the treatment
facilities on Deer Island south of the drumlin, as discussed previously,
in order to minimize potential noise, odor and visual impacts on nearby
populations.
Split Primary Deer Island and Long Island Alternative
This alternative would site a 52-acre primary treatment plant for
north system flows at Deer Island, a 18-acre primary treatment plant for
south system flows at Long Island, and a two acre headworks for south
system flow at Nut Island. Conceptual site plans are shown in Figures
4-19 through 4-21. This alternative would site major treatment facili-
ties at Deer and Long Islands, with reduced facilities at the third
island site.
4-63
-------
PRIMARY SED.TANKS
X
PUMP STA.
CHLOR. CONTACT TANKS
X
X
MAINT. BLDG.
BOSTON
X
NOTE: THESE SITE LAYOUTS ARE CONCEPTUAL ONLY,
REFLECTING BEST CURRENT INFORMATION,
TAKEN FROM THE MDC SITE_QPT1QNS STUDY
(1982) AND MAY NOT REFLECT THE DETAILED
SITING TO BE DONE CIF THIS SITE is SELECTED)
DURING FINAL SITE DESIGN.
SHADED AREAS DENOTE NEW FACILITIES.
CROSSHATCHED FACILITIES TO BE REMOVED.
UNSHADED FACILITIES TO BE UPGRADED.
Source:
6
-------
HARBOR
EFFLUENT PUMP STATION
CHLOR. CONTACT TANK
600 800 FEET
CALI
NOTE 3HADEO ARBA.S P6NOT6 N6t«/ (%CILIT|6S.
TH6.S6 *tre LAYOUTS ARJB coNcepruAu ONLY,
aBFu£cTiN«a ee»T cuwuenT iwpodMATioN. TAKBN
F(?OM THE MPC sire OPTIONS &TtM>Y(ii»i) ANP
MAV NOT RRKUeCT THE DET/MLEp &|TINC| TO ftg
POMB(|F THI5 6lT6 16 &eL6CT6D; DURJM6 FINAC
SITE 065I&N.
CE Ivu^uir*, Inc., v)une 19«4,
ba&ad an 3'tte layouta from
Metcalf 4 Ed^y, Inc., Site
Options Study C/»«l).
A:
SPLIT PRIMARY TREATMENT AT LONG ISLAND (18 A)
FIG. 4-20
4-65
-------
QUINCY
LONG ISLAND
INLET
TUNNEL
SHAFT
SCALE IN FEET
NOTE: SHADED AREA DENOTES NEW FACILITIES
CROSSHATCHED FACILITIES WILL BE DEMOLISHED
THESE SITE LAYOUTS ARE CONCEPTUAL ONLY.
REFLECTING BEST CURRENT INFORMATION,
TAKEN FROM THE MDC SITE OPTIONS STUDY
(19823 AND MAY NOT REFLECT THE DETAILED
SITING TO BE DONE (IF THIS SITE IS SELECTED)
DURING FINAL SITE DESIGN.
NUT ISLAND HEADWORKS (2A)
Source: Metcalf & Eddy,
Nut Island Wastewater
Treatment Plant Facilities
Planning Project, June 1982
FIG. 4-21
-------
Split Primary DI/LI
At Deer Island, expanded facilities would occupy the present facil-
ity site plus vacant land to the northeast of the drumlin. The existing
digester, gas storage and thickener tanks would be relocated to the base
of the drumlin farther away from the prison.
On Long Island, a new 18-acre primary treatment facility would be
sited on the abandoned Nike base and approximately six acres of adjacent
vacant land.
On Nut Island, the existing treatment facilities would be converted
to a two acre headworks, as discussed previously.
Traffic
Construction traffic impacts would be negligible on the larger
communities of East Boston, Winthrop and Quincy. The traffic impacts of
construction trucks and buses at each site would be slight on residents
of Point Shirley, Squantum and Houghs Neck, respectively.
At Deer Island, the projected six trucks daily during construction
for a five- to six-year period would negligibly increase traffic levels
and would not exceed local roadway capacities in East Boston and Winthrop
(see Section 12.2). This would be a slight impact to residents of Point
Shirley, as noted prevously. Noise and diesel fumes of passing trucks
may periodically annoy and disturb residents along the traffic route.
The brief time required for a truck to pass by will limit such disrup-
tion.
Between six (average) and nine (peak for 6 to 12 months) buses will
be required to convey construction workers to and from the Deer Island
site. This number of vehicles also is a slight increase to existing
traffic on local roads and would pose slight impacts from increased noise
or annoyance of construction vehicles to residents of Point Shirley and
other abuttors along the traffic route. It may be necessary, however, to
provide traffic control, including staggered bus departures and police
supervision, to maintain smooth flows during peak traffic periods.
4-67
-------
Split Primary DI/LI
Operations traffic would have no impact due to the projected decline in
staffing levels.
At Long Island, the number of trucks along local roads in Quincy and
Squantum would be four daily over a construction period of six years.
This number of heavy vehicles would be readily accommodated by the larger
local roadway network with no adverse impacts. Trucking may pose slight,
temporary disturbance to residential abuttors in Squantum from the noise
and diesel fumes as trucks negotiate the sharp curves and steep grades of
Dorchester Avenue (see Section 12.2). However, the brief time required
for a truck to pass by will limit such annoyance.
Between four (average) and five (peak 6 to 12 months) buses will be
required to transport construction workers to and from the Long Island
site. This will minimally increase traffic on local roads. Slightly
adverse levels of noise resulting in annoyance of residents are expected.
As noted previously, a possible alternate traffic routing, utilizing a
section of Quincy Shore Drive, would minimize construction truck and bus
travel along residential streets, but requires prior approval from the
MDC. Operations traffic would have a slight adverse impact from the
number of autos travelling to the site due to the reduced staffing levels
of the treatment plant compared to the existing hospital traffic. Truck
deliveries to Long Island would not be an impact.
At Nut Island, approximately eight trucks daily would be used for a
three to four year construction period with two buses daily being used to
transport construction workers to and from the site. This number of
trucks and buses daily would be a slight impact.
Noise
Adverse noise impacts during construction, as noted previously,
would be slight at Point Shirley residences, moderate at the Deer Island
prison, slight to potential visitors on Long Island and moderate to
hospital patients at the Long Island hospital, and moderate at residences
nearby to Nut Island. With the application of available noise mitigation
4-68
-------
Split Primary DI/LI
measures, the natural attenuation of noise by distance will reduce noise
impacts to levels allowable under existing State and City of Boston noise
standards.
During operations, noise generated by improved treatment facilities
would be slight and generally imperceptible relative to background noise
levels at all three sites.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas
Sensitive natural areas exist on Long Island, as noted previously
(see Section 3.4.3), where freshwater and saltwater wetlands and a
barrier beach are adjacent to the proposed treatment plant site. Careful
siting of treatment facilities and stringent controls on construction
practices can limit potential disruption to adjacent natural areas.
There are no such sensitive areas on Deer Island or Nut Island.
Recreational Resources
Adverse impacts under this alternative would be moderately adverse
on Long Island, slight on Deer Island, and potentially a benefit on Nut
Island.
On Long Island, this option would result in moderate impacts from
preclusion of a small portion of the Island's southern part from devel-
opment for proposed DEM recreational uses. The portion of the island
that would be devoted to treatment facilities may conflict with proposed
DEM passive recreational uses. Active recreational uses on the northern
part of the island may also be adversely affected. Recreational areas
could be screened and buffered from the treatment plant. Portions of
Deer Island and Nut Island may be available for recreational or other
purposes under this alternative, as noted previously.
4-69
-------
Split Primary DI/LI
Archaeological and Historical Resources
On Long Island, impacts on archaeological and cultural resources may
result based on the possibility of significant archaeological and histor-
ical materials on-site. The potential for disturbance of these resources
is moderate under this alternative due to the small area of the island
potentially affected (essentially an area of 6 to 10 acres outside the
Nike base perimeter). However, more detailed site analysis and further
identification of the extent of known areas having high resource value is
required. Adverse impacts may affect the State's efforts to nominate
Long Island to the National Register of Historic Places. It will require
a full review according to Section 106 of the NHPA. No impacts are anti-
cipated on Deer Island or Nut Island, as described in the previous
section. Section 12.10 details the results of the Phase I, Step 2
surveys conducted on Long Island and Deer Island as part of the SDEIS
analyses.
Legal and Institutional Implementability
Legal and institutional obstacles to implementation of treatment
facilities under this alternative are moderate on Long Island, encom-
passing the same issues as previously detailed. Compared to the siting
of secondary treatment facilities on Long Island, the potential obstacles
of this impact are fewer. Under this alternative, no taking and reloca-
tion of the hospital is required. This may also mean that a vote of the
Legislature is not needed. Likewise, the potential conflict with DEM's
plans on Long Island is moderate since a smaller facility as proposed
under this alternative can be sited to minimize conflicts and afford
mixed use opportunities. There remains uncertainty, however, regarding
this site's implementability. On Deer Island, some of the same legal and
institutional issues arise involving approvals by the parties controlling
the site, but to a lesser degree, therefore, only moderate difficulties
are anticipated. On Nut Island, there are no legal or institutional
obstacles to siting of a headworks facility.
4-70
-------
Split Primary Dl/LI
Impacts on Property Values
As noted previously, reduction in property values may occur in areas
of Quincy and Winthrop adjacent to the three sites, but are expected to
be slight and of a temporary nature during the construction period.
Property values would be expected to rebound once construction activities
are concluded. At Long Island the distance of homes from the site is
expected to result in no appreciable declines in property values.
Visual Quality
As noted previously, visual quality impacts would be slight on
Deer Island, as the appearance of the island, both from on-site vantage
points and from harbor views, would not change appreciably in spite of
the facility's expansion in size. On Long Island, adverse impacts would
be moderate from harbor and on-site views due to the smaller facilities
proposed. On Nut Island, visual impacts would be slight as the appear-
ance of the site may potentially improve if compatible open space or
recreation uses are developed.
Odors
Normal operation of improved treatment facilities at all three sites
may cause slight odor impacts, respectively, at the Deer Island prison,
in Point Shirley, on Houghs Neck, and on Long Island. As noted previ-
ously, during times of operational problems, moderate odor impacts may be
noted at the prison on Deer Island and at the residences on Point Shir-
ley. Moderate odor impacts also may be experienced at Houghs Neck
residences adjacent to Nut Island. The infrequent occurrence at both
sites of winds towards the respective populations would limit such
impacts. On Long Island, potential odor impacts from infrequent opera-
tions problems are expected to be moderate on the patients of the hos-
pital and on potential park visitors due to the prevailing wind patterns
in the direction of these nearby uses.
4-71
-------
All Primary LI
Costs
Costs of this alternative would be:
Capital: $816 Million (one time expense)
Operation & Maintenance $ 24 Million (annually)
Annualized: $ 81 Million (30 years at 10%)
User costs of this project to an average household would be $81
annually, assuming start-up in 1995 (based on 50% local share).
Possible Siting Refinements
This option may consider possible relocation of much of the treat-
ment works south of the drumlin and away from the prison and residences
of Point Shirley (see Figure 4-13). While such a plan would afford
advantages to the prison population, as well as nearby residents because
of the greater distance to treatment facilities, it would likely preclude
development of the southern portion of the island for other uses, such as
recreation. Additional impacts, include greater costs, visual impacts
and added institutional requirements, would also result. This additional
siting plan is included in the SDEIS to allow public comment on such a
plan in order to evaluate the full range of possible siting alternatives
at this site.
All Primary Long Island Alternative
This alternative would site a 52-acre consolidated primary treatment
plant for north and south system flows at Long Island, a five acre head-
works/pump station for north system flows at Deer Island, and a two acre
headworks for south system flows at Nut Island. Conceptual site plans
are shown in Figures 4-22 through 4-24. This alternative would con-
solidate treatment facilities at Long Island, and maintains reduced
facilities at both other island sites.
At Deer Island a new pump station and power building would occupy
the existing site atop the confluence of the three deep tunnel shafts of
the MSD north metropolitan system. The Winthrop Terminal headworks which
4-72
-------
X
X
X
X
X
X
SCALE
Source- C6 M»»uiY«, Inc.,
based en sitis I AVOW f* from
Metcalf i Bddy, lnc..Si*e
Opt-low
NOTE: THESE SITE LAYOUTS ARE CONCEPTUAL ONLY,
REFLECTING BEST CURRENT INFORMATION,
TAKEN FROM THE MDC SITE OPTIONS STUD'j
(1982) AND MAY NOT REFLECT THE DETAILEC
SITING TO BE DONE (IF THIS SITE IS SELECTED)
QURING FINAL SITE DESIGN.
SHADED AREAS DENOTE NEW FACILITIES.
CROSSHATCHED FACILITIES TO BE REMOVED.
X
X
X
DEER ISLAND HEADWORKS/PUMP STATION (5A)
X
FIG. 4-22
4-73
-------
HARBOR
SCALE
eoo aoo FEET
100 METERS
THESE &ITB
C^NCBPTUAL
FROM THer MOC S(TB opridMS $i]jcry
MAV MOT R&FL6CT THE P0TA)L£0 61-wa TO
CIFTHI* 6fte 16 eeusereo) pi>»w.
, lrK.,Ounc 13»4,
-,1-te layoots from
CONSOLIDATED PRIMARY TREATMENT AT LONG ISLAND (&S A)
FIG. 4-23
4-74
-------
QUINCY
SCALE IN FEET
NOTE: THESE SITE LAYOUTS ARE CONCEPTUAL ONLY.
REFLECTING BEST CURRENT INFORMATION,
TAKEN FROM THE MDC SITE OPTIONS STIJDY
(19823 AND MAY NOT REFLECT THE DETAILED
SITING TO BE DONE (IF THIS SITE IS SELECTED}
DURING FINAL SITE DESIGN.
SHADED AREAS DENOTE NEW FACILITIES.
CROSSHATCHED FACILITIES TO BE REMOVED.
NUT ISLAND HEADWORKS (2A)
t» LONG ISLAND
INLET
TUNNEL
SHAFT
Source: Metcalf & Eddy,
Nut Island Wastewater
Treatment Plant Facilities
Planning Project, June 1982
FIG. 4-24
-------
All Primary LI
screens a portion of the flows to the site would also remain. It is
feasible to maintain and upgrade these existing components onsite while
relocating all other treatment to Long Island.
A new 52-acre consolidated primary treatment plant would be located
in the center of Long Island. This would occupy a large part of the
island adjacent to the existing Long Island Chronic Disease Hospital and
homeless shelter.
On Nut Island, reduction of existing treatment facilities to a
2-acre headworks would be the same as discussed previously.
Traffic
The impacts of construction traffic would be negligible on the
larger communities of East Boston, Winthrop, and Quincy. Impacts would
be slight to residents on Point Shirley in Winthrop, and Squantum and
Houghs Neck in Quincy. Operations traffic impacts would be slight at all
sites due to existing roadway capacities and the reductions in auto
traffic from the number of treatment plant staff compared to existing
commuting levels.
At Deer Island, the projected eight trucks daily, for five years of
construction would negligibly increase traffic levels and would not
exceed local roadway capacities in East Boston and Winthrop. Noise and
diesel fumes of passing trucks may periodically annoy and disturb resi-
dents along the traffic route. The brief time required for a truck to
pass by will limit such disruption. Impacts of trucking on the Point
Shirley neighborhood would be slight. This option would not utilize
barging at Deer Island unless tunnel conveyance is chosen for wastewater
and effluent flows.
Approximately two buses will be required to convey construction
workers to and from the Deer Island site. This will minimally increase
traffic on local roads. No adverse impact or annoyance of residents
4-76
-------
All Primary LI
along the traffic route or in Point Shirley is expected. Operations
traffic would be slightly reduced from present levels at Deer Island.
At Long Island, six trucks would pass along local roads in Quincy
and Squantum daily for seven years of construction. These vehicles would
be readily accommodated by the local roadway network with no adverse
impact. Noise and diesel fumes of passing trucks may be a periodic
annoyance and disturbance to residents along the traffic route, parti-
cularly as vehicles negotiate the sharp curves and steep grades of
Dorchester Avenue in Squantum (see Section 12.2). The brief time re-
quired for a truck to pass by will limit such disruption. Impacts of
trucking on residents of Squantum would be slight.
Approximately 15 buses will be required to transport construction
workers to and from the Long Island site. This number of buses (encom-
passing both the average and peak traffic numbers) can be accommodated,
and would be a slight impact on residents of Squantum. It may still be
necessary to provide traffic controls, police supervision, and staggered
bus departures to minimize potential congestion problems during peak
traffic periods.
As noted previously, the existing truck route to Long Island passes
through residential sections of North Quincy, whose residents may also be
disturbed for brief periods of time by the relatively small number of
trucks and buses travelling to the site. An alternate truck route
involves utilizing a section of Quincy Shore Drive and would minimize
truck and bus travel along narrower residential streets. Approval from
the MDC for such a routing would be required.
Impacts of operations at Long Island would be slight. Traffic
generated by staff at a primary treatment plant (projected at about 46
persons during a maximum daily shift) would be less than the existing
traffic levels associated with the Long Island Hospital (see Section
12.2.3).
4-77
-------
All Primary LI
Eight trucks would be used daily for three to four years of con-
struction at Nut Island. As noted previously, this number of trucks
daily would be a slight impact on residents and abuttors. The approxi-
mately two buses daily used to transport construction workers would pose
no adverse impacts to local residents or abuttors. Operations traffic
would likewise have only a slight impact.
Noise
Adverse noise impacts during construction would be slight at Point
Shirley residences, moderate at the Deer Island prison, slight to poten-
tial park visitors on Long Island, moderate to hospital patients at the
Long Island Hospital, and moderate at residences nearby to Nut Island.
With the necessary application of available noise mitigation measures,
the natural attenuation of noise by distance would reduce these effects
where they occur to allowable levels under existing State and City of
Boston noise standards.
During operations, noise generated by improved treatment facilities
would be slight and generally imperceptible relative to background noise
levels at all sites. At Long Island occasional noise of truck deliveries
may disturb the hospital population adjacent to the site. Noise distur-
bance of operations would be limited and of brief duration.
At Deer Island, as described previously, construction noise over the
5-year period would be most disruptive to the nearby prison population.
With required noise mitigation practices, typical construction noise
levels would be within the general range of background noise, and allow-
able under existing standards. Peak construction noise would be an
occasional annoyance, but still within allowable limits. At Point
Shirley residences, some half mile away, noise impacts from construction
would be slight.
On Long Island, construction noise over the seven-year period would
be a potential impact to the hospital population adjacent to the site,
and to park visitors if planned recreational uses on Long Island Head (or
4-78
-------
All Primary LI
elsewhere) are developed. During times of peak construction noise, noise
levels generated would be moderate at the hospital and at proposed
passive recreation areas adjacent to the site, and slight at Long Island
Head to the north, if recreation is developed. Construction noise levels
would be within allowable State and City of Boston noise standards.
On Nut Island, construction noise impacts would be moderate over the
three to four-year period as a result of the proximity of residences to
the site. Noise levels generated would be within the guidelines speci-
fied previously.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas
Sensitive natural areas exist only on Long Island where freshwater
and saltwater wetlands and a barrier beach are adjacent to the proposed
treatment plant site. Siting of treatment facilities can avoid these
natural areas; however, such a major construction activity close to these
sensitive natural areas will require stringent controls to minimize
potential disruption to these resources which may result from construc-
tion activities. Potential disruption would depend on the extent of
construction related activities required on Long Island.
Recreational Resources
No current recreational uses exist on Deer, Long or Nut Islands.
This alternative would preclude development of a part of Long Island, as
currently planned by DEM under the Boston Harbor Islands State Park Plan.
A 52-acre portion of this island's southern area would be devoted to
treatment facilities which would conflict with proposed passive recrea-
tional uses. Active recreational uses on Long Island Head and the
adjoining Parade Ground area may also be adversely affected. Under this
alternative, portions of Deer Island and Nut Island may become available
for possible reuse for recreational or other purposes, as noted previ-
ously, resulting in benefits at these sites.
4-79
-------
All Primary LI
No current recreational plans exist on Deer Island, although the
previous State Comprehensive Recreational Plan (MAPC, 1972) considered
mixed use with recreation south of the drumlin and expanded treatment
facilities in the vicinity of the present treatment plant site. This
alternative maintains the area south of the drumlin (approximately 50
acres) as open space, available for recreational development. It reduces
the amount of treatment works to the north, thereby affording potential
benefits from possible expanded future reuse for recreational purposes.
The drumlin remains and can provide screening and buffer. Added plant-
ings and screening around the new five acre pumping/headworks facilities
can be provided to enhance possible mixed use compatibility.
Existing recreational plans for Long Island have been updated as
part of the Department of Environmental Management's (DEM) Harbor Island
State Park Master Plan (October 1984; see Section 12.3). As noted
previously, the proposed treatment plant siting would severely conflict
with planned passive recreational uses south of the hospital site, and
may adversely affect active recreational uses to the north.
At Nut Island, recreation impacts would be slight and the site may
benefit from a reduction in size of facilities. Possible reuse of open
land for recreational purposes may include a boat ramp, a fishing pier
and parking, or open space.
Archaeological and Historical Resources
This alternative would have severe impacts on cultural resources on
Long Island. Evidence of significant archaeological and historical
materials have been identified there, as noted previously. No signi-
ficant archaeological or historical resources have been identified on
Deer or Nut Islands and no adverse impacts are anticipated from reduced
facilities at those sites.
Long Island contains important cultural materials from several
thousand years of prehistoric occupation. These include the oldest
evidence of occupation yet found on any of the Harbor Islands and also
4-80
-------
All Primary LI
the oldest within the City of Boston. Long Island also contains an
historical cemetery with up to 2,000 gravesites. It is unlikely that the
presently recognized small cemetery area in the center of the island
encompasses all such grave sites. Further archaeological investigations
would be required.
The hospital complex on Long Island may also be eligible for listing
in the National Register of Historic Places as part of a Boston Harbor
Multiple Resource Area. The Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) is
currently preparing National Register nomination forms for the Boston
Harbor Islands Archaeological District. The archaeological resources on
Long Island are contributing elements of the Boston Harbor Archaeological
District. The construction of a 52-acre treatment plant would adversely
affect Long Island's significant archaeological resources. It may also
adversely effect possible designation, if deemed eligible, of the adja-
cent hospital as an historic site by the potential destruction, alter-
ation, and isolation of these cultural properties according to the
criteria established for their preservation (36 CFR 800.3(b) and 950 CMR
71.05).
As noted previously, the evidence of significant archaeological and
historical resources found on Long Island requires that detailed survey
to the fullest extent and significance of these findings determined prior
to any final site design. Additionally, the requirements of Section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act, which applies to the Long
Island site, mandate that any proposed actions on this site evaluate
"feasible and prudent" alternatives to such action before a final siting
can be made (see discussion below).
Legal and Institutional Implementability
The legal and institutional obstacles to implementation of treatment
facilities on Long Island are severe due to the multiplicity of issues
involving regulatory approvals and potential siting conflicts associated
with a 52-acre treatment plant. Legal and institutional issues do not
4-81
-------
All Primary LI
arise on Deer or Nut Island from the reduced facilities to be sited there
on land controlled by the MDC.
Siting of wastewater treatment facilities on Long Island may invoke
the "Prior Public Use" doctrine under Commonwealth law, requiring a
majority approval of the State Legislature. However, since the proposed
site does not require relocation of the hospital, a conflict with a prior
public use may not be shown, thereby possibly eliminating the applic-
ability of the prior public use doctrine and legislative approval. As
noted previously, siting on Long Island will require land use approval by
the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Management (DEM).
Siting of wastewater treatment facilities on Long Island is inconsistent
with OEM's recent recreational Master Plan (1984), and with the recent
negotiations by DEM with the City of Boston to acquire land on Long
Island for implementation of the State's recreational plans (see Section
10.1 for copy of letter).
Based on Long Island's significant archaeological and historical
resources, including both historic and prehistoric elements, and in light
of the historic nomination process being undertaken by MHC, it will be
necessary for a full review of this site's acceptability in accordance
with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) invol-
ving the National Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. As noted
previously, such a review process will require additional analysis on
Long Island to establish the extent and significance of all areas poten-
tially affected by the project, including, in this case, the overall
island context of the site. This added perspective on siting alter-
natives may impose further obstacles to implementation at Long Island.
Additional impediments to siting on Long Island may involve the
evidence of numerous unmarked grave sites on the island in addition to
the cemeteries located adjacent to the site of proposed treatment facil-
ities. If construction of a treatment facility requires relocation of
gravesites, approval of the Legislature may be necessary (MGL Chapter
114, Section 17).
4-82
-------
All Primary LI
Impact on Property Values
As noted previously, reductions in property values may occur in
areas of Winthrop and Quincy adjacent to the sites, but would be slight
and of a temporary nature during the construction period. Property
values would be expected to rebound once construction activities are
concluded.
Visual Quality
Visual impacts would be slight on Deer Island as a result of the
removal of existing facilities with opportunities for improved site
visual quality. On Long Island, severe adverse visual impacts would
result from the appearance of the treatment plant site, particularly in
the event of recreational use of the island. On Nut Island, visual
impacts would be slight and the potential exists for improvement of
visual quality if compatible reuse of the site, possibly for recreation,
occurs.
On Deer Island, a five acre headworks/pumping facility would have
fewer visible structures and may potentially improve the site's appear-
ance from the harbor or from those Point Shirley and Cottage Hill resi-
dences with views to the site. The drumlin would remain as a prominent
visual feature and landmark of the island. Opportunities to better
integrate these facilities onsite through use of compatible landscape
features and plantings also exist.
On Long Island, a 52-acre primary treatment plant would signifi-
cantly alter the existing appearance of the island. A facility of this
size would result in significant loss of natural topographic and vegeta-
tive features on the southern part of the island, creating a sizeable
expanse of uniform structural shapes and industrial appearing facilities
where none now exist. The pastoral quality of the island's southern part
would be adversely affected by the introduction of major treatment
facilities. The campus-like setting of the hospital and the associated
views to and from this potentially historic site will be adversely
4-83
-------
All Primary LI
affected by the imposition of a major treatment plant just to the south.
Long Island's central location in the harbor and the onsite views to the
site from the hospital minimize the screening possibilities available
(see Section 12.3). On-site, it will be difficult to screen views of the
facility from the adjacent roadway and such views of the treatment plant
may adversely affect the recreational experience and perceptions of
visitors to the park (if such use is developed).
On Nut Island, a two acre headworks would potentially benefit that
site's appearance by siting of a smaller treatment facility on the island
which is more in keeping with the scale of the site and its surroundings.
Views of that portion of the shoreline from other parts of Quincy and
from the harbor would be improved, particularly if the open space areas
were replanted and compatible uses, such as recreation, were developed.
Odors
As noted previously, odor impacts during normal operations would be
slight at all sites. During times of operational problems, a head-
works/pumping facility on Deer Island would have moderate odor impacts on
the adjacent population of the Deer Island prison (depending upon the
extent of problems resulting in odors), and slight impacts on residents
in Point Shirley about one-half mile away. The infrequent occurrence of
winds which may direct odors towards the prison and the nearby residences
on Deer Island would limit such impacts to relatively brief periods of
time. On Long Island, odor impacts during times of operational problems
are expected to be moderate, affecting potential park visitors if such
use occurs and the population of the nearby hospital. Prevailing winds
at this location are towards the hospital and active park use area of the
island. On Nut Island, moderate odor impacts during times of operational
problems may result due to proximity of residences to the site. These
impacts would be limited by the infrequent occurrence of winds in the
direction of Houghs Neck.
4-84
-------
MITIGATION
Costs
Costs of this alternative would be:
Capital: $872 Million (one time expense)
Operation & Maintenance: $ 22 Million (annually)
Annualized: $114 Million (30 years at 10%)
User costs of this project to an average household would be $82
annually, assuming start-up in 1995 (based on 50% local share).
4.3. MITIGATING MEASURES
Several actions are recommended to reduce adverse impacts during
facility construction and operations. These are discussed in this
section by categories of impact. Where a mitigating action may poten-
tially reduce the severity of several impacts, it is discussed under the
subject heading of the first impact to which it applies. The use of
barging for construction materials and busing for construction workers,
as well as noise and odor mitigations, are considered necessary condi-
tions of the project's construction grants, and, as such, must be imple-
mented as part of any alternative for new treatment facilities in Boston
Harbor. These conditions are discussed in Section 2.3.1.
4.3.1 Land Use Considerations
Site designs to limit the layout and size of treatment facilities
(discussed in Section 4.3.3.5 below) can aid in reducing potential
incompatibility between treatment facilities and their surroundings by
minimizing the acreage requirements of treatment facilities or taking
advantage of on-site features to minimize visual intrusion. This may
make it possible to achieve better separation from nearby abuttors and
provide more buffer space around a facility. Innovative design elements
can also aid in making a large-scale facility of this type more compa-
tible with its surroundings, thus improving views of the site.
4-85
-------
The following measures to enhance land use compatibility should also
be considered:
a. Final Facility Design and Operations GAG
A Citizens Advisory Committee (GAG) should be established by the MDC
to work with the facility planners on final site design and layout, as
well as on the operational characteristics of expanded treatment facil-
ities. Construction activities, including traffic and noise, operational
odors, visual intrusion, and reuse of open land areas for public water
access and recreation are some of the important issues that a coopera-
tive, collaborative planning process should consider.
An equally important part of community group involvement (continuing
the organizational efforts established by EPA for this SDEIS and by the
Commonwealth for the facility planning process) is a broad-based public
education program to explain both the beneficial and adverse effects
affecting adjacent communities expected to occur as a result of the three
to nine-year construction period envisioned for the project at the
various sites.
b. Land Purchase
Purchase of those nearby properties most adversely affected by the
project -- as in the case of a Nut Island primary plant constructed
without filling -- may be a necessary and cost-effective action to
minimize severe adverse impacts on abuttors and re-establish adequate
buffer areas. The social and economic consequences of such an action are
considerable; therefore, this action should only be undertaken as a last
resort. If primary treatment is recommended on Nut Island, a weighing of
the effects is needed to compare impacts of the taking of homes and
relocation of families versus filling of the Bay.
If it becomes necessary to relocate families at Nut Island as a
result of the project, purchase of such properties and relocation of
their owners at Government expense must be done in accordance with the
4-86
-------
provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Land Acquisition
Policies Act (P.L. 91-646).
c. Increased Separation at Deer Island
Under a primary treatment scenario at Deer Island, a refinement
considered for siting of facilities involves relocating the majority of
treatment process components, except the existing pump station-power
building and possibly the Winthrop Terminal headworks, to the south of
the drumlin (see Figure 4-13). The advantage of such a layout is that
treatment facilities, particularly most of those which are highly visible
and which might on occasion produce odors, are moved away from the nearby
prison and residences. The 100-foot drumlin would remain and provide a
barrier to screen the facilities. Added landscaping could be applied
around all structures to improve their appearance.
A disadvantage of this scheme is that it eliminates the southern
part of Deer Island from possible alternative uses, including recreation.
Small scale recreational uses at Deer Island, such as public fishing
piers or boat launching ramps, may still be developed.
4.3.2 Traffic
The mitigation measures described below offer a variety of actions,
in addition to the barging of construction materials and busing of
construction workers noted previously, that may be applied to alleviate
temporary disruption to abuttors and the community at large from the
small number of trucks and buses projected during construction. These
measures would apply principally to the sites where construction of
larger facilities is proposed, although they could be implemented at all
sites according to anticipated activity levels. Treatment plant oper-
ations traffic would require only limited mitigation, if at all, based on
the low volumes of truck and auto traffic projected.
4-87
-------
a. Contractor-Operated Staging Areas and Barge Terminals.
As noted in Section 2.3, barging to the maximum extent feasible is a
necessary component of construction at any site, with the possible
exception of those sites with only a headworks. It has, therefore, been
made a part of all options by EPA and the Commonwealth of Masachusetts.
The difficulty experienced by the MDC's facility planning consultant
to locate a suitable site for a barge terminal in Boston Harbor or
elsewhere along the shoreline, after consideration of over 20 potential
sites (MDC, DRAFT Deer Island Facilities Plan, Havens & Emerson/Parsons
Brinkerhoff, unreleased, 1984, pp. D2.25 - D2.27), indicates the con-
straints of finding a single location adequate for construction needs,
accessible to heavy trucks on a daily basis, available at a reasonable
price, and/or likely to be available in 3 to 6 years time. Notwith-
standing these constraints, barging during construction shall be made a
part of the construction specifications of the project.
A possible approach, readily available, which may overcome these
constraints involves leasing a number of pier locations in Boston Harbor
(or farther away) according to materials delivery needs. Several pos-
sible locations exist, such as: Massport Marine Terminal, Moran Terminal,
Conley Terminal, South Boston Naval Annex, and the Perini Construction
Yard. Multiple pier locations could be used in combination with project
staging/storage areas to maintain flexibility in selecting the most
appropriate location for barging, depending on the scheduling and
handling needs of construction materials to be shipped.
In addition to such action, development of inland staging areas
(along major highway routes) other than the construction sites in Boston
Harbor are adviseable actions to further minimize disruption to local
communities. Stockpiling storage of construction materials and pre-
assembly of some components would be types of uses at these staging
areas. This method may require greater effort by a Contractor to organ-
ize, schedule and coordinate construction activities, particularly in
terms of locating suitable inland site, but is considered necessary to
4-88
-------
further minimize trucking impacts and on-site construction activities.
Specific costs for inland storage and staging areas are not expected to
significantly alter project costs as they represent only approximately
one percent of project capital costs. (see Section 4.5),
b. Busing of Construction Workers.
EPA and the Commonwealth believe that busing or ferrying of con-
struction workers should also be carried out to the maximum extent
feasible. Construction workers can be bused to the construction site
from central parking areas located outside of the local communities.
Such locations should be central and should have good highway access with
ample parking. Possible locations for worker parking and busing acces-
sible to both north and south system sites have been identified; these
include the Orient Heights MBTA station, Wonderland parking lot, areas of
Logan Airport, Bayside Expocenter, and UMass-Boston campus. The costs of
such a program, if added labor costs are borne by the Contractor in whole
or in part, may add an additional $10 million to $20 million to the
estimated project capital costs. All necessary provisions for workers
carrying out their jobs under a busing method can be made by a contractor
(see Section 12.2.2 of Volume 2).
c. Temporary Stockpiling of Excavation Spoils.
To eliminate the need for barging of demolition and excavation
spoils off-site, it is recommended that such materials remain on-site for
possible use in regrading a site, developing topographic relief, or
providing screening berms. If demolition and excavation materials prove
to be unsuitable for reuse on-site, they will be barged to a suitable
disposal area.
d. On-Site Concrete Batching.
A significant reduction in materials transport can be achieved from
use of a temporary concrete batching plant on the construction site.
This should be undertaken in combination with marine transport of aggre-
4-89
-------
gate to the site with dry cement deliveries made by barge or truck, as
necessary.
e. Truck and Bus Traffic Control.
During most times of construction, truck traffic can be restricted
during certain hours of the day, depending on nearby community activi-
ties. For example, truck traffic should either be eliminated or care-
fully controlled during hours in which children are traveling to and from
school, and during commuter rush hours. In the case of buses, departures
from satellite parking areas should be staggered and coordinated with
local traffic patterns.
When greater than eight construction vehicles a day are scheduled to
arrive, such as at the start and end of construction work, they should be
scheduled to travel to the site in manageable groups which can be moni-
tored and controlled during a predictable time period. The specified
addition of warning signs and signals, and traffic control personnel (see
Section 12.2 of Volume 2) should be included in any such plans. Where
financial burdens of added traffic control measures are being placed on
local communities, possible compensation to localities to cover these
additional expenses should be explored fully to lessen such impacts (see
Section 4.3.6 below). In general, the small number of daily construction
trucks and buses will not pose significant traffic impacts on local
traffic patterns or to the communities affected.
f. Street Repair.
Anticipated heavy trucking during construction, even though of
relatively small number and limited duration, is likely to have an impact
on the condition of roadway pavements to be used as truck routes. The
contractor should be required to periodically inspect and maintain all
pavements and to restore pavements damaged during the construction period
to a condition at least equal to that existing prior to construction
(assuming reasonable conditions to start). Where pavements are in poor
4-90
-------
condition to start, repairs may be required prior to the start of con-
struction.
g. Structural Improvements to Roadways.
Possibilities for structural improvement to local roadways along the
truck route to eliminate existing deficiencies are limited because of the
density and proximity of adjacent homes and businesses. However, cost-
effective improvements may be made at several locations to improve safety
and to facilitate access by trucking and buses. These include estab-
lishing turning lanes or widening of lane roadway segments. Design
improvements to roadways should be considered during project final
design. The areas of particular concern are noted in Section 12.2 of
Volume 2 of the SDEIS.
As a part of necessary roadway improvements under any Long Island
siting plan, the Long Island Bridge must be repaired. It is not now ade-
quate to accommodate heavy truck traffic. As specified in a recent
engineering study done for the City of Boston which owns the bridge (H.W.
Lochner, Inc., June 6, 1984), all repairs and remedial work necessary to
restore the bridge to its "as-built" condition are estimated to cost $2.1
million. Such repair would be adequate to accommodate the heavy trucking
associated with construction of this project. It is estimated that such
repairs can be made to coordinate with proposed site construction.
h. Improvements to Roadway Routing.
Besides the addition of traffic signs, warning signs, and traffic
signals at intersections (as discussed in Section 12.2), the routing of
truck traffic should be examined in each community to ensure the most
accessible and safest route possible. For example, in the case of a Long
Island site, removal of truck and bus restrictions from a portion of
Quincy Shore Drive (an MDC controlled roadway) should be examined. This
would reduce the distance of truck travel through residential areas and
provide access along wider roads than the present truck route through
North Quincy. A similar restriction exists along a portion of Veteran's
4-91
-------
Parkway in Revere-Winthrop and likewise should be examined as a possible
access route for siting on Deer Island.
i. Other Measures Considered
Construction of new roadways to each site was considered as a
possible mitigation action, but appears impractical because of the large
number of dwellings which would have to be removed or adversely affected
in each case. While it may, in some cases, be cost effective to con-
struct new roads, the social and economic impacts of new roadway con-
struction to alleviate project traffic impacts do not appear to be
justified relative to other measures available and in view of the rela-
tively short-term nature of construction impacts.
Another factor examined involved the safety concerns of local
residents about the current practice and proposed continuation of truck
delivery of chlorine gas to the sites for use as disinfection. As
possible alternatives to this practice, several options have been iden-
tified by the MDC and others. Included among these were: delivery of
hypochlorite by truck and on-site production of hypochlorite. Of these,
only onsite generation of hypochlorite appears feasible, though its use
poses unique design and operational questions which require a greater
detail of analysis before a choice of disinfection process can be made.
Some of the unresolved issues associated with this process are discussed
in Section 4.3.5 below and section 12.4 of Volume 2.
4.3.3 Recreational Resources
Final facility designs should give consideration to the recreation
potential of wastewater treatment facility sites. Proposed wastewater
treatment facility sites may provide opportunities for public water
access and recreation at, or near, their locations in the harbor.
For example, smaller sized primary treatment options at all loca-
tions could possibly accommodate recreational uses. Boat ramps could be
installed alongside treatment facilities very inexpensively. It may also
4-92
-------
be possible to build barging piers in such a manner that parts of the
pier may be used for recreational boating or fishing.
Specific mitigation actions needed to make possible use of an island
for both recreation and treatment facilities (assuming sufficient area
for buffers and screening) are described below.
1. Materials excavated from the site during construction could be
used to create berms to better screen the treatment plant from
neighbors, nearby recreational areas, and from the Harbor. A
berm could also act as a barrier to noise emanating from the
site.
2. Plantings and landscape design should be incorporated to
facility final design at all sites to enhance the views af-
forded and improve facility compatibility with adjacent fea-
tures, particularly involving mixed use with nearby recrea-
tional areas.
3. Operations of treatment facilities including headworks and
screening, sludge handling, aeration tanks, and settling tank
scum collection may occasionally produce obnoxious odors during
times of problems or process upsets. Depending on facility
operations, wind and site conditions, odors may disrupt nearby
recreational uses. Therefore, the greatest distance possible
should be established between treatment facilities and poten-
tial recreational areas.
4.3.4 Archaeological and Historical Resources
In the event that a treatment alternative is implemented on Long
Island, significant archaeological and cultural resources may be affec-
ted. For those Long Island options larger than an 18-acre primary
treatment plant, the potential is greatest for disruption to on-site
cultural resources. Therefore, all options on Long Island may require
Phase II archaeologic investigations, and possibly Phase III mitigation
4-93
-------
actions (see Section 12.10 of Volume 2). Further determination of the
significance of the resources identified and acceptable actions to
mitigate potential site conflicts will require more extensive site
investigations. Additionally, the requirements for evaluation of all
feasible and prudent alternatives to siting on Long Island, as specified
under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, need be
addressed. Any actions at this site must be carried out in a manner
consistent with all applicable laws and policies of the Commonwealth and
federal review bodies (see Section and 12.10 of Volume 2).
4.3.5 Engineering Considerations
a. Facility Layout and Size
In order to reduce the size and potential impacts of the planned
wastewater treatment facilities at any site, consideration should be
given during final design to available and innovative treatment tech-
nologies applicable to the MDC wastewater treatment facilities and
system. As part of the guidelines set by EPA for federally funded
projects, MDC is required to carry out detailed value engineering anal-
ysis which will determine an optimum engineering process. This will be
done as part of the final facility design for the project.
For example, some alternative treatment approaches may allow a
decrease in the size of secondary treatment facilities by allowing
stacking of components. This may also afford enhanced flexibility in
facility siting, improved operational characteristics, better odor
control, or other operational advantages to the system and to nearby
populations. Applicable treatment process refinements will be explored
early in the design phase of the project.
It must be noted, however, that some possible "state-of-the-art"
treatment technologies have limitations which may, ultimately, make their
application to the MDC system omfeasob;e. Some of these limitations are:
limited operating experience, higher costs, greater reliance on complex
advanced technological operations, unproven applicability to the
4-94
-------
large-scale (500 MGD) flows of the MDC system, and possible increase in
"down-time" due to increased complexity of operations (see discussion in
Section 12.4, Volume 2).
b. Future System Expansion
The proposed treatment facilities are being sized to provide ade-
quate capacity to treat wastewater from the served population of the MDC
district for the life of the project. However, in order to assure that
capacity at the treatment facilities will prove adequate over the long
term, further expansion of the MDC sewage collection facilities should be
limited to only those projects deemed necessary to repair or improve the
system's delivery and operations. If system expansion is to be per-
mitted, then MDC (or a new authority) should be required to demonstrate
that:
there is no practicable alternative to expansion;
the expansion will not result in an increase in average or peak flow
at the wastewater treatment facility in excess of its design capa-
city;
the expansion will not result in overloading and overflow or in-
creased overloading and overflow at any point in the sewer system
between the expansion area and the wastewater treatment facilities;
and
the expansion, if shown to be necessary, is part of a broader
regional sewerage management plan that has considered independent
sub-regional or local sewerage treatment alternatives including
satellite treatment. (see Section 5.6).
c. Treatment Plant Reliability
Infrequent, limited problems with treatment processes are inevi-
table. Longer-term process upsets which lead to discharge of poorly
4-95
-------
treated, or untreated wastewater may also occur. Engineering design
should and normally does address such occurrences by providing backup
treatment capacity, standby pumps and storage, and flexible pumping
regimes and process flows. These design meausres will aid in minimizing
discharges of less than fully treated effluent and provide opportunities
for remedial action during periods when facilities are not functioning
properly.
During final detailed design, system reliability will be evaluated
to establish whether a single consolidated treatment facility offers
greater flow flexibility and pumping capacity to offset system problems
than do two parallel treatment process trains.
4.3.6 Financial Impacts
a. Payments to Communities for Impacts
As a public entity, the MDC currently has no mechanism to pay local
communities for any impacts that may result from its projects. Addi-
tionally, the proposed facility sites on Deer Island and Long Island are
in separate jurisdictions from the abutting areas where impacts of con-
struction and operations would be most acutely felt. Alternately, it is
not known at this time what measures will be available to a successor
agency to the MDC.
Wherever a wastewater treatment plant is located, the host or
affected communities will be bearing the imposition of a regional facil-
ity. To the greatest extent possible, lessening the impacts of such a
facility should be explored fully. Potential community impact mitigation
measures may vary significantly from municipality to municipality. Many
of these measures, however, may be under the control of entities other
than the operating agency, making implementability less certain.
In order to establish a range of possible mitigation measures which
respond to direct project impacts, public comment is encouraged on
4-96
-------
potential community mitigating measures. Site specific mitigation
measures may also apply, and comments to identify these are encouraged.
A mechanism to monitor disruption, measure its costs, and provide
compensatory remedies should be examined as a part of any final facility
planning and design stage following the conclusion of the EIS process.
4.3.7 Visual Quality
Adverse visual impacts are in large part a function of incompat-
ibility with existing site conditions, other nearby uses, and overall
visual character. It is possible to site new treatment facilities in a
manner that is as compatible as possible with their surroundings, takes
maximum advantage of the harbor waterfront location, is innovative in the
use of elevations and natural features, and is responsive to potential
mixed use opportunities. These opportunities exist to varying degrees at
all sites and are recommended for final facility design (see Section
4.3.3.7).
Earthen berms should be constructed around the treatment facilities,
where appropriate, to screen views. If they prove suitable, materials
excavated from the site can be utilized for this purpose. The berms
should be planted with vegetation and designed to soften the appearance
of the treatment facilities. Buffer areas and open space should also be
incorporated into all site plans. Design of site layouts and associated
plantings should be undertaken by qualified landscape architects.
Treatment facilities should be designed and constructed in a manner
compatible with the natural contours of the land in a way which minimizes
their becoming focal points within the harbor. Harmonious use of color,
texture and shape for structures should be consistent with the island
setting and Harbor location of these facilities.
At Deer Island, open land between the prison and the treatment plant
should be planted with trees, without reducing prison security, to
improve the appearance of the site and treatment facilities from the
4-97
-------
Point Shirley and Cottage Hill neighborhoods and from the harbor. At
Long Island, plantings should be provided to soften the outlines of a
treatment facility from vantage points at the hospital, in the harbor, or
from other nearby locations. The proposed park uses on Long Island also
require screening from a treatment plant and design integration of mixed
use areas. At Nut Island, any open space remaining should be planted to
better integrate the open views of the site from adjacent residential
areas, nearby recreation beaches, and the harbor, as well as soften the
appearance of treatment facilities.
4.3.8 Construction Impacts
Construction activities should be controlled to limit noise (with
available mitigation) and dust and to prevent avoidable erosion of soils
from the construction sites. Dust should be controlled by periodic
dampening of soils at the construction sites, especially when meteor-
ologic conditions favor dust travel off site. Soils vulnerable to wind
or water erosion should not be left exposed for extended periods during
construction.
Activities likely to generate the highest noise levels (even when
noise mitigation methods are applied) should be timed to minimize dis-
ruption of activities on nearby residents and institutional populations.
Less noisy methods of construction, for example, alternatives to pile
driving, should be used to minimize noise impacts on nearby receptor
groups (see Sections 2.3 and 12.6 for further discussion of such ac-
tions). The MDC would, further, require that noise levels at nearby
receptor boundaries comply with applicable standards of the City of
Boston and the State.
Additionally, the MDC should be required to develop a program to
receive, record, and respond to neighborhood complaints during con-
struction. This should include designation of a staff person of the MDC
Community Affairs Office to serve as a liason with the community for
complaints and, wherever possible, to expedite remedial action.
4-98
-------
4.4 CONFORMANCE WITH FEDERAL REGIONAL STATE AND LOCAL
PLANS AND AND POLICIES
This section describes the applicable Federal, Regional, State and
Local plans and policies, which may pertain to the siting of options
under consideration. Such plans are identified in the first section, and
the relationship of each of the sites being considered is then addressed.
4.4.1 Federal Plans and Policies
The plans and policies of the Federal Government which may apply to
the proposed wastewater treatment facility siting include:
National Historic Preservation Act: regulations of the Advi-
sory Council on Historic Preservation (Section 106) pertaining
to resources identification and evaluation of significant
cultural resources, and consultations to avoid, minimize or
otherwise mitigate adverse impacts (36 CFR 800). (See Section
12.10).
Wetlands Policy: EPA Administrator's Decision Statement No. 4
(February 21, 1973) and Executive Order No. 11990 (May 24,
1977) identifying the Federal priorities on environmentally
sensitive areas.
Section 404(b) of the Clean Water Act, Section 103 of the
Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, and Section 10
of the Rivers and Harbors Act: These regulations govern con-
struction activities associated with siting of piers, disposal
of dredge spoils, construction of pipelines or tunnels, and
barging.
4-99
-------
4.4.2 State Plans and Policies
Among the major State plans and policies are the following:
Consistency with Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management plans.
DEM State Park Plans for Boston Harbor Islands State Park (see
Section 12.3, Volume 2)
Statutory prohibition against filling of Quincy Bay (M.G.L.
Chapter 296, Acts of 1,977).
State water quality standards (see Section 11.3).
State Executive Order No. 181 on the preservation of barrier
beaches.
State wetlands preservation laws, regulations and policies
(M.G.L. Chapter 131, Section 40).
Massachusetts Historical Commission policy and consultation on
archaeological and historical resources, including the State
"Burial Bill" (see Section 12.10).
Historical Cemeteries Legislation (M.G.L. Chapter 114, Section
17) to protect these areas.
4.4.3 Regional and Local Plans and Policies
Among this category of plans and policies are the following:
City of Boston reuse plans (preliminary) for the Deer Island
House of Correction and Long Island Chronic Disease Hospital;
as well as facility plans of the Boston Water and Sewer Commis
sion, and land use plans of the BRA.
4-100
-------
Town of Winthrop land use plans and policies regarding provi-
sion of local public services.
City of Quincy land use plans, and local permitting of filling
of shoreline areas.
City of Boston Archaeological and Historical Plan and Policy
(Draft) for development of the City's resources.
4.4.4 Other Plans and Policy Considerations
In addition to these specific considerations, there may be other
issues involving Federal and State permits associated with waterways and
shorelines, barging facilities and operations, or conveyance of dangerous
materials (chlorine) which will require coordination between the MDC and
appropriate authorities. Additional information on these issues, in-
cluding permit requirements, is contained in Sections 11.1 and 11.2 of
Volume 2 of the SDEIS.
4.5 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES AND
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND CONSERVATION MEASURES
The construction, operation and maintenance of the recommended
options is expected to result in irreversible and irretrievable commit-
ments of resources. These resources include land, energy, chemicals,
dollars and labor.
Labor - Labor is a resource whose commitment to this project will
involve large numbers of workers for an extended period of time. This
project will require an estimated maximum of 1,580 construction workers
(peak) for secondary facilities, or 750 (peak) construction workers for
primary facilities for between 5 and 9 years duration. For operations
and maintenance of treatment facilities, an estimated permanent staff of
between 247 and 347 (secondary) and 156 and 201 (primary) persons will be
needed.
4-101
-------
Energy - The energy requirement for the operation of proposed
facilities will be a maximum of approximately 30 million kilowatt hours
per month for secondary treatment facilities and 9 million kilowatt hours
per month for primary treatment facilities. No estimate of energy
requirements during the construction phase has been made.
Land - Approximately 115 acres of land at Deer Island would be per-
manently committed to wastewater treatment use under a secondary option,
approximately 50 to 60 acres committed under a primary option, and
approximately 5 acres committed under a headworks option. At Nut Island
the acreage committed under headworks options would be approximately 2
acres, while about 18 acres would be required under primary options. At
Long Island approximately 82 to 96 acres (secondary) or 18 acres (pri-
mary) would be preempted from other uses by proposed treatment facili-
ties. These acreage figures do not include possible contingency acreage
for perimeter buffer areas beyond the area conceptually sited for facil-
ities in Chapter 4.0. These totals also do not include acreage for
sludge facilities which have not yet been sited and which could be
located either alongside treatment facilities or at an offsite location.
Chemical Resources - For operations, chemicals are required in bulk
for disinfection and treatment at all sites. A possible chemical to be
used will be chlorine, although other disinfection methods may be ap-
plied.
Expected annual chemical commitment of chlorine (if utilized) will
be a total of approximately 8,360 tons/year (secondary) or 9,130 tons/
year (primary). Other chemical disinfection processes, such as onsite
generation of hypochlorite, are being studied by the MDC and may be used
in place of chlorine. No estimates of such use are available at this
time.
Dollars - Money is a resource with many alternative uses. Dollars
also represent a common basis with which other resources can be quan-
tified. In this sense, the cost of a project represents the sum total of
all resources committed to it. The total capital cost of the options are
4-102
-------
one, albeit major, component of the total resource value committed to the
project. For secondary treatment facilities, the project's capital costs
(1984 dollars) are estimated at between $595 million and $738 million,
with annual operations, maintenance and replacement (0,M&R) costs (1984
dollars) estimated at between $44 million and $53 million. Primary
treatment facilities have a capital cost estimated between $752 million
and $872 million, with annual 0,M&R costs estimated at between $21
million and $24 million (current dollars).
These costs do not include sludge disposal facilities which are to
be developed as part of a separate facility planning effort and environ-
mental review process now underway.
Another component of the project cost identified is barging and
busing which is being made a part of the project. The costs associated
with barging of construction materials is not included in the above
figures. Estimates of barging range from $20 million to $40 million
depending upon the specific contractor actions taken and siting require-
ments necessary. Busing of construction workers is also not included in
the above cost estimates. These may range between $10 million and $20
million depending on the number of locations involved and agreements
reached by the Contractor for the MDC. These agreements .associated with
barging and busing operations will be finalized as part of the project's
final design and contractor specifications. The preliminary mitigation
costs estimated would add $45 million (average cost) to the project
capital costs noted above.
4.6 ADVERSE EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED
The alternatives being considered will result in adverse impacts
which cannot be mitigated or avoided. These are summarized below.
4.6.1 Water Quality
, Water quality conditions under a secondary treatment alternative are
expected to generally improve with the replacement and upgrade of the
4-103
-------
existing treatment facilities and improvement to the effluent quality.
However, without the reduction of toxic metals and pesticides in the
wastewater flowing to the proposed treatment facilities, water quality
criteria for the protection of saltwater life may be occasionally ex-
ceeded near the discharge site. The proposed effluent discharge will
introduce some organic and inorganic pollutants to the receiving waters.
These encompass nutrients, heavy metals, PCB's, pesticides and other
toxic compounds occurring in the wastewater entering the plants. This is
likely to contribute to the accumulation of toxic chemicals in marine
life, and the undetermined health risks associated with human consumption
of contaminated fish. See detailed discussion of these impacts in
Section 11.3 of Volume 2.
Other unavoidable water quality effects of a short-term nature will
result from the introduction of silt, organics and metals to the harbor
from the bottom muds during dredging operations. Unavoidable adverse
impacts on the area's biota will result from the permanent displacement
of existing shoreline communities at Deer Island and/or Long Island
construction sites. Additional short-term effects may also result from
onsite staging operations (see Section 11.2 of Volume 2).
4.6.2 Noise
Noise, dust and emissions from heavy equipment during construction
at all sites are unavoidable. However, available mitigation practices to
be applied by the MDC would minimize these impacts to more acceptable
levels.
Noise mitigations would require the use of additional and larger
noise mufflers on certain pieces of equipment, use of special less noisy
equipment, as well as the application of construction methods which would
reduce noise levels. For example, instead of pile driving which typi-
cally generates maximum noise levels, alternate less noisy construction
methods, such as augering or use of forms in place, can be applied.
Additionally, the MDC has in other projects established maximum noise
limits for its construction work at levels that are within allowable
4-104
-------
limits and would be more acceptable to abuttors on Deer Island, Nut
Island or Long Island.
Dust and vehicle emissions would be controlled to the maximum extent
possible by accepted construction practices such as dust control and
controls on vehicle idling in the vicinity of sensitive receptor groups.
During facilities operation, noise impacts would be minimal at all sites.
Section 12.6 describes project noise impacts in greater detail.
4.6.3 Odors
Occasional odors are likely to result from process upsets in pro-
posed facilities at all sites regardless of the level of treatment. For
the most part, these temporary impacts would be moderate and of limited
duration at nearby receptor areas. Nearby residents of Quincy Great Hill
on Houghs Neck and the prison population on Deer Island may be most
affected by unpleasant odors; odors may also result on Point Shirley, and
to recreational visitors and the hospital population on Long Island,
which are farther away from the respective treatment facilities. Section
12.7 describes odor impacts.
4.6.4 Land Use, Recreational Resources and Visual Quality
Significant land area at Deer Island (115 acres) or Long Island (82
or 96 acres) would be utilized in the construction of secondary treatment
facilities. This acreage would be preempted from its present use and
precluded from other potential uses, including planned major recreational
uses on Long Island, by the siting of a treatment plant. The continued
operations of the prison at Deer Island would also influence the reuse
potential of currently open areas at this island, although plans do exist
for mixed use including expanded treatment facilities in the vicinity of
the present treatment plant and recreation on the land south of the
drumlin.
Under primary treatment alternatives, Deer Island would require
either 52 or 62 acres for treatment facilities roughly doubling that
4-105
-------
site's present treatment plant size. Under a primary alternative, this
site could still accommodate potential redevelopment, including recrea-
tional uses if the area to the south of the drumlin (about 50 acres)
remains vacant. On Long Island, about 18 acres would be required for a
treatment plant. The proposed site encompasses an abandoned Nike base on
the southern part of the island and is part of the area proposed in DEM's
Master Plan (1984) for moderate intensity park uses of a passive nature.
A 52-acre primary treatment plant on Long Island is no longer being
actively considered at this time. On Nut Island, primary treatment
facilities of about 18 acres would limit the extent of possible reuse of
the site, including development of recreational uses. Limited recrea-
tional may still be possible at this site, such as water access or
fishing.
At Long Island, the hospital is incompatible with proposed plans for
secondary treatment facilities of 82 or 96 acres and would require
relocation. This would be an unavoidable impact. It may be possible to
relocate the facilities and services of this hospital to another existing
facility in the City of Boston; however, no plans for such relocation
exist at the present time. In the near term, the hospital continues to
operate and is planned to serve the City's needs for medical care of
chronically ill and alcoholic patients, and as a shelter for upwards of
200 homeless persons daily for the next several years. Implementation of
the secondary treatment alternatives on Long Island are conditional on
action being taken by the City of Boston to relocate the hospital. The
smaller scale 18-acre primary treatment option (or the 52-acre primary
option) on Long Island would not require relocation of the hospital.
Under secondary treatment options, the loss of Deer Island open
areas (particularly the drumlin) or land on Long Island (which is largely
undeveloped) will represent an unavoidable adverse visual impact.
Significant adverse visual impacts would also result from siting of a
primary treatment facility on Nut Island due to that site's small size
and proximity to residences and shoreline recreational areas. Expanded
treatment facilities in the Harbor will increase the industrial appear-
ance of all proposed sites. Screening and buffer mitigations can mini-
4-106
-------
mize the adverse effects on visual quality to a limited degree by sof-
tening the plant's features somewhat; however, the alterations to the
respective sites would unavoidably alter the appearance of the sites from
all vantage points (see Section 12.3.) For primary treatment facilities
on Deer Island (52 or 62 acres) and on Long Island (18 acres), visual
impacts would be moderate due to those sites' sufficient acreages to site
large-scale treatment facilities.
4.6.5 Other Environmental Impacts
A possible impact which may result stems from a choice to be made if
Nut Island is selected as the site of a primary treatment plant. If 1 to
3 acres of the Bay are filled to accommodate expanded treatment facili-
ties, this may result in adverse water quality impacts to marine life and
biological conditions of the waters and shoreline area around Nut Island.
These potential impacts would have to be studied in greater detail to
satisfy state and federal permit requirements (see Sections 5.4 and
11.2). Alternately, construction of primary facilities on the existing
17-acre Nut Island site can be done without filling. This would entail
closer construction and operations of treatment facilities to nearby
residences, in some cases within 50 feet of the site. To avoid the
severe impacts of noise, odors and visual intrusion on these small number
of residences closest to the site, and to re-establish adequate buffer to
the remaining homes on Quincy Great Hill, it may be necessary to take by
eminent domain and relocate the families in several homes adjacent to the
site under such a siting plan.
Adverse noise, and odor impacts to hospital residents may also
occasionally result under a primary treatment option on Long Island.
Adverse impacts would be attenuated somewhat by the distance of the
hospital from the site, however, moderate impacts may prove to be un-
avoidable at times. To a lesser degree, adverse noise and odor impacts
may be experienced by park visitors to Long Island if recreational plans
proceed; these impacts would be slight.
4-107
-------
5.0 UNRESOLVED ISSUES.
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Sludge Disposal
5.3 Off-Site Transportation Facilities
5.4 Disposal of Potentially Contaminated Harbor Sediments
5.5 Tunnel Versus Pipeline Construction
5.6 Control of Growth and Future Wastewater Flows
-------
5.0 UNRESOLVED ISSUES
5.1 INTRODUCTION
A number of environmentally significant issues are related to the
construction and management of the proposed wastewater treatment
facilities, but do not have the potential for affecting the location
or other pertinent siting characteristics of these treatment facilities.
These issues are not analyzed in this document. These issues include:
1. The methods and locations for the disposal of the solid
wastes, or sludge, that will be removed from the wastewater
by the proposed treatment facilities.
2. The location of construction material storage areas and barge
terminals (not at the treatment facility sites) that will be
used to the maximum extent feasible will be used to minimize
construction impacts on the communities adjacent to the
proposed treatment facilities.
3. The method and location for the disposal of harbor sediments
that may be contaminated with toxic materials and that may be
excavated in the construction of shoreline and off-shore
facility components associated with the proposed wastewater
treatment facilities.
4. The facility requirements and associated impacts of tunnel
versus pipeline construction for conveyance of wastewater in
the harbor and to Massachusetts Bay. With a choice of tunnel
construction, the locations and effects of tunnel shafts,
characteristics of tunnel spoil materials, and potential
traffic requirements, either barge or truck, will be studied
in detail. A choice of conveyance method will be made early
in final facility design.
5-1
-------
5. The set of actions necessary to constrain the system-wide
growth of wastewater discharges that would tend to overload
the proposed wastewater treatment facilities in the future,
including possibly, "satellite" advanced wastewater treatment
(AWT) plants.
Of these issues, the second, third and fourth should be resolved
prior to the initiation of any construction on the proposed wastewater
treatment facilities, while the first will have to be resolved before
the wastewater treatment facilities are substantially completed. The
fifth issue will ultimately have to be resolved, but the facilities
proposed herein could be completed and put into operation prior to
conclusion of the policy considerations necessary to reach a resolution
on system-wide growth.
All of these issues, and their impacts, require further detailed
study and will be evaluated as part of separate environmental reviews.
The sections below summarize each issue and its relationship to the
actions described in this SDEIS.
5.2 SLUDGE DISPOSAL
The wastewater treatment facilities proposed for Boston Harbor,
will generate over 200 dry tons of sewage sludge per day if the MDC's
301h waiver application (from secondary treatment requirements) is not
granted.
At the present time, with the existing level of wastewater treat-
ment, the two MDC treatment plants produce the equivalent of some 75
dry tons per day of sludge. This sludge is anaerobically digested to
reduce its volume and putrescibility and it is discharged to the harbor
on the outgoing (ebb) tides.
5-2
-------
Alternatives being considered for more acceptable disposal of the
sludge that will be generated by the proposed wastewater treatment
facilities include:
1. Composting;
2. Ocean disposal at an EPA designated site;
3. Incineration; or
4. Landfilling.
The acceptability of any of these alternatives has not yet been
determined, but all are intended to eliminate the current unacceptable
and unlawful practice of direct discharge of sludge to the harbor.
These alternatives for long term disposal, as well as interim
disposal solutions under study by the Metropolitan District Commission,
DEQE, and EOEA, will be independently reviewed by EPA for environmental
acceptability prior to any final decision on sludge management.
5.3 OFF-SITE TRANSPORTATION SUPPORT FACILITIES
The large size of the wastewater treatment facility construction
project combined with the difficulty of roadway access to the various
facility locations under consideration has led to the conclusion that
barge transportation of heavy equipment and materials to and from the
selected site(s) be required to the maximum extent feasible to limit
the adverse environmental impacts of the project. As a result, EPA and
the Commonwealth have made the above commitment a condition of the
project's funding. In addition, barging may also be warranted for
sludge management.
Barging of materials and equipment will require the establishment
of one or more off-site barge terminals somewhere along the coast and
accessible to the both harbor and the regional expressway network. It
is expected that any such barge terminal will be relatively large and
will generate significant amounts of truck traffic.
5-3
-------
No site has yet been identified as the location of such an off-
site barge terminal. Over 20 sites along the Greater Boston waterfront
and as distant as Rhode Island and Maine have been considered by the
MDC's consultants, but none, so far, have been found to be both
suitable and definitely available for such future use. It may, how-
ever, be possible to use some combination of waterfront sites,
including existing public and/or commercial terminal facilities (see
Section 4.3.3).
In addition, it should be noted that much of the waste material
from the construction sites (concrete, rubble, rock from inter-island
tunnels, etc) could be barged either to an approved offshore waste
disposal site or to a new construction location where such material
might be wanted (new marine shipping terminals, waterfront development
projects, or breakwaters for example).
The environmental impacts of the barging of equipment and materi-
als are expected to include traffic to and from the off-site
terminal(s); visual, noise and air pollution impacts on properties
adjoining the terminals; and both water quality and benthic habitat
effects in areas that might be used off-shore.
This unresolved issue will be studied in detail by both the MDC
and EPA as part of further planning for this project, including
evaluation of the environmental acceptability of all parts of the barge
transportation system.
5.4 DISPOSAL OF POTENTIALLY CONTAMINATED HARBOR SEDIMENTS
Construction of the proposed wastewater treatment facilities will
require the excavation of shoreline bottom sediments to develop piers
in areas adjacent to the candidate sites. It may also be necessary to
excavate off-shore areas during the construction of either tunnels or
pipelines. Some of these sediments may be contaminated with PCB's and
other toxic pollutants to an extent that there is a question of whether
they may be disposed of at sea in accordance with federal and state
5-4
-------
law. This material, or other similar materials that may be found
during the course of construction, may therefore, have to be disposed
of either in a secure on-shore disposal area or in a secure coastal
containment area approved by federal and state authorities.
The disposal of potentially contaminated harbor sediments will be
studied in detail by the MDC during the design and permitting process
for harbor treatment facilities. The impacts of alternatives will be
identified and evaluated by the MDC, EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers,
DEQE and CZM. The construction features requiring such review, and the
process of review, are outlined in Section 11.2, Volume 2 of this
SDEIS.
5.5 TUNNEL VERSUS PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION
A choice of conveyance for wastewater flows between island sites
and to an effluent discharge location will be made during facility
design. Depending upon the choice made, significant environmental
impacts may result and must be evaluated (see Section 11.2, Volume 2 of
this SDEIS).
For tunnel construction, issues to be analyzed include the
location and water quality effects of tunnel shafts used to excavate
and remove deep rock spoil materials. Additionally, the possible
transportation requirements of barging versus truck transport of these
spoils must be determined, and the characteristics of the spoil
materials evaluated relative to suitable disposal methods and
locations. With pipeline construction, pertinent issues involve water
quality and marine life impacts, construction dredging activities in
the harbor, permits needed, characteristics of the dredge spoils, and
suitable transport and disposal requirements.
5-5
-------
5.6 CONTROL OF THE GROWTH OF FUTURE WASTEWATER FLOWS
5.6.1 Introduction
For decades, the communities that front on Boston Harbor have
borne the impacts of ever increasing sewage flows from the communities
in the metropolitan sewer service area. In recent years, these
increasing flows have led to ever more frequent and increasingly severe
overflows of raw sewage into harbor waters and onto the adjacent
shores.
The wastewater treatment plants now being proposed (and to a
limited degree the immediate upgrade improvements now underway) have
been planned to limit both the frequency and the severity of the
overflows during their design life. This planning does not, as yet,
include a program or strategy that specifically addresses future system
growth and potential future system overloads.
Several approaches have been explored to limit future wastewater
flows to the harbor facilities including:
1. The construction of satellite advanced wastewater treatment
(AWT) plants along the Neponset and Charles Rivers to
intercept wastewater on its way to the Harbor treatment
plants, treat it and then discharge it to the rivers.
2. The rehabilitation or reconstruction of older wastewater
collection systems to reduce the inflow of storm drainage or
the infiltration of groundwater into the systems (called the
I/I program).
These are discussed below and in a separate report done for the
SDEIS on the feasibility of satellite AWT facilities. (See
Evaluation of Satellite Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facilities, May
16, 1984, CE Maguire, Inc.). A copy of this report is available upon
request from EPA, Region I.
5-6
-------
5.6.2 Future Role of Satellite Facilities in the South MSP
Inland, "satellite" advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) facilities
for the MDC system may be required sometime in the future if removal of
infiltration and inflow (I/I) from the sewer system does not achieve
currently predicted flow reductions. Currently, satellite facilities
have not been found to be an environmentally sound or cost effective
alternative or adjunct to the harbor treatment facilities.
The MDC's harbor wastewater treatment facilities considered in the
SDEIS are being sized to accept all of the wastewater flow up to the
capacities of the flow delivery system, assuming current infiltration
and inflow reduction plans are successfully implemented. If I/I
reduction measures fail to achieve the predicted flow reductions,
satellite treatment facilities may become a cost effective alternative
to future expansion of the system.
The evaluation of satellite advanced wastewater treatment (AWT)
facilities during the screening process of the SDEIS concluded that
satellite wastewater treatment systems should not be implemented at the
present time for the principal reasons listed below:
1. The High Level Sewer (HLS) delivering South System flows to
Nut Island is of sufficient size and capacity (310 MGD) to
accommodate projected peak flows through the year 2010 (305
MGD total peak flow comprised of 131 MGD peak wastewater flow
and 174 MGD peak I/I).
2. Major interceptor relief projects currently proposed would
still be required to alleviate overflows and other sur-
charging conditions created by constrictions, inadequate pump
capacity, and other structural/hydraulic problems presently
in the system.
5-7
-------
3. Following the completion of interceptor relief projects and
provision of new pumping facilities for South System flows,
satellite treatment facilities in the South MSB system should
be reevaluated versus other flow reduction/management
options (I/I removal) to determine a cost effective and
equitable solution to future system expansion needs and
capacity problems.
The above conclusions are based on an evaluation of wastewater
flow projections and I/I reports by the MDC and communities in the
South MSB (see references in Section 7.0). These studies indicated
that the methodology employed in the development of wastewater flow
projections contained in the MBC Nut Island Site Options Study (1982)
reasonably accounted for I/I over the projection period (to the year
2010).
Table 5-1 contains a summary of available estimates of I/I flows
compiled from a variety of sources, and the effects of I/I on total
peak flows projected for the design year 2010 based on projected peak
wastewater flow of 131 MGB. The summation of present day estimates of
I/I plus the projected peak wastewater flow of 131 MGB indicates that,
unless measures are taken to reduce I/I, satellite facilities or other
measures would be required prior to the year 2010.
However, based on the estimated quantities of I/I removals
considered to be cost effective, total peak flows projected for the
year 2010 are well within the capacity of the HLS. If one assumes a
start of construction in 1988 and a seven-year construction period,
operation of a harbor wastewater treatment facility could commence in
1995 and continue over a twenty-year design life to the year 2015.
This additional five-year period beyond the projections made by the MBC
is not expected to significantly alter the conclusions on the projec-
tions made. The I/I flow projection of 174 MGB employed by Metcalf &
Eddy in the development of total flow projections in the Nut Island
Site Options Study (SOS) would, moreover, appear to be a relatively
conservative estimate compared with the I/I projection based on the
5-8
-------
TABLE 5-1
SUMMARY OF I/I DATA - SOUTH MSD
DEQE RESPONSE
Community
Ashland
Boston
Braintree
Brookline
Canton
Dedham
Framingham
Hingham
Hoi brook
Milton
'Natick
Needham
Newton
Norwood
Quincy
Randolph
Stoughton
Walpole
Wellesley
Westwood
Weymouth
Estimated
Exist. I/I
0.63
125.0
16.2
8.8
5.1
10.3
7.1
6.0
N/A
3.1
3.45
4.1
11.3
9.2
22.4
2.6
1.8
3.3
3.7
1.2
8.1
TO COURT MASTER^
DEQE I/I DATA UPDATED AS OF 7/16/84
Qty's Identified
Proposed I/ I
0.36
66.0
9.05
5.30
2.85
5.9
4.2
1.0
N/A
2.2
2.0
2.65
6.5
6.0
12.9
1.5
1.2
1.2
2.5
0.7
5.1
Infiltration Inflow
0.24
17.2
6.7
4.32
1.5.7
3.88
1.96
0.51
N/A
N.R.
1.84
2.97
N.R.
N.R.
7.1
1.1
N.R.
N.R.
N.R.
0.72
5.1
0.24
107.9
0.131
4.47
3.50
6.46
0.27
5.50
N/A
N.R.
0.10
1.13
N.R.
N.R.
0.9
1.5
N.R.
N.R.
N.R.
0.44
3.0
TOTAL 253.38 139.11
Projected
Wastewater
(yr. 2010)
Total Peak
Flow
Peak
Flow
131.
384.38
131.
270.11
lotal I/I
0.48
125.1
6.83
8.79
4.07
10.34
2.23
6.01
, N/A
3.12
1.94
3.10
32.4
6.7
8.0
2.6
4.7
2.8
3.2
1.16
8.1
241.67
131.
372.67
( 21 (4) 13}
v ' Projected^ ' Projected Total I/IV '
Qty's to be Removed
Infiltration Inflow
0.15
5.16
0.56
0.05
1.28
N/A
0.58
3.0
0.8
0.01
54.0
0.094
1.19
0.10
4.86
N/A
0.04
0.6
0.5
Total I/I
0.16
59.16
0.654
*
1.24
**
1.38
4.86
N/A
0.62
*
5.26
4.0
3.6
**
*
1.3
0.6
SOT
Remaining Used in Flow
Total I/I Projections
0.32
65.94
6.176
8.79
2.83
10.34
0.85
1.15
N/A
3.12
1.32
3.10
27.14
2.7
4.4
2.6
4.7
1.5
2.6
1.16
8.1
158.84 174.00
131. 131.
289.84 305.00
(1) Preliminary Report on I/I Removal submitted to Prof. Charles M. Haar, Court-Appointed Master, December 2, 1983.
(2) DEQE/DWPC; MDC-South Metropolitan Sewer District, Member Municipalities-I/I Status Update, July 16, 1984.
(3) Nut Island Site Options Study, 1982, Metcalf & Eddy.
(4) Summation Compiled by CEM, July, 1984.
* Study in Progress
** Under Administrative Order to Conduct I/I Study
N/A - Not Applicable
N.R.- Not Reported
-------
most recent information provided by the DEQE/DWPC status report (see
references). The estimate based on the DEQE summary may itself also be
considered somewhat conservative as no I/I reductions were assumed for
five communities where I/I studies are either not yet complete or not
yet underway.
It is important to recognize that the conclusions regarding
projected flows and satellite facilities are valid only to the extent
that the projected I/I reductions in the individual communities ac-
tually occur. Further, the projected I/I removals must occur before
the sum of I/I and peak wastewater flows exceeds 310 MGD in any given
year.
Using the projected peak wastewater flow of 118 MGD for the year
1990 (Nut Island SOS), I/I must be reduced to a maximum of 192 MGD by
that year. Based on the peak wastewater flow of 110 MGD for the year
1980, any amount of I/I in excess of 200 MGD will result in a total
flow in excess of the existing capacity of the HLS.
Based on this analysis, goals for I/I removal programs can be
established to ensure that HLS capacity is not exceeded. By 1990, it
will be necessary to effectively remove about 65 MGD of I/I. Simi-
larly, by 2010, an additional 3 to 5 MGD of I/I will have to be re-
moved. The present pumping capacity at Nut Island of 280 MGD further
compounds the impacts of I/I presently estimated throughout the
Metropolitan system. Reduction of I/I and upgrading pumping capacity
at Nut Island should both be given a high priority for implementation,
in light of the preceding discussion.
Based on the capacity limit of the HLS of 310 MGD (as determined
in the Nut Island SOS), it is recommended that the design capacity of
the treatment facilities allocated for total peak flows from the South
MSD should be equal to the capacity of the HLS. This would in effect
establish a criterion which can be used to determine the timing of
projected satellite facilities. The other major criteria would be the
5-10
-------
degree of success of the I/I removal or other wastewater flow reduction
measures, and wastewater flow projections beyond the year 2010.
As a means of evaluating the hydraulic response of the system over
the range of possible flow conditions between now and 2010, it is
recommended that a computer-based hydraulic model of the entire South
MSB be developed. In addition to its usefulness as a tool for
evaluating the effects of any planned or proposed modifications to the
system, such a model would serve as a means to check on projected
wastewater flows and system capabilities and as a means to project the
point at which satellite plants or other possible significant flow
reduction measures (such as industrial waste recycling, water
conservation, or removal of cooling water discharges) might be
required. The State DEQE is currently planning to undertake such a
modelling effort.
Finally, as concluded in the prior SDEIS report on satellite
facilities (CE Maguire, Inc., May 18, 1984, as noted previously),
consideration should be given to several major interceptor relief
projects being implemented throughout the South USD to alleviate
overflows and other surcharging conditions created by constrictions and
other hydraulic and structural problems. These projects include the
Wellesley Extension Sewer, the Upper Neponset Valley Sewer, Wellesley
Extension Relief Sewer, Framingham Extension Sewer and the Braintree-
Weymouth Interceptor. The inclusion of the hydraulic characteristics
of the proposed system improvements into the hydraulic model framework
is critical to adequately assess capacity in the system under projected
flow conditions.
5.6.3 Recommendations for Additional Siting and Evaluation
Criteria for Future Satellite Treatment Facilities
Several issues have been identified in the satellite feasibility
report (noted above) relating to siting and sizing of satellite fa-
cilities and environmental and health impacts potentially involved.
Such factors as the biological conditions of receiving waters, volume
5-11
-------
of effluent to be discharged, location of Advanced Wastewater Treatment
(AWT) facilities on either streams or wetlands, proximity of public
water supply sources, and costs of AWT facilities were identified as
significant factors, which in some cases could not be satisfied for the
two satellite proposals examined. These issues suggest the incorpora-
tion of additional siting and evaluation criteria in any subsequent
satellite facilities planning and design effort. These possible
criteria are described below.
5.6.3.1 Receiving Water Assimilative Capacity
The prior assessment of proposed satellite facilities water
quality impacts suggests that the sizing of facilities should be more
closely related to the assimilative capacity of the receiving streams.
As the siting of facilities will also be related to the hydraulics of
the sewer system, it may be necessary to evaluate a larger number of
smaller facilities possibly located in several wastershed areas or
communities. The cost and feasibility of such a decentralized plan
must be compared to the reduction in cost of fewer centralized plants.
5.6.3.2 Land/Site Selection
In addition to relating size of facilities to receiving water
assimilative capacity, it is recommended that the assessment of water
quality impacts be expanded to require consideration of mitigation
measures to ensure attainment and maintenance of water quality stand-
ards. Mitigation measures might include in-stream aeration; multiple
discharge locations; treatment/removal of in-place nonpoint sources;
effluent polishing by artificial wetlands or other measure as may be
determined appropriate for specific locations.
5.6.3.3 Public Health Protection
It is recommended that rigorous risk assessments be performed with
respect to assuring the protection of the public health and public
5-12
-------
water supplies or other sensitive uses associated with the receiving
waters. Risk assessments will need to be supported by detailed hydro-
logical investigations in the drainage basins downstream from any
proposed discharge location.
5.6.4 Satellite Treatment Facilities and EPA AWT Cost-
Effectiveness Policy
Current EPA policy limits construction grants for the advanced
portion of a new or upgraded wastewater treatment plant to cases which
can demonstrate that advanced treatment technology is required to
restore impaired beneficial use of a receiving water body. As there is
limited assimilative capacity in the major receiving streams in eastern
Massachusetts, it is generally acknowledged that advanced wastewater
treatment will be required to maintain applicable water quality
standards. As it is not likely, in most cases, that satellite AWT
discharges will result in the restoration of impaired beneficial uses
of these water bodies, Federal Grants participation for the advanced
portion of wastewater treatment facilities may not be available under
this policy. Such a determination can only be made to site specific
options being considered in the future according to the environmental
conditions and treatment facility characteristics at that time.
5.6.5 Alternative Approaches
More recently, in response to concerns about the feasibility of
flow growth control by these approaches, the Massachusetts Executive
Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA) has proposed a new approach that
includes:
1. Establishment of a detailed, system-wide flow monitoring
network to provide realistic data on the sources and char-
acteristics of the wastewater flows in the system. It is
expected that this information will not only aid in identi-
fying areas in which sewer rehabilitation is likely to be
effective, but it will also aid in better sewerage planning,
5-13
-------
in the detection of illegal storm drainage connection, and in
the development of a realistic system of sewer use charges
that could be designed to constrain unnecessary new sewer
connections.
2. Continuation of an effective sewer extension control program
within the Metropolitan district, again to constrain
unnecessary service extensions.
3. Continuation and expansion of the on-going physical
rehabilitation programs for the existing sewer systems.
4. Mandated yearly budgeted local maintenance programs.
While this new program is by itself no panacea, it is symptomatic
of a growing industry-wide realization that new approaches are needed,
and that newly developing wastewater disposal technologies and land use
planning approaches may be more appropriate.
In addition, there is growing realization, especially in communi-
ties along the growth fringe of the Metropolitan area, that existing
land use zoning (controlling land uses and building density) and
subdivision codes (controlling street and drainage design standards)
can and should be revised to incorporate the specific goals of
protecting surface water and groundwater resources and to controlling
excessive rainfall runoff during storms.
Again as in the case of the developing on-site sewage disposal
technologies, such changes in development codes appear promising. They
would require, to a large degree, the application of known technolo-
gies; but they have not yet been systematically integrated and
developed for large area application.
5-14
-------
D
-------
6.0 COORDINATION
6.1 Coordination with the General Public
Coordination with the general public was accomplished through a
number of channels in the course of this SDEIS.
Public participation efforts have been led by Anne Jacobson and
the current Public Participation Coordinator, Edward lonata. A twenty-
five member Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) was formed and has met
regularly since October 1983. The CAC represents a variety of interest
groups, including effected communities, local advisory groups, home-
owners living near present plants, advocates for improved water
quality, recreation advocates, fishermen, and business people. In
addition to the regular CAC meetings, a separate CAC Task Force meets
on particular issues of concern to the members.
A complete list of all members of the Citizens Advisory Committee
appears in the summary of the Public Participation Program (see Section
10.2 of Volume 2).
The public has been informed of study findings throughout the
SDEIS process and has been invited to participate on numerous
occasions. Input from the public has been received in a variety of
ways, including:
a) at the Public Scoping Sessions
b) at Public Workshops
c) via the telephone and the mailing addresses of the Public
Participation Coordinator.
Information has been provided to the CAC and the public at the
regular monthly meetings. In addition, three Boston Harbor Update
newsletters have been published (September 1983, July 1984, and
6-1
-------
November 1984) to inform the public of the studies and their
conclusions. At least two more newsletters are due before the
conclusion of the EIS process.
The formal public participation process for this SDEIS consisted
of several events:
1. Scoping Sessions
In September of 1983, EPA conducted two public scoping
meetings to receive comments from the public, the CAC, and
government agencies on the issues that should be studied. As
a result of the scoping sessions, EPA was able to prepare a
final scope of work identifying the alternatives to be
studied and the issues to be addressed.
2. Public Workshops
More than sixty people attended a November 1983 Public
Workshop held at the State Street Bank and jointly sponsored
by EPA and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' Executive
Office of Environmental Affairs. The workshop focused on
small-group work sessions to weigh impacts and identify ways
to minimize impacts of the siting of the proposed treatment
plant(s).
A workshop focusing on mitigation measures and siting options
which are least acceptable was held in August 1984.
3. Workshops in Affected Neighborhoods
In January 1984, further public meetings were held in Quincy
and Winthrop to discuss the results of "Screening", or
narrowing down, of options recommended by EPA. Winthrop
meeting attendees argued vociferously in favor of retaining
options which would place all primary and/or secondary
6-2
-------
facilities at Long Island, whereas Quincy residents argued
for removal of facilities from Nut Island.
It is expected that additional workshops will be held to
explain the results of the SDEIS analysis and the con-
tinuation of the EIS process.
4. Public Hearing
A formal Public Hearing will be held in early 1985 to receive
final public comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS.
6.2 Coordination with Government Agencies
Coordination with federal and state agencies, and local govern-
ments was provided through regular meetings and dissemination of study
results when they became available.
A chief vehicle for this coordination has been the regular
meetings of the Technical Advisory Group (TAG). The TAG is made up of
representatives of federal and state regulatory agencies, as well as
local officials of the affected communities. Meeting on a semi-monthly
basis throughout the project, the Technical Advisory Group has evalu-
ated and reviewed EPA's technical work and the project findings as they
developed. The members and attendees at the CAC meetings also included
representatives of local, state and federal agencies.
In addition, one of the two scoping meetings held in September of
1983 focused on issues raised by government agencies and officials.
This agency scoping meeting was held to ensure that the concerns of
government officials were being given due consideration.
A complete list of the members of the Technical Advisory Group
appears in Section 10.2 of Volume 2.
6-3
-------
6.3 Participating Agencies
Numerous federal, state, and local governmental agencies were
invited to participate in the SDEIS. These agencies were among the
members of the TAG as noted above.
6.4 Distribution List
The distribution list for the SDEIS is available upon request from
Mr. Robert Mendoza, Project Officer, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Environmental Evaluation Section, Room 2100B, JFK Federal
Building, Boston, MA 02203.
6-4
-------
D
D
D
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
References to SDEIS Volume 1.
Anderson-Nichols & Co., Inc., and Hazen and Sawyer, 1982. Facilities
Planning Relief of the Framingham Extension Sewer -- Volume I --
Engineering Report.
Bank of Boston, February 8, 1984. Protecting Water Resources: A
financial Analysis. Prepared for Massachusetts Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs.
Boston Landmarks Commission, 1984. Boston's Archaeological Legacy: The
City's Planning and Policy Document. Draft Report.
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. 1984. Draft Report to the Metropolitan
District Commission Sewerage Division on Discharges from Moon Island.
Prepared for the Metropolitan District Commission, Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. 1981. Report on Combined Sewer Overflows in
the Dorchester Bay Area, Vol. I and II, prepared for: Metropolitan
District Commission, Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc., undated. Preliminary Draft
Infiltration/Inflow Report. Submitted to Massachusetts DEQE - DWPC.
CE Maguire, Inc., 1983. Final Report on Sludge Sampling Analysis of
the MDC Wastewater Treatment Facilities in Boston Harbor, prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I.
City of Boston, 1984. Boston in Transition, A Program and Policy
Analysis.
EG&G, 1984. Oceanographic Study of Various Outfall Siting Options for
the Deer Island Treatment Plant. Prepared for Havens & Emerson/Parsons
Brinkerhoff as part of the 1984 Deer Island Facilities Plan.
Environmental Research & Technology, Inc., 1979. Sludge Management
planning in the Boston Metropolitan Area A Case Study. Prepared for
National Science Foundation, EPA, Office of Management & Budget,
Council on Environmental Quality.
EPA, 1977 (EPA-600/2-77-087). Microorganisms in Urban Stormwater.
Fay, Spofford and Thorndyke, Inc. Report Upon Infiltration/Inflow
Analysis for Nut Island Service Area. Prepared for the Metropolitan
District Commission.
Greeley and Hansen, 1978. Environmental Impact Statement on the
Upgrading of the Boston Metropolitan Area Sewerage System Volumes One
and Two, prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region I,
Boston Massachusetts.
7-1
-------
Havens & Emerson/Parons Brinkerhoff, 1984. Deer Island Facilities
Plan, prepared for: Metropolitan District Commission Sewerage
Division.
Havens & Emerson/Parsons Brinkerhoff, 1984. Draft Deer Island
Facilities Plan. Unpublished draft prepared for the Metropolitan
District Commission.
Havens and Emerson, Inc., 1982. Wastewater Sludge Management Update,
Summary Report. Prepared for the Metropolitan District Commission.
Havens and Emerson, 1980. Combined Sewer Overflow Facilities Plan
Neponset River Estuary. Vol. 1 and 2, prepared for: Metropolitan
District Commission, Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Kolb, M. Dept. of Environmental Quality Engineering, Updated June 1983.
Boston Harbor: An Overview and History.
Lipman, S.G. DEQE. c. 1983-84. Boston Harbor Cleanup Effort: An
Overview.
Lochner, H.W. Inc., 1984. Bridge Inspection Report For Viaduct Between
Moon Island and Long Island. Prepared for City of Boston Public
Facilities Department
MaKinnon, 1983. Testimony submitted under Commonwealth of
Massachusetts Superior Court Civil Action No. 138477, City of Quincy,
Plaintiff v. Metropolitan Distric Commission, et al., Defendants.
Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, 1983.
Preliminary Report on I/I Removal. Submitted to Prof. Charles M. Harr,
Court Appointed Master for Commonwealth of Massachusetts Superior Court
Civil Action No. 138477, City of Quincy, Plaintiff v. Metropolitan
Distric Commission, et al., Defendants.
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., June 1982. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
Metropolitan District Commission. Nut Island Wastewater Treatment
Plant Facilities Planning Project, Phase I, Site Options Study, Volumes
I and II.
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 1982. Nut Island Wastewater Treatment Plant
Immediate Upgrading. Prepared for the Metropolitan District
Commission.
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 1982. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Metropolitan District Commission Application for Modification of Se-
condary Treatment Requirements for Its Deer Island and Nut Island
Effluent Discharges into Marine Waters, Addenda 1-3.
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 1980. Combined Sewer Overflows Charles River
Basin Facilities Planning Area (Draft Report) Vol. I and II, prepared
for: Metropolitan District Commission.
7-2
-------
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 1979. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Metropolitan District Commission. Application for Modification of Se-
condary Treatment Requirements for Deer Island and Nut Island Effluent
Discharges into Marine Waters, Vol. 1-5.
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., March 1976. Wastewater Engineering and Manage-
ment Plan for Boston Harbor - Eastern Massachusetts Metropolitan Area
(EMMA) Study. 23 Volumes. Prepared for the Metropolitan District
Commission.
Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC), 1982. Regional Decline or
Revival: An Interim Population Forecast for the Boston Metropolitan
Area 1980-2010.
Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC), 1972. Boston Harbor Islands
Comprehensive Plan. Prepared for Massachusetts Department of Natural
Resources. ,
Metropolitan District Commission, 1984. Metropolitan Sewer District,
Member Municipalities I/I Status.
Metropolitan District Commission, 1982. Transcript of Public Hearing
on Nut Island Facilities Planning Project Phase I Site Options Study.
O'Brien and Gere, 1981. Combined Sewer Overflow Project Inner Harbor
Area Facilities Plan, Vol. I and II, prepared for: Commonwealth of
Massachusetts Metropolitan District Commission.
SEA Consultants Inc., 1982. Wellesley Extension Sewer Draft
Facilities Plan and Environmental Document for the Metropolitan
District Commission. Wallace, Floyd, Associates, Inc. et. al., October
1984. Boston Harbor Islands State Park, 1984 Roster Plan Preliminary
Report. Prepared for the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Management.
Wallace, Floyd, Associates, Inc. et. al., 1984. Boston Harbor Isalnds
State Park, 1984 Roster Plan Preliminary Report. Prepared for the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management.
7-3
-------
-------
8.0 LIST OF PREPAKERS AND REVIEWERS
8.1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region I
Boston, MA: Preparation of Supplemental Draft EIS prior
to authorization of expenditure of federal funds.
Robert Mendoza, Project Officer
Kathleen Castagna, Project Monitor
Ron Manfredonia, Chief, Environmental Evaluation Section
Donald Porteous, Chief, Water Quality Branch
Richard Kotelly, Deputy Director, Water Management Division
David Fierra, Director, Water Management Division
Steve Ells, Policy Review and Guidance, Office of
Governmental Liason and Environmental Review
Walter Newman, Technical Review, Water Quality Branch
Roger Duwart, Technical Assistance Section
Paul Marschessault, Southern N.E. Grants Section
Jeffrey Fowley, Attorney, Office of Regional Counsel
Steven Koores, Attorney, Office of Regional Counsel
8.2 The Commonwealth of Massachusetts: Review and Comment For
Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and joint statement with
EPA on decision criteria and weighting of impacts.
Sam Mygatt, Director, MEPA Unit, Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs (EOEA)
Steven Davis, MEPA Unit, EOEA
Cheryl Breen, Office of Coastal Zone Management (CZM)
Marjorie O'Malley, Office of Coastal Zone Management
Steven Lipman, Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering (DEQE)
Ron Lyberger, Department of Environmental Quality Engineering
Kathleen Abbott, Department of Environmental Management (DEM)
Brona Simon, State Archaeologist, Massachusetts Historical
Commission (MHC)
8.3 Metropolitan District Commission (MDC) Boston, MA: Project
proponent and facilities operator, and sponsor of State EIR.
Noel Baratta, Director and Chief Engineer, Sewerage Division
Jean Haggerty, Director, Project Planning and Management
8.4 CE MAGUIRE, INC. Providence, RI : Primary environmental
consultants to EPA, Region I.
Project Management
Daniel Garson, Head of Planning: Project Manager, Boston
Harbor SDEIS
Walter Schwaner, Financial Management and Project
Administration on EPA Contracts
Darrel DeVoss, Vice President, Environmental Engineering
Group
8-1
-------
Project Planners
Christopher Mason: Assistant Project Manager; Water Quality
Baseline and Impact Analysis, and Impact Assessment
David Westcott, A.I.C.P.: Noise Analysis, and Impact
Assessment
Robert Joseph, A.I.C.P.: Land Use and Demographic Baseline,
and Impact Analysis
H. Karl Raff, L.A.: Recreation Resources and Visual Quality,
and Impact Assessment
Lee Senape: Site Design and Graphic Design
Alan Pilch, L.A.: Recreational Resources and Visual Quality;
Graphic Design
Engineering and Technical Staff
Edward Dunn, V.P., Environmental Division: Environmental
Engineering Overview and Quality Assurance
Wayne Perry, P.E., Environmental Engineering
Tim Brown, P.E., Environmental Engineering
Robert Murray, P.E., Environmental Engineering
Sheila Barrett, P.E., Environmental Engineering
Anthony Prata, P.E., Environmental Engineering
Aramest Mahtesian, P.E., Civil Engineering
Robert Barrows, P.E., Environmental Engineering
Thomas Finn, P.E., Civil Engineering
Jeffrey Girard, Environmental Engineering
Joseph McGinn, Environmental Specialist: Satellite
Feasibility Analysis
Albert Boldrighini, V.P., Construction Management:
Construction Management and Practices
Paul Aldinger, Ph.D., P.E.: Geology and Soil Conditions;
Site Feasibility
Karen Box, Geologist: Geology and Soil Conditions
Graphic Design and Photography
Lee Senape
Frank Giuliani
Lawrence Farwell
Beth Westcott
Word Processing and Reproduction
Patricia Whitaker
Nancy Kearney
Elaine Blackman
Dora Leal
Richard Cubberly
8-2
-------
8.5 Subconsultants to CE Maguire, Inc.
Barry Lawson Associates, Concord, MA: Public Participation
Program
Barry Lawson, President
Ann Jacobson _ , .. . _ . .
-_, , T - Public Participation Coordinators
Edward lonata
The Public Archaeology Laboratory, Inc., Providence, RI:
Historical and Archaeological Investigation
Duncan Ritchie, Senior Archaeologist
Joan Gallagher, Senior Archaeologist
Ann Davin, Project Archaeologist
Univ. of Massachusetts, Dorchester Campus, Department of
Archaeology: Archaeological Investigation
Barbara Luedtke, Associate Professor and Director, Summer
Archaeological Field School
Warner & Stackpole, Boston, MA: Legal and Institutional
Analysis
Michael Leon, Attorney
William Constable, Attorney
8.6 Other Consultants
Daniel Bubly: Consultant to EPA for Preparation of SDEIS
Summary Report (distributed under separate cover)
New England Environmental Mediation Center: Consultants to
EPA and the Commonwealth
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1985 SOO-S'tS &!"
8-3
-------
-------
--
. .
,
>. -
NUT ISLAND
------- |