)LUI
USB.
       THE
       COMMONWEALTH
       OF
       MASSACHUSETTS
-o 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.

-------
        i
        ?       UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
   \ pRoit0                          REGION I
                J. R KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02203

January 23, 1985


To All  Interested  Government  Agencies, Public  Groups and  Citizens:

Pursuant to  Section  102  (2)(c)  of the National  Environmental  Policy
Act of  1969  (P.L.  91-190),  and  implementing  regulations  promulgated
by the  Council of  Environmental Quality  (CEQ) and  EPA,  the enclosed
Supplemental Draft  Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS)  on the Sit-
ing of  Wastewater Treatment Facilities in  Boston  Harbor  is  provided
for your review and comment.   A period of  45 days following the noti-
fication of  availability in the  Federal Register  will  be  allowed  for
this review, after  which  a  Final  EIS and subsequent Record of Decision
will be prepared and distributed by EPA.

The  SDEIS presents  the environmental evaluation of three primary treat-
ment and four  secondary treatment siting options  for the metropolitan
Boston  wastewater service area.   The impacts of each siting option are
outlined,  and  the proposed  decision criteria for making a final siting
decision are explained.

EPA  will be  participating jointly with the  Commonwealth  of Massachu-
setts  in  upcoming  public  information  meetings  in  Winthrop,  Quincy,
and  Cambridge.  Formal public hearings will  then  be held  in the com-
munities of  Winthrop,  Quincy, and  Cambridge (see  enclosed  list  for
times  and  locations of meetings).  Comments  on the  SDEIS  may  be sub-
mitted  at  the  public hearings or in writing to EPA by March 18, 1985.

The  SDEIS  is also being submitted by the Metropolitan District Commis--
sion to Massachusetts  Secretary of Environmental Affairs, James  S.
Hoyte,  for review  pursuant to the  Massachusetts  Environmental Policy
Act  (MEPA)  (M.G.L.  Ch.30, Sees.61, 62-62H).  The statutory  MEPA comment
period  will end March 11, 1985, and persons wishing to have  their views
considered in  Secretary Hoyte's determination on  adequacy  of the SDEIS
may  file written  comments with Secretary Hoyte at  the Massachusetts Ex-
ecutive Office of Environmental Affairs,  100 Cambridge Street, Boston,
MA   02202  on  or before that date.

Comments to  EPA  should  be  addressed to me.  Additional copies of the
SDEIS  are  available  at EPA's  Region I  office in  Boston by  contacting
Mr.  Robert Mendoza (617/223-0841).

Sincerely,
 Michael  R.  Deland
 Regional Administrator

 Enclosures

-------
                  SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT
          ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
                            AND
        DRAFT  ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
                             ON
                 SITING OF WASTEWATER
                TREATMENT FACILITIES IN
                    BOSTON  HARBOR

                        VOLUME 2

                        Prepared For:
    U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION I
                    And Submitted By The
            METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COMMISSION
                           To The
           MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF
                  ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
                o
   Prepared By:

CE MAGUIRE, INC.
Architects • Engineers • Planners
One Davol Square, Providence, Rhode Island 02903
' MICHAEL R. DELANO        ^Te      ~^K\-1 AM J ^'A>f~  xA
 Regional Administrator,           ^^^-^^^^omrnj^fofier, -fvletrop/^titan
  U S EPA                           Di%£wct CommissioX/
                                             <>7
                                     S. BtfYVE /         Date
                                 Secretary, Executive Office
                                  of EnvironmentaJ Affairs

-------
                               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
                                    ii

-------
                                                                   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

-------
    5.5  Tunnel Versus Pipeline Construction




    5.6  Control of Growth and Future Wastewater Flows




6.0 COORDINATION




7.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY




8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

-------
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

-------
                                                                   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 Beer 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)

-------
9.0 COPIES OF PERTINENT STATE LEGISLATION
    o    Chapter 742,  Acts of 1970
    o    Chapter 296,  Acts of 1977

-------
Chap. 742.  AN ACT eitovmiNf; KOH TUB ACQUISITION OF TUB ISI.ANI>S
             IM IKISTDN  ItAUIIUU 11Y Til K I>KPA UTM ICNT OK NATIWAt, R1D-
             SIHIIIPKS I''OH  THE  I'UIU'OSKS  OK 11ECHEATION AND  CON-
             SKKVATION.
!!<• it rmirW, etc., ay fulluius:
  SECTION  I.   Tlic department cif natural resources, hereinafter  re-
ferred  to as tin1 acquiring agency, is hereby authorized in the name, of
the commonweall h to lake  hy eminent domain under the provisions of
chapter seventy-nine or chapter eighty A of the (leneral Laws, or ac(|ilire
hy gift, purchsi.se or otherwise, the fee or any lesser interest,  for the pur-
poses of recreation and conservation under  st program described in sec-
tion three,  such  privately owned islands or portions of  islands as are,
hereinafter named  and such other property fvs may be necessary or ex-
pedient therefore:  Thompson, Spectacle,  Peddoeks,  Callops, Bumpkin,
Greater lirewster,  Middle Brewster, Outer Brewster, Calf, Little Calf,
Green, Haccoon,  ll.'ingman,  ( Irape, Slate, Sheep together with islets,
rocks,  and  Mat.-1 adjaei nt thereto,  provided that existing private  uses
not inconsistent with the purposes of this act may be permitted to con-
tinue subject to periodic review.
  Said acquiring  agency is further authorized  to acquire by gift or
otherwise anv island, islet, rocks, (hit land or portion thereof in Boston
11 arbor own I'd  by any city or  town or agency of the federal government.
  SUCTION  '2   The acquiring agency shall designate such lands located
in,  under or bordering Boston Harbor south of a  line drawn from Castle
island  to  the neck ol I Ver island which are owned or under the control
of any department, commission or agency of the commonwealth and
which  are, not actually being  used as the site of  a public facility,  to be
therealter under tin; control of the acquiring agency for the purposes of
this act.
  SIOCTION  •(.  Lands acquired by or transferred to the acquiring agency
.shall be held and maintained for tin! purposes of this act under a pro-
gram  of maintenance and improvement pending (.lie completion and ap-
proval of  a comprehensive plan for the  area sunl its approval by the
general court, and the acquiring agency may expend such sums as may
be  provided by section four of this act for the development, redevelop-
 ment, construction and improvement of outdoor recreation  areas and
associated facilities on lands acquired or transferred to it  under this act.
                   Arra,  1970. — CHAP. 742.

  SUCTION  L  The acquiring agency is hereby authorized and directed
to expend a sum 7iot to evened three million five hundred thousand dol-
lars lo carry out the provisions of sections ono, thren and six of this act,
including nil expenses  in connection therewith.  To meet the expendi-
tures necessary in  carrying out the provisions of this act, the  state
treasurer shall, upon request of the governor, issue and sell at public or
private sale bond:; of  the commonwealth,  registered or  with interest
coupons attached, as he may deem  best, to an amount to be specified
by the governor fr >m lime to time, but not  exceeding, in the aggregate,
the sum of three million live hundred thousand dollars. All bonds issued
by the commonwealth, as aforesaid, shall be designated on their face,
Boston  Harbor Islands Acquisition,  Act of 1970  and shall be  on the
serial pa\ merit plan for such maximum term of  years, not exceeding
twenty  years, as Hie governor may recommend to the General Court
pursuant to Section  '!  of Article LXII of  the  Amendments  to the
Constitution of the Commonwealth, the maturities thereof  to be so ar-
ranged that  the amounls payable in the several years of the  period of
amortization 01,her than the linal year  shall be as nearly  equal  as in
the opinion  of the, state tniM.surer it is practicable  to  make them.  Said
bonds shall  Ui.ir interest  somiannu.'illy at such rate  as the state trea-
surer, wilh I he appro a! of I he govemor, shall fix.   The initial maturities
of such bonds shall be  payable not later than one year from the date of
issue thereof, and the entire issue not later than June the thirtieth, nine-
teen hundred and  ninety-nine.   Seventy-five per cent of all interest
payments and  payments on account of principal on such obligations

-------
shall he paid  from the metropolitan parks district fund, to be assessed
by methods fixed by law, and the balance shall be paid from the State
Recre.Mtion Arena Fund,  to br: assessed by methods fixed by law.
  SECTION 5.  The acquiring agency shall have authority to contract
with agencies of  I,he. federal government for the receipt of funds.
  SKCTION (>.  The acquiring agency shall prepare comprehensive plans
to carry out. the purpose  of this act, may engage such consultants as are
necessary and shall submit tlie results of its investigation,  study and
planning to the general court.
  SUCTION 7.  The provisions of this act are hereby declared to be
severable and if  any such provision or the application of such provision
to any person or circumstances shall be held to be invalid or unconsti-
tutional, sueh invalidity or uncoustitutiouality shall not be construed
to affect the.  validity or constitutionality of any of the remaining pro-
visions of said sections or the application of such provision to persons or
circumstances other than  those  as  to which it is held invalid.   It is
hereby  declared, to be the legislative intent that said sections  would
have been adopted had  such invalid or unconstitutional  provisions not
been included therein.
  SECTION S. This ;tct .shall not be construed to limit the power or
authority of  any department, board  or commission of  the common-
wealth  or of  any political subdivision thereof or any public authority
except where expressly provided otherwise herein;  provided, however,
that in, under or bordering Boston Harbor there shall be  no acquisition
of land by any  sueh public agency or instrumentality other than the
acquiring agenc}' without the approval  of the acquiring agency, and
no public land on or bordering said area  may be sold, leased or used as
a dump or refuse disposal area, and no sand, gravel or soil may be re-
moved  therefrom or deposited thereon, a.nd  no structure may be  built
thereon, without the approval of the acquiring agency.
   SUCTION !). For (lie purposes  of this act, Boston Harbor .shall be de-
lined as that  portion of uhe body  of water shown on chart 240, ,'{2d cd.,
l'Vb. 2(i,  J'.MiX, "Uoslon Harbor", 11. S. Coast and  Geodetic Survey,
which  lies to l.he wesl. of a line beginning at  the, tower on Allerton Hill
in l.he  I,own of Hull, I.hence running l.n I.In' eastern most point on Outer
 KrewstcT island, tlienn- nnnim;', l,o the Graves lighthouse,  and which lies
to the south  of  a  line beginning at  Ihe Graves lighthouse, thence run-
ning to the. most northwesterly point of  Oner island, thence running to
the  mo.il, northerly  point of Spectacle island, thence, running to the
 nionnmrnt on  tin; northeasterly shore  at Fort  Independence,  Castle
island in  the  South Itnston district of the city of Koston.
                                       Approved August, 2i>, 1070.
 Chap. 296. AN ACT  FHOHIBITINC THE CONSTRUCTION  OF  ADDI-
             TIONAL SEV GRACE FACILITIES OR ANY LANDFILL OPERA-
             TIONS AT N! f ISLAND IN THE CITY OF QUINCY.
 Be it enacted, etc., as  ollows:
   Notwithstanding am provision of law to the contrary, neither
 the metropolitan distri :t commission nor any  political subdivi-
 sion of the commonwealth may construct an additional sewerage
 treatment plant or exp.md existing sewerage treatment facilities
 at the existing Nut Islai d facility in the city of Quincy in a man-
 ner which involves  any landfill operation  or the filling in of
 Quincy bay.
                                         Approved June 14, 1977.

-------
                                      P/OTQ
10.0 PUBLIC  PARTICIPATION PROGRAM
     10.1  Statements by  Involved Parties
     10.2  Public  Participation Program Summary
     10.3  Citizens  Advisory Committee (CAC) Recommendations

-------
10.1  Statements by
   Involved  Parties

-------
                                INDEX TO:

                  10.1  STATEMENTS BY INVOLVED PARTIES
Date        Statement Made By:

10/25/84    S.F. Cole, Director,
            Boston Redevelopment
            Authority

9/5/84      D.R. Cochrane, Winthrop
            Board of Selectmen
8/14/84     J.E. Falbo, Winthrop
            Planning Board

8/2/84      A. DeFronzo, Chairperson,
            East Boston Land Use
            Advisory Council

7/26/84     R.L. Flynn, Mayor, City
            of Boston

6/21/84     M. Deland, Administrator
            EPA Region I

6/18/84     M. Deland, Administrator
            EPA Region I

6/15/84     M. Deland, Administrator
            EPA Region I
5/20/84     EPA

4/6/84      M. Deland, Administrator
            EPA Region I

4/5/84      L. Chretien, Aide to
            Rep. T.F. Brownell

4/3/84      F.X. McCauley, Mayor
            City of Quincy
3/22/84     M. Deland, Administrator,
            EPA Region I

3/1/84      F.X. McCauley, Mayor,
            City of Quincy
Submitted To:

J. Gutensohn, Commissioner,
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Management

M. Deland, Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region I

Barry Lawson Associates, Inc.
R. Manfredonia,  Chief,
Environmental Evaluation
Section, EPA Region I

M. Deland, Administrator,
EPA Region I

R.L. Flynn, Mayor,  City
of Boston

Letters to the Editor,
Boston Globe

J.F Timilty and J.F.  Cusack,
Chairmen, Joint Committee  on
Housing and Urban Development

F.H. Tosches

R. Flynn, Mayor, City of
Boston

Barry Lawson Associates
J.S. Hoyte, Secretary,
Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs

F.X. McCauley, Mayor,
City of Quincy

M. Deland, Administrator
EPA Region I

-------
Date
Statement By:
                                          Submitted To:
2/22/84     M. Deland, Administrator,
            EPA Region I

1/30/84     South Shore Chamber of
            Commerce

1/9/84      T.C. McMahon, Director
            Division  of Water
            Pollution Control

1/9/84      J.S. Hoyte, Secretary,
            Executive Office of
            Environmental Affairs
                              R.  Noonan,  Chairman,
                              Winthrop Board  of  Selectmen

                              Newsletter
                              W. Newman, Acting Chief,
                              Environmental Evaluation
                              Section, EPA Region I

                              M. Deland, Administrator,
                              EPA Region I
 11/30/83     R.E.  Noonan,  R.A.  DeLeo,
             R.V.  Vecchia,  Winthrop
             Board of Selectmen
                              M.R. Deland, Administrator,
                              EPA Region I
 10/21/83
 9/9/83
EPA Region  I
J.S. Hoyte,  Secretary,
Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs
(Final Scope of Work for
Preparation of a Supplemental
Draft EIS on Boston Harbor
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Siting)

(Environmental Notification
Form)
 4/27/76      C.  Corkin II,  Chief,
             Environmental  Protection
             Division,  Massachusetts
             Department of  the Attorney
             General

 4/26/76      J.A.S. McGlennon,
             Administrator, EPA Region I
                              W.A. Garrity, U.S. Federal
                              District Court
                              E. Murphy, Secretary,
                              Executive Office of
                              Environmental Affairs
 3/26/76      P.E. Dunn, Director  of
             Development,  City  of Boston
             Penal  Institutions
             Department
                              E. Murphy; Secretary,
                              Executive Office of
                              Environmental Affairs

-------
Boston
Redevelopment
Authority
 Stephen F. Coyle/Drector


                                         October 25,  1984


 Commissioner James Gutensohn
 Department of Environmental Management
 100 Cambridge Street
 Boston, MA  02202

 Dear Commissioner Gutensohn:

     I  am  writing  to  confirm  understandings  arrived  at between
 you  and representatives  of the City  of  Boston  to the effect
 that  the Flynn Administration places  the highest priority  on
 integrating  Long  Island  into  the Boston Harbor  Islands State
 Park.

     The  approximately  160  acres  of  the  Island  not  occupied
 by  the  Long   Island   Hospital  have  the  potential   to  offer
 unparelleled  recreational  opportunities  to  residents of  the
 City  and  region.   The Mayor  has  asked me,  as   part  of  the
 Harborpark  planning initiative to begin  discussions   that will
 lead  ultimately to  the  use of the  undeveloped  portions of the
 Island for park and  recreational development.

     It  is  my  understanding  that  you will be  seeking  capital
 funds  for  development of  the Island  as part  of your fiscal
 year  1986  capital outlay request, and  it  is therefore necessary
 to expedite these  discussions.

     The  City  of  Boston  looks forward to working with you  on
 the  development of  Long Island as  a major center  in  the Boston
 Harbor Islands State Park.
                                        Sincerely,
 SC/ecm

      1' SDvJQre
     '/ossccnu-ens 02201

-------
                                        807 ^hirley ooree
                                        .-.ir.uhrcp,  I---.  C2
                                        Set'teriber 5> 1924
Mr. Kichael Deland
Region I Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
John ?. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, MA.  02203

       RE: KDC Wastewater  Treatment  Facilities  Planning

Dear Xr- Deland:

     I am  a resident  of Winthrop.  Having reviewed the proposed
"mitigative measures"  section of  the handout given at  the
August Workshop on  Siting  Alternatives,  I wanted to reiterate
my concern regarding  the proposed  mitigative measure of  barging
only construction materials  to the Deer  Island  site.  I  am
truly of the belief that to  allow  equipment and construction
workers to travel to  Deer  Island  by  road would  be a grave mis-
take on the part  of the project planners and designers.  That
statement  is intended to include  the proposed mitagative mea-
sures of busing workers to and from  the  site.  The only  reason-
able mitigative measure which I can  conceive of as being
acceptable to the residents  of Winthrop  would be a construction
contract condition  that requires all workers, vehicles,  equip-
ment and materials  to  be transported to  and from the project
site by means of  water or  air.  This condition  would also have
to include cash penalties  to be paid by  the contractor to
the Town of Winthrop  for each violation  .   I would suggest a
$1,000 per violation  as a  reasonable penalty.   In some emer-
gency cases it may  be  worth  it  to  the contractor to pay  the
penalty, but for  the most  part, I  would  think a  $1,000 fine
per violation would be a sufficient  deterrent.   ,\orkers
residing in Winthrop  could be excluded from the  requirement
since they must drive  through the  town streets  in either case.
     I believe the  above requirement is  necessary for the pro-
tection of the. lives  and limbs  of  the residents  of "Winthrop
and the construction workers  as well.  The  Town's  roads were
simply not designed nor built for  commercial traffic.
Winthrop has no through traffic, other than that effected by
the Deer Island Treatment  Plant and  Prison.   In  recent years,
the traffic associated with  these  two facilities  has become
quite significant.  I  know you must  be aware that  the proposed
trucking and worker busing route through Winthrop  is saturated
with residential  and light commercial  development.   Along the
route,  sidewalks  are narrow  and many of  the  homes  and businesses
are located close to the street.   The  town  has at  least its
share of children,  dogs,  bicycle riders,   elderly  and joggers

-------
.'.cving about on the sidewalks and crossing tne roadways.
 .."lenever a moderately-sized truck comes into the  town tc marie
a delivery, its presence often results in blocked intersections
and the creation of temporary one-way traffic  , especially in
the light commercial zones where there is just barely enough
room for opposing passenger cars to pass under ordinary cir-
cumstances.  Add to the above the unique traffic  problems
related to the State Public Boat Landing.  The landing is a
major recreational facility and one of a very  few in the
:-etropolitan area.  Its use is year-round.
     Traffic in Winthrop becomes especially heavy in the summer
months as out-of-towners head for, not only the Landing but
also Winthrop's K.D.C. Beach, Yirrel Beach, Grandview Avenue,
and the five marinas.  In  spite of ail this current traffic,
safety has not been a major problem in Winthrop.  I am afraid
that with the  introduction of construction-related traffic
that picture will change completely.  Commercial  traffic is
very different from residential and recreational  traffic.
There is an urgency about  it, politeness is lost  in the rush,
•drivers are not so cautious when they are on the  clock.  The
constant congestion at intersections ana along narrow roadways
will cause further aggravation not only to resients but to the
workers and contractor as  well.
     For everyone's safety, I urge you to consider as a miti-
gative measure, a proposal that all men and equipment be trans-
ported to and  from the Deer Island site by air or water and
that a penalty clause be included in the construction contract
for direct payment to the  Town of Winthrop for each violation.

                             Sincerely,
                                       Cochrane
 cc:  Winthrop  Board  of  Selectmen
     Edward  lonata,  P.F.C.

-------
/ _  _>  _ j~_  v^
               ""^	/^'   ^  vs.
                                                 PLANNING
                                                   BOARD
                                                    , MASSACHUSETTS 021J2
                                              August 14, 1984
       Barry Lawson Associates,  Inc.
       P.O.  Box 648
       Concord, MA. 01742

       Attention:  Edward lonata

                Re: Wastewater Treatment Site

       Dear  Mr. lonata:

       The Winthrop Planning  Board  wishes to be recorded as being
       adamantly opposed and  irrevocably committed to stop all
       further expansion of  sewerage  treatment facilities at the
       Deer  Island Treatment  plant.   Our position is and has been in
       the past, that  all  further expansion be it primary and/or
       secondary treatment be  located  on Long Island.  However, we
       do support  improvement  in maintenance to increase the
       effectiveness of  the  present  sewerage disposal operation at
       Deer  Island.  In  essence, we  do  not support any increase in
       sewerage disposal operations  but  support improvement of the
       present capacity  level.

       Under the provisions  of Chapter  40A and local zoning by-law.
       the Planning Board  is  called  upon to give its opinion
       relative to any  change  or  INCREASE  in a particular use of
       land  which  represents  a potential hazardous effect to the
       community .

       Throughout  the  several  years  that the issue of sewerage
       treatment hcis confronted  the  Town of Winthrop, the Planning
       Board has not been  persuaded  by  the arguments raised by the
       proponents  of r.he primary and  secondary updated treatment
       facility at Deer  Island.  We  have heard that the cost factor
       to locate such  a  facility at  Long Island is prohibitive;  that
       Deer  Island is  already  "institutionalized"; that the

-------
opposition by the City of Boston to a location at Long Island
is insurmountable and many other arguments. We have recently
reviewed the eight alternative wastewater  treatment siting
options as provided to us in the  BOSTON HARBOR UPDATE II  ,
dated  July, 1984.  We have not been persuaded to alter our
strong opposition to increasing the sewerage disposal
capacity at Deer Island in any manner.

Our Board believes that the need to protect the health and
welfare of our residents as well as improve and maintain
property values is of greater importanance than to cut back
costs relative to re-locating the facility to Long Island.
Unfortunately, the Town of Winthrop is long accustomed to
hearing the words "cost factor" concerning expansion and
progress from quasi Governmental agencies  such as the Deer
Island Sewerage Treatment Plant, the Deer  Island Penal
Institution and Logan International Airport.  We cannot
consider a qualitative comparison between  dollar values and
human suffering. Dispite the consideration as to cost factor,
Long Island is institutionalized by reason of its hospital
facilities and is located approximately 5  miles from the City
of Boston.  The Deer Island Treatment facility coupled with
the  other Governmental 'agencies threaten to destroy the
residential quality of Winthrop.  It must  be remembered that
the  sewerage  treatment facility is located a few hundred
yards from a  substantial portion of the Town of Winthop's
overall  population  of approximatly 22,000.

We accept the concept that  strong opposition should have been
made to  the original construction of the sewerage treatment
plant some  25-30  years ago.  However, at the time of the
original  construction, the  majority of home owners  in the
Point Shirley area  of Winthrop were summer residents who were
unable  to vote or participate in the fate  of our community.
That temporary resident  status has all but vanished as the
entire  area has  become a community of permanent residents.
Clearly,  we are  not concerned nor persuaded by the  arguments
of those  who  would  penalize the community  of Winthrop for
allowing  the  initial construction of the Deer  Island Sewerage
Treatment  plant  to  take  place.

The  Planning  Board -is also  extremely concerned with the
secondary  effect  of a massive construction program  at Deer
Island.   The  community   CANNOT  and  SHOULD NOT  be forced  to
tolerate  the  additional  problems of excessive  traffic flow
and  conjestion  that will accompany the expansion and new
construction  of  the  sewer  treatment  plant.  The construction
involved  in  updating  and  expanding of  the  Deer  Island
Treatment  facility  will  take  yearshis  community  presently
wages  a  constant  battle  with  noise,  air  pollution  and  the

-------
threat of expansion from Logan International Airport.  The
populace of the Town of Winthrop live in fear of'the
consequences of an overcrowded, understaffed and poorly
maintained prison facility at Deer Island.  The years of
inadequate maintenance and low staffing levels at the exising
treatment plant has caused a significantly poor water quality
throughout the Winthrop shores.  The residents of the Town of
Winthrop  CANNOT  and  WILL NOT  endure further environmental
abuses.  Therefore, we cunnot support any alternatives
relative to any wastewater sludge management or wastewater
treatment siting other than relocating facilities on Long
Island or some other location sufficiently removed from the
Town of Winthrop.  Further expansion of sewerage treatment
facilities at Deer Island is unwarranted, unfair and
unconscionable to the  inhabitants of the Town of Winthrop.

                                   Respectfully submitted for
                                   THE WINTHOP.PLANJTLNCJBOARD
                                    JEROME E. FALBO, MEMBER
cc: Edward  lonata,  Public Participation Co-Ordinator
    E.P.A.  - Boston  Harbor,  S.D.I.S.
    P.O. Box 1357,  G.M.F,
    Boston, MA.  02205
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
Winthrop Board of Selectmen
Representative Alfred Saggesse
Senator Michael LoPresti
Paul Dawson, Winthrop Board of Health
Planning Board members
Margaret Riley

-------
2 Auqust  1964
Mr. Ronald  Man-fredonia.  Chie-f
Environmental  Evaluation  Section
EF'A Region  I
J.F.Kennedy Federal Building
Boston,  Massachusetts     02203

Dear Mr.  Man-f r edoni a:

The East Boston Land Use Advisory Council  (The Council,'has  several
concerns regarding the  Boston Harbor Wastewater Facilities  Siting.
They are:

    1.   Conditions o-f F'resent -facilities

    2.   Addition o-f new  commmuni 11 es to the  system

    3.   Future o-f Satellite -facilities

    4.   Long  Island

    5.   Impacts on the  East Boston community

    6 .   Mi ti gati on

    7.   Water quality in Boston Harbor

Expanding on  these points:

1.   Conditions o-f F'resent  -facilites  :  The  Council considers the
maintainance  and operation  o-f the present  -facilities to  be  o-f the
-first  priority.  The existing sewerage  treatment plants,  combined
sewer  overflows  (CSO) and dry weather over-flows  vDWO)  must  work
properly so that studies undertaken are started -from a current
basis  and do  not project unrealistic conditions into the -future.

-------
z.   Addition of new communities :   A moratorium  should  be
declared  on  the addition of  new  communities until  the  entire
system  is working properly.   It  is  senseless to continue to
degredate the Harbor.  This  violates the Clean Water Act as upheld
by the  Quincy Law Suit.  The Council would also like to  stress the
immediate importance o-f looking  at  new developments in the
communities  already being  served by the Metropolitan Distrist
Commission (MDC) .  The impacts o-f new developments should continue
to be  monitored and plans  developed how best to treat  the
additional sewerage that will be added to the system.

3. 5_ate_l^jL_ijt_e _ f_ac_i_l__l.t_i_e^ :  The Council considers  the continued
investigation o-f Satellite Facilities to be o-f paramount
importance.   It sees no sense in dra.ininq our water supplv -from
our  suburban watershed areas and dumping this wster in the ocean.
Our  water resourses must be  protected.  How soon  will  our
reservoirs run dry?  The aquisition o-f land in the metropol i ti an
area — tor -future expansion o-f the svstem — should  be considered
immediately-   No longer can  the  suburbs have the  luxury  o-f
•flushing  the toilet and not  knowing where the water goes.

4.   Long Island :  The Council  sees no sense in  degradating
another location in the Boston Harbor, plus opening up the
possibility  o-f expansion o-f  the  system in an unsuitable  location.
Although  the upgrading and possible expansion of  the Deer Island
plant  will have severe negative  impacts on our community as well
as Winthrop,  we see no reason to expand these negative impacts to
new  locations.   Therefore, The Council recommends  that Long Island
not  be  considered as an appropriate site.
5.    LQELSCJLl _ 5D __ the East Boston  community :   Traffic  congestion,
noise  and  air pollution, and  enviromental health factors  as a
result  of  the airport and tunnel  proximites are of  great  concern
to the  residents of East Boston  and Winthrop.  Impacts  from any
construction projects on Deer  Island would aqgrevate  already
intolerable  conditions.
    Another  impact would be air  pollution from incineration.   The
Council  strongly recommends against this option, should the waiver
for secondary treatment not be granted.
              Q.Q. :   Whatever  project  goes ahead the community
affected  must be considered  in  every way possible.
                    Barging must be used whenever possible  to
alliviate traffic  congestion, noise  and air pollution.
                    The possiblity  of rate reduction or
reimbursements must also be  explored.

-------
                    Meetings  with  the community must occur  before
and during  the project to ensure  an  open line of communication.

7-  Water Quality in Boston  Harbor  :   Let it not be forgotten that
the primary purpose of this  entire  project is the upgrading  of  the
water quality in Boston Harbor.   This is most important  with the
way the  Harbor is developing  as  a recreational facility  for  the
city, the state, and the nation.   The Harbor and the  Harbor  Isands
are an economic and recreational  resource that must be
protected—but they cannot be considered separately concerning
water distribution and waste  disposal.

The East Boston Land Use Advisory Council considers it  imperative
that the Metropolitan District Commission or new agency  reevaluate
the entire  system as a whole  and  prioritize tne steps necessary
for a clean and healthv harbor before anv =ction is ts i en.

Sincerely yours,
Anna  DeFronzo, Chairperson
East  Boston Land Use Advisory Council

cc:   CE  Maquire, Inc.

-------
                     CITY OF BOSTON • KIASSACHUSETTS
                           OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
                           RAYMOND L. FLYNN
                                          July 26,  1984
Mr. Michael Deland
Regional Administrator
United States Environmental
 Protection Agency
John F. Kennedy Building
Boston, Massachusetts   02203

Dear Mr. Deland.-

     In response  to  your  letter  of  June 21,  1984,  I would like
to restate my position  concerning the location of  waste water
treatment facilities in the Boston  Harbor.   Be assured that the
lack of correspondence  since  we  last met is  not indicative of
the City's effort to improve  the condition of the  Boston Harbor
ana the Boston Harbor Islands.   Ky  concern for the Boston Harbor
did not begin when I was  elected to the Mayor's Office.   For
the longest time, both  as a State Legislator and as a City
Councillor, I have expressed  my  belief that  the Boston Harbor
is vital to the economic  and  social well being of  Boston and
the Boston Metropolitan area.

     My administration  is  committed to doing whatever possible
to improve the  condition of  the  Boston Harbor.   And we applaud
the efforts of  the  EPA  to  find a suitable location for waste
water treatment facilities.   I would,  however,  like to reiterate
my unequivocal  position to siting the  waste water treatment
facility at Long  Island.   Long Island  plays,  and will continue
to play an integral role in  the  City : s effort to provide  basic
human services.   I  have repeatedly stated my commitment to the
Long Island Chronic Care Hospital and  the Long  Island Shelter
for "'the homeless, which is the only shelter for the homeless
operated by the City.   Since my  inauguration,  the number  of
beds at the Long  Island Shelter  has been  increased from one
hi-ndrtd to two  hundred; while the Chronic Cara ^ Hc.spitc.1 con-
tinues to serve over one hundred and fifty patients.
       - -.-.-.<--•-'•; r:r\';;-.LL-O..T.cm'H•

-------
Mr. Michael Deland

Page 2
     In short, the future use of Long Island is of paramount
concern to the City of Boston.  As an irreplaceable location
for sheltering the City's homeless and the chronically ill;
and as one of the last remaining undeveloped areas in Boston,
the future use of Long Island should not include a waste
water treatment facility.
                                         Raymond L. Flynn
                                         Mayor
 RLF/PW/amcd

-------
 June 21, 1984
Honorable  Raymond  Flynn
Mayor of Boston
City Hall
Boston, Massachusetts  02108

Dear Mayor Flynn:

On April 12,  1984,  Secretary  Hoyte  and  I  met  with  you  and members
of your staff to discuss  the  clean-up of  Boston  Harbor and  specifi-
cally your views of Long  Island  as  a potential site  for a waste-
water treatment facility.   At our meeting you agreed to provide
EPA with documentation on  the City's long term plan  for Long
Island as well as  provide  us  with certain information  which would
assist EPA in our  environmental  impact  statement (EIS)  evalua-
tions.  Since several months  have passed  and  we  have not received
any correspondence from the City, I wish  to bring  this issue  to
your attention.

I believe we  both  agree that  a clean harbor is important to the
future economy and recreational  opportunities for  the  citizens of
the Boston metropolitan area. EPA  is working as quickly as
possible on decisions which affect  the  clean-up  of the  harbor.
Our ongoing EIS is evaluating eight alternatives for siting of
wastewater treatment facilities  for the Metropolitan District
Commission either  at Deer  Island, Nut Island  or  Long Island.  In
order for our EIS  to be as comprehensive  as possible as well as
to comply with the legal  requirements of  the  National  Environmen-
tal Policy Act,' we must request  that the  City of Boston inform
EPA of future plans for the long-term use of  Long  Island.  This
information will assist us in thoroughly  evaluating those waste-
water treatment scenarios  under  consideration for  Long  Island to
determine the compatibility of such facilities with those plans
set forth by  the City of  Boston.  Without this information EPA
rr.ust make certain  assumptions about Long  Island  which may not be
consistent with the objectives of your  administration.

-------
:s you can imagine, the final decision en siting a wastewster
treatment facility in Boston Harbor will undergo tremendous
scrutiny and public review.  Our recommendations rcust be sound
and supported by adequate information.  I would appreciate your
assistance in providing EPA with your view of the future of Long
Island and to provide members of my staff and our contractors the
necessary approvals for access to Long Island to conduct our EIS
investigations.  Your assistance in providing EPA with this in-
formation will allow us to complete our EIS on siting waste-
water treatment facilities and move us one step closer to the
long overdue clean-up of Boston Harbor.
Sincerely yours,
Michael R. Deland
Regional Administrator

-------
              UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                                REGION I

              J. F. KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02203
June  IB,  1984

Letters to the Editor
Boston Globe
135 Morrissey Boulevard
Boston, MA  02107

Dear  Editor:

Your  series of three editorials  on  the  need  for  Super Harbor was
constructive journalism  at  its best.  The  writer put a mass of
history and current planning, or the  lack  of it, into context and
made  a reasoned  plea for unified planning  and administration in
place of  misrule by 125  government  agencies, boards and departments.

Critical  to the  harbor's future  is  adequate  wastewater treatment.
Two avenues for  progress in  cleaning  up harbor pollution now offer
themselves.  One is the  Governor's  pending legislation to create a
new Metropolitan Water Resources Authority (House Bill 5915).
This  would be an independent  authority  capable of gaining adequate
funding and expertise for construction,  operation and maintenance
of a  first-rate  system in the manner  of a  public utility.  I urge
you and your readers to  support  House Bill 5915.

The second opportunity already has  been seized by many devoted
public officials and citizens who are contributing their wisdom
and expertise on siting  of  treatment  facilities.  A supplemental
environmental impact statement being  prepared by EPA will examine
eight alternative plans  involving Deer  Island, Nut Island and Long
Island.   A public hearing on  the draft  EIS will  be held this fall
and the final EIS recommending the  sites will be issued early in 1985.

The public will  benefit  from  the long sought harbor cleanup only if
there is  a commitment to public  access  and appropriate shoreline uses
that capitalize  on harbor cleanup —  uses  such as parks, promenades,
restaurants, fish piers,  boat moorings,  and  marinas.  The MDC has an
opportunity to acquire waterfront parkland with  $12 million earmarked
for this  purpose in the  capital  outlay  budget.  The Boston Redevelop-
ment Authority can take  the  initiative  to  plan for compatible shoreline
uses.
                            (more)

-------
                              -2-

Speaking of waterfront amenities, wastewater treatment facilities
can be sited, designed and built to incorporate recreational and
aesthetic benefits and minimize community disruption.  The Tallman's
Island treatment plant in Queens, Long  Island, N.Y., incorporates a
waterfront park, landscaped waterfront walkway and a public pier.
Major interceptors linking the Lowell Industrial Park and the Duck
Island treatment plant on the Merrimack River were constructed to
accommodate attractive walking and biking paths.

This is not yet the Globe's vision of Super Harbor.  The structure
to achieve this goal  remains to be designed.  The recent Boston 2000
Conference of mayor's, planners and developers from Boston and across
the Nation began to form an alliance that could shape the future uses
of this priceless asset.  We who love the harbor deserve nothing less,
Sincerely ,
Michael  R.  Deland
Regional Administrator

-------
              UNITED STA.TtS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                                REGION I

              J. f KENNEDY FEDEnAL BUILDING. BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02203
June 15, 1984


The Honorable Joseph F. Timilty
The Honorable John F. Cusack
Joint Committee on Housing and Urban  Development
State House
Boston, Massachusetts   02133

Dear Chairman Timilty and Chairman  Cusack:

I am writing to support  the creation of an independent, professional,
adequately  financed water and sewerage authority for the greater Bos-
ton area, as  set forth in House  Bill No. 5915.  This  authority is
needed  to bring to an end the continuing  discharges  of raw and par-
tially  treated  sewage   into  Boston  Harbor.  The  current  discharges
from the  Metropolitan  District  Commission  system  create  the most
serious water pollution problem  in  New England  and make the Common-
wealth  of Massachusetts one of  the worst violators  of  the federal
Clean Water  Act in the country.   The  discharges regularly  result
in beach  closings,  cause diseases  in fish and other organisms and
threaten the public health to a greater extent  than may be generally
realized.   They cannot  be allowed to  continue.

House Bill  No.  5915  would address  the pollution problem  first, by
creating a  new  agency  with the administrative  ability to undertake
the large clean-up  effort .required.   The resolution  of  the  pollu-
tion problem will  require long-term  planning.   In  comparison with
the MDC, the new  agency should be  better able  to do this planning,
since it will have independent long-term financing.   The resolution
of the  problem  also will  require the  undertaking  of a long overdue
effort  to expand and rehabilitate the sewage treatment system serv-
ing the Boston area.   This will require a large construction manage-
ment effort.  In  comparison with the MDC, the  new agency should be
better  able  to  make  the  concerted  effort  required,  particularly
since its top management  will not  have  the  widespread responsibil-
ities of the  MDC and   will  be   able  to  focus  on sewage  treatment
projects.  Finally,  the resolution  of  the  pollution  problem will
require better  operation  and maintenance of treatment facilities.
An independently financed professional agency should be in a better
position to do  this  than  the MDC,  which  has long  been understaffed
and underfunded.

-------
                                -2-
EPA has positive experience around  the  country with independent pro-
fessional sewerage agencies  like the  one proposed  to be created by
House Bill No.  5915.   For example, the St. Louis area Metropolitan
Sewer District is widely regarded as among  the leaders  in water pol-
lution control.   Closer  to home,  the  creation  of  the Narragansett
Bay Commission  to  handle  the sewage  from Providence, Rhode Island,
and several  surrounding  communities  has  been an  important step in
addressing the pollution problem in Narragansett Bay.

The other key part of resolving the Boston Harbor pollution problem
is of course adequate funding.  Currently, in contrast to many mod-
ern sewerage  agencies,  the MDC lacks  the  ability  to issue revenue
bonds. It also  lacks the ability to raise  sufficient funds from the
users of its services because  its  assessments have been capped at a
low level.   In  the absence of  either a mechanism for raising suffi-
cient funds  from its users  or  of  supplemental  appropriations, the
MDC facilities  continue to pollute the Harbor and to violate pollu-
tion control requirements.  If current  funding levels and mechanisms
were continued  unchanged,  the  Boston Harbor pollution problem would
never be corrected.  It is time for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
to address this pollution problem by adopting a system which provides
for adequate funding.  The Commonwealth is being asked  to do no more
than what  industry and  other governmental bodies have already been
required to  do  throughout  the  country.

House Bill No.  5915  would  address  the  funding problem by giving the
new authority  the  ability  to  issue revenue bonds to  pay for capital
projects and the ability to raise  adequate funds  through user charg-
es to residential, commercial  and  industrial users of  its services.
While this could be expected to lead  to manageable increases in sew-
er user  charges,  it is of course  not  the new authority that would
bring about  the need for increased  user charges,  but  rather the need
to stop pollution  and the  violations of  the law.  As set forth in a
recent study by the  Bank  of  Boston, sewer user  charges in the MDC
system currently  are far  below those in  most other areas around the
country.   Because funding levels have been below the  levels necessary
to pay for sewage treatment,  the MDC system has not been properly op-
erated and maintained and  has  not  been expanded and  updated.  Major
metropolitan areas that have  increased sewer charges such as Phila-
delphia have made considerable progress in addressing  their pollution
problems.  The  MDC system, with its low  user charges,  stands out as
among the  systems  that have  made the least progress.

It also  should be emphasized that  a  failure by the  Commonwealth to
address the  pollution problem is not likely to result  in a continu-
ation of the MDC system's  low user  charges.  EPA cannot allow viola-
tions of  federal  law to  continue  and  believes  that it is time  for

-------
                                -3-
the MDC member communities  to accept the responsibility for paying
for the full cost of sewage treatment. EPA  is confident that it  can
prevail in any necessary federal court action.  Moreover, any  delay
in addressing the pollution problem could actually cost the Common-
wealth money.  EPA  is  currently administering a  sewage treatment
grants program, which has already provided  almost $1  1/4 billion to
Massachusetts projects and which is  available  to help fund the  clean
up of Boston Harbor. But this grants program cannot  do the job  alone
and will not be continued forever.   Should the Commonwealth delay in
creating the administrative  structure  and  funding mechanism needed
to address  the Boston  Harbor pollution  problem,  the  Boston  area
could end up building its new  treatment facilities after the federal
program expires,  thus being one  of  the few  areas in  the country  re-
quired to build the  treatment facilities  without federal assistance.

In addition, Congress has mandated that sewage treatment grant assis-
tance may not be  given to areas which lack user charges sufficient to
pay for the costs of operation,  maintenance  and  replacement of  their
treatment systems.   It   is becoming  increasingly  apparent that  the
MDC system lacks sufficient user charges, placing continued federal
assistance to  the MDC and its member municipalities  in jeopardy.  In
a similar situation, EPA-this past  year  cut off grant  assistance to
the five communities in the South Essex Sewerage District until they
agreed to pay  for the full cost  of  sewage treatment.

I call upon  the  Legislature  to  act  on H. 5915 as a matter of  great
urgency.  A full-scale effort to clean up the Harbor is long overdue.
Moreover, if new  legislation is not adopted, the pollution problem
could actually get worse as funding  restrictions lead to further ser-
vice cutbacks  and breakdowns.   None of  us  should  sit back  as this
major pollution  problem remains unaddressed  and  violations  of  the
law continue.

Sincerely,
Michael R. Deland
Regional Administrator

cc:  The Honorable Michael  S. Dukakis
     Secretary James S. Hoyte

-------
                                      8 i^akewwod Drive
                                       iedfield, K.ass. , 02052
                                      May  20,  1984


Dear EPA,
     I would like to comment on the proposed site options
for wastewater facilities in Boston Harbor.
     I feel the existing facilities should be  rehabilitated
and upgraded to advanced primary with decreased flow; that
several satellite facilities should be constructed and that
all outfalls be designed for deep ocean.
     Serious consideration  should be given to  decreasing the
amount of inflow to the Nut and Deer Island facilities, by
removing several towns from the sewerage system.  The towns
hosting the Southern System of the MDC are closely surround-
ed by towns with existing wastewater facilities.  Several of •
these towns could be joined to nearby plants;  such as Hingham
to Hull, Weymouth to Rockland, Walpole to  Abington.  There
are not as many facilities  on the North Shore.  This is
where two or three secondary satellite facilities could
be utilized, not exclusive  to the Northern Line but
involving such large areas  as Framinham and Natick.
     If the burden of the present facilities at Nut and
Deer Islands were decreased, they would be able to deal with
wet weather flows more easily.
     Satellite facilites, although costly, are the best way
to stop polluting Boston Harbor.  Towns that are not on the
MDC system have developed sound methods of constructing and
maintaining their plants.  With the proposed change of the
Water and Sewerage Divisions of the MDC, this  is the time
that alltowns and communities be responsible and accountable
for their waste.
     I firmly believe that  there should not be future growth
of wastewater facilities in Boston Harbor, particularily at
Long Island.  The Harbor cannot tolerate any more pollution,
adding more poor quality effluent will only add insult to
injury.
     Upgraded primary with  decreased flow  and  secondary
satellite facilities will help to insure health to ourselves,
marine life and our water.
     Thank you for your consideration.
                                Sincerely,   _^
                                 '' J^l ^7-^-*  L1 S/^c^--^
                                  /
                                 Frances H. Tosches

-------
                UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL *RO , ECTION AGENCY
Honorable Raymond Flynn                        4-^
Mayor of Boston
City Hall
Boston, Massachusetts 02108

Dear Mayor Flynni

EPA, Region I, has undertaken the preparation of an Environmental  Impact
Statement for wastewater treatment facilities proposed by the MDC
in Boston Harbor.  This environmental review is currently examining
eight final options out of eighteen that were initially proposed to
determine a preferred alternative for treatment plant siting.   The
remaining options being evaluated involve facilities to be sited at
either Deer Island, Long Island or Nut Island.

While we recognize the very serious concerns and potentially adverse
impacts of proposed siting at Long Island, it is EPA's mandate  to  fairly
and fully examine the comparative impacts and benefits at each  of  the
proposed sites.  Such an analysis will serve to establish the factual
basis for & comparison of impacts at Long Island and the other  sites,
as well as provide a basis to evaluate associated siting issues of
concern to the City such as elements involving Long Island Hospital,
the bridge, or the Deer Island House of Correction.  Because of
the previous City administration's opposition to any such facility
siting at Long Island, current data on Long Island  is least adequate
and not up to date.

In order to facilitate this analysis within the time frame established
by EPA and the State (EOEA) I am requesting your assistance to  give
our consultants and staff access to Long Island and to  information that
may be available from various City Departments.  A  list of these data
and access needs is attached.  If possible, we would like to initiate
this site access and Information  review within the next two weeks in
order to meet our established deadlines.

I look forward to meeting with you on April 12, 1984, and I appreciate
your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely yours,
Michael R. Deland
         Administrator

-------
                         List of Data Needs


1.  Authorization to conduct preliminary site analysis on Long
Island.  This will entail site visits by small groups of EPA
staff and consultants to view the areas on the island including
the hospital grounds, take soil samples, and inventory the
island's features.  Such visits would be during daylight hours
and would not disrupt any of the island's present uses or ac-
tivities.  We anticipate approximately six visits over the next
two months to accomplish the variety of site viewing and analysis
tasks.

2.  Access to information prepared by other City Departments re-
garding elements of Long Island's or Deer Island's use.  The
following are key pieces of such information:

    a.  Inspection of Long Island Bridge—information received
frorc Paul Donahue of the Public Facilities Department (725-4862)
indicates that an inspection of the Long Island Bridge was to be
carried out by a contractor to the Cityj  any information obtained
to date would be helpful to the EI6 review.

    b.  Studies of reuse of Long Island—any studies involving
reuse or relocation of hospital services and facilities for both
short-term and long-range time frame.

    c.  Studies of reuse of DI House of Correction--information
received from Peter Scarpignato, Public Facilities Department,
indicates that rehabilitation and/or rebuilding of the prison is
pending availability of  funds.  Any feasibility studies or other
assessments are requested, including studies of possible reloca-
tion of the prison.

    d.  Recreational uses of Long Island—any plans by the City
to develop the Island's  recreational uses would assist in broad-
ening our analysis of the site.  We already have incorporated
State recreational plans.

    e.  Other development plans—any other plans to develop  the
island for corrjnercial or residential uses would be useful in
establishing the sites future potential.

-------


THOVAS F. BROWNELL,
 A; ST. MAJORITY LEADER
 2^3 NORFOLK DISTRICT
   15 MORELAND ROAD
   QUINCY. MA O2169
   OFFICE - 722-243O
           on
      taxation
    Transportation
       Ruloi

ROOM E36. STATE HOUSE
   BOSTON, MASS.
    TO:   BARRY LAWSON  ASSOCIATES
    FROM:   LARRY CHRETIEN, AIDE TO REP.  THOMAS F. BROWMELL
    SUBJECT:   MITIGATION MEASURES FOR SDEIS
    DATE:   APRIL  5, 1984
          The mitigation  measures we  now recommend relate  heavily to  those that we outlined
    in our statement for the public  meeting in January.  You might want to refer to  that
    letter, dated January 18th.   Other ideas we have  have  grown out  01  subsequent  discussions
    and  study, including  that of  the CAC meeting on  April 3rd.
          First and  foremost, we are in favor  of  secondary  option  la and primary option 4a.  1.
    Under these  options  we recognize the impacts on  Winthrop and the need lor mitigation.
    Consequently, we  recommend that  the following actions  be taken:
    1.  A moratorium  must  be  continued on  expansion of the district.
    2.  Host communities should not be assessed  sewer  charges.  In fact, they  should  be
    financially compensated  for carrying  the burden  of hosting  wastewater treatment facilities.
    A community with a secondary  facility would  receive the most, a community with a
    headworks  would receive a lesser  amount.
    3. The Metropolitan Water and Sewer Authority must be established.  Without  the promise
    of depoliticization and  sufficient funding,  host communities still would have to expect
    dangers due to  inadequate  pre-treatment and  excessive  wastewater flows from 1/1  and CSO's.
          This office  has filed the  legislation  necessary to carry out those proposals.

-------
      Iii terms of on-site  mitigation at  Deer Island, we o::cr  these  suggestions:



1.   It's doubtful that the prison could ever be  moved, but it  snouJd be looked into and a




judgement should be made prior to the facilities  siting.




2.   During construction barge  in materials  and  bus in  workers.   Any large vehicle movements




on the streets of Winthrop  should  be  scheduled around the need tor public saiety.  it




necessary, a  policy escort should be provided.




3.   Substitute sodium hydrochlorite or another  means ot dismtection lor cnlormation.




Regardless of the  cost, chlorination is not  acceptable.




4.   Provide  State  of the  art  odor  and noise control equipment.




5.   Provide  a considerable degree  of  aesthetic  improvements, sucn  as  landscaping.




      ^Frankly, we  have not had the  time to  do an exhaustive study ol possibilities  tor




mitigation.   But we do support  any well-reasoned  proposal to alleviate local  impacts.




Costs of  maintaining public  safety, water quality  and  the  like should be internalized into




the sewer assessments.  We shouldn't  sacrifice  n  eighborhoods  or environmental quality tor




the sake  of  cutting budgetary corners.  We should pay the price tor  wnatever is necessary.




It  is  the  obligation  of  the MDC (MWSA), the Commonwealth  and the  hPA to determine




exactly what  is necessary.   But we do appreciate these efforts  to  include citizens and




elected officials in  the planning process.  If you  have any questions or comments about




our position, please feel  free  to call  us at 722-2430.

-------
                               ff
                                 of ^Zui
                                 f
                                  OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
FRANCIS X. MCCAULEY
April 3
                                                     1984
               Hon.  James S. Hoyte,  Secretary
               Executive Office of Environmental  Affairs-
               100 Cambridge Street
               Boston, MA 02202
               Dear Secretary Hoyte:

               I wish to express our  appreciation for the attention
               given by the Boston  Harbor  Quality Committee to the
               presentation by our  representatives on Wednesday,
               March 21, 1984, and  to  assure  you their statements,
               including those concerning  priorities, -are reflective
               of my position.  We  regret  we  had not better under-
               stood the format for  this meeting or what was expected
               of the City.

               In addition to the points made in the statement offered
               by Mr. Colton, a copy  of which is attached, the City
               reiterates its statements previously given either at
               open forums or in communications to you, a'nd the observa1
               tions which were made  at the  aforesaid meeting by its
               representatives are  set forth  in the attached "position
               paper ."  I anticipate  you  will  assure its distribution
               to the Committee.
                                            Sincerely,
Francis
Mayor
                                                    X. McCauley

-------
                                      March  ZL  1984


                         Boston  Harbor Water Quality
                       Position Paper on Facility  Siting
           Presented to the Boston Harbor Water Quality Committee


    A n;ajor objective of any prograiv,,  an  absolute minimum requirement for any

facility,  must be that it is a good neighbor.  This means an environmentally and

aesthetically sensitive design, a facility that not only meets the test of long-term

operability  but  is as  redundant as necessary to ensure  compatability ,  and a bud-

getary commitment and management structure which  assures those goals can be

attained  and maintained.  It means also a  commitment to continued vigilance by

oversight agencies and a determination to take vigorous enforcement  action where

ntedcid ;  a dedication to prompt and effective actions to protect  th« rights of

neighbors and the quality of the environment and to assure that agreements and

stipulations are rigorously honored.

     It is not our intention or wish that environmental problems  be  "dumped" on

some one or other  location or group of people. However,  it must be  recognized

that a metropolitan sewage treatment facility is inescapably industrial in  nature,

and must be operated continuously.   It represents a dedication of a substantial

tract of land to that  function; it will be visible; it must be serviced.  It  is also

absolutely  essential that the current MDC facilities be upgraded and  replaced on

a  most expeditious schedule.  Strong and careful consideration  must  be given  to

land-use impacts of any siting decision.

     The siting  decision must provide for  an efficient arrangement.  The sensible

requirement for cost-effectiveness should,  of course, include the requirement

for  public health protection and  recognize potential social and aesthetic  impacts,

as well as  addressing water quality goals and standards.  Certainly,  any impacts

during construction  and demolition of facilities which are unavoidable'or cannot

successfully  bo mitigated must both be factored  into the siting decision  and be

compensated for.

-------
Page 2






    \Ye recognize that the preliminary assessment and  estimates of impacts, benefits,




and costs that are presently before us are subject to considerable refinement.  Some,




will, of course,  remain subjective or intangible but are nevertheless important -  it




is  the task of your Committee in part to weigh such  factors.  Nevertheless, we




firmly  beli- ve some facts and considerations will not change.   It is clear that Nut




Island cannot support a~ddit'ional facilities, and that any facility at that location will



be the most proximate to habitation and have the most difficult (and impacting)




land access.  Combined facilities on  De^er Island will have  significantly lower capital




and operating cost,  and present the most efficient operational and management




situation, of all the  options available.  This option  minimizes  the number of facilities




that must be managed, operated, and maintained.  It takes maximum advantage of




existing  facilities, especially  pumping stations and  tunnels, and requires only a




new conduit  from  Nut Island.   It limits  the volume of and distance over which liquids




must be  pumped.  The extended outfall length  is minimized.




    None of the proposed siting options would have any significant direct environ-




mental, aesthetic, or construction impact  on the  City of Boston (save, possibly,




for the impact of construction staging facilities common to each).  In our opinion,




therefore, potential economic benefits to that City should not  weigh in the  decision




process.  When comparing Deer Island and Nut  Island, it must be recognized that




both Deer Island and Nut Island under any option will always have at least a




"headwords" facility; that demolition and removal of facilities  abandoned at either




Deer or  Nut  Island will  be required along with restoration of the sites; that the




recreational  and public  use potential and  value of Deer Island, even with extensive




renovation, can never approach that of Long Island at its current state. Further,




in the absence of a clear, workable, funded commitment to the contrary, the decision




process  cannot  assume the relocation of any Boston facilities  currently in use on




eiLher island.

-------
.'•'<£ rch.J', 1984
Page  3


    Further,  it is regrettably clear that any treatment vsorks  must have an emer-

gency bypass which  will  function to protect both  "upstream" areas and the facility

itself, under  loss-of-power  situations amonq others.  (Major efforts and facilities

must  be incorporated to  reduce this potential need, of course.)  The facility

must  be so  located and constructed as to discharge untreated  wastes under those

conditions to the location which will minimize impacts.  Deer Island and the Pres-

 ident Roads channel best meet this requirement, and  are perhaps  the only locations

which do.  We consider this to be a significant  factor in the analysis of environmental

and public  health impacts, given our past experience with  Nut Island.

     It is our position that use of Harbor islands for treatment of wastewaters from

the metropolitan area is  an  undesirable  use of those lands  which  has evolved  from

 practices, priorities, and commitments  of the past.  We believe that any further

expansion of the contributing system must  not  increase flows  to harbor facilities

 which would  necessitate any increases in their capacities, increase the probablity of

 overflows or bypass, or reduce the effectiveness of treatment.  We  also believe that

 additional areas of these islands need not be used for management or disposal  of

 sludge, and  insist that other locations  of lesser public value be utilized for that purpose

      In summary, we believe a factual and comprehensive analysis, evaluation,  and

 weighing of all  relevant factors will establish that combining all facilities  on Deer

 Island is far and away the  most appropriate resolution.  Upon reaching that conclusion,

 it would then be very appropriate, in fact mandatory, to provide compensatory  mit-

 igation  to residents and the Town  of Winthrop.  Even though the facility  must not

 create odor, noise,  water pollution,  significant aesthetic impacts, or traffic impacts

 under normal conditions  in  Winthrop, its presence still will have unavoidable effects.

 The  City pledges its vigorous support to that  Town  in this matter.

-------
             UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Honorable Francis X. McCauley
Office of the Mayor
City Hall
Cuincy, Massachusetts  02169

Dear Mayor KcCauley:

Thank you for your letter of March 1, 1984, expressing concern
relative to the use of Long Island as a site  for sn MDC waste-
water treatment facility to serve the metropolitan area.

EPA and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts are jointly preparing
an Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report
(EIS/EIR) on the siting of wastewater treatment facilities in
Boston Harbor.  The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
process requires that EPA's EIS evaluate all  feasible alternatives
en siting wastewater treatment facilities before a final recom-
mendation is made.  The evaluation of the eight remaining options
for Deer Island, Nut Island, and Long Island  will take into  con-
sideration all social, technical, economic, environmental, legal
and institutional factors.  Once this information is available
and carefully analyzed, I believe EPA and the Commonwealth will be
in a position to make a final recommendation.  To foreclose  Long
Island options at this stage in the  process is premature and unfair
to the concerns expressed by the Town of Winthrop.

I thank you for your interest regarding Long  Island, and I welcome
the opportunity to meet with you to  discuss issues and concerns
pertaining to locating wastewater treatment facilities on either
Long or Nut Island.  I can assure you that your concerns will be
given special attention in our EIS analysis.
Sincerely yours,
Michael R. Deland
Regional Administrator

-------
IS X V.CCAULEY
                                  OFFICE OF 7-E
                                   March 1,  19b4
         Kir.  Michael Del and
         Regional  Admlnlstrstor
         U.  S.  Environmental Protection Agency
         J.  F.  Kennedy Building
         Government Center
         Boston, MA
         Dear Mr. Del and:
         We have learned, indirectly and to our considerable concern, of a
         recent preliminary decision ot yours concerning tne Boston Harbor
         SDLIS.  We understand that despite the urcings of lity ana Stole,
         despite the fiscal realities, you are opting for continued considera-
         tion ot Long Island as a site for primary or secondary treatment of
         M.D.I', sewage.    Ihis would represent support for violation of the
         environment of Long Island, for permanent interference with its
         extraordinary recreational and open-space potential, tor newiy
         impacting tne Squantum area, and tor needlessly squandering capital
         resources of the region -- a further and pointless taxation of tne
         people JT the area.  You risk extending and refocusing the contro-
         versy over facilities siting, and render any sludge management optior
         less attractive.

         ,1 strongly urge you at tnis time to face the hard choices, to  limit
         tne options to tnose both feasible and reasonable, and get on with
         tne task of cleaning up the harbor.
                                    Sincerely,
                                    Francis  X.  McCauley
                                    Mayor
          FXM:jr
          CC:Commr.  Anderson

-------
 >J*
*" Ei Jtt  '£
       I      UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
  '                              REGION I
               J. F. KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING. BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02203
February 22, 1984

Mr. Robert Noonan, Chairman
Winthrop Board of Selectman
Winthrop Town Hall
Winthrop, MA

Dear Mr. Noonan:

Re:  Screening of Alternatives for Further Study  in  SDEIS

As I had promised at the Public Information Meeting  on  the Supple-
mental Draft EIS  in Winthrop on January 19, 1984,  I  have given a
thorough evaluation of C.E. Maguire's recommendations to EPA regard-
ing the  final set of alternatives that the SDEIS  will  include for
further  study.  Based on my own evaluation of the  consultant's work
and based on the  citizen input received during the public comment
period,  I have reached some conclusions that I would like to
communicate to you.

First, the  SDEIS will evaluate alternatives 2b.l  and 5b.2.  These
options, as you know, place all treatment works for  either a pri-
mary or  secondary level of treatment on Long Island, converting
both the present  Deer Island and Nut Island sites  to headworks
facilities.  I have directed our consultants to include these
alternatives for further study in the SDEIS and to give them full
and equal attention with the other alternatives recommended for
further  evaluation.  These alternatives clearly would provide a
benefit  to  the Town of Winthrop.

The second  thought that I would like to convey to your  community
is that  any of the alternatives for long-range planning will not
be implemented for at least 10 years.  In the meantime, immediate
improvements are absolutely necessary to alleviate the  most critical
chronic  problems which have plagued the Deer Island  treatment plant.
EPA will participate in the funding of the Fast-Track  Improvements
and fully supports the concept of immediate improvement to both the
Nut and  Deer Island treatment plants.  Improvements  to  the Deer Is-
land facility will increase the reliability of the plant and thereby
reduce sewage overflows to Boston Harbor.

-------
                               -2-
Eowever, it must be noted our agency's support of the Fast-Track
Improvements will not foreclose any of the long-term options
being considered in the SDEIS.  We view the Fast-Track Program
as essential for improvements to water quality and as necessary
to provide reliable primary treatment for the intervening period
before any long-range solutions for Boston Harbor are implemented

I urge you to continue to support both the current evaluations
being performed under the SDEIS and the Fast-Track Improvement
Program.  If you have any further questions or concerns, please
feel free to contact Bob Mendoza of my staff at (617) 223-3916.

Sincerely yours,
Michael R. Deland
Regional Administrator

cc:  James Hoyte,  Secretary of Environmental Affairs
     William  Geary,  Commissioner, MDC
     Russell  Hughes,  Town  of Winthrop

-------
                                 FROM
              SOUTH SHORE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

   P.O. Box 488   36 Miller Stile Road  Quincy. MA 02269  479-1111

   Contact     Terry N. Fancher,  Manager                 Home
             Community  Development

   For Release  Immediate
                     SOUTH  SHORE CHAMBER OF  COMMERCE
               TAKES  FORMAL POSITION ON  WASTE  WATER SITING


     The South Shore  Chamber of Commerce has voted  unanimously  to support
City of Quincy officials  on the siting of Waste  Water  Treatment facilities.

     The Chamber Board of Directors  has  voted  to give  its support: behind
what is commonly known as option 4A2.  That  option  would provide for the
conversion of the present primary treatment  plant at Nut Island to a
pumping station.  The p.!an,  according to Community  Development  Vice-Presiden
Warren Noble  "provides for  construction  of a headworks on Nut Island,  an
underwater pipe to take the sewage to Deer Island,  a new primary treatment
plant at Deer Island  and  a  deep ocean outfall  between  10 and 12 miles  long
for the discharge from the  Deer Island Plant."

     Noble says "while it would be nice  if the problem would just go away,
it's a problem that impacts everyone along the South Shore  coast and time
is running out to do  something about it." Noble goes  on to say "option
4A2 represents the best of  the Limited options available to us."

     Three months ago there were over 20 option  plans  being considered.
A month ago those options were narrowed  to six.  Noble explains, "although
the Chamber Board did consider option 1A which would have provided for
secondary treatment at Deer Island instead of  a  deep ocean  outfall,  it was
our opinion that it would provide too much of  a  negative impact on the town
of Winthrop,  and would have less chance  of approval in the  long run."

     The Environmental Protection Agency, the  Metropolitan  District
Commission and local  groups have all been working to come up with a long
term solution to the  problem of waste water  treatment. The cost for
option 4A2 is estimated to  be 760 million dollars.

-------
ANTHONY D. CORTESE, Sc. D.
       Commissioner
                  -L>ena.'*£??ve!n£ of (bmn
                     '           '
Jf/lnJe*
                                                        021 '08
                                             January  9,  1984
Walter Newman, Acting Chief
Environmental Evaluation  Section
Environmental Protection  Agency
O.F.K. Building
Boston, Ma  02203
            Re:  MDC
                 SDEIS, Siting of
                 Wastewater Treatment
                 Faci1ities
Dear Mr. Newman:

     In response  to  your  request,  the Department  of  Environmental  Quality
Engineering,  Division  of  Water  Pollution Control  submits  the  following
documentation  in  support  of your  tentative determination  to  maintain  pri
mary treatment  facilities for  North  System flows  at  Deer  Island.   As  has
been stated  previously by personnel  from DEQE,  our  Agency was extremely
concerned  about EPA's  initial  inclusion of SDEIS  Options  2b.l,  5b.l  1 5b.2
which provide  for the  construction of treatment facilities on Long Island
with the elimi nation of all treatment works at  Deer  Island.   Our  major  con-
cerns are  as  follows:

     1)  DEQE  and MDC  are developing a phased program for fast  tracking
over $37 million  federal  dollars  worth of critical  construction work  for
the Deer Island Wastewater Treatment Facility (1.2  million federal dollars
of which is  contained  on  the State's FY 84 Construction Grants  Priority
List and the remaining to be included on the FY 85  and 86 lists).   This
work consists  of  immediately needed  improvements  to  the facility such as;
power distribution,  sludge thickeners, pump station/power supply,  disinfec-
tion system,  remote  headworks  renovations and odor  control.   The construc-
tion timing  for Phases 1  and 2 of this work would extend over a lj year
period  and would  not be completed until approximately January 1987.   One
major part of  this work is the electrification  of the Deer Island Pump
Station which  includes the laying of a trans-harbor  powercable by Boston
Edison  (at their  cost).  Boston Edison plans to recoup the cost for this
work through long-term power charges to the MDC.    Boston Edison has
already  indicated to MDC  and their consultant that  they do not intend to
proceed with the  necessary environmental and alternative  analyses for -the
cable  laying until they have received commitments from both  the MDC and
DEOE that  the long-term plan is to electrify Deer Island  and that arant or

-------
waiter Newman, Acting Chief
Environmental Evaluation Section
Environmental Protection Agency
Page 2
                    January 9,  1984
state monies are available  to  the  MDC  for  reconstruction  of  the  pump  sta-
tion.  DEQE has recently met with  the  MDC  to  develop  a  strategy  to  provide
Boston Edison with these commitments.   If  the long-term treatment plan
not include a major power user  at  Deer  Island,  Boston Edison
tainly rethink their plan for  laying the multimillion dollar
delay of six months by Boston  Edison for initiation  of  the
and alternative studies could  cause  the fast-track program
beyond our target dates for funding  of  this  project.
need for a MEPA filing by Boston Edison on  the  cable
bable requirement of  an
FNSI for the fast-track
EIR and incorporation
projects.
                                               does
                                     would cer-
                                     cable.  Even a
                                   environmental
                                   to be delayed
                              This is due to the
                             laying with its pro-
of that document into DEQE's
     2)  The residents  in  Winthrop  who  have  attended  the  various  Deer  Island
Fast-track hearings held by  MDC  are opposing  certain  portions  of  the pro-
ject, in particular the temporary wharf,  to  ensure  that  no  new project  will
be constructed  at  Deer  Island  which will  impact  the possible  revision  of
Deer Island to  a headworks facility.  Therefore,  the  longer the possibility
exists for turning Deer Island into a headworks,  the  more difficult  it  will
be for MDC, DEQE,  and EPA  to adequately upgrade  the treatment  facilities.

     The turning of Deer Island  into  a  headworks  facility after making  the fast
track and/or sludge improvements would  only  allow for the use  of  these  $40 and
$80 million facilities  for seven years  in the case  of fast  track  and four years
for sludge incineration.   This assumes  completion of  Phase  1  and  2 fast
track facilities in January  1987, sludge inc'eration in January 1990  and
full treatment  facilities  in January  1994.

     3)  Not only  could the  $40  million for  the  Deer  Island Immediate  Upgrade
be jeopardized, but the planned  sludge  management program at  Deer Island  ($80
million for primary sludge incinerators) would'be severely  impacted  if  the
possibility exists for  relocation of  the primary treatment  plant.

     4)  If EPA indeed  planned to examine the feasibility of  removing  all
treatment facilities  from  Deer Island,  the  EIS should be expanded to exa-
mine alternative tunnel arrangements  from the three existing  main headworks
facilities and  the possibility of completely reconstructing and redirecting
system flows between  the North and  South Systems.  This  would require  that
all existing MDC,  BWSC  and Winthrop sewer projects  be held  in abeyance
until such an  analysis  is  completed.  This  certainly would  add significant
delays to the  siting  process but would  be the only  logical  action to take
since the entire backbone  of the MDC  system would be called into question.

-------
Environmental Evaluation Section
Environmental Protection Agency
Paqe 3
                                            o ;' i J c'
     Therefore, DEQE strongly supports EPA's tentative determination not to
include alternatives which would examine the removal of primary treatment
from Deer  Island.
TCM/SGL/bd
                                            Very tru ly yours ,
Thomas C.
Director
 cc:   David  Fierra,  EPA
      Noel Baratta,  EPA
      Marjorie,  O'Malley,  EOEA
      Steven Lipman,  DEQE
      Commissioner  Anthony D. Cortese,  Sc.  D.,  DEQE
      Commissioner  William J. Geary,  MDC
                                                      McMahon,

-------
                          e
                                     400
       *>y
•,!CKAE'_ S. DUtCAKIS
    GOVERNOR

 JAN':ES S. HOYTE
    SECRETARY

                                                      &  02202
Michael Deland,  Regional  Administrator
Environmental  Protection  Agency
J.F.K. Building
Boston, Ma  02203
                                                   January 9, 1334
                                                   Re:  KDC
                                                        SDEIS, Siting of
                                                        Facilities  Treatment
       Attn:   Walter  Newman,  Environmental Evaluation Section
       Dear  Mr.  Deland:

            In  response  to  your  request,  the Executive Office cf  Environmental
       Affairs  (EOEA)  submits  the  following documentation detailing the extent and
       nature of work  being performed  by  my Agency which complements and supports
       the ongoing  Site  Option EIS.

            I)   MDC Reorganization -
end
                I  have officially requested  that Governor  Michael  Dukakis support
            ile legislation  for  the formation  of an  independent  Metropolitan Water
       and Sewer Authority.   My  Agency  is  currently  drafting  ths basic legislative
       documents and one major  aspect of  the plan  will  be  to  provide the new
       Agency with the financial  end administrative  capability to  issue Revenue
       bonds  end develop a  staffing and  budgetary  plan  based  upon  providing ade-
       quate  OS.M monies and  personnel to  ensure  the  necessary preventive main-
       tenance for all  existing  and proposed treatment  and transmission
       feci lities .
            In order to  ensure  the proper  development  of  this  Authority I have
       retained the Bank of Boston to  develop  the  financial  plan  for the Authority.
       It is anticipated that the Authority  will begin  transition operation on  July
       1, 1934 and be completely independent by January 1935.

-------
     2)  MDC Staffing -

     Consultants for the MDC  have  recently completed staffing  plans for
both the Deer and Nut Island  Treatment  Facilities.  The plans  call for
increasing staffing at Deer Island by  93  people over its  current labor
force and Nut Island by 11.  This  additional staff ing'will  allow the MDC  to
institute the needed preventive maintenance  plans for both  facilities and
should significantly increase the  reliability  and efficiency of the plants.
I have requested funding for  an additional 142 people for  the  MDC Sewer
Division in a FY 84 Supplemental  Budget Request and have  been  assured that
the positions will-be funded.

     3)  The Department of Environmental  Quality  Engineering (DEQE) has
filed  legislation to provide  S100  million for  a Grants Program to fund up to
90% of the cost of Infiltration/Inflow  (I/I) Reduction by the  HOC end its
member municipalties.  If passed,  this  would provide my Agency with the
necessary monies to  institute innovative  tecnhiques of I/I  reduction and
this will complement the overall  Boston Harbor Cleen-up/'-'DC Infrastructure
P lans.~

     4)  The MDC and DEQE  are' developing  a sequencing end irnpl ementstion
plan for the design  and construction of the  thirty  additional  Combined
Sewer  Overflow  (CSO) Projects which exist in the  sewer systems serving the
Municipalities  of Boston, Chelsea, Cambridge,  Somervi1les  and-Brook!ine.
Concurrently the MDC and DEQE are  completing the  design  and associated
environmental reviews for  three additional  BWSC CSO's which discharge onto
MDC Beaches  and will be applying for funding from EPA -  'Washington through
e Special Marine CSO Appropriation.

     5)  MDC, DEQE,  and EPA  are attempting to  develop en  integrated sludge
management  plan so  that the  existing method  of  harbor disposal of digested
sludge on outgoing  tides can be eliminated.  E-xtensive personnel  effort  and
monies are  currently being allocated to this project  enc  it is planned  to
 integrate the various sludge treatment proposals  under review  into the
oncoing  siting  cpertions being developed  tnrough  this EIS process.   In  addi-
tion,  MDC has recently  initiated construction  on  a  SI.5  million  pilot
 demonstration compost facility at Deer Island.

     6)   MDC has retained  e  consultant tc perform a hydraulic  analysis  of
the  BWSC Calf Pasture Pumping Station  anci the  currently  Ebandoned Poon
 Island Holding  Tanks to determine potential  utilization  of  the facility  to
reduce periodic  bypasses of  partially  treated  sewage  to  Inner  Harbor  Areas.

     7)  The BWSC  has  recently installed  chlorinetion facilities at  their
Calf Pasture Pumping Station to ensure that ell  dry weather" sewage  flows
 through  Moon Island  are chlorinated prior tc discharge  into the  Harbor.   The
MDC  reimburses  the  Bv.'SC for  all chlorine  utilized at  this  fecility-

     8)  EOEA is  in  the -process of deve'cpinc  e three-ye = r  environmental
".-.i tor inc  plan  for  Bostor> Barber which  .•": , . incluce  .vater  cclu^.r.  ^~c~'~°r: +
 ;r,c  fish  tissue  analyses throughout the  'c-:cr.   T.-.e  r..: -• -; :cr inc  p •-c, c *• e ^
                                              1" • - c ^ '- - '-    >• r. c  0 n c c i r c c i 6 a r; -
e;!c..-   v -r.

-------
     9;  CEQE has been and is  continuinc  to  take  c  . e~'-  active role ~-r
cevE i cp' nc en integrated sewer management pier;  for  tne  entire KDC se^er
system  and as a part of that  plan  Is  strongly  persuing  I/I
reduction and rehabilitation in member communities.   All  member cormrjnities
have eitner already initiated  I/I  programs  or  have  been  Informed in writing
by the Division of Water Pollution  Control  that they are being required  to
initiate the subject work.  DEQE is also  forming  en  interdisipl inary
Techn'ncal Adivsory Group to work with  the Agency  to  develop  an integrated
plan of action.  DEQE has also convinced  EPA to hold a  regional two-day
Seminar in Boston during March titled  New Concepts  in  I/I  Rehabilitation  to
which all KDC communities will be invited to participate.   As a necessary
adjunct to this I/I work, MDC  has  retained  Black  and Veatch  to examine the
revisions to the MDC ' s assessment procedures so that surcharges might be
placed upon municipalities discharging excessive  I/I into  the MDC Sewer
System.

    10)  301(h) Waiver - EOEA  has  established  an  independent technical peer
review committee with representatives  of  environmental  c-oups end severe!
experts in various disciplines to assist  the state  in  reviewing the plan  of
study for the waiver reeppl ication  end in reviewing  work tasks as they are
completed.

    II )  Many of the initiatives I  have outlined  move  the  state forward  in
cleaning up Boston Harbor.  We are  taking the  initiative on  many fronts  and
need to gain a level of consensus on these  actions.   I  rr.jst  point out
however, that many of our efforts  ere  expensive and  we  are looking for the
federal government for increased funding.  We  have  begun to  work with the
congressional delegation to lobby for  increased levels  of  funding to clean-
up Boston Harbor.  We hope the federal government will  back-up its verbal
commitments to clean-up Boston Harbor  with  the  financial  commitment to carry
it out.

     The above listing is by no means  a complete  compilation of ongoing
work by EOEA Agencies regarding Boston Harbor/HDC ,  but  should provide your
Agency with a reasonable idea  of the extent  of  ongoing  work:  and our level
of commitment to ensuring en integrated,  complete and  imp lamentable clean-
up program.
                                                    y  truly yours,
                                                       S.  Hoyte'
                                                 Secretary
Jri/bd

cc:  Commissioner Anthony C. Cortese, Sc .  D. ,  DEQE
     Commissioner Willie" J. Geary, KDC
     '.' - .----- -  r, t > - ~] ^ <,  r ^  '

-------
                            TOWN  OF  WINTHRO!
ROBERT E. NOONAN, Chairman
ROBERT A. DE LEO
RONALD V VECCHIA

MARIE T. TURNER, Secretary
     TOWN HALL
WINTHROP, MASS. 02152
       846-1077
                                    OFFICE OF THE
                               BOARD OF SELECTMEN
                                                  November  30,  1983
     Mr.  Michael R.  Deland, Administrator
     U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
     John  F.  Kennedy Federal  Building
     Room 2203
     Boston,  Massachusetts 02133

     Dear  Mr.  DeIan d:

           The Winthrop Board  of Selectmen  have reviewed  the letter  of
     November 1, 1983 of  the  Special  Commission on  the  Development  of
     Boston Harbor,  signed by Joseph  P.  Walsh, Chairman.

           We  are concerned that a Commission such as  this can  take  a
     vote on  such  an important issue  with  no communication with  an
     impacted community.  We  are not  aware of the makeup  and membership
     of  this  Commission,  and  would appreciate receiving this information,
     in  order that we may make them aware  of the problems experienced
     in  this  Community as  the result  of  the location  of the treatment
     plant at Deer Island.

           As  you know, the Town of Winthrop has gone  on record  numerous
     times in opposition  to  the Deer  Island location,  and stated our
     firm and we believe  wel1-substantiated belief  that the permanent
     long-range  solution  is  to locate the  facility  on Long Island.

           The Commission  states they  voted to recommend that options
     previously  considered and rejected  ought not  to  be included in
     the EIS.   Our  answer to  this, of course, is  that we feel  Long  Island
     has not  received  sufficient  study  to  warrant  rejection, and should  be
     pursued  as  the long  term solution.

           We  are  also  concerned that  the options  they support  include
     secondary  treatment  at  Deer  Island, to which  we  are unalterably
     opposed.

           We  certainly  agree  with their  wanting  a  true harbor  clean-up
     as  soon  as  possible.   Hopefully, the problem  will be  resolved
     permanently.  We  are  enclosing copy  of  the  position  of  the Board  of
     Selectmen  as  presented  at  the Public Hearing  in  Winthrop  on
      September  29,  1982  relative  to  this matter.   We stand  oh  that  position
     and we  feel  we have  excellent reasons.

-------
                                                     o   -
                                                   Michael R.  Deland.
     We have  led  the fight  for  restoration of  existing facilities
at Deer Island  which have been  allowed to deteriorate so badly,  that
we have suffered  all the accompanying adverse  impacts.

     As a  Board,  this Office  has  put forth more  time and effort  in
this problem  than any other  faced by this community in the past
twenty years  or more.

     The permanent long-range solution to sewage treatment and  the
clean up of Boston Harbor must  be accomplished.   We feel that
permanent  long-range solution is  Long Island,  and that solution
must be given proper study  and  evaluation through your final scope
o f wo rk.

     We are  forwarding  a copy of  this letter  and accompanying
statement  to  the Special Commission on the Development of
Boston  Harbor,  with  the hope  they reconsider  the vote taken
on October 25,  1983, and their  position  that  other suggested
options are  either impractical,  controversial,  or too time consuming.

     The  permanent long-range solution is too  important to be
dismissed  as  "controversial  or  too time-consuming."

     Thank you for your  consideration of  our  position in this
mat ter.

                                 Very truly yours ,

                                 BOARD OF  SELECTMEN
                                 Robert E.  Noonan,  Chairman
                                           -•'.    ^  ^   s '    —r^
                                  Cotfa'ldf V.  Vecchia
CC:
Senator  Joseph B. Walsh
Special  Commission on  the  Development  of  Boston Harbor
State  House - Room 15
Boston,  Massachusetts  02133

-------
                  FINAL  SCOPE OF WORK FOR
          PREPARATION  OF A SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT EIS
  ON BOSTON HARBOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES  SITING
                      OCTOBER 21, 1983
      U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,  REGION I
WATER MANAGEMENT DIVISION, ENVIRONMENTAL  EVALUATION SECTION
               ROOM 2103, JFK FEDERAL BUILDING
                BOSTON,  MASSACHUSETTS   02203

-------
                        FINAL SCOPE OF WORK FOR
              PREPARATION OF A SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT EIS ON
         BOSTON HARBOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES SITING
A.   Introduction and Objectives

EPA, with its consultant, CE Maguire, Inc., is now preparing a Supple-
mental Draft EIS (SDEIS) for proposed wastewater treatment facilities
siting in Boston Harbor.  This EIS is being prepared in cooperation with
the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs and the Massachusetts
Environmental Policy Act Unit (MEPA)  along with other state and federal
agencies.  This Supplemental Draft EIS will also be considered jointly
under the state Environmental Impact Review (EIR) process.  This joint
process will conclude the necessary environmental reviews in a timely
fashion and assure a complete evaluation of the issues involved.

Public participation is also an important element of the EIS/EIR.
Public participation has been applied during the scoping process to
assist EPA and the state in defining the issues of concern to individuals
and groups within the affected communities.  It will continue to provide
important inputs to the study as it proceeds.

This final scope of work is designed to identify the options and issues
which will be evaluated in the Supplemental Draft EIS.  It incorporates
previous environmental reviews and decisions made, and considers current
facilities plans and proposals being developed and implemented by the
MDC.  The final scope of work has been developed after wide ranging
discussions and deliberations incorporating the comments and proposals
made during the series of scoping meetings held jointly by EPA and the
state.  The EIS is intended to provide a full evaluation of the reason-
able alternatives being considered and array the impacts associated with
construction and operation of the proposed MDC wastewater treatment
facilities in order that a siting decision can be made by EPA.

In order that this process can move forward, leading to a commitment of
federal and state funds necessary for construction to commence, it is
necessary that all the project participants, including representatives
of the affected communities, involved agencies, and public at large have
a complete presentation of the complex issues and their resolution
leading to a siting decision.  The Supplemental Draft EIS is intended to
provide such a presentation at its conclusion to assist the federal and
state officials in reaching a final decision.

This Final Scope of Work is further organized into five sections:

-------
     B.   Background Summary
     C.   Scoping Process and Screening of Alternatives
     D.   Proposed Alternatives, Significant Issues and Scoping Comments
     E.   Agency and Public Participation Program
     F.   Appendix:  Figures, Key Agency Comments and Public Issues
          Raised During Scoping

B.   Background Summary

The problems of pollution in Boston Harbor are not new.  They have been
occurring with increasing frequency and have prompted a variety of
local, state and federal agency actions.  These problems include public
health threats to use of beaches and fishing areas, odor and aesthetic
problems, issues of community safety, and impacts upon water quality and
marine life throughout the area of the Harbor influenced by the Deer
Island and Nut Island treatment plants.  These two treatment facilities
operated by the MDC are not the sole causes of the pollution problems in
the Harbor; however, they further exacerbate problems through their
periodic incapacity to treat wastewater flows adequately and chronic
need for repair.

EPA, in cooperation with state agencies, has been evaluating the most
recent alternative treatment proposals put forth by the MDC in order to
reach agreement on an environmentally sound treatment facility and its
location in Boston Harbor.

The following discussion of the past efforts leading up to the present
SDEIS serves to highlight the past work associated with siting of harbor
wastewater treatment facilities.  The related elements of sludge manage-
ment are being considered further by the state and will be incorporated
to the siting to the extent possible.  Attachment 3 graphically portrays
these events in chronological sequence.

Beginning with the first Enforcement Conference in May of 1968, facili-
ties planning for wastewater treatment in Boston Harbor was a coordinated
effort among state, local and federal agencies.  The efforts begun
continued through two additional Enforcement Conferences, organization
of a Boston Harbor Pollution Task Force, a variety of studies, and
agreements between EPA and state agencies responsible for pollution
control and waste treatment.

In 1976, the MDC and its consultants presented a comprehensive plan for
wastewater engineering and management in Boston Harbor for the Eastern
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area (EMMA).  That plan made several recom-
mendations designed to achieve adequate wastewater treatment for the
communities in the EMMA study area and clean water goals for Boston
Harbor and its tributary rivers.  The principal recommendations of this
study were for upgrading the existing primary treatment facilities at
Deer Island and Nut Island to secondary treatment, sludge disposal by
incineration at Deer Island, construction of two advanced waste treat-
ment  (AWT) "satellite" plants on the Charles and Neponset Rivers, and
improvements to the MDC's interceptor sewer system plus alleviation of
combined storm-sewage overflows.

-------
In the following year, EPA Region I began preparation of a Draft EIS
(DEIS) concluded in 1978 to consider and assess the range of environ-
mental impacts associated with those proposed wastewater engineering and
management recommendations made by the MDC in the EMMA Study.  The EIS
focused only on those aspects of the MDC's recommended plan that dealt
with  the transportation, treatment, and ultimate disposal of municipal
wastewaters within the MDC's Metropolitan Sewage District.  The factors
considered by EPA in 1978 were:

1.    Necessary interceptor system modifications;

2.    Environmental and engineering feasibility of advanced secondary
      satellite treatment plants;

3.    Alternative secondary treatment plant sites and treatment facility
      configurations in Boston Harbor;

4.    Wastewater treatment plant effluent discharge locations; and

5.    Alternative methods for treatment and disposal of secondary sludge.

Other wastewater treatment elements of the EMMA Study, including infil-
tration/inflow analysis, combined sewer overflow, and primary sludge
disposal were not considered by EPA in the 1978 DEIS-  These other
elements were considered in separate studies, some of which are currently
underway.

Following the conclusion of the DEIS by EPA, in August of 1978, a public
hearing was held.  The combination of critical comments received from
all sectors, as well as changes in the Clean Water Act allowing appli-
cation for waiver of secondary treatment, resulted in a hiatus in the
review process following the conclusion of the 1978 DEIS.

During this period also, agreement was reached by EPA and MDC to initiate
key facilities planning projects in a segmented fashion in order to
accelerate actions needed to remedy the chronic problems and immediate
upgrade needs of the MDC wastewater treatment facilities.

Also, during this period, following completion of EPA's wastewater
treatment DEIS,  the MDC began its work on a 301(h) waiver application.
This entailed an extensive analysis of water quality in Boston Harbor
including assessment of further treatment facilities elements.

Concurrently, the MDC also developed more detailed wastewater treatment
facilities plans for Boston Harbor, presenting its first phase recommenda-
tions in the Nut Island Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Planning
Project,  Phase I Site Options Study (1982).  This more detailed analysis
and facilities plan by Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. concluded that upgraded
primary treatment at both Deer Island and Nut Island with local outfalls
was both environmentally sound and economically preferred.

-------
A separate Draft and Final Sludge Management HIS were also undertaken by
EPA and concluded in 1979.  This document examined the MDC's proposals
for sludge disposal and confirmed that incineration was the recommended
sludge disposal method.  EPA issued a Record of Decision on sludge
management in 1980 which affirmed the recommendations of the sludge EIS,
but raised several questions to be examined further by MDC.  Subsequently,
MDC issued a Sludge Management Update (1982) report which addressed addi-
tional facilities planning elements as raised by state and federal re-
viewers.  Action on sludge management continues, aimed at answering
further remaining questions on the incineration option, while the state
is formulating its policy on sludge management.  Additional environmental
reviews will be carried out by EPA, if necessary.

Additionally, a series of legal actions and state initiatives were insti-
tuted towards improving the water quality of Boston Harbor and coordinat-
ing the various actions being undertaken by state, federal and local
authorities.  The City of Quincy instituted a lawsuit against the MDC
and other state agencies aimed at eliminating the pollution from the Nut
Island treatment plant to Quincy Bay.  The Conservation Law Foundation
instituted a separate lawsuit against EPA and state agencies aimed at
overall improvements to harbor water quality which identified deficiencies
in administrative and regulatory reviews and decisions that are required.
EPA has also instituted a suit against the MDC which focuses on administra-
tive violations of the existing NPDES permit for discharges from the Nut
Island treatment plant.  The court appointed Special Master in the
Quincy suit submitted his findings of fact in the case and the Court
recently  issued its ruling outlining an agreement for a 10-year plan to
clean up  the harbor.  The schedule for completion of the EIS process
conforms  with this plan.

On a related course is the work of the Sargent Committee empowered by
Governor  Dukakis to examine programs and plans to improve water quality
in Boston Harbor and serve as a central focus for coordinating and
directing efforts aimed at eliminating the problems of the harbor.

Recently  in June, EPA issued a tentative decision denying the MDC's
application for waiver of secondary treatment requirements.  This tenta-
tive finding was based on certain water quality and marine life impacts
at the proposed outfall locations.  The MDC has formally stated to EPA
that it will reexamine those water quality parameters which led to a
denial  and resubmit the application to EPA within one year.

C.   Scoping Process and Screening of Alternatives

A  series  of scoping meetings has been conducted to define the issues and
provide a forum for agency and public comment prior to undertaking
detailed  assessment of impacts of facility siting alternatives.  The
purpose of the Scoping Meetings was to define the issues associated with
the  impacts and alternatives to be analyzed in detail in the SDEIS.
This final scope of work  is being issued for the Supplemental Draft EIS
now  underway, based on the comments received at these meetings from
federal and state agencies, local officials and the public at large.

-------
This scoping document incorporates the alternatives studied by the MDC
and their consultants in the Nut Island Site Options Study (1982)
report.  These alternatives encompass both primary and secondary treat-
ment options at various harbor locations with associated local or deep
ocean outfalls.  Sub-regional treatment options, commonly referred to as
satellite facilities, were previously studied in the EPA Draft EIS
(1978) and will also be analyzed based on the comments received during
scoping.  New alternatives not previously studied were also identified
during the scoping process.  These involve new combinations of treatment
facilities and siting options at Long Island and outer harbor locations.
All of these reasonable choices will be preliminarily analyzed in an
initial assessment and screening in the Supplemental Draft EIS.

As a  first step in the environmental impact assessment, all of the
alternatives will be preliminarily examined in order to screen out those
with  comparatively unacceptable impacts.  This first-tier analysis
is intended to compare the relative impacts of the various options
across a range of key potential impact categories.  These categories
include:

      (a)  Compliance with existing water quality standards and applicable
          state and federal environmental regulations;

      (b)  Land availability and adverse land use/recreational impacts;

      (c)  Adverse community impacts (traffic, noise, odor) and social
          consequences;

      (d)  Economic feasibility:  construction costs and O&M, cost-
          effectiveness, affordability;

      (e)  Engineering feasibility;

      (f)  Institutional constraints;

      (g)  Beneficial impacts;

      (h)  Agency and public comments.

A matrix format will be used to array the above impacts across each of
the alternatives being studied.  Quantifiable values, such as costs,
affordability, and land area will be combined with more subjective
valuations, such as recreational resources, traffic, institutional
constraints, or social impacts.  Relative impact levels will be shown as
either severe, moderate or minimal in order to judge which alternatives
appear to have an unacceptable number of higher impact levels or fewer
mitigation opportunities and therefore should be eliminated from further
consideration.

This  screening process will incorporate the comments of the Technical
Advisory Group and CAC in setting weightings and priorities among cate-
gories of impacts.  State policy as formulated by the current delibera-

-------
tions of the Sargent Committee and the Executive Office of Environmental
Affairs will also be factored into this screening process as it is
developed during the SDEIS analysis.

As the analysis proceeds and the screening process is further applied to
evaluate alternatives and continue to narrow the number of options for
further more detailed study, a final set of reasonable and affordable
alternatives will be developed whose environmental consequences can then
be fully evaluated.  This process will lead eventually to the selection
of a preferred alternative  (both primary and secondary) whose impacts
can be shown in order to reach a final siting decision.

D.   Wastewater Treatment Alternatives and Significant Issues

Wastewater Treatment Alternatives

MDC's previous engineering  studies  (Nut Island Site Options Study, 1932)
identified several wastewater treatment alternatives that were analyzed,
to varying degrees, in  terms of their construction and operation-mainten-
ance costs, and environmental impacts.  These alternatives examined both
primary and secondary treatment options.  The alternatives identified
and studied by the MDC  were the basis for the initial listing of options
in the scoping discussions  held.

In addition, new alternatives not previously studied, or alternatives
which had been examined previously but for which conditions may have
changed, have also been raised during scoping and will be analyzed in
this SDEIS.  These include  primary and secondary treatment options at
alternative siting locations and satellite advanced treatment options.
Intermediate levels of  treatment which may be considered, if proposed by
the MDC in their reapplication for a waiver of secondary treatment,
were not identified during  the scoping process and will not be con-
sidered as part of this SDEIS.  This treatment option could be analyzed
at a later date during  the  EIS analysis if it becomes an alternative of
the MDC.

In all, there are presently five manor alternatives being studied  in the
SDEIS.  These include options identified by the MDC as well as previous
and new options developed  from comments received at the scoping meetings.
These are listed in a Attachment to this document.
 There  are  presentlv two major levels  ot  wastewater  treatment being
 considered.   These  are secondary treatment,  as  required  under  current
 state  and  federal laws,  and upgraded  primary treatment as proposed by
 the  MDC  in their 301(h)  waiver application.   Advanced wastewater  treat-
 ment (AWT)  is also  being examined for sub-regional  ''satellite"
 which mav be warranted in conjunction with operation  of  harbor  secondary
 treatment facilities.   The satellite option includes  a proposal  presented
 by the Cjuincy Shores Association,  Inc.  which identified  several  potential
 inland sites which may serve as treatment facility  locations, while
 providing groundwater recharge benefits in those  watersheds.

 There are three major alternatives with a secondary level  of  treatment.
 These involve siting of facilities at Deer Island,  Nut  Island,  Long
 Island,  or a new island option.  In addition to the alternatives pre-

-------
viously considered by the MDC, new options in this category include the
above-mentioned AWT satellites, combined secondary treatment on Long
Island, and a newly formed island in the outer harbor as a site for
combined secondary treatment facilities.

Two major options, additionally, consider a primary level of treatment
(should the 301(h) waiver be granted).  In addition to those alter-
natives studied by the MDC, there are new options for siting of primary
facilities on Long Island.

Intermediate treatment at a level less than secondary is not considered
at this time, as noted previously, but may also be included if it be-
comes appropriate.  Because state and federal regulatory reviews are
still being carried out, no final decision has yet been made on the
level of treatment required.  The EIS will examine all levels pertinent
to a decision on facility siting, with a recommendation on preferred
sites for both primary and secondary treatment facilities.

Significant Issues and Scoping Comments

A variety of issues and impacts require consideration as part of the
evaluation of proposed wastewater treatment facilities siting in Boston
Harbor.  These issues range from concerns about the harbor's water
quality, its marine life, and its numerous recreational and aesthetic
resources to community impacts resulting from construction and operation
of proposed wastewater treatment and disposal facilities.  The current
incapacity of the existing Deer Island and Nut Island treatment facilities
to adequately treat wastewater flows exacerbate the problems being
experienced which have led to this EIS process.

Since none of the siting solutions to the treatment needs and problems
of the present MDC system are without some significant effects, the
EIS/EIR serves as a basis for identifying the range of both positive and
adverse impacts which can then be evaluated and compared to reach a
decision on siting and facility options.

The listing below provides a compilation of some of the major issues and
impact categories being analyzed in the SDEIS.  Comments made on these
or other issues during scoping are incorporated to this document.
There will be further opportunities for agency and public comments on
impacts during the monthly progress meetings of the Technical Advisory
Group and CAC.

The following issues and impacts have been identified during the scoping
process and will be analyzed in the SDEIS.

Issue 1:  Water Quality and Marine Life

Water quality problems and violations of federal and state laws result
from the current practice of discharge of primary effluent and sludge
into Boston Harbor.  Direct discharges to the harbor of untreated raw
sewage during periods of high flows and inadequately treated sewage from
equipment breakdowns results in public health threats at beaches and
shoreline recreation areas and economic effects on fishing and boating
interests.

-------
Water quality issues to be examined in the SDEIS will be limited to
impacts of primary and secondary treatment plant siting and secondary
effluent quality discharges.  The separate 301(h) waiver review by EPA
will consider the water quality impacts and issues associated with a
less than secondary effluent at outfall locations to be proposed by the
MDC.  A review of the broad comparative effects of primary versus
secondary effluent will also be generically addressed in the SDEIS.
Potential problems associated with the proposed facilities are:

     Characterization of  secondary effluent, its volume and chemical
     makeup, with particular concern  for toxic material and priority
     pollutants.

     Concentrations of heavy metals and chlorine used as a disinfectant,
     in the receiving waters as they  might impact marine resources.

     Dredging, filling, and sediment  runoff during construction which
     could impact harbor  water quality and marine life, as well as the
     effects of  removal of  harbor sediments and  its disposal.

     Characteristics of the harbor receiving water with regard to the
     mixing and  dispersion  capacities of the present channels and shore-
     line areas.

     Commercial  and recreational  fisheries and their food value.

     Fisheries population and  their habitat loss, alteration, and dis-
     turbance.

     Impacts upon wetlands  and floodplains associated with construction
     and  operational  elements  of  facility  siting.

 A more detailed  assessment  of  these  issues will  be provided  in a techni-
 cal report  addressing water quality  assessment  issues.

 Issue  2:   Institutional Factors

 The historical  development  of  the MDC metropolitan wastewater  collection
 and treatment  system has  not necessarily been  integrated  with  growth
 factors in  the  member communities,  or with organizational elements  of
 administering  a  large metropolitan  system.   Questions  of  municipal
 jurisdictions,  budget allocations,  and  land  acquisition among  others
 require complex  coordination in any plans  for  future facility  construc-
 tion and  operation.   The  elements to be addressed in the  impact  evalua-
 tion include:

      The  export  of  water  from local watersheds to Boston Harbor  via the
      sewer  system may be  affecting local water supplies,  while the prac-
      tices  of  member sewer communities  towards new sewer hookups and
      problems  with infiltration and  inflow (I/I) may be ignoring present
      system deficiences.

      Present institutional constraints  to effective system management.

-------
     Adequacy of future growth and water use projections as they relate
     to system design flow characteristics.

     Institutional and legal issues associated with siting of new facili-
     ties, as well as factors involving the continued operations of
     existing major facilities in the harbor area (airport, prison,
     Harbor Islands State Park, hospital and others).

Issue 3:  Air Quality

     Air emissions and odor impacts during construction and operation
     from transportation sources and operational equipment at the pro-
     posed treatment plants will be analyzed.

     To a limited degree and depending on forthcoming state policy deter-
     minations, the issue of air quality associated with a sludge incin-
     erator facility may require consideration insofar as secondary
     facility siting is examined.  The availability of land for an
     incinerator and its resultant impacts at sites other than Deer
     Island are a preliminary aspect of those sites'  screening.  This
     issue will be incorporated to the EIS as necessary.

Issue 4:  Traffic, Noise and Construction Impacts

Traffic impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the
proposed treatment plants could burden local roads and may pose safety
problems in the vicinity of the plant sites.  Impacts in other communi-
ties may also result from proposed centralized staging areas or satellite
worker parking locations.  Specific impacts which will be examined are
described below.

     Construction activities could generate noise levels in excess of
     normally experienced levels; proposed 24-hour work shift schedules,
     and the staging of construction activities will be examined for
     their impacts.

     Construction traffic associated with truck deliveries of materials
     and worker traffic on local roads, along both residential streets
     and utilizing the major access network of the metropolitan area,
     must be examined in detail to establish the impacts associated with
     the proposed facility construction and operation periods.

     Sites designated for staging areas and/or terminal facilities (for
     barge operations)  require analysis, particularly as they relate to
     associated traffic and construction activities.

     The duration of construction activities and the peak year work
     force may increase community disruption beyond levels noted above.

     Use of a barge ferry service for workers and materials may pose
     difficulties to use of the harbor waters for recreational boating
     and commercial fishing and must be examined for the effects upon
     staging and parking areas, as well as for safety issues and per-
     mitting requirements.

-------
     Truck traffic during operations, including the arrival of chlorine
     trucks, may pose hazards to local residential areas; while chlorine
     deliveries by barge requires further definition and analysis.

Issue 5:  Socio-Economic

Impacts in this category relate to the economic and social environments
within the affected communities.  Both construction and operation
effects will be analyzed including:

     Impacts associated with the land use requirements of the proposed
     projects, and associated impacts of proposed industrial facilities
     adjacent to residential areas.

     Other effects of the combined construction activities in the area
     of the harbor (including airport expansion, improvements to the
     roadway network, and other wastewater treatment facility construc-
     tion) .

     Impacts associated with the reliability of future MDC operation and
     maintenance programs.

     Other impacts and issues involving local taxes, impacts on adjoin-
     ing property values, historical and archeological impacts, and
     potential disruption of established community patterns.

     Costs of operation and maintenance of proposed treatment facilities
     including user fees and associated user community system costs.

     Construction employment and wage levels, particularly during peak
     years and the effects upon local and regional economies.

     Secondary income and employment generated in local-regional econo-
     mies .

Issue 6:   Recreational and Scenic Areas

There are  approximately 250 miles of shoreline in Boston Harbor encompas-
sing recreational areas from Winthrop to Hull.  There are, in addition,
the major  resources of the Boston Harbor Islands which serve as a focus
for both local and statewide recreational activities.  These areas
represent  major and significant resources which must be carefully
evaluated  prior to any siting decisions.  Issues include:

     Impacts on the Boston Harbor Islands State Park and its boating,
     fishing, hiking, camping, picnicking, and swimming resources.

     Compatibility (or conflict) between proposed industrial and  recrea-
     tional uses.

     Impacts on beach areas and fishing due to aesthetic and health
     effects of potential raw sewage discharge.
                                  10

-------
     Visual impacts associated with locating new treatment facilities or
     expanding/reducing existing facilities.

     Effects on local and state coastal resource planning and management
     programs.

The issues discussed above encompass the major categories of impacts and
issues associated with them that were raised during the scoping process.
A compilation of the principal comments made during the scoping meetings
is provided in the Appendix to this document.  Both agency and public
comments are listed.

E.   Agency and Public Participation Program

Another aspect of the EIS process involves regular monthly Progress
Meetings of the Technical Advisory Group.  This group is made up of
representatives of key agencies participating in the EIS.  These meet-
ings, to be held at EPA's offices in Boston, will include discussions of
the work underway, problems encountered, and technical issues being
examined.  They will also focus on the coordinations necessary among
state and federal agencies and reviewers to assure complete and compre-
hensive coverage of issues and impacts within the EIS/EIR process.

The agencies which make up the Technical Advisory Group include, at the
state level, the Office of the Secretary of Environmental Affairs under
which operate the Department of Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE),
Division of Water Pollution Control (DWPC), Metropolitan District Com-
mission (MDC), Coastal Zone Management (CZM), Department of Environmental
Management, and the Division of Marine Fisheries.  The Massachusetts
Environmental Policy Act Unit (MEPA) of the Secretary's Office is the
agency responsible for coordinating the state's Environmental Impact
Review (EIR) process.  Also participating are the Executive Office of
Communities and Development, Massport, MAPC, Department of Public Works,
Massachusetts Historical Commission, Executive Office of Economic Develop-
ment.  At the federal level, involved agencies include the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, National Marine Fisheries Service, and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Coast Guard.  Other state and federal
agencies may also participate according to their particular areas of
responsibility and concern.

Local government agencies and public officials are also involved in the
public participation process through both the Technical Advisory Group
and the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) as representatives of their
respective community's needs, and to comment on the various siting
alternatives as they might impact their communities and citizens.  The
CAC moreover serves as a forum for the range of local and community-wide
interests affected by this project.  Representatives of the CAC would
also participate in the Technical Advisory Group meetings.

Completion and review of the SDEIS will include a public hearing and
will be followed by a Final EIS and a Record of Decision (ROD)  by EPA.
These documents will serve as the basis for a final siting decision for
treatment facilities in Boston Harbor.  It is anticipated that the scope

                                   11

-------
of the SDEIS and following documents in the EIS process will encompass
actions to be followed by the MDC under a final waiver decision from
EPA, expected to coincide with the Final EIS and Record of Decision.  In
this way, the environmental review process leading to necessary approvals
for siting of harbor wastewater treatment facilities can proceed in a
timely fashion.

EPA is establishing a comprehensive public participation effort as part
of the environmental review process.  A range of activities will be
undertaken to keep the public informed about the process and give inter-
ested individuals and organizations opportunities to comment on proposals
and recommendations.

Barry Lawson Associates, Inc. of Boston will manage the public partici-
pation program.  They will prepare and distribute materials to the
public, organize and give notice of public meetings and workshops,
coordinate the efforts of the project participants and serve as a cen-
tralized source for public comments and questions.

The public participation program will include:

Scoping Meetings - Scoping meetings were held to define the issues,
impacts and alternatives to be analyzed in detail in the SDEIS.  A scop-
ing meeting for federal and state agency staff was held on September 19,
1983 at 9:30 a.m. in the John F. Kennedy Federal Building, Executive
Dining Room.  This meeting was specifically held for comment by federal
and state agencies involved in the SDEIS.

A public scoping meeting was held on September 28, 1983 in two sessions,
one beginning at 2:00 p.m. and another at 7:00 p.m.  in the main audi-
torium of the U.S. Department of Transportation building located at 55
Broadway Street, Kendall Square in Cambridge.  Notice of these meetings
was made in advance in local newspapers.  The public scoping meeting was
open to all residents, public officials, and other interested parties.
A comment period for public and agency comments on issues and alterna-
tives relative to scoping closed on October 5, 1983  for both the state
EIR and federal EIS portions of the effort, with a final scope of work
issued following receipt of all comments.

Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)  - A Citizens Advisory Committee has
been established to represent a variety of public interests and local
concerns associated with the proposed treatment facilities siting.  The
Committee will meet monthly and members will be called upon to review
the work in progress and advise the consultants and EPA of the various
critical issues and impacts associated with the elements under study.
CAC meetings are open to the public and will be announced in advance.

Mailing List - A mailing list of more than 600 names has been developed
and will be used to send notices of meetings, "Boston Harbor Update"
newsletters and other program material to interested groups and indi-
viduals.  These names include public officials, civic groups, local
special interests, and the public at large.  The lists will be updated
periodically.


                                   12

-------
"Boston Harbor Update" - Information on progress and results of studies
will be reported on in newsletter form three times over the course of
the project.

Information Centers - Program information will be available for review
at several "depositories" set up in libraries in Boston and surrounding
communities.  Project information and materials will be stored in refer-
ence binders provided to these centers.

Public Meetings - Scheduled meetings will be held to present information
to the Public on the work in progress.  Comments and opinions will be
recorded, and key issues and impacts discussed.  In addition, periodic
smaller meetings may be held in surrounding communities to explain
options under consideration.

Public Workshops - Workshops will be held to facilitate more intensive
discussions of critical issues and special topics which will influence
decisions to be made on treatment and siting options.

Public Hearing - A formal hearing jointly held by EPA and the state will
be held after the SDEIS has been published and distributed to obtain
public comments on the findings and conclusions of the environmental
review.  A comment period will be established to allow written comments
in addition to statements made at the hearing.

Responsiveness Summaries - A summary will be prepared following each
public meeting/workshop which identifies and responds to the questions
and concerns raised by the public concerning findings and recommenda-
tions presented.
                                   13

-------
                             ATTACHMENT

                 BOSTON HARBOR SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT EIS

                WASTEWATER FACILITY SITING ALTERNATIVES
A.   SECONDARY TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES

     Option 1:  Deer Island - Nut Island Treatment Facilities

     a.   Convert Nut Island to a headworks and construct secondary
          treatment facilities  (either  separate or combined system
          flows) at Deer Island; inter-island transport of effluent via
          tunnel.

     b.   Construct upgraded primary treatment at Nut Island and construct
          secondary treatment facilities  (either separate or combined
          system flows) at Deer Island; inter-island transport of efflu-
          ent via tunnel.

     c.   Separate secondary treatment  facilities at Nut Island and Deer
          Island.

     d.   Satellite AWT treatment facilities on the Neponset River;
          Charles River; or other locations.

     Option 2:  Nut Island - Deer Island - Long Island Treatment Facilities

     a.   Construct secondary treatment facilities  (for north system
          flows) on Deer Island and secondary treatment facilities  (for
          south  system flows) on Long Island with preliminary treatment
           (either headworks or primary) facilities on Nut Island; inter-
          island transport effluent via tunnel.

     b.   Construct secondary treatment facilities on Long Island  (for
          combined system  flows) with preliminary treatment  (either
          headworks or primary) facilities on Deer Island and Nut Island;
          inter-island transport of effluent via tunnels.

     c.   Satellite AWT treatment facilities as noted above.

     Option 3:  New Island Option

          Construct a new  island site for  secondary treatment facilities
          in  an  appropriate outer harbor  location.

B.   PRIMARY  TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES

     Option 4:  Deer Island - Nut Island  Treatment Facilities

     a.   Construct combined primary treatment  facilities  at Deer  Island
          with a headworks at Nut Island  (and  either  a  local or  deep
          ocean outfall);  inter-island  transport of  effluent via tunnel.

-------
b.   Construct separate primary treatment facilities on Deer Island
     and Nut Island (and either separate local outfall or combined
     deep ocean outfall).

Option 5:  Deer Island - Nut Island - Long Island Treatment Facilities

a.   Construct separate primary treatment facilities at Deer Island
     (for north system flows)  and Long Island (for south system
     flows)  with headworks on Nut Island.

b.   Construct combined primary treatment facilities on Long Island
     (with deep ocean outfall)  with headworks on Deer Island and
     Nut Island; inter-island transport of effluent via tunnels.

-------
 MICHAEL S.  DUKlAKIS
     GOVERNOR

  JAMES S.  HOYTE
     SECRETARY
                        CERTIFICATE  OF THE SECRETARY 'OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS

                                                ON

                               ENVIRONMENTAL NOTIFICATION FORM
 PROJECT NAME:
                           Site Option Study
PROJECT LOCATION:
                           Boston/Quincy
 EOEA NUMBER:
                           4911
 PROJECT PROPONENT:
                           MDC
 DATE NOTICED IN MONITOR:  September 9, 1983
     Pursuant to M.G.L., Chapter 30, Section 62A and Sections 10.04(1)  and 10.04(9)
of the Regulations Governing the Implementation of the Massachusetts Environmental
Policy Act, I hereby determine that the above referenced project does require the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Report.

     My office has participated with the EPA in the development of the EPA Scope of
Work and I adopt that document as the Scope for the EIR with the following comments
and expectations for the Supplemental DEIS/DEIR.

I.   INTRODUCTION; PURPOSE; SCHEDULE

     At both the state and Federal level, we are in a period of intensive re-evaluation
of  options for treating MDC sewerage.  The EMMA study (1976) formulated a long-term
approach to the problem.  The EPA Draft EIS (1978) examined and narrowed the options,
based on conditions prevailing at the time.  The Draft EIS did not, however, result
in  consensus on wha^ facilities should be constructed.  To further refine the options,
the Site Options Study was prepared by the MDC under the direction of the EPA and DEQE.

-------
MDC
Site Option Study
Page Two

     Today, the determination exists at both the state and Federal level to make the
difficult decision and move forward into final planning, design, and construction.
Factors of enormous complexity must be weighed:  technological questions, environmental
impacts, social impacts, and fiscal impacts.

     At the state level, my office as well as the Boston Harbor Water Quality Committee
and the Boston Harbor Interagency Coordinating Committee are charged with arriving at
this decision.  However, significant Federal permitting and funding questions are
involved as well.  Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is a
precondition to a federal allocation of grant monies or necessary permitting actions,
and compliance with the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) is a precondition
to state (MDC and DEQE) actions.  Although the EPA initiated NEPA compliance procedures
in preparing the 1978 DEIS, it did not complete those procedures.  Passage of time may
have rendered some of the EIS conclusions out-of-date or not.  MDC did not commence
MEPA compliance in 1978 (the Draft EIS was never filed for state review under MEPA)•
The MDC has, however, now filed an ENF, and NEPA and MEPA compliance for this project
will proceed henceforth in a coordinated fashion.

     EPA is scheduled to complete the Draft Supplemental EIS in June  1984, and a
Final EIS in November 1984.  I am hopeful that close coordination will be maintained
between EPA and MDC,  so that the Draft Supplemental EIS can be adopted by MDC as a
Draft EIR.   MDC may wish to add its own perspective to the Draft Supplemental EIS
before submitting it  as a Draft EIR.  This could be done by the addition of an
Appendix to the federal document, which would present the MDC's analysis and conclusions
in any areas in which they differ from those of the EPA.  I hope that MDC and EPA
conclusions shall have converged by the time of the final EIS, and that the Final EIS
and the Final EIR will, therefore be the same document.

II.  TREATMENT OF ALTERNATIVES

     A.  NEPA/MEPA Compliance

     The scoping of the EIS poses a difficult issue which has frequently surfaced in
the fourteen years since the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act introduced
formal requirements for environmental review into the planning of major public works
projects.  The dilemma relates to the interrelationship between project design and
environmental study.   On the one hand, the law provides that environmental study shall
influence decisions on the form a project shall take; it should thus precede, or take
place concurrently with, those design decisions.  On the other hand, environmental
analysis cannot take  place in a vacuum.  It must be applied to projects which have
taken shape (general  nature as well as location), so that their impacts may be fully
assessed.  Thus, some design must precede environmental review.

     '.-There few alternatives exist, or a project's impacts are relatively simple, this
interrelationship poses no problems.  Where, however, the project has the breadth and
complexity of sewage  treatment for the MDC system, it takes time and money to prepare
an alternative for effective environmental analysis.  Each additional alternative added
for review introduces new preliminary design costs and a time lag.

     When the present ENF was filed, MDC and DEQE felt that alternatives examined
should be limited to  options identified in the Site Options Study.  However, both the
State and National Environmental Policy Acts require that a formal public scoping
process occur before  the list of options is closed.  During the required scoping of the

-------
MDC
Site Option Study
Page Three

SDEIS/DEIR in October 1983, public comments called for the examination of certain
options in addition to the options proposed by state and Federal agencies for study.
These options include an all Long Island option,  and re-evaluation of satellite
options, which I shall discuss later in this Scope.

     An EIS which examines to an equal level of detail many very different options
would be an unmanageable document.  It would take long to prepare,, and it would be so
bulky as to preclude effective agency and public  review.  Thus,  the list of options
must be narrowed between the initial scope and the draft EIS.

     The EPA has agreed to perform an inital screening which will determine which
options are infeasible for reasons of high cost,  excessive environmental damage, or
lack of benefit.  This initial screening is planned for December.  Documentation
available at that time should permit determination of which options shall be
exhaustively studied for the SDEIS.

     It is essential that the public be involved  in this preliminary screening because
the avoidance of litigation and delay at later stages requires that the SDEIS evaluate
all feasible alternatives.  The Boston Harbor Interagency Coordinating Committee will
work closely with the EPA,as the options -are narrowed, to ensure that•determination
of infeasibility are made on solid grounds.  Continual working contact between the
agencies shall ensure that the time for preparation of the EIS is kept to a minimum
without jeopardizing the quality of the document.

     B.  Comments on Specific Alternatives

     (i) Satellite

     Several satellite treatment options for the  south system were examined by EPA in
the 1978 DEIS and ruled out on technical grounds.  Representatives of the City of
Quincy have urged that satellite options be re-examined in the SDEIS,and have asked that
the SDEIS not merely review the 1978 options, but conduct a fresh search for a
juxtaposition of flows and environmental conditions where a satellite plant might
make sense.  In response to the concern that a further search for new locations would
interpose additional delays before the Harbor cleanup occurs,  Quincy has suggested
that satellite plants might affect the size,but not the configuration, of harbor
facilities eventually selected.  If this is the case, it seems clear that satellite
plants would increase construction costs, complexity, and operation/maintenance costs
of the system.  In addition, they would add further siting problems to an already
difficult set of public policy choices and delay  on-going state funded projects.
For these reasons, neither DEQE nor MDC believe satellite options are a feasible
alternative at this point, and I have given consideration to the possibility that
satellite plants should be excluded from the Commonwealth's Scope.

     However, public comment has brought forward  another issue,  water supply, which
may deserve further evaluation.  It is characteristic of all non-satellite options
that they entail discharge of sanitary sewage effluent to salt water, where  it  is
lost to further use.  Satellite options, by comparison, would discharge treated
effluent to freshwater rivers or wetlands, which  could possibly reduce the stress
on those resources and increase their usefulness  to the metropolitan population.
This is a long-term consideration, but it is certainly within the planning horizon  for
Eastern Massachusetts.  As water demands grow, the conservation of local water
resources yields increasing dollar savings.  Ultimately, recharging of local water
resources could lessen the need for furture interbasin transfers.  I am inclined  to
defer to the judgement of MDC and DEQE that satellite plants are not an element  of  a

-------
MDC
Site Option Study
Page Four

present solution to the Metropolitan Sewerage District's treatment needs, but I
certainly agree with EPA that the feasibility and benefits of satellite plants must be
examined in the preliminary screening.   Clearly, satellite plants may be an element
of any future expansion of MDC service beyond its present boundaries.

     (ii) Long Island

     There is also much opposition to the examination of an option which places all
primary (and potentially, secondary) treatment on Long Island.  DEM, DEQE, MDC, and
the City of Boston all have expressed opposition to this concept, which finds strong
support within Winthrop.  EPA is proceeding to estimate costs and institutional issues
for this option to determine if on existing information alone it should be ruled out.
If costs alone do not clearly separate it from other options, other reasons for state
and local opposition to that option shall be considered.

     (iii) Primary/Secondary Alternatives

     Present indications are that the decision on the MDC's amended 301 (h) waiver
application will be made in the Spring of 1985, and that the Record of Decision on the
EIS will coincide with the waiver decision, but that the Final EIS will appear prior
to that time, with -a preferred primary treatment alternative and a preferred secondary
alternative.  Thus, the Draft and Final EIS/EIR will have to address both the
possibility of waiver denial and of its granting.  This ambivalency will add difficulty
to an already complex document, but is necessary in order to permit the earliest
possible completion of the EIS/EIR process.

     Although, I, Commissioner Cortese and Commissioner Geary have taken a firm
position in favor of primary treatment with deep ocean outfalls, I consider it
appropriate, for comparison purposes, that the EIR discuss the water quality impacts
of all alternatives, including primary treatment/local outfalls.  The MDC should
ensure that the EIR filed by it includes a summary of the findings of the amended
301(h) waiver application and a comparison of those findings with the findings rejected
by EPA in its June 1983 Tentative Decision denying the waiver.

     (iv) New Island Option

     I am satisfied, based upon review of the ENF, comments thereon and discussion with
the BHWQ Committee and the Interagency Coordinating Committee, that the "new island"
alternative is wholly infeasible and may be rejected forthwith.

III.  SLUDGE

     The extent to which the Supplemental DEIS will address sludge management is unclear
at this date.  In the past, primary sludge disposal issues were segmented out from
the site options issues, no doubt because it was optimistically believed that primary
sludge issues could be resolved earlier than the other issues.  The EPA prepared a
Final EIS on primary sludge management and then issued a Record of Decision, calling
for a Sludge Management Update Study, since prepared by MDC.  The Final EIS, reviewed
as a Final EIR, was found inadequate.  The Sludge Management Update has been informally
reviewed by the MEPA Unit as well as by DEQE, MDC, and the EPA, and further study and
analysis is now going forward.  The sludge issues are being developed for presentation
to the BHWQ Committee, and a consensus on the best approach is being sought.  The
results of the agency analysis and the preferred alternative will be submitted by
MDC for review as a Final EIR.

-------
 MDC
 Site Option Study
 Page Five

      At the least,  the Site Options EIR should discuss compatibility of the various
alternatives with both primary and secondary sludge disposal options.  If MDC wishes
 to submit its Final Sludge Management EIR for review simultaneously with the Draft
 Site Options EIR, that will be entirely acceptable(to the extent permitted by the
 schedule in the action Quincy vs. MDC.)

 IV.  GENERIC ISSUES

      I look forward in the Supplemental Draft EIS to a thorough discussion of certain
 issues that may be  common to any facility such as the moving of workers and construction
 materials to a site by water, the potential impacts and benefits of barge delivery of
 chlorine,and odor control.  Techniques, feasibility, potential impacts, and impacts
 on costs should all be discussed in the Supplemental Draft.  Although a construction
 staging area cannot perhaps be selected,  the Draft Supplement should identify the
 criteria necessary  for such an area—such as parking area,  storage area, utilities,
 highway access, water access, and water travel time to the  construction site(s)  (I
 expect that during  preparation of the Final EIS,  more progess can be made in identifying
 actual sites) .

 V.  State Issues

      It is essential that the Supplemental Draft  carefully  review state and local
 statutes, regulations, procedures, and programs that may be involved in or affected by
 the options.  All state agencies are responsible  for bringing to the attention of
 EPA those statutes  or regulations which govern agency responsibilities.  Certain ones
 which have emerged  during scoping are c742, Acts  of 1970, Article XLVII, Massachusetts
 constitution, local floodplain zoning,  G.L. c. Ill Sec. 150 and implementing regulations,
 and G.L. c. 131 Sec. 40 and coastal wetlands regulations and variance procedures.
 DEM, CZM, MEPA, and DEQE will all be available as necessary to respond to questions
 on any of these programs.

 MISCELLANEOUS

      I understand that if secondary treatment is  located at Deer Island, federal
 funding exists for  the relocation off Deer Island of the Suffolk County House of
 Detention.  The relocation is not within the Scope of the Site Options EIR.  If
 relocation is part  of the alternative eventually  selected,  siting and environmental
 review of a new facility will have to proceed at  that time.
   December  6,  1983                                   '>•< -n. t.<-
             DATE                                ^J^KES S.  HOYT^/SECRETARY
                                               <.''
 JSH/DS/dc

-------
      In 1978 EPA published a Draft Environmental Impact Statement which
recommended consolidation of secondary treatment at Deer Island.   While
developing this Draft EIS many of the same questions and issues relative
to the proposed future use of Deer Island evolved.   A Task Force  of EPA
and Massachusetts representatives developed a report and recommendations
to Judge Arthur Garrity who at the time was reviewing prison conditions
at the Charles Street Jail.

      The attached corresspondence is included to inform the reader of the
history of public use options for Deer Island.  Its purpose is one of  in-
formation only.

-------
FRANCIS JC BELLOTTt
      X UENC«Al_
                  THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

                     JOHN W. MC CORMACK STATE OFFICE BUILDING
                        ONE ABHBURTON PLACE. BOSTON O21OB
                                  April 27, 1976
       The Honorable W.  Arthur Garrity
       United States Federal District Court
       One Post Office Square
       Boston, Massachusetts 02109

       Dear Judge Garrity:

            Please find enclosed  the Report of the Task Force
       for the public uses  of Deer  Island.
                                  Charles Corkin II
                                        Chief
                            Environmental Protection Division
       CCIIramh

       Enclosure
       CC:  Kevin Keating,  Esquire
            Kenneth Mickiewicz,  Esquire
            Terrence O'Malley,  Esquire
            Max D. Stern, Esquire

-------
                 THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

                    DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
                     JOHN W, Me CORMACK STATE OFFICE BUILDING
                       ONE ABHBURTDN PLACE, BOSTON O21D8

                                   April 26,  1976
     X. BCLLOTn
ATTOMNCY OCNCRAI.
       The Honorable W. Arthur Garrity
       United States Federal District Court
       One Post Office Square
       Boston, Massachusetts 02109

       RE:  Inmate of Suffolk County Jail et  als  vs.
                Thomas S. Eisenstadt,  et al

       Dear Judge Garrity:

            Report of the Task Force for the  Public  Uses  of
       Deer Island:

       I.  BACKGROUND

            The plaintiff and the defendant Sheriff  of  Suffolk
       County moved to vacate U.S. District Court Judge
       Garrity's Order closing the Charles Street Jail  and
       renovating the Hill Prison facility en Deer Island.

            On March 22, 1976 Judge Garrity continued the
       motions until April 26th in order to provide  the
       task force sufficient time to prepare  a report on  the
       public uses of Deer Island, including  sewage  treatment
       facilities proposed to be built by the MDC.

       2.  THE TASK FORCE

            Member5of the task force included,  Evelyn F.  Murphy,
       Secretary of the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
       for the Commonwealth;  John Snedeker, Commissioner  of the
       Metropolitan District Commission; Bette Woody, Commissioner
       of the Department of Environmental Management; Martin Weiss,
       Metropolitan District Commission; Jame5Milliard,
       Undersecretary of the Office of Human  Services,
       Thomas Sellers, Director of Program Development  in the
       Department of Corrections; Paul Dunn,  Director of  Development
       in the Boston Penal Department; Eugenie Beal, City of Boston;
       Charles Corkin II, Chief, Environmental Protection Division
       of the Department of the Attorney General;  Steve Ells,
       Environmental Protection Agency;  David Standley, Commissioner
       of the Department of Environmental Quality Engineering;
       Michael Ventresca, Executive Office of Environmental Affairs.

       3.  POTENTIAL PUBLIC PURPOSES FOR DEER ISLAND

            Three public uses of Deer  Island  have received
       considerable attention in recent  years  — correctional
       facilities,  sewage treatment,  and recreation.  While the

-------
specific  focus of the task force was on space for sewage
treatment if Deer Island is to accomdoate the Charles Street
Jail  inmates, alternatives were developed that might
accomodate all three interests.

      The  following preferences were stated at the
outset:

      .  .  . Officials of the City of Boston would prefer
no relocation of Deer Island correctional facilities,
especially the Hill Prison.  After a thorough search
for facilities elsewhere in Suffolk County/ the City
concludes that no adquate structures are available.
Moreover, the cost of building a new facility is deemed
an extreme financial burden for the City.   (See Attachment A,
letter  Paul E. Dunn to Secretary Murphy, March 26, 1976).

      .  .  . The Metropolitan District Commission would prefer
tQ expand its sewage treatment facility on Deer Island
to handle there the secondary sewage treatment requirements

-------
                          -3-


the harbor.  Filling is typically discouraged by the
environmental regulatory department because of the
disturbances that ensue.

     Finally, this alternative will require that the
General Services Administration  (GSA) turn over the tip
of the island to the MDC for sewage treatment.  In
preliminary conversation with the 'GSA land office,
Mr. O'Connell, indicated that GSA would consider such
authorization if the city and state endorsements were
presented to GSA.

     The Second alternative would leave the tip of the
island for recreation and would put the settling and aeration
tanks on a portion of the City's correctional property.
Hill prison would remain in its current location.

     The primary advantages of this alternative are that
implementation can proceed without GSA actions and
without filling.  The disadvantages are that the Hill
prison would be tightly fit between sewage treatment
facilities with little outdoor area for inmates; some
relocation would be necessary; and the drumlin would be
destroyed.

     Alternative Three indicates a consolidation of
settling tanks that enables consolidated secondary
treatment within a much more limited area than indicated
in the prior two designs.  The advantage of this design
are versions of the features discussed previously.

     However, there are major problems with this
alternative and it should not be considered a serious
option at this time.  The proposed technology for
sewage treatment is considered on the forefront of the
state-of-the-art, untested as yet in the United States.
Moreover, the added costs — in excess of $50 million
than Alternative One -- would impose considerable
financial burden on MDC sewer commitments.

5.  ALTERNATIVES ACCOMODATING TWO INTERESTS

     Alternative Four (actually Alternative One without
filling)  would accomodate the needs for correctional
facilities and sewage treatment.  It is reasonable to
vender whether people would ever regard Deer Island as a
-recreational area given the predominance of the other two
uses.  This alternative only dramatizes more the loss
°f environmental amenities for massive institutional
Use.

     Alternative Five presents a design for sewage
          and recreational use.   Environmental sensitivity
 , .^yominent — the drumlin remains in being; no substantial
   'Iin9 is required.

-------
                         -4-
     Considerable relocation costs would be incurred to
move the entire correctional facility elsewhere and to build
a new facility.  The costs of relocation would be bourne by
the City and the State.  Yet both governments feel financially
Strapped and may have difficulty making this a financially
feasible alternative.

6.  QUESTIONS OF VALUE

     These alternatives portray some significant questions
Of value.  Is it desirable or appropriate to locate a
correctional facility, as contrasted with any other
public or private facility, next to a massive sewage
treatment plant?  How important is it to preserve a
significant natural feature, the drumlin?

     These questions emerged in our deliberations.  The
task force, however, was a technical one and we did not
attempt to answer these questions.

7.  CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY

     The task force concludes that an expanded correctional
capacity on Deer Island would not preclude plans of the
Metropolitan District Commission to enlarge its sewage
treatment facilites on the island.  This memorandum outlines
technical alternatives and their related social, financial
and environmental issues.

-------
                              -5-
[See attached  letter  from John McGlennon
 to Evelyn Murphy dated April  26, 1976]
Steve Ells,
Environmental Protection Agency
Eugenie Beal
City of Boston
Paul E.  Dunn, Director of  Development
Boston Penal Department
Victor Kagen
Public
Charles  Corkin II, Esq.
Attorney General, Environmental Protection

-------
                              -6-
 Evelyd F. Murphy*  )
 Executive Office ofsEnvironmental Affairs

-------
                      i/ne  vommcnweaMi

                            (executive  ([Jffice c^ Gnwwnmentaf Syffa
EVELYN F. MURPHY
    SECRETARY
                                     400
                                                          022C2
      ADDENDUM TO THE COURT.
           The task force was  asked,  and  responded to realities:  is it
      physically possible to accommodate  both  the prison and sewage treat-
      ment needs on Deer Island?   Other realities have been prominent in
      our deliberations, also.  The expense of constructing a new jail
      elJSewhere would constitute  a heavy  financial burden for the City of
      Boston;  few,  if any, facilities exist elsewhere that might be converted
      into penal facilities at  reasonable cost.

           Yet we would be remiss if  some comments were not offered on the
      Commonwealth's view of the  destiny  of Deer Island.  If such constraints
      of reality did not exist, or were altered in the future,  three uses
      appear excessive, both for  the  land mass itseJf, and for the Town of
      Winthrop.  We would prefer, rather,  to see but two uses of the island  —
      sewage treatment and recreation.  Preservation of the waterfront for
      water related uses would  seem the most judicious use of this limited
      space. The location of new penal institutions nearer to the city and related
      public institutions — courts,  probation offices, and the like — would
      seem to  have social value as well as improved efficiency in public
      administration.

           If  the Court wishes  further work to resolve any issues, we are
      prepared to commit our offices  to prompt and thoughtful resolutions.
      EvelyrNF.  Murphy,  Secretary
      Executive  Office  of  Environmental Affairs
      James  Milliard,  Undersecretary
        ecutive  Office of Human Services

-------
            UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                 REGION I

            J.F. KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02203
                               April'26, 1976
 Evelyn Murphy,  Secretary
 Executive  Office  of Environmental Affairs
 100 Cambridge  Street
 Boston.  Massachusetts  02202

 Dear Secretary Murphy:

      In  light  of  the "Addendum to the Court" signed by you and
 Undersecretary of Human Services James Billiard, I concur in the
 statement  which identifies the technically feasible alternatives
 and is entitled "Report of the Task Force for the Public Uses of
 Deer Island",  April 26, 1976.  This report demonstrates that though
 it may be  feasible to locate all three desired public uses on
 Deer Island  (the  correctional facility, an expanded treatment plant
 and a vaterside park) . there are significant disadvantages in
 attempting to  do  so.  Indeed, given the "preferences" stated on
 page 2 of  the  report, onlv two of the proposed uses can be realis-
 tically  accomodated; the proposed park and the adjacent ninety
 foot high  hill are likely to be destroyed unless further alternatives
 are pursued.

      As  you  correctly point out, these trade-offs present complex
 questions  of values, finances and the availability of other solutions,
 and  these  questions are not readily answerable.  I am pleased, though,
 that  in  your Addendum the Commonwealth has expressed its policy
preference for  the future of this Island and assure you that we will
wholeheartedly  participate in the process of further analysis that
you suggest.
                                             yours,
                                         „
                                   John^A". S. McGlennon
                                   Regional Administrator

-------
                          CITY OF BOSTON


  / 4          PENAL INSTITUTIONS  DEPARTMENT
  /, A */
 &- /J
^',>X                   ROOM 704 - BOSTON CITY HALL
                           ONE CITY HALL SQUARE
                        BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS 02201
                                   March 26, 1976

     Ms. Evelyn Murphy, Secretary
     Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
     Commonwealth of Massachusetts
     100 Cambridge Street
     Boston, Massachusetts  02202

     Dear Secretary Murphy;

          At Monday's Task Force meeting you requested  further
     detailing of the City's position on the use of Deer  Island
     for correctional purposes.  A quick description  of the
     present Charles Street Jail case may aid in putting  the
     issues into perspective.

          In 1973, the  Inmates of the Suffolk County  Jail
     sued Sheriff Eisenstadt, Mayor White, the nine Boston City
     Councillors and Commissioner Hall for violation  of constitutional
     standards.  The Federal District Court of W. Arthur  Garrity,
     the Court ruled that the Charles Street Jail should  bo closed
     not later than July 1, 1976.  In addition, Garrity 'temporarily
     required the women at Charles Street be sent to  MCJ  Framingham
     and that each cell at Charles Street be limited  to one
     man  (recently the  one man/one cell ruling was lifted because
     of overcrowding.)

            The Public Facilities Department, as the City  agency
     responsible for capital construction, undertook  a  survey of
     a  number of alternative^ ard decided to propose  to the
     Court  a plan which would include the creation of a small, short-
     term  (70bed) Intake Service Center  (I.S.C.) near the Superior
     Courthouse and the renovation of the Hill Prison at  the
     Suffolk County House of Correction for long term detention.
     Both facilities would be placed under the jurisdiction of the
     Sheriff thereby replacing the present Charles Street Jail.
     The House of Correction property at Deer Island, save the renovat-
     ed Hill Prison, would continue its function of past-conviction
     custody and remain the jurisdiction of the Penal Institution
     Department.  Tr>e City offered the plan to Federal  Court
     which  wa October  20, 1975 ordered it implemented.


            The City's deoiaion to propose the plan was  based
     upon three major considerations.  In order of importance  they
     are:


                            ATTACHMENT A

-------
March 26, 1976                                    page
COST;

     Estimated costs for new prison construction has been
estimated at between $40,000 to $60,000 per cell.  Thus
construction of a new Charles Street Jail would cost some
twenty five million dollars without land acquision expenses.
On the other hand, the cost of the present plan is $8.5 million
dollars and in addition may result in the Charles Street
site becoming available for private use.

RENOVATIONS:
      Renovating  the present Charles Street Jail was rejected
 by  both  the City and the Federal Court.  Any renovation
 to  the present site presented a safety and security problem
 due to structural strain that would occur during the process.
 Both the roof and foundation at Charles Street present
 substancial delimmmas.

      A further advantage to the City was that the Hill
 Prison at Deer Island, which has substancial mechanical needs,
 would be totally improved.  The plan allowed the City to  save
 on  what  would eventually be a substaincial revnovation of
 that facility if the plan was not adopted.

 SITE :
      During  the Garrity hearings, location becoame the  leading
 issue.   Inmates, especially those newly detained need quick
 access  to  attorneys, family friends and similiar resources.
 Yet no  downtown site for intake services and detention
 presented  sufficient room or reasonable costs to be  justified
 in the  City's view.  This was not decided without substancial
 review  and consultation.  A number of sites were explored,
 including:

     Nashua Street - This was the most commonly suggested
 site ie: for the City to "swap" the Charles Street land for
 property which Massachusetts General Hospital owns on Nashua
 Street  and build a new facility.  The Hospital rejected
 this  (see attached letter)  when it was determined that the
 City would first have to acquire Nashua Street, build and
move the inmates before it could legally transfer the
Charles Street property to the hospital.

-------
March 26, 1976                                       page 3
     Fargo Building - was explored and rejected when the
Coast Guard, the present owners, said it was going to transfer
the building to the Army.  The Army refused to take a position
since it did not own the property.  In addition because
of building structure, renovation costs would be substancial.

     Fort Devens - the Department contacted the Army but found
that the stockade had been torn down.

     Portsmouth Naval Station - was rejected for distance
reasons.  Further there was some question whether detaines
could be taken out of state.

     Middlesex County Training School - was explored but
rejected as being insecure.

     Middlesex County Jail - the East Cambridge Jail, at
the top if the new courthouse was rejected because of a
lack of sufficient cells.

     Roslindale Detention Center - was toured and rejected
because it was too small.  Further, the Youth Service Board
seemed to be uncertain whether it would actually declare
the facility surplus.  In retrospect, it seems clear that the
state will continue using the Detention Center for the
foreseeable future.

     If I can provide any further information or assistance
on the matter please feel free to conatct me.
                           Sincerely,
                           Paul E. Dunn
                           Director of Development
cc: James Hillard  Human Services
    Betty Wood, Environment Management
    John Snedeker, M.D.C.
    Martin Wies, M.D.C.
    Michael Ventresca, Coastal Zone Management
    Robert Vey, Deputy iMayor
    Victor Hagan,Public Facilities
    Jean Beal, Conservation Commission
    Kenne :h Mickiewicz, Law

PED/ar

-------
                   / y ,*"-'"•'tf^'-

                 ////<'•• '•/ J\

         ••"'	'-^^  / •!:^^:^
                ^^>/i '•' s"k??<>  .•
            ^^^.^/r^^^py^'r^b

             '.'••'   Q^&'p "P^
            -.   //^%/7^Q?\
CT\

CN1
  DEER ISLAND
                           r^W'L 7^/x:^" ° ^(ojx^
                           ^;.:HM--:^ffi
                           n-^?=sfc^pt

-------
            -APPROXIMATE CITY CF BOSTON PROPERTY LINE
DEER  ISLAND


OPTION  2
                                                                    (*&rf V ^\

                                                                  - £'^^9V^SX;\
                                                                 aPrK} .£TTh '*-Sj»*\ \.'J -,v,\


                                                           ,,  Tl  1) W^

                                                     \  &^Pnhri^C
                                                      •\^vW  r' tk/Tkv-/^ t. J  ^.^
                                                                              .'Js,
                                                                           •'• 1.0 »

-------
             APPROXIMATE CITY OF BOSTON PROPERTY LINE

RELOCATED ACCESS ROAD
DEER  ISLAND
OPTION  3

-------
                             '//  V   * h\'.? '•'
                              /A '    '	\\  \ '  s f^
                             !r^rr&\--/^C
                ^
CM
    DEER ISLAND

-------
-APPROXIMATE CITY OF BOSTON PROPERTY LINE
       TOfc^nx
                                            '•'s \ v  /7 «  *  . V  '• » ^ I \
                                            ^uA.  ^••/•Vf-=*>\
DEER ISLAfJD

OPTION 5

-------
10.2 Public Participation
     Program Summary

-------
                          10.2.1
           PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM SUMMARY



Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS)

        Boston Harbor Wastewater Facilities Siting
                     September, 1984
        Prepared by: Barry Lawson Associates, Inc.
                     P.O. Box 648
                     Concord, Massachusetts 01742
       Prepared for:  C.E. Maguire, Inc.
                      One Davol Square
                      Providence, Rhode Island 02903
       For the U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
             Under Contract Number 68-04-1010

-------
    I. INTRODUCTION

    Public participation is an important consideration in any
investigation of environmental impact.  Public involvement
throughout the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process_can
ensure that the resulting plans, rec ommendations and policies
are not only technically appropriate, but also politically and
socially acceptable.  The complexity of issues and concerns, and
the large  number of communities, interest groups, and government
agencies involved in this SDEIS increase the need for organized
and integrated public participation.
    The public participation program designed for this SDEIS by
Barry Lawson Associates, Inc. performs two basic functions:

    o       provides the public with information on the EIS
            process and the progress of studies for the SDEIS

    o       creates opportunities for the public to provide
            input and consultation to the SDEIS study team
            and responsible agencies.

    Several major public participation activities took place to
guarantee the performance of the above functions.  Each of these
activities, and several support services provided, are summarized
later in this appendix.  In all participation events involving
the public, efforts were made to provide the participants with
the facts they would need to make informed comments and ask
pertinent questions.  Public participation activities were
designed and planned in close collaboration with the study team.
Meetings, workshops, exercises and questionnaires were structured
to provide the study team with information it needed, while also
offering opportunities for general comments from the
participants.  The major public participation activities were
timed to provide public input at points in the EIS process when
important decisions were about to be made by the study team.

    II.  MAJOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTIVITIES

    1)Public Participation Coordination

    Management and coordination are obvious requirements if a
public participation program is to succeed.  Barry Lawson
Associates,  Inc. provided overall management, coordination, and
production of materials for this public participation program
with Barry R.  Lawson as project manager and Ann Jacobson and
Edward lonata as public participation coordinators.

-------
    2)  Planning

    A public participation workplan was developed by
representatives of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region I  (EPA), C.E. Maguire, Inc., and the staff of
Barry Lawson Associates.  The plan includes all of the activities
and services summarized in this appendix and provides for ongoing
evaluation and modification of the plan by EPA, C.E. Maguire, and
Lawson Associates staff as neccessary to meet changing
cond it ions .

    3)  Formation and Support of Citizens' Advisory Committee

    A twenty-six member Citizens' Advisory Committee (CAC) was
appointed  in October 1984, by Michael Deland, Regional
Administrator, EPA, to assist and advise the study team.
Nominations for CAC members were solicited from a wide range of
concerned  interest groups representing communities involved, the
environment, recreation, business, and government.  The appointed
members began meeting in November 1983 and have held regular
meetings  each month since then and task force meetings at two
week  intervals between the regular meetings.  Attendance at the
regular meetings averages 16.5 members and representatives of
members not able to attend.
    The CAC worked diligently with EPA, C.E. Maguire, and
Lawson Associates to become familiar with the issues examined in
the SDEIS  and has offered comments at every stage of the EIS
process.   The CAC has reviewed each chapter of this SDEIS in
draft form and edited for possible errors in data or
interpretation.  Members also took part in structured excercises
to assess  the importance of various siting impacts and to develop
potential mitigation methods. The results of these exercises are
reported  in section 10.2.3.  In June 1984, the CAC offered
testimony at State Legislature hearings on the establishment of a
metropolitan water resources authority.
    The members of the CAC have produced a report summarizing
their concerns and recommendations regarding wastewater treatment
plant siting in Boston Harbor, which is included as section
10.3 of this appendix.
    Lawson Associates is responsible for coordinating the
activities of the CAC, producing meeting agendas and minutes,
assisting the CAC in document and testimony preparation and
keeping CAC members supplied with current SDEIS information.

    4)  Formation and Support of Technical Advisory Group

    A thirty-five member Technical Advisory Group (TAG) was
formed in October 1983,  to provide technical assistance to the
study team and create a forum where study results can be

-------
presented to concerned public agencies for discussion.  The
members of the TAG were appointed by local, state, and federal
agencies interested in the project.  The TAG met periodically
during the initial stages of the study and less frequently in the
later stages using bilateral discussions between individual TAG
members and the consultant as a forum for review.  Future TAG
meeting are planned to review this SDEIS and future final
documents.  Lawson Associates coordinates TAG activities and
provides agendas and meeting notes.
    A list of TAG members appears in Table 10-1.


    5)  Production and Distribution of Newsletters

    A series of newsletters entitled "Boston Harbor Update"
was produced and distributed to all individuals and agencies on
the project mailing list  (approximately 740) .  Three Updates have
been published to date, informing the public on study progress
and upcoming public participation events.  A fourth Update is
planned for publication at the time of the SDEIS release.
6)
        Production of Public Meetings and Workshops
     Several public meetings and workshops have taken place during
 this project to reach out to the general public for input at key
 decision-making junctures. In September 1983, two public scoping
 meetings and one agency scoping meeting were held.  One hundred
 members of the general public and twenty-one representatives of
 concerned agencies attended and offered opinions on the scope of
 work for this SDEIS.
    A public workshop was held in November 1983, to identify and
 discuss factors which should be considered in the screening
 process.  About sixty people attended and took part in excercises
 designed to identify and weight the importance of various factors
 involved.  Results of this exercise are reported in section
 10.2.2.
    Two public meetings were held during January, 1984, to obtain
 public reaction to EPA's recommendation of six sites for further
 study.  One meeting was held in each of the two communities where
major impacts are likely to occur; Winthrop and Quincy.
 Approximately one hundred people attended each meeting and
enthusiastically voiced a wide variety of concerns.  A summary of
 the comments made at these meetings was published as Appendix A
of the Report of Final Screening Results (May 16, 1984).
    A public workshop was held in August 1984, to update the
public on the progress of the SDEIS, introduce factors being
considered in siting decisions and gather opinion on them,  and
elicit comments on potential mitigation and compensation
measures.  Thirty-five members of the public attended and engaged

-------
in discussions with project staff, worked in small groups on
exercises, and individually on an opinion survey.  Results of
this workshop are also reported in section 10.2.2.
    Future public briefings are planned to answer questions on
the SDEIS, and a public hearing will be held to gather the
public's official comments on the SDEIS.

    III.  SUPPORT SERVICES

    1)  MailingList Maintenance

    A mailing list of approximately 740 concerned citizens,
organizations, agencies, and media outlets was developed and is
continually updated.  The list is used for distribution of the
"Boston Harbor Update" and announcements of public participation
events.  Separate CAC and TAG lists are maintained for mailings
to those groups.

    2)  Med ia Relations

    Lawson Associates acts as a source of information for media
personnel and encourages coverage of SDEIS public events.

    3)  Information Depositor ies

    Information concerning the SDEIS has been distributed to
libraries in Boston, Quincy, Wellesley, and Winthrop.  The
libraries were provided with binders to file the information and
current SDEIS information is sent periodically.

    4)  Field Trips

    Field trips were held to allow the TAG and CAC members to
view the Nut Island and Deer Island wastewater treatment
facilities and to view Boston Harbor by boat.

    5)  Summaries

    Summaries and analyses of all public workshops and meetings
were prepared by Lawson associates for use by the study team.
        Management
    A collection of miscellaneous tasks are carried out to
support the public participation program.  A telephone number
with answering service  (617-451-3600) and a post office box
(P.O. Box 1357, General Mail Facility, Boston MA 02210) are
maintained to provide public access  to the participation
coordinator.  Requests for information or documents from

-------
concerned citizens,  agencies,  and media personnel are processed
continually.  Lawson Associates staff provides advice to the
study team regarding public communications and analysis of
opinion data.

    7)   Evaluation

    The public participation program was evaluated by members of
the study team in April 1984,  and is continuously evaluated and
modified as the SDEIS progresses.  A final evaluation by the
study team, the CAC, and the TAG is planned during the review
period for the final EIS.
    IV.  CONCLUSION

    The public participation program for this SDEIS is producing
a diversity of information.   For  example,  the study team has been
provided with detailed comments and opinions on study design,
impacts, and mitigation and  compensation for the various options.
Public input has been extensively incorporated into the work of
the study team and plans are in place to ensure the same or
greater levels of public involvement for the remainder of this
project.

-------
                            TABLE 10-1
        SDEIS - Boston Harbor Wastewater Facilities Siting
                  Technical Advisory Group List
FEDERAL AGENCIES

Mr. Chris Mantzaris
Habitat Protection Branch,
National Marine Fisheries
Federal Building - 14 Elm Street
Gloucester, MA 01930
281-3600

Mr. Rob Adler
Impact Analysis Branch, Pig. Div,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA 02154
647-8231

Ms. Kathleen Castagna
Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Room 2103 - J.F.K. Building
Boston, MA 02203
223-3915

Mr. Howard Larsen, Reg. Dir.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife  Service
1  Gateway Center
Newton Corner, MA 02158
965-5100

Mr. Jim Mikolaites
U.S. Fish and Wildlife  Service
P.O. Box 1518 - 55 Pleasant  St.
Concord, N.H. 03301
(603)224-2585

Mr. Michael Frimpter
U.S. Geological Survey
150 Causeway Street
Boston, MA 02114
223-4521
Mr. William Patterson,
Regional Environmental Officer
c/o Department of Interior
National Park Service
15 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
223-5517 or (202)343-3891

Lt. Commander Allen Boetig
U.S.C.G. Marine Safety Div.
First Coast Guard District
150 Causeway Street
Boston, MA 02114
223-6915

STATE/REGIONAL AGENCIES

Ms. Beverly Boyle
A-95 Coordinator
Executive Office of
Communities and Development
100 Cambridge St. - 9th Fl.
Boston, MA 02202
727-3253

Ms. Evelyn Murphy, Secretary
Executive Office of
Economic Dev. & Manpower Affairs
1  Ashburton Place
Boston, MA 02108

Ms. Cheryl Breen
Office  of Coastal Zone Management
20th Floor - 100 Cambridge  Street
Boston, MA 02202
727-9530

Mr. Sam Mygatt,  Executive  Director
Environmental  Impact  Review
MEPA Unit
20th Floor - 100 Cambridge Street
Boston, MA 02202
727-5830
                                -1-

-------
                        TABLE  io-l   (continued)
Ms.  Kathy Abbott
Department of Environmental Mgmt
100th Cambridge St. - 20th Fl.
Boston, MA 02202
727-4704

Mr.  Emerson Chandler
Water Resources Commission
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, MA 02202
727-3267

Mr . Steven Lipman
DEQE
1 Winter  Street-7th Floor
Boston, MA 02108
292-5668
 Mr. Glen Haas
 Div- of Water Pollution
 1 Winter Street
 Boston, MA 02108
 292-5748
Control
Mr. Martin Pillsbury
Metropolitan Area Planning Council
110 Tremont Street
Boston, MA 02108
451-2770

Mr. Jack Hamm
Metropolitan District Commission
20 Somerset Street
Boston, MA 02108
727-8881

Ms. Jean Haggerty
Metropolitan District Commission
20 Somerset Street
Boston, MA 02108
727-8880

Mr. Noel Barratta, Director
MDC Sewerage Division
20 Somerset Street
Boston, MA 02108
727-5254
 Mr.  Ron Lyberger
 Div. of Water Pollution Control
 1 Winter Street
 Boston, MA 02108
 292-5738

 Mr .  Eugene Kavanaugh
 Division of Water Ways
 1 Winter Street
 Boston, MA 02108
 292-5695

 Mr.  Leigh Bridges, Director
 Division of Marine Fisheries
 19th Floor - 100 Cambridge St.
 Boston, MA 02202
 727-3193

 Ms.  Valerie Talmage, Exec. Dir.
 Massachusetts Historic Commission
 294  Washington Street
 Boston, MA 02108
 727-8470

 Ms.  Denise Breiteneicher
 Massport Planning Division
 99 High Street
 Boston, MA 02110
 482-2930
                Mr. Justin Radlow
                Bureau of Project Development
                Department of Public Works
                100 Nashua Street
                Boston, MA 02114
                727-4740

                LOCAL/OTHER

                Mr. Russell Hughes
                80 Woodside Avenue
                Winthrop, MA 02152
                Mr. Paul Anderson
                55 Sea Street
                Quincy, MA 02169
                Mr. David Standley
                McGrath, Sylva & Assoc.,
                15 Court Square - Suite
                Boston, MA 02108
                227-1142
                          Inc,
                         540
                Mr. Peter Scarpignato
                Department of Public Facilities
                26 Court Street - 6th Floor
                Boston, MA 02108
                725-4802
                               -2-

-------
                      TABLE 10-1  (continued)
Mr. Ronald Jones
Office of Environmental Affairs
Department of Health and Hospitals
Administration Building Mezzanine
818 Harrison Avenue
Boston, MA 02108
424-5965

Ms. Frances Lavallee
Boston Harbor Water
Quality Committee
12 Randall Avenue
E. Weymouth, MA 02189
335-6388

Ms. Libby Blank
Boston Water and Sewer Commission
10 Post Office Square
Boston, MA 02109
426-6046

Mr. Robert Reimold
Metcalf & Eddy,  Inc.
50 Staniford Street
Boston, MA 02114
Mr.  Daniel Garson
C.E. Maguire,  Inc.
One  Davol Square
Providence,  R.I. 02903
426-2120 ex  417
                                -3-

-------
                       10.2.2
                  PUBLIC WORKSHOPS
            Summary and Exercise Results
 Supplementary Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Boston Harbor Wastewater Treatment Facilities Siting
                   October, 1984

-------
    Two public workshops were held during this project  to  inform
the public and to gather public input.  The workshops were
designed to provide the study team with helpful  information  at
key decision-making junctures of the project.  The first workshop
was held in November 1983, during the period of  the project  when
the list of options for further study was being  screened and
narrowed.  The goals of this workshop were to inform the public
of the progress of the project and to gather public opinion  on
factors involved  in the screening process.
    A second public workshop held in August of 1984 focused  on
mitigation and compensation methods required to  make the various
options under consideration acceptable to a variety of  concerned
citizens and groups.
    A summary of  each workshop and results of exercises conducted
at the workshops  follows:

    I. Public Workshop #1

    The first public workshop for this project was held on
November 29, 1983, at the State Street Bank Building in Boston,
Massachusetts.  The group of approximately 60 participants was
welcomed by Michael Deland, EPA Region I Regional Administrator
and Sam Mygatt of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  Mr.  Deland
moderated the workshop.
    A briefing and explanation of the project was given by Daniel
Garson of C.E. Maguire, Inc.  Following the briefing,
the group took part in an exercise designed to allow group
members to assign weights to various impacts to  be evaluated as
part of the SDEIS screening process.  The list of impacts  to be
weighted corresponded to the STEEPLI matrix being used  by C.E.
Maguire, inc. to  screen the options.  The exercise was
coordinated by Barry R. Lawson of Barry Lawson Associates, Inc.
    The workshop  participants were divided into  several smaller
groups and allowed to select a siting option which they would
focus on throughout the exercise from a list of  options provided
(table 10-2).  The groups were also provided with a list of major
impact categories based on the STEEPLI matrix and several
sub-categories for each major category.  The groups assigned
weights to each major category and ranked each sub-category  as
high,  medium, or  low in importance.  Results of  the exercise are
reported in tables 10-3 and 10-4.  Table 10-3 also compares  the
results of the Public Workshop exercise to those of a similar
exercise performed with the Citizens Advisory Commitee  for this
project,  and  ranks the major categories from most (1) to least
(7)  important, based on the results of this workshop.
    Useful  information evolved from this exercise and
was incorporated  into the analyses performed by  C.E. Maguire,
Inc.   Some  of the more important findings of this exercise
include:

-------
            the public is more concerned with environmental,
    technical, and social impacts than with economic, political,
    legal, and institutional impacts, (see rankings of major
    catagor ies)

            there is great public interest in options affecting
            unities of Winthrop and Quincy. (half of participant
the commun
chose to focus
                   on options affecting the two communities]
            the Citizens Advisory Committee opinion is a
reasonable reflection of public opinion, (comparable rankings)


II.  Public Workshop #2

    The second workshop on the siting of wastewater treatment
facilities in Boston Harbor was held on August 7, 1984 at 1:00
p.m. in the Enterprise Room of the State Street Bank Building in
Boston, Massachusetts.  The goal of the workshop was to provide
EPA and the consultant, C.E. Maguire, Inc., with public opinion
on major siting factors and potential mitigation and compensation
measures.
    Thirty-five members of the public attended the workshop and
were welcomed by Michael Deland, Regional Administrator, EPA
Region I.  The remaining portion of the workshop was divided  into
two parts: a portion which provided the participants with
relevant information and a portion which solicited public
comments and ideas.
    The information portion consisted of
Donald Porteous, Chief of Water Quality,
gave a status report on the Supplemental
Impact Statement  (SDEIS).   Daniel Garson
                                     two presentations.
                                     EPA Region I,
                                     Draft Environmental
                                      of C.E. Maguire, Inc
reviewed siting options and impacts, outlined possible mitigation
measures, and provided the participants with printed summaries of
these issues.  Questions from the audience were invited and
answered during both presentations.
    The public comment portion of the workshop was divided into
a working group session and a poll.  In the group session,
participants were asked to select the decision-making factors
which concerned them most and to form small working groups to
examine each factor.   Each group was provided with a work sheet
to guide its discussions and comments.  Staff members from EPA,
C.E. Maguire, Inc. and Barry Lawson Associates were available to
assist the working groups and to answer questions. Following the
working group sessions, each group reported its results and
offered comments to all of the participants.  A brief summary of
each work sheet follows:
    Group 1
    Major Concern: Traffic and
       would like to see plant
       concerned about traffic
                           Access - Deer
                           built on Long
                           safety, noise
Island
Island .
in addition
                                                          to

-------
current  airport  noise,  and  additional  traffic  in  an
already  congested  area.
   mitigation  measures  for  a  Deer  Island  site  would be to
barge  all materials,  equipment,  and  workers  to the site.
   barging  should  begin  immediately  and  include the current
fast-track  improvements.
   Deer  Island is  the worst site for a new facility.
   Both  the  town of Winthrop  and the contractor lose  if
barging  is  not undertaken because  it will be impossible for
residents or construction traffic  to move through the crowded
streets.

Group  2
Major  Concern: Land Use
    favor primary treatment  option  4b2  (split Nut  and  Deer
 Islands)  and secondary  treatment option  la (split Nut and
Deer Islands)  because they  minimize  degradation of existing
property.
    suggest  buffer  zones  or  parks around  treatment facilities
 and  purchasing nearby residences at  fair  market value.
    consider  Long Island  the worst  site for a treatment plant
because  Long  Island is  the  only  harbor island  to  become part
of the Island  Park system with  land  access,  making it
available  to people who  cannot  afford  boat transport.
    if  Long  Island  is  chosen as  a site, mitigation could be  to
reclaim  Nut  Island and  Deer Island as  parks.

Group  3
Major  Concern: Recreation
    favor Nut and Deer Island  sites for new facility.
   want  long outfalls for all treatment  levels.
    feel  that there is no equitable compensation for
using  Long  Island  as  a  site because  there is no existing
treatment  facility there and  the land  is  valuable to
the  State.
   any barging facilities built  should be used later  for
recreation.
   examine  building facilities  underground with recreation
areas  on top.
Group  4
Major  Concern: Community  Impact
   favor consolidated facility on  Long  Island.
   maximize distance from  facility to where  people  live.
   all materials, equipment, and workers  should  be  barged
to Long Island.
   there is no just compensation or mitigation for  building
a facility on Nut or Deer  Islands.


Group  5
Major  Concern: Facility Design
_  siting not important as long as sludge is taken care of.

-------
       sludge is a resource that should be utilized.
       sites with room for sludge treatment should be favored.
       mitigation for community adjacent to facility could
    include odor containment, cash compensation,  elimination
    of sewer and water tax.
       Nut Island is a bad site because of lack of room for
    sludge treatment, but treatment could possibly take place
    off site.

    Group 6
    Major Concern: Costs
    - consolidated treatment at Deer Island is favored because
    it is an obviously economic option.


    A questionnaire was distributed before the workshop adjourned
to poll the participants on their site choices for both primary
and secondary treatment options.  Participants were asked to
provide reasons for their choices.  The following are the results
of the poll:

Primary Treatment Options:
    Seven participants selected option 4a.2, consolidated primary
treatment on Deer Island, as the best site.  Reasons for this
choice were:

       least cost
       least new land destroyed
       water quality in that area is already poor
       does not affect Long Island
       provides an opportunity to compost sludge
       less environmental and community impact, less mitigation
       benefits of consolidated plant while not impacting
       Long Island

    Three participants selected option 4b.2, primary treatment on
Deer and Nut Islands, for the following reasons:

       the main construction is already in place and only
    requires upgrading and enlargement
       opportunity for prompt action
       consolidation at Deer Island is too much for the
       community of Winthrop to bear

    Three participants chose option 5b.2, consolidated primary
treatment on Long Island, for the following reasons:

       least amount of residential disruption
       fewer community impacts on Nut and Deer  Islands
       Deer Island could be used as park land

    Two participants chose option 5a.2, primary treatment on Deer

-------
 and Long Islands, for the following reasons:

        utilizes existing site on Deer Island without making
        Winthrop absorb 100% of the impact
        a State Park is still possible on Long Island
     -  no filling of harbor at Nut Island
     -  better possibilities for mitigation


 Secondary Treatment Options:

     Six participants chose option la, consolidated secondary
 treatment at Deer Island, as the best secondary treatment site
 option.  Reasons cited for this choice are the same as reasons
 mentioned earlier for the choice of site 4a.2 for primary
 treatment.

     Three participants selected option Ib, primary treatment on
 Nut Island with secondary treatment on Deer Island, as the best
 option for secondary treatment.  The following are some reasons
 for this choice:

        offers opportunity of a buffer park at Deer Island
        without further degradation of Long and Nut Islands
        does not impact Long Island

     Three participants chose option 2b.l, consolidated secondary
 treatment at Long Island, for the same reasons option 5b.2 was
 selected  as a primary treatment site.

     One participant  selected option 2b.3, primary treatment at
 Deer Island with primary and secondary treatment at Long Island
 because,  if the  waiver (301(h)  application) is not granted, the
 impact  should be spread  out.

     The following general comments were added to the
 questionnaire sheet  by participants:

     -   no  secondary  options should be considered because
        the  MDC cannot afford operation and maintenence costs
        and  secondary plants are too complex for  us to be able  to
        guarantee  successful operation
        leave  sites where  they are and upgrade them,  too much time
        will be taken up  to  chose  a new site and  get  political
        approval  for  it
        construction  of ocean outfall  should be started
        immediately to  allow pumping of untreated  sludge  and
        wastewater out  of  the harbor  to alleviate  health  hazards
        facilities should  be  located away  from  people


     Several participants  chose  not  to  respond  to one or more
questions on  the questionnaire  form.
     This workshop indicated  that  the public was somewhat divided

-------
on the siting issue and that there was both support and
opposition for each option.  There was a general consenus at the
workshop that mitigation and compensation are important factors
to be considered in siting a treatment facility or facilities.
Several EIS staff persons from C.E. Maguire and EPA were present
at the workshop and interacted with the participants.
    Information gathered through these interactions and through
the exercises was used to assist in the formulation of
recommendations included in the draft EIS.   Information
resulting from both workshops will be valuable when it becomes
necessary to begin planning for mitigation to ensure
implementation of a final siting decision.

-------
                            TABLE 10-2

                         LIST OF OPTIONS

          FACILITIES AND SITES FOR WASTEWATER  TREATMENT

 Option      Components

 la.l        Headworks at Nut  Island
            Combined primary and secondary  treatment  at Deer
             Island
            Combined local outfalls

 la.2        Headworks at Nut  Island
            Separate primary and secondary  treatment  at Deer
             Island
            Combined local outfalls

 lb.1        Primary treatment at Nut  and  Deer  Islands
            Combined secondary treatment  at Deer  Island
            Combined local outfalls

 Ib.2        Primary treatment at Nut  and  Deer  Islands
            Separate secondary treatment  at Deer  Island
            Combined local outfalls

 Ic         Primary and secondary treatment at  Deer  Island  and
            Nut  Island *
            Local outfalls

 2a.1        Headworks at Nut Island
            Primary and secondary treatment at  Deer  Island  and
            Long Island *

 2a.2        Primary and secondary treatment at  Deer  Island*
            Primary treatment at Nut  Island with  secondary
            treatment at Long Island
            Local outfalls

2b.l        Headworks at Deer Island  and  Nut Island
            Combined primary and secondary treatment at Long
            Island *
            Local outfalls

2b.2        Primary treatment at Deer and Nut  Islands
            Combined secondary treatment  at Long  Island  *
            Local outfalls

-------
                   TABLE 10-2  (continued)
3a/b        Headworks at Deer and Nut  Island
            Combined secondary treatment * at either Lovells  or
            Brewsters
            Local outfalls

4a.l/2      Headworks at Nut Island
            Combined primary treatment at Deer Island *
            Either local or deep ocean outfalls

4b.l/2      Primary treatment at both Nut and Deer Islands
            Either separate or combined deep ocean outfall at
            Deer Island with inter-island tunnel

            PREFERRED MDC PRIMARY TREATMENT OPTION

5a.l/2      Headworks at Nut Island
            Primary treatment at Long  Island
            Either local outfalls or inter-island tunnel to deep
            outfall

            Separate primary treatment at Deer Island
            Either local or deep ocean outfalls

5b.l/2      Headworks at Deer Island and Nut Island
            Combined primary treatment * at Long Island
            Either local or deep ocean outfall

* assumes primary treatment facilities to treat average 500 mgd,
peak 1240 mgd combined flows.

-------
Group
Code
1
2
3

4
5

6

7
8
9
10
Option
Ic
4b2
4bl/2

4bl/2
Ib2

4b2

4a2
2b2
4bl/2
2bl
Total


Workshop Average
Workshop Rank
CAC

CAC
Average

Rank
Social
15
16
25

14
30

15

15
25
24

179

20
2
(24+)

1
Weights Assigned to Impact Categories (by Group)
Technical
20
23
16

19
8

25

10
20
20
DID
161

18
3
(16-)

3
Environmental
30
23
25

19
20

20

30
20
20
NOT WEIGH
207

23
1
(22)

2
Economic
15
9
5. (L)

19
25

10

30. (H)
20
15

148

17
4
(10)

5
Political
15
5
5

5
10

5

5
10
8

68

8
6
(5)

7
Legal
2
4
4

5
3

5

5
0
5

34

4
7
(7)

6
Institutional
2
18
20

19
5

20

5
5
9

103

11.5
5
(15)

4
5!
(D
P-
oq
&
rt
H-
3
^3
O
hh
£
Ti
CD
n
rt
en
I
S
jD
LJ-
o
I-!
O
PJ
rt
PJ
iS
O
i-i
H-
(D
cn





1-3
>
Cd
l-_l
IT1
M


1— '
O
1
u>











-------
                          TABLE 10-U
                     COMPILED GROUP RESPONSES
                     RATING OF SUB-CATAGORIES
SCREENING CRITERIA

CATEGORY/impact
 IMPORTANCE OF IMPACT

HIGH     MEDIUM    LOW
SOCIAL (Adverse Community  Impacts)
    Construction activities
    Traffic and safety
    Noise
    Odor
    Property values
    Land use (Preclusion/Compatibility
       of Other Uses)
    Community Character
    Historical/Archeological
6
4
3
4
1
1
1
1
2
2
5
4
5

6
5
2
TECHNICAL  (Engineering and  Scientific)
    Level  of  treatment/acres  required        4
    Ave./peak daily  flows                    5
    Construction period                      3
    System operation during construction     4
    System management/operation              5
    Energy requirements                      1
    Long-term viability                      4
    Engineering feasibility                 6
    Land availability and access             4
    Sub-regional sewage  systems              3
    Infiltration/Inflow                      6
    System elements  (CSO's, etc.)            4
          1
          1
          1

          1
          2
          1

          1
          1
          1
          2
          2
          1
          1
ENVIRONMENTAL  (Natural  and  Built  Environment)
    Water  quality                            7
    Recreational opportunities               6
    Scenic quality                           2
    Marine life (fisheries)                  7
    Air  Quality                             5
    Wildlife habitats
           3
           1
           1
           1

           1
           2

-------
                    TABLE 10-U (continued)


ECONOMIC (Costs and financial effects)
    Capital (construction) costs            421
    Operation & maintenance costs           611
    Present worth/annualized costs          211
    Local share (by town)                   421
    User charges (per capita)               5-2
    Affordability (to taxpayers/users)      312
    Employment/wages                        212
    Secondary economic impacts              113
POLITICAL (Jurisdictional implications)
    Federal costs/respons.                   211
    State costs/respons.                    212
    Municipal costs/respons.                321
    Political relats. toward communities    411
    Personal responsibility                 1
LEGAL  (Judicial concerns)
    Statutory requirements/limits           2-4
    Permits required                        1-4
    Land ownership                          1-3
    Compliance with court actions           22-
    Environmental regulations               6         -         -
INSTITUTIONAL (Planning Coordination)
    Institutions affected                   112
    System management/operations            411
    Management of facilities                5-1
    Policies                                222
    Other planning elements                 12-
    Site ownership/acquisition              211
    Periodic review/community input         221

-------
                       10.2.3


       CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE EXERCISES
 Supplementary Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Boston Harbor Wastewater Treatment Facilities Siting
                   October, 1984

-------
    Two major structured exercises have been undertaken by the
CAC to assist the EIS staff.  These exercises were performed in
addition to the functions mentioned in section 10.2.1 and 11.3.
    The first exercise took place in early November 1983.  It was
designed to yield information about the various impacts being
used to analyze siting options.   This exercise was similar to the
exercise described for Public Workshop #1 (see 10.2.2).  In
addition to weighing each major  category of impacts, the CAC
weighed each major category with reference to each particular
siting option. The results of this exercise are reported in
Tables 10-5, 10-6, and 10-7.  This exercise also served as a test
of the exercise used at Public Workshop #1, and the results of
this exercise can be interpreted in much the same way as the
results of the workshop (see 10.2.2).  As in the case of the
workshop, the information resulting from this exercise was used
to assist the EIS staff in screening and narrowing the siting
options.
    The second CAC exercise took place in April and May of 1984.
This exercise used structured questionnaires and the framework
of the STEEPLI matrix to elicit  and organize comments on impact
mitigation/compensation and avoidance of adverse impacts.  The
task placed before the CAC members was to make each of the siting
options "equally acceptable".  Individual and group results for
this exercise are reported in table 10-8.  (Option numbers and
STEEPLI catagories are identical to those described in table
10-2 and 10-4.)
    The information resulting from this exercise is important
when considering the implementability of the various options
and the feasibility and cost of  possible mitigation/compensation
efforts.

-------
CRITERIA

SOCIAL
TECHNiCAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
ECONOMIC
POLITICAL
LEGAL
INST ITUTIONAL





EPA


25

10

25
25

5

5
5



10

25

25
20

0

10
10





INDI


15

15

15
20

10

10
15





ViniJAL


25

25

20
1

3

1
25










GROUP


15

15

20
5

10

15
20


37

5

38
1

5

5
q





SCORES


45

10

15
15

5

5
5








25

15

25
10

0

5
20


TO-
TAL

172

110

158
72

33

51
104


AVE-


24 +

16-

22 +
10 +

5-

7 +
15-





RANK


1

3

2
5

7

B
4
n
n
td
1 — 1
O
1-3
H
lz|
O
o

§ ro
T-|
                                                                                td
                                                                                CO

-------
                       TABLE  10-6

          CAC WEIGHTING OF  IMPACT SUB-CATAGORIES

 [Ed.  Notes:
 (1)  EPA's response  is added  in  to  total  in  this  Table.
 (2)  Some groups  did not  assign  an  importance  to  particular
 categories.   Therefore,  the  number does  not add  up to the total
 number of groups.
 (3)  * indicates  an  impact  added by a  group.]
 SCREENING CRITERIA
         Of what importance

           is each  impact?:
 CATEGORY/impact
 HIGH
MEDIUM
LOW
 SOCIAL (Adverse  Community  Impacts)
     Construction activities
     Noise
     Odor
     Recreational Opportunities
     Property values
     Land use (Preclusion/Compati-
       bility of Other Uses
     Community Character
     Scenic Quality
     Historical/Archeological
 5
 4
 5
 2
 5

 5
 4
 4
 2
TECHNICAL (Engineering and Scientific)
    Engineering feasibility
    Traffic disruptions
    Land availability and access
    Sub-regional sewage systems
    Infiltration/Inflow
    System elements (CSO's, etc.)
    Other

ENVIRONMENTAL (Natural and Built
    Water quality
    Marine Life
    Air quality
    Wildlife
    Fishing
    Other
 2
 2
 2
 4
 1

 2
 2
 2
           1
           3
           3
           4
           2
           1
Environment)
 7
 7         1
 7
 5         1
 7
 1
 1
 1
 2
 1
           1
           1

-------
                       TABLE 10_g  (continued)


ECONOMIC (Costs and financial effects)
    Construction costs            151
    Operation & maintenance costs 421
    Affordability                 341
       (to taxpayers/users)
    Employment/wages generated              3         3
    Secondary economic impacts              2         5
    Other	

POLITICAL (Jurisdictional implications)
    Municipal costs/respons.      123
    State costs/respons.                    5         1
    Federal costs/respons.        312
    Political relationships *
       toward communities

LEGAL (Judicial concerns)
    State and Federal reguls.     332
    Land ownership                224
    Pending court actions         223
    Environmental regs.  *                    2

INSTITUTIONAL (Planning Coordination)
    System management/operations  611
    Future planning               5         3
    Growth/expansion of system    511
    Periodic review/Commun.input* 1

-------
                      TABLE   10-7


CAC  WEIGHTING OF  IMPACT  SUB-CATAGORIES

             FOR  EACH SITING OPTION
 [Eo- NOTE: IF GROUP INDICATED THAT A PARTICULAR SITE WAS NOT AVAILABLE
 (NA), NO  SCORE WAS ADDED INTO AVERAGE)
CATEGORY
SOCIAL

GROUP SCORES 5


TOTAL/AVE
TECHNICAL







ENVIRONMENTAL







ECONOMIC








POLITICAL






LEGAL






INSTITUTIONAL





DEER
ISLAND
20
J8
45
51
10
160/23
20
30
15
10
15
15
25
130/19
20
35
25
15
25
15
25
160/23
0
20
15

15
10
5
20
85/12
10
0
0
5
0
'8
25/1
0
0
0
5
10
10
30/4
20
5
10
25-
20
10
90/13
NUT
ISLAND
30
*§
45
58
10
175/25
30
30
15
10
15
5
25
130/19
20
35
25
15
25
35
25
180/26
0
20
5

15
10
0
20
70/10
0
0
0
5
0
0
10/1
0
0
5°
5
5
10
25/1
20
5
10
20
15
10
85/12
LONG
ISLAND
15
!6
15
52°0
10
160/27
20
NA
15
10
10
10
25
90/15
20
NA
25
45
25
35
25
175/29
0
NA
5

15
5

20
50/8
10
NA
0
5
0
'5
30/5
0
NA
§
0
5
10
20/3
20
NA
10
ll
10
10
65/11
LOVELL
ISLAND
5
NA
50
NA
1?
NA
130/33
20
NA
15
NA
10
20
NA
65/16
20
NA
25
NA
25
10
NA
80/20
0
NA
5

NA
5
20
NA
30/8
10
NA
0
NA
0
NA
15/4
0
NA
0
NA
0
10
NA
10/3
20
NA
10
NA
10
10
NA
50/13
BREWSTER
ISLAND
5
*0
NA
5?
NA
122/24
20
15
15
NA
10
25
NA
85/17
20
45
25
NA
25
5
NA
120/24
0
25


NA

25
NA
60/12
10
10
0
NA
0
NA
25/5
0
0
0
NA
0
15
NA
15/3
20
3
10
NA
10
10
NA
53/11
OTHER
LOCATION
20


50
20

90/30
25



10
5

40/13
20



25
10

55/18
0

NEW ISLAND
100

5


110/36
10



o
25
35/11
0


0
25

25/8
20


10
10

10/13

-------
                                           TABLE   10-8

                      RESULTS  OF  CAC  MITIGATION  EXERCISE
                                SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SDEIS)
                                       BOSTON HARBOR WASTEWATER FACILITIES SITING

                                     CAC  MITIGATION EXERCISE   INDIVIDUAL RESPONSES
                                                      April,  198M
(A)
Adverse Impacts
Requiring Action


(B)
Mitigating,
Avoidance,
Compensatory Measures
Suggested
(C)
Implication(s)
Requiring
Investigation

PRIMARY TREATMENT OPTIONS

Option ta2:  The island is available  and  expansion/upgrade would be possible without fill.   (Andrea Sault)
Construction traffic
                                       Barging  of workers and materials
                                       Work  with  community to find most
                                       acceptable time  (i.e. not to
                                       coincide with  travel time of school
                                       children)
                                       Availability of staging areas and what
                                       impacts would occur in those areas.

                                       Set up community advisory group.
Construction noise
                                       Guarantee  repair  of any damaged roads.  Study of pre- construction conditions.

                                                                              Community advisory group.
Construction interruption of plant
operations
Consult community  on  most  tolerable
time for high noise  levels.

Provide safety equipment  if  noise
levels exceed OSHA safety  levels at
prison or in neighborhoods.

Take measures to protect  prison and
residential homes  from structural
damage if blasting is necessary.

Any removable of ash  or sludge should
be in container trucks or  barges.
                                                                              Cost might be high.

-------
                                       TABLE  10  -8   (continued)
Construction interruption  of
plant operations - water  quality
Construction debris
Construction debris   air quality
Lessen burden
 Air  quality
Notify public of shut downs. Monitor
closely; shut down during periods of
least effect on fishing, shellfish
harvesting and recreation.

Take measures to eliminate debris from
falling into harbor.

Take measures to lessen dust impacts on
neighboring community;  remove old parts
quickly; no burning of  debris.

Remove prison

Reimbursement to host community.

Effective treatment for hazardous
waste.
                                                                              Another  suitable  location  must  be  found.
                                        Will be costly; needs to be permanent
                                        on-going operation with sufficient
                                        personnel to make program work well.
                                       Install  scrubbers  where  feasible.
                                       Install  odor  control  facilities

                                       Moratorium of any  new city or towns
                                       entering the  system.
                                        New treatment plants in other areas
                                        will have to be built.
 Option  Ma2: Consolidated use at Deer Island,  leas  significant  impacts on Nut Island, no sludge problems, best
 alternative with choices available.   (Terry Fancher)
 Technical - construction period -
 traffic problems in neighborhood
Social - Traffic and Safety,  Land
Use
Construction crews would jam local
streets - they could be barged in and
compensation to Winthop be made - a
mitigating measure might be to work
with Winthrop in scheduling traffic-
workers could be bused in.

Noise and air quality will always be
a concern for residents near a plant
of this size.  Whatever plant is de-
signed must be able to meet local
noise and odor regulations   an
argument could be made that the plant
would only be built if the correction-
                                        Winthop residents believe the MDC has had
                                        a  slipshod  record and  may require the
                                        establishment of a separate authority
                                        before  they allow any  work to be done.
                                        The  social  implications because  of  noise
                                        and  odor  from  existing  plant  could  be
                                        criticaly important  to  local  residents.

-------
                                       TABLE  10-8   (continued
Environmental - Water quality and
effects on marine life with long
ocean outfall.
Legal   Residents of Winthrop can
be expected to file legal action.
Institutional   New location for Deer
Island correctional facility would
have to be found (ideally).
                                       al facility were moved.

                                       The biggest problem with a  deep ocean
                                       outfall (besides the actual construct-
                                       ion)  is the unknown impact  on  the
                                       marine life   suggest an in-depth study
                                       be made.
Building a deep ocean outfall runs the
risk of polluting the outer harbor.  A
Study would have to be made of effects.
                                       The legal  question can  be expected  to    Suggestions  made  under  Column  B.
                                       surface from residents.   They must  feel
                                       they are a part of the  total  process.
                                       Buffer  zones would be ideal but  there
                                       is no room with prison  on island.
                                       Evacuation plans would  be practically
                                       useless on available streets  if  a  chlo-
                                       rine leak  occurred.   Suggest  a totally
                                       fail-safe  chlorine solution be found.
                                       The idea of financial incentives to
                                       Winthrop is important but could  only be
                                       funded  if  plant was  run  as separate
                                       authority.

                                       I consider removal of the correction-    The  residents  might  like  to  get rid  of
                                       al institution as biggest selling  point  the  prison but I  would  think the  state
                                       for any construction on  Deer  Island,     would  have to  be  given  an  alternative,
                                       though  currently would  not be required  plus the  money to build the  prison.
                                       with this  option.
Political - MDC should consider a
separate authority to run plant.
                                       The whole idea of finances  has  to be
                                       increased.   What is the  chance  of a
                                       separate sewer authority?  Would  per-
                                       formance bond be required?  Would  the
                                       new plant be obsolete by the  time it
                                       is built?

Option 1)b2: Upgrades present system - no impact at Long Island.  (Andrew Locke)
Astudy has to be made of the plant with
state of the art technology that is not
simply built because it was the cheap-
est.   The specifications must be written
for the best plant for that site.
Construction traffic

Landfill at Nut Island


Enlarge Deer Island plant
                                       Busing; Bargin g
                                                                               Docking facilities
                                       Take outer part of Hough's Neck          Eminent  domain
                                       instead.  Legal process born  by  State.   Funding    5%  increase  in cherry  sheet.
                                       Demolish prison.

                                       Build a clean plant.
Finding a new site.

Complete re-building.

-------
                                          TABLE   10-8   (continued)
                                      Run  It properly.                        Competent employees.

                                      Open Shirley Gut                        Bridge.

Option 5a2:  Sharing of responsibilities; minimal  impact to residential communities: construction  on  Long  Island  without
interference with existing plants.  (A. Termine)

Long Island recreation                Co-ordinate recreational plans for      Immediate involvement by City  of  Boston.
                                      Long Island with treatment plant
                                      siting.  Consider  relocation of
                                      hospital facility.

Traffic impact on Squantum            Consider docking facility  for shipping. Locate shipping  and staging  area.
                                      receiving  bulk  goods and for relief •
                                      during construction.

                                      Funds should be made available for the
                                      impacted towns  for  legal and technical
                                      consultants prior  to final engineering.

                                      Reorganize MDC  - Develop public relations  campaign  to  convince residents  that
                                      they can co-exist with a waste treatment plant.

                                      Take immediate  action on Boston Harbor CSO's and on  I/I.

                                      Establish  final limit on flows to MDC systems   future additions to  system would
                                      require pre-treatment at source.

                                      State should declare a moratorium on any additional  towns  feeding  in to the MDC
                                      system until wastewater plans are finalized.

Option 5b2: Removal of adverse impacts on  residents adjacent to Nut Island and Deer Island.   Removal of bridge mandatory
to reduce impacts to Quincy residents.   Construction limited to one area with no  residents  in area.   Boston is largest
contributor to system and would be  sharing in responsibility.  (Anne Porter)

Construction traffic                  Take down  Long  Island bridge.           Special permits  may be required for this.

                                      Barge construction equipment.           Staging area (e.g. Perini  in East Boston
                                      chlorine.                               -  Meridian  Street  Bridge)  near access to
                                                                              Bridge and  Tunnel  - effects  on Chelsea
                                                                              traffic and  East Boston.

Car traffic  workers                   Ferrying of different work shifts.      Fire Station would be needed on Island
                                                                              for smoke stack  fires and  any medical

-------
                                         TABLE  10-8   (continued)
                                                                               emergencies.
Noise/Air Quality,  health should not
be a factor, because not directly
adjacent to community.

Loss of Land use
Relocation of homeless and hospital
                                        Payment  or  compensation  to  Boston  in
                                        lieu  of  taxes  or  lower user charges
                                        in  Squantum area.

                                        Federal  annd State  funding  for new
                                        facility.
                                       Remaining  area  to  be  landscaped  and
                                       developed  for recreational  use.


                                       Facility should be found  in Boston
                                       area  for homeless, not  on an Island
                                       not accessible  to  them.   Chronic
                                       patients should also  be relocated to
                                       a more  central  location.

Option 5b2:  Reclamation of two Islands to the  Harbor Islands.  Reduced  impacts to already overburdened community.
(Peggy Riley)

Community,  Social and Environmental.    All listed measures should  be  imple-    All institutional, and political
                                       mented.                                 constraints should be investigated.

Institutional  and cost should be a
low priority under impacts due to
the adverse  impacts on host
community.

SECONDARY TREATMENT OPTIONS:

Option 1a:  Provides for both primary  and secondary treatment with  best  alternative for siting.
(Terry Fancher)
Technical- Construction period -
traffic problems in neighborhood
Social - Traffic, safety.
Land use
Construction crews would Jam local       Before  anything is done local residents
streets.  The actual materials  might     must be assured that the MDC will not
Winthrop may have to be considered.      not run new plant as it has the old.
Suggest working with local residents  to  Would prefer gravity flow system with
schedule workers, maybe busing  them  to   both processes rather than current systen
site.                                   of pumping uphill.
Air quality will be biggest
concern with a secondary
treatment plant.  No consid-
eration has yet been given to
type of sludge removal to be used.
                                                                              Implications because of noise and odor
                                                                              from existing plant could be critically
                                                                              important to local residents.

-------
                                         TABLE  10-8   (continued)
Environmental - How and
where to dispose of sludge
Legal - residents of
Winthrop can be expected
to file legal action.
 Institutional - New loca-
 for Deer Island
 Correctional Facility would
 have to be addressed or
 the alternative is out.
 Political - MDC should
 consider separate author-
 ity to run plant.
The biggest problem will be
the method of sludge treat-
ment.  There has been no
discussion on pros and cons
of composting, incineration,
or barging.  With any method
the residents should agree the
odors will be minimal.

Compensatory measures must
be taken to diffuse any
legal action taken that would
delay or cancel plans.

The state is having severe
difficulties in finding
temporary space for prisons.
People do not want them.  The
problem will be magnified for
a permanent facility.  This
could stop the whole project
in its tracks.

Issue of financing must be
dealt with.  Performance
bonds required, since plant
is more complex a guarantee
must be given for a period of
years to ensure the safe
operation of plant.
                                                                               A method  must be developed to decide
                                                                               which  type of secondary plant would be
                                                                               used.
                                                                               If legal  implications are not taken  into
                                                                               account,  the  plant will never be built.
                                                                               Site  would  have to be found for new  tion
                                                                               prison.
                                                                               If the  type  of secondary system is not
                                                                               considered closely a system could be
                                                                               built that will breakdown as present
                                                                               system  has.
Option 1b: Best Harbor quality.  (A.M.  Termine)
Total List of Social
Impacts
                                        Construction techniques.

                                        Removal of sludge.
                                       Legal Staff Cost  to insure
                                       compliance.
                                       Possible  community  increase
                                       in  state  aid due  to siting
                                       problems.
                                       Pay for technical consultant
                                       to  monitor  design.

(Other Impacts - Same as option 5a2)

Option 2b1:  Main benefit to water  quality  of Harbor and  surrounding  beaches  (removal  of scum,  floatables.  etc.)

-------
                                         TABLE   10-8    (continued)
Advantages to communities that have had sewerage treatement  plant  problems  for over ten years.  (Anne Porter)
Transporting heavy
construction equipment
Large loss of land use for
recreational purposes.
Relocaton of homeless and
hospital.
Mandatory - no land access
to plant of this enormous
size.   Would benefit
residential areas because
numerous chlorine trucks  would
not be travelling through
narrow streets and congested
neighborhoods.

Add another island to
replace Long Island in
the Harbor Parks (e.g. Deer
Island   easily accessible
to Winthrop, Boston, Revere,
Lynn.)

Facilities should be in
Boston area. (Same expana-
tion as primary choice)
Staging area large enough to handle
this amoung of equipment and storage.
(e.g.  Moran Terminal or  Conley Terminal
in South Boston)

Fire Station would be needed on Island,
and medical team  for any emergencies.
Payment or compensation  to  Boston  in
lieu of taxes,  lower  use  charges  to
Squantum and staging  area residents  if
it applies.
Federal and State funding  for  new
facilities.
Option 2b1: Reduced impacts to residents - possible advantage by  breaking down system into less centralized facility.
(Peggy Riley)
Traffic
                                       Destruction of bridge  or
                                       limited use.

                                       All measures  listed  under
                                       "mitigation"  should  be
                                       implemented regardless of  site
                                       chosen, as well as  those items
                                       listed under  "avoidance" and
                                       "compensatory".
                                       Town permits


                                       Availability of land by owner.
Option 2b3: It is the most removed from nearby residential area (if  proper odor control and screening is in place it
might be made compatible with recreational use)  (Andrea Sault)
Construction Impacts

Historical/Archaeological
(Same as primary)

Archaeological crew should accompany
contractors (as was done in Cambridge
when Red Line extension built.)
Air Quality
Institutional
Odor control devices
installed to make it more
compatible with recreation

Move Hospital
Moratorium any any additional
cities and towns
                                                                              Might increase cost.
                                                                              Another location must be found.

-------
                                TABLE  10-8   (continued)
                   SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT  STATEMENT  (SDEIS)
                           BOSTON HARBOR WASTEWATER FACILITIES  SITING

                    CAC MITIGATION EXERCISE  -  COMPILATION OF  GROUP  RESPONSES
                                         April 3,  1984
(A)
Adverse Impacts
Requiring Action
(B)
Mitigating ,
Avoidance ,
and Compensatory
Measures Suggested
(C)
Implication( s )
Requiring
Investigation
Option tf: 4a2 - [Headworks at Nut  Island;  Primary  at  Deer  Island]
Principal Advantages of Option:  Consolidated  facilities,  improvements  to  Hough's  Neck
community.
Institutional
(Prison)

Chlorine Spill


Traffic-Construction



User Fees incentives





Water quality - floatables



Visual Impacts

Odor
Move prison to another site
Other potential sites
Fund with portion of sewer fees
Evacuation plans; alternative
treatment

Busing of workers
Barging materials
Permanent fee reduction
Create Water and Sewer Auth.
Moratorium on new towns
Staging area for buses
Identify appropriate staging area (So.
Boston Naval Yard?

Need legislative approval
Requires legislative approval
Allocate some portion of fees for prison
removal
Legislative action, localized treatment
More effective screening,
floating booms around perimeter
of project

Fence screens, buffer zone with trees

Proper Operation - tank covers and
scrubbers

-------
                                   TABLE 10-8  (continued)
Option t> 4b2 - [Primary at Nut Island;  Primary at Deer Island]
Principal Advantages of Option:  Existing system can be upgraded  with  minimum  dislocation.

Environmentally unpleasant   Legal fund for ensuring
                             future compliance

                             Buffer park or "beautify plant
                             so that it looks and smells
                             like a park

                             Reward from State aid fund, i.e.
                             5% increase from Cherry Sheet

                             Supplement fire and police

                             Beach Patrol

                             Demolish Prison               Finding  a  new  site

                             Open Shirley Gut              Bridge

                             Run plant properly            Competent  employees

Construction traffic         Barge


Option tt 2bl,  [Headworks at NI,  PI, Primary/Secondary at Long  Island;  5a2 - Headworks at Nut Island
Primary at PI, LI]

Principal Advantages of Option:  Main benefit of cleaning Harbor  mainly  for beaches.  Dont have to
work around existing MDC facilites.  Move treatment plant away from communities. Removal of Moon
Island CSO.


Construction Traffic         Remove L.I. Bridge/Barge      Need  Fire  Station
                             Remove prison
                             Reactivate recreational projects

Noise/Air quality            Ferry of different work shifts
                             Payment in lieu of taxes

Option tt 5a2 - [Headworks at NI , Primary at PI, LI]

Principal Advantage of Option:  Removal of adverse impacts on  residents of Nut  Island; Possible
addition of recreation area to Hough's Neck; divides impacts across three communities.
(same as option 2bl)

-------
          10.3 Citizens
    Advisory Committee
(CAC) Recommendations

-------
                        10.3
RECOMMENDATIONS ON WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES

                        FOR

                   BOSTON HARBOR
             Citizen Advisory Committee
 Supplementary Draft Environmental Impact Statement
     Boston Harbor Wastewater Facilities Siting
                    August 1984
          Prepared with the assistance of

           Barry Lawson Associates, Inc.
           P.O. Box 648
           Concord, Massachusetts 01742
           C.E. Maguire, Inc.
           One Davol Square
           Providence, Rhode Island 02903

-------
I.     Introduction: The Role of the Citizen Advisory Committee

    The Boston Harbor Wastewater Treatment Facilities Siting
Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) was established in the Fall of
1983 to assist the United States Environmental Protection Agency
and the consultant under contract,  C.E.  Maguire Inc., in the
preparation of the Supplementary Draft Environmental Impact
Statement(SDEIS)  for the siting of  wastewater treatment
facilities in Boston Harbor.   Barry Lawson Associates, Inc. was
contracted by C.E. Maguire,  Inc. to coordinate public
participation for the project.  The CAC is a major element of the
comprehensive public participation  program designed for the SDEIS
by Lawson Associates.  The following advisory functions were
considered for the CAC when  it was  established:

          o      providing a  direct link to the wider community
                 interested  in and  affected by waste treatment in
                 Boston Harbor;

          o      assisting in the development, implementation
                 and monitoring of  the public participation
                 program;

          o      commenting  on the  progress and conclusions of
                 the SDEIS;

          o      providing information to others about the
                 project and  its likely impacts;

          o      assisting the project team in gathering and
                 understanding the  concerns and opinions of the
                 -publics affected by the project;

          o      advising the project staff on the scope of the
                 study and offering members' representative
                 perspectives on the viability of options being
                 considered,

    The CAC members were nominated  from a cross-section of
environmental, community, government, and business interest
groups.  The underlying factor uniting the members of this group
was a desire to ensure that  Boston  Harbor returns to being a
healthy, useful,  and beautiful resource for the benefit of all,
and that undesirable impacts  of wastewater facilities
construction and operation be minimized and borne as equitably as
possible. The CAC has worked  diligently to perform all of the
                                2

-------
functions considered for the group when it was established.
    There is general agreement within the CAC that the present
wastewater treatment situation in Boston Harbor is deplorable.
The factors outlined in Chapter 3 (Purpose and Need for Action)
of this document are of great concern to the CAC.  Boston Harbor
and the communities surrounding it are  being continually
polluted because of poor planning, inadequate maintenence, and
improper operation of an out-dated and over-burdened wastewater
system.  The members of the CAC view the harbor as a valuable
economic, recreational, residential, and esthetic resource that
is well worth cleaning up and preserving, and are equally
concerned about the impacts of construction of wastewater
treatment facilities on the communities where they will be built
and operated.
    The CAC has met once per month and a task force subcommittee
has met at two week intervals between committee meetings. Members
have been continually briefed by  the engineering consultant on
the progress of the study while it was underway.  The CAC offered
advice on factual details and data accuracy directly to
C.E. Maguire, Inc. and this advice is incorporated into the
analysis and conclusions of the SDEIS.
    This portion of the appendix  will describe the major concerns
and recommendations of the CAC regarding the larger issues of
wastewater treatment in Boston Harbor.
    The opinions and recommendations of the CAC must be viewed
with the realization that they arise from a group that has worked
long and hard with EPA, the consultants, and members of the
communities and groups represented in order to gain a full and
balanced understanding of the problems facing those who must
determine siting for wastewater treatment facilities in Boston
Harbor. It is the hope of the CAC that these ideas will have
impact on the decisionmakers for  this necessary and important
project.

II.    Recommendations

    1) Planning and Growth

    The construction of wastewater treatment facilities for the
MDC sewer system is of obvious importance, but is only one
component of a broader planning and  improvement program which
must be undertaken if the current situation in Boston Harbor  is
to be  remedied.  The following planning issues must be addressed
if the construction of new treatment facilities or the
rehabilitation of old facilities  is  to have any lasting positive
effect:

                 a long term, integrated plan  for  improving
          Boston Harbor must be developed and the  issues  of
          combined sewer overflows,  dry weather overflows,
          extraneous sources of flow, and all sources of
          pollution must be considered  in this plan;
                                3

-------
       expansion of the present system to communities
not currently included in the system should not be
allowed;

       expansion  within communities in the system
beyond the system's ability to provide adequate service
should not be allowed;

       a  prioritized schedule of projects should be
developed to ensure implementation of short term and
long term projects is coordinated and integrated so
that improvements to the harbor begin soon and continue
into the  future;

       the possibility of building satellite treatment
plants to reduce flow to the current treatment system
and to allow expansion of communities must not be
abandoned.  Siting possibilities for satellite plants
should not be limited to those included in the EMMA
study, and new technologies should be examined as
possible  solutions to upstream problems;

       disposal of sludge produced by the proposed
facilities must be studied and planned for.  Public
input must be sought before the facilites are
constructed. Alternative modern sludge treatment
methods should be examined and pre-treatment of
industrial wastes should be more extensive to remove
toxic products from sludge and make it more useful as a
fertilizer.  Current pre-treatment efforts are not
acceptably implemented and enforced.  Planning for land
disposal  of sludge must be coordinated with water
supply managers to protect the watershed  where disposal
will take place.

       some members of the group feel that, because of
project timing, additional State funds should continue
to be made available for upgrading existing MDC
treatment plants without further delay.  Sewage rates
should be increased as soon as possible to build up
funding for the proposed facilities.  These two items
will show good faith for implementation on the part of
the Commonwealth and the MDC or whatever  agency assumes
control and will enhance public awareness of the
situation.

-------
    2)    Facility Operation

    The following recommendations are made regarding the
operation of the proposed facilities in an attempt to avoid the
types of management and operation problems currently taking place
in the MDC treatment facilities:

                 establish a fiscally independent, self
           supporting metropolitan water resources authority
           similar to the body proposed in Massachusetts House of
           Representatives Bill HR 5915 with modifications to
           ensure more representation of communities where
           facilities will be sited;

                 facilities must be designed for optimum
           continual performance at normal and peak flows;

                 facilities must be designed with a planned
           lifetime and replacement or refurbishment at the end
           of this lifetime must be provided for;

                 operation, maintenence, and repair of facilities
           must be carried out by trained professionals and must
           be budgeted as part of the project (some members of
           the CAC have suggested that the facilities should be
           operated by private firms under contract). If
           secondary treatment is the chosen option, a higher
           degree of training and sophistication will be required
           of the operating personnel;

                 operations issues such as noise, odor, visual
           esthetics and traffic created by facility employees,
           chemical deliveries, and sludge removal must be
           planned for and mitigated with the communities where
           the facilities will be built before construction takes
           place.

    3)    Facility Siting Options

    The field of options recommended by the consultant and EPA at
the time this document was produced was still quite large.  The
CAC has chosen to provide decision makers with a list of factors
influencing siting decisions rather than examining each potential
option individually.  These factors will come into play at any
site chosen and it is the intent of the CAC that describing the
factors of major concern will provide decision makers with a
gauge of public opinion to measure their decisions.  Not all of
the factors listed below are the views of all members; those that
are not are so noted.
                                5

-------
    ._-. ~ CAC members representing the
communities of wfnthrop and Quincy are generally
opposed to any new facility development within their
communities.  Members of both communities feel that
their neighborhoods are currently overburdened by the
operation of the present facilities and Winthrop
members point out that they also are impacted by Logan
Airport and the Suffolk County House of Correction.
From a neighborhood viewpoint, favorable siting would
occur with plant locations at a greater distance from
residential sections than now existing at Deer or Nut
Islands.

Mitigation and Compensation - there is a general
ccmsensus" that the communities where facilities will
be built must be compensated in some way for
unavoidable adverse impacts generated by the
construction and operation of facilities.  Efforts
must be made to mitigate as many impacts as  possible
and to provide substantial, guaranteed, long-term
compensation for remaining impacts.  Citizens of the
communities involved must be allowed to take an active
part in determining  mitigation/compensation plans,
plans must be in place before construction begins, and
mechanisms must exist to modify plans if projected
conditions change.  A representative body should be
formed to ensure that the interests of impacted
residents are continually taken care of and a
mechanism of appeal should be established to provide
unsatisfied residents with a means of resolution.
      The CAC wishes to emphasize that sewage
treatment is the responsibility of all  communities in
the MDC region and that just compensation be made to
those communities which bear the burden of treatment
facility impacts.

Long Island - division within the group exists
concerning Long Island as a potential site. Some
members feel that the recreational potential, the
historic and archaeological value, and the relatively
untouched condition of portions of Long island warrant
protection and preservation, while the sites on Deer
and Nut Islands are already greatly impacted and (with
adequate mitigation measures) would not be greatly
changed by further construction.
      Other members of the group, particularly those
representing Quincy and Winthrop, feel strongly that
neighborhood concerns greatly outweigh the

-------
           recreational, archaeological, and conservation
           potentials of Long Island and would rather see a
           project impact "bones, trees, and arrowheads" than the
           health and safety of living people.
                 There  is consensus that if Long Island is not
           considered as a viable option because of its
           recreational/historic value, assurances must be made
           that the island will indeed be preserved indefinitely.
           The CAC does not want to see the island spared from
           development  as a wastewater treatment facility only to
           be developed as residential or industrial land by the
           City of Boston.

           Satellites - the prospect of satellite treatment
           plants should not be abandoned.  There is concern
           among some CAC members that the list of sites
           considered for satellite plants, which arose from the
           1978 EMMA study, was too restricted and that more
           sites could  be evaluated. [ A proposal by Quincy
           Shores Associates regarding satellite plants was
           examined as  part of the evaluation ].  Satellites
           could play a valuable role in reducing flows to Boston
           Harbor facilities and allowing future expansion of
           community systems.

           Other Sites  - it is the opinion of a few members of
           the group that the list of options considered for this
           project was  not extensive enough and that other
           places, in particular Moon Island, should have been
           seriously studied as possible sites, because they
           could offer  sites where immediate action could take
           place with a minimum of community and neighborhood
           impact.

           Fast-Track Improvements - under no circumstances
           should a "no action"" option be considered after the
           current fast-track improvements are complete.  The
           upgrading to 1968 standards of wastewater treatment
           plants now in place should never be accepted as a long
           term solution to the problems of Boston Harbor.
    4) Levels of Treatment

    The members of the CAC share an enthusiastic concern for the
water quality of Boston Harbor, but temper their enthusiasm  with
knowledge of the limitations of time, money, and technology and a
realization of the trade-offs involved.  It is a general
conclusion within the group that the dumping of sludge and
untreated sewage into Boston Harbor must stop as soon as
possible.

-------
                 some group members feel that pending decision on
           MDC's 301(h) waiver application should be granted
           allowing upgraded primary treatment with long
           outfalls  because any untreated sewage produced by
           wastewater treatment facility malfunction would be
           carried out of the harbor.

                 other members see the project resulting from
           this SDEIS as an opportunity to upgrade to secondary
           treatment, an opportunity which they feel will be
           precluded if primary plants are built.

                 concerns exist among some members about the
           effects of long outfalls on Massachusetts Bay.

                 primary treatment is unacceptable without long
           outfalls and adequate pumping capability.

                 some members feel that the expense of
           constructing secondary treatment plants along with
           long outfalls is justified and should be considered.

                 concerns exist about sludge disposal and there
           are further concerns regarding the additional sludge
           produced by secondary treatment. Additional planning
           and investigation into using sludge as a resource
           (fertilizer) is called for.

                 a few members feel that the MDC cannot finance
           and operate the plants they have now and so are
           hesitant to recommend secondary treatment if it will
           be administered by MDC in its present form.

                 alternatives to chlorination as a disinfection
           method should be investigated.

                 sludge incineration should not be considered
           because of its negative impacts on air quality.


    5)   Construction Impacts

    The construction or rehabilitation of a wastewater treatment
facility will undoubtedly affect neighboring residential areas at
any of the proposed sites.  Members of the CAC share the view
that mitigation of construction impacts is of extreme importance.
They are very concerned about the safety and comfort of people
living in the affected area.  They also realize that any

-------
undesirable conditions created by construction must be tolerates
for the relatively long construction oeriod of five to ten vears
The following are the group's suqcestions  :

                 every effort should be made zo reduce
           construction related highway traffic through
           residential communities".  Roads  in the cotentiallv
           impacted communities  (Quincy and '•."inthroc'!  , althouah
           busy at times, do not currentlv  carry much heavv
           trucking.  Roads leading to the  prooosed site carrv
           very little truck traffic.  There is great concern'
           about the safety of other drivers and pedestrians if
           narrow, residential roads are pressed into service as
           tr uck routes .

           —    barging should be used to  transport personnel
           and materials to the construction site whenever
           poss ible.

           —    mass transit should be utilized bv co^^^^uction
           and operation personnel as an effort to reduce
           traffic.-

                 periods of traffic activity to the cons-ruction
           site should be timed so as zo not interfere with
           normally busy traffic times in neighborhoods.

           —    an orcanized method of compensation for
           damages to crocertv (private and public)  caused by
           trucking or construction  must be established before
           construction begins. A mechanism of compensation must
           be developed to account for the  decrease in property
           value and the increase in difficulty of selling real
           estate before and during the relatively long
           construction period.

                 effective measures must be established to
           minimize noise, dust, odors, and mitigate other
           construction-related nuisances.

                 a mechanism must exist for public input in the
           mitigation/compensation plans and an opportunity to
           change those plans in response to changes  in
           construction ooerations must exist.

-------
III.  Summary


    The Citizen's Advisory Committee is greatly concerned with
the environmental quality of  Boston Harbor,  the islands in the
harbor, and the surrounding communities.   The CAC has a strong
desire to see an integrated,  prioritized  plan developed for
improving the sewage system and the harbor.   There is also a
desire to see this plan,  and  the building of a wastwater
treatment facilities as part  of this plan, carried out in a
manner that minimizes adverse effects on  communities most
impacted and the region as a  whole.  There is a need for building
quality facilities and ensuring mitigation and compensation, even
if the economic cost to the region is greater than for building
marginal facilities in a  less responsible manner.  The CAC
sincerely hopes that the  concerns and recommendations put forth
in this document are considered by the decision makers, and will
offer additional advice when  a final siting  option is chosen.
             The  members  of  the  CAC wish  to thank the
             Gillette  Company for  their kind hospitality
             and  the use  of  their  conference rooms as
             meeting places  for  the Citizen's Advisory
             Committee.
                                10

-------
                    The Citizen Advisory  Committee
          Supplementary Draft  Environmental  Impact  Statement
                                                  Siting
Boston Harbor Wastewater Facilities
Co-Chairper sons:

Ms. Lorraine M. Downey
Boston Conservation Commission
Boston Harbor Associates
Boston Harbor Citizens'
Advisory Committee

Members:

Ms. Eugenie Beal
Mr. Richard C. Boutiette
Department of Public Works
Wakefield, Massachusetts

Mr. Robert M. Calder
Boston Shipping Association
                          Mr.  George Mar sh
                          Friends of Boston
                          Harbor Islands
                          Mr. Waldo Holcombe
                          Boston Harbor CAC
                          Neponset Conservation
                          Association

                          Ms. Frances H. Lavallee
                          Boston Harbor Water Quality
                          Committee

                          Mr. Andrew Locke
Mr. Terry N. Fancher
Community Development Manager
South Shore Chamber of
Commerce, Inc.

Mr. Phillip Goodwin
Mass. Bay Yacht
Club Association

Ms. Blossom Hoag
Sierra Club -
Greater Boston Group
                          Mr . Tom Morell
                          Massachusetts Lobstermans'
                          Assoc iation
                          Ms. Lois Murphy
                          Nut Island CAC
                          Mr. Robert Noonan, Chairman
                          Winthrop Board of Selectmen
                                 11

-------
Ms. Anne Porter
Point Shirley Association
Deer Island CAC

Mr . Frank Powers
Quincy Bay Flounder Fleet
Ms. Peggy Riley
Deer Island CAC
                                    Mr .  Ve r n e Po r t e r
                                    City of
                                    Newton, Massachusetts

                                    Mr.  Joseph B. Walsh, Senator
                                    Special Commission on the
                                    Development of Boston Harbor
                                    Mr. Jack Walsh,
                                    Nut Island CAC
                                             Chairman
Mr. T. Rollins Ross
Boston Facilities Plan
Public Advisory Group
Ms.
Nut
Andrea
Island
Sault
CAC
                                    Ms. Nancy Wrenn
                                    Boston Harbor CAC
Ms. Ethel Shepard
Metropolitan Area Planning
Council
Mr. Anthony Termine
The Gillette Company
                                    Mr.  Eric Thomson
                                    Utility Contractors
                                    New England
                                    Boston Harbor CAC
                                                 of
                                12

-------
                                              PACT
                                              u7/^\\v±^  U  '
11.0  PERMITS AND MARINE RESOURCE IMPACTS
     11.1 Federal and State Permits  Checklist
     11.2 Overview of Requirements Under Required Federal Permits:
           Sections 404(b), 103, and  10 of Applicable Guidelines
     11.3 Water Quality Impacts
         [Water Quality Baseline Data Report Available Under Separate
           Cover]

-------
11.1  Federal and State
     Permits Checklist

-------
                       FEDERAL AND STATE PERMITS
                       AND REGULATIONS CHECKLIST
1.    Discharge  Permit:    U.S.  EPA  (under  the  Clean  Water Act),  and
     Massachusetts Division  of Water  Pollution  Control (DWPC)  (per the
     Massachusetts Clean Waters Act).

     A.    The  Federal  Clean Water  Act  and EPA  regulations  require
          National  Pollution  Discharge   Elimination   System   (NPDES)
          permits.

     B.    A  treatment facility's effluent  may  contain pollutants,  as
          defined in the "Clean Water Act"; the  discharge  of pollutants
          into  the  waters of  the  Commonwealth  without issuance  of  an
          individual discharge permit is prohibited.

2.    Water    Quality    Certificate:    Massachusetts    Department    of
     Environmental  Quality  Engineering   (DEQE),   Division  of  Water
     Pollution Control (DWPC).

     A.    The certification  insures that  the project meets State  water
          quality standards.

     B.    The project requires  Federal and/or  State permits  for  dis-
          charge to waters,  and  therefore requires this certification.

     C.    This  certificate  is   also  a prerequisite for  construction
          permits.

3.    Order  of Condition:  The  Boston Conservation  Commission,  Quincy
     Conservation  Commission,   and  (possibly)   Winthrop   Conservation
     Commission,  as   well  as DEQE  (per  the Wetlands  Protection  Act)

     A.    If the project's activities  extend to  within 100' of  protected
          areas,  as   set  forth  in  the  Wetlands  Protection  Act,  an
          "Order  of   Condition"  must  be  obtained.   Construction  may
          proceed subject to the conditions of the Order.

     B.    Protected areas that are potentially impacted by this project
          are  marine  fisheries,  areas  containing  shellfish,  storm
          damage prevention and flood control areas.

4.    Dredging and  Disposal  of Dredged  Material  Permit:  DEQE  Division
     of Waterways.

     A.    This  permit is  required for  all  dredging   and  dredged  ma-
          terials  disposal  in  the  tidewaters   of  the  Commonwealth.

     B.    The construction of piers  and/or pipelines will require some
          dredging activity.

     C.    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit is also required.

-------
5.   Waterways License: DEQE (per the "Waterways License Act")

     A.   A  license  is  required  for structures  built seaward  of  the
          high tide line.

     B.   The  piers  and possibly  the outfalls  may be  included under
          this Act.

     C.   U.S.  Army  Corps  of  Engineers  permit  may also  be  required.

6.   Coastal   Zone  Management    (CZM)   Consistency   (Determination)
     Certificate:  Massachusetts  Executive   Office  of  Environmental
     Affairs, CSM Office (EOEA).

     A.   Proposed  activities  must  comply  with  the  policies   of  the
          Massachusetts coastal management program.

     B.   The  CZM  consistency  certification is required  for  the Corps
          of  Engineers'  Section  10  and  404  permits,  NPDES  permits,
          and federal funding of a  project.

7.   DEM  Land   Use  Review:    Massachusetts  Department  of  Environ-
     mental   Management   (DEM).     The    Commissioner   of   DEM   is
     empowered  to  review  and  aprove  new  development  on  all   of  the
     islands  within  the  boundaries of the Boston Harbor  Islands State
     Park  which  encompasses   all  of the  sites  being considered  for
     treatment facilities.

8.   Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA):

     A.   The  MEPA  Unit  reviews   the  environmental  impacts  of  state
          activities, including permitting,  approvals,  and funding,  as
          well as of other projects which meet its criteria.

     B.   In  the case  of  this project,  the SDEIS  also  serves  as  an
          Environmental Impact  Report (EIR)  required by MEPA.

9.   Clean Air Regulations: DEQE.

     Regulating  air  pollution in  the  Commonwealth of  Massachusetts
     requires approval and/or  registration  with DEQE for such items  as
     incinerators, fossil-fuel  utilization facilities,  fuel content and
     emissions, and construction and demolition.

10.  Landfill Approval: Massachusetts DEQE  Division of Water Pollution
     Control  (per  the  Massachusetts  Clean  Water  Act),  and  DEQE,
     Division of Hazardous  Wastes.

     A.   Non-hazardous  sewage sludge-only  landfills  are  exempt from
          the general landfill  regulations,  and are  regulated under the
          general authority of the  Massachusetts  Clean Water Act which
          provides for the  abatement of public nuisances.

-------
     B.    An ash  landfill may  fall  under this  jurisdiction.   Any new
          sludge landfill must  be  lined and have a leachate collection
          and treatment system.

11.   Hazardous   Waste/Materials   Regulations:   U.S.  EPA   (per  the  Re-
     source  Conservation  and Recovery Act);  Massachusetts DEQE  (per
     Chapter 21 C of M.G.L.)

     A.    Any  activity  which involves  the  generation,  transportation,
          storage,  treatment,   or  disposal  of  any hazardous waste  is
          subject  to  EPA's  RCRA  regulations,  and DEQE's  regulations
          under 310 CMR 30.

     B.    Chlorine  is  a  hazardous material.   Therefore,  the transpor-
          tation and  storage  of chlorine  must satisfy the requirements
          of  U.S.  Department  of  Transportation  (40  CFR,  Part  6)
          regulations.

     C.    Barging  of  chlorine would  also  be subject to the regulations
          of  the  U.S.  Department  of Transportation  and  the  Coast
          Guard   (the  Coast   Guard   would  also   supervise   barging
          activity during construction).

12.  State Building Code: Department of Public Safety.

13.  Wetlands Restriction Program: DEQE.

14.  Tideland Construction.

15.  State   Traffic   Signal  Warrant:    Department   of   Public  Works
     (necessary to install a new traffic  signal).

-------
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

-------
          ACTIONS REQUIRINC  PERMITS  UNDER  SECTION  404 OF THE CLEAN



          WATER ACT, SECTION  10 OE THE  RIVERS  AND  HARBORS ACT,  AND



          SECTION 103 OF THE  MARINE  PROTECTION,  RESEARCH AND



          SANCTUARIES ACT
          Ove rv i ew
     All ot the a 1t ernat ives  to  existing  treatment  facilities  will



require some construet i on  in  waters  ot  the  United  States  and will



therefore  require a Section 404/Section 10  permit  from the  U.S.  Army



Corps ot Engineers   At  a  minimum,  these  alternatives  require  the



construction ot an etfluent diftuser at whatever outfall  s i te (s 1  is



chosen.  If short outfalls are chosen for effluent  discharge under



secondary  treatment, outfall  pipelines  would  likely he placed  in  bottom



sediments.   Eong  outfalls  and inter-island  conduits may he  either  rock



tunnels or pipelines placed  in bottom sediments.







     In addition, it is  likely that  some  type  of dock,  on piles  or



solid fill, wi11  he required  for the movement  of materials  to  any



island site selected for treatment  plant  construction.







     Some  ot these activities, such  as  dredging  tor dock  access,  will



require the disposal of  dredged  material    Disposal ot  these sediments



beyond the territorial sea (.three  nautical  miles off shore) would



require a  Corps of Engineers  ocean  dumping  permit  in accordance  with



EPA's regulations under  Section  103  of  t tie  Marine  Protection,  Research



and Sanctuaries Act







     Finally,  options  which call for an expanded primary  treatment



plant at Nut Island might  require  approximately  3  acres of  filling  in




Quincy or  Hingham Ray







     With  seven siting options still under  consideration, the  marine



related facilities associated with  them are only at the conceptual



stage of development   Recent  final  and draft  facilities  plans prepared

-------
for the MDC show a number of different alternatives for marine con-
struction.  As such, this EIS does not address the specific marine
related impacts of a particular siting option.  Lack of this detail,
however, would not likely affect the siting decision because the types
of marine construction impacts associated with all the sites appear to
be similar (except for possible filling at Nut Island) and would not
favor any particular option over another.  This assumption is generally
supportable due to the likelihood that all of the marine construction
sites are characterized by similarly contaminated sediments which are
common in Boston Harbor.  In the past, these contaminated conditions
have not precluded previous harbor projects, since environmental
evaluations found the excavation and disposal of sediments from these
projects to be acceptable.

     An exception to this recently surfaced when test results from four
projects in Boston Harbor (three in Dorchester Bay and one in Winthrop
Bay) indicated that ocean disposal of dredged material would not be
acceptable.  These projects consisted of dredging and disposal of
sediments from the South Boston Yacht Club, the Dorchester Yacht Club,
and the Savin Hill Yacht Club/UMass Pier, as well as the Winthrop
Harbor channel and basin.  Biological testing showed a significantly
high level of PCBs were bioaccumulated in test organisms exposed to the
materials to be dredged (a summary of the results is presented at the
end of this section).   Ocean disposal of these materials is considered
unacceptable, thus delaying the dredging of these projects until
acceptable disposal options are found.  This illustrates that site
specific information could potentially affect the implementability of
any SDEIS site option chosen.  For a complete discussion of this issue,
refer to Section 5.4.

     Once specific proposals for marine construction have been de-
veloped, additional environmental evaluation and permit application(s)
would be submitted by the MDC to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for
environmental review by the Corps and EPA.  In preparing the permit
application(s), the MDC will be required to evaluate alternatives to
their proposed action, including both alternative marine construction
                                11.2-2

-------
sites and alternatives not requiring discharges of dredged or fill
material to "waters of the United States" or the ocean.  Physical,
chemical and biological testing of materials to be discharged will also
be required.
11.2.2  Legislative/Regulatory Framework
Clean Water Act - Section 404

     Section 404 of the Clean Water Act established a national program
to control the discharge of dredged or fill material into the "waters
of the United States".  "Waters of the United States" include all
waters which may be used for interstate or foreign commerce, their
tributaries and all adjacent waters,  including wetlands (33 CFR Section
323.2) .

Key  requirements for  allowing fill to be placed in waters under the
jurisdiction of Section 404 are:  that there must be a clear need to
place  fill or dredged material  in the water resource, that alternatives
must be  thoroughly  examined, and that the  least damaging practicable
alternative must be adopted.

     Under Section  404(a),  a permit  system was established for admini-
stration by the Corps of Engineers.   Section 404(b) required EPA, in
consultation with  the Corps, to develop  environmental criteria to guide
the  permitting  decisions.   These criteria  are  discussed below.

     Under Section 404(c),  EPA  may  overrule a  Corps decision to  allow  a
discharge if EPA  determines  such discharge will have an unacceptable
adverse  effect  on  municipal  water  supplies, shellfish beds,  fishery
areas, wildlife  or recreational areas.   EPA 404 staff regularly  review
      Excerpted in part from:
      EPA  1983 Environmental Review of Construction
                      Under 205 (g).
                                 11.2-3

-------
Corps permit applications by examining the projects for conformance
with the 404(b) guidelines.

EPA Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill
Material [40 CFR 230] and Administered by the Corps of Engineers
[33 CFR 320-330]

     On December 24, 1980, EPA issued a Final Rule establishing sub-
stantive criteria for use in evaluating discharges of dredged or fill
material under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act [45 FR 85336].  They
reflect the 1977 amendments to the Clean Water Act, were developed in
conjunction with the Corps, and although entitled "Guidelines," have
the force of regulations.  The 1980 guidelines stress the overall 404
program's goal of preventing any discharges that would have an unac-
ceptable adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, including wetlands,
either individually or cumulatively.

     Section 230.10, Restrictions on Discharge, defines the four
independent requirements which must be met to comply with the guide-
lines.  They are:

     o    there must be no less environmentally damaging, practical
          alternative available;

     o    the discharge must not violate applicable water quality
          standards or jeopardize an endangered species;

     o    the discharge must not result in a significant degradation of
          the aquatic environment;

     o    all reasonable measures must be taken to minimize impacts to
          the aquatic environment.

     Section 230.5 of the guidelines establishes a general procedure
for evaluating whether a particular discharge site may be approved.
Section 230.11 establishes "factual determinations" which are to be
                                11.2-4

-------
used in determining whether or not a proposed discharge satisfies the
conditions for compliance with the guidelines.

     The guidelines point out that the level of documentation in the
factual determinations and findings of compliance should reflect the
significance and complexity of the discharge activity.

Rivers and Harbors Act - Section 10

     Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 established a
permit program administered by the Corps which regulates the placement
of structures in navigable waters and is concerned with their effect on
navigation.

     A major distinction between Section 404 and Section 10 is the
difference between "waters of the United States" and "navigable
waters".  As noted above, "waters of the United States" under Section
404 extends the upstream jurisdiction beyond the limits of traditional
navigability.

     In most situations where activities involve both Section 404 and
Section 10 permits in the same waters, the Corps will consolidate their
permit review in a single process.  For areas not defined as "navigable
waters," only Section 404 permits apply for the disposal of dredged or
fill materials.  Section 10 permits, however, will be required for the
placement of any structure, such as an outfall pipe, in navigable
waters even without any discharge of dredged or fill material.

     Section 404 and/or 10 permits are required for any wastewater
treatment plants or sewer lines located in or crossing water bodies or
wetlands.
                                 11.2-5

-------
Evaluation of Proposed Dredged Material Discharge Into Ocean Waters
Under Section 103.

     Where dredged materials are proposed to be transported for their
discharge into "ocean waters" (beyond the three mile territorial sea
boundary), a permit must be obtained in accordance with Section 103 of
the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act.   Section 103
permits are administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, under EPA
issued regulations and criteria (40 CFR 220-229).  The environmental
review of Section 103 permit applications is conducted independently by
the Corps and the EPA under criteria set forth in 40 CFR Section 227.
This includes the ecological evaluation conducted in accordance with an
implementation manual published jointly by the EPA and Corps of
Engineers.  The EPA is responsible for designating ocean disposal sites
to manage where open disposals are to be regulated.   Permit applica-
tions are also independently reviewed by the National  Marine Fisheries
Service, as well as state resource agencies and other  interests.

     The evaluation of permit applications for ocean dumping includes
the consideration of:

     o    presence of prohibited materials,

     o    adverse impacts to the benthic environment,  based largely on
          biological testing (bioassays and bioaccumulation),

     o    adverse impacts to the water column, as determined by bio-
          assays and compliance with applicable water  quality criteria,

     o    general compatibility of material to be disposed with the
          proposed disposal site,

     o    need for ocean dumping,

     o    alternatives to ocean dumping,
                                11.2-6

-------
     o    impacts on esthetic, recreational, and economic values and or
          other ocean users, and

     o    site management.

     While these evaluation categories apply to all ocean dumping
proposals, special provisions and exemptions apply to Section 103
permit applications for the discharge of dredged materials.   The
regulatory process for review of Section 103 permit applications,
including procedures for granting a waiver is laid out under 40 CFR
Part 225.  Dredged material exemptions from certain environmental
impact evaluations are itemized under 40 CFR 227.1: "applicability".
These include exemptions from evaluation under Sections 227  7:  "limits
for specific wastes" (certain solvents, radioactive materials,  biologi-
cal pests, acid or alkaline materials, and oxygen consuming  materials),
227.8: "limits on disposal rates of toxic wastes", and 227.11:  "in-
soluble wastes"

     When a Section 103 or any other permit application is received by
the Corps of Engineers, a public notice is sent to federal and  state
authorities and other potentially affected parties.  The notice de-
scribes the proposed ocean dumping activity and the Corps' tentative
determination on whether or not an EIS will be prepared.  The thirty
day comment period on the public notice provides an opportunity to
raise issues and concerns for the Corps to consider in its evaluations.

Interim Final Rule for Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers
[33 CFR 320-330]

     On July 22, 1982, the Corps published Interim Final Regulations
[47 FR 31794] to update previous regulations governing the Corps'
regulatory programs in order to reflect changes to the Clean Water Act,
judicial decisions, Executive Orders and policy changes since 1977.
These regulations establish policies, procedures and criteria for
evaluation and issuance of Section 404/Section 10/Section 103 permits.
                                11.2-7

-------
     A key policy of the Corps'  permit program is that a project must



be found to be in the "public interest",  in order to be permitted.  The



preamble to the Corps'  1982 regulations indicates that the Corps'



public interest review goes hand-in-hand with EPA's Guidelines [40 CFR



230] and that, at the end of the public interest review, a permit would



be denied if it did not conform to the EPA guidelines.







Applicability of Other Federal Legislation to the Permit Process







     The Corps of Engineers must comply with several other Federal



statutes during its permit evaluation process.







     Any applicant for a Corps permit must obtain a State Water Quality



Certification as required under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act



before a Corps permit can be issued.   Corps permit applications are



routinely reviewed by the National Marine Fisheries Service and by the



U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife



Coordination Act (FWCA) and the Endangered Species Act.  An applicant



must also receive a "consistency determination" from the State Coastal



Zone Management Agency pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act



(CZMA).   (Note that additional requirements in Massachusetts include a



Division of Wetlands and Waterways license, local conservation com-



mission Order of Conditions, and MEPA compliance.)







     The Corps also must comply with the National Environmental Policy



Act (NEPA) and could require the preparation of an EIS or supplemental



documents if significant environmental issues need to be addressed



during the permit review process.








Environmental Review Responsibilities Under 205(g) of the Clean



Water Act







     Section 205(g) of the Clean Water Act provides funds to the States



for administration of delegated construction grants activities.  These



delegated activities include many aspects of the environmental review



of proposed projects.
                                11.2-8

-------
     In actual practice, the Corps does not conduct a full Section 404
and/or a Section 10 permit review during the facilities planning
process because sufficient details for the review are not normally
available until the engineering and design stages.  However, it is not
necessary for a municipality to have an approved Section 404/Section 10
permit to apply for an EPA wastewater facility construction grant.
Normally, the Corp's permit process takes from two to six months and
can result in substantial delays and costly redesign if alternatives
and mitigating measures have not been adequately addressed.  Therefore
the Corps strongly recommends that the grant applicant and State take
the Section 404/Section 10 requirements into consideration during the
development of the facilities plan and environmental information
document (BID) and that the Grantee initiate discussions for the
Section 404/Section 10 application process with the Corps during the
project design phase.

     EPA's Guide, Construction Grants 1984 indicates that the facili-
ties plan and EID should evaluate alternatives identified by the Corps
if a Section 404/Section 10 permit is needed.  The process for com-
plying with Section 404 during 205(g) review is aimed at reducing the
potential for permit denials at the end of the design phase when
extensive engineering design changes would be costly and time-
consuming .

11.2.3    Features of SDEIS Options Involving Marine Construction

     Marine construction features of the SDEIS options which may have
an adverse affect on water quality, marine life, and navigation and
that may require permit review consist of:

     1.   underwater trench excavation for pipelaying, disposal of
          excavated materials, pipeline bed preparation and fill,
          anchoring devices, and backfill,
                                 11.2-9

-------
     2.   tunnel shaft and diffuser placement and construction, dis-
          posal of excavated materials and possible development of an
          off-shore island for tunnel access,

     3.   pier and wharf construction,

     4.   dredging for access to docks,  and possible excavation for
          solid fill docks,  disposal of  dredged and excavated material,

     5.   staging areas and  marine transport facilities for construc-
          tion workers and materials, conduit section fabrication and
          sludge transport,  and

     6.   filling in Quincy  or Hingham Bays to enlarge Nut Island.

     The matrix below is a general summary of construction types and
methods which have been identified in MDC's recent facilities plans.
Figure 11.2-1 shows alternative inter-island sewage transport routes
and outfall sites that were  considered.   Figure 11.2-2 shows  several
alternative locations of piers presently being considered and the
location of proposed filling at Nut Island.
                                11.2-10

-------
             MATRIX OF GENERAL CONSTRUCTION TYPES AND METHODS
                      Treatment Plant Sites
                                       Outfall Sites
Type/Site
Deer Is.
Long Is.
Nut Is.
President Rd.
Nine Mile
Interisland
 Transport
 Conduits
Outfall
 Conduits
Preferred Method:  Tunneling
(Alternate Method:  Trenching)
  Tunneling or
   Trenching
                      Trenching
                     (Tunneling)
                         Tunneling
                         (Trenching)
Tunnel
 Shafts
                   Down-Hole  Excavation
               (Up-Hole Reaming  from  Tunnel)
Diffusers
                                                     Trenching
                                                Trenching
                                               and Special
                                                Caissons
Docks
          Piers
        (Wharves)
Dredging for
Dock Areas
    Clam Shell Dredge
      (Dipper Dredge)
Landfill
                    Diked Area
                    (Open Area
                                  , Mot

-------
                                                                            NINE  MIUE SITE
WASTEWATER
CONDUITS
INTER ISLAND _
TRANSPORT  ~
OUTFALL L. I. =

OUTFALL D. I. a
DISCHARGE  SITES'
CURRENTLY
BEING CONSIDERED
                                                     PRESIDENT
                                                         ROADS  Pj
             1     2 nule-s
* Hare- Alternahve diedrniraA £>it"e5 w^re evaluated in
      unpublished Draff-^oeer Island   ''
      Plan 1^64-, by Havens^£mer5on
      Brmclcerhoff and -fhe- Oceanoa^
      of various Outfall SihViA Oph'oa5 -for
      Deer island yeixfvw^id-^PiaiUr, i^g^- by
SOUECB- 1482. Mot Island
      Site' Option '"'-•
      onc| October
      301	
        WASTEWATER CONDUIT  ROUTE OPTIONS  PROPOSED
       	  IN  MDC  FACILITY PLANS	
                  by
                U. 11.2-1

-------
                       DEER ISLAND
                                             Alternate- ...
                                             Harm.e- facilit
                                                       '
                                             Peer
                                                . Append lie E.
o  -ZOO 400 tOO	000



       NUT ISLAND
                       LONG ISLAND
           Pier Altern*+ivge? Afpgiring in
              KJuf
                  (from n'q. 7-

-------
Alternative Outfall Sites and Inter-island Transport Routes.

     Alternatives considered by the MDC for inter-island transport and
discharge of wastewater are summarized in Figure 11.2-1.  The basic
choice is between bedrock tunnels and pipelines placed in bottom
sediments by the trenching method.  According to MDC's facilities
plans, alternatives were selected on the basis of analysis of techni-
cal, environmental and economic factors.  MDC' s selection of
alternatives included consideration of construction factors such as
interference with shipping lanes, designated anchorages and existing
utilities, water depth, conduit size and construction methods  (Metcalf
& Eddy, 1982, Nut Island Site Options Study, Pages 6-7 to 6-28 and
Havens & Emerson/Parsons Brinkerhoff, 1984, draft manuscript of Deer
Island Facilities Plan, Chapter D3).

Conduit Construction by the Tunneling Method.   Tunnel excavation by
either drilling and blasting of the material or by grinding the
material with a tunnel boring machine was considered to be the most
desirable construction method by Metcalf & Eddy because it provides
least disturbance of sediments and no interference with existing
infrastructure.  Excavated material can be removed via a land site
shaft and used as landfill or disposed offshore at an approved site.   A
general profile of a tunnel for the transport of effluent to a dis-
charge site is shown in Figure 11.2-3.

     Tunnel shafts are required at tunnel ends  and may be needed at
intermediate locations for hydraulic reasons or for construction
purposes.   Shaft excavation on land would be made from the ground
surface down (down-hole) and the excavated materials would be used to
landfill or be transported to an approved disposal site.

     Off-shore shafts could be excavated in the same manner as land
based shafts or by reaming upward (up-hole) from the tunnel.  Excavated
materials  could be removed landward through the down hole, or disposed
offshore adjacent to the shaft, if proven to be environmentally ac-
ceptable.   At an offshore location it may be cost effective to build a

                                11.2-12

-------
  DEER ISLAND OR

    LONG ISLAND
                                    Mean Sea Level
                                    Bedrock Surface

                               *5^l
                                  mm
                        TUNNEL CONDUIT^
SECTION
              t
           Shaft No. 1
                        •^i^BI







                        I
                                                                         DWfuser
                                                                         Section
                     Shaft No. 2
   -                 >t         ,

draff r*-*nu<>crip\- rf Deer Manet Pao'U-hes Plan.
  P3.
                                   -TYPICAL 1UNKIEL

-------
small island to facilitate construction of the shaft and the diffuser.
Should it prove environmentally acceptable, such an island would remain
a permanent feature of the harbor.

Conduit Construction by the Trenching Method.   The trenching method of
construction would require dredging and backfilling which may have an
adverse affect on water quality,  marine life and navigation.  The
conduit would be placed on a relatively level  and firm grade to provide
firm footage to resist the scouring action of  tides and currents.  To
provide a firm bedding for the pipe,  crushed rock fill material must be
imported and placed by controlled means without free fall through the
water column.  Excess trench excavation material would be left in-place
along the trench alignment or completely removed and transported to
approved disposal sites.   Underwater  pipelaying is a highly skilled
technique in coordinating workers,  equipment and supplies in the face
of extreme uncertainties  of the elements.   A general construction
technique based on state-of-the-art methods and equipment would be as
follows (see Figure 11.2-4).

     a.    Dredge the trench no more than a few hundred feet ahead of
          pipelaying.

     b.    Lower pipe section over the side of  a barge, and suspend it
          just above the  trench bottom to permit divers to align and
          join the section.

     c.    Place a rock fill ballast on both sides of pipe to provide a
          firm pipe bedding.

     d.    Backfill the remaining portion of the trench.

     Diffuser.   An effluent diffuser  will be required for any outfall
     option; it could be  constructed  by the trenching method or by
     specialized techniques using a large pneumatic caisson.  Dis-
     turbance of the water column would be similar to that which may be
     caused by conduit construction by the trenching method.

                                11.2-13

-------
                                               re.nde>r\r\q from
                                                     tih <
                                                     1^74
CONDUIT WITH
        BALLAST
                    UNDER WATER - TRENCHING METHOD

-------
     Dock.   Wharfs  and piers  will be required for support of land and
     water  based construction and are currently being considered for
     barging of sludge.   Wharves  use anchored bulkheads to confine
     fill.   Piers are deck structures supported by driven piles.  A
     recent conceptual dock design is shown in Figure 11.2-5.   To
     minimize environmental impacts, the design of docks should include
     features which minimize  changes in current velocities and provide
     for controlled construction  of underwater fill.

     Dredging.   Dredging will be  required to provide  adequate  draft for
     docking.  The dredging method should be restricted to dredging by
     clam shell bucket to minimize disturbance of the ocean bottom and
     suspension of sediments.  Dredge material disposal must be at an
     approved disposal site.   Presently, the only EPA approved site for
     the disposal of dredged  material near Boston Harbor is the
     Marblehead Disposal Site or  "Foul Area" about 17 miles northeast
     of Deer Island (Figure 11.2-6).  The dredged material would
     undergo testing, including bioassays,  to determine the accept-
     ability of disposal at this  site.

     Landfill.   Construction  of land at Nut Island may be required for
     upgraded primary treatment there (Figure 11.2-2).   This could be
     accomplished with least  disturbance by placement of the fill
     within a diked area.  Dike design would incorporate temporary
     sheet  pile wall and rock fill dikes constructed  ahead of  land-
     filling .

11.2.4   Marine Impacts of SDEIS Options with Respect to Section 404,
         Section 10 and Section  103 Actions.

     Once detailed facility planning and design has developed  specific
construction proposals,  permit applications would be  submitted to the
Army Corps  of Engineers for Corps and EPA review.  All of the  actions
described above (11.2.3) would require evaluation under Section
404/Section 10.  Actions which include the discharge  of dredged
materials beyond the three mile territorial sea boundary would also be

                                11.2-14

-------
evaluated under Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act.

     While the specific requirements for environmental review of
Section 404 and Section 103 permit applications differ, the intent,
substance and methods of environmental review are similar.  Review of
Section 404 and 103 permit applications requires consideration of:

     o    the need for dredging/filling,

     o    alternatives to dredging/filling and disposal,

     o    alternative sites for dredging/filling and disposal

     o    compliance with water quality criteria, after initial dilu-
          tion and dispersion,

     o    effects on marine life,

     o    effects on human uses.

     The marine impacts of dredging and dredged material disposal are
related to increased turbidity, reduced dissolved oxygen,  increased
sedimentation and the release of toxic chemicals, principally metals,
from disturbed sediments into the surrounding waters.  These effects,
alone or in combination, might lead to lethal and sublethal effects in
local marine life and bioaccumulation of toxicants in marine organisms
to levels which may exceed environmentally acceptable limits, or
otherwise may be harmful to the humans that eat them.

     Of all the potential dredge or fill actions, inter-island trench-
ing within Boston Harbor poses the greatest threat to harbor marine
resources.  This is because of the large quantities of sediments which
would be excavated during the laying of the pipeline(s), and the
chemical quality of these sediments.  The principal resources which
might be affected include harbor shellfish and lobster.  Compared to

                                11.2-15

-------
 Conveyor Chutes
                                                  Seawal
                                Fender Pies &
                                Rendering System
      50' 0
100'
          Scale
BOSTON  HARBOR
FACILITIES  SITING
   S D E  I S
Source:   Adapted  from Havens
        & Emerson/Parsons
        Brinkerhoff,  1984,

        draft Deer Island

        Facilities Plan,
            PUN- MODIFIED FULL SERVICE
            MARINE  FACILITY—
                                                          •fl'q.  \\.l-5'

-------
    10
        20
30
               40 Ml.
 BOSTON HARBOR
 FACILITIES SITING
  S D E I S
MARBLEHEAD DISPOSAL SITE OR "FOUL AREA"
 FOR BOSTON HARBOR DREDGE MATERIALS
       inc..

-------
tunnel alternatives, inter-island trenching alternatives would likely
undergo a more extensive, in-depth environmental evaluation should they
be proposed by the MDC.

     The sediments of Boston Harbor which are likely to be disturbed
during dredging contain relatively high concentrations of heavy metals
(see separate SDEIS report: Boston Harbor Water Quality Baseline).  The
metals concentrations in sediments at any island site would probably
cause the sediment to be classified as category two or three material
under Massachusetts DWPC criteria (described in the SDEIS Boston Harbor
Water Quality Baseline).   This would limit the approvable methods of
marine construction and disposal of dredged and excavated materials.
Generally, the metals concentrations are higher near Deer and Long
Islands than near Nut Island.

     Physical and chemical evaluation of the material to be
discharged/disturbed is  the first step in assessing the environmental
impacts of the proposed action.  Physical parameters such as particle
size help determine settling characteristics,  effects on ambient
turbidity and light penetration through the water column.  Chemical
tests are used to determine the presence of toxic chemicals.  Bio-
logical testing (bioassays/bioaccumulation) is required on nearly all
materials proposed for ocean disposal.

     The site which has  recently undergone such an analysis and which
lies closest to the island sites is the anchorage between President
Roads and Deer Island Flats.  The bioassays conducted for this Section
103 permit had the following results:   (ERGO,  1981):

     Liquid phase bioassay:   "Mean survival of organisms exposed for 96
     hr.  to 100% phase was 50.0 - 66.7% (copepods), 73.3 - 83.3% (mysid
     shrimp),  and 80.0 -  96.7% (Atlantic silversides)".  Mean survival
     of  organisms exposed for 96 hours to culture water control was
     93.3% for copepods,  93.3% for mysid shrimp and 96.7% for Atlantic
     silversides.
                                11.2-16

-------
     Suspended participate phase bioassay:  "Mean survival of organisms
     exposed for 96 hr. to 100% phase was 50.0 - 80.0% (copepods), 73.3
     - 83.3% (mysid shrimp), and 76.7   90.0% (Atlantic silversides)"
     Mean survival of organisms exposed for 96 hours to culture water
     control was 93.3% for copepods, 93.3% for mysid shrimp,  and 96.7%
     for Atlantic silversides.

     Solid phase bioassay:  "Mean survival of organisms exposed for 10
     days to dredged material was 86.0 - 91.0% (grass shrimp),  98.0 -
     100% (hard clams), and 91.0   95.0% (sandworms)".   Mean survival
     of organisms exposed for 10 days to culture water control  was
     99.0% for grass shrimp, 100.0% for hard clams,  and 97.0% for
     sandworms.  Mean survival of organisms exposed  to reference
     sediment  (from disposal site) was 86.0% for grass shrimp,  100.0%
     for hard  clams and 91.0% for sandworms.

     Bioaccumulation studies:  Tests using hard clams,  grass  shrimp,
     and sandworms exposed to dredged materials for  10 days showed the
     potential for significantly higher bioaccumulation of mercury and
     petroleum hydrocarbons in hard clams compared to bioaccumulation
     in organisms exposed to reference sediments from the disposal
     site.  Other metals and PCB's were not significantly accumulated
     in these  species.

     These tests led to the conclusion that, "with regard to its
toxicological  effects  ...  the dredged material is ecologically  suitable
for discharge  to the Boston Dump Site" (also known as the Marblehead
disposal site).  Also, "the probability of harmful accumulation of
[mercury and] petroleum hydrocarbons in the human food chain is
judged to be negligible."

     This suggests that although adverse water quality and biologic
effects may result from the disposal of dredged materials from Presi-
dent Roads, they are not significant with respect to disposal at the
Boston dump site.  As President Roads is one of the more contaminated
areas of the harbor with respect to toxic chemicals, the permitting of

                                11.2-17

-------
dredging in this area suggests that the disposal of dredged material
from near Deer, Long and Nut Island could be accomplished without
significant adverse impacts at the Marblehead dump site.  However,
recent data from Winthrop Harbor shows significant bioaccumulation of
PCBs in clams exposed to harbor sediments (Mass. Division of Waterways
1984 404b permit application).

     Data for Nereis virens, Mercenaria mercenaria and Palaeometes
pugio exposed to Winthrop Harbor dredged sediments shows 90% or greater
survival.  This is not considered statistically different from refer-
ence samples.  Results of bioaccumulation studies did show
statistically significant bioaccumulation in several instances, as
explained below (excerpted  from Mass. Division of Waterways 1984 404b
permit application for dredging in Boston Harbor):

          Review of mercury data shows 90% of all data points falling
     below the required detection limit of 0.20 mg/kg.  Lowest levels
     were reported in Mercenaria exposed to the Reference sediments
     (0.06 mg/kg), highest  levels were observed in Mercenaria exposed
     to the treatment sediment (0.28 mg/kg).  Evaluation of the data
     set, comparison of body burdens between Reference and Treatments,
     show no significant accumulation of mercury in Nereis and
     Palaemonetes; significant differences in mercury body burdens were
     observed for Mercenaria.

          Levels of PCBs show body burdens ranging from 0.003 to 1.67
     mg/kg with 43% of the values falling below the required detection
     limit of 0.04 mg/kg.   Highest overall levels were observed in
     Nereis exposed to sediments from Winthrop while lowest levels were
     reported for Mercenaria exposed to reference sediment Statistical
     evaluation of the data show significant differences in PCB body
     burdens in Mercenaria and Nereis.  No significant change in PCB
     body burdens  in Palaemonetes.

     No statistically significant bioaccumulation was found for cad-
mium,  DDT or aromatic petroleum hydrocarbons.

                                11.2-18

-------
     These data from Winthrop Harbor and the President Roads anchorage
show that two relatively close sites (about 1-1/2 miles apart)  may have
significantly different sediment characteristics.  Site specific
evaluations will be necessary once MDC's facilities planning develops
specific marine construction proposals.  Evaluation of the actual
sediments to be excavated and disposed is necessary for each location
in order to assess the environmental acceptability for their handling
and disposal.
                                11.2-19

-------
                              REFERENCES
"Construction Methods and Equipment"; August, 1974.

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.

EPA Region I and Metcalf & Eddy, 1983.  Environmental Review of
Construction Grants Projects Under 205(g).

ERCO, 1981.  Ecological Evaluation of Proposed Oceanic Discharge of
Dredged Material from President Roads, Boston Harbor.  Prepared for the
New England Division of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Havens & Emerson/Parsons Brinkerhoff, 1984.  Deer Island Facilities
Plan, Volume I: Fast Track Improvements.   Prepared for the Metropolitan
District Commission.

Havens & Emerson/Parsons Brinkerhoff, 1984.  Draft Deer Island
Facilities Plan.  Unpublished draft prepared for the Metropolitan
District Commission.

Massachusetts Division of Waterways, 1984. 404(b) permit application
for dredging in Boston Harbor submitted to New England Division of the
U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers.

Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., June 1982.  Nut Island Wastewater Treatment Plant
Facilities Planning Project,  Phase I, Site Options Study, Volumes I and
II.  Prepared for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Metropolitan
District Commission.
                                11.2-20

-------
11.3  Water Quality Impacts
      (Boston Harbor Water
    Quality Baseline Report
           Available Under
           Separate Cover)

-------
11.3      WATER QUALITY IMPACTS







11.3.1    Context:  NEPA and 301(h)








The water quality impacts of the SDEIS alternatives do not affect the



treatment plant siting decisions which are the focus of this EIS.  This



is because water quality impacts are common among all secondary



treatment alternatives and among all primary treatment alternatives.



While water quality impacts do not affect the siting decision, the



daily discharge of 500 million gallons of domestic and industrial



wastewater is "significant" under the National Environmental Policy Act



(NEPA) definition (40 CFR Section 1508.27)   Therefore, the water



quality impacts must be described in this EIS in accordance with NEPA.







EPA is now considering the MDC's application for a waiver from the



secondary treatment requirements of the Clean Water Act (see Section 1



of the SDEIS).  This 301(h) waiver application calls for upgraded



primary treatment facilities and an effluent discharge nine miles off



Deer  Island into Massachusetts Bay.  Moving the discharge location out



of Boston Harbor is expected to improve harbor water quality



significantly.  EPA's decision document on the 301(h) waiver



application will provide a description of the water quality and



biological impacts of primary  effluent discharges to Massachusetts Bay.



The water quality impacts of primary treatment options are not



discussed in  this SDEIS; EPA's 301(h) waiver decision document will be



discussed in  the Final EIS.  Generic descriptions of primary treatment



and primary effluent are provided as needed to better understand the



impacts of secondary treatment options, particularly as these secondary



treatment options provide improvements over existing primary treatment



discharges to Boston Harbor.







11.3.2    Summary of Conclusions







Any of the alternatives (except no action) will provide significant



harbor water  quality benefits.  However, without further reduction of



toxic metals  and pesticides in the wastewater flowing to the proposed
                                11.3-1

-------
treatment facilities, water quality criteria for toxicants could be
exceeded on occasion under any alternative.

Generally, the long term impacts of effluent discharges on the benthic
environment include nutrient and toxicant enrichment of overlying
waters, marine life, and sediments in areas where effluent solids
settle after discharge.  Offshore discharges in Massachusetts Bay will
impact harbor resources less than in-harbor discharges.  Conversely,
in-harbor discharges will have less of an effect on offshore resources.
The most significant potential adverse impact of any of the alternative
effluent discharges is the public health question posed by the
accumulation of toxic chemicals in edible marine life.   The
significance attached to this potential impact, relative to other
discharge impacts, is attributable to the large number of people
potentially affected, the intensity of potential health effects, and
the uncertain level of risk associated with fish consumption.

Note that significant water quality impacts may result from actions
involving marine construction and the discharge of dredged materials
and tunnel spoils to offshore marine waters.  Due to the undeveloped
nature of these actions they are discussed separately in section 11.2
of this SDEIS.

As explained below, the long term water quality impacts of the SDEIS
options depend on:

     1.   the quality of effluent, and

     2.   the site(s) of discharge.

The MDC's 301(h)  waiver application calls for primary treatment
with a discharge  nine miles off Deer Island into Massachusetts Bay.
The MDC Nut Island Site Options Study's preferred option for secondary
treatment calls for discharge to President Roads.  These MDC preferred
options offer a basic choice between a higher quality discharge in the
harbor and a lower quality discharge far outside the harbor.  Either
                                11.3-2

-------
choice will yield water quality benefits to the harbor   The effects of

a primary discharge offshore are being considered by EPA in their

evaluation of the 301(h) waiver application.  If the waiver is granted,

it will indicate EPA's provisional concurrence with the MDC's assertion

that the proposed discharge will not interfere with the protection of

marine life and recreational resources.  The following discussion

summarizes the water quality impacts of secondary effluent discharges.


A.   Quality of Effluent


     1.   Compared to primary treatment plants, secondary treatment

          plants provide significantly greater removal of bacteria,

          organic matter, solids, metals and many other toxic chemicals

          from wastewater


     2.   Together, the effluents from the existing treatment plants

          are the largest source of suspended solids discharged to the

          harbor annually   These solids contain concentrations of PCB,

          pesticides, and metals  and therefore may be significant

          sources of these toxic chemicals in harbor sediments and

          bottom dwelling marine life, especially in the vicinity of

          the discharge point.


     3.   Deer Island and Nut Island effluents also contain toxic com-

          pounds in concentrations which exceed EPA criteria for the

          protection of saltwater aquatic life.  These are as sum-

          marized in Table 11.3-1.
     Analysis of filtered effluent solids has found total PCB from
     4.8-25 mg/kg (ppm),  total endosulfan from 1.7 - 2.73 mg/kg, 4,
     DDT from <0.02 - O.SO mg/kg, dieldrin from <0.02 - 1.0 mg/kg,
     endrin from 0.092 -  0.28 mg/kg (June 1984 301(h) waiver, Vol. .
     p5-92 and 93), 1979  301(h) data show >25% of silver, cadmium
     chromium and copper was contained in the solids fraction.
                                11.3-3

-------
                   -fable  H.3
                                         -o
                                  ]£
                                            s  Life
                                                   Ave-r^iae Value,
                                                        fe
                                                         Criteria
      DDT
                           V"
 PC&
                        /
M^r^ury
                        /
Silver
Zmc
f>o)\ufav\t 'Sampling -for 3O|

 annual we-1-a.ls
                                          Wou'v^r Appd cation.

-------
B.   Site of Discharge(s)

     1.   All final SDEIS alternatives (except no action) call for
          discharge of both north and south system flows from either
          Deer Island or Long Island.  All alternatives call for south
          MSB flows to be conveyed from Nut Island to either Deer
          Island or Long Island before discharge.

     2.   Because Deer Island and Long Island are close to one another,
          there is relatively little difference in the cost of con-
          structing an outfall from either island to any one of the
          outfall sites which have been considered for the discharge
          (<6% difference in total plant cost; outfall sites shown in
          Figure 11.3-1).

     3.   Generally, for any given effluent diffuser, the amount of
          initial dilution achievable at a site is dependent on current
          velocity and water depth.  On this basis alone, of all
          disposal sites suggested, the President Roads site is likely
          to provide the highest initial dilution of secondary effluent
          (the significantly higher currents in President Roads
          outweighing the slightly greater depths available outside the
          harbor).  These differences in initial dilution are not
          great, may lie within the range of error of the calculation
          method, and may not be statistically different.  Also, the
          narrow width of President Roads will limit the length of a
          diffuser placed perpendicular to the current.  The length of
          a diffuser is not limited by such constraints outside the
          harbor.  With the longer effluent diffusers which may be
          constructed offshore, and the greater depth, higher initial
          dilutions may be achievable than in President Roads.
          Massachusetts DEQE requires the evaluation of such site and
          design alternatives during detailed design of the treatment
          facilities.
                                11.3-4

-------
GENERAL TIDAL CIRCULATION
IN VICINITY OF EXISTING AND
ALTERNATIVE OUTFALL SITES
                           1.3-1

-------
At the President Roads outfall site, the concentrations of
toxic pollutants in secondary effluent may occasionally
exceed EPA water quality criteria for the protection of salt-
water aquatic life even after initial dilution (Tables 11.3-9
through 11.3-12 and 11.3-16).  These occurrences are expected
to be limited to periods of minimum tidal flushing and
unpredictable peak concentrations of toxicants.  Over time,
industrial pretreatment and control of banned chemicals may
lower toxic pollutants discharged to the sewer system so that
effluent discharges never exceed aquatic life criteria after
initial dilution.

After initial dilution, an effluent plume undergoes far field
dispersion.  Comparison of outfall sites with respect to far
field dispersion shows that the farther a site is from Boston
Harbor, the less it will impact the Harbor's water and
sediment quality.  During wet weather,  the effects of urban
runoff and combined sewer overflows are likely to dominate
the bacterial quality of the harbor, no matter where the
treatment plant(s) effluent is discharged.

Any of the alternatives to the existing facilities will
improve recreation and commercial shellfishing in the harbor
due to reduced bypassing of untreated sewage (see Section  1
Purpose and Need for Action).  Secondary treatment will
provide better protection of public health during dry weather
through improved disinfection effectiveness.   However,
recreational use of the harbor and the  harvest of shellfish
will still be limited by other sources  of bacteria including
dry and wet weather overflows from the  sewer system, and
urban stormwater.

Impacts on commercial and recreational  fisheries  also include
probable increases in the populations of pollutant tolerant
species in areas receiving organic enrichment from the waste-
water.  However, the toxic chemicals in the effluent solution

                      11.3-5

-------
          and solids  may possibly cause avoidance,  stress,  disease,  and
          increased mortality in some fish.   Any effluent discharge
          will contribute to the bioconcentration of toxic chemicals in
          food fish and thereby contribute to the as yet undetermined
          health risk to humans eating these fish.   By removing more of
          these toxic pollutants (through industrial pretreatment,  for
          example) higher levels of wastewater treatment may lessen
          long-term ambient concentrations which are bioconcentrated in
          fish, and thereby lessen the health risk to humans.

These impacts are discussed in greater detail beginning on page 11.3-29
(Section 11.3.3 B), after the following analysis of wastewater
characteristics and initial dilution.

11.3.3    Wastewater  Characteristics

A.   General Considerations:  Primary vs.  Secondary Effluent

This subsection considers generic differences between primary and
secondary effluent.  The purpose is to provide a basis for evaluating
the water quality impacts of secondary treatment with discharges to
President Roads.  The impacts of primary treatment with a discharge
nine miles into Massachusetts Bay are being evaluated by EPA separately
in its consideration  of the MDC's 301(h) Waiver Application (June and
October 1984).  These separate findings will be incorporated into the
Final EIS and EPA's Record of Decision on the EIS.

"The major goal of primary treatment is to remove from wastewater those
pollutants which will either settle (such as heavier suspended solids)
or float (such as grease) . . .  Soluble pollutants are not removed"
(EPA-625/5-76-012).  Secondary treatment plants provide primary treat-
ment first, and then  secondary (biological) treatment (Figure 11.3-2).
Secondary treatment provides microbial breakdown of suspended solids
and removal of soluble pollutants.  Bacteria, encouraged by aeration,
consume dissolved and solid organic matter as a food source.  Some of
the pollutants are converted to non-polluting gases such as carbon
                                11.3-6

-------
 Primary $*?ectmdary Treatment


        Primary      ,,  .
              /     .cJft\flfinfL/
   ..
  anr remova
        Primary
^|*%|hu  ^k


T  n
     bar ,
    *?cfeev}\  .
   ^rit- remdval
                         effluent
G£.
           inc..

-------
dioxide.  Others are retained in the bacteria.  The bacteria eventually
die, settle to the bottom of secondary settling tanks, and are removed
for disposal as secondary sludge (Figure 11.3-2).

The principal advantages of secondary treatment as compared to primary
treatment, are:

     1.   better effluent disinfection,

     2.   significantly greater reduction of the wastewater's bio-
          chemical oxygen demand (BOD), and suspended solids (SS or
          TSS),

     3.   additional, often significant, removal of toxic chemicals in
          the wastewater, and

     4.   compliance with the basic requirements of the Federal Clean
          Water Act (separate from any 301(h) waiver considerations).

The principal disadvantages of secondary treatment as compared to
primary treatment are:

     1.   significantly greater capital and operating costs (in this
          SDEIS primary treatment alternatives are closer in cost to
          secondary treatment options because of the high cost of a
          nine mile outfall proposed under primary options),

     2.   greater land area required for treatment facilities,

     3.   significantly greater sludge volumes produced with generally
          higher concentrations of toxic chemicals, and

     4.   more complex mechanically

The relative pollutant removal efficiencies of secondary treatment
plants are compared with those of primary treatment plants in Tables
                                11.3-7

-------
 11.3-2 through  11.3-6.  These tables show that secondary treatment
 plants provide  significantly greater removal of most pollutants than
 primary  treatment plants.

 There is, however, considerable variability in pollutant removal
 efficiencies between individual treatment plants of any given type.
 Comparison of Tables 11.3-2 through 11.3-6 shows this variability.
 Table 11.3-5 suggests that mean and median percent removals for bio-
 logical plants  (trickling filter and activated sludge) are generally
 similar.  Note, however, that the median percent removals reported in
 Table 11.3-5 are much lower than median percent removals reported in
 Table 11.3-3.   While both these tables are based on treatment plant
 data  (rather than laboratory simulations), differences between the data
 bases may account for the differences in median percent removals.   For
 example, Table  11.3-3 presents more recent data (early 1980s vs.
 mid-1970s) which might  indicate changes in plant performance and/or
 methods  of chemical testing.

 Considering metals removal specifically, "numerous field studies
 demonstrated that the influent metals concentration,  and the efficiency
 with which metals are removed varies widely between plants".
 (Patterson and  Kodukula, 1984.  Footnotes omitted.)  In a recent  pilot
 plant study (laboratory simulation) conducted by EPA (Petrasek and
 Kugelman, 1983):
        "Metals removals were computed by using both mean
        concentrations and median removals obtained from frequency
        distributions.  For those metals with large standard
        deviations in the influent samples, substantial
        differences in the removal efficiencies were apparent.
        For those metals with better behaved data, both
        calculations yielded approximately the same removal.
        Because of the variability of metals concentrations
        usually observed, careful considerations should be given
        to the use of mean, median, or modal concentrations for
        the computation of removal efficiencies, and to the
        development of percent removal frequency distributions."

Similarly, "most of the organic priority pollutants are present in
municipal wastewaters at relatively low concentrations (less than 10
                                11.3-8

-------
ug/1) .  .  .  accurate assessment of the fate and removability of these
materials  is difficult, if not impossible, when influent concentrations
are low."   (Petrasek et. al. 1983)  In contrast, high percent removals
for most volatile organic compounds, including many solvents, are con-
sistently reported for secondary treatment plants.  This is probably
due to volatilization (evaporation) in the secondary treatment aeration
tanks.
                                11.3-9

-------
                              TABLE 11.3-2

       COMPARISON OF TYPICAL PRIMAEY AND SECONDARY TREATMENT PLANT
               CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
                       AND SLUDGE GENERATION RATES

                                                    Primary and
   Parameter           Primary Treatment        Secondary Treatment

Total Coliform
Bacteria % removed
  unchlorinated                25-50%                   80-95%
  chlorinated (nominal)        90-95%                   98-99%
  chlorinated (best)      99.5%-99.9%                    99.9%

BOD5 % removed                 25-40%                   85-95%

TSS % removed                  50-75%                      90%

Total Nitrogen
% removed                       5-10%                   10-30%

Total Phosphorous
% removed                        10%±                     10%

Sludge mass removed
per 1,000 gallons
of wastewater              1.245 Ibs.                1.951 Ibs.
Note:     All values from Metcalf & Eddy, 1979 Wastewater Engineering,
          unless otherwise noted.

 FWPCA, 1969.  Note the bacteria removal efficiencies are
 probably overestimated in these figures, particularly for primary
 effluent, in light of recent evidence on suspended solids interference
 with disinfection effectiveness (EPA Sponsored 2nd National Symposium
 on Municipal Wastewater Disinfection, Jan.  26-28, 1982).
2
 EPA 625/5-76-012.   Note that "Except for the amount taken up for in-
 corporation into cell tissue, the additional removal achieved in conven-
 tional biological  treatment is minimal because almost all the phosphorus
 present after primary sedimentation is soluble .  .  [however] .  .  .  the
 degree of phosphorus removal at some activated sludge plants is consid-
 erably higher than would be predicted on the basis of the requirements
 for organism growth."  (Metcalf & Eddy, 1979 Wastewater Engineering, p.
 745-748).
                             11.3-10

-------
            TpmTru        PERCENT ^MOVALS °F SELECTED POLLUTANTS
            THROUGH PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS  BY  PROCESS*
Parameter
BOD
TOTAL SUSP. SOLIDS

CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
CYANIDE
LEAD
MERCURY
NICKEL
SILVER
ZINC

BENZENE
BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
CHLOROFORM
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
DIETHYL PHTHLATE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
NAPHTHALENE
PHENOL
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
TOLUENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
1,1, 1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHYLENE
 Primary

(12)
(12)

 (6)
(12)
(12)
(12)
 (1)
 (8)
 (9)
 (4)
(12)
19
45

15
27
22
27
57
10
14
20
27
(8)
(12)
(4)
(11)
(3)
(1)
(12)
(12)
(4)
(11)
(12)
(12)
(12)
(10)
(9)
25
0
62
14
36
56
13
0
44
8
4
0
20
40
36
        Secondary
     (Activated  Sludge)
(22)
(22)
90
90
(6)
(22)
(22)
(22)
(2)
(8)
(15)
(5)
(22)
85
84
84
62
82
76
34
83
81
(10)
(8)
(2)
(20)
(6)
(2)
(10)
(14)
(6)
(15)
(20)
(21)
(20)
(17)
(19)
77
62
94
62
68
91
90
48
92
89
82
93
90
88
80
Number in (  ) is number of plants with calculated removals.

Only plants with average influent concentrations greater than three
times the most frequent detection limit of each pollutant are included
in calculations.
 Source:  EPA, 1982.  Fate of Priority Pollutants in Publicly Owned
 Treatment Works, Final Report, Table 11.  Plant sizes range from 7 to
 200 mgd; note that these removal efficiencies may not be achievable in
 very large treatment systems such as the MDC's system.
2,,
  It should be noted that the primary effluent samples from this study
 may not be representative of primary treatment plants because
 secondary treatment plants generate a much greater volume of sludge
 than primary treatment plants, and many of the sludge processing side
 streams are returned to the primary tanks.  This often causes the
 influent to the primary tanks to be much higher in organic loading
 than the influent to a typical primary treatment plant."  (p. 68)
                             11.3-11

-------
                                          REMOVAL DATA SUMMARY
                                     FOR PRIMARY, TRICKLING FILTER
                             AND ACTIVATED SLUDGE  PLANTS (SELECTED  PARAMETERS)
     Parameter
Standard
Mean Deviation
CD
CR
PB
HG
CU
NI
ZN
FE
MN
P-TOTAL
TKN
NH3
PHENOL
TOC
COD
SS
BOD


8
26
24
27
26
6
31
40
15
13
22
20
38
24
26
51
30


17
26
26
29
24
18
22
22
20
8
20
16
-
19
-
18
22


Max/
Min
76/0
80/0
88/0
75/0
77/0
92/0
88/0
89/0
81/0
24/0
60/0
64/0
50/25
56/0
82/0
92/17
89/0

FOR
No. of
Standard
Plants Mean Deviation
31
36
34
21
44
28
38
27
16
7
7
42
2
30
18
47
52
EFFLUENT
PRIMARY,
AND ACTIVATED SLUDGE
Parameter


CD t^g/1)
CR "
PB "
HG "
CU "
NI "
ZN "
FE '
MN "
Primary Plants (PP)

Mean
14
IBS
156
1.0
191
165
550
1520
176
P-TOTAL(m9/l)12.9
TKN "
tfH3
24.4
20.2
PtfENOL (yg/l)16
TOC (trg/l)142
COD °
SS
BOD '
346
93
167
Standard
Max/
Deviation Min
9
406
272
1.3
278
387
658
1020
112
22
11.6
34.6
23
84.2
-
62
111
40/3
2600/6
1700/10
5.0/0.1
1700/10
1700/6
3600/30
5000/400
390/30
77/1.3
47/8.5
256/2.1
53/0.1
539/52
768/58
314/15
650/20
No. of
20
37
37
30
54
21
46
50
31
26
50
41
50
64
71
75
77
DATA SUMMARY
25
30
31
23
24
23
22
26
23
22
27
30
28
18
_
19
18

Max/
Min.
75/0
99/0
93/0
67/0
95/0
86/0
89/0
90/0
72/0
99/0
94/7
99/0
85/0
84/8
95/34
97/20
96/5

No. of
Plants
35
48
41
20
49
32
52
30
21
24
20
48
12
23
36
66
60

TRICKLING FILTER
PLANTS (SELECTED PARAMETERS)
Trickling Filter Plants

Plants Mear>
35
40
37
23
48
33
49
30
22
10
-
63
~
35
19
54
58
11
235
116
1.0
133
198
316
2910
136
9.02
16.8
16.6
209
54.3
133
43
48.6
Standard
Deviation
10
563
276
2.0
283
336
464
11000
130
3.8
11.9
17.2
772
26.3
-
37
47.3
Max/
Min.
66/1
3200/3
1800/5
10.0/0.1
1800/3
1533/7
2800/40
65600/100
580/20
18. 3/3.3
47.8/1.2
(TFP)
No. of
Plants
41
52
45
22
54
38
57
34
28
27
21
115/0.03 65
3000/0.03 13
129/23
361/18
228/5
245/4.0
23
38
66
61
                                                                                            Tiiblfi  11.3-4
                                                                                       Activated Sludge Plants  (ASP)
                                                                                           Standard   Max/No. of
                                                                                      Mean  Deviation  Min.  Plants
                                                                                       17
                                                                                       46
                                                                                       39
                                                                                       39
                                                                                       57
                                                                                       20
                                                                                       58
                                                                                       63
                                                                                       36
                                                                                       42
                                                                                       34
                                                                                       49
                                                                                       69
                                                                                       73
                                                                                       75
                                                                                       75
                                                                                       64
27
34
32
32
24
21
25
27
32
25
26
31
31
12

22
15
88/0
98/0
95/0
99/0
95/0
80/0
99/0
98/8
93/0
92/0
92/5
99/4
98/0
89/42
94/24
99/9
99/18
44
54
49
34
63
44
58
35
19
36
11
47
16
13
40
62
65
                                                                                       Activated  Sludge Plants (ASP)
                                                                                             Standard   Max/No.  of
                                                                                      Mean   Deviation  Min.  Plants
                                                                                       50
                                                                                       202
                                                                                       67
                                                                                       6.0
                                                                                       92
                                                                                       165
                                                                                       238
                                                                                       7-17
                                                                                       144
                                                                                       5.2
                                                                                       19.0
                                                                                       11.1
                                                                                       135
                                                                                       35.3
                                                                                       86
                                                                                       37
                                                                                       28.3
 277
 515
 68
 32
 195
 387
 257
 1170
 200
 2.7
 9.6
 7.6
 473
 22.4

 39
 40.7
1970/1
2520/5
 350/3
 200/0.1
1600/8
1700/6
1400/10
6800/100
 940/10
10.4/1.0
  34/1.5
27.5/0.07
 2000/0.02
 95.C/10
  275/14
  185/2
  230/2.0
 46
 60
 51
 37
 68
 56
 66
 37
 23
 40
 12
 63
 16
 14
 42
 64
 65
Source.:   EPA,  1977 (-430/9-76-017c) .
            Federal  Guidelines,  State  and Local
            Pretreatment  Programs.

-------
                                  TABLE  H.-fr
                    CHARACTERIZATION OF PRIMARY AND BIOLOGICAL
                               PLANT PERFORMANCE
                   Primary Plants  (PP)
                                      Biological Plants  (BP)
Parameter
Percent
Removal
CD
CR
PB
HG
CU
NI
ZN
FE
MN
P-TOT
TKN
NH3
PHEN
TOC
COD
SS
BOD
(jig/l)
11
it
ii
tt
ii
tt
it
M
(mg/l)
11
II
 )/(mean)      (50%-O/dnean)     (50% ">)/ (mean)   (50% < )/(mean)
                                     11/14
                                     90/188
                                    110/156
                                    0.6/1.0
                                    110/191
                                     75/165
                                    300/550
                                   1300/1518
                                    160/176
                                     10/13
                                     ID/24
                                     13/20
                                     ID/16
                                    125/142
                                    340/346
                                     78/93
                                    140/167
                                      9/19
                                     41/42
                                     41/38
                                     38/35
                                     56/56
                                     16/21
                                     52/52
                                     59/57
                                     28/35
                                     32/34
                                     40/42
                                     37/45
                                     68/60
                                     71/69
                                     75/73
                                     80/75
                                     85/81
                                       10/30
                                       50/218
                                       60/92
                                      0.6/3.5
                                       50/113
                                       65/182
                                      160/277
                                      600/1827
                                       90/140
                                        6/7
                                       17/18
                                       12/14
                                      2.5/175
                                       45/25
                                      100/110
                                       30/40
                                       28/39
  Notes:

  ID = Insufficient data reported.
  PP = Two plant data base.
  BP = Eleven plant data base.


-------
B.   Conventional Pollutants in MSD Wastewater

Table 11.3-7 presents estimated annual average concentrations of con-
ventional pollutants for MDC's existing primary effluent,
typical/improved primary, and typical secondary treatment plant
effluents.   MDC values are expected to vary from typical values because
of the MDC's high wastewater flow and the high percentage of that flow
which is infiltration and inflow.  Note that bacterial concentrations
in effluent vary widely for any treatment plant (see recent Deer Island
and Nut Island plant bacterial data in the separate SDEIS report:
Boston Harbor Water Quality Baseline).  Also note that COD, total
nitrogen and total phosphorus values for existing treatment plants are
based on very small sample sizes and cannot, therefore, be considered
statistically valid.  At any specific time, actual effluent values are
likely to vary from these averages.

C.   Metals in MSD Wastewater

Daily grab samples of Deer Island and Nut Island wastewater are com-
bined each month by the MDC and analyzed for metals content.   Figures
11.3-3 and 11.3-4 depict combined Deer Island and Nut Island annual
average metals concentrations from these data, along with the mean
effluent concentration for the period 1973-1981.   (Note that averages
for 1978 are missing from the original data and that these data do not
reflect emergency raw wastewater discharges or regular sludge
discharges.)  Table 11.3-8 shows the mean annual average metals concen-
tration in the influent and effluent for both Deer Island and Nut
Island treatment plants.   Comparison of this data with average metals
concentrations reported in Table 11.3-5 shows that the MSD effluent
concentrations are generally within the typical range of other primary
treatment plant effluents.
                                11.3-12

-------
        TABLE 11.3-7  EXISTING AND PROJECTED MSD TREATMENT PLANT
   AVERAGE ANNUAL EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS FOR CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS*
Parameter/Units
Total Coliforms,
after chlorination
No./lOO ml
  reported
  worst case (2)
  best case (3)

BOD   mg/1
COD, mg/1
TSS, mg/1

Total Nitrogen
   mg/1
Total Phosphorus
   mg/1
   Primary Plant
Existing    Typical/
  MDC       Improved
                                                Typical Secondary Plant
 966 (1)
 104 (4)
 508 (7)
  77 (4)
 26.5 (9)

  4.3 (9)
            5x10
            1000
                11
108 (5)

 65 (5)
lo11
1000

30 (6)
80 (8)
30 (6)
                     18 (8)

                      9 (8)
*Values do not reflect higher concentrations of pollutants in occasional
 discharges of poorly treated wastewater, existing sludge and scum
 discharges or the effects of atypical infiltration and inflow.

1.   1984 Deer Island Facilities Plan, Table E-2 assuming 1982 data and
     75% DI and 25% NI of total flow. J2
2.   Assuming raw wastewater load = 10   total coliforms/litre (repre-
     senting 100% residential wastewater); chlorination disinfection
     effectiveness:  primary = 95%, secondary = 99%.
3.   ERT, 1979, p. 5-9.  This probably underestimates the concentration
     in primary effluent due to suspended solids interference with
     disinfection effectiveness.  These values reflect disinfection
     effectiveness greater than 99.9999% and/or very low influent
     concentrations.
4.   Prorated data from 1984 301(h) Waiver Application, Table II-A3.3.
5.   1984 301(h) Waiver Application, Table II-A3.4 using 1990 flows.
6.   Typical limits required by State/EPA issued discharge permits
     (NPDES permits); median concentrations reported for secondary
     treatment plants are:  BOD 28 mg/1, SS 30 mg/1 (see Table F-4),
     and mean concentrations reported range from BOD 20 mg/1, SS 20 mg/1
    (EPA-625/5-76-012) to BOD 39 mg/1, SS 40 mg/1 (see Table F-4).
7.   Average COD (chemical oxygen demand) from 1983 Mass. DWPC sampling
     of 7/11, 7/12, 7/13, prorated DI 75%, NI 25%.  This value is
     likely to vary from actual average annual COD due to the small
     number of samples on which it is based.
8.   EPA-625/5-76-012.
9.   Averages from 1983 Mass. DWPC sampling program (6 samples at each
     plant) prorated DI 75%, NI 25%.  These values are likely to vary
     from actual annual averages due to the small number of samples on
     which they are based.
                             11.3-13

-------
  1973   74   75   76   77   78   79   1980
1, F/gi. 3-1

                                               75  76   77   78   79   1980
                                                   SILVER.
                                                            79  i960  61
AVERAGE ANNUAL CONCENTRATION
FOR THE COMBINED DISCHARGE
FROM THE DEER ISLAND AND
NUT ISLAND TREATMENT PLANTS
                                                                   -Fig,. H. 3-

-------
1973  74   78  79  77   78  79  1980
                               J	L.
                                        CADMIUM
                                        I  I	I		1
       AVERAGE ANNUAL CONCENTRATION
       FOR THE COMBINED DISCHARGE
       FROM THE DEER ISLAND AND
       NUT ISLAND TREATMENT PLANTS—

-------
AVERAGE METALS CONCENTRATIONS IN
COMBINED DEER ISLAND AND NUT ISLAND INFLUENT
                                         ConceY\trcctior\'t
                                        Klut )^Uv\d
                                    influent     Effluent
                                                0.
                                                   0.
Chromiuvn
        1-2.37
0.
             0.  \\
Copper
      (9-45?
           0.475
-o
                                     o.
                                                       2-
Mercury
                                                    0.007,^
Nickel
      0 -
                          O.
                                                    0.
 Zinc
                            0. 427^
                W^ivev
0- 410
                     may be  Hie actual

-------
               CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION CURVES
                                                                         CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION CURVES
                                                                                                     B>.
         Copper
                                   Chromium
                             LOO
                             80
                             20 - •
   0   20   40  60   80  100
                                0   20  40   60   80  100
                                                             0  20   40   60   80  100
                                                                                          0   20  40   60   30  100
   0  20   40  60   80  100

       Parcant of Plants
                             200
                             160-
                              80. .
                              40. .
0   20   40   60  80  100

    Percent of Plants
NOTE: n « number of plants with average influent concentration greater tihan zero
                                                                                       100
0   40   60   80  150

Percent of Plants
                                                                                       80 •
                                                                                       60 •
                                                                                                        n-29
0   20   40  60   80  f30

    Percent of Plants
                                                          NOTE: -i = number of plants with average influent concentration greater tnan zero
               POLLUTANT REMOVAL  EFFICIENCIES  IN  PUBLICLY  OWNED
                                        TREATMENT PLANTS

-------
              CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION CURVES
                                                                      CUMCLATr.1 DISTRIBUTION CURVES
                                   -Mercury
                                                                Silver
30 . .
-10 , .
                            60 - •
                                                                                   100
  3   20  40   60  80  100
                              0  20   40   60  30   100
                                                              20   40  60   ?C  100
                                                                                       0   20  40   60  80  100
       Percent of Plants
                                       of Plants
NOTE :  n = number of [ lar.ts vith average infiuer.t zor.cer. tratis". greater thar. zero
                                                                                   500
                                                               Percent of
                                                                                    100
                                                                                           ".   40  60   90  10i.


                                                                                           Percent of Plants
                                                         \'CTi::  ~ - r.'omber of ; lar.ts v. i tr. 3'.eracje influent concentration greater than zero
   , IW;
Priority
in
                      6.
POLLUTANT REMOVAL  EFFICIENCIES
IN  PUBLICLY   OWNED TREATMENT PLANTS

-------
The effluent metals concentrations obtainable with secondary treatment
plants are depicted in the cumulative distribution curves shown in
Figures 11.3-5 and 11.3-6.  Note that the data base includes several
different types of secondary treatment plants.  Also note that, except
for nickel, half of the secondary treatment plants provided greater
than 70% removal of metals listed.

Tables 11.3-9 and 11.3-10 show the estimated mean metals concentrations
in secondary and existing primary treatment plant effluents, the EPA
water quality criteria for the protection of saltwater aquatic life,
and the various dilutions needed for the effluent to meet these
criteria.  Table 11.3-9 shows the estimated secondary effluent
concentrations obtained through the use of mean MSB influent
concentrations (Figures 11.3-3 and 11.3-4) and median  percent removal
rates for activated sludge plants reported in Table 11.3-3.  The
statistical validity of these estimates is unknown due to the absence
of distribution statistics for the influent data.  (See discussion
under 11.3.3 A above.)  Table 11.3-10 shows average MSD primary
treatment plant effluent concentrations (Figures 11.3-3 and 11.3-4) for
comparison with projected secondary effluent concentrations in Table
11.3-9.  Comparison shows secondary treatment plant effluent would
require much less dilution to meet the water quality criteria than
existing primary effluent.

In these tables the dilution necessary to meet a water quality
criterion assumes the background concentration is equal to zero.
Higher dilution would be required for effluent discharges to meet the
criteria where background concentrations are detectable.  Where newly
proposed criteria (Federal Register, Feb. 4, 1984) are lower than
existing criteria, the proposed values are used for the purpose of a
"worst case" analysis.

Table 11.3-11 shows the metals data obtained during the priority
pollutant sampling conducted for the 301(h) Waiver Application.
Comparison of this table with Table 11.3-10 shows the 301(h) Waiver
data has much lower concentrations of metals than the historical data

                                11.3-14

-------
                                      Tkble
           Mean Influent
                        treatment
                                ian
                                       "9/Jl
                         Criteria
                                                                 ue.
                                                    •h>
                                                     .012.
                                                     •0045
                                            o
                                                    NA
              o.\\
                         .054
                         .016
                               1.20
                                                            NA
                                                                                MA
lead
                                       .073(0
                         .001
                               0032
                    .025
                                                    NA
Mercury
           . 00065
                     .0001
                                                                        MA
              0.27
34%
       -1762
                                         .0071
                                                                                 1.3
                                       0043
                                   -OCX23
                                                    1.6
                                       -15-39
                         ,058
                               .170
                                                            2.7
                                                                                NA
501

Appl'«th'cr\ Addendum 1,
3-9.
         (2)
                                           H.3-3
              ESTIMATED AVERAGE  METALS CONCENTRATIONS
              IN MSD SECONDARY TREATMENT PLANT EFFLUENT
                      AND WATER QUALITY CRITERIA

-------
from daily sampling.   Some of the 301(h)  Waiver data is more recent
than the daily sampling data and may therefore reflect more recent
conditions.   On the other hand,  relatively few samples make up the
301(h) Waiver data, and at least some of  the 301(h)  sampling results
are reported to be low because of wet weather influences.

The impacts  associated with these metals  concentrations are discussed
below under  Near Field Effects and Far Field Effects.
                               11.3-15

-------
 liable  11.3-10.  Metals in primary effluent found in concentrations greater than EPA criteria for the protection of
altwater
ilution.
-~ 	 * 	 — 	 o 	 	 — 	
aquatic life using average annual data from daily sampling. Note that cri
MEAN EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS

1

Deer Island






Cadmium

Chromium

Copper
Lead
a
Table III
H2.10 (1984)
Avg. Cone.
at Deer Is.
mg/1
0.004005

0.0243

0.0565
0.0323
b
Avg.
Metals
Cone . &
mg/1

0.025

0.1068

0.3487
0.116
2

Nut Island
a
Table III
H2. 10(1984)
Avg. Cone.
at Nut Is.
mg/1
.0000838

0.0093

0.0359
0.0139
b
Avg.
Metals
Cone .&
mg/1

0.0128

0.0578

0.339
0.0532
3
Combined
Col. Ib
x .75 +
Col. 2b
x .25
mg/1

.0219

0.0946

0.3463
0. 1003
CRITERIA
4
Chronic/
Average
Criteria
mg/1
Chron. Avg.


0.012*
0.0045
0.054*
0.018
0.002*
0.025 0.0086*

Acut'
Cri
m
Acute





10.3


0.668
                                                                                   mg/1
                                                                                       Max.
Mercury    0.0009
 (1978-1982)
Nickel     0.0441
Silver

Zinc
0.0028

0.2267
                                                                                      0.038*
                                                                                   Min. Dilu-
                                                                                    tions  to
                                                                                   meet chronic
                                                                                    criteria
                                                                                   (Col. 3/
                                                                                      Col. 4
                                                                                     4.87
                                                                                               5.25
0.00136  0.0000151

0.1568   0.0133

0.0266   0.0013

0.56     0.2702
0.002   0.0015

0.2931  0.1909

0.0117  0.0228

0.335   0.5038
                0.0032*  173.15*

                0.220*   11.66*

0.0001          0.0019*   15

0.0071          0.140   26.89

                0.0023

0.058           0.170    8.67
                                                                                       7
                                                                                     Min. Dilu-
                                                                                      tions to
                                                                                     meet acute
                                                                                      criteria
                                                                                     (Col. 3/
                                                                                       Col. 5
108.22*

  0.46

  0.79*

  1.36

  9.91

  2.96
*Based on proposed  criteria  (Federal Register, Feb. 4,  1984).  Note:  where existing criterion is lower than proposed
 criterion, both values  are  shown.

Sources:  Columns la and 2a,  1984 301(h) Waiver Application, Table III-H2.10 reported averages for 1984 priority pollutant
sampling unless otherwise noted.  Columns  Ib and 2b, 301(h) Waiver Application, Addendum 1, June, 1982, Tables 3-9 and
3-10, showing average concentrations for the period 1973-1981.

-------
Table  11.3-11.  Metal  priority pollutants in primary effluent found in concentrations greater  than EPA criteria for the
r^r^t- t*r~t^ i r^n r*t  c-^ll-r.Tol-QV-  ., ^, > , r, »- -I ,, 1 -,' -C „ ,,.-,•	,	-.'	I J		TT-.J	J_ J - -^ - __1T		3 £	 O/M/'U^ V.J~ -I ,ra»- Ar,T»l -5 r-a 1" -|' r» Tl   Not f> that
protection of
criteria may



Metal
Priority
Pollutants


Chromium

Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
saltwater aquatic life using c 	 _, ^ 	 _ .. . .
priority pollutant data collected for 301 (h) Waiver Application.
Note that
be met after initial dilution.
1
Deer &
Nut Island
Effluent
Range
(uncombined)
ug/1

<3-580

2-271
14-54
<0.2-2.6
<5-462
<1-30
30-1245
2
1984 Average
Concentration
Combined
Deer and Nut
Island Data
ug/1

20.61

51.42
27.71
0.73
36.43
2.50
273.63
3

Chronic/
Average
Criteria
ug/1
Chr . Avg .

54*
18
2 . 0*
25 8 . 6*
0.1
7.1
--
58
4

Acute/
Maximum
Criteria
ug/1
Acute Max.

10300 1200

3 . 2 *
668 220"
1 . 9 *
140
2.3
170
5
Min. Dilutions
for Average Con-
centration to
Meet Chronic/
Ave . Criteria
(Col. 2/Col. 3)

1.14

25 . 7 1*
3 . 22*
7.3
5.13
--
4.10
6
Min. Dilutions
for Maximum
Concentration
to Meet Acute/
Max. Criteria
(Max. Value
Col. I/Col. 4)
0.48

84 . 69*
0 . 25*
1 . 37*
3.3
13.04
7.32

Min. Dilutions
for Average
Concentration
to Meet Acute/
Max. Criteria
(Col. 2/Col. 4)

0 . 02*

16.07*
0.13*
0 . 38*
0.26
1.09
1.40
*Based on proposed criteria (Federal Register,  Feb.  4,  1984).

Sources:  Column 1 data, 1978, 1979, 1982,  and  1984 priority pollutant raw  data  as reported in 301(h)  Waiver Applications,
Column 2 averages from 1984 301(h) Waiver Application Table III-H 2.10; note  that some averages reported in Table III-H
2.10 are based on results from earlier years.

-------
D.   Other Priority Pollutants in the MSD Wastewater

One hundred and twenty-eight chemicals have been identified by EPA as
"priority pollutants".  These pollutants are toxic to plants and
animals, including humans.  (The word "toxic", as used in this
discussion, is equivalent to "poisonous" or "disease causing").   The
metals discussed above under subsection C are all priority pollutants.
Samples of MSD wastewater for priority pollutant testing were taken in
1978, 1979, 1982, and 1984.   In total twenty to thirty effluent samples
were taken at each treatment plant.  Influent data is only available for
5 samples at each plant in 1978.

To evaluate these priority pollutant data, a screening process was
used.  This process, depicted in Figure 11.3-7 allowed the priority
pollutants to be grouped into the following categories:

     1.   Priority pollutants which occur in effluent at concentrations
          exceeding EPA saltwater aquatic life criteria prior to
          dilution (Table 11.3-12).

     2.   Priority pollutants which occur in effluent at concentrations
          which meet EPA saltwater aquatic life criteria (Table  11.3-18
          11.3 Appendix A).

     3.   Priority pollutants present at concentrations which meet
          existing and proposed maximum criteria for saltwater aquatic
          life, but for which no chronic or average criteria exist
          (Table 11.3-19, 11.3 Appendix A).

     4.   Priority pollutants detected, but for which no saltwater
          aquatic life criteria exist (Table 11.3-20, 11.3 Appendix A).

     5.   Priority pollutants not detected in any of the samples (Table
          11.3-21,  11.3 Appendix A).
                                11.3-18

-------
                                                            Campled for 3b\ (h)
                                                            vuaiVer
                                                                                         no oc\\ef\a
                                                                                        /table il.3-2o)
                           priorio dilution
                                   ij.3-10)
  Appi-oxirviatrly 25" effluent samples per plant,
, 4 infloe^t Camples per- plant me, Sources
       301 (kN waiter Apphcafion , Vol. 5, Hehralf
Maximum
                                                                                                 . 11-3-7
                                                   RJLUITANT DOTA

-------
TABLE 11.3-12.  Non-metal priority pollutants in primary effluent found in concentrations greater than EPA
protection of saltwater aquatic life.  Note that criteria may be met after initial dilution.
                                                                                                   for the
Non-Metal
Priority
Pollutants

Pesticide
Compounds :
Heptachlor
PCB-1242(1)
PCB-1260(1)
PCB-1254(1)
PCB-1016(1)
Total PCB's(l)
Dieldrin
4,4 DDT
Endrin
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan II
Deer &
Nut Island
Effluent
Range
(uncombined)
ug/1
1984 Average
Concentration
Combined
Deer and Nut
Island Data
ug/1
Chronic/
Average
Criteria
ug/1
Acute/
Maximum
Criteria
ug/1
Min. Dilutions Min. Dilutions
for Average Con- for Maximum
centration to Concentration
Meet Chronic/ to Meet Acute/
Ave . Criteria Max. Criteria
Chr. Avg. Acute Max.
(Col. 2/Col. 3)
(Max. Value
Col. I/Col. 4)

ND-<10
ND-2.138
ND-0.1924
ND-5.2
ND-106
(2)0.28-2.139
ND-<10
ND-0.23
ND-0.031
ND-0.398
ND-0.281
Total Endosulfan ND-0.654

0.
1.
0.
0.
38.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.

0369
0293
0333
0716
15
136
0127
0313
0151
0604
0960
0782(4)

0
0
0
0
0
0



0
0
0

.0036
.030
.030
.030
.030
.030
0019
0010
0023
.0087
.0087
.0087

0.
10 5*
10 5*
10 5*
10 5*
10 5*
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.

053





71
13
037
034
034
034

10.
34.
1.
2,
1271.
37.
6.
31
6.
6.
11
8

.25
.31
. 11
.39
.66
.86
.68
.3
.56
.94
.03
.99

188.
0.
0.
1 .
21.
0.
14.
1 .
0.
11 .
8.
19.

67
43*
04*
04*
2*
43*
08
75
84
71
27
24
  Other
Compounds:

Chlorobenzene
Cyanide  (3)
ND-170
<0.01 -
  82.139
  102.5
39.0791
129          160
2.0  0.57*    30
 0.79
68.56-
 1.06
82.14*
                                                                                                             Min. Dilutions
                                                                                                              for Average
                                                                                                             Concentration
                                                                                                             to Meet Acute/
                                                                                                             Max. Criteria
                                                                                                             (Col. 2/Col. 4)
0.
0.
0.
0.
7.
0.
0.
0.
0
1
2.
2
0
39
70
21*
01*
.01*
.63*
. 23*
.02
.24
.41
.78
.82
.30
.64
. 08*
*Based on proposed  criteria  (Federal Register, Feb. 4,  1984).
(1) Limits of detection  for  1982  sampling  =  50 ug/1.
(2) 1984 data only.   1984  data  PCBs associated with solids only, soluble PCBs not detected  (<2.50 mg/1).
(3) Cyanide not  included in  1979  samples.
(4) Calculated from Endosulfan  I  and II  averages.

Sources:  Column  1  data, 1978,  1979, 1982, and 1984 priority pollutant  raw data as reported  in 301(h) Waiver Applications
          Column  2  averages  from  1984  301(h)  Waiver Application Table III-H 2.10; note that  some averages reported  in T.ihle
          III-H  2.10  are based  on results  from earlier  years  (e.g., PCB-1016 above)

-------
For the non-metal priority pollutants detected in concentrations
greater than EPA criteria, Table 11.3-12 shows the range of
concentrations, the average concentration assuming combined Deer and
Nut Island effluent, saltwater aquatic life criteria, and dilution
required for effluent discharges to meet the criteria.  The dilution
required to meet the criterion assumes a zero background concentration;
higher dilution would be required where background concentrations are
detectable.

Looking at Table 11.3-12, the high value shown for PCB-1016 (106 ug/1)
may be an outlier, that is, a product of sampling error not representa-
tive  of actual concentrations.  Also, quality assurance data for the
1984  sampling suggests that reported concentrations of priority pol-
lutants may be generally lower than actual effluent concentrations
(based on percent recovery in control samples).

Secondary treatment plant effluent concentrations for these priority
pollutants have not been estimated due to insufficient influent concen-
tration data.  However, experimental data has shown greater than 90%
removal of PCB 1254, heptachlor and chlorobenzene, in secondary
treatment plant simulators (Petrasek, et. al., 1983 a and b).

Cumulative distribution curves for cyanide removal in secondary
treatment plants are shown in Figure 11.3-8.  Assuming influent con-
centrations of cyanide to a secondary process will be equal to, or
greater than, those found presently in Nut and Deer Island effluents,
the median percent removal for cyanide of 62%  (Table  11.3-3) indicates
that secondary treatment plant discharges may exceed  average and
maximum cyanide criteria for the protection of saltwater aquatic life.

The impacts associated with these pollutant concentrations are dis-
cussed below under Near Field Effects, and Far Field  Effects.
                                11.3-19

-------
POLLUTANT REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES

IN PUBLICLY  OWNED TREATMENT PLANTS
          CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION CURVES
        100
       Al 80
       >  60
       4J  40
       e
       
-------
11.3.4    Near Field Effects

A.   Initial Dilution

Wastewater effluent is mostly freshwater.  Freshwater is less dense
than seawater and will therefore rise after discharge into saltwater.
As the effluent mixes with the saltwater, its density increases and its
rate of rise slows.  This is known as initial dilution.   The effluent
plume will rise more and more slowly, mixing with the seawater, until
its density is the same as the surrounding saltwater.  This marks the
completion of initial dilution.

Initial dilution is important because Massachusetts Water Quality
Standards apply after initial dilution,  or outside the "zone of initial
dilution" (ZID).   Therefore, wastewater  effluent may exceed water
quality criteria at the point of discharge but still meet water quality
standards after initial dilution.

As explained below, the factors  which favor (maximize) initial dilution
are fast currents, deep water, and long  effluent diffusers.

Several sites have been investigated by  the MDC for the  discharge of
treated effluents (Figure 11.3-1).  For  combined north and south system
flows, the President Roads site  appears  to be the closest site to Deer
or Long Islands where a discharge could  be environmentally acceptable.
This site was therefore chosen for the purpose of estimating initial
dilutions during different current and ambient density conditions.

After initial dilutions are estimated for a given site,  they are
compared with Tables 11.3-9 through 11.3-12 which show the dilution
needed to meet EPA criteria for  the protection of saltwater aquatic
life.
                                11.3-21

-------
Method of Initial Dilution Modeling

To evaluate the water quality impacts of effluent discharges to Boston
Harbor, preliminary estimates of initial dilution (ID) of the discharge
were developed.  To provide these estimates, an accepted and verified
numerical model, which could faithfully replicate the relevant plume
relationships, was sought.  The plume model MERGE accounts for the
effects of current, ambient density stratification and port spacing on
plume behavior, and has been extensively verified (EPA 600/6-82-004b)
A desktop version of MERGE has been derived based upon a similarity
theory and was selected as the cost-effective model of choice for this
analysis.

1.   Basic Approach

The premise upon which preliminary applications of the model were
founded consisted of the following:

     i)   "Ambient density stratification adversely affects initial
          dilution.  The greatest density gradient over the height-
          of-rise of the plume will  result in the lowest dilution
          period." (Metcalf & Eddy,  1979, 301(h)  Waiver Application, p.
          Bl-22).
          "Ambient density stratification in receiving water limits  the
          height of rise of buoyant jets, traps the plume below the
          surface, and reduces initial dilution by preventing effective
          use of full depth of water.   These effects are more pro-
          nounced with increased stratification." (Metcalf & Eddy,
          1979,  301(h) Waiver Application p. Bl-21).

     ii)   "Currents ...  elongate the trajectory of plumes by carrying
          them away from the diffuser; as a result, they increase the
          initial dilution of the buoyant plumes." (Metcalf & Eddy,
          1979,  301(h) Waiver Application,  p.  Bl-21).

                                11.3-22

-------
     Two extreme conditions were selected for evaluation.  They were:

     Condition 1:   minimum density stratification with
                    maximum current,  and

     Condition 2:   maximum density stratification with
                    minimum current.

It was assumed, all other input values considered equal, that Condition
1 would provide much greater initial  dilution than Condition 2.  The
results which were obtained from these preliminary runs confirmed this
assumption.

This evaluation of the model provided insight as to the resultant
variation in initial dilution estimates as affected by simultaneous
changes in two key input parameters.   Later iterations using the model
evaluated the relative change in ID with respect to a change in dif-
fuser characteristics discussed below.  This provided a better
appreciation of the model's sensitivity to these characteristics.

2.   MERGE Model Description

The preliminary ID estimates were obtained from the "desktop" appli-
cation of MERGE.  A set of tables which describe an infinite number of
possible diffuser, effluent and ambient flow configurations has been
developed based upon the theory of similarity.   For this reason, the
model requires that a limited number  of similarity conditions be
satisfied.  As explained in the EPA manual (EPA 600/6-82 0046;
footnotes omitted):
        The number of  similarity  conditions  is determined by the difference
        between the  number of  independent  variables and  primary variables
        involved in the problem.  Primary variables must include mass, time,
        and  distance.    The  present  problem  involves  eleven  independent
        variables  implying eight similarity  conditions.   The  independent
        variables, corresponding  symbols, units,  similarity parameters, and
        their names  are  listed  in (Table 11.3-13).  As  the dilution tables
        are based  on a  linear  equation of state,  the  effluent  and ambient
        densities  p    and  p  ,   respectively,   replace  four  independent
                     6         3.
                                11.3-23

-------
        variables:   the effluent  and ambient  salinities  and  temperatures.
        This  effectively  reduces the number of  similarity conditions by two
        to  six.

        It  is  advantageous  to  further  reduce  the  number  of  similarity
        conditions  to minimize the number  of  tables necessary to  represent
        the  flow  configurations  of   interest.   From  experimental observ-
        ations,  it  is found that plume behavior is  basically  invariant for
        large  Reynolds  numbers reducing the number  of similarity  conditions
        to  five.   Finally,  the ratio p /p  and  the  stratification parameter
        can be combined in a  composite stratification parameter,  SP, where,

                        SP = (p  -p )/(d dp /dz)
                               3.  G    O  3

Use of  the  tables requires the  input  of the plume variables  listed  in
Table 11.3-13  in the  form of the following  four  similarity parameters:
      1.   Densimetric Froude Number: Fr = V/ g'd  ,


      2.   Stratification Parameter:  SP = Pa-Pe/(d  dP /dz),
                                                  o   a

      3.   Current to Effluent Velocity Ratio:  K = Ua/V


      4.   Port Spacing:  PS = S,
                              d
                               o

The determination of preliminary values for model input parameters
required the evaluation and comparison of siting and sizing criteria as
presented in several available sources.  These criteria are presented
in Table 11.3-14.  The comparison of these values led to a preliminary
set of criteria for the model.  The values of input variables selected
for the preliminary applications of MERGE are presented in Table
11.3-15.  Note that ambient density and density stratification data are
from Boston Lightship (due to lack of data for President Roads during
critical periods).  Density stratification reported for Boston Lightship
in August is close to that reported for President Roads during July,
and ambient densities reported for President Roads in July are not
significantly different from those reported for Boston Lightship in
August with respect to the model's sensitivity (see Figures Bl-15 and
16, 1979 301(h) Waiver Application).



                                11.3-24

-------
                                               Table  //.3-/3
                             PLUME  VARIABLES, UNITS, AND SIMILARITY CONDITIONS
     Variable
                           Symbol
Units
            Dimensionless Sim. Parm
                                                                                                Name
Effluent density
Effluent velocity
Effective diameter
Ambient density
Reduced gravity

Density stratification
Current velocity

Kinematic viscosity
Port spacing
                             Pe
                             v
                             do
                             Pa
                             9'

                          dpa/dz
ML
LT
L
ML
LT
   -1
   -3
   -2
ML"
LT
                                           -i
                                          2 -1
                                         L T
             none—primary variable
             none—primary variable
             none—primary variable
                  Pe/Pa
                   Pe/(dodPa/dz)
                   ua/v
                   d0/v
                   Si/do
    none
    none
    none
density ratio
densimetric Froude
    number:  Fr
stratification parm.
current to effluent
 velocity ratio:  k
Reynolds number: Re
Port spacing parm.:
       PS
Notes:  1.  g1  = ((pa-pe)/Pe)9 where g is the acceleration of gravity (9.807 msec"2).
1.
2.

3.
            In the present application a composite stratification parameter, SP, is used in
            lieu of the density ratio and the stratification parameter.  SP = (pa-pe)/(d0dpa/dz)
            The diameter, dQ  is taken to be the vena contracta diameter.

-------
       TABLE 11.3-14
SITING AND SIZING CRITERIA

SOURCE
S.O.S.



DEIS


(1979) Waiver
Application
(1984) Waiver
Application
Grace, R.A.
Marine Outfall
Systems

Metcalf & Eddy
Wastewater
Treatment ,
Disposal &
Reuse
CEM
Preliminary
FLOW MGD
(CAPACITY)
500 avg
1240 pk


Not
Specified

575 avg
1290 pk
500 avg
1240 pk
Not
Specified


Not
Specified
JET
VELOCITY
approx.
15 ft/sec


2.6 ft/sec
Average
6 ft/sec pk
Not
Specified
5-8 avg
7-11 pk
Not
Specified


16 ft/sec
at pk (ex . )
PORT
DIAMETER
as small
as possible
but 5" rain

12"
8.5"

5V, 6",
6V
5V-6V

Water
Depth, h
h - 100 to
h - 700
3" to 9"

PORT
SPACING
such that
adjacent
plumes do
not merge
10'


22' on
each side
22' on
each side
Water
Depth, h
h - 2 to
h - 75
8' to 15'

MANIFOLD
VELOCITY
5-7ft/sec
7.5 pk
not <2

Not
Specified

1.5 to 3.5
ft/sec
Not
Specified
2 to 3
ft/sec at pk


2 to 3 ft/s
less than
DIFFUSER
LENGTH
Not Specifii



1000 ft
2000 ft

7700 ft

6560 ft

Typically a
few hundred
to a few
thousand
Not Specifi

8 to 10 ft/sec


500 avg
1240 pk


2.5-7 ft/sec
average


4" to 13"



10' to 20'



2 to 5
ft/sec


1500 ft to
1000 ft
     /-17 ft/sec pk

-------
                                                 TABLE 11.3-15

                                     PRELIMINARY VALUES OF INPUT VARIABLES
VARIABLE                      SYMBOL
Effluent density
Effluent velocity
Port diameter
Ambient density
Density stratification
Current velocity
Water depth at discharge      D
VALUE
REFERENCE
pe(March)
e (August)
Vavg
Vpeak
d
o
pa (March)
a (August)
dP /dz,M , ,
dPa/dz frch\
a (August)
U . .
a (minzmum)
/ • ~\
1
1
2
5
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
.00449 g/cnu
.00287 g/cm
. 13 m/sec
.18 m/sec
.25 m
.02576 g/cnu
.02491 g/cm
4
.0 kg/m ,
.07 kg/m
.05 m/sec
.90 m/sec
79 301 (h) Vol. 1,
Table Bl-8, "Combine
assumed
calculated based on
velocity assumption
79 301(h) Vol. 1,
Fig. Bl-16 (at 30 m)
79 301(h) Vol. 1,
Fig. Bl-16 (at 30 m)
N.O.A.A. Tidal Curre
Boston Harbor
21 m to 24 m
Boston Harbor Nav. Chart  at
President Roads
Port spacing
4.6 m
assumed

-------
3.    Diffuser Characteristics







     The range of values, as presented in Table 11.3-14, was used to



determine the relation between diffuser length, port spacing, port



diameter, and jet velocity.   These relationships are depicted on the



following graphs (Figures 11.3-9 - 11.3-12).  Based on general



recommendations, the required port diameter for the outfalls should be



in the range of 5 to 10 inches, and the ports should be spaced from 10



to 20 feet apart.  As can be seen, these requirements can only be met



for diffusers of about 3000 feet in length or longer.  The 6000 foot



long diffuser provided much more flexibility in establishing the port



exit velocity.







     Subsequent iterations using the model evaluated the changes in



initial dilution for various diffuser parameter combinations both



within and outside of the recommended ranges.  The results of these



iterations are presented in Table 11.3-16.  Review of these results in-



dicates that significant changes in initial dilution are realized only



for significant changes in diffuser length for a given water depth and



current velocity.  Port spacing, velocity, and diameter do have an



effect on the results.   However, all of the results for a specific



diffuser length fall within a relatively small range.
                                11.3-27

-------
                   RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN

               EFFLUENT DIFFUSER PARAMETERS
                  L = 1500'
Qavg = 500 mgd
                                                 'Qpk = 1240 mgd
SPACING

5'
10'
15'
20'
*
PORTS

300
150
100
75
PORT DIAMETER
VELOCITY IN FT/SEC
Vavg=3
13"
18"
22"
25"
Vavg=4
11"
15"
19"
22"
Vavg=5
10"
14"
17"
19"
Vavg=6
9"
13"
15"
18"
Vavg=7
8"
12"
14"
16"
    25
   20

<^s
CO
in
I
o
z

*•*  15
cc
HI
I-
LU
OC
O
a.
   10-
    5-
                                            V=3 Vp 7.4
              V=4 Vp 9.9



              V=5 Vp 12.4


              V=6 Vp 14.9

              V=7 Vp 17
               OPTIMAL DIAMETER=5'-10"


               OPTIMAL SPACING«=10'-20'
5
1 1
600
i'o
PORT SPACING
Vs
(FEET)
i I
300 200
2'o
150
25
1
                           PORTS

-------
                RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN

            EFFLUENT DIFFUSER PARAMETERS
                            L = 3000'
                                         (or 2 @ 1500' or 3 @ 1000' )
SPACING

5'
10'
15'
20'
*
PORTS

600
300
200
150
PORT DIAMETER
VELOCITY FT/SEC
Vavg=3
9"
13"
15"
18"
Vavg=4
8"
11"
13"
15"
Vavg=5
7"
10"
12"
14"
Vavg=6
6"
9"
11"
13"
Vavg=7
6"
8"
10"
12"
    20-1
CO
111
I
o
z
cc
01
K
LU
l-
DC

O
CL
15-
10-
 5-
V=3 Vp=7.4



  4 Vp = 9.9


V = 5 Vp = 12.4


V=6 Vp = 14.9

V=7 Vp = 1 7





OPTIMAL DIAMETER = 5"-10"


OPTIMAL SPACING=10'-20f
I
) 5
300
i i
10 15
PORT SPACING (FEET)
150 100
i
20
i
75
i
25
i
                             PORTS
                                                        fig,. II- 3-10

-------
               RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN
           EFFLUENT DFFUSER PARAMETERS
                         L = 6000'
          Qavg=500 mgd Qpk = 1240 mgd
SPACING

5'
10'
15'
20'
*
PORTS

1200
600
400
300
PORT DIAMETER
VELOCITY IN FT/SEC
Vavg=3
6"
9"
11"
13"
Vavg=4
5"
8"
9"
11"
Vavg=5
5"
7"
8"
10"
Vavg=6
4"
6"
8"
9"
Vavg=7
4"
6"
7"
8"
   20-1
2  15
I
O
z
tc
UJ
<

Q


CC
o
Q.
  10-
   5-
           V=3 Vp=7.4


           V=4 Vp=9.9

           V=5 Vp = 12.4

           V=6 Vp = 14.9
           V=7 Vp=17

           OPTIMAL  DIAMETER 5"-10"

           OPTIMAL  SPACING  10'-20'
I -
D 5
	 1 	
10
PORT SPACING
15 20
(FEET)
25
             1200
                      600
400
300
                          PORTS

-------
                RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN
            EFFLUENT DIFFUSER PARAMETERS
 SPACING
   10'

   15'

   20'
                  Assume V = 7 (avg) is good;
LENGTH
2500'
9
11
13
3000'
8
10
12
3500'
8
9
11
4000'
7
9
10
4500'
7
8
10
CO
UJ
I
o
or
UJ
t-
LLI
oc
o
0.
   20-
15-
10-
 5-
    2000
          2500
	1	
3000
	1	
3500
	1	
4000
	1
4500
                      LENGTH (FEET)

-------
                        TABLE 11.3-16
RESULTS OF INITIAL DILUTION MODELING FOR PRESIDENT ROADS SITE

Trial
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20


Diffuser Port
Length Diam.
(feet) (inches)
2000*
2000
2000
3000
3000
3000
3000
6000
6000
6000
6000
6000
6000
6000
6000
6000
6000
10000
10000
10000
10"
12"
17"
8"
9"
10"
13"
4"
5"
6"
6"
7"
8"
9"
10"
10"
13"
4.5"
5"
9"
Avg.
Exit
Port
Velocity Spacing
from Port (Ft. )
(feet/sec)
7
5
2.5
7
6
7
3
7
5
3
7
5
7
3
2.5
5
3
7
5
2.5
10
10
10
10
10
15
10
5
5
5
10
10
20
10
10
20
20
10
10
15
Worst Case: minimum
current velocity,
maximum density
stratification
Rise Rise
M Ft.
(meters) (feet)
12
13
15
14
14.5
11
9
7
9
9
9
11
10
10
11
11
12
7
7
10
36
39
46
43
44
33.
27
21
27
27
27
33.
30.
30.
33.
33.
36.
21
21
30.
.5
.5



.5





5
5
5
5
5
5


5
ID.
44
40
26
46
46
49
34
47
46
65
67
65
56
52
52
47
51
75
74
67
Best Case:
maximum
current
velocity no
stratification
ID
Depth Limited
24M=73 Ft.
81
85
43
73
65
176
82
135
107
159
179
101
135
126
116
141
114
241
206
223
                           11.3-28

-------
B.  Effluent Discharges and Water Quality Criteria

At times, effluent discharges at any of the sites considered will cause
ambient water quality to exceed State and/or Federal water quality
criteria.  Compared to the continuation of existing treatment plant
discharges, any of the alternatives under consideration would provide
better conformance to the criteria.

Comparing estimated initial dilutions (Table 11.3-16) with estimated
pollutant concentrations (Tables 11.3-9 through 11.3-12) suggests that
for secondary treatment plant discharges, during periods of maximum
density stratification and above average pollutant loading, EPA's
chronic and acute criteria for the protection of saltwater aquatic life
may be exceeded for inorganic and pesticide compounds, particularly
copper, cyanide, and PCB's.

Although no data is presented for chlorine loading in effluent, con-
centrations of chlorine produced oxidants after initial dilution may
exceed proposed chlorine criteria for the protection of saltwater
aquatic life (these criteria would require that average concentration
of chlorine produced oxidants should not exceed 7.4 ug/1, and the
maximum should not exceed 13 ug/1).  Typical chlorine concentrations
necessary for disinfection are shown in Figure 11.3-13.  Note that this
figure shows HOC1 concentrations necessary for 99% kill; greater
percent kill is generally necessary for effluent discharges to meet
State bacterial criteria.   This figure shows that lower chlorine
dosages may be used where sufficient contact time is available.  This
suggests that with longer outfalls, lower chlorine concentrations may
be used for disinfection,  for a given quality of effluent and desired
percent kill.

Detailed facility planning and design should consider alternative
disinfection methods and practices to minimize chlorine's toxic effects
on marine life.  Such alternatives should include contact chambers with
vertical baffling (to avoid short circuiting), siting outfalls away
from shellfish beds and public beaches, seasonal chlorination or no

                                11.3-29

-------
              0.01
                  0.1
         1                    10
Contact time1 for 99 percent kill, min
                                                                       40
II.3-I3   Concentration of chlorine as HOC1  required for 99  percent kill of E.  coli and three
 enteric viruses at 0 to 6°C [2]. Note: mg/L = g/m3
                                     Inc.

-------
chlorination for longer outfall alternatives, and dechlorination.
On-site manufacture of sodium hypochlorite from sea water should also
be investigated as an alternative to chlorine transport through popu-
lated neighborhoods.

Chlorine disinfection of wastewater is also known to cause the forma-
tion of chlorinated hydrocarbons such as chloroform (EPA 440/1-82/303 p
69).  The facility planning and design evaluation of different chlorine
disinfection alternatives should therefore consider the impacts of
chlorinated hydrocarbon formation.

C.   Toxic Chemical Impacts on Indigenous Marine Life

The contribution of treatment plant effluent to the prevalence of fish
diseases in Boston Harbor is unknown, but may be significant given the
high mass emissions of effluent solids, the relatively high
concentrations of toxicants including chlorinated hydrocarbons in
effluent solids, and the preliminary findings of research showing a
probable association between toxicants and fish diseases (Metcalf &
Eddy; 1984 301(h) Waiver Application, Volume 2, p III-D4.29 through
III-D4.45 and Volume 4, p. 5-92 and 5-93).  Massachusetts DEQE and the
Division of Marine Fisheries are now conducting fish sampling and
analysis to determine the extent and causes of fish diseases in Boston
Harbor and other Massachusetts coastal areas.  Through reduced toxics
loading to harbor waters and sediments, any of the alternatives to
existing treatment facilities has the potential for improving the
health of harbor marine life.

The Tables in 11.3 Appendix B show acute toxicity and bioaccumulation
data for local marine species for those toxicants of greatest concern.

11.3.5    Far Field Effects

Far field effects are those which occur or persist beyond the zone of
initial dilution.  As shown above in Near Field Effects, effluent
disposal through a properly designed diffuser will dilute most toxic

                                11.3-30

-------
compounds in the plume to concentrations which will not harm marine
life.  After initial dilution, the far field marine impacts of effluent
disposal are:

     1.   lowering of ambient dissolved oxygen,

     2.   nutrient enrichment of water and sediments,

     3.   bacterial contamination of beaches and shellfish beds,

     4.   toxic chemical enrichment, particularly in areas of sewage
          solids deposition.

The  first two kinds of impacts, oxygen depletion and nutrient enrich-
ment,  are not likely to significantly affect recreational or commercial
use  of Boston Harbor or offshore waters.  Nutrient enrichment will
affect the distribution and size of indigenous populations without
threatening the survival of particular species or community types
harbor wide.

The  second two kinds of impacts, bacterial contamination and toxic
chemical enrichment are both significant.  Both are directly related to
effluent solids.

Figure 11.3-14 shows estimated annual loadings of solids to Boston
Harbor, and projected loadings from an improved primary treatment plant
and a secondary treatment plant (see Table 11.3-17 for projections
data).   Note that existing primary effluent is the single greatest
source of suspended solids among all harbor sources.  The difference
between primary and secondary solids loading is somewhat offset by
higher concentrations of some pollutants in secondary effluent solids
and secondary sludge solids (sludge will not, however, be discharged to
the harbor in the future).  Under current plans any new primary ef-
fluent discharges are expected to be located about nine miles into
Massachusetts Bay, and therefore would pose significant reductions in
the solids discharged to the Harbor when compared to existing

                                11.3-31

-------
                                          4 PROJECTgP
                                          ^* ^^ ^v« I^^^M   • ^* A. •
                                             SPLIPS
^   10"
    B--
    fo --
    4 --
               (AH
                                                     TEEAtED
                                                     EFPLUENT
                                   1964-
                                               URBAN
                                                env
                                                (A)
A»4P
                                                              ft!
                                                              2010
                                                              1990
                                                                      198A
                                                                           uen-
                                                                             Alternative"-
                                                                               2010
                                                                               199O
                                                                                      HARBOR..
(0) H&4
    3O1
    30 1 (*
                 | PLAM    .
                 WAIVER APPU CAT I ON4 Tabl-e IT A 3.3
                  VVANEJ3- APPUCATioM Table, IT A 34-
Does n&f
Note -HaaJ"
bypassed
    br-f
    -from
                                                                                  -ric
                                                                                     .

-------
                                 TABLE 11.3-17

                  SUSPENDED SOLIDS MASS EMISSION PROJECTIONS
    Year (Source)

1982 (1)



1984 (2)
 1990 (3)


 2010 (4)
  Average
 Plant Flow
   in mgd

Deer      295
Nut       124
Combined  419

Deer      304
Nut       117
Combined  421
Combined  421
Combined  421

Combined  485
Combined  485

Combined  500
Combined  500
    Average
SS Concentration
	in mg/1

      90
      46
      77

      72
      91
      77
      65*
      30**

      65
      30**

      65
      30**
 Average
Annual SS
  Load
Ibs. x 10'

   8.09
   1.74
   9.83
   6.67
   3.24
   9.91
   8.34
   3.85

   9.60
   4.43

   9.90
   4.57
 *SS concentration assumed for improved primary (1984 301(h) Table II-A3.4)
**SS concentration assumed for secondary treatment.

Sources:
(1) 1984 DI 201 plan Table E-3.

(2) 1984 301 (h) Waiver Application Table II-A3.3.

(3) 1984 301 (h) Waiver Application Table II-A3.4.

(4) Site Options Study, 1984 301 (h) Waiver Application.
                                11.3-32

-------
conditions.  Likewise, secondary treatment will also pose significant
reductions in solids loading to the harbor by virtue of its higher
pollutant removal efficiency.

Solids in primary effluent are generally larger than in secondary
effluent.  Bacteria and viruses trapped inside sewage solids may be
physically protected from chlorine's disinfecting action.   This is
often referred to as suspended solids interference with disinfection
effectiveness.  As the effluent is diluted, solids will break apart and
release the bacteria.  Although the marine environment is  inimical to
indicator bacteria such as the coliform group, viral spores may survive
for days or more.  Disinfection effectiveness and the location(s) of
effluent discharge are therefore significant to water contact recrea-
tion and commercial shellfishing.

Figure 11.3-1 shows the general tidal circulation pattern in the Boston
Harbor area along with outfall sites considered.   Recognizing the
effect of current velocity and turbulence on plume dispersion, this
figure shows which areas would be directly affected by recently dis-
charged effluent.  The further offshore the discharge site, the less
likely it is to affect beaches and harbor shellfish.
In Boston Harbor, toxic chemical enrichment of bottom sediments and
overlying waters will be most significant in areas of solids deposition
(Figure 11.3-15).  For discharges  outside the harbor, slower current
velocities make seasonal plume trapping a more significant factor in
determining the area and rate of solids deposition (Figure 11.3-16).
To the extent that lighter organic solids contain higher concentrations
of toxic pollutants, total solids  deposition rates may be  misleading
indicators of relative toxics loading.   After initial settling, long-
term toxics dispersion will occur  through chemical release,
bioturbation,  bioaccumulation, and wave induced resuspension of
sediments.

Toxic compounds in sediments may accumulate in marine organisms to
levels which threaten the organism's health, and  possibly the health of
humans which eat them.  Fish disease and bioaccumulation of toxic

                                11.3-33

-------
                AREA'S <9F MODERATE OR.
                INTERMITTEN
GENERAL LOCATION OF
— DEPOSITIONAL AREAS'

-------
WINTER CONDITION
                   PARTICLE PATH
                                        WASTE FIELD
                                       DEPOSITION AREA
                               ^— PLUME 'TRAPPING*
                                  BELOW SURFACE
                               AT THERMOCLINE/HALOCLINE
SUMMER CONDITION
PARTICLE PATH
                                 DEPOSITION AREA
    Evaluation
           EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE / SALINITY
           STRATIFICATION ON EFFLUENT PLUME

-------
compounds in Boston Harbor food fish have been documented (see separate
SDEIS report: Boston Harbor Water Quality Baseline).  The contribution
of treatment plant effluent to fish disease or toxic accumulation in
fish is unknown but is a continuing concern.  The health risk to humans
who consume  local marine life is presently unquantified.

Limited sampling has found PCB concentrations in edible fish tissues as
high as 0.8  ppm.  The Food and Drug Administration has recently lowered
the tolerance limit for PCB in food from 5-0 ppm to 2.0 ppm stating:
"the 2 ppm level strikes a proper balance between protecting consumers
from the  risks associated with exposure to PCBs and the loss of food
due to the lowered tolerance."  (BNA Environmental Reporter, 6/1/84
citing FDA commissioner Mark Novitch).

To the extent that treatment plant effluents contribute to existing
toxics concentrations in edible marine life, any of the alternatives
under  consideration would lessen the potential public health threat
associated with  consuming fish which live in Boston Harbor.

Some of these impacts will be evaluated by EPA in their consideration
of MDC's  proposal for the discharge of primary effluent approximately
nine miles offshore (301(h) Waiver Application) and in their evaluation
of MDC's  plans for sewage sludge disposal.
 11.3.6  Elimination of Emergency Bypassing of Untreated Wastewater

Recently, equipment problems have caused bypassing of untreated
wastewater at Deer, Moon and Nut Islands (see separate SDEIS report:
Boston Harbor Water Quality Baseline).  With the implementation of
currently programmed "fast track" improvements to existing facilities,
and subsequently the long term improvements considered in this EIS,
such bypassing from Deer Island and Nut Island will be virtually
eliminated, and Moon Island overflows will be greatly reduced.

However, with any treatment plant, equipment or operator failure may
require temporary bypassing of poorly treated sewage.   Therefore, under
                                11.3-34

-------
the provisions of EPA's Construction Grants Program Handbook of Pro-
ceedures (10/1/84) treatment plants are designed with backup equipment,
excess capacity and emergency bypass structures at key points in the
treatment processes.  With the alternatives under consideration in this
EIS, assuming EPA funding, treatment facilities will be designed for
emergency discharge of partially treated wastewater to the main outfall
system.  However, major loss of pumping capacity would lead to raw
sewage discharges "upstream" of the treatment plants at overflow
points.

Power  failure and subsequent loss of pumping capacity is a major cause
of raw wastewater discharges attributed to existing treatment facili
ties (see Section 1 and the separate SDEIS report: Boston Harbor Water
Quality Baseline).

New treatment facilities, wherever they are located, will have both
outside utility company power and on-site power generation.  With the
back up systems required by EPA's construction grants requirements, raw
wastewater discharges due to power failures will be minimized.  For
example, discharges from Moon Island, now estimated at 40 to 60 oc-
currences per year, are expected to decrease to about 12 storm related
overflows per year after power related pumping problems and other
equipment malfunctions are corrected at Deer Island.  (CDM 1984)
                                11.3-35

-------
                               REFERENCES
 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.

 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.

 EPA, 1976.   Quality Criteria for Water.

 EPA, no date (-625/5-76-012).  Environmental Pollution Control
 Alternatives: Municipal Wastewater.

 EPA, 1977 (-430/9-76-017c) .   Federal Guidelines,  State and Local
 Pretreatment Programs.

 EPA, 1982 (-440/1-82/303).   Fate  of  Priority Pollutants  in Publicly
 Owned Treatment Works.

 EPA,  1982 (-600/6-82-004b).   Water Quality Assessment: A Screening
 Procedure for Toxic and  Conventional Pollutants.

 ERT, Inc.,  1979.  Water Quality Goals, Objectives,  and Alternatives  in
 the Boston Metropolitan Area - A Case Study.  Prepared  for  the NSF,
 EPA, OMB, and CEQ.

Federal Water Pollution Control Administration (FWPCA),  1969.   A
Practical Guide  to Water Quality Studies of  Streams.

Grace R.A.  1978.  Marine Outfall Systems, Planning, Design and
Construction.  Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
                                11.3-36

-------
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.







Havens & Emerson/Parsons 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.







Massachusetts DEQE, DWPC,  1983.  Boston Harbor 1983 Water Quality and



Wastewater Discharge Data.







Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 1984.  The Commonwealth of Massachusetts



Metropolitan District Commission Application for Modification of



Secondary Treatment Requirements for Its Deer Island and Nut Island



Effluent Discharges into Marine Waters. (1984 301(h) Waiver



Application).







Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., June 1982.  Nut Island Wastewater Treatment Plant



Facilities Planning Project, Phase I, Site Options Study, Volumes I and



II.  Prepared for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Metropolitan



District Commission.








Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 1982.  The Commonwealth of Massachusetts



Metropolitan District Commission Application for Modification of



Secondary Treatment Requirements for Its Deer Island and Nut Island



Effluent Discharges into Marine Waters. (1982 301(h) Waiver



Application).
                                11.3-37

-------
Metcalf & Eddy,  Inc., 1979.  The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Metropolitan District Commission.  Application for Modification of
Secondary Treatment Requirements for its Deer Island and Nut Island
Effluent Discharges into Marine Waters. (1979 301(h) Waiver
Application).

Metcalf & Eddy,  Inc., 1979.  Wastewater Engineering Treatment,
Disposal, Reuse.  McGraw Hill Book Company, Boston.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),  1982.
Navigational Chart of Boston Harbor No. 13270, 47th edition, November
20,  1982.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),  1979.  Boston
Harbor Tidal Current Charts. Fourth Edition 1974.

Patterson, J.W.  and P.S. Kodukula, 1984.  Metals Distributions in
Activated Sludge Systems.  JWPCF, Vol. 56. No. 5, p. 432-441.

Petrasek, A.C. Jr., et. als., 1983 a.  Removal and Partitioning of
Volatile Organic Priority Pollutants In Wastewater Treatment.
Presented at the Ninth U.S.-Japan Conference on Sewage Treatment
Technology, Tokyo, Japan, September 13-29, 1983.  EPA MERL Cincinnati
Contribution No. 50.

Petrasek, A.C. Jr., et. als., 1983 b.  Fate of Toxic Organic Compounds
in Wastewater Treatment Plants.  JWPCF, Vol. 55, No. 10, p.  1286-1296.

Petrasek, A.C. Jr., and I.J. Kugelman, 1983.  Metals Removals and
Partioning in Conventional Wastewater Treatment Plants.   JWPCF, Vol.
55, No.  9,  p. 1183-1190.
                                11.3-38

-------
•yg-
Appendix A

-------
                                           TABLE 11.3-18   MSB  WASTEWATER:
            PRIORITY POLLUTANTS THAT DO NOT EXCEED CRITERIA FOR  THE  PROTECTION OF  SALTWATER AQUATIC LIFE
                                      Range of Concentrations  (ug/1) Reported*
 Priority Pollutant

 Dichlorobromoraethane
 Trichlorofluoromethane
 Chlorodibromomethane
 Acenapthene
 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
 Hexachlorobenzene
 Fuoranthene
 Toluene
 Arsenic
 Cadmium  (4)
 Chromium (4)
 Selenium
 Chlordane (5)                  ND

 *ND= Reported  as  "not  detected";
 **Proposed criterion.
Influent:
Deer Is .
ND
ND-<10
ND-<10
ND-<10
ND-29
ND
ND-<10
18-290
<3.9-<18.7
6.3-19.8
38-500
<2.3-<6.9
Influent :
Nut Is.
ND
ND-<10
ND
ND-<10
ND
ND
ND-<10
<10-138
6.0-19.3
2.5-3.9
31.6-87
<2-2.7
Effluent:
Deer Is .
ND-13
ND-<10
ND-<10
ND-<10
ND-<10
ND-<6
ND-<10
ND-1300
0.3-<30
<1. 0-6.0
6-580
4.5-30
Effluent:
Nut Is.
ND
ND-<10
ND
ND-<10
ND-22
ND-<10
<1-<10
ND-110
7.1-<30
<1.0-3.2
<3-84
2.2-<20
Average
Criteria
6,400
6,400
6,400
710
129
129
16
5,000
63**
12**
54**
54
            ND
                                                       ND-<10
<0.04-<10
Criteria for the Protection
 of Saltwater Aquatic Life
Chronic/
               Maximum
               Criteria

               6,000**
               6,000**
               6,000**
                 485**
                  80**
                  80**
                  20**
               3,150**
                 120**
                  38**
               1,200**
                 410
0.004           0.09
 CD

 (2)


 (3)

 (4)

 (5)
limits of detection not reported for 1978,  1979  and  1982  sampling.


                                                           for  pollutants  which


                                                                   p.  4553,
Both existing and proposed  (2/7/84) criteria were applied to these data.  See Table
do not exceed the acute/maximum criterion, but have no chronic criterion.
Maximum criterion = Final Acute Value/2 as proposed by EPA (Federal Register, Vol. 49, No. 26
2/7/84).
1978 data reported for 1,2,3 trichlorobenzene.

Average annual data from weekly composits shows these.

Limits of detection exceed criterion.
Sources: Metcalf & Eddy,  Inc.,  1979,  1982,  1984.   The  Commonwealth  of Massachusetts  Metropolitan District Commission
Application for Modification  of Secondary  Treatment  Requirements  for Its  Deer  Island and  Nut  Island Effluent
Discharges into Marine Waters.  (1979,  1982,  and  1984 301(h)  Waiver  Applications).

-------
                               TABLE  11.3-19 MSB WASTEWATER:
                          PRIORITY POLLUTANTS WHICH  DO  NOT  EXCEED
                  MAXIMUM/ACUTE CRITERIA FOR THE PROTECTION OF WALTWATER
            AQUATIC LIFE, AND FOR WHICH NO EPA  AVERAGE/CHRONIC CRITERIA EXISTS
                                        Maximum
                                        Concentration (1)
                                           (ug/1)
 Priority Pollutant

 1,1,1-trichloroethane
 Benzene
 Ethylbenzene
 2-Nitrophenol
 2,4-dinitrophenol
 Phenol
 1,2-Dichlorobenzene
 1,3-Dichlorobenzene
 1,4-Dichlorobenzene
 Napthalene
 Nitrobenzene
 Carbon tetrachloride
 Diethylphthalate
 Trichloroethylene
 Pentachlorophenol
 1,1,dichloroethylene
 Thallium
 Isophorone
 DimethyIphthatate
 1,2 dichloroethane
 1,2 trans-dichloroethylene
 1.3 cis-dichloropropene
Hexachloroethane
2,4 - dinitrotoluene
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
Range of
Concentrations
(ug/1) Influent
and Effluent,
Both Plants*
15,600
2,550
215
2,425
2,425
2,900
985
985
985
1,175
3,340
25,000
1,472
1,000
26
112,000
1,065
6,450
1,472
56,500
112,000
395
470
295
1,650,000
ND-84
ND-16
ND-29
ND-<10
ND-80
ND-120
ND-575
ND-570
ND-570
ND-28
ND-54
ND-<10
ND-22
ND-79
<10-<13
ND-4.9
1.1-<20
ND-10
ND-<10
ND-81
ND-44
ND-23
ND-35
ND-10
ND-270

-------
Priority Pollutant

N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
1,1,2,2,tetrachloroethane
Aldrin  (2)
4,4' DDE  (2)
Beta-BHC  (2)
Delta-BHC (2)
Gamma-BHC (2)
Alpha-BHC (2)
2-chloronapthalene  (2)
Toxaphene (2)
Anthracene
Phenanthrene
Flourene
Benzo(a)Pyrene
Chrysene
3,4-benzofluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Acenaphthylene
Benzo(9hi)perylene
Fluorene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Ideno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
                                        Maximum
                                        Concentration (1)
                                          (ug/1)
1,650,000
    1,472
    1,472
    2,472
    4,510
      1.3
        7
      0. 17
      0. 17
      0.17
      0.27
      3.75
      0.07
      150
      150
      150
      150
      150
      150
      150
      150
      150
      150
      150
      150
      150
      150
Range of
Concentrations
(ug/1) Influent
and Effluent,
Both Plants-'

    ND-<10
    ND-140
    ND-37
    ND-16
    ND-11
    ND-<10
    ND-<10
    ND-<10
    ND-<10
    ND-<10
    ND-<10
    ND-<10
    ND-<10
    ND-<10
    ND-<10
    ND-24
    ND-<10
    ND-<10
    ND-<10
    ND-<10
    ND-<10
    ND-<20
    ND-24
    ND-<20
    ND-<20
    ND-<10
    ND-<10
*ND= Reported as "not detected"; limits of detection not reported with 1978, 1979, and
     1982 sampling.
(1)  Maximum concentration = final acute value/2 as proposed by EPA  (Federal Register,
     Vol. 49 No. 26, p. 4553, 2/7/84), or existing maximum concentration.
(2)  Limits of detection exceed criterion.
Sources: Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 1979, 1982, 1984.  The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Metropolitan District Commission Application for Modification of Secondary  Treatment
Requirements for Its Deer Island and Nut Island Effluent Discharges  into Marine  Waters

-------
                                       TABLE 11.3-20
                                      MSB WASTEWATER:
                       PRIORITY POLLUTANTS WITH NO CRITERIA FOR THE
                           PROTECTION OF SALTWATER AQUATIC LIFE
Priority Pollutant

1,1 ,Dichloroethane
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
2-4-6 trichlorophenol
Parachlorometa cresol
2-chlorophenol
2,4-dichlorophenol
2 ,4-dimethylphenol
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
Benzidine
3,3-dichlorobezidine
2,6-dinitrotoluene
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
4'-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl ether)
Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
Bromoform
Chloroethane
Antimony
Asbestos
Beryllium
Tetrachloroethylene
Endrin aldehyde
Heptachlor epoxide
      Range of Concentrations (ug/1) Reported""
Influent:       Influent:       Effluent:       Effluent:
Deer Is.        Nut Is.       Deer Is.         Nut Is.
ND-<10
ND-90
83-360
ND
ND-<10
ND-<10
ND-<10
ND-<10
ND
ND-120
ND
ND-<10
ND-<10
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.5-11. 1
0.3-3.7
<1.0-<1.3
<10-15
ND
ND
ND-<10
<10-16
63-146
ND-<10
ND-<10
ND-<10
ND-<10
ND-<10
ND
ND
ND-<10
ND-<10
ND-<10
ND
ND-<10
ND-18
ND
ND-<10
ND
<5.0-<7.8
1.4-9. 1
<1.0-<1.3
ND-24
ND
ND
ND-<10
ND-390
ND-260
ND-<10
ND-<10
ND-<10
ND-<10
ND-<10
ND-<10
ND-<20
ND-<20
ND-<10
ND-<10
ND-<10
ND
ND-<6
ND-14
ND-<10
ND-<10
6.8-<20
0.4-5.5
0.1-<1.25
ND-72
ND-<10
ND-<10
ND-<10
ND-36
ND-250
ND-<10
ND-<10
ND-<10
ND-<10
ND-<10
ND-<10
ND-<20
ND-<20
ND-<10
ND-<10
ND-<10
ND-<10
ND-287
ND-10
ND-<5
ND-<5
5.0-<20
3.7-11
0.0-<1.25
ND-64
ND-<10
ND-<10
*ND= Reported as "not detected"; limits of detection not reported with 1978, 1979, and
     1982 sampling.
Sources: Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 1979, 1982, 1984.  The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Metropolitan District Commission Application for Modification of Secondary Treatment
Requirements for Its Deer Island and Nut Island Effluent Discharges into Marine Waters
(1979, 1982, and 1984 301(h) Waiver Applications).

-------
                     TABLE 11.3-21  MSD WASTEWATER:
            PRIORITY POLLUTANTS REPORTED AS NOT DETECTED  (1)
                                        Saltwater Aquatic Life  Criteria
                                     Limits of      Chronic/
                                     Detection,     Average
                                  1984 Samples (2)  Criteria,
                                       ug/1           ug/1
                               Maximum
                               Criteria (3)
                                 ug/1
BASE-NEUTRAL COMPOUNDS
Bis  (chloromethyl) ether
Bis  (2-chloroethyl) ether
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene*
N-nitrosodimethylamine
2,3,7,8   tetrachlorodibenzo-
 p-dioxin
<0.5-<6
<6
<6
<6
<6

<20
                 16
                  3.5
               1,650,000
ACID COMPOUNDS
4-nitrophenol
                                 2425
VOLATILE COMPOUNDS
Acrolein*
Acrylonitrile
1,1,2-trichloroethane
2-chloroethylvinyl ether
1,2-dichloropropane
1,3 trans-dichloropropene
Methyl chloride
Methyl bromide
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Vinyl chloride
<20-<100
<20-<100
<0.5-<3
<0.5-<3
<0.5-<3
<0.5-<3
NS
NS
<0.5-<3
<0.5-<3
                 27.5
10,300
 6,400
15.20
395
6,000

-------
                                        Saltwater Aquatic Life Criteria
                                     Limits of      Chronic/
                                     Detection,     Average
                                  1984 Samples (2)  Criteria,
                                       ug/1           ug/1
Maximum
Criteria (3)
  ug/1
PESTICIDE COMPOUNDS
4,4-DDD
endosulfan sulfate
PCB-1221*
PCB-1232*
PCB-1248
<0.01
<0.01
2.5
2.5
NS

0,
0.
0.
0.
--
.0087(4)
.030
.030
.030

0.
5
5
5
--
.034(4)



NS = Not sampled in 1984.

""Limits of detection reported for 1984 exceed existing or proposed criteria

(1)(2) Limits of detection not reported with 1978, 1979 or 1982 sampling.

(3)  Maximum criterion = final acute value/2 as proposed by EPA (Federal
     Register, Vol. 49, No. 26, P  4553, 2/7/84), or existing maximum
     criterion.

(4)  Criteria for Endosulfan.
Sources: Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 1979, 1982, 1984.  The Commonwealth of
Massachusetts Metropolitan District Commission Application for Modification
of Secondary Treatment Requirements for Its Deer Island and Nut Island
Effluent Discharges into Marine Waters. (1979, 1982, and 1984 301(h) Waiver
Applications).

-------
Appendix B

-------
 Cd
        Cadmium
Species mean acute values and acute-chronic ratios
Rank*


 26




 25


 23


 22


 21


 20


  17




  16


  11


  10
Species
Species Mean   Species Mean
Acute Value    Acute-Chronic
   (ug/1)         Ratio
Mummlchog,
Fundulus heteroclltus
Striped kl 1 1 If Ish,
Fundul us maja 1 1 s
Fiddler crab,
Uca pugl lotor
Sand worm.
Nereis vlrens
Oyster drl 1 1,
Urosalplnx clneree
81 ue mussel ,
Myt 1 lus edul Is
Fastorn oyster,
Crassostroo vlrglnlco
Blue crab,
Cal 1 Inectes sapldus
Green crab,
Cnrclnus maenus
Winter flounder,
Pseudop leuronectes
amor 1 canus
Soft-sh«ll clam,
Mya arennrln
Bay seal lop,
50,600
21,000
21,190
10,100
6,600
3,934
3,800
2,594
4,100
2,934
1,672
1,480
           Argopocten Irradlans

-------
      Cd
Cadmium
     Species mean acute values and  acute-chronic ratios
     Rank*    Species

       8        Atlantic si Ivors Ide
                Menldla men Id I a

       7        Grass shrimp,
                Palaemonetes vulgar Is

       6        Hermit crab
                Pagurus longlcarpus

       4        Polychaflte worm,
                Copltella capltata
               Species Mean    Species Mean
               Acute Value     Acute-Chronic
                  (ug/1)           Ratio

                  779.8
                 760
                645
                 200
                 American  lobster,
                 Homarus amerlcanus
                  78
* Ranked  from least sensitive  to most  sensitive based on Family Mean Acute Value.
     Plant values
     Species
                                 Chemical
                             Effect
Result
(ug/1)
                                                                             Reference
  Kelp,
  Lamlnana saccharlna
                              Cadmium chloride
                             8-day EC50
                             (growth rate)
                                                                    860
           Harkham, et al.  1980
  Diatom,
  SKeletonema costatum
                              Cadmium chloride
                             96-hr  EC50
                             (growth rate)
  175
           Gentile & Johnson,  1982

-------
     Cd
Cadmium
 Bioconcentration data

 Species                    Tissue       Chemical
 Blutt mussel,
 MytlI us edulIs

 Blue mussel,
 HytlI us edulIs

 Bay  seal lop,
 Argopecten Irrodlans

 Eastern oyster,
 Crassostrea virgin lea

 Eastern oyster,
 Crassostrea vlrglnlea

 Eastern oyster,
 Crassostrea virgin lea

 Qua hog clam,
 Mercenorla mercenarla

 Soft-shelI clam,
 Hya  arenarla

 Grass shrimp,
 Paleotnonetes puglo

 Grass shrimp,
 Palaomonetes puglo

 Grass shrimp,
 Palaemonetes vulgar Is

 Green crab,
 Carclnus maenas

 Green crab,
Carclnus maenas
    Soft parts


    Soft parts


    Muscle


    Soft parts


    Soft parts


    Soft parts


    Soft parts


    Soft parts


    Whole body


    Whole body


    Whole body


   Muscle


   Muse Ie
 CadmI urn chI or Ide


 Cadmium chloride


 Cadmium chloride


 Cadmium chloride


 Cadmium chloride


 Cadmium nitrate


 Cadmium nitrate


 Cadmium nitrate


Cadmium chloride


Cadmium chloride


Cadmium chloride


Cadmium chloride


Cadmium chloride
                                   Duration  Bioconcentration
                                     (days)         Factor
28
35
42
280
280
98
40
70
42
28
28
68
40
113
306
2,040
2,600
1,830
1,220
83
160
22
203
307
5
7
                                                                                             Reference
George 4 Coombs,
1977

Phil IIps,  1976
Pesch 4  Stewart,
1980

Zarooglan 4 Cheer,
1976

Zarooglan, 1979
Schuster  4 Pr Ingle,
1969

Kerfoot 1 Jacobs,
1976

Pr Ing le,  et  a I .
1968

Pesch 4 Stewart,
1980

Nlmrao,  et al. 1977b
Nlmmo,  et al. 1977b
Wright,  1977
Jennings 4 Rainbow,
1979a

-------
     Cl
Chlorine
  Species mean acute values and acute-chronic ratios
  Rank*    Species
            Species Mean
            Acute Value
               (ug/1)
Species Mean
Acute-Chronic
    Ratio
20
18
17
16
14
3
1
Blue crab,
Callinectea saj>idua
Northern pipefish,
Syn^nathus fuacua
Grass shrimp,
PalaemoneCes pu^io
Three-s pines tickleback,
Gasterosteua aculeatus
Hermit crab,
Pagurua lon^icarpus
Atlantic siiveraide,
Menidia roenidia
Eastern oyster,
Crasaostrea virginica
796
270
220 ~
167 —
146
37
26
*Ranked from least sensitive  to most  sensitive based on Family Mean Acute  Value

-------
Chlorobenzene
  Plant values
  Species
Chemical
Effect
Result
(ug/1)
Reference
    A (go,
    Skelefonemd costatum
                          ch lorobenzene
               Chlorophy I I a_   343,000
               96-hr EC50
    Alga,
    Skeletonema costatum
                          ch lorobenzene
               Cel I  numbers    341,000
               96-hr EC50

-------
 Cr
        Chromium
Species mean acute values and acute-chronic ratios
Rank*
Species
Species Mean
Acute Value
   (ug/1)
Species Mean
Acute-Chronic
    Ratio
)5 Blue crab.
Ca 1 1 1 nectos sap 1 dus
93,400
-

14 Mummlchog, 91,000
Fundulus heterocl Itus
13 Sof^-shell clam,
Mya arenarla
12 Starfish,
Aster las forbesl
9 Atlantic sllverslde
Menldla men Id la
8 Hermit crab,
Pagurus long (carpus
g Polychaote worm,
Capltel la copltata
1 Polychaete worm.
Nereis vlrens
* Ranked Iron least sensitive to m<
Bioconcentration data
Species
Blue mussel ,
Mytl lus edulls
Eastern oyster,
Crassostrea vlrglnlca
Blue mussel,
Mytl lus edul Is
Eastern oyster,
Crassostrea virgin Ico
Soft-shell clnm.
57,000
32,000
, 15,280
10,000
6,325
2,000
ast sensitive basod on Family Mean Acute Value.
Duration
Tissue Chemical (days)
Soft parts
Soft ports
Soft parts
Soft parts
Soft parts
Hexavalent Chromium
Sodium 84
dlchrontate
Sodium 64
d Ichr ornate
Trlvalent Chromium
Chromic 168
chloride
Chromic 140
nitrate
Chrom 1 c 1 68
chloride
Bioconcentration
Factor
192
125
06
116
153
                                                                               Reference


                                                                             Zarooglan, 1982


                                                                             Zarooglan, 1982
                                                                             Capuzzo & Sasner,
                                                                             1977

                                                                             Shuster i PrIngle,
                                                                             1969

                                                                             Capuzzo & Sasner,
                                                                             1977

-------
 Cu          Copper
 Species mean  acute values  and  acute-chronic ratios
 Rank*    Species
   17

   14

   11


   10
    4


    3
Green crab,
Carclnus maenus

I'o I ychrto fe wonn ,
Nereis  (I I vors I co I or

A1 I cm I Ic s I Ivor s I do,
Mon I d I a nion I d I a

Winter  ( lounder,
Pseuilop I ouronodos
American  lobster,
Homacius amor I canus

So f t-sho I I c I am,
Mya firunarla

Eastern oystor,
Crassor,1roa virgin lea

 Summer f loiindor,
Para I I chthys dorito fus
 Bl uo  mussol ,
 My1 I I us edu I I s
Species Mean
Acute Value
    (ug/1)

    600

    363.8

     1.16


     129
                                        69
                                      Species Mean
                                      Acute-Chronic
                                          Ratio
» Ranked from  least sensitive  to most sensitive based  on Speclos Moan Acuto Value.

-------
Cu
Copper
Plant values
Species Chemical
Alga,
Skeletonoma costaturn
Alga,
Nl tschla clostor 1 urn
Bioconcentration data
Species Tissue
Alga,
As tor 1 one 1 1 a J apon 1 ca
Polychaote worm,
Norols diver si co lor
Polychaote worm,
Eudlstylla vancouverl
Day sea 1 lop,
Argopecten Irradlans
Bay seal lop,
Argopecten Irradlans
Eastern oyster,
Crassostrea virglnlca
Eastern oyster,
Crassoslrea virglnlca
Quahog clam,
Morconarla morconarla
Soft-shel 1 clam,
Mya aronarla
Dl ue mussel , -
Result
Effect (ug/1)
U-.Jdy K''jQ 50
(grow Ih rd 1 1>)
96- hr EC50 33
(growth rafo)
Duration Bioconcentration
(days) Factor
25 309
24 203
33 l,00<>
112 3,310
112 4,160
110 28,200
HO 20,700
70 00
35 3,300
14 90
Reference
Er Ickson , at a\ .
1970
Rosko A Rachl In,
1975
Reference
Rl ley A Roth, 1971
Jonos, ot al . 1976
Young, at al . 1979
Zaroixjlan, 1902
Zaro
-------
  Cyanide
 Species mean acute values and acute-chronic  ratios
 Rank*

   6
Species
              Wl nfer f loundor,
              P r>oudop I ouronoc'tos
              amorIcanus
Species Mean
Acute Value
   (ug/1)

     372
Species Mean
Acute-Chronic
    Ratio
              At I nnt Ic s I I vers Me,
              MonId Ifl monIdI a
                                       59
              Rock crab,
              Cancor  Irroratus
                                        4.895
* Ranked from  least sensitive to most  sensitive based on  species mean
  acute value.

-------
       DDT

    Species  mean acute values and acute-chronic  ratios
    Rank*
Species
16
M
13
12
M
7
4
Eastern oyster,
Crassostrea vlrglnlca
Herult crab,
Paqorus long (carpus
American eel ,
Angullla rostrata
MuMilchog,
Fundu 1 us hateroc 1 1 tus
Gfr-ass shrl*p,
Palaemonetes puqlo
Striped kllllflsh,
Fundu 1 us Mjal Is
Striped bass,
              Morone saxatIIIs

              Atlantic si Ivorside,
              Menldla men Id Ia
Species Mean
Acute  Value

    (ug/1)

      7.9


      6.0


      4.0


      3.9


      2.0


       1.0


       0.53


       0.4
Species  Mean
Acute-Chronic
    Ratio
 •Ranked fro* least sensitive to nost sensitive based on special Man
  acute value.

M  Plant values
    Species

    Diatom,
    Skeletons
               costatiM
     Her I tic dlnoflagellate,
     Parldlnlua trocholdeua

    Bioconcentration  data


    Species

     Eastern oyster,
     Crassostrea vlrglnlca

     Eastern oyster,
     Crassostrea vlrglnlca
                   Chemical
                  Tissue

                Whole body


                Whole body
               Effect

            Reduced photo-
            synthesis (1-day)

            Reduced photo-
            synthesis (1-day)
                Chemical
             Result
             (ug/1)

               to

               10
Reference

Wurster, 1968

Wurster, 1968
                Bioconcentration
                	Factor	

                      42,400


                      76,300
            Duration
              (days)

               252


               168
                                                                Reference

                                                                Lowe, et al. 1970


                                                                Lowe, et al. 1970

-------
    Dieldrin
Species mean acute values and acute-chronic ratios
Rank*     Species
          Species Mean   Species Mean
          Acute Value     Acute-Chronic
              (ug/1)           Ratio
21
19
17
16
15
12
II
8
1
2
Gross shrimp,
Palaemonetes vulgar Is
Eastern oyster,
Crassostrea vlrglnlca
Striped bass,
Horone saxatllls
Hermit crab,
Pagurus longlcarpus
Threesplne stickleback,
Gasterosteus acu lotus
Mummlchog,
Fundulus heteroclltus
Grass shrimp,
Palaemonetes puglo
Striped kll lit Ish,
Fundulus majal Is
Atlantic si Iverslde,
Menldla menldla
American eel,
Angul 1 la rostrate
50.0
31.2
19.7
18.0
M.2
8.9
8.6
5.0
5.0
0.9
* Ranked from least sensitive to most  sensitive based on species mean
 acute value.
Bioconcentration data


Species                    Tissue
                (%)
                                                                Bioconcentration  Duration
                                                  Chemical            Factor _    (days)
 Eastern oyster,
 Crassostrea vlrglnlca

 Crab,
 Leptodlus florldanus
edible tissue


whole body
                                                                         8,000
                                                                          400
                                                                                      392
                                                                                       16
Reference


 Parrlsh. 1974


 Eplfanlo, 1973

-------
 Endosulfan
Species mean acute values and acute-chronic ratios
Rank*    Species

  11      Eastern oyster,
         Crassostrea virgin lea

   9     Grass shrimp,
         Pa Iaemonetes puglo

   3     Striped bass,
         Morone saxatllls
Species Mean   Species Mean
Acute Value    Acute-Chronic
   (ug/1)          Ratio

   157
     1.31


     0.10
  * Ranked  from  least sensitive to most sensitive based on species mean
    acute value.

-------
 Endrin
Species mean acute  values and  acute-chronic  ratios
Rank*     Species

   21      American  oyster,
           Crassostrea vlrgInlea

   20      Hermit crab,
           Pagurus longlcarpus

    18      Grass shrimp,
           Palaemonetes  vulgar Is

    15       Threesplne stickleback,
            Gasterosteus  aculeatus

    14       Mummlchog,
            Fundulus heteroclltus

    13       Grass  shrimp,
            Palaemonetes  puglo

     1 I      Amerlcan eel,
            AngulI la rostrata

     8      Striped  kl I I  I fish.
            Fundulus majdI Is

     4      Striped  bass,
            Morone saxatlI Is

     3      Atlantic sllverslde,
            Menldla  menldla
Species Mean
Acute Value
    (ug/1)

      14.2


      12


       1.8


       1.1


       0.95


       0.65


       0.6

       0.3


       0.094


       0.05
Species Mean
Acute-Chronic
     Ratio
   19
 • Ranked from  least sensitive to most sensitive based on species mean
   acute value.

-------
   Endrin
Plant values
Species Chemical
Alga,
Skeletonema costatum
Alga,
Skeletonema costatum
Natural phytop lankton
communities
Effect
14C uptake
reduced
Growth reduced
first 5 days of
test
46| decrease 1
product! vlty;
Result
(ug/1)
>IO
100
n 1,000
|4C
Reference

Menzel, et al.
1970
Menzel, et al,
1970
Butler, 1963
 Bioconcentration data
Species
American oyster,
Crassostrea vlrglnlca
Grass shrimp,
Palaeoonetes puglo
Grass shrlMp,
Lip id
Tissue (%) Chemical
Edible portion
Edible port Ion
Edible portion
Bioconcentration
Factor
1,670-
2,780
1,490
1,600
Duration
(days)
7
10
145
Reference
Mason & Howe
Ty ler-Schroe
Ty ler-Schro*
 Palaemonetes puglo

-------
      Heptachlor
     Species mean acute values  and acute-chronic  ratios
     Rank*
Species
Species  Mean   Species Mean
Acute Value    Acute-Chronic
    (ug/1)           Ratio	
       17
              Threesplne stickleback,
              Gasterosteus aculeatus
16
15
14
12
Hermit crab,
Pagurus long (carpus
Munmlchog,
Fundulus heteroclltus
Striped Kit II fish,
Fundulus majal Is
American eel ,
Angullla rostrata
              Atlantic silver side,
              Men IdI a men Idla

              Striped bass,
              Morone saxatI I Is

              American oyster,
              Crassostrea vlryInIca

              Grass shrimp,
              Palaemonetes  vu I gar Is
                              112


                              55


                              50


                              32


                              10


                               3
                               1.5


                               1.06
Ranked from  least sensitive to most sensitive based on species mean acute value.
     Plant values
     Species
                                 Chemical
                                       Effect
                            Result
                            (ug/1)
  Reference
      A Iga,
      Skeletonema costatum
                  Heptachlor
                     (99* >
          EC50, reduction
          In growth as
          measured by
          absorbance
                                                                    93
U.S. EPA,  1980

-------
   Pb
        Lead
  Species mean acute values and acute-chronic ratios
  Rank*    Species
    10


     9

     6
Soft-shel I  clam,
Mya  arenarla

Atlantic sllverslde,
Men IdI a men Id la

Eastern oyster,
Crassostrea virgin lea

Quahog clotn,
Merconarla mercenarla

Blue mussel,
Hytllls edulls
Species Mean    Species Mean
Acute Value     Acute-Chronic
   (ug/1) 	       Ratio	

  27,000


 >10,000


   2,450


     780


     476
* Ranked from least sensitive to most sensitive* based on Family Monn Acute Vnluo.
  Bioconcentration data
  Species
                Tissue
       Chemical
Duration  Bioconcentration
 (days)        Factor        Reference
Blue mussel.
Mytl lus edul Is
Blue mussel ,
Mytl lus edul Is
Blue mussel ,
Mytl lus edul Is
Blue mussel ,
Mytl lus edul Is
Blue mussel ,
Mytl lus edulls
Eastern oyster.
Crassostrea vlrglnlca
Eastern oyster.
Crassostrea vlrg-lnlca
Eastern oyster.
Crassostrea vlrqlnlca
Quahog clam,
Soft

Soft

Soft

Soft

Soft

Soft

Soft

Soft

Soft
parts

parts

parts

parts

parts

parts

parts

parts

parts
Lead

Lead

Lead

Lead

Lnad

Lead

Lead

Lead

Lead
nitrate

chloride

nitrate

nitrate

nitrate

nitrate

nitrate

nitrate

nitrate
40

37

130

130

130

140

49

70

56
650

200

2,570

2,080

796

536

68

1,400

17.5
Schulz-Baldes,

Tal bot, et al .

Schul z-Bal des.

Schulz-Baldes,

Schulz-Baldes,

Zarooglan, et
1979
Pr Ing le, et al

1974

1976

1972

1972

1972

al.

. 1960

Shuster 4 Pr Ing le,
1969
Pr \ ng to, et a 1

. 1968
  Mercenarln mercanar 1 a

-------
 Hg
Mercury
Species mean acute values and acute-chronic ratios
Rank*    Species
               Species Mean
               Acute Value
                  (ug/1)
              Divalent Inorganic Morcury

             Winter  flounder,          1,678
             Psoudop1euronectos

23

22

21

18

17

16

14

12

11

10

B

7

4

3

2
nmor Icanus
Munm Ichog,
Fundulus hotorocl 1 tus
Soft-shell clara.
Mya aranarla
Foursplne stlcklebock,
Apeltes quadrocus
AM an 1" Ic si Ivors Ide,
Hijn Id la rnon Idl a
Haddcx:k,
Molanogrnn/nus aogloflnus
Bay seal lop,
Arcjopocton Irradlans
Sand worm.
Norols vlrens
Start Ish,
Arter 1 as forbes 1 1
Hormlt crab.
Pagurus lonrjlcarpus
Amofican lobster,
Homarus ornorlcinus
Groon crab,
Care 1 n 1 s maonas
Polychaato worm,
Cap 1 tol la cnpl tata
Eastern oyster,
Crassostroa vlrglnlca
Bl LKJ mussol ,
Myt 1 lus odul Is
Ouahog clam,


453.0

400

315

115

90

89

70

60

50

20

17

14

7

5

4





.7

















.558

.8

.8
Species Mean
Acute-Chronic
    Ratio
                                                                              Ranked from least sensitive 1o most

                                                                              sensitive based oo Fomlly Mean  Acute Value.
             Morconarla morconarla

-------
   Hg
Mercury
 Plant  values
 Species
Seaweed,
Ascophyllum nodosum

Seaweed,
Fucus veslculosus
         Chemical
                                                  Effect
                                  Divalent Inorganic Mercury
         Morcur Ic
         chlorIda

         Ktercur Ic
         chloride
10-day EC50,
growth

10-day EC50,
growth
                    Result
                    (ug/1)     Reference
100      Stromgron. 1980
 45      Stromgron. 1980
 Bioconcentration data

                             Tissue
                     Chemical
            Duration   Bioconcentration
             (days)          Factor         Reference
Eastern oyster (adult). Soft parts
Crassostrea virgin lea
American lobster (adult). Tall muscle
Homarus emerlcanus
Divalent Inorganic Mercury
Mercuric chloride 74
Marcurlc chloride 30
10,000 Kopflor, 1974
129 Thurborg, et a
                                               Methy Imercury
 Eastern oyster  (adult),      Soft parts
 Crassostrea vlrglnlca
 Eastern oyster  (adult),      Soft parts
 Crassostrea vlrglnlca
                   MethyImercuric
                   chloride
                74
                       Other Mercury Compounds

                   Pheny Imercur Ic         74
                   chloride
           40,000
                              40,000
Kopflw, 1974
                       Kopflor, 1974

-------
Ni
Nickel
Species mean acute values and  acute-chronic ratios
                           Species Mean   Species Mean
                           Acute Value    Acute-Chronic
Rank* Species
17 MuMnlchog,
Fundulus heteroclltus
16 Soft shall C!M,
My a arenarla
t5 Starfish.
Aster lus fortes)
14 Polycttaete,
Neanthes arenaceodentata
13 Crab,
Pagurus long 1 carpus
12 Sand worm.
Nereis vlrens
9 Atlantic sllverslde,
Menldia •enldla
6 American oyster,
Crassostrea virgin lea
2 Hard claw,
Marcenar 1 a wercenar 1 a
Bioconcentration data
Species Tissue
American oyster. Soft parts
Crassostrea virgin lea
Anerlcan oyster. Soft parts
Crassostrea virgin lea
Mussel, Soft parts
Mytl lus edul Is
Mussel, Soft parts
Mytl lus edul Is
(ug/1)
350,000
320.000
150,000
49,000
47,000
25,000
7,960
1,180
310
Chemical
Nickel
sulfat*
Nickel
su 1 fate
Nickel
su 1 fate
Nickel
su 1 fate
Ratio
Bioconcentration Duration
Factor (days) Reference
384 84 U.S. EPA. 191
299 84 U.S. EPA. I9J
416 84 U.S. EPA. 191
328 84 U.S. EPA. 191

-------
PCBs
Species  mean acute  values and acute-chronic ratios
Rank*
Species
Species  Mean
Acute Value
    (ug/1)
Species Mean
Acute-Chron ic
    Ratio
3
2
1
Eastern oyster,
Crassostrea virgin lea
Grass shrimp,
Palaenonetes puglo
Broun shrimp,
Penaeus aztecus
                                        20


                                        12.5


                                        10.5
 * Ranked  from least sensitive to most sensitive based on species mean
  acute value.
Plant values
Species
                   Chemical
              Effect
            Result
            (ug/1)
Reference
Ofatom,                      Aroclor*
Rhlzosolenla setloer            1254
Diatoms,                     Aroclor*
ThaIass Ios i ra pseudooana         1254
and Skeletonema costatum
                                   No growth In 48       0.1
                                   hr.  Reduced
                                   growth thereafter

                                   Reduced growth        10
                                   and carbon fixa-
                                   tion In 48 hr
                                      Hsner  & Wurster,
                                      1973
                                      Fisher, 1975

-------
PCBs
Plant values
Species
D iatom,
Skeletonema costatum
D 1 atom,
Skeletonema costatum
Diatom,
Chaetoceros soc i a 1 1 s
Diatom,
Nltzschla loncjlsslma
Phytop lankton populations
Phytop lankton populations
Natural phytop lankton
communl ty
Phy top lankton communities
Bioconcentration data
Species
Pol ychaete,
Nereis divers (color
Eastern oyster,
Crassostrea vlrginlca
Eastern oyster,
Crassostrea vlrginlca
Eastern oyster,
Crassostrea vlrginlca
Grass shrimp,
Palaemonetes puglo
Blue crab,
Ca 1 1 Inectes sapldus
Chemical
Aroclor*
1254
Aroclor*
1254
Aroc lor*
1254
Aroclor*
1254
Aroc lor®
1254
Aroclor*
1242
Aroc !or*
1254
Aroc lor*
1254
Tissue
Whole body
Edible portion
Edible portion
Edible portion
Whole body
Whole body
Effect
Reduced growth
Reduced eel 1
dl vis Ion
Reduced eel 1
di vis Ion
No ef feet on
eel 1 dl v Is Ion
Toxic It/ In
24 hrs
Toxlclty In
24 hrs
Decreased diver-
sity, species
ratio altered
Reduced blomass
and si ze
Lipid
(%) Chemical
Phenochlor*
DP-5
Aroclor*
1016
Aroclor*
1254
Aroclor*
1254
Aroclor*
1254
Aroclor*
1254
Result
(ug/1) Reference
10 Mosser, et at. 1972a
10 Harding 4 Ph 1 1 lips,
1978
10 Harding 4 Phi 1 lips,
1978
100 Harding & Phi 1 lips,
1978
15 Moore & Herri ss, 1972
6.5 Moore J Harrlss, 1972
100 Laird, 1973
1 O'Connors, et at.
1978
Bioconcentration Duration
Factor (days)
800 14
13,000 84
101,000 245
>100,000 Field data
27,000 16
>230,000 Field data




Reference
Fowler, et at. 1978
Parrish, et al. 1974
Lowe, et al. 1972
Duke, et al. 1970;
Nlmroo, et al. 1975
Nlmmo, et al. 1974
Nlmmo, et al. 1975

-------
  Ag
         Silver
 Species mean  acute values  and acute-chronic ratios
 Rank*
Species
Species Mean
Acute  Value
    (ug/1)
9
e
6
4
3
Foursplne stickleback,
Apeltas quadracus
Winter flounder,
Pseudopl euronectes amerlcanus
Atlantic si Iversldes,
Menldla menidia
Bay seal lop,
Argopecten Irradlans
Hard shell clam.
550
500
210
33
21
            Mercenarla mercenarla

     2      American oyster,
            Crassostrea virgin lea

     1      Summer flounder,
            Parallchthys dentatus
                               20
                                4.7
Species  Mean
Acute-Chronic
    Ratio
   * Ranked from least sensitive to most sensitive based on species mean
    acute Intercept or species mean acute value.
Plant  values
Species
 Alga,
 Skeletonema costatum

 Alga,
 SkeIetonema costatum
                 Effect
              96-hr EC50,
              chlorophy 11 _a

              96-hr EC50,
              oel I numbers
Result
(ug/1)
170
130
Reference
U.S. EPA, 1978
U.S. EPA, 1978

-------
Zn
        Zinc
Species mean acute values  and  acute-chronic  ratios
Rank*

  24

  22


  21


  20


  19


  18


  16


  15


  14
Species
Species Mean
Acute Value
   (ug/1)
Mummlchog,
Fundulus heteroclltus
Starfish,
Aster las forbesl
Polychaete,
Nereis dlverscolor
Winter flounder,
Pseudop 1 euronectes amerlcanus
Sandworm,
Nereis vlrens
Soft she 1 led clam,
Mya arenarla
At lant Ic si Ivors 1 de
Men Id la men 1 d 1 a
Mussel ,
Mytllus edu 1 1 s planulatus
Pol ychaete,
Capltella capltata
Hermit crab,
Pagurus longlcarpus
Lobster,
Homarus amerlcanus
Oyster,
Crassostrea vlrglnlca
Hard she 1 led clam,
Mercenarla mercenarla
70,600
39,000
24,600
9,460
8, 100
6,330
3,640
3,380
2,440
400
321
310
166
                                                Species Mean
                                                Acute-Chronic
                                                    Ratio
  * Ranked from  least sensitive to most  sensitive based on species mean
    acute  Intercept or value.

-------
Zn
Plant values
Species
Kelp,
Laminar la dlgltata
Alga,
Skeletonema costatum
Alga,
Skeletonema costatum
Alga,
T ha 1 ass 1 os Ira rotula
Bioconcentration data
Species
Alga,
Enteromorpha prollfera
Polychaete (adult).
Nereis divers (color
Oyster (adult),
Crassostrea virgin lea
Soft-shell clam (adult).
Mya arenarla
Soft-shell clam (adult),
Mya arenarla
Mussel (adult),
Mytl (us edulls
Mussel (adult).
Mytl lus edulls
Mussel (adult).
Mytl lus edulls
Crab (adult).
Chemical
Zinc su 1 f ate
Zinc sulfate
Zinc sulfate
Zinc sulfate
Tissue
Soft parts
Soft parts
Soft parts
Soft parts
Soft parts
Muscle
Effect
Growth Inhibition
Growth Inhibition
Interaction with
copper on growth
Decrease In eel 1
numbers
Chemical
Zinc sulfate
Zinc sulfate
Zinc chloride
Zinc chloride
Zinc chloride
Zinc chloride
Z Inc ch lorlde
Zinc chloride
Zinc chloride
Result
(ug/1) Reference
100 Bryan, 1969
200 braek, et al. 1976
50 Braek, et al. 1976
100 Kayser, 1977
Bioconcentration Duration
Factor (days) Reference
1,530 12 Munda, 1979
20 34 Bryan & Hummers tone,
1973
16,700 140 Shuster 4 Pr Ingle,
1969
85 50 Prlngle, et al . 1968
43 112 Elsler, 1977b
225 13 Phil lips, 1977
500 21 Pentreath, 1973
282 35 Phillips, 1976
8.8OO 22 Bryan. 1966
 r.arclnus roaenas

-------
12.0 BASELINE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS AND IMPACT ANALYSES
     12.1 Land Use and Demographics
     12.2 Traffic and Access
          12.2.1  Baseline Traffic Report
          12.2.2  Traffic Requirements of Construction and Operations
          12.2.3  Traffic Impact Analysis by Alternative
     12.3 Recreation Resources and Visual Quality
          12.3.1  Baseline Recreation Resources Report
          12.3.2  Visual Quality Considerations and Criteria
          12.3.3  Visual Impact Analysis by Alternative
     12.4 Engineering Costs Estimate
     12.5 Financial Impacts by Alternative
     12.6 Noise Analysis
     12.7 Odor Analysis
     12.8 Area Geology
     12.9 Sludge Disposal Overview
    12.10 Archaeological and Historical Resources Report and NHPA
            Compliance Summary
    12.11 Legal and Constitutional Constraints on Long Island and Deer
            Island
    12.12 SDEIS Screening Report

-------
12.1 Land Use and
    Demographics

-------
           TABLE OF CONTENTS
12.1  LAND USE AND DEMOGRAPHICS

   12.1.1  Summary
   12.1.2  Existing Development and Activities on the
           Island Sites

      12.1.2.1  Deer Island
      12.1.2.2  Long Island
      12.1.2.3  Nut Island

   12.1.3  Land Use in Neighborhoods Affected by the
           Treatment Plant Alternatives

      12.1.3.1  Point Shirley.  Winthrop
      12.1.3.2  Squantum, Quincy
      12.1.3.3  Houghs Neck,  Quincy

   12.1.4  Community Facilities in Each Neighborhood

      12.1.4.1  Point Shirley,  Winthrop
      12.1.4.2  Squantum, Quincy
      12.1.4.3  Houghs Neck,  Quincy

   12.1.5  Demographic Data

      12.1.5.1  Introduction
      12.1.5.2  Population
      12.1.5.3  Age
      12.1.5.4  Families
      12.1.5.5  Employment and Journey to Work
      12.1.5.6  Income
      12.1.5.7  Housing Characteristics

   12.1.6  Regional Population Projections

-------
12.1 LAND USE AND DEMOGRAPHICS

12.1.1    Summary

     Two of the three alternative sites, Deer Island and Nut Island,
are currently occupied by primary wastewater treatment plants operated
by the MDC.   Deer Island is also the site of the Deer Island House of
Corrections for Suffolk County run by the City of Boston, and the
location of an abandoned military installation, Fort Dawes.  Nut Island
is occupied exclusively and entirely by a wastewater treatment plant.
Long Island, the third proposed site, is occupied by the Long Island
Chronic Disease Hospital operated by the City of Boston.  A former
military installation, Fort Strong, is located at the northern part of
the Island.   The remainder of the island is largely undeveloped and
unused.

     Houghs Neck in Quincy, Point Shirley in Winthrop,  and Squantum in
Quincy are neighborhoods in close proximity to Nut Island, Deer Island,
and Long Island, respectively.  These neighborhoods would be most
affected by proposed treatment plant construction and operation.

     All three neighborhoods are predominantly residential.  Point
Shirley has a population of about 1,000 residents; Houghs Neck and
Squantum have about 4,000 and 3,000 residents, respectively.  Of the
island sites, the Nut Island site is closest to residential neighbor-
hoods; approximately 180 homes lie within half a mile of the site.   In
comparison, about 80 homes and the prison lie within a half mile of the
Deer Island site and only the hospital lies within a half mile of the
Long Island site.

12.1.2    Existing Development and Activities on the Island Sites

12.1.2.1  Deer Island

     Deer Island ceased to be an actual island when, in 1936, Shirley
Gut became filled in.   The island is within the corporate boundary of
                                12.1-1

-------
the City of Boston.   The City owns about half of the 210 acre island.
The MDC owns about 75 acres and leases another 5 acres or two parcels
from the U.S. Navy.   The United States government own the remainder of
the area encompassing about 25 acres.  Figures 12.1-1, 12.1-2 and
12.1-3 show the island and its present land uses and ownership.

     The Deer Island House of Correction is a complex of 20 structures
(one of which was constructed in 1852) occupying approximately 40
acres.  The prison,  which has an inmate population of approximately 400
and a total staff of 200 guards and employees, 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 approach to upgrading would be to build a completely new
prison rather than to rehabilitate the existing collection of old
structures.  Construction of a new prison on Deer Island or at some
other site has been considered by the City.  Relocation elsewhere on
the island is presently considered a possibility for a new prison,
however, no final decisions on prison relocation or new construction
have been made.

     The MDC sewage treatment plant  is the other major active 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 approximately 20 employees at the facility  (over four shifts).

     Fort Dawes was established in 1941 at the southern tip of Deer
Island 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 is being proposed for excessing by the
U.S. government.

     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
                                12.1-2

-------
f.£.12.1-1

-------
&OLI

-------
                                                                                               1
                                      Short Lin*
                                                                          Pare*! "B*
     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
                                                                                     -f.-g.IZ.l-3

-------
existing non-conforming uses of the prison and treatment plant predate
the zoning classifications.

12.1.2.2  Long Island

     Long Island, approximately 213 acres in area, 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 two-lane bridge built in 1951.
Figures 12.1-4 and 12.1-5  show the island and its present  land uses.

     The Long Island Chronic Disease Hospital, operated by the City of
Boston, Department of Health and Hospitals, occupies about 60 acares of
the middle of the island.  The hospital facility is used to treat
alcoholics and provides care for the chronically ill, homeless, 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 investigation of the
potential historical value of these buildings is presented in Section
12.10 of this SDEIS.

     Past and present City administrations have proposed closing the
Long Island Hospital.  The most recent review, released as a report in
May 1984, (Boston in Transition) for the administration of Boston Mayor
Raymond Flynn, considered  a 5-year plan to reorganize the  provision of
medical and social services to the City's chronically ill, homeless and
elderly.  This plan proposed closing the Hospital on Long  Island in
1989 and consolidating its services with the existing chronic care
facilities at the City's Mattapan Hospital.  No future use for the
hospital facility was identified, and further study was recommended.
At the present time, the Mayor's plans for the hospital reportedly
include less use for provision of medical care and increased use as a
shelter for the City's homeless, compatible with the joint goals of the
City and State to develop  recreational uses on Long Island (see
correspondence in Section  10.1).
                                12.1-3

-------
12.1-4

-------
   TO SOUANTUM,
    QUINCY (12OOO FT.)
                               BARRIER BEACH
                                 (19OO FT.)
                                                                          EROSION
             \
                                                                                                 AND SEA WALLS
               \
FORMER NIK
WSSLE SITE
 112 acres)
   VACANT or    , J
UNDEVELOPED LAND/ 5
 PROPOSED PARK-  l|
   PASSIVE USE    I
    (83MB.)      \
              ^  \
  *•--                *


LONG ISLAND HOSPITAL
    (SO acres)
                                                                                              N
                                                                                                     HOSPITAL SEWAGE
                                                                                                       TREATMENT PLANT
                                                                                                         PROPOSED
                                                                                                              STATE
                                                                                                                            LONG
                                                                                                                            ISLAND
                                                                                                                            LIGHT
                                                                                                                            (1819)
                                                                           L-CROSION
                                      INTESIVE USE

                                     S    J4
0*	-BS:	
                                             EXISTING CONDITIONS LONG ISLAND SITE

-------
     The southern part of Long Island is occupied by an abandoned Nike
missile base of approximately 12 acres, and a historical cemetery of
unknown area (shown as about 4 acres).  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 4 acres of freshwater
wetland, about 11 acres of salt marsh and about 1,900 feet of barrier
beach.

     Long Island has served as a burial ground several times in its
history.  Archaelogists have found records indicating there may be over
2000 marked and unmarked graves on the island.  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.
Some of these date from the late 17th to 19th centuries.

     The northern part of the island is the location of the former 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 area
of Long Island is the primary focus for recreational development
proposed by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management
(DEM) as part of its plan for the Boston Harbor Islands State Park.
Passive recreational use is also planned for southern portions of the
island  (see Section 12.3).

     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.
                                12.1-4

-------
12.1.2.3  Nut Island

     Nut Island in Quincy was once a 4-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.  The present primary
treatment plant and sedimentation tanks were constructed in the follow-
ing years.  The entire 17-acre island is owned by the MDC and is taken
up by the wastewater treatment plant.  Figures 12.1-6 and 12.1-7 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.

12.1.3    Land Use in Neighborhoods Affected by the Treatment Plant
          Alternatives

     The Squantum and Houghs Neck neighborhoods of Quincy and the Point
Shirley neighborhood in Winthrop would primarily be affected by the
proposed treatment plant alternatives.   These communities are described
below.

12.1.3.1  Point Shirley, Winthrop

     Winthrop is a largely residential town of approximately 19,000
people situated on a peninsula that forms the northern boundary of
Boston Harbor.   The Point Shirley neighborhood is a narrow peninsula
connected to Deer Island.  It is located near Logan International
Airport.  The only route by land to Deer Island passes through Point
Shirley.

     The neighborhood is predominantly residential with approximately
450 houses and a population of about 1,000.  Most of its homes were
built as summer cottages which over the years have been winterized and
used for year-round residences.  A few neighborhood commercial uses are
                                12.1-5

-------
Nut-


-------
            HOUQHS.
            NECK ~

                                                                                                                 OUTPALL
Source: Metcalf & Eddy,
Nut Island Wastewater
Treatment Plant Faciftties
Planning Project. June 1982
= MDC NUT ISLAND WASTEWATER
  TREATMENT PLANT
                                    — EXISTING  CONDITIONS

-------
found amongst  the residential areas.   These commercial uses are located



along the main truck route to Deer Island.   Approximately 80 homes in



the neighborhood are within a half-mile of  the treatment plant.



Significant community buildings and facilities are listed and shown



graphically in Section 12.1.4 below.







     Zoning in Point Shirley, 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.  Between 1955



and 1982, the  minimum lot size requirement  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.







     Point Shirley residents are significantly affected by the current



operations of  nearby Logan Airport, the Deer Island House of



Corrections, and the Deer Island Wastewater Treatment Plant.  Residents



of Point Shirley must contend with disruptions caused by daily low



flying jet planes, occasional disruptions associated with the prison



operations including escaped prisoners, and periodic disruptions caused



by faulty operations of the existing treatment plant.  Over the years,



these have affected the quality of life of  area residents by



concentrating negative impacts of these major regional facilities at



one location in close proximity to residential concentrations.







12.1.3.2  Squantum, Quincy








     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.  Quincy is a large manufacturing city with a 1980 residential



population of 74,743.  It enjoys a rich historical and cultural back-



ground founded on granite quarrying and shipbuilding.








     The Squantum neighborhood which had a 1980 population of 3,080,  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
                                12. 1-6

-------
 number  of  two-family houses  are  in  evidence.   Significant community
 facilities  are  listed  and  shown  graphically  in Section 12.1.4.

      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.

      Squantum is also  the  site of the former  Squantum  Naval Air Station
 which has  a land area  nearly as  large as the  developed area of  Squantum
 (500 acres).  The Naval Air  Station site was  purchased several  years
 ago by  Boston Edison.  It  remains largely undeveloped  and no reuse
 plans have  been proposed for most of it.  The  Boston Harbor Marina,
 located on  a portion of the Air  Station site,  will  likely be a  perm-
 anent component of any future development.  Construction  has recently
 begun on an approximately  140-unit  townhouse  condominium  complex, which
 perhaps will set the tone  for future development of the site.

      Current zoning on the Naval Air 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  indus-
 try,  general business,  and open  space.

     Squantum is also near Moon  Island,  a 45-acre island  which  is
 connected to Squantum by a  two-lane causeway and sits between the
mainland and Long Island.   Moon  Island is owned by the City  of  Boston.
One-third of the island is  taken up by 4 huge  granite  sewage storage
tanks.  The tanks were  built in  1884 and designed to store 50 million
gallons  of wastewater to be released on the outgoing tide.   The outfall
from these tanks is  now used to discharge untreated waste-
water flows during wet  weather when sewage flows normally routed to
Deer Island exceed the  treatment plant's influent pumping capacity.
                                12.1-7

-------
     The Boston Fire Department operates a fire fighting training



facility on the northern end of the island.  The Boston Police



Department 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 at the beginning of the causeway to Moon Island.







12. 1 .J.3  Houghs Neck, Quincy








     Houghs Neck is a peninsula forming the southeastern boundary of



Quincy Bay.  Nut Island is no longer an island but is a 17-acre pennin-



sula that divides Quincy Bay from Hingham Bay   Houghs Neck is a



densely developed residential area; its housing was developed origi-



nally as summer residences.   Nearly all homes have since been converted



to year-round residences.







     Half of the housing stock was constructed prior to 1939.  There



are some neighborhood commercial uses in the area including food



stores, restaurants, marinas and boat rentals.  These are located along



the major access routes   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



Significant community facilities are listed and shown graphically in



Section 12. 1.4.







     Zoning in Houghs Neck is predominantly "Residence A, Single-



Family" with 7,650 square foot lot minimums.  There are some "Resi



dence B, Multi-Family1' homes (b,750 square feet minimum lots) and some



"Business B, Neighborhood Commercial" establishments.







12.1.4    Community Facilities in Each Neighborhood







     In each of the neighborhoods, there are a number of community



facilities such as schools,  parks, recreation areas, and local busi



nesses that may be affected by proposed construction activities.  These



are listed below.
                                12.1-i

-------
 12.1.4.1  Point Shirley, Winthrop

     Community facilities located along the major access  route  to
 Deer Island are numbered and listed below and on the following  map,
 (Figure 12.1-8):

 1.   Neighborhood commercial uses such as convenience stores are
     located along Revere Street and at the corner of Shirley Street.

 2.   Temple Tifereth Israel is located on Veterans Road.  BINGO and
     other activities are scheduled in their adjacent function hall.

 3.   The Shirley Street Elementary School is located on Shirley Street.
     Although not directly on Veterans Road, the truck route, the
     school is within 200 feet of Veterans Road.

 4.   A park and tot lot is located immediately to the west of Veterans
     Road.

 5.   Several neighborhood commercial uses are located at the Washington
     Avenue and Shirley Street intersection.

 6.   The Cottage Hill Yacht Club is a prominent boating facility
     located on Shirley Street.

 7.   A public boat launching ramp is located south of the Cottage Hill
     Yacht Club and directly off Shirley Street.

8.   Yirrell Beach is a major public beach serving the Point Shirley
     area.

9.   Holy  Rosary Church.

10.   Point Shirley Association meeting hall.
                                12.1-9

-------
 m ^f


f.'l'r
/.«-:
!•. • '•.
•*  •

' •'.'•.*••



:;•   /
i •
^H3J^ .^ft^^H


'^*K"^^^\N
 ^•^.-•-v^'"
                            /
                           FACILITIES
                          N0TE-
                     SHIRLEY, Wl MTHBQP
                       l±^-4-'
                      ,'T  H  R  0
                pf^uirs
LOGAN INTERNATIONAL



   AiRPORT
       LEQEMP
        number references

            '  U9eS.

-------
12.1.4.2  Squantum, Quincy

     Community facilities in North Quincy and Squantum are also located
along the major access route to Long Island.  These facilities are
numbered and identified below and on the following map (Figure 12.,I-*?):

1.   North Quincy High School is located on the corner of Hancock
     Street and East Squantum Street.

2,3. Neighborhood commercial uses (convenience stores) are located
     along East Squantum Street near Botolph Street and on Atlantic
     Street at East Squantum Street.

4.   Moswetuset Hummock is an MDC park that is a popular gathering
     place for high school age children.

5.   The Myles Standish School is a former elementary school that is
     currently leased to the Quincy Elks.  Activities such as BINGO are
     regularly scheduled here.

6.   Boston Harbor Marina and other business, recreational, and com-
     mercial activities are located off East Squantum Street.  A
     commuter boat service to downtown Boston is temporarily in opera-
     tion during the reconstruction of the Southeast Expressway.   The
     Boston Harbor Marina is the largest marina in Boston Harbor.

7.   Nickerson Beach is a small public beach used by residents of
     Squantum.

8.   Squaw Rock is a public park area several acres in size.

9.   Two former military buildings (part of the abandoned Nike base)
     currently house various social service programs.

10.  The Robert I. Nickerson American Legion Post #382 is located in a
     former military structure at Squaw Rock.

                                12.1-10

-------
'4
          •/,--

         \_ Savin Hill  ;/..

                  '•'•'••. \
                                                                               numb-cr references
                                                                                       uses.
                                                                    FA^I44"T4aS^^^= NQTE1
                                                                                  Q U  I  N C Y

-------
12.1.4.3  Houghs Neck, Quincy

     Community facilities located along the major access route to Nut
Island are numbered and identified below and on the following map,
(Figure 12.1-10):

1.   Our Lady of Good Counsel Church is located on Sea Street near
     Samoset Avenue.

2.   Adams Shore Branch Library.

3.   Neighborhood commercial uses such as convenience stores are
     located at several intersections along Sea Street.

4.   Rockland Street playground and field.

5.   Most Blessed Sacrament Church.

6.   Saint Thomas Aquinas Hall is located close to Sea Street at the
     Corner of Darrow Street and Manet Avenue.

7.   The Atherton Hough School is located on Sea Street and Manet
     Avenue.

8.   Houghs Neck Congregational Church is located on Manet Avenue,
     close to Sea Street.

9.   Houghs Neck Community Center and Manet Community Health Center.

10.   Neighborhood Commercial uses are located on Sea Street.

11.   Hurley's Boat Rentals is a well known  private business providing
     small boats for fishing to many South  Shore and Boston residents.
                                12.1-11

-------
numb-tr references
speafi'c  uses

-------
12.  Quincy Yacht Club

13.  Site of the demolished Great Hill Elementary School has  recently
     been regraded to provide increased open space next to Brill Field.

14.  John F. Brill Field is a heavily used playfield.

15.  Broad Meadows School is located on block away from Sea Street.

12.1.5    Demographic Data

12.1.5.1  Introduction

     Data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census for Squantum, Point
Shirley (including Cottage Hill) and Houghs Neck (including Germantown
and Adams Shore) was assembled to provide a demographic overview of the
affected neighborhoods.  The data not only provides population figures,
but also a breakdown of population groups, including elderly and
school-age children, employment figures, and other socio-economic data.
While this data is useful in providing broad statistics on the affected
areas, it is not the basis for assessing site specific impacts since
census data is highly generalized.

     Of greatest interest, from the 1980 Census, are data describing
age breakdowns of the population, family type,  school enrollment,
journey to work, employment, income, and housing.  These subjects are
highlighted below.  Attachment 1 provides census tables centering this
information.

12.1.5.2  Population

     Total population, as recorded by the Census tract designations
(which are not specific to either Houghs Neck or Point Shirley) show
Point Shirley (including the Cottage Hill area) at 4,395 persons,
Houghs Neck (including the Germantown and Adams Shore neighborhoods) at
9,590 persons, and Squantum at 3,080 persons.  Estimates of the number

                                12.1-12

-------
of persons in the respective neighborhoods nearest the sites are



approximately 1000 persons in Point Shirley, 4000 persons in Houghs



Neck, and 3000 persons in Squantum.








12.1.5.3  Age







     The median age of all individuals in Houghs Neck and Point Shirley



is 30 years,  which is slightly below the median for the Boston SMSA



(Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area as defined by U.S. Census) at



31 years.  Squantum has a higher median age of 35 years old.  The



median age for females in Houghs Neck and Squantum is significantly



higher than the median age for all individuals.  Median female age in



Houghs Neck is 33, while it is 38 in Squantum.  Pre-school children



represent about 4% of the population in each area and in the SMSA.



School-age children represent about 22% of the population in the SMSA



as well as in Squantum and Point Shirley, and 28% in Houghs Neck.







     Those 65 years of age and over comprise 12% of the population in



Squantum and Point Shirley, and 14% of the population in the Houghs



Neck area.







12.1.5.4  Families








     The number of families (defined by the Census as related persons



in the same house and averaging 3-plus persons) was 816 in Squantum,



2,435 in Houghs Neck (including Germantown/Adams Shore), and 1,023 in



Point Shirley (including Cottage Hill).  Of these, about 14%, 25%, and



21% respectively, were headed by single mothers with children under 18



years of age.








12.1.5.5  Employment and Journey to Work







     In all three areas, the census reports that 2 or 3 workers per



family is common.  This indicates a significant number of families with



both parents or with parents and children in the labor force.
                                12.1-13

-------
     Most employed persons (16 years of age and older) in each study
area drove to and from work.   Between 16% and 21% of those driving use
carpools.  Among those working, 15% in Squantum take public transporta-
tion, compared with 21% in Houghs Neck and 26% in Point Shirley.  The
average travel time to work from these areas was 26 minutes.

12.1.5.6  Income

     The average per household income (in 1979) was $24,000 in
Squantum, $16,600 in Houghs Neck, and $19,200 in Point Shirley, com-
pared with $22,500 for the Boston SMSA.   The median income in the SMSA
was $15,000.  Twenty percent of the households in the Houghs Neck
census tract reported public assistance income, although the combined
Census area including Germantown and Adams Shore was partly responsible
for this statistic.   Six percent reported assisted income in both
Squantum and Point Shirley, and nine percent reported such income in
the SMSA.  Thirty-seven percent of Houghs Neck (including Germantown/
Adams Shore) households also reported Social Security income compared
with twenty-nine percent in Squantum, nineteen percent in Point Shirley
(including Cottage Hill),  and twenty six percent in the SMSA.

     The percentage of families below the poverty level in Squantum was
3.5 percent; in Point Shirley (including Cottage Hill), it was 8.5
percent; while in Houghs Neck (including Germantown/Adams Shore), it
was 15.9 percent.  Within the SMSA, 7.3 percent of all families were
below this income level.  The inclusion of Germantown, an area with a
concentration of public and elderly housing, in the Houghs Neck Census
Tract, is likely responsible for both the lower and higher numbers in
these categories.

12.1.5.7  Housing Characteristics

     In 1980, a total of 1,096 housing units were reported in Squantum,
3,527 units in Houghs Neck (including Germantown/Adams Shore), and
1,882 units in Point Shirley (including Cottage Hill).  Of these, 82.6
percent in Squantum were owner-occupied, 56.8 percent in Houghs Neck,

                                12.1-14

-------
and 41.8% in Point Shirley.   In Squantum,  84 percent were single-family
houses.   More than half of the homes  in Houghs Neck (60 percent) were
single-family,  while only 34 percent  in Point Shirley were single-
family.   Point Shirley had almost equal numbers of 2-family and 3- to
4-family homes,  as well.   Houghs Neck also showed significant numbers
of multiple unit homes, (influenced by the Germantown and Adams Shore
areas).

     One-half of the homes in Houghs  Neck  and Squantum, and three-
quarters of the homes in Point Shirley were built 45 years ago or more.
Forty-two percent of owners  of owner-occupied houses in both Houghs
Neck and Squantum have lived in their houses 20 years or more.  In
Point Shirley,  the comparable number  is thirty-one percent.

     In Point Shirley, a significant  percentage of houses were built as
seasonal structures.  Most have been  converted to year round use.
Fully one-half of the houses are renter-occupied.  Because many of the
structures are old and are converted  summer homes, the average housing
values are reported to be lower in Point Shirley than the average value
for houses in the SMSA.  In addition, the  community's location adjacent
to Logan Airport, the Deer Island House of Correction, and Deer Island
Wastewater Treatment Plant also tend  to suppress house values.  The
1980 Census places the median value of owner-occupied housing units in
Point Shirley at $43,800.  The median value in the SMSA was $56,000 in
1980.

     There is a wide range in the housing  styles and values in Squan-
tum.  For example, along Dorchester Street, the main road to Long
Island,  houses are generally modest in size and character.  Houses on
Crabtree Road facing Quincy Bay are larger residences.  The median
value of houses in Squantum was $49,500, compared with $56,000 in the
SMSA.  Median house values in Houghs  Neck were reported to be $36,100,
again influenced by the values in the other neighborhoods included in
this figure.
                                12.1-15

-------
 12.1.6    Regional Population  Projections

     Population  change within  the Metropolitan  Sewerage District (MSD)
 has  traditionally been considered one  of the  principal  factors affect-
 ing  future wastewater flow.  Sewerage  facility  planning studies of the
 past devoted  considerable effort to  the projection  of  future population
 so  that  proposed facilities  could be sized  accordingly.   Typically,
 such projections used population and per capita water  use to estimate
 sewage flows  and size facilities.

     Until 1980, almost all  population projections  showed a  continued
 growth in Boston's regional  population.   However,  the  1980  Census data
 revealed a demographic change  which  occurred  in the Metropolitan area
 between  1970  and 1980.  For  the first time  in almost two  centuries,
 population in the Boston Metropolitan Area  (defined as  the 101  cities
 and  towns in  the Metropolitan  Area Planning Council, MAPC, district)
 actually declined.  The population totals for the region  were  reported
 as 3,013,912  in  1970 versus  2,884,712 in 1980.   This represents
 slightly greater than a four percent decline  in population over  the
 decade.

     Out-migration has been  greater than in-migration in  Massachusetts
 since the 1950's.  The net out-migration was  especially heavy  in the
 1970's.   Prior to the 1970's the region's substantial net out-migration
 was masked by large natural  increases (births).  It was the  combination
 of a decline  in natural increases in the Region together  with  continu-
 ing net  out-migration that produced the decline  in  population.

     While the Boston region's population declined  overall,  shift of
population within the Metropolitan region continued to be dominated by
population outflow from urban areas to lower  density suburban  communi-
ties.  Population losses were particularly heavy in such  urban communi-
ties as  Boston,  Chelsea,  Everett, and Somerville, while population in
communities  such as Framingham, Quincy and others along the  South Shore
grew.  The commercial building boom in downtown Boston, as well  as in
                                12.1-16

-------
the suburbs,  has tended to obscure the fact that permanent population



in the Metropolitan region is slightly declining.








     This SDEIS, therefore,  assumes that population within the



Metropolitan  Sewerage District (MSB)  overall,  will not change dramati-



cally in the  foreseeable future due to either  population gain or loss.



Growth and expansion that may occur within the MSD will largely result



from in-state movement, most likely from urbanized to suburban areas.



Therefore, existing, essentially stable, population figures should be



used in planning for wastewater flows.  Consideration of further shifts



in the population within the region (from the  northern to the southern



MSD systems,  for example) is required to develop future wastewater



management plans and to limit any future expansion of the currently



proposed harbor wastewater treatment plants (see Section 5.6)
                                12. 1-17

-------
          ATTACHMENT 1
CENSUS TABLES AND  BOUNDARY MAPS

-------
                4228
                      5001.01
                     Hull
        4227
         4226
          2s*
4224%  4225

                               51
   4223
WEYMOUTH^
                        Hingham
   FIGURE A1
CENSUS TRACT
MAP

-------
       1104
   1706
          1707
"»*ss
          1705
       1708
.10
512
           511
                   1802
         j?«
                           180C
                  1803
                                         FIGURE A2
                                       CENSUS TRACT MAP

-------
Toble  PI.    General  Characteristics  of  Persons:     1980
                                              [Far MaTwg. at lyii^uU. M* btroducnon.  For ifafiinora at Iwim.
GHUUJ  Tract!
                                           A and 81
                 	7U U7
     5      —	-	
                                                143 531
1010 Uywi	   2)3 483
15 to 19 y»on	   265 391
20 to 24 nan IIIIIIIII	   234 777
25 10 34 run	   449 729
35 to 44 w			304 375
45 lo 54 ytan	   2? I 081
55 to 64 won	   277 077
45 to 74 rton	   197 683
75 r*r> and ovw	   U7 041

3 and 4 wi	    54 408
16 r«ori nnd aw	! 192 265
18 y*on and ov«	I 090 284
21 ywiandoxr	1 917 479
60 r«n and ovw	   473 244
                                                419 145

                                                   31.2

                                                454
                                                 70 430
5 to 9 ftm	.	79 991
10 to 14 run	   104 828
15 ID 19 ywn  		132 064
20 to 24 rxn	   144 162
25»34yOT	   241 018
35 ro 44 y»ori	   159 047
45 to 54 riart	I	151 650
55 to 44 nan	   148 829
45 to 74 y»on	   118 484
75 ytan and arm	   101 294

3 and 4 rton	    27 383
14 rK" ond owr	1 174 771
                                                124 908
21 rean and ov«	I 036 684
40 rwi "id ovw	   289 854
42 r«n and ovw	   260 748

MMfcn			      32.8


HOUSEHOLD TYPt AMD RELATIONSHIP

                                                741 157
                                                640 173
  HouunoUv	   990 440
    FomJy tma^nUm	   449 028
                                                321 432
     L/vmg. aknt	   240 641
  Spous.	   525 594
                                                033 493
                                                110 425

   w, n group quarttn	    67 214

Pmm s*r hon^oM	      2.69
                                                   3.33

             41 r~» -d mw		   J44 7*41
                                                318 209
                                                212 382
                                                102434
     Ljvrn^ dora	    98 395
  Spain.	    63 311
  Ottw ™4attv«	    37 344
                                                  5 170
hmar» of imwvnan	    23 454
Ott«r. n group oualrni	     3 079


FAMILY TYPt BY PRESENCE OF OWN CHILDREN

                                                *o» ««
Wit* o«m diidrm undv 18 yion	   322 490
          owfi dddnn undw 18 rwi	   434 295

                                                515 594
Wrtti <7wn dJdrtn undv 18 yton	   254 711
   Xurbtt at mm c«dr«n undv 18 y«on	   510942

                                      	   114 0*J
Wirh <7wn cWdrwi unow 18 ¥»«t	    40 602
   Num6« of  mm ctddrin urnhr 18 y»an	   113 433


 MAWTA1 S7ATVS

                                               1 043 604
                                                i02 577
 Ho* marred, uopt MmJUIPJ	^	   5^7
 Swarutfd	    20 147
                                                 20 189
                                                 42 225

             .  IS Twi wd «*w	     	1 1ft 570
 Snok	   396 028
 Ho« marrwd.
 S«tx«Tn«d	    53 324
 w«to-«f			   153 894
                                               TtoSMSA
                                                         Squantum  Houghs   Neck  Point  S
                                                                   Troct
                                                                   4174
3 080
  118
  153
  257
  314
  253
  433
  326
  397
  388
  311
  130
2 494
2 349
2 181
  627
  552
  35.4

1 600
   53
   67
  126
  140
  115
  215
  173
  227
  198
  184
   82

   14
 1 327
 1 2i4
 1 149
  341
  322
  388
 1 080
 3 080
 1 079
  814
  243
  231
  474
 1 272
    53
  2.85
  3.39

   441
   441
   282
   109
   105
   114
    42
     3
   Hi
   337
   444

   476
   290
   579

   114
    41
    75
 1  191
   422
   695
    12
    32
    37

 1  154
   391
   693
    26
   177
    67
                   Tract
                   4178
t 590
  526
  642
  893
I  080
  844
1  295
  994
  948
1  050
  743
  533

  231
7 274
6 334
6 218
1  785
1  540

  30.4

5 197
  258
  331
  444
  553
  445
  694
  547
  507
  603
  442
  371

  116
4 048
3 826
3 494
1 096-
  971

  33.1
 9 590
 9 590
 3 343
 2 435
  928
  829
 1 727
 4 314
  184
  2.85
  3.48

 1  576
 1  276
   933
   516
   503
   229
    94
    20
 7 415
 1 218
 2 596

 1 717
   331
 I 332

   til
   369
   736
 1 347
 I 235
 I 787
    58
   140
   127
                      ImcT
                      1805
t 395
  190
  246
  287
  322
  514
1  014
  429
  404
  444
  281
  262
    16}
    148
    787
    155
    644
    348
   60
3 624
3 490
3 2B5
  751
  441
 30.8

I 317
   34
  120
  153
  171
  285
  504
  203
  207
  230
  170
  184

   26
I 929
1 854
I 752
  442
  423
 31.4
4 m
4 287
1 772
1 023
  749
  547
  767
1 482
  264
   33
   25

  242
  3.20

  VU
  447
  290
  116
  108
  104
   61
   12
   74
     2
   on
   437
   849

   747
   339
   685

   311
    34
   144
 1 714
   710
   796
    47
    43
   118

 1 951
   720
   798
    54
   244
   142
                                              irley
 CENSUS TRACTS

-------
Table  P-8.   Ancestry  of  Persons:    1980
                                           [Data are ttnmotn boMO1 CM a wnda.- M« tnmxJuctioa.  For
                                                                                                          trwroducrwn  For definmoro of rrrrra. it* opp*od««« A and 3|
Census  Tracts
                  		— I 743 1ST
&«)lt orCTitrv group	 1 551  417
  Duidl				     5 093
  EngJ.ih		-		   203 910
  Frwch	_:    57 983
  GVTOI		    45 880
  0«i	    :<  055
  Hunganoi	     4 251
  knh					   414 868
  Itdan			   279 057

  Nor»egni					     4 391
  Mih			    45 518
  Pwlugun.			    30 618
  Ilium			-	    55 317
  Scormh	    27  986
  Sw«M!			    17  364
  Ukranai	-		     4 780
  Ol»*f	   323  346

MdM* irtntri gnjup	   854  155
Ancwlry not ic«iM „		   357  785
  Nol nponid			   224 353

Se4*cTtd mufoplt anmrry arouoii
                  )	   340  029
       d otixf jroiKKil		   157  155
  Onnar» »>d oihw groue(j)	   157  576
  Inih ml ottnf gnupdt	   442  4U
  Notai md Olti«f grourtl)	   168  903
  PoWi and ortw grouo
-------
  Bom n Stalt           ......
  Bom « different Stall ... ...... -- ............ ----   52J
  Bo™ obrood. a. no. .re --------------------------    39 072
(VHP bom ----------------------------------   J8° 08°

LANGUAGE SPOKEN AT HOME AND ABILITY TO SPEAK
 ENGLISH

rSfu. s i. 17 r«n ................ - ......... —   i» M*
  Speck o kmouoo, ort«r than &>o*sn 01 horn... ....... ..    48 513
    Percent who speok Enotah not wrf of not at d -------      11.5

PNM IB r— ' — 1 ™ ........... --------------- ' °»» "?
  Soeok o lonouogt other than £11565)1 ot bom. ----------   263  198
    Pwcent who ipeok EnoWi noi wrf of not ot o* -----      17.0

SCHOOL ENROLLMENT AMD TYPl OF SCHOOl

        P.TM 3 r~i .U _d twr «roM h »M ..   112 317
•*™> 5*001 ... .................. --------- - ----    30 455
  Private  __________________________________    21  154
D*«oomn ....................... -------------    32 078
  Pnvon .......... ____________________________     3 903
Bementory (1 10 8 ywral ..... ---- ............ ----   313  589
  Pnvott ___________________ ...................    40  355
*jh vctaol (1 to 4 yi school oroouotn __________________ ^> -----      77.2



W«n* 33 M 44 f~i ____________ ...... ________   lit 749
  CNWrw nei bom _________ ............ ________   380 492
    Ptr I.OOOMmn ___________________________     2 397

8BIOENQ IN  1975

        Pn«i J TOT -4 rur ________________ 2 tit 4W
Sorrw houit _____________________________ 1 594 810
Mttma houit « Urated StotB ___________________   965 698
  Cmtrd aty oftf«s SMS* __________________   189 921
  «mond« of rin SMSA ___________________________   505 530
  Ou««i« ttw SMSA ... ....... __________________   270 247
    Drfferent SMS* ........ ____________________   214 165
    Not m on SMSA ____________ ...... _________    54 082
Airood ...... -----------------------------------    5o  181

JOURNEY TO WORK

        Wvtn 16 r~n «W  rrv ---------------- 1 30* 435
Pnvatt «hd«: Oriw oiom __________________________   733 3?0
            Corpool -----------------------------   221 992
Puofic iromportotMn _________________________ . ______   204 235
  Bus of ilretlcor --------------------------------   110 309
  Suowcv. *4*wt«d tro«. of mirood __________ „ ______    89 429
Wo*«i  only ____________________________________   114 003
Other meons ____________________________________    15 923
Wortid  ot horn __________________________________    18 892

Pwwra  ptr privctf vehid, ___________________________      1.15
M«n mmt tant to work ___________________ mnttn __      23.5

Worked  «i SMSA o( residenci .......... _______________ 1  126463
    Boston aty-cfntrot business distnc! ________________    82 686
    Rwnomdef ot Boston crfy ________________________   302 488
    BfookUne to»m _________ ...... _________________    U 837
    Cambndot dry ....... _______________________      74 452
    Vw05 --------- ........... . ........... _____    J2 787
    VM 04 ----------- ................... __ .....    13 457
    Lynn aty ....... „ ....... ____________  .         31 359
    *"«08 ........ .. ................ ___ ........    n 8M
    Sol»mc,ty ------- ............................    14 5,7
    *"°  10 ....... . .......... . ............ _____     <2  185
    *"o  11 -------- ........... ----- .............    47 392
    «"<"  U ....... - .............. - ........ . .....    48 297
    Wolthom aty __________________________ ___       42  554
    *"«  u ...... ------ ............... ".".""".    68 693
    *"°  15— ..... - ............................    44 598
    *"° '« ...... -- .............................    44  732
    *"°  l7 ....... - .............................    63  739
    "emomdef at Boston. Mosi.  SMSA ________  .         98 B96
Worted outi«it SMSA at reudfna..  .                     48 951
    *« "— - ........................ "I-IIIII    13  684
    Bioctlon. Moss. SMSA                             | |  243
    Workrt ^S*W»,, .............. [_"" ..........    M QQJ
 fflott of wort not rtooned... ........ _____ Ilinilll"   1 13  047
                                                TrW SMSA
                                                                     Squantum
                                                                                                       Houghs   Neck    Point   Shir  .ey
foble  P-9     Social   Characteristics  of  Persons:    1980
                                              [Dora an Mhmom trod on a mvfe, »• tolroduction.  far fi»OTioa o( lytnboh. »• totroduction  for ikfxnom of unm. n.
Census  Tracts
         AND PLACE OF BIRTH
                                                                                                                                                          A crt l|
                                                                            Troct
                                                                            4174
                                                                           3 074
                                                                           2 905
                                                                           2 595
                                                                             302
                                                                               8
                                                                             171
                                                                             6OJ
                                                                              40
                                                                            17.5

                                                                           1 344
                                                                             113
                                                                               5
                                                                               5
                                                                              57
                                                                               4
                                                                             322
                                                                              37
                                                                             251
                                                                              64
                                                                             304
                                                                           1 013
                                                                              8
                                                                              19
                                                                              58
                                                                            160
                                                                            858
                                                                            599
                                                                            311
                                                                            87.8
                                                                            17J
                                                                            459
                                                                          2 623
                                                                          1 M»
                                                                          2 041
                                                                            928
                                                                            165
                                                                            455
                                                                            108
                                                                            108
1 516
  979
  282
  230
   88
  142
   14

   II

  I 14
 24.0

1 527
  125
  524
   12
   41
   12
                                                                             14
                                                                             16
                                                                             13
                                                                             55
                                                                            664
                                                                             51
                                                                             27
                                                                             27
                                                                            130
                                                                                                                Tract
                                                                                                                4174
   »  5«0
   9  087
   8  489
     583
      15
     503
  ; 215
     42
  t S4f
    374
     I 6
  1 70t
     92
     20
    125
      9
  1  259
    103
    834
     75
    397
  5  143
     38
    180
    339
  I  272
  2  549
    643
    502
   67.1
   547
 I 614
 2 951
 t 144
 6 844
 2 239
   441
 I  534
   244
   195
    49
    45
                                                                                                            4 001
                                                                                                            2 210
                                                                                                              844
                                                                                                              839
                                                                                                              444
                                                                                                              375
                                                                                                               54
                                                                                                               23
                                                                                                               29

                                                                                                             1.19
                                                                                                             26.1
                                                                                                            3 433
                                                                                                              193
                                                                                                              941
                                                                                                               56
                                                                                                              104
                                                                                                               84
                                                                                                               22
    8
   15
   37

   94
2 024
   51
  115

   35
   80
  412
                                    Itocl
                                    1805
                                                                    4 3»5
                                                                    4 103
                                                                    3 591
                                                                      512

                                                                      292
                                                                      74*
                                                                       23
                                                                      348

                                                                     1 45t
                                                                      288
                                                                      104
                                                                        40
                                                                        22
                                                                        34

                                                                       421
                                                                        27
                                                                       299
                                                                        17
                                                                       185
                                                                     2 O*
                                                                        18
                                                                        61
                                                                        99
                                                                       316
                                                                     1 222
                                                                       654
                                                                       444
                                                                       124
                                                                       103
                                                                       473
                                                                     1 330
                                                                     4 in
                                                                     2 284
                                                                     I 817
                                                                       259
                                                                     1 233
                                                                       325
                                                                       272
                                                                         53
                                                                         27
                                    1 271
                                    1 224
                                      373
                                      593
                                      198
                                      388
                                        48

                                        20

                                      1 15
                                    } 280

                                     2 114
                                       251
                                       892
                                        16
                                       149
                                        53
                                       532
                                        45
                                         7
                                        J6
                                        II
                                        23
                                                                          53
                                                                         209
 CENSUS TRACTS

-------
e  P. 10.    Labor   Force  and  Disability  Characteristics  of   Persons
                                           [Dato art estimate! bmed on a sampfe: **« Introduction.  for
    ,$u$  Tracts
    01 KJBCI STATUS
                                                                                                              1980
                                                                                                                    M« kneroducnon  tar cjerrtfiorn ot terms. i*e aw>erxi<»el A and 6)
            .e^rn. ..........................  i  in tis
           ....................................  I  «» 573
        Percent o* penoni 1 6 yean ant over ........ „       M.I
    W» k>°°- (TO .............................  j  399302
      (motor*' ................... - ..............  '  336220
      Unemployed ................ - ......... ------     43 M2
        Percent ol ovion boor fore. ... ........ ------        4.5

   j.  It ,OT -•• — ..... --- ..................  '  "' «'«
   iortat, ....................................    433 779
        Percent of remote. 16 yean or>d over ..... ------       53 9
    Gvwon lobor lorn ..... ------------------------    633 388
      Employed ..... --------------- ...... - ..... -    407 752
      UnemrJovrt ...... - ..... - ...................     M 436
        Percent ol cjwfan labor forci -----------------        4 0
  Wntiowi ctirldren under 6 yeon -------------------    125 620
    to tabor force .................... - ............     49 453
  Mamed husband  present --------------------------    538 783
    Intoborlorct ________ ........ ----------------    280 012

  v*. .»« 14 te M yttn ........ - ..............    '" »«•
  Nol enrolled m school _____________________________     42 7 U
    Hoi h«)h idwol graduate, -----------------------     U 018
      Employed ........ - ........ -----------------      4 537
      Unemployed.. .......... -------------------      ' 878
      Hoi « kjbor  (era ____________________ ........      5 603


 XCUPAT10N AND SQKTID INDUSTRIES

        Employed ienie« 14 y»n e»W mr ....... ---  1  13* MO
  tanogenal and prolujjonoj speoolry occupanorn ---------    401 018
  Eiecutive. oanwrsmmve.  and managerial oaupohorn  ----    166 293
  Professional speuarry occupations --------------------    234 725
 Tedwcal. sales. ond odmrtamjTivt support ocruootwrn -----    457 101
  rtdnoans and rvlalcd uqpon occupations ------------     52 563
  Sain occupanora .. .............. ----------------    128 172
  AdmmrroTTvt jupport ocaJOOTon. including dmcd ------    276 366
  trwt occupolxxn  __________________________ - -----    178 759
  Prmrtf houwnold occuparwm _______________________      5 250
  ProtKTrvt icfvKi  ocajponons -----------------------     2fl 461
  Sffvm occupahom. exctpl profecnv* ond houlthoU -----    145 048
 'vmrq.  fornrrY. ond fnhmq occupalwns ---------------      6 973
  rvconn producnon. craft ond rrpcw occupahara _________    129 434
 tptrann, fobncaloa. ond laborer! --------------------    162 935
  Modww operaiarv aiwmolwi. ond mpttlorj ----------     84 573
  Iramoorrarian ond material mOMm) occupation! _________     36 788
  Kanditn. tqupntcnt dcanvn. helpcn. and laborer! ______     41 574

  lonutoctunng, _ ............... ____________________    261 429
  (noltvji. ond mod node --------------- ...... ------    259 816
 rolnuonol ond retated Moncw _______________________    365 564


 CUSS OF WORKEI

 Cnvott owot end lotary wort«n ----------------------  1  046 450
 .onmnHnl worfcen  _______________________________    272 156
  Local oovtmmenf worker! _________________________    123 594
 «H-empkJY»d warken __________________ ..... _______     64 660


 UIOI FORCI STATUS IN 1979

 VM 14 r**> —4 >nr. b hUr h»n b \m ..... ___  1  5M 4M
        Pfrtfnl ol penora 16 v»or! ond owr __________       70.0
  Worked •> 1979 _______________________ ..... _____  I  512 952
    40 or more wnlu _______ ...... ... ...... _______  I  I JO 724
      Usually worked 35 or more noun per week .. ......    926 597
    SO to 53 weeks .......... ____ ............. ____    931 813
      UsuoGv worked 35 or more hours per week ________    804 644
  With unemployment n  1979 ___ ...... . ......... ____    242 014
        Percent ol rtws. n tabor hxct n 1979 .........        158
    Unemotovrd 15 or more weeks ____ ............ ...     79 669
    Mean weeks o* unemptoyment ____________________        13.5


 WSABUJTY STATUS OF NONINSTTTUTIONAL PERSONS

        Ms*.. U » 44 T»en ......... . ........ ____    U4 414
 nffl o work duoWirv  _____ ...... .. ........ _________     45 668
  Nol n labor lorte .......... . ...... . .......... ____     32 637
    Prevented horn working _________________________     27 65fl

        )mi4. UnM T~n ............ . ........    til 700
 'Virh a wort oiabjirv  ____________ , _________________     59 6o2
  Nol m boor lorce ............. __________ I...IIIII     42 319
    Prevented from work«ig _________________________     34 537

        Pervm 14 n M r«n ----- .............. _.  1 U. 154
 With o pubk ironiportatwn disobiiirr ___________________     34 521
  Wrrh o wort diwbdiry ____________________________     31 n3

        Perux 65 ye«i »J rre> ____ ..............    Ml 057
 V'* o oubtc ironiportotion disobJtly ........ . ..... _____     53  151

 WORKERS IN FAMILY  IN 1979

xo workers ....................... _ ..............     79 474
  Wear  torn*, «»ome                                   S9 995
 I worker  ......... _ ..............................    203 900
  Mean  lonWy ottxr. ............................    S22 863
 ' -orten ____ ..... ____ ....................... ...    268 057
  Mean lonWv mtame ........... _______ ....... _____    S28 860
] or more workers ...... ___________________________    120  772
  "eon lorn*, irane ................. . ............    V38  626
                                                                              Squantum
                                                                                                            Houghs   Neck
                            Point  Shirley
                                                                                      Trod
                                                                                     4174
                                                                               1 473
                                                                               I 628
                                                                                 65 8
                                                                               I 628
                                                                               I 578
                                                                                   50
                                                                                  3.1

                                                                               1 301
                                                                                 668
                                                                                 51.3
                                                                                 668
                                                                                 639
                                                                                   29
                                                                                  4 3
                                                                                  120
                                                                                   60
                                                                                 739
                                                                                 347

                                                                                 ni
                                                                                   55
                                                                                   5
                                                                                1  578
                                                                                  498
                                                                                  213
                                                                                  285
                                                                                  587
                                                                                   54
                                                                                  165
                                                                                  368
                                                                                  222

                                                                                   95
                                                                                  127
                                                                                   II
                                                                                  166
                                                                                   94
                                                                                   49
                                                                                   22
                                                                                   23

                                                                                  214
                                                                                  322
                                                                                  426
                                                                                  172
                                                                                  342
                                                                                  211
                                                                                   64
                                                                                t 740
                                                                                  704
                                                                                I 731
                                                                                I 274
                                                                                I 052
                                                                                I 051
                                                                                  912
                                                                                  276
                                                                                  15.9
                                                                                   86
                                                                                  12.8
                                                                                    75
                                                                                    40
                                                                                    28

                                                                                 i cm
                                                                                    77
                                                                                    42
                                                                                    29

                                                                                 J 017
                                                                                    19
                                                                                    19

                                                                                  4S6
                                                                                    22
                                                                                    56
                                                                               Jll  753
                                                                                   267
                                                                               S25  054
                                                                                   330
                                                                               (26  603
                                                                                   I4«
                                                                               «6  967
                                                                                                                          Tract
                                                                                                                          4179
7 311
4 389
  600
4 389
4 054
  335
   76

4 077
2 021
  49 6
2 021
I 933
    88
   4 4
  493
  242
I 809
  937

  tn
  267
    55
    23
    24
 4 054
   595
   255
   340
 1 424
   109
   303
 I 012
   709
     7
   127
   575
    10
   652
   664
   267
   165
   232

   610
   907
   842
    124
    821
    518
    99
 4 715
   64 5
 4 629
 3 168
 2 544
 2 604
 2 198
 I 080
   22 9
   5O4
   178
  1  777
    337
    174
  3  159
    291
    246
    ISO

  4  036
    146
    133

  I  176
    326
    407
 S7 405
    709
H4 759
    879
S22 150
    485
SJ3 723
                                                      lioct
                                                      1BOS
J 601
7 479
  68 8

2 348
  127
   5  I

1 905
I 155
  60 6
I 155
1 104
   il
   4 4
   178
   101
  815
  445

  151
   51
    14
    U
 1 }44
   600
   276
   324
   900
    94
   222
   584
   395

    79
   316
    18
   226
   209
    34
    86
   219
   458
   559
  I 901
   363
   162
     78
  1  565
   71 2
  2  541
  I  967
  I  694
  1  584
  1  400
    481
    18 8
    204
    15 I
  1 WO
    148
     68
     43

  1 Ml
     98
     92
     54

  S 041
     II
     ll

     4J5
      76
     117
  M 897
     3O4
 Sll 121
     364
 J21 953

 540 MS
CENSUS  TRACTS

-------
I
I
I
jobie  P-ll      Income  and  Poverty  Status  in  1979
                                                 [ Data or* Htvnatn bm*d on a
   1980
I: 14* birroductm.  fix meonmg of lymboll. it* trmvjdurran  For defmtom of terms. tM oppenrfitt A and S\
  ensus  Tracts
   INCOME IN 1979
           II,.,,lull,                      	   990 77»
      Ethan $5.000	1	-	   121 "00
      XM to $7 499	    70 601
      JOO to $9.999	    67 650
      000 to $14 999	   136 479
   515 000 to $19 999	-	   132 239
  ••$20.000 to $24.999	—	   121 439
   S25.000 m $34 999	   168 497
   J5 000 to $49 999	   108 131
  |ifl 000 » more	—	-    64 343
                                                     $18 694
                                                     $22 476

   O.IIIM  niiMin1 hielirii'ifl                              535 833
     Mean, rearm	IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII   $25 190
     IMeonmjme			   $28 979
    •i.  .in,!,.< k«.n)»Ui		   454 944
     Mcoion rtome                                     $ 12 294
     Mwn ran. .HIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII   $14 318

   -. "    _     _		   477 403
     Mtdion rcora		   $22 848
                                                     $26 560

     Medal name	    $7 198
     Meon rcom				    $9611

   •» o*M te~e				    $» 1«

   SvCDMJ TTPf IN 1979

•        H......H.	   990 777
•** eotwiai		   801 282
• vVeon eamxas				   $23 115
   *n* Sonal Security ncome			   254 110
     Meon Sooof  Seamy mronw	    $4 157
   With pubic assistance income	    89 488
     »Meon pubic  assurance rame		    $2 802

     EAN FAMIIY INCOME IN 1979  BY FAMILY TYPE

   ~>4W.		   $24 540
     With own d*Jren under 13 yean			   $24 384
     Without own children under 18 yean	   $26 725
•BfOT^oV.  f°"i«	-		   $29 184
•  Wrrh own chndren under 18 yean	   $30 098
^1  Wrrhaur own children under 18 years	,   $28 324
J  --*- ••- --'--•-•-  .. r»itaid pwuM	   $14 480
   •  With own dWdren under 18 yean	   $10 271
     Without own cMdren under 18 yeon	   $19 497

•U INCOME  LEVELS IN 1979

•        f—*.			   477 403
(ouuhalder worUd «i 1979		   528 059
   v,fh retowd chidren under 18 yean	   334 145
   •mob hauseflbtttr. no husband presort	   112 118
	  Housernldef-worted «i  1979		    63 423
M  With retottd cWdren under 18 yeon	    63 207
•   Wrrh reiated children under 6 y«on	    20 980
•auuMder 65  yean and over			   110 042



   >$ veonj and ovw	   110 087

•        fmim* f> wfcm u»i«t( irnin k dil.ii-id .. 2 449 SI*
•rdv 18 veon		   467 741
•  tetoted chldren under  18 yeon			   665 181
^   Belated ch*lren 5 to 17 yeon	   521829
   .8 to 59 yean		 I 551 977
  _ O years and over	   449 801
^M 65 yean and over	   320 914

BKOME at 1979 iaow POVERTY uva

•        f  in—			    a MS

   louirholrfer watted in 1979	IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII    19 708
  jfitti related chidreh under 18 yeon	    37 926
       I householder, no husband present	    28 074
   I  Householder worVed «  1979	     9 151
   I  With related ctwdren under 18 yean	    25 378
      With related children under 6 years	    12 567
             & yeon and over	.	     5 050


                                                      15 981
             Percent below poverty level	       20.0
    S yean and over	    20 182


             Percent below poverty level	       9.4
   "der 18 veon	"    84 457
     §«ekned children under 18 yeon		    84 624
       Related crwldren 5 to 17 yean	I    62 668
      to 59 yeon	II   128 363
      r«r5 and over			__    37 177
     65 years and over	    29 158

   JCOME IN 1979 mOW SPECIFIED  POVERTY tEVEl

    .       .        ' wS— pn~rr iMmn h tM«.-»£
     De"ow 75 percent of poverty lew!                            A A
    | Belo. 175 percent of poverr, level""""""!!!!           ,3 3
     Srlow ISO pefcem of povrrrv lewl	"_I            17 Q
     Wow JOO peftent of poverty level	IIIIIIII           25 3
  I
                                                                              Squantum
                                 Houghs  Neck           Point  Shirley
                                                                                        Troct
                                                                                       4174
                                                                                         1  OM
                                                                                            46
                                                                                            78
                                                                                             9
                                                                                           156
                                                                                           150
                                                                                           185
                                                                                           312
                                                                                            98
                                                                                            54
                                                                                      $22  206
                                                                                      $24  058

                                                                                           177
                                                                                      $24  542
                                                                                      525  618
                                                                                           216
                                                                                      $18  269
                                                                                      $17  760

                                                                                           SOI
                                                                                      $24 943
                                                                                      $26 963
                                                                                          319
                                                                                      $12  143
                                                                                      $14  164

                                                                                       $1 513
                                                                                        1 OM
                                                                                          943
                                                                                      $23 074
                                                                                          317
                                                                                       $4 877
                                                                                           69
                                                                                       $4 220
                                                                                      $24 94]
                                                                                      $24 532
                                                                                      $28 572
                                                                                      $28 287
                                                                                      $26 256
                                                                                      $29 675
                                                                                      $1J 377
                                                                                      $10 548
                                                                                      $18 827
                                                                                          Ml
                                                                                          658
                                                                                          350
                                                                                           84
                                                                                           43
                                                                                           43
                                                                                           16
                                                                                          173
                                                                                          120

                                                                                       3  074
                                                                                          712
                                                                                          712
                                                                                          602
                                                                                       I  749
                                                                                          615
                                                                                          456
                                                                                          28
                                                                                          35
                                                                                          20
                                                                                          28
                                                                                          16
                                                                                           8
                                                                                          16
                                                                                          16
                                                                                          18
                                                                                          5 6
                                                                                           7

                                                                                          126
                                                                                          4 1
                                                                                          43
                                                                                          43
                                                                                          36
                                                                                          68
                                                                                          15
                                                                                           7
                                                                                         4 I
                                                                                         58
                                                                                        II 9
                                                                                        169
                                              Tract
                                              4178
                                                                                                                            J  3*7
                                                                                                                              727
                                                                                                                              387
                                                                                                                              199
                                                                                                                              456
                                                                                                                              337
                                                                                                                              475
                                                                                                                              504
                                                                                                                              255
                                                                                                                               42
                                                                                                                         $13  934
                                                                                                                         $16  665

                                                                                                                            1  134
                                                                                                                         $20  238
                                                                                                                         $20  522
                                                                                                                            I  24«
                                                                                                                          $6  831
                                                                                                                         $10  070

                                                                                                                            1  4M
                                                                                                                         $19  432
                                                                                                                         $19  880
                                                                                                                            1  077
                                                                                                                          $4  931
                                                                                                                          $o  616

                                                                                                                          $1  171
                                                                                                                            3  317
                                                                                                                            2  408
                                                                                                                         $18  337
                                                                                                                            1  248
                                                                                                                           $3  941
                                                                                                                              671
                                                                                                                           $2  417
                                                                                                                          tlT 810
                                                                                                                          $18 710
                                                                                                                          $21  030
                                                                                                                          $27 757
                                                                                                                          $23 752
                                                                                                                          $21  804
                                                                                                                          $11  771
                                                                                                                           $7 571
                                                                                                                          $17 970
                                                                                                                            2 4*0
                                                                                                                            1  720
                                                                                                                            1  308
                                                                                                                              614
                                                                                                                              311
                                                                                                                              399
                                                                                                                              125
                                                                                                                              415


                                                                                                                            1  077
                                                                                                                              585

                                                                                                                            • 547
                                                                                                                            2 718
                                                                                                                            2 699
                                                                                                                            2  182
                                                                                                                            5  080
                                                                                                                            1  769
                                                                                                                            1  276
                                                                                                                              394
                                                                                                                             159
                                                                                                                              186
                                                                                                                              339
                                                                                                                              277
                                                                                                                              133
                                                                                                                              271
                                                                                                                              102
                                                                                                                               28


                                                                                                                              167
                                                                                                                             15.5
                                                                                                                               48

                                                                                                                            1  447
                                                                                                                             15 I
                                                                                                                              726
                                                                                                                              717
                                                                                                                              549
                                                                                                                              608
                                                                                                                              108
                                                                                                                               87
                                                                                                                              99
                                                                                                                             20.7
                                                                                                                             26 1
                                                                                                                             38 I
                                                                                                                                                                             ItM
                                                                                                                                                                             1801
                                                                                            110
                                                                                             Bi
                                                                                            13!
                                                                                            370
                                                                                            289
                                                                                             SI
                                                                                         IIS 9BS
                                                                                         JU !33
                                                                                            170
                                                                                         J19 S7S
                                                                                         S22 997
                                                                                            171
                                                                                         $13 
-------
Table H-l.   Occupancy,  Utilization,  and  Financial  Characteristics  of  Housing  Units:   1980
                                   [Far rrwanrg at trmboh. tM hnfredurm. Far 4»(iHt*jm ot tvrm. M* opfMndbui A and 8]
CMUUI Tracts

Viw.jrf •^J^_ _^_ .jutiT T
TUI-IOUNO HOUSIH6 UNrTS
T«ur« ky Roc. «d S**"" O**" «< HwMfc»M»
Pwcmt  iwd AJflVt 	 	 	 	
AUM aid PocA liionder' 	



Asntrean l«4on, Eskimo, and Akut 	

Vwmcy Statui
Vmrt torrr*-| ^ti











T>, ,,,-^ 1 I | — *•



torn
YM-rwrf Wwtaf «"ti




S "Wf»H
A __!
7n»m

Miriinti yMw-riuiri hnuaunq mrfi . . _, 	
Mirinn, am^vd houuig i«M __ _ ---.... , .


NnwblMt
' ,' " ' | ^N



4 ptnora 	 , . . 	 r 	

7 p«nam _..._.
8 or mori pvim 	 , T J 	
AWdnn. ocxupmi hauuna grrt 	
^•rwm Pw ROM
H'nil Ifc 1 | •JH
lOOorlw 	
1.01 H> 1.50 	 _ 	

VAUIE
Uu Itai SIOOOO
SlOOOOto IU 999 	
JI5.000 to 119 999
>20.000lo $24999. .
125.00010 J29999 	
UO 000 to 134 999 	
Ui 000 M J39 999.. „
HO.OOOto H9999 	
550.000 10 J59 999 	 „.
WO 000 to 179 999
i«0 000 to 199 999
S100000 to 1U9999
JI50000 to JI99999
JJOOOOOormn 	
*•*»
coKnuaioo
u^^ wn-i m ,iu,,m U»H •*• 	
ItaSMSA
1 M3 71)
5 785
1 037 930
527 154
53.2
507 784
12 713
335
4 146
3 954
4&3 504
403 409
42 577
760
6 797
15 580
47 179
4 555
3 OM
SA2 000
23 474
10 248
S191
4 904
2 678
11 759
3 273
U 173
3 144
10 873
1 006
i (a? no
24 790
50 279
122 116
170 323
205 310
196 057
124 437
144 618
5.2
5.3
6.4
4.0
no wo
260 641
296 380
159 572
134 7B4
76 459
35 194
15 670
7 960
2.29
2.91
1.79
m MO
964 073
20 386
6 201
411 901
1 825
2 913
5 868
II 375
15 227
23 052
27 040
70 407
70 220
96 989
41 431
32 611
1 461
4 4«4
$54 000,
4S4 lit
J223
Squantum
Inn
4174
1 OH
5
1 091
905
83.9
902
9
174
171
2
11
1
J57 500
2
«75
1
5
3
«
2
1 Wl
4
15
80
116
210
342
192
112
5.8
SB
6.0
34
1 OT»
231
330
IS3
155
104
44
17
II
2.43
2.62
1.50
1 07*
1 046
29
4
Ol
2
3
12
28
32
56
76
217
199
144
34
19
6
1
W9 500
in
j 	 J25J
Houghs Neck
Inn
4178
1 317
52
3 475
2 002
59.5
1 ?89
7
10
1 361
1 338
5
6
9
8
111
16
10
128 800
47
14
J1S8
10
II
28
2
M
8
17
1
1 471
5
70
457
789
849
734
344
183
5.0
5.0
5.7
3.9
1 141
879
978
515
444
293
169
96
39
2.37
2.61
2.05
I Ul
3 202
149
12
i rn
26
33
90
161
226
293
282
414
185
90
9
3
134 100
1 150
J109
j
Point Shirley
Tnxl
1805
1 Ut
48
1 834
784
44 4
780
1
. 4
2
986
976
4
4
?
41
1
$21 300
35
27
$217
6
13
2
14
i
18
1 O4
24
73
262
347
404
380
199
145
50
5
60
4 3
1 771
547
570
276
148
104
58
20
7
2.04
2.52
1.74
1 7TJ
1 745
25
2
477
3
7
24
37
50
44
123
84
71
12
2
$43 800
tu
$233
      'l>duda "Otfw A*an mi Poaft liJonaW
CENSUS TRACTS

-------
Table  H-7    Structural,  Equipment,  and   Household  Characteristics   of   Housing  Units:     1980
                                               [Data or, eshrrwle, baud a. a sampe* v» htraductw  for mean^ o( r^nboK. s» IrHnxtotian  far defir.r«)m at lernn. s» ;
Census  Tracts
                        rt	„	 I «» '39

SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS

Complete kitchen (oolites			 1 025 559
1 como*«t« bottvpom plus hart barhd)	   162 715
2 a more complete bathrooms	   148 051
*. cond,no-~o	   "2 '84
  Carrol system	    67 '55
Source or water, public system or pnvatt company	,.  I 023 /a I
Stwgt disposal, PuolK sr«tr	   87° 72J

UNITS IN STRUCTURE

 1. d.tocted or onacM	_..-——	   fSO 029
2                           „	   154 785

5^::::::;EEE:::::::::::::::::::::   '£13

^^::::::::::::~:::::::=:::::::::   'SS
MoW« home or trailer etc	     2 225

YEAR STRUCTURE BUILT

 1977 to Mor* 1980		    10 473
 1975 to 1978		    39 127
 1970 to 1974		    72 590
 1960 to 1969			   1*0 272
 1950 to 1959		—   145 863
 19*0 to 1949,	_		   103 948
 I939or eorker	—			—   525 666

 HEATING EQUIPMENT

 Steam or hot water system	   620 862
 Central worm-or furnace	   263 098
 Elecmc heat  pump	    14 869
 Other bull-" electric units	    61 801
 Other means			    76 668
 Nan.				       841

         OtcuoMKewe4a.il-		   ^0 640

 SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS
 Units with roomers or boarders	    15 077
 No tefcorim		    37 658
 Ow««-Mup»J S~»in» "rB	   5J7 141
   4 or more bedroomj	   148 345
   I axnol«te bothnxxn plus  half botMil		   140 865
   2 or mort comptetf boltinxym	   128 136
 larMr-KOipM horn) »-B			   463 519
   2 or rtwrt bedrooms	   265 302
   1 compete borhroom plus  horf borh(s)	    18 969
   2 or mor« comp(«t« borhrooms	    16419

 HOUSE HEATING HI a
 UtSryaas						   324 545
 Sorted,  tonk, or IP gas	      7 239
Oecmary	    80 493
furi oJ.  ktrosm..  ttc	_		   564 772
Other				    II 095
No fud us«d	-		       516

VEHICLES AVAILABLE
Won.			   199 209
 I	       	    411 694
 2	   284 533
3 or fnort	    95 224

YEAR HOUSEHOLDER MOVED INTO UNIT
        Ow»r-«up«d hwiin, MH	   5J7 141
 1979 to March 1980			    39 462
 1975 to 1978			      .   ..       103617
 1970iol974	    90477
 I960 to 1969	„			    132 086
 1959 or «xt«r	    171 499

         ttm-ocojfiM hwuq «™n		   463 519
 1979 to March 1980	    145 297
 1975tol978	    168 813
 I970to 1974	   	   .    68 655
 1969oreort*r					    80 754

 CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSING  UNITS WITH
  HOUSEHOLDER OR SPOUSE 65  YEARS AND OVER
 Oeni9iW honin,  nrti	    533 4J1
   Owner -occupied housing ur»rs	    117 744
   Lodunq complete o*umoinq for exck/srve uw	      2 944
   Ho v*ri«:l« ovoJoW*	    87 425
   No telephone			      6 250

 INCOME IN 1979 BELOW POVERTY LEVU
 0»*»«r-ocojpi«j hovtfciq vOrl	     23  109
        Percent be^ow poverty levrl	
   Complete  otumo.no. tor exduuv* u«	    -21 806
     1 01 or more persons per foom	       70-
   Loduno complete olumbmq tor eidwve us«	        30;
      t 01 or more persons p« room	          II
  **«t«r-»coip«W hewmq Mm 	    77 421
        fVcent below poverty level	      16
   Complete ptumowwj tor excjusrvt us<	    75 04J
      1 01 or rrvxe pefsora per room	     4 535
   bxkmq compete p
-------
 Toble  H-8.    Financial  Characteristics   of  Housing   Units:    1980
                                               (Dora an tlt-natti ba_td an o _oenp.t; M* Inmjducr-w  For meorang of lymborj.  wrt lntroductK>rt.  Far d>rir-tiom o* terrm  »*
                                                                                                                                                             A and 8 1
 Census  Tracts
                               .                 4O9 071

 MORTGAGE STATUS AND SEUCTID MONTHLY OWMBt
  cosn

 Wlrti o mortT-ot		   284 942
   leu rhon SIM	-		        105
   JIOOtoS199		-	—		      I "5
   J200IOS299	—			--    51 818
   UCO to 1399		    4« "5
   WCCtoJ599	-	   120 743
   1400 or mor.					    71 644
   Mtfen	-	-	      V«>9

 Not mortoootd	-	   >2«  '29
   Leu than JIOO			       959
   JlOOtoSW		    2' 522
   S200ormor«	-	--		   101 648
   Meton		-	-		      J262

 HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN 1979 IT SELECTED MONTHLY
  OWNER COSTS AS PERCENTAGE OF INCOME

 Leu than 110.000	-	-		    50  162
   leu rtwn 15 percent	        1VI
   15 10 24 perttnt	      I 849
   35 10 29 percent			      3 019
   30 percent or mort	    42 621
   Not ampMid		_	      2 462
   Median		      50+

 JIO.OOO to JI9.999			    82  100
   Le-l than 15 percent	      5 376
   15 lo 24 pram	—		    28 084
   25to29perc.nl			    14 890
   30 percent or mort	    33 750
   Not computed	.—	.-.	
   Med-xi		       27.5

 520.000 or  mort			   276 809
   Itu than 15 patent	   122  161
   15 to 24  percent		   110  117
   25 to 29  percent _._				    23 712
   30 percent or mort		    20 812
   Not computed	
   Me-ai		       16.2


        SrtdM r.-*--nrii>.ii h»n--i .-en	   440151

 GROSS RENT

 ttnH»nl80				    23 047
 MOWJ99		    12 868
 S100toJU9       	   ...              24 714
 J150toil99			             42 724
 J200 » $249				    70 089
 S250 to J299		    82 343
 UOO loW49		    76 488
 U50WS399					    48 853
 {400 or mart			    69 362
 No anri rent	    	       9 643
 «€*»						      S282

 Om-tonJy houM. attached or ottodwd	    33 711
  Mrton aroji itnl			      J345

 HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN 1979 BY GROSS RENT AS
  PERCENTAGE OF  INCOME

 Ull than $10 000				   188 533
  Ira Itan  I5ptrun(			      4 471
  15 lo 19 perctnt		      9 043
  20 to 24 ptrcntt	„	    18  102
  25 to 29 perctrrt	    14 616
  30 to 34 ptfctnt			    13 222
  35 pram or mort			  _   116505
  Not computed				    12 574
  M«onn				       44 8

 J10000toS19.999...		   153 744
  Lru than  15 ptrcrm		             13 341
  15 lo I9ptrum	   _     26570
  ?OloJ4DKctnt			__		    38 225
  25 lo 79 percent	    30 454
  30 PO 34 orrcent		  '  19 363
  35 percent or mort	    22 488
  Not computed				      3  103
  M**on	_		       24 4

J20 000 or more		   117 874
  Itu man  15 percent 	„	    52  488
  15 ro  19 percent	    37  223
  20 to 24 percent    					    14996
  25 to 29 percent		      5  739
  30 lo 34 percent		      I  769
  35 percent or more ....	„	.	        488
  Not computed       —		      2  "1
  Medun			___       156
                                                 Tht SMSA
 524
  57
 130
 237-
 102
 305

  20
 285
J272
  97



  97

50 +

 196

  67
  59
  70

27 6

 538
 200
 261
  30
  47
   6
  14
  47
  28
  40
  17
  16
  13
1265

  30
S217
  30
   a
  22

50 +

  89
  12
  27
  26

  13
   7
   4
 20.7

  62
  21
  17
   5
  10
   9
 16.6
                                                                                                      Hougli5_Neck
                                                           Point   Shirley
                                                                                                             Trod
                                                                                                             4178
1  113

   25
  216
  403
  437
   32
 U82

  709
   20
  333
  356
 1200
  461

   36
   47
  345
   33
  48  1

  383
   42
   190
   63
  23.1

   978
   518
   393
    57
    10
                                    1 M»
   249
   159
   106
   175
   196
   198
   156
    71
    28

  $194

   142
  $252
    823
     -6
     97
    166
    131
     36
    326
     21
    28.5

    332
     -3
     19
    112
    115
     17
     15
     II
    24 -

     194
     100
     69
     25
                                                                                   Iron
                                                                                   1805
 341

  16
  39
 117
 145
  24
5399

 142

  26
 116
.238
  69
   5
 153
  12
  40
  19
  82

 3'l.i

 256
 155
  65
  31
   5

 13" 7
   6
  120
  178
  285
  159
  122
   95
   21
 5282

   80
 J305
                                                                                     310
   II
   15
   38
  224
   22
 50+

  427
   118
   93
   59
   24
   104
    5
    7
    1
CENSUS  TRACTS

-------
12.2 Traffic and
        Access

-------
                TABLE OF CONTENTS

             12.2 TRAFFIC AND ACCESS
12.2.1           Traffic and Transportation Baseline

12.2.1.1         Summary
12.2.1.2         Nut Island
12.2.1.3         Long Island
12.2.1.4         Deer Island
12.2.2          Generic Overview

12.2.2.1         Alternative Transportation Modes for
                Construction Materials and Workers
12.2.3          Construction Traffic Impacts By Site

12.2.3.1         Deer Island Construction Traffic Impacts
12.2.3.2         Long Island Construction Traffic Impacts
12.2.3.3         Nut Island Construction Traffic Impacts
12.2.4           Operations Traffic Impacts

-------
          BOSTON HARBOR WASTEWATER FACILITIES SITING STUDIES

                  TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION BASELINE

1.0  Summary

This report  describes  the existing  petterns  of access for  the  three
major alternative s^'tes  under  consideration  for treatment of wast.ewa-
ter from the  Boston  area.   Sites  at Deer Island, Long  Island  and Nut
Island  are  considered.    Present  traffic  volumes  are  compared  to
roadway capacity  as  determined from  reference  sources.  Each of the
roadways is briefly described and apparent design "defects  noted.

The analysis  indicates  that  most of the  roadways providing  access to
the sites  carry traffic volumes  which  are  presently  less  than  their
theoretical  capacities.   Nonetheless,  unsigralized  intersections and
existing roadway limitations including sharp curves, steep grades, and
poor sight distances limit  the amount  of traffic which can  safely be
carried through the neighborhoods studied.

Information  contained  in this  report  will  be  used  as the  basis for
projections of  future  conditions  and comparison of  the transportation
impacts of wastewater  treatment  facility  siting  options  for  Boston
Harbor.

2.0  Nut Island

Nut Island is located on the northern tip of the Houghs Neck peninsula
in  the City of Quincy.   In 1893,  the original  Island was  enlarged and
connected   to  Great  Hill  on  Houghs  Neck  to accommodate an  MDC  sewage
pumping station and outfall.

Access to  the Nut Island  facility   is via  Sea  Street  from  Route 3A,
also known as  the Southern  Artery.   The Sea Street  -  Southern  Artery
intersection  can  be  reached  via Route  3A  (Hancock Street) or  over
local  Quincy streets  (see Figure 1).

-------
       Tida.l  Flat
Rock  lsiqn-d
    Cove

-------
Sea Street is  a  four lane roadway.  An  eastbound  left turn  lane  has
been added at Quincy Shore Drive.   Sea  Street continues as a four lane
roadway through the  Adams  Shore  area  to Houghs Neck.   At  Houghs Neck
it reduces to a 24  foot,  two  lane  roadway.

All traffic  to  and from  Nut  Island  must  use  Sea  Street.   At  its
westerly end, Sea Street  is a high volume,  high capacity highway.  One
measure of the volume of  traffic  on a  roadway  is expressed as average
daily  traffic  (ADT).   This refers to  the  average  number  of  vehicles
using  the road  during  a  24-hour  period.   It  is  a  measure  of traffic
volume by which  all roadway sections  can  be uniformly described.   A
volume measure derived from  ADT,  Design Hour Volume  (DHV),  refers  to
the number  of  vehicles  using  the  whole  road  during  the hour  when
traffic volume  is   at  peak conditions,  commonly  called  "rush  hour".
The westerly  end of Sea Street  had a  1983 ADT of  36,850 vehicles  and a
two-way DHV  of  2950  vehicles  per  hour.   East  of  the Quincy  Shore
intersection, the  Sea  Street  1983  ADT was  20,400  vehicles.   At  the
Rockland Street-Winthrop  Street intersection with Sea  Street  the 1983
ADT was 7,350 vehicles.

The following  table  presents  the  1983  ADT  volumes   and  peak  hour
volumes (Design Hour Volumes) for  locations at  which  the Massachusetts
Department of Public Works (MDPW)  has  traffic count  records.

-------
Lanes
4
4
ADT
24,150
34,300
Two -Way*
DHV
1,950
2,750
One-Wav
DHV "
1,365
1,925
One-Way
Capacity*
2,800
2,800
                                     TABLE I
              TRAFFIC  COUNT  RECORDS  IN  THE VICINITY OF NUT ISLAND*
     Location
Quincy Shore Drive
Sea St.,  west of
 Quincy Shore Drive
Sea St.,  east of         4        20,400        1,650        1,115       2,800
 Quincy Shore Drive
Sea St.,  east of         2         7,350          600          -**    ***1,600
 Rockland St. -
 Winthrop St.
Southern  Artery         4        32,700        2,600        1,820       2,800
 south at Sea St.
Sea St.  at Southern     4+       36,850        2,950        2,065       2,800
 Artery
*  Source:  Highway Capacity Manual ,  1965.
** Use Two-Way DHV figure for comparison
***Two-Way Capacity
     The capacity and Level of Service for the major  roadways  in the study
     area was determined from capacity tables  in  the Highway Capacity Manu-
     aj_  (Highway  Research  Board,  Special  Report  #87,  Washington,  D.C.,
     1965).   It has been established  that  a  "D"  Level of  Service provides
     acceptable operating conditions  for  an existing roadway facility.  Un-
     der this classification level  traffic  is  considered  to experience some
     slight  delays  and  speed reductions.  The  Highway  Capacity  Manual indi-
     cates  that a four  lane roadway at a "D" Level  of  Service  can accommo-
     date 2800 vehicles  per  hour  on  two lanes in one  direction.  Assuming
     that 70% of the design hour volume (DHV) occurs in  the  direction  of
     peak flow, the current  one-way  peak hour flow on Sea Street  west  of
     Quincy   Shore  Drive  for example,  would  be  1,925  vehicles  (70%  of
     2,750).   Since two  lanes in  one direction can accommodate  2800 vehi-
     cles,  the existing traffic  can be accommodated on the existing 4-lane
     roadway  system.

-------
According to  the  Highway  Capacity Manual, the  two  lane,  two-way por-
tion of Sea Street has a capacity of 1600 vehicles for both directions
of travel.  The existing DHV through this  section of the  access route
is 600  vehicles  per hour.  This  indicates there is  more  than suffi-
cient capacity on Sea Street  for existing traffic.  The  above table
indicates that all  of the major  local  access  roads  have  excess peek
hour capacity to  accommodate present traffic flows.

From Sea  Street,  Sea  Avenue  provides access  to  Nut  Island over Great
Hill.  The Avenue ascends and descends  the hill at a steep grade.  Ad-
jacent land is densely developed  for residential  use, cars are parked
on the street, and the pavement width is 22 feet.

The  capacity  of   Sea  Avenue  is  difficult to  measure because  of  its
sharp curve  and  steep grade.   It is a  street designed  primarily  to
serve the abutting  residences.   Because of its  sharp  curve  and steep
grade, Sea Avenue  should  be  considered  unsafe  for  large  traffic vol-
umes and especially heavy trucks.  Photographs of  these roads follow.

3.0  Long Island

Long Island is located  in Boston  Harbor and  is  connected  to Moon  Is-
land and Quincy by the Long Island Bridge.  Vehicular access is avail-
able only  by  traveling  through Quincy  to the  Squantum area  and Moon
Island.   Moon Island is  connected to Squantum by a narrow causeway.

Squantum  is a  peninsula  connected to North Quincy  area by a causeway
across a  large marsh.  The causeway, East  Squantum  Street, intersects
with Quincy Shore Drive.   Both Quincy  Shore  Drive  and  East Squantum
Street connect with Route 3A, (Hancock  Street) in the City of Quincy.

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  is a four lane MDC Park-
way  prohibited to  trucks.   East  Squantum  Street,  between  Hancock
Street and  Quincy  Shore   Drive,  is a  heavily  used, narrow  roadway

-------
Intersection of Sea Street, Sea Avenue and Island Avenue. Large open paved area promotes
unsafe traffic operations,
View north  along  Island Avenue  showing former Great Hill  Elementary School, recently
demolished.

-------
 View of south side of Sea Avenue. Note parked cars, curve and grade of street.
View of Island Avenue intersection with Sea Street.

-------
View of north end of Island Avenue from entrance of Nut Island plant.
View of the north side of Sea Avenue. Note the steep hill and resulting poor site distance.

-------
View of Nut Island treatment plant.
View of entrance to Nut Island, Quincy Bay and Boston skyline.

-------
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 directly to the Moon  Is-
land Causeway and  Long Island  Bridge (see Figure 2).

Because of  the restriction on  truck traffic on Quincy Shore Drive,  the
only truck  route to Long Island  is  East  Squantum Street.  The  inter-
sections  of East Squantum Street  with  Hancock Street and Quincy Shore
Drive  are both signalized.  Additionally, East Squantum Street  has  two
intersections along  its  H  mile  length with  flashing  signals and  pe-
destrian  actuated  crossing  lights.   The  width of East Squantum Street
varies but  is generally  2 lanes.   Due  to  illegal  parking near two  in-
tersections, there is  not always  a full  lane available in each direc-
tion.  There are two very sharp curves in that segment of road  between
Hancock Street and Quincy Shore Drive.

The  causeway segment  of  East  Squantum  Street is  entirely different in
character from the section discussed above.   Due to the lack of devel-
opment on the  causeway,  this  section of East Squantum  Street is free
flowing with one lane  in each  direction.

East Squantum Street  changes  to Dorchester Street  in  Squantum.  Dor-
chester Street  fronts  on Dorchester Bay and  has  residential  develop-
ment on  only the  southeast  side of  the  street.   Dorchester  Street
curves very sharply  around  a   steep grade near Squaw Rock.   The sharp
turn,  narrow street  width  and steep grade make  the area particularly
hazardous.

Table  II  presents  Average  Daily Traffic  (ADT) and  Design Hour  Volume
(DHV)  figures  derived from Massachusetts  Department of  Public Works
(MDPW)  traffic count  records   updated  to  1983.   Review of  the  hourly
count records revealed that the DHV  is approximately 8 percent  of the
ADT.   This relationship was  utilized to develop the DHV figures  shown.
                                 10

-------
                                                includes
                                                                     .
                                                         iciiy j-kraff f<
                                                 Tidal

                                                 ^'^
                                        Access Control Gate
                                                               \OGK\
                                                              &> on one.
 I^^T *^ w ^» / ( ' v  *   x \*T
Z*c\^\W&^, »j>i
                                                     Prve
                                           -TRACKS ALLOWED)
          4"'«U 4\^'li"ii* • , ''.^" ,1 '^C/1
         ^f^^^'^^f'll

-------
                                    TABLE II
            UPDATED TRAFFIC VOLUME ESTIMATES IN LONG ISLAND VICINITY*
                                 1983       Two-Way       One-Way    One-Way
     Location         Lanes       APT         DHV*          DHV     Capacity *
Quincy Shore Drive      4        24,350       1,950        1,365     2,800(1 Way)
 west of East
 Squantum St.
Quincy Shore Dr.        4        25,300       2,000        1,400     2,800(1 Way)
 east of East
 Squantum St.
E. Squantum St.         2        10,450         850          -**     1,600(2 Way)
 north of
 Quincy Shore Dr.
E. Squantum St.         2         5,200         400          -**     1,600(2 Way)
 south of
 Quincy Shore Dr.
E. Squantum St. north   2         8,300         650          -**     1,600(2 Way)
 of Hancock St.
Hancock St. (3A) east   4        21,650       1,750        1,225     2,800(1 Way)
 of E. Squantum St.
*  Source:  Massachusetts Department of Public Works;and Highway Capacity Manual,1965.
** Use Two-Way DHV Figures for Comparison

     With  a  two lane,  two-way  capacity of  1600  vehicles for  both direc-
     tions,  it  can be  seen  that  the  two  lane  facilities can  accommodate
     more  traffic.   Assuming  a   70%/30%  directional   split  of  existing
     traffic on the 4  lane roadways, the capacity volume  of  2800 vehicles
     for one  direction  of a four  lane facility is more  than  adequate for
     the existing demands. Photographs of the local access roads  follow.

     4.0  Deer Island

     Deer  Island  is  located at southern tip of  the  Point Shirley.   Deer
     Island ceased to  be  an actual  island when Shirley Gut was  filled in
     1936,   connecting  Deer  Island  with Point Shirley  and   the  Town  of
     Winthrop.  Although   the  only  land access  is  through   the  Town  of
                                      12

-------
View of the sharp curve where Dorchester Street ends and the roadway to the Moon Island
causeway  begins.  This area represents a hazardous  area, particularly for  heavy  trucks.
View of the Gatehouse and access control point to Moon Island and Long Island.

-------
     Winthrop,  Deer Island is within  the corporate limits  of the City  of
     Boston.

     Access  to  Winthrop  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.   The  other route
     is  through Revere via  Winthrop  Shore Drive.  Both roadways  are part  of
     Route 145  (see Figure  3).

     The Town  of Winthrop  has  designated  a  truck route  through the  Town
     providing  a  relatively direct  route  to Deer  Island.   Both the  truck
     route and  Route  145 are shown in  Figure  3.  The truck route utilizes a
     segment of Veterans  Parkway.   This route  has minimal  impact  on the
     community.   It  is  also  accessible   from  Revere  Beach  Parkway via
     Winthrop  Avenue and a short  section of Winthrop  Parkway where  truck
     traffic is not prohibited.

     Traffic counts were taken  in  Winthrop to  develop  a  baseline traffic
     condition  for  use  in  evaluating  impacts.   Twelve (12)  hour turning
     movement and classification counts  were  taken  on  June  13 end 14,  1984
     at  the  Shirley Street  and  Veterans Road intersections  with  Washington
     Street.   In  addition, mechanical  recorder  counts  were taken between
     June 11 and June 15, 1984 on Shirley Street south of Revere  Street and
     on  Shirley  Street  between  Pontos  Street  and   Petrel  Street.   The
     Average Daily  Traffic  (ADT)  for  1984  and the  peak  hour (Design  Hour)
     volumes developed from the counts are as follows:
                                    TABLE III
               UPDATED TRAFFIC  ESTIMATES IN VICINITY OF DEER ISLAND
                                                                     2-Way
                 Location                   1984 ADT   % Trucks   1984 DHV   %_Tmks

Washington St.                                7,700      5%         625        3J1
Veterans Rd.                                   2,700      6%         225        32
Shirley St.   (south of Washington St.)         6,700      6%         525        7%
Shirley St.   (north of Washington St.)         1,900      5%         150        7%
Shirley St.   (between Revere &  Cross Sts.)     4,200      6%         350        3%
Shirley St.  (between Pontos &  Petrel  Sts.)    4,700      5%         375        3%
                                      14

-------
                                                Accese?
                                                             THRO
       OWINTHROP
    W I N T H R/O P
                                                                  ,i,Y  n63G •>*^^ *^  *^
                                                                  ty (•narrpw
                                                                      •Curving
RATIONAL AIRPORT
                                            Prison Control Gate
                                            (Public Access Restricted)
  BOSTON  HARBOR
  FACILITIES  SITING
     S  D  E  I  S
 LEGEND

 Route 145                     FIGURE

> Designated Access Route          MAP OF  WINTHROP
 Existing Truck Route to Deer Island
                                                                   C. E.Maguire, Inc.

-------
The two way  capacity  of  these two lane urban streets  is approximately
1600  vehicles  per hour  total for  both  directions.   While  the  roads
have  excess  capacity,  it  is  usually the  intersections that  limits  the
amount of traffic that can use them.

At  these  unsignalized intersections, the  left  turn out of  northbound
Shirley Street  into westbound Washington  Street and the left turn  out
of  Veterans  Road  into  eastbound Washington  Street are  heavy.  Both
appear  to be  used to  a  level   where  additional  traffic  cannot  be
accommodated efficiently.  Any significant increase in these movements
will  require that the intersections be signalized.

Analysis  of  these  intersections,   assuming  traffic  signal  control
revealed that an additional 700 vehicles  can be absorbed.

A  visual   inspection  of  the  truck  route  through  Winthrop  revealed
several deficiencies.   The  route  is poorly  marked and therefore  is
difficult to follow.   Part of the route  is directed  through residen-
tial  areas of Winthrop over  streets  that  are  narrow and not conducive
to  heavy  trucking.   However, there  appears  to  be  no  better overland
alternatives  available.  Photographs  of  these  conditions on  local  roads
f o n ow.
                                 16

-------
View northwest along causeway that connects Winthrop with Deer Island.
 View along Shirley Street in Point Shirley.

-------
 View north along Shirley Street in Point Shirley.
View north along Shirley Street in Point Shirley.

-------
12.2.2  Overview

12.2.2.1  Alternative Transportation Modes for Construction Materials
          and Workers

     The incidence of potential traffic impacts along routes leading to
the proposed wastewater treatment plant sites is based on the volume and
duration of construction truck, bus and/or auto traffic compared to
existing roadway capacity, volume and surrounding uses.  Another
potential traffic impact may result in the affected neighborhoods closest
to the work sites as all are predominantly residential areas with narrow
streets, closely abutting homes, and roadways not designed to accommodate
heavy trucking.   Land uses further from the proposed treatment plant
sites along the  remainder of the access routes are mixed commercial and
residential, and these roadway segments can better accommodate con-
struction traffic.  Current traffic on these routes is of a low volume,
predominantly automobile, and well below the capacities which the local
roads can adequately carry.  The description of the areas, including
their existing land use, traffic patterns, and access is contained in the
first part of this section.

     Without mitigation, the projected levels of construction truck and
worker auto traffic during four to nine years of construction (at the
respective sites) would have major adverse impacts on area residents as
well as upon the usage, access and condition of local roads.  Because of
the unacceptable level of impacts associated with such truck and auto
use, alternate methods to transport workers and materials during the
construction period will be implemented to the maximum extent feasible.

     Table 12.2-1, below, shows the projected volumes and duration of
trucking and auto traffic during construction of a consolidated secondary
treatment facility (the largest size alternative proposed) if delivery of
all materials relied solely on trucks and workers commuted by auto.  This
table represents the maximum truck volumes which could be expected
                                12.2.2-1

-------
                               TABLE 12.2-1

              ESTIMATED "ALL-TRUCKING" AND AUTO TRANSPORT FOR
            CONSTRUCTION OF A 500 MGD SECONDARY TREATMENT PLANT
  Construction Activity
  	and Sequence	

 Construction Excavation
  Equipment Delivery

 Excavation
             2
 Concrete Mix
 Reinforcing Steel

 Materials  for Job

 Personnel  Autos/Trucks'
 Supervisory & Inspection
 Personnel
    Estimated
No. of Trucks/Autos
	per day	
        20 (Peak)

       490 (Peak)

   20 (Avg.)
   75 (Peak)

         1 (Avg.)

        25 (Avg.)

   1,300 (Peak)
     630 (Avg.)


   10-20 (Avg.)
 Estimated
 Duration
of Activity


   5 days

   2 yrs.

   5 yrs.
   1 yr.

   5 yrs.

   6 yrs.

   6-12 mos.
   7 yrs.


   7 yrs.
  Includes  construction of inter-island tunnels.  These  estimates  are
 averages based on the total volume of a material, and on  estimates made
 in  the MDC Site Options Study  (1982).
 2
 The wide  range in the number  of trucks is due to showing the average and
 peak conditions of concrete pouring.  The peak would be experienced for a
 limited duration over the course of construction (corresponding to the
 work force peak).
 3
 The peak work force is shown  to reflect a possible "worst case"  peak
 impact occurring for a 6-12 month period (as per Metcalf  & Eddy,  Inc. MDC
 Site Options Study,  Vol.  II, 1982).  The average work force level would
 be more typical over the duration of construction. The number of  autos
would vary depending upon the  degree of pooling done; it  can be assumed
 that most workers would drive  to the job alone.
4
 Such activity is of a minimal level and would involve light trucks and
autos.
Source:   CE Maguire, Inc.
                                12.2.2-2

-------
since it is based on construction of a consolidated 500 MGD primary and
secondary treatment facility at one site.

     As can be seen from the traffic volumes shown in this table, peak
traffic could easily exceed 1,000 autos and 500 heavy trucks per day
during construction.  Given existing daily traffic volumes in the
affected neighborhoods as low as 2,000 to 7,000 vehicles per day (see
Section 12.2.1),  peak construction traffic relying solely on overland
vehicle access would cause significant and unacceptable adverse impacts
on the communities around a site.  Such impacts would include wear and
tear of heavy vehicles passing over local roads not designed to
accommodate such traffic, introduction of traffic congestion particularly
during peak commuting times, and major disruption from noise and fumes
experienced by residents and businesses along these access routes.   As
shown in the baseline description of existing local roadway conditions
(Section 12.2.1 previously), safety concerns and existing roadway
limitations in the adjacent communities and neighborhoods closest to the
three proposed sites would severely constrain such volumes of con-
struction traffic.

     Siting alternatives involving smaller-scale treatment facilities
would require somewhat fewer auto and truck trips to a site.  However,
this reduction in total traffic volumes,  based on reduced materials and
workforce numbers, would result in shorter duration of construction
activity, but would reduce the projected peak daily traffic volumes only
to a limited degree.

     Based upon these projections of peak traffic impacts and the
existing conditions of local roadways closest to the sites, it was
concluded by EPA and the Commonwealth that an all-trucking method of
construction transport should be avoided to the maximum extent feasible.
Moreover, previous comments from residents of the affected communities,
State agencies, and the MDC indicated that trucking should be minimized
in favor of other available transportation methods.
                                12.2.2-3

-------
     Similarly, it was found that since individual  auto  (or  light truck)
 travel by construction workers would be a  further potential  disruption to
 local conditions, due to the large numbers of workers  involved,  parti-
 cularly during peak work periods, direct commuting  by  workers  to con-
 struction sites should be avoided to the maximum extent  feasible.

     The principal transportation alternatives to direct trucking of
 materials and commuting to the site by workers are  barging of  construc-
 tion materials and busing of construction personnel.   These  are  discussed
 below.

 a.   Barging

     Barging of construction materials is an available and feasible
 method of transport, particularly in the case of a  large-scale project
 such as the MDC harbor treatment facilities.  Barging would  involve the
 use of tug boats and barges to convey most construction  materials  from a
 barge terminal (or terminals) to a pier facility at the  construction
 sites.  Materials handling equipment, such as cranes and forklifts, would
 be employed at the piers to move materials from truck  trailers to barges
 (and vice versa).  A roll-on, roll-off (RO/RO) operation, whereby
 trailers are loaded and unloaded directly to the barges,  may also be
 employed.  Whatever the specific materials handling methods employed,
 barging (in combination with other techniques for materials storage and
 staging as discussed in Section 5.3 of Volume 1) is an effective alter-
 native that would pose no significant impact on the communities  adjacent
 to the proposed sites and could be accommodated at  existing waterfront
 industrial terminal/pier locations or a new terminal facility, whichever
proves most cost-effective and environmentally acceptable.  The  specific
 impacts of such added facilities at prospective locations will be
addressed during final facility design.

     Barging of construction materials is estimated to add between $20
million and $40 million (current dollars) to the cost of the project.
This  cost is based on the additional equipment (piers, barges, tugs, and
handling equipment) and labor necessary to conduct  full-scale barging

                                12.2.2-4

-------
operations in Boston Harbor at one or more treatment plant sites.  Barges
typically can hold 2,000 to 3,000 cubic yards of material compared with
heavy trucks that have a 25 to 30 cubic yard capacity.  One barge trip
can, therefore, replace 80 to 120 truck deliveries.  A minimum barging
operation would involve one tug boat and two to four barges operating
between one or more construction sites on a daily basis.  This level of
barging would add an insignificant number of commercial boat trips to
existing levels of harbor boat traffic, and would pose no impact to
commercial or recreational boating traffic (as per personal communication
with U.S. Coast Guard).

     An all-barging solution, with no trucking whatsoever, would be
impractical, however, and not likely to be undertaken by a contractor.
This is due to several factors.   Chief among these are accepted con-
struction practices which indicate that trucking of excavation equipment
would be the first major on-site construction activity undertaken.
Delivery of heavy equipment and machinery on-site is, therefore, needed
at the start of a job.  Table 12.2-1 indicates a maximum of 20 truckloads
over a one-week time span that would be needed to bring this equipment
on-site.  If this equipment were to be barged to the site, all on-site
piers and a central staging/terminal area would have to be obtained and
constructed.  Tugs and barges would have to be purchased, and handling
equipment would be required to be in place before the first equipment
deliveries to a site could be made and excavation work begun.   This would
delay the start of site work, adding time and costs to the project.
Since the duration and volume of trucking for this initial on-site
activity are relatively modest and manageable (with traffic controls), it
is recommended that trucking be used to carry out this minimal start-up
activity.  At the end of this equipment's use on the job (approximately
one week), it could either be trucked or barged off-site.  An additional
factor involves the need for some materials,  due to their size,
fragility, or unscheduled delivery requirements, to be delivered by
truck.

     Based on such circumstances, a maximum commitment to barging would
still result in minimal truck volumes, ranging from approximately 4 to 8

                                12.2.2-5

-------
 trucks per  day  on average,  for the  duration  of  construction.   Because an
 initial  commitment to barging would allow a  great  deal  of flexibility in
 scheduling  of barge trips,  any increased peak demand  for  materials
 delivery could  be accommodated by barging without  need  to significantly
 alter the minimal additional trucking required.
 b.
      Transportation  of  construction workers by bus  is  the  most  reasonable
 alternative  to  individual worker auto travel.  Another alternative  is  to
 provide  ferry service for construction workers, however, the potential
 limitations  of  such  service, involving weather and  higher  costs  of  opera-
 tions, make  this  transport mode less feasible than  busing.  Ferry service
 will, nonetheless, be considered to the maximum extent feasible.

      Under a shuttle busing method, workers would assemble at a  large
 parking  area such as Orient Heights MBTA Station, Wonderland, or Logan
 Airport  for  Deer  Island, and the UMass-Boston Campus,  Naval Air  Station
 site  or  the  Expo  Center for Nut Island or Long Island.  From there,
 workers  would be  taken by shuttle buses to the work site.  Each bus could
 hold  about 50 workers and departures may be staggered  to lessen any
 effects  on local  traffic.  The addition of buses on local  roads is not
 expected to  result in significant congestion (see Section  12.2.3).

     Busing may require that construction workers be paid  for their time
 on the buses.  This would be in addition to the costs  of bus operations
 for a four to nine-year period.  Buses would either be  leased or bought
 by the Contractor for the duration of construction.  They may be kept on
 site or  can leave and return as needed.   Preliminary cost estimates for
busing of construction workers range from $10 million  to $20 million
 (current dollars).

     A recommendation to bus construction workers is also supported by an
analysis of available parking areas on or near the  proposed work sites.
Additionally, discussions were held with area contractors to determine
general  construction practices and feasible methods to  accomplish such a

                                12.2.2-6

-------
transport method.  In examining the likelihood of construction workers



driving directly to the work site, two issues were examined.  One was the



availability of sufficient area on-site to accommodate parking for



construction personnel.  Another was the likelihood and effects of



construction workers parking along local residential streets within



walking distance of the work site.







     With regard to on-site parking, between 4 acres Coverage work force



levels) and 9 acres (.peak work force levels) would be needed for con-



struction of secondary treatment facilities; primary facilities would



require between 4 and 5 acres.   Given the existing site constraints at



all sites, a contractor would not be expected to provide oil-site parking



for construction workers.  These involve adjacent on-site land uses or



environmentally sensitive areas, particularly under secondary7 treatment



alternatives, plus the likely premium to be placed on available on-site



open space for necessary storage and laydown area.  Under a primary



treatment option on Deer Island or Long Island, available open area may



be found on-site; however, consideration of the impacts of construction.



worker traffic on local neighborhoods would make worker commuting



undesirable.  At Nut Island, limited area under either primary or



headworks facilities would preclude on-site parking.








     Construction worker parking along local streets in Winthrop and



Quincy is also constrained due to the narrowness of these roadways and



their residential character.  The anticipated opposition to worker



on-street parking from local residents and public officials also limits



this option.








     At Deer Island, Point Shirley streets are between 1/2 and 1 mile



away from the site, a distance not conducive to workers parking in the



neighborhood and walking to the site.  Streets are narrow and may not



safely accommodate construction worker parking.  Attempts to use these



local streets for large scale parking may impede existing and con-



struction truck deliveries, violate local parking regulations, and could



pose access problems for local residents   A security gate at the prison



controls access to the site.

-------
     At Long  Island, local street parking  in Squantum  is  over 3 miles
 from the  site  and access to the island is  controlled at a security gate
 located before the  causeway to Moon Island.  Construction workers  would
 not conceivably park in Squantum and walk  to the  site.

     At Houghs Neck street parking on Quincy Great Hill is within  walking
 distance  of the treatment plant site.  However, workers parking on the
 narrow streets of Houghs Neck would pose access problems  for  construction
 trucks and residents alike.  Local parking regulations would  also  be
 expected  to limit worker on-street parking.

     Limitations to local on-street parking at all sites,  therefore,
 suggest busing of construction workers is  a feasible alternative.
 Additionally,  if an agreement were reached to pay workers  for  their bus
 travel time,  this would be a very strong incentive to use  shuttle  bus
 service in lieu of  driving to a site.  Other worker concerns,  such as
 transport and  security for craftsmen's tools could readily be  accom-
 modated by a  contractor on the job.  In discussions with  area  contractors
 (personal communications), it was determined that a shuttle bus method
 was feasible within the framework of a large-scale construction project
 such as this one.   Likewise, any concerns and special requirements of
 unions and workers  that might arise could be addressed.   The cost  of such
 methods would be added to the project costs for construction.

     Table 12.2-2 presents an estimated mix of barge, truck and bus
 transport that would minimize adverse construction traffic impacts along
 access routes to construction sites.   These transport figures  are
presented for facilities sized at the following treatment levels:
Consolidated secondary treatment - 500 MGD; consolidated primary
treatment - 500 MGD; split primary treatment - 350 MGD (north  system),
150 MGD (south system); and headworks.  Also note that construction of
headworks facilities assumes no barging,  since construction of the
necessary on-site piers to accommodate barges would induce significant
                                12.2.2-8

-------
                                                                            12.2-2
COMBINED
 BY
                                                                                                                TABLE  12.2-2
                                                 SIZE Op
                                                                                           P=AC1L|TV l
                PEAK
                          20 /d
                                               pvi'mar
                                                (5 day
                                            M^ne.
                                                            C 2 yrs)
                                                      primary (360
                                                                      Truck
                     1 5 /day
                                                                  Barg
                                            Primary
                                           Truck
           to/da/
           (b
                      Bara
e
Truck
                                                                                                   (5 cfeiys)
                                                                                                  (7-2 yrs)
                 Uone
                                                                                                                               A/tf/Td
                                                 Mone
                  iff
                  <
                                                 3/da
                                                                                                   Z/day
                           I/week
                     1 Jmor^n
           /mon-fK
               "
I /month
  MAT^RJAIS?
                                3/dBy
          3/dlay
  PERSONNEL4
PEAK
                                                 13-15
                                                                             3 ^u
                                                ses
                                d Buses,
                                 pef dA-U
                                (fomo.-hlyr)
                          1^-
                 AV6.
                           (S-fcyrs.)
                      None
                                                      6
                                                                  2,
                                                                                                      f yr)
1 This  summary table provides maximum totals for construction vehicles (combined)  under four major treatment scenarios.
  These totals wouldn't necessarily occur on a regular basis, but'rather are the estimated average"levels derived from
  analyzing construction volumes and delivery practices.
2 Average  design flows.
3 It is recommended that these spoils materials be retained onsite wher -ver possible.
4 Estimates based on single site peak workforce as reported in MDC, Site Options Study, Table 8-4 ".. .(p.8-12) ,  including
  varying"workforce requirements for construction  of tunnels; average workforce levels based on Site Options Study, Vol.II,,  Table 3-9.
5 For headworks alternatives it is assumed that no barging will occur due  to the
  additional construction necessary for barge piers versus trucking alone.
                                                                                                                        CE MAGUIRE, INC.

-------
construction activity and duration at a site, more so than the minimal
construction necessary to build a headworks.  It may be necessary,
however, to include barging and piers with headworks facilities if tunnel
conveyance of wastewater flows is chosen.   The analysis of traffic
impacts in the SDEIS and the conclusions presented in Section 4.0 of
Volume 1 assumes a mix of barges, trucks,  and buses as presented in this
table.

     It is not possible to project total daily vehicle trips as an
absolute figure since some trips are on a  daily basis, while others are
weekly or monthly over varying durations of construction activity (based
on the extent of a particular activity and its total material volume).
The traffic analysis is based, therefore,  on individual truck volumes
over local roads according to the separate construction stages projected
in this table.  For example, for a consolidated 500 MGD secondary plant,
impacts are analyzed separately for a maximum of 20 trucks per day (peak)
for one week's duration, followed by consideration of the impacts of a
projected eight trucks per day (average) for a period of 5 to 6 years.
Peak truck traffic during this stage of construction would not be
expected to increase greatly, since barging would accommodate peak levels
of materials delivery.  Worker transport involves a peak of about 26 to
28 buses carrying workers to and from a site each day for 6 months to  1
year, and 12 to 14 buses on average for 5  to 6 years.  Construction of
smaller-sized facilities would not significantly alter the projected
daily truck totals, due to the predominance of barging for materials
delivery.   Rather, construction of smaller facilities would reduce the
duration of an activity.  The number of daily buses would be signifi-
cantly reduced for smaller-sized facilities.
                                12.2.2-10

-------
 12.2.3  Construction Traffic  Impacts  By  Site

     Local access roads in the vicinity  of  the  three proposed  treatment
 facility sites have excess capacity to accommodate  the  projected volumes
 of  trucks and buses during construction  (as discussed in previous
 sections).  The  focus of this analysis is whether or not these roadways
 are adequate to  safely accommodate this  type  of construction traffic at
 an  acceptable level of impact, given  the residential character of the
 neighborhoods closest to the  sites, and  the narrow  streets  along portions
 of  the  access roads.

 12.2.3.1  Deer Island Construction Traffic  Impacts

     Deer Island can be reached by two routes along local access roads
 which are several miles long  from the regional  network  point of  entry.
 Either  local route requires travel along streets in either  East  Boston  or
 Revere  leading into Winthrop  and to Deer Island  (Figure 3).
 Saratoga Street  through East  Boston and Winthrop Parkway through Revere
 are the external roadways of  State Route 145 which pass  through  Winthrop
 on  Main Street,  Pleasant Street, Washington Avenue, Veterans Road, and
 Winthrop Parkway.  Although Route 145 proceeds  through Winthrop  and  into
 Revere, commercial vehicles cannot use this road in its  entirety.
 Winthrop Parkway through Revere is prohibited to commercial  vehicles,
 thus it could not be used without exception for truck access into
 Winthrop.   In addition to this numbered route,  a truck  route has been
 established from East Boston through Winthrop to Deer Island.  That  route
 follows Main Street,  Shirley Street,  Veterans Road and then  back to
 Shirley Street.   It is assumed that this route, because  of  its easier
 access and designated truck use,  will be the preferred traffic route to
 the Deer Island  site.

     All the above  named roadways are two-way, two-lane  streets except
 for a short  segment of a one-way pair in Point Shirley,  Eliot Street and
Shirley Street.   The  traffic volume data, as presented in Section 12.2.1,
revealed that the local  roadways had no capacity problems; however,
analysis of  the  turning  movement at the Veterans Road/Washington Avenue

                                 12.2-11

-------
and Shirley Street/Washington Avenue intersections revealed the left
turns are currently operating at capacity during peak traffic periods.
Since any increase in truck and bus traffic will increase the number of
vehicles making left turns,  the intersections will have to be signalized
to permit all traffic to pass through safely and efficiently.  In
addition, it will probably be necessary to prohibit parking on the
one-way roadway sections along the route to ensure that the smooth flow
of traffic is not impeded.

     As mentioned previously, the truck route through Winthrop has, in
some instances, been assigned to residential streets because there are no
other alternatives available.  The mixed residential-commercial character
of the route, and indeed throughout much of Winthrop and East Boston,
suggests that the existing traffic flows through those communities
already include significant numbers of both light and heavy trucks on a
daily basis (estimates of local truck traffic are between five and seven
percent of total peak hourly daily traffic).

     An increase in trucking and busing along the route may require
additional traffic signals and/or crossing guards to ensure safe opera-
tions during peak periods of high truck and bus activity.  The parking
practices along Shirley Street, south of Washington Avenue, should be
reviewed to ascertain whether any changes are warranted because of the
increase in wider truck and bus vehicles.

     Considering the possible traffic levels of consolidated secondary
treatment facilities, the estimated 20 trucks per day at the outset for a
5-day period followed by an average of 8 trucks per day for an active
construction period of approximately seven years will generate a slight
impact as far as added volume to existing roadway capacities is
concerned.

     In Point Shirley, because of the predominantly residential character
of the neighborhood and the narrow streets closest to the site, potential
moderate impacts may occur involving disruption to residential abutters.
Noise, diesel fumes, and the perceived recurring construction activity

                                 12.2-13

-------
will be a disruptive element in the neighborhood.  An additional  26
construction worker buses daily (peak for one year) and  12 buses  (average
for six years) would add to these annoyances.  The greatest potential for
moderate adverse impacts occurs as a result of the busing activity during
the approximately one year peak period.  Some mitigation such  as
staggered travel and traffic supervision at rush hours would minimize any
disruption that might occur.

     The potential adverse impacts at this site would involve  about  190
homes and 15 businesses which abutt the approximately 2.3-mile access
route through Point Shirley (including the segment of road leading from
Cottage Hill) to the Deer Island site.  The associated effects of  the
other alternatives would result in a lesser level of impacts from  those
noted above.

     Based on comments received expressing concern about traffic impacts
along the greater length and higher residential density  (combined  with
commercial mixed uses) of local routes through East Boston and Winthrop,
a more detailed description of local roadway effects in  that area  is
provided below.  The following descriptions are keyed to the map in
Figure   4    so that each road segment described can be followed.  It
should be pointed out that even with this site's greater associated local
roadway length and density of abuttor uses, the existing relatively
higher traffic volumes along these local roadways (compared to the other
sites) are readily accommodated given these roadways'  high traffic
capacities.   Moreover, the existing mix of autos and trucks through these
two communities is sufficiently high at present, so that residents and
visitors alike must exercise caution when either walking or driving these
routes.   Therefore,  the  addition of relatively small numbers of
construction vehicles, compared with existing traffic volumes, would not
be an appreciable change,  in terms of traffic conditions, from the
current conditions.

1.    All truck traffic approaching Winthrop for access to the Deer Island
     Sewerage Treatment Plant will have to use McClellan Highway for
     access  to Bennington Street (Route 145) and then to Saratoga  Street

                                 12.2-14

-------
                                                                                         H    R    0
            W I N T H R O P
                                                                                             Winthrop

                                                                                             Head
                                                                                             t *
 /  •  ,     LOGAN  '"

/INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
                                    LOGAN INTERNATIONAL


                                         AIRPORT
                                                                                                                pm riv.—..

-------
     in East Boston.  McClellan Highway  is a  six  lane  divided  highway
     with partial control of access and  signal  control at  the  cross
     streets left open.  The addition of twenty trucks per day to  this
     high truck volume roadway would not be an  appreciable increase  or
     create any additional adverse impact.

2.   Bennington Street (Route 145), accessible  via  ramps at the McClellan
     Highway interchange, is a four (4)  lane  divided highway with
     provisions for parking along both sides.   The  roadway,  which  passes
     mainly through a residential area of East  Boston,  contains five  (5)
     signalized intersections to Saratoga Street.   This high volume
     facility  can absorb the projected 20 trucks per day with  only
     negligible effects resulting from the additional  traffic.

3.   The  first location along this route that may pose some difficulties
     to truck  traffic is the right turn  from Bennington Street into
     Saratoga  Street and onto the bridge over the MBTA tracks.   This
     bridge is fairly narrow (approximately 36  feet) and the two lane
     westbound approach does not leave much width (approximately 14 feet)
     to accommodate the turning trucks.  It is  assumed that, although
     this turning radius appears tight, this movement  will  be  accomp-
     lished without undue difficulty since numerous trucks  presently are
     using Route 145 for access to Saratoga Street  and on  into  Winthrop
     on a daily basis (estimated to be 20 to 30 trucks hourly  during
     weekdays), and if necessary traffic supervision can be provided.

4.   Saratoga Street is a two lane roadway approximately 36  feet wide
     with parking permitted along the south side.   Adjacent  land use is
     predominantly residential until it approaches  the Belle Isle  Inlet
     where it becomes commercial and light industrial.

5.   Across  the Belle Isle Inlet Bridge Saratoga Street becomes Main
     Street.   Just across the inlet is the Pleasant Street  intersection
   ,  where Route  145 is directed south on Pleasant  Street and the Deer
     Island  Truck Route is directed east on Main Street.  This  inter-
     section is traffic signal controlled with the eastbound Main  Street

                                 12.2-15

-------
     traffic having a continuous  right  into  southbound Pleasant Street.
     If delays  to  through traffic are unacceptable  to the truck drivers,
     they may choose to  use  Route 145 as  the access route to Deer Island.
     This will  have to be discouraged by  strict enforcement.

6.    The Deer Island Truck Route  should be designated by advance signing
     on the Main Street  approach  to Pleasant Street and reiterated by
     well placed signs at the intersection.   The use of the Pleasant
     Street - Washington Avenue route  (Route 145) by trucks should be
     discouraged.   The pavement width is  approximately 32 feet with one
     lane in each  direction; parking is prohibited  along both sides of
     Pleasant Street. Such  roadway widths and distance are acceptable
     for the traffic levels  proposed.   Pleasant Street is predominantly
     residential but does have the Winthrop  Hospital on the east side
     between Tilston Road and Lincoln Street.   A very sharp curve occurs
     near Sargent  Street where the roadway becomes  an east-west facility.

7.    Washington Avenue is the extension of Pleasant Street from Winthrop
     Street to Shirley Street. Washington Avenue  services a mixed land
     use with the  south  side being predominantly residential while the
     north side becomes  commercial at its easterly  end.   Washington
     Avenue ends at the  designated Deer Island Truck Route.

8.    As stated previously, at the Main  Street   Pleasant Street inter-
     section the Deer Island Truck Route  is  directed easterly along Main
     Street.  Main Street has a curb to curb pavement width of approxi-
     mately 38 feet and  is utilized as  a  two lane  roadway with parking
     permitted along the south side for most of its length.   The Hermon
     Street intersection is  signalized, as is the Winthrop Street -
     Revere Street intersection.   This  latter intersection is on flashing
     operation although  the  installation  appears to have been designed
     for "stop and go" control.  At the Winthrop Street intersection the
     Truck Route swings  northeasterly on  Revere Street.   Signage for the
     truck route is not  evident at this location and can only be verified
     at the next major intersection, Shirley Street; this condition can
     easily be corrected. The Revere Street   Shirley Street inter-

                                 12.2-16

-------
      section  does  have  a Deer  Island  Truck  Route  sign directing trucks
      east  on  Shirley  Street.

 9.    Revere Street has  a pavement width  of  approximately 40 feet and
      functions  as  a two lane facility with  parking  permitted along both
      sides except  for one block  on  the south  side where  parking is
      prohibited.

 10.   Shirley  Street is  basically a  residential  street, 30  feet wide with
      parking  permitted  on the  south side only to  Veterans  Road.   The Deer
      Island Truck  Route is directed south on  Veterans  Road to Washington
      Avenue where  it  dog-legs  onto  Shirley  Street which  proceeds to Deer
      Island.  The  Shirley Street -  Veterans Road  intersection is
      controlled by a  signal flasher that shows  red  to  Shirley Street.
      Veterans Road is a two-way  facility with parking  prohibited on the
      east  side  to  Washington Avenue except  for  the  last  block where one
      hour  parking  is  permitted on Saturdays.  Washington Avenue,  between
      Veterans Road and  Shirley Street, is utilized  as  a  bus  loading and
      holdover area.   This is not expected to  be a problem  with the
      addition of construction vehicles as this block of  Washington  Avenue
      has been widened to accommodate  such traffic.

 11.   Shirley  Street south of Washington Avenue has  short term parking
      along both sides to Perkins Street.   South of  Perkins Street parking
      is permitted  on one side of the  designated truck  route.   The route
      through  Point Shirley neighborhood is predominantly residential and
      not generally experiencing  high  traffic volumes.  Streets are  narrow
      and parking occurs on-street.

     The addition of a maximum of 20  trucks per day for  one week followed
by about 8 trucks daily for the duration of construction (5 to 7 years)
should not create any significant problems along  any of  the local roads
identified above.   Potential traffic  impacts  in these areas would be
slight.  At Point Shirley,  the narrow roadways and  residential character
of the neighborhood would result in moderate  impacts to  abuttors from the
added volume  of  trucks and buses.  Any potential  difficulties  encountered

                                 12.2-17

-------
because of double-parked vehicles or loading/unloading operations along
the narrow sections of this truck route could be monitored and mitigated
by traffic control personnel during periods of peak construction traffic.

     Alternatives which site less than secondary treatment facilities on
Deer Island (see Table 12.2-2 in the previous part of this section) would
result in comparable, though somewhat lesser, truck volumes and con-
struction durations than those noted above.  Reduced bus volumes by about
half would also result.  Under these lesser sized alternatives at Deer
Island, roadway capacities in the community overall would not be
adversely impacted, while any disruptive effects on residents and
abutters in Point Shirley from traffic noise and odors, particularly
during peak construction periods, would be slight and of limited
duration.  Mitigations discussed above would help to alleviate the
disruptive effects of this traffic.  (See Section 4.3.3)

     Options which reduce facilities at Deer Island to a headworks/pump
station have only slight traffic impacts since the smaller scale fa-
cilities proposed would result in the least truck and bus volumes for the
shortest duration.  The awareness on the part of residents that this
alternative involves a major reduction in treatment facilities would be
expected to minimize the degree of annoyance perceived.

12.2.3.2  Long Island Construction Traffic Impacts

     Access to Long Island is via East Squantum Street over local Quincy
streets from the Expressway (Route 3) or via Hancock Street (Route 3A)
(see Figure  2.    ).  Better vehicle access would be afforded via Quincy
Shore Drive (Morrissey Boulevard) due to this roadway's wider streets and
shorter distance to the site, but this MDC parkway is prohibited to com-
mercial vehicles including trucks and buses.  Approval is needed from the
MDC to use this roadway.  It is anticipated that such restriction can be
temporarily removed; however, if this cannot be accomplished, traffic
impacts to a greater number of residential abuttors along the existing
truck route would result.
                                 12.2-18

-------
     No  capacity problems are expected  along  local  roadways,  although
many of  the signal  controlled intersections are  currently operating at
capacity during the peak traffic periods.  The potential  impacts along
the existing access route are not a  function  of  volume  or capacity, but
rather one of potential disruption to abuttors due  to roadway conditions.

     Overall, projected truck and bus traffic generated by construction
alternatives at Long Island  (see Table  12.2-2 of Section  12.2.2) would
result in  slight to moderate adverse impacts.  The  traffic effects  of
constructing a 150  MGD primary plant would be slight, as  the  projected
four trucks daily  (average)  over four years would translate to  one  truck
every  15 minutes over a one-hour period.  This level of trucking could be
accommodated on local roads  with no  significant  adverse effects.  The
peak of  10 trucks  daily for  five days is also manageable  with only  slight
adverse  impacts for the brief duration  of this activity.   The 2  to  3
buses  daily would  pose no adverse impacts to  local  roadway conditions  or
residential abuttors.

     In  the case of a larger 500 MGD secondary plant on Long  Island,
potential  adverse  impacts would be moderate.  The average  traffic volumes
would be seven trucks and fourteen buses daily.   The existing capacity  o^f
local  roads is sufficient to handle construction traffic  under these
conditions.  This  increase in traffic over existing conditions will
result in only slight increases in noise, odors,  or disruption to
abuttors and can be minimized by addition of  traffic mitigations as noted
below.    The truck peak of 20 vehicles daily for  five days  will result in
moderate impacts and will require additional  traffic controls including
staggered departures and traffic supervision  to  minimize  any  adverse
effects.   The effects of up to 28 buses per day  for a one-year peak would
pose the greatest potential disruption along  local roads  resulting  in
moderate impacts,  and will also require traffic  control measures to
minimize potential moderate adverse impacts for  this limited  duration.

     An advantage  of Long Island's access route  is the  minimal abutting
development along  both sides of East Squantum Street north of Quincy
Shore Drive,  with  only one side of Dorchester Street (east side) having

                                 12.2-19

-------
residential development.   Moreover,  if trucking and busing could be
allowed on a portion of the MDC's Quincy Shore Drive (as noted above),
potential disruptive aspects of heavy trucking and peak bus traffic upon
residents and abutters through residential areas of North Quincy could be
minimized.  This also would lessen,  somewhat, the likelihood of competing
local traffic.

     The potential adverse impacts at Long Island, with allowance of
trucking and busing along the MDC parkway, would potentially affect a
total of about 225 homes  and apartment buildings through Squantum and
North Quincy for approximately 3.5 miles.   If use of Quincy Shore Drive
is not possible, the number of homes potentially affected would increase
to about 260 with several businesses along a length of approximately 4.5
miles .

     One location in Squantum appears to have a potential for adverse
traffic constraints.  Dorchester Street, through Squantum as it
approaches the Squaw Rock Park after the pavement reduces to a 24-foot
width,  has a fairly steep grade as well as a sharp curve to the right.
Residents in this location will experience increased noise and diesel
fumes from trucking and buses because the construction traffic will have
to negotiate the hill and curve in a very low gear, shifting repeatedly
Speeds in the area during construction will have to be reduced to 15 or
20 mph to ensure safe operations.  It is recommended that this roadway be
widened and improved along this segment to accommodate the requirements
of heavy trucks and the projected peak number of buses.

      It is recommended,  further, that the pavement structure of
Dorchester Street, as well as along East Squantum Street, be analyzed to
ascertain whether the pavement needs to be reinforced or replaced,  or
whether it is adequate for the projected truck and bus traffic.  In the
event that the truck restriction cannot be temporarily lifted to allow
use of Quincy Shore Drive, the portion of East Squantum Street between
Hancock Street and Quincy Shore Drive will probably require augmentation
of the  pedestrian signals with crossing guards at times of heavy trucking
and bus activity.

                                 12.2-20

-------
     Any adverse traffic volumes that may occur during peak traffic hours
may be lessened by judicious scheduling that brings in trucks and buses
either in staggered fashion or during off-peak traffic periods.  For
those times when peak traffic is unavoidable, police supervision at key
intersections may be necessary on a periodic basis over the course of
construction.

     Traffic signs in the area will have to be upgraded.  All major
intersections, grades, and curves will have to be identified by standard
warning signs and other traffic control devices as may be appropriate and
acceptable in conformance with local and State requirements.

     Another issue common to all Long Island siting options involves the
use of the bridge connecting Long Island to Moon Island and the Quincy
mainland.  This bridge was built around 1951 and is of steel beam con-
struction with concrete supports.  A recent inspection of the structure
by engineers for the City of Boston  concluded that the overall bridge
span was in fair condition but has deteriorated below its design stan-
dard.  It is estimated that rehabilitation of the bridge would cost
approximately $2 million (1984).  With rehabilitation as proposed,  the
structural integrity and capacity of this bridge will accommodate heavy
construction vehicles during the proposed construction period.
12.2.3.3  Nut Island Construction Traffic Impacts

     Vehicle access to Nut Island is through Quincy via local roads from
the Route 3 Expressway or the Southern Artery (Route 3A).   The main local
access to Nut Island is via Sea Street and Sea Avenue in the Houghs Neck
section of Quincy (see Figure 1 ).
     H.W.  Lochner, Inc., Engineers for the Boston Public Facilities
     Department, Inspection of Long Island Bridge, (July, 1984).
                                 12.2-21

-------
     Examination of construction transport estimates (Table 12.2-2
previously) reveals that the average numbers of trucks at Nut Island that
will be generated by construction activities vary between 8 per day over
a three year period during construction of a headworks to 4 per day for
five years for a 150 MGD upgraded primary treatment plant.  Note that the
truck volumes for a headworks option are higher than for a primary
treatment option because no barging of materials is anticipated with the
headworks option (as noted previously).

     The potential for adverse construction traffic impacts on residents
is slight at Nut Island under either a headworks or primary treatment
alternative.   This is due to the small number of trucks (4 to 8 trucks on
average) and shuttle buses (2 to 3 buses) projected at this site daily.
This traffic would pose little prolonged impact to the approximately 270
homes and 20 businesses along the 2.5-mile stretch of roadway passing
through Houghs Neck.  Potentially disruptive elements of construction
traffic, including noise and diesel fumes, may be felt during recurring
brief periods of time over the course of the construction period.

     Initial truck traffic for equipment delivery on-site would generate
about 5 trucks per day for 5 days under a headworks option, to a maximum
of 10 per day for 5 days for a primary treatment plant.  The impacts of
such small numbers of trucks are also slight in terms of the local
roadway's capacity to accommodate their travel.  For example, if the
estimated daily truck traffic occurred in a one hour period, the 5 trucks
would mean one truck every twelve minutes for one hour only (twice per
day) , a relatively low volume of trucking which would pose only slight
disruptive effects on abutters.

     The disruptive impacts generated by heavy trucking, although slight,
could include recurring noise, vibrations, odors and dust.  Noise and
odors would be the most significant impacts of trucking on nearby
residences and businesses.  At Sea Avenue, where roadway grades will
require trucks to travel at slower speeds and in a lower gear, greater
noise and diesel fumes will be generated as the trucks pass.  This would
represent a relatively brief period of annoyance recurring over the

                                 12.2-22

-------
 construction period.  Because the area is densely  developed,  the  roadway
 grades cannot be significantly reduced or the alignments  altered  without
 extensive damage to the abutting properties.

     Although the projected daily truck volume  is  a  slight  increase  in
 terms of existing roadway traffic, the three to  five-year duration of
 construction activity by heavy trucks could eventually  damage  the Sea
 Street pavement which already exhibits surface  deficiencies.   The
 pavement structure of Sea Street should be analyzed  to  determine  its
 structural  integrity.  Roadway repaving and repair work may be necessary
 both prior  to and following the start of construction.

     Buses  carrying construction workers to and  from the  site  would also
 regularly travel through Houghs Neck and Quincy.  For headworks options
 at Nut Island, two buses would be required to transport workers to and
 from the construction area.  Operation of two buses would have no adverse
 effect on area traffic flows and their impact on abutting Houghs  Neck
 residents would be slight.  For construction of  a primary plant (150
 MOD), 2 buses would be the average number required over the 5  year
 construction period with an increase to 3 buses  for the approximately one
 year peak workforce period.  The affects of this number of buses  would,
 similarly, be slight.

     Since the major pedestrian crossings along  the access  route  to Nut
 Island are protected by traffic signals (most are pedestrian actuated),
pedestrian safety does not appear to be a problem during the construction
period;  however,  some additional safety measures such as warning  signs
and crossing guards during times of heaviest truck or bus traffic may be
appropriate.  Schools near the site are a particular safety concern (see
map in Section 12.1) and may require special crossing guards during those
hours when children are walking to or from school.   (See Mitigation
Measures,  Section 4.3    of Volume 1.)

     The  four-lane section of Sea Street should not be  adversely  impacted
by the projected  truck and bus traffic.   Existing capacity and  safety of
the roadway should be maintained and is adequate to accommodate the low

                                 12.2-23

-------
volume of construction traffic projected.  The two-lane section of Sea
Street as well as Sea Avenue will require that drivers exercise care and
adhere to the accepted "rules of the road" to ensure that safety is
maintained at all times.   Again, it may be necessary to provide added
safety measures such as flashing signals, signs or signalmen during
periods of peak construction activity and heaviest truck traffic.

     The existing bus turnaround area at the intersection of Sea Avenue,
Sea Street, and Island Avenue, for example, may require additional super-
vision to ensure safety and smooth traffic flows during certain high
usage periods of the day.   Because of the low volume of projected truck
activity, truck trips could be scheduled at other than peak traffic hours
to minimize potential disruption of neighborhood commuter traffic.

      Because the potential impacts of truck and bus traffic along the
access route appear to be slight and of a relatively short (3 to 5 year)
duration, very few special actions will be required to mitigate the
potential impacts generated.  Actions that can be taken include:
upgrading traffic signs along the route, identification and clear marking
of the access route to eliminate confusion; provision of warning signs to
identify all steep grades, curves, and major intersections for drivers;
and, if conditions warrant, special actions such as traffic supervisors
during school hours or in summer months (See Mitigation Measures, Section
4.3  ).

12.2.4    Operations Traffic Impacts

     The relatively low volume of truck and auto traffic occurring daily
over the twenty-year course of plant operations would be a slight impact
on areas adjacent to treatment facilities at any site.  Table 12.2-3,
following, indicates the existing operations traffic at each site,
followed by the projected additional traffic under the various treatment
levels.  Current daily truck and bus traffic, as shown,  is significant
at all sites and would continue at a comparable level from operations of
proposed treatment facilities.  Projected treatment plant staff auto
traffic would also be comparable to present levels of auto traffic at

                                 12.2-24

-------
each site.   Roadway conditions  would  not  be  adversely affected by the



auto travel by staff at  any  site.
                                12.2-25

-------
                                                    TABLE  12.2-3

                                         EXISTING  &  PROJECTED TRAFFIC LEVELS
        Existing
       Conditions

       Trucks (Daily)

       Staff Autos (Max.
         Daily Shift)

       Buses (Daily)
                      DI
                      12-14"
                      65/60

                      Every 24 minutes
                        NI
                         35
                         Every 20  minutes
                                         8
                                                                         LI'
                                                   5-7
                                                    180
                                             15 buses"
Proposed „
Treatment Facilities
Trucks (Daily)
HDWKS.
Pump Sta
2-3
350
MGD
3-5
500
MGD HDWKS. 150 MGD
4-7 1-2 2-3
150 MGD 500
2-3 4-7
MGD12

       Staff Autos
       (Max. Daily Shift)
13
        14
53
93
37
                                                                    28
                                                        86
1.   Includes traffic at the DI House of Corrections which is about equal to the current figures reported for the DI
     treatment plant, (MDC,  Site Options Study, 1982, Vol. II, Pgs.  2-36).

2.   Existing traffic associated with Long Island Hospital operations, involving autos, buses and trucks.  Source:
     MDC, Site Options Study, 1982; MDC, Deer Island Facilities Plan (1984, Unreleased); and personal communication
     with Long Island Hospital Plant Superintendent (11/15/84).

-------
                                                                Table  12.2-4
                                                 CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS  WORKFORCE  LEVELS  AND
                                                            ASSOCIATED VEHICLE  NUMBERS
                                                 Peak Construction Workforce
Option    Site/Facilities (Acreage)

la.2      Dl/Primary & Secondary (115A)
          NI/Headworks (2A)
Ib.2      Dl/Primary & Secondary (115A)
          Nl/Primary (ISA)
2b.l      DI/Headworks & Pumping (5A)
          Nl/Headworks (2A)
          Li/Primary & Secondary (96A)
2b.3      Dl/Primary (52A)
          NI/Headworks (2A)
          Li/Primary & Secondary (82A)
4a.2      Dl/Primary (62A)
          NI/Headworks (2A)
4b.2      Dl/Primary (52A)
          Nl/Primary (ISA)
Outfalls &
Treatment
1240
25
1180
80
65
25
1240
395
25
1180
585
25
395
80
Tunnels
70
45
70
45
35
50
165
35
50
165
70
45
70
45
Totals
1310
70
1250
125
100
75
1405
430
75
1345
655
70
465
125
No. of.
Buses
26
2
25
3
2
2
28
9
2
27
13
2
10
3
Total
Avg. Constr .
Workforce
630
55
560
95
85
85
720
285
65
690
590
55
305
95
No.
°f 2
Buses
13
1
19
2
2
2
14
6
2
14
12
1
6
2
Total
Staffing
Workforce
227
20
215
83
34
20
219
118
20
209
136
20
118
83
Maximum S-tafP
Daily Shift and
Staff Autos
93
8
86
37
14
8
90
53
8
86
60
8
53
37

-------
3.   Includes both light and heavy trucks, and chlorine deliveries.

4.   Includes large tractor-trailer delivery trucks (approximately 5-10 per week)  and  oil  truck  deliveries  (2  per
     week).

5.   Figures are separate for DI Prison/MDC Staff; based on current MDC staff practice of  1.33 occupants  per auto
     and prison staff practice of mostly individual travel.  Maximum MDC daily shift corresponds to  the  7 A.M.  to  3
     P.M. main work shift; the remaining two MDC maintenance shifts are estimated  to have  small  numbers  of  staff.

6.   Total daily staff (24 hours) results in approximately 300 autos per day.

7.   Public bus service to Deer Island and through Point Shirley is from the Orient Heights  MBTA station and is
     served by the Rapid Transit Bus Company; buses leave daily (weekdays) every 24 minutes  between  the  hours of
     5:20 AM and 12:15 PM.  Additionally, a shuttle bus also serves Deer Island daily, leaving  from  Winthrop Beach
     to the site.

8.   Public bus service to Nut Island and through Houghs Neck is from Quincy Center and is served by the MBTA; buses
     leave daily (weekdays) every 20 minutes between the hours of 4:45 AM and 1:18 AM.  Buses go to  the  Sea Street
     landing just below Quincy Great Hill.

9.   Bus service to Long Island currently involves 8 MBTA buses daily used to shuttle as many as 200 homeless to the
     hospital for overnight stays.  This service has been in operation since February, 1983.  Additionally, 7 buses
     are used by the hospital to shuttle their staff to the site.

10.  Includes only operations of wastewater treatment facilities; no sludge operations are included.

11.  Applies to both primary and secondary treatment plants.

12.  Secondary treatment plant only.

13.  Assumes one occupant per auto.

-------
                                                            Table 12.2-4  (cont.)
                                                 CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS WORKFORCE LEVELS AND
                                                            ASSOCIATED VEHICLE NUMBERS
                                               Peak Construction Workforce
Option    Site/Facilities (Acreage)

5a.2      Dl/Primary  (52A)
          NI/Headworks  (2A)
          Li/Primary  (ISA)
5b.2      DI/Headwork & Pumping (5A)
          NI/Headworks  (2A)
          Li/Primary  (52A)

Outfalls &
Treatment
395
25
80
65
25
585

Tunnels
35
50
165
35
50
165

Totals
430
75
245
100
75
750

No. of.
Buses
9
2
5
2
2
15
Total
Avg.Constr.
Workforce
285
65
675
85
65
675
No.
°f 2
Buses
6
2
14
2
2
14
Total
Staffing
Workforce
118
20
63
34
20
102
Maximum

Daily Shift and
Staffing Autos
53
8
28
14
8
46






Notes:

1From M&E, Site Options  Study, Vol. 1, Table 8-4 (pg.  8-12).

 Based on capacity of  50 people per bus.

 From M&E, Site Options  Study, Vol. 2, Table 3-9 (pg.  3-16); includes figures for either  tunnel or pipeline construction whichever  is greater.

4From M&E, Site Options  Study, Vol. 1, Table 7-15 (pg.  7-45).

 Based on estimated one  person per auto for maximum daily  shift  (corresponding to 7  AM  to 3:30 PM shift); data from M&E, Site  Options Study, Vol. 2
          Note that current MDC employee practice at the treatment plants is that staff commute in a ratio of 1.33 persons per auto.
 Source:  CE Maguire,  Inc.   (November,  1984)

-------
12.3 Recreation Resources
        and Visual Quality

-------
                           TABLE  OF CONTENTS










                                                            Page  No.




12.3.1   Recreation Resources










12.3.1.1  Existing Environment and  History of  the  Boston




     Harbor Islands 	    .      1




     A.    Geology	    .          .  .              1




     B.    Vegetation	     2




     C.    Wildlife	     3




     D.    Cultural History   	     3




          .1    General	     3




          .2    Land Uses  on the Harbor  Islands  Since  1630  .     4




          .3    History  of Long Island	     5




          .4    History  of Deer Island	    ...     6




          .5    History  of Nut  Island  .  .    	    .  .     7




          .6    History  of Moon Island  .  .    	     7










12.3.1.2  The  Affected  Environment:  Long,  Deer, Nut,  and




     Moon Islands   	     8




     A.    Long Island	     8




          . 1    Topography	     8




          .2    Soils and  Geology	     8




          .3    Vegetation	     9




          .4    Wildlife	     10




          .5    Land Use and Cultural Features	     10

-------
                                                       Page  No.










     .6   Noise	     10




     .7   Viewshed	     11




B.   Deer Island	     H




     . 1   Topography	     12




     .2   Soils and Geology	     12




     .3   Vegetation	     12




     .4   Wildlife	     13




     .5   Land Use and Cultural Features	     13




     .6   Noise	     13




     .7   Deer Island Viewshed	     14




C.   Nut Island	     14




     . 1   Topography	     14




     .2   Soils and Geology	     14




     .3   Vegetation	     15




     .4   Wildlife	     15




     .5   Noise	     15




     .6   Land Use and Cultural Features	     15




     .7   Nut Island Viewshed	     16




D.   Moon Island	     16




     . 1   Topography	     16




     .2   Soils and Geology	     17




     .3   Vegetation	     17




     .4   Wildlife	     17




     .5   Land Use and Cultural Features	     17
                             11

-------
                                                            Page No.










          .6   Noise	     18




          .7   Viewshed	     18










12.3.1.3  Existing Recreational Facilities  	     18




     A.    Transportation to the Harbor Islands State Park .     18




     B.    Harbor Island Facilities  	     20










12.3.1.4  Current Recreational Plans  	




     A.    General	     26




     B.    1972 Comprehensive Plan     	     26




     C.    1984 Master Plan Update	     28




     D.    The Affected Islands:  Long,  Deer,  Nut,  Moon ...     30




          . 1   Proposed Long Island Plan	     30




          .2   Proposed Deer Island Plan	     31




          .3   Proposed Nut Island Plan	     32




          .4   Proposed Moon Island Plan	     33










12.3.2  Visual Quality




12.3.2.1  Overview	     34




12.3.2.2  Hypotheses in Landscape Preference	     35




12.3.2.3  Impacts of Secondary Treatment Alternatives ...     38




     A.    Alternative 1:  All Deer Island	     38




     B.    Alternative 2:  Split Deer Island and Nut Island .     40




     C.    Alternative 3:  All Long Island	     40




     D.    Alternative 4:  Split Deer Island and Long Island.     43
                                  111

-------
                                                            Page No.










12.3.2.4  Impacts  of  Primary  Treatment  Alternatives.  ...      44




     A.    Alternative 1: All  Deer  Island	      44




     B.    Alternative 2: Split Deer  Island  and Nut  Island.      44




     C.    Alternative 3: Split Deer  Island  and Long Island      44










     Bibliography/Sources	      47
                                 IV

-------
                          BOSTON HARBOR SDEIS

              BASELINE INFORMATION:  RECREATION RESOURCES

                          AND VISUAL QUALITY



12.3.1  Recreation Resources



12.3.1.1  Existing Environment and History of the Boston Harbor Islands



     The recreational potential and visual quality of Boston Harbor and

its islands are in large part influenced by the natural environment and

past and present human use.  Recognizing this, the following discussion

reviews the origins and existing environment of the harbor and islands

and discusses how human use of the islands have altered them.



A.   Geology



     Boston Harbor is part of the Boston Basin (or Lowland), a low,

flat plain generally at an elevation of less than 50 feet above mean

sea level.   Formed millions of years ago by geologic activity, the

basin is surrounded by a ridge of bedrock which includes the Blue Hills

to the south, and the bedrock hills to the west and north of the city.

The bedrock in these areas has been partly smoothed and covered in

glacial drift from recent glacial activity, the last of which ended

about 10,000 years ago.



     Within the Boston Basin, drumlins (long, oval hills formed of

glacial drift) are very common.   Over 100 of these geological phenomena

are found in the Boston Area (see Figure 1).   Some of the drumlins have

become islands due to the rise in sea level in the post glacial period
               _«-
(4000-2000 BP).    The drumlins are the most distinctive topographic

features in the relatively flat Boston Basin and include several that

were sites  of revolutionary battles, such as Bunker Hill.
     MHC Reconnaisance Survey Report, 1982

-------
Drumlins of Boston Harbor
 <3
0
O
OT^
-X- O

 Nci
     'jf
     -J
    o
 o
      Thompson J93
       ^
       >^, Deer 1$.
        ^
             O    V
             **  ^= ^o


            (jLcMjh.  Q


           #  ^
                              c5>
                             c^
                  ^
                              •piaure. I

-------
     The structural geology of the Harbor Islands follows the  regional
northeast/southwest trend of the Boston Basin.*  The exposed bedrock of
the Brewster Islands is apparently linked with the granite bedrock of
the Quincy formation.  This perhaps indicates that all the Boston
Harbor Islands have a bedrock core overlain by debris.   This  loose,
unconsolidated debris that covers the islands is at the mercy  of the
elements.  As a result, all the islands, and especially the headlands,
have been extensively altered by the natural forces of storms  and
erosion since their formation.

B.   Vegetation

     The vegetation of the Boston Harbor Islands has been significantly
altered by man.  Records from early colonists indicate that the islands
were at the time of settlement covered in forests of native trees which
were cleared to allow for agricultural use and for firewood.

     During the Great Depression (of the 1930's), the Civilian Con-
servation Corps planted 100,000 pine trees on the Islands only to have
most of them removed for military fortification  construction during
             ^'—.t^
World War II.""

     Currently the upland vegetation on the Harbor Islands is  dominated
by herbaceous and shrub species — typically grasses, brambles,  and
sumac.  In some places the vegetation is thick and virtually impene-
trable.  Common shrubs include bayberry, poison  ivy, rose, and black-
berry.  Trees include maples, birch, apple, pine, poplar, peach, choke
cherry, oaks and elms.
*    MHC Reconnaisance Survey Report, 1982
**   MAPC, p. 17.

-------
C.   Wildlife

     Birds are the most abundant form of wildlife found on the  islands.
The high grasses, tall rocky cliffs, and thick brush provide an abund-
ance of food and sites to breed and find cover.

     As for mammalian life, rats are the most numerous of all.  Other
mammals include cotton tail rabbits, raccoons, grey squirrels, and
skunks.

     The shorelines and intertidal areas surrounding the Harbor Islands
support an abundance of marine invertebrates, some of which are impor-
tant food sources for terrestrial (as well as marine) animals.

     Perhaps due to the lack of pesticide spraying, there is an unusual
abundance of insect life on the islands.  The Comprehensive Plan (1972)
recorded wasps, bees, grasshoppers,  beetles, butterflies, and
            j..
caterpillars .

     The abundance of fish in the Harbor and a year-round fishing
season attracts many sport and recreational fisherman.  Typical fish
caught include winter flounder, mackerel, striped bass, smelt, and
codfish.  In addition, soft-shell clams, blue mussels, crabs, and
lobsters are also found in great quantity.

D.   Cultural History

D. 1  General

     All of the Boston Harbor Islands have been greatly altered by
human activity.  Prior to the arrival of European settlers, Indians had
                                                                **
raised crops on some of the Islands and fished off their shores.
With the advent of European settlers came a variety of new uses (such
     Metropolitan Area Planning Council, Boston Harbor Islands Compre-
     hensive Plan, 1972.
     Kales, p.6.

-------
as military fortifications) and the continuation of old ones  (such  as
agriculture).

     The cultural history of the islands is important for several
reasons.  First, the artifacts that are still extant on the islands
have great recreational, historic, and educational value.  Second,
because the artifacts are fascinating to observe and study, they exert
a tremendous influence on the conceptual plans for future recreational
use of the islands.  Third, many of the artifacts have authentic
archaeological value and, therefore, may affect the time tabling for
implementation of any future use on the islands, be they for  recreation
or wastewater treatment facilities.

D.2  Land Uses on the Harbor Islands Since 1630

     Since the advent of European settlement, there have essentially
been four different land uses on the Harbor Islands:  agriculture,
recreation, public facilities, and military fortification.

     Agricultural use of the islands predominated from about  1630 to
the eighteenth century.  Land was cleared of trees and either planted
to crops or grazed upon by cattle.

     In the eighteenth century,  some islands became popular recreation
sites.   Guest  houses, inns and resorts were built.  Illegal gambling
and boxing matches were other recreational pursuits staged on the
islands to avoid the watchful eyes of the authorities.

     The era of public facility construction on the harbor islands
dates from the early eighteenth century and peaks during the  final two
decades of the nineteenth century.   It was during this  time that many
"undesirable"  public facilities, such as poor houses,  quarantine
hospitals,  reform schools, prisons, wastewater treatment facilities,
and waste handling facilities were constructed.  Present day  ownership
patterns still reflect much of this era.

-------
     The military use of the harbor islands dates from colonial  times,
but it was not until after the American Revolution that permanent mili-
tary forts and gun emplacements were constructed, replacing hastily
mounted guns that were previously in place.  Historically, Long  Island
and Lovell's Island, and to a lesser degree Deer Island, have been the
first line of defense for President Roads.  George's Island has  served
to control Nantasket Roads.  Outer Brewster Island, Greater Brewster
Island, Gallops Island, Peddock's Island, and Bumpkin Island have also
in the past served as military installations.

     After the Second World War,  the military importance of the  islands
declined and in 1946 the Federal  government began to decommission
facilities and abandon their upkeep.  Islands were sold to public
agencies for recreational purposes.   Unfortunately, most of the his-
torical structures that were on the islands have been destroyed,
primarily due to vandalism and arson.   This is a major impediment to
the reuse of facilities for recreation purposes, especially in terms of
the islands' archaeological potential.

D.3  History of Long Island

     Shortly after the founding of the Massachusetts Bay Company, Long
Island (which was granted to Boston in 1634) was cleared and leased to
about 40 tenant farmers.  The existing lighthouse on Long Island Head
drumlin was constructed in 1819 and is an example of Federal Period
design.   In 1850, plans were prepared to subdivide the island for a
residential community.  The lots, however, were not sold and the plan
failed.   At about the same time and for 37 years following, a colony of
fishermen lived on the island.  Before the outbreak of the Civil War, a
battery of guns were constructed  on Long Island Head drumlin.  During
the Civil War,  a conscript camp was set up on Long Island.  Closer to
the southern end of the island there is a memorial to 79 Civil War dead
who were reinterred on the island's cemetery.  The camp, which was
renamed Fort Strong in 1867, was  extensively renovated in 1899 when
several batteries of six- and twelve-inch guns were built.  During
World War I, 1500 men were quartered in the Fort.  Fort Strong was

-------
declared surplus in 1946.  The City of Boston destroyed some of the old
military structures in 1968 - the rubble of which litters part of the
Head.

     Long Island Hospital began its history as a hotel, which was built
when the island was a popular resort.  Ten years after the hotel was
built, in 1882, the City of Boston purchased the hotel to house the
poor, paupers, unwed mothers, and later, homeless men.  Today, the
Hospital consists of about 20 buildings covering about 60 acres of the
island.  The hospital provides care for the homeless, the elderly, and
the "chronically" ill.

D.4  History of Deer Island

     During King Phillip's War, colonists first detained and later
imprisoned captured Indians on the island.  In the 18th and 19th
centuries, Deer Island, like Long Island, was also used for agriculture
and was the site of a resort hotel.  In the middle of the 19th century,
at the time of the great wave of Irish immigrants, the island was used
as a quarantine hospital.  In 1852, a poorhouse was constructed on the
island and later converted into the Suffolk County House of Correction.
In 1938, Shirley Gut, which separated Deer Island from Point Shirley
was practically filled in.  The U.S.  Army decided in 1940 not to dredge
the Gut to simplify access for the construction of Fort Dawes.  Deer
Island has remained connected to Winthrop since then.

     A sewage pumping station was constructed on Deer Island in 1889 by
the Metropolitan Sewage District.  In 1968, the facility was expanded
and upgraded into the existing Deer Island Wastewater Treatment
Facility.

     During World War II, Fort Dawes  was constructed at the southerly
tip of the island.   A 12-foot high concrete wall was built to separate
the Fort from the remainder of the island.  Since the end of the war,
the Fort has been abandoned and has fallen into disrepair.

-------
D.5  History of Nut Island




     Nut Island was once a 4-acre island located just offshore  from

Quincy's Great Hill.  In colonial times cattle grazed on the pastures

of the island.  At one time, it rose "sharply on one side into  a tall,

slightly concave highland, the top of which is fairly rounded and

covered with green grass and summer flowers, and slopes down again to
                             ">'"
the water on the other side.""  In 1876, a foundry company constructed

an immense gun emplacement on the island.  By 1893, the MDC took over

the island and began both sculpting and enlarging it for a wastewater

treatment facility.  The primary treatment plant, which covers  most of

the island and replaced the previous facility, was completed in 1950.




D.6  History of Moon Island




     In colonial times, Moon Island was put into agricultural use for

both grazing by animals and growing crops.   In 1878, Boston began

construction of a giant 1\ foot diameter sewer from Columbus Park to

Squantum beneath Dorchester Bay, and from Squantum to Moon Island under

the connecting causeway.  On Moon Island itself, the city constructed

four huge granite storage tanks, with a combined capacity of 50 million

gallons, to hold raw sewage.  Twice a day gates were opened permitting

the detained wastewater to flow into the Harbor with the outgoing tide.

When the project was completed in 1884, the Moon Island facility

received world-wide attention and Boston was hailed as having one of

the finest sewage disposal systems anywhere.




     In 1959, the Boston Fire Department built a fire fighting  training

facility on the northern end of the island.  The Boston Police  Depart-

ment constructed a pistol range on the island the following year.
     King's Handbook of Boston Harbor, 1882.

-------
 12.3.1.2  The Affected Environment: Long, Deer, Moon  and Nut  Islands

     The four harbor islands that will be affected by the  current  SDEIS
 planning effort are described in ths  section.  These  descriptions  serve
 to highlight the natural and man-made features of these islands  likely
 to be affected.

 A.   Long Island

     Long Island is the largest of the Boston Harbor  Islands, being
 213 acres in size.  The island is connected to the mainland by a
 two-lane bridge that is nearly 35 years old.  Long Island  is  located
 near the exact geographic center of Boston Harbor.

 A.I  Topography

     The topographic features of Long Island is shown  in Figure  2.
 Both the large central drumlin and the drumlin at the  head reach an
 elevation of about 90', and are the island's dominant  features.  From
 their summits, there are spectacular views of the entire harbor.   The
 two drumlins at the West Head are lower in elevation  and densely
 forested; consequently, views from them are not readily obtainable, nor
 are they as commanding.

     The side slopes of the central drumlin and the head are  fairly
 steep.  Erosion caused by tides and storms have carved the drumlin at
 the head into a steep cliff.  Between these two drumlins there is a
 flat area formerly used as the parade ground of Fort  Strong,  located at
 the head.  Finally, the two small drumlins give the West Head a  softer,
 rolling character.

A.2  Soils and Geology

     Drumlins are typically composed of unconsolidated heterogeneous
mixtures of coarse and fine materials (till) .  The remainder  of  the
     MAPC, p. 54.

-------
Long Island
     topography

-------
island is composed of sands and gravels.  Fine soils are found in the

marsh areas of the West Head.  South of Bass Point, there is a sandy

beach of suitable for recreation.



A.3  Vegetation



     The southern portion of the island supports dense picturesque

stands of mature red pine (Pinus resinosa),  as well as apple (Malus

spp.), sumac (Rhus typhina), and poplar (Populus spp.) trees which

cover the slopes of the two small drumlins.   Two wetlands are also

found near the West Head.  A one-acre freshwater marsh is located along

the western shore, between the abandoned Nike site and the Long Island

Chronic Disease Hospital.  Along the eastern shore there is a 12-acre

marsh near Bass Point with a characteristic vegetation of Common Reed
                      Vc
(Phragmites communis).   Figure 3 depicts the location of vegetation

found on Long Island.



     Between the West Head and the Hospital, there is  an extensive

stand of scrubby vegetation, consisting of a staghorn sumac (Rhus

typhina) community, with scattered specimens of red pine (Pinus

resinosa), quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), and cherry (Prunus

spp).  At the Civil War Cemetery, rows of American elm (Ulmus

americana) have been planted.



     Within the hospital grounds elms, maples, catalpa,  and birch have

been  planted.  Scattered grasses and brush grow in the area between the

hospital and Long Island Head.  The head features a grass   sumac

vegetation community with occasional specimens of apple, poplar,  white

oak and red pine.
     MAPC,  p.  50

-------
  Long Island
         vegetation
          wtertidd!
                                   Hospital groups-elw
                                    ap le, likens 4-
       pioneer
speces --
  fresh
             -vThidc; mature, pteo$aht pine woods"
                       birtK,

-------
A.4  Wildlife


     According to the Metropolitan Area Planning Council's  (MAPC)  1972

Comprehensive Plan, Long Island wildlife includes ring-necked phea-

sants, songbirds, rats, meadow mice, and cotton-tail rabbits.


A.5  Land Use and Cultural Features


     On Long Island, there is only one active land use, the Long Island

Chronic Disease Hospital.  The hospital consists of some 20 buildings

occupying about 60 acres or a little under one-third of the island.

The Department of Health and Hospitals of the City of Boston runs  two

chronic disease hospitals, the Mattapan Hospital and the one on Long

Island.  Between the two hospitals, there are 445 licensed  chronic

disease beds and only 300 patients.*  Of these 300, only 160 are

certified to be legitimately in need of chronic disease care, and  the
                  *
rest are homeless.


     Other cultural features and artifacts on the island include an

abandoned military installation (Fort Strong), a lighthouse, (Long

Island Light), an abandoned Nike missile site, and a Civil War cemetery

(that was moved to Long Island from Rainsford Island).   The locations

of these artifacts are found in Figure 4.


A.6  Noise


     Existing land uses on Long Island are not significant generators
                                                             ^-w»_
of noise.  At the hospital, the noise level is about 65-70 dB  .   Long

Island Head and the Parade Ground area adjacent to it,  however, lie

directly under an approach runway to Logan Airport.  Aircraft use this

runway year round, but because of seasonal variation in prevailing

winds, the runway is used much more in winter when prevailing winds are

from the northwest than in summer when prevailing winds are from the

southwest.  Because Long Island Head is only 3 miles from Logan
*    Task Forces to Mayor Flynn, p.532.
**   Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., SOS II, p. 2-91.
                                  10

-------
-r  Long Island
          land use and cultural features ^
 feuwldtten
         . 41

-------
Airport,  aircraft fly over at a fairly low altitude resulting in noise
                            *
levels as high as 84-100 dBA .   Such aircraft flyovers are expected
to continue and would pose periodic high noise intrusion and disruption
to proposed park visitors (see Section 12.6).

A. 7  Viewshed

     As previously mentioned, Long Island is located near the exact
geographic center of Boston Harbor.  The island is quite removed from
residential and commercial areas on the mainland.   Only at a distance
of three miles is a residential area reached (Squantum and Point
Shirley).

     Only portions of shoreline communities potentially have a direct
view of Long Island.  See Figure 5.  These portions include:  Point
Shirley,  the south-facing neighborhoods of Cottage Hill, Court Park and
Cottage Park in Winthrop; South Boston east of Telegraph Hill; the
east-facing slopes of Squantum; the Wollaston Beach community of
Quincy; the Hough's Neck area;  and the west facing slopes of Telegraph
Hill in Hull.  The Long Island Hospital, situated on a bluff in the
central part of the island,  is  visible from many locations;
particularly prominent is the large water tower.

     Other harbor islands are over 1 mile from Long Island.  George's
Island, the most heavily used harbor island, is fully 2 miles from Long
Island.

B.   Deer Island

     Deer Island became connected to the Town of Winthrop in 1936 by
the progressive deposition of material in Shirley Gut.  It is the
second largest of the Boston Harbor Islands, having an area of 210
acres.
     Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., SOS II, p. 2-91
                                  11

-------
inc.
-figure 5

-------
B.1  Topography




     Figure 6 shows the topographic features of Deer Island.  The

dominant feature of the island is a large drumlin located in the

central portion of the island which reaches an elevation of approxi-

mately 105 feet.  This drumlin is known as Signal Hill.*  Its summit

has been altered to permit construction of a wastewater treatment-

related lagoon.  The side slope of the central drumlin facing the

treatment plant has been cut and made steeper.  A much smaller drumlin

on the north side of the island reaches 60 feet in elevation.  The

southern portion of the island (about 40 acres) is gently sloping.  In

this portion, there is a second hill on the island which, though it

looks like a drumlin,  is man-made.  It was built to house three of the
                      -n
bunkers of Fort Dawes.    The shoreline of the upper half of the island

consists of either a seawall or riprap.  The remaining shoreline is

either coarse sand or  stones.  A sandy beach is found on the eastern

shore near Fort Dawes.   There are fine views over the harbor from both

the central drumlin and the flat southern tip of the island.




B.2  Soils and Geology




     The drumlins are  composed of a compact, heterogeneous mixture of

gravel, sand, silt, and clay (till).   The remainder of the island has

soils composed of sands and gravels.   Only on the eastern shore is

there currently a beach with fine sand.




B.3  Vegetation




     Most of the island, including the central drumlin,  is covered in

grasses,  scrub growth,  and brush.   On the south-facing slope of the

central drumlin is a small grove of cottonwoods.   There  are few other
     Randall,  p.  ICA 158:4
     MAPC,  p.  47
                                  12

-------
Deer Island
      topography
                        hi'll ^o^rvc-ed io
                             3 of fbirf


-------
trees on the island.   Figure 7 shows the approximate location and
sparseness of vegetation on Deer Island.

B.4  Wildlife

     According to the 1972 Comprehensive Plan, wildlife found on Deer
Island includes red-winged blackbirds, ring-necked pheasants, song-
                                       -'--»-
birds, meadow mice, raccoons, and rats.

B.5  Land Use and Cultural Features

     Existing land uses on the island are shown in Figure 8.  The
largest active use on the island is the Deer Island Wastewater Treat-
ment Facility operated by the MDC.   The Suffolk County House of Cor-
rection occupies a large area north of the treatment plant.

     Other features include a 12-foot high concrete wall that splits
the island into an eastern and western half.  It was constructed to
separate Fort Dawes from the remainder of the island.  There are also a
number of abandoned land uses including an abandoned pig farm adjacent
to the House of Correction, Fort buildings, bunkers, gun emplacements,
and some industrial buildings.

B.6  No i s e

     The predominant contributors to noise at Deer Island are
overflights from nearby Logan Airport and neighborhood vehicular
traffic.  According to Metcalf and Eddy's Site Options Study (Volume
II, pg. 2-43), the average day/night noise levels in the plant vicinity
are between 73 and 74 dBA.  This is comparable to a very noisy urban
residential area (see Section 12.6 of Volume 2).
*    MAPC, p. 45
**   MAPC, p. 136.
                                  13

-------
r
Deer Island
      vegetation

                                    7

-------
Deer Island
      land use and cultural features
Suffolk
House of
                          conci^ete wall
       ,  . 45 ;

                                     8

-------
B.7  Viewshed

     The Deer Island wastewater treatment facility is located a scant
2,000 feet from Point Shirley and about a mile from Winthrop's Cottage
Hill neighborhood.  No other residential areas are located within a few
miles of Deer Island.  See Figure 9.

     It is probable, based on the topography of these neighborhoods,
that clear views of the treatment plant area can be obtained from these
above-mentioned neighborhoods.

     Signal Hill effectively blocks much of the view of the Deer Island
Wastewater Treatment Facility from Long Island Head.

C.   Nut Island

     Nut Island was once a four-acre island just off shore from
Quincy's Great Hill.  Today, it is connected to the mainland (at
Hough's Neck) by filled land and totals 17 acres in size.

C.I  Topography

     The entire island has been transformed by the construction and
engineering requirements of the Nut Island Wastewater Treatment
Facility.  The island, at present, is a roughly rectangular, flat
peninsula, as shown in Figure 10.

C.2  Soils and Geology

     In constructing the wastewater treatment facility, the island's
original soil cover has been supplanted by man-made fill material.
Presumably, its composition is variable (i.e., some sand, gravel,
boulders, and finer material).
                                  14

-------
-figure

-------
Nut Island
     topography
                       Hi I)
                  view frow
                   to Nut

-------
C.3  Vegetation

     The island's perimeter is planted in grass.  The MAPC  recorded the
presence of a tree in the northwest corner of the island in  1972  (see
Figure 11).  Since 1972, there have been successional changes in  the
vegetative communities along the perimeter of the island tending  to
grasses and scrub.

C.4  Wildlife

     The MAPC, in its 1972 Comprehensive Plan, does not record the
presence of any wildlife on the island.  In light of the sterile
habitat and its lack of diversity, resident wildlife is likely to be
negligible or nonexistent.

C.5  Noise

     Traffic noise and other noise generators from the Hough's Neck
neighborhood and the Nut Island treatment plant are not significant.
The Site Options Study noted that the Nut Island Treatment Plant's
isolated location insulates the site and its surroundings from
intrusive levels of noise.  The Study presumed noise levels  in Hough's
Neck were typical of urban residential areas - a day/night average
                                                            •£-
noise level of 53 to 57 dBA with a typical average of 55dBA.   Noise
monitoring done for the SDEIS by CE Maguire, Inc., confirmed this
average noise level (see Section 12.6 of Volume 2).

C.6  Land Use and Cultural Features

     The Nut Island Treatment Plant takes up the bulk of the island's
area (see Figure 12).  No other land uses or cultural features are
present.  The island has no known archaeological, historical, or
cultural artifacts.
     Metcalf & Eddy, Site Options Study, p. 2-27, 2-73
                                  15

-------
Nut Island
    vegetation
        p-

-------
Nut Island
     land  use and cultural features



-------
C.7  Viewshed

     Nut Island and its treatment plant are located a short distance
from Quincy's Hough's Neck community situated atop Quincy Great Hill.
See Figure 13.  The closest house to the treatment plant boundary is
only 280 feet distant.

     Clearly, houses on the north side of Quincy Great Hill have direct
views of the treatment plant.  Other residential areas that have views
of Nut Island include the Quincy Bay shoreline of Hough's Neck (at
distances of 1/2 to 1-1/4 miles), and the Adams Shore area of Quincy
(at distances of up to 2 miles).  Virtually all other residential areas
are over 3 miles distant.

     Finally, Nut Island is only 3/4 mile from the picturesque West
Head of Peddocks's Island; as a result, the facilities located on Nut
Island are clearly within that view from Peddock's.

D.   Moon Island

     Moon Island is about 45 acres in size.  It is connected by road to
both Squantum and Long Island.

D.I  Topography and Natural Features

     The dominant feature on Moon Island is a large drumlin that
reaches an elevation of 100 feet.  There are fine views of Boston's
skyline,  Quincy Bay, Dorchester Bay, other islands, and the Blue Hills
                        *
from this vantage point.   (Figure 14)
     MAPC,  p.  59
                                  16

-------

-------
Moon Island
      topography
                flat
  /
                                /f

-------
D.2  Soils and Geology


     The drumlin is a heterogeneous mixture of sand, gravel,  silt  and

clay (till).  According to the 1972 Comprehensive Plan, the  remainder
                         ^
of the island is man-made  and probably of variable composition.


D.3  Vegetation


     The west-facing slope of the drumlin is in forest consisting  of

white birch, maple, black pine, elm, oaks, and beech trees.   There  is  a

grove of trees to the west of the sewage reservoir.  Large elm trees

were planted alongside the road through the island.  The remainder  of
                                                          •;V-/V
the island is covered in grasses, sumac, and other shrubs.    (See

Figure 15).


D.4  Wildlife


     The MAPC has recorded observing brown thrashers, songbirds, rats,

meadow mice, gray squirrels, and skunks on the island.     Moon Island

is reported to have a large rat population.  It is also reported that

the fishing for flounder, mackerel and striped bass along the western

shoreline is good, particularly from the granite seawall on the

northern end near the sewage outfall.


D.5  Land Use and Cultural Features


     The dominant land use and man-made feature on Moon Island is the

sewage reservoir.  (See Figure 16.)  The reservoir takes up at least

one third of the western end of the island.  The reservoir is composed

of four tanks that average 900 feet in length, 150 feet in width, and

17 feet in height.  They were intended to hold raw wastewater overflows

prior to discharge to the harbor on outgoing tides.  The reservoir  is

currently in operation when sewage flows normally routed to the Deer
     MAPC, p. 57
     MAPC, p. 58
     MAPC, p. 136
                                  17

-------
Moon Island
        vegetation
   ite biireli
 black pine tYeee'j
                                         15

-------
Moon Island
      land use and cultural features



-------
Island treatment facility exceed Deer Island's influent pumping
capacity.

     In addition, the Boston Fire Department has a fire fighting
training facility on the northern end of the island.  Adjacent to the
reservoir, the Boston Police Department has a small pistol range.

D.6  Noise

     There is no known noise data on Moon Island itself.

D.7  Moon Island Viewshed

     Moon Island is relatively isolated from other harbor islands and
shoreline residential communities.  Thompson, Spectacle, and Long
Island, as well as the Squantum community are all about 1 mile distant.

     Houses located on the east (Quincy Bay facing) side of Squantum
have views over to Moon Island.

12.3.1.3  Existing Recreational Facilities

     Since the 1960's, a number of recreational facilities have been
constructed on the Boston Harbor Islands.  This section describes the
facilities that are available, as well as the existing transportation
system.

A.   Transportation to the Harbor Islands State Park

     The two principal ways for potential visitors to the Harbor
Islands State Park to access the islands are by independently owned and
operated ferry boat or by private boat.  At the present time, there are
three private excursion boat companies which operate on a for-profit
basis.  All provide transportation only to George's Island.
                                  18

-------
     Some islands, such as Deer, Moon, Nut, Long, and Castle can be
physically reached by car, but only with varying degrees of obstacles
from the authorities.  At the northern most point of Deer Island, there
is a prison gate house that effectively prevents visitors from entering
the island.  At the Squantum end of the causeway connecting Moon Island
to Squantum is a gate house that, too, prevents access by the public to
both Moon and Long Islands.  Nut Island is also inaccessible by reason
of the gate house at the entrance of the Nut Island Treatment Plant.

     All of the ferry boats leave from downtown Boston, either from
Long or Rowes Wharf.  Park visitors typically arrive in downtown Boston
by automobile, or take the MBTA.  The MBTA provides inexpensive and
frequent service to the Boston waterfront from nearly all areas of
Metropolitan Boston.

     The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has, via a recent bond issue,
authorized $7 million for the construction of a Visitor's Center to be
built on Long Wharf in downtown Boston to serve as the gateway to the
Boston Harbor Islands State Park.  This will centralize the embarkation
point for the majority of visitors to the Harbor Islands State Park,
enabling more people to take advantage of this recreational resource.
It will also make the gateway to the Harbor Islands State Park far more
visible for potential park patrons.  It could also make the visitors'
harbor island experience more pleasant and understandable since the
water taxi schedule to other islands could be posted at the Visitors
Center.

     To reach other harbor islands after landing at George's Island, it
is necessary to take one of the smaller water taxis.  At present, two
private enterprises are under contract to Massachusetts DEM to provide
transportation to other islands in the State Park.  Water taxis provide
service to Gallop's or Lovell's Island or to Grape, Peddocks, or
Bumpkin Island.  Water taxi service to islands owned by DEM is free of
charge to park visitors.
                                  19

-------
     By private boat,  all the aforementioned Harbor Islands are acces-
sible in addition to the remaining islands, except Deer, Moon, Nut, and
Long Island where admittance is restricted).  Table 1  and 2 list the
piers and boat launching sites in and around Boston Harbor.  Table 3
lists where boats are available.

B.   Harbor Island Facilities

     The following is a list of facilities and recreational activities
that are available on the six Boston Harbor Islands that are readily
accessible by private excursion boat and water taxi:

     o    George's Island - two picnic areas, food service (snack bar),
          tours through Fort Warren (National Historic Landmark), fresh
          water, walks and trails, large pier.

     o    Gallop's Island - trails and paved paths, picnic areas,
          viewing areas, wading beaches, wildlife (a seagull colony in
          residence).

     o    Lovell's Island - swimming beach with lifeguards, camping and
          picnic areas, historic Fort Standish, and trails, as well as
          dunes and a salt marsh.

     o    Bumpkin Island - paths and trails, pier, three picnic areas,
          campsites, interpretive program.

     o    Peddock's Island - camping and picnic areas, wooded trails,
          and historic Fort Andrews.  (There is a charge to visit
          Peddock's Island.)

     o    Grape Island - camping and picnic areas, trails, berry
          picking in season, historic agricultural interpretive
          program.
                                  20

-------
                                TABLE 1
                                 PIERS
Boston
     Castle Island
     Kelly's Landing, South Boston
Boston Harbor

     Bumpkin Island
     Gallop's Island
     George's Island
     Grape Island
     Lovell's Island
     Peddock's Island
     Great Brewster Island

Hingham

     Kehoe's Boat Livery
Hull
     A Street Pier
     Pemberton Pier
     Steamboat Pier, Nantasket Pier
     Gun Rock
Revere

     Captain Fowler's Marina, Rte.  1A, Point of Pines
                                  21

-------
                                TABLE 2

                         BOAT LAUNCHING SITES
Boston
     Children's Museum, Boston
     Commonwealth Pier, Boston
     Castle Island, Boston
     City Point Beach, Boston
     Kelly's Landing, Boston
     Charles River, Msgr. William J. Daly Recreational Center, Nonantum
       Rd., Brighton-Newton
     Rainbow Park, Dorchester
     Rowes and Long Wharfs, Boston
Hingham
     Iron Horse Statue Area
     Hingham Marine Center
Hull
     A Street Pier
     Pemherton Pier
     Gould's Boat Shop, Nantasket Pier
     Nantasket Avenue
     Hampton Circle
Quincy
     Bay View Avenue, Houghs Neck
     Quincy Bay Marina, Houghs Neck
     Boston Harbor Marina, E. Squantum St.
     Wollaston Beach
     Mound St. Beach
     Continental Marine, Washington Court
     Bays Water Boat Rental, Bays WAter Rd.
Revere
     Captain Fowler's Marina, Rte. 1A, Point of Pines
     Route 1A, Pine River
                                  22

-------
Weymouth
     North Weymouth Marine
     Tern Harbor Marina, Back River
     State Boat Ramp, River Street
     Weymouth Back River (Take Neck St.  off Rte.  3A)
Winthrop

     Winthrop Public Landing, Shirley St. and Deer Island Road
                                   23

-------
                                TABLE 3

                         BOAT RENTAL LOCATIONS
Boston
     Boston Boat Sales, 170 Granite Ave., Dorchester
     Boston Harbor Sailing Club, 72a East India Row
Hingham
     Hewitt's Cove Marina, 349 Lincoln St.
     Kehoe's, 3 Otis St.
     Multihull Associates, 349 Lincoln St.
Hull
     A Street Pier, Rowboats
     Pemberton Pier, Rowboats, 173 Main St.
     Pemberton Bait Shop, 173 Main St.
     Priscilla Sails, 180 Cadish Ave.
     Annapolis Sailing School, James St. Pier
Quincy
     Gamble's Landing Boat Rentals, 15 Baywater Rd.
     Hurley's Boat Rental, 136 Bay View Ave., Houghs Neck
     Quincy Bay Marina, Houghs Neck
     Harvey-Elliot Boat Livery, Harvey's Lane
     Harbor View Yacht Sales,  64 Washington Court
Revere
     Capt. Fowler's Marina, Whitin Ave. Ext. (Rte. 1A at Gen, Edwards
       Bridge)
     Simpson's Pier, 90 Broadsand Ave.
Winthrop
     Belle Isle Terrace
     Crystal Cove Marina, 514 Shirley St.
     Winthrop Sailboat Rental, 541 Shirley St.
                                  24

-------
     Table 4 summarizes the existing recreational facilities of the
Boston Harbor Islands State Park.  Table 5 lists the existing recrea-
tional facilities in shoreline parks and recreational areas adjacent to
the harbor.  Figures 17 and 18 depict the location of these facilities.
                                   25

-------
              Existing Recreational Facilities:
              Boston Harbor Islands
     '• Wallace
Floyd te&oc.-
Concepk P/
-------
             Existing Recreational Facilities:
             Boston Harbor Shoreline
Source5 Mpc
Boston
        CZM
      Guide

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
en
01
-H
4-1
•H
I-H
-H
O
a
b
u
T-t
4J
01
iH
f.
4J
<

•
•


•
•
•




•






•



Bandstands and Music Shells























GO
c
•H
•H
3
C/l
•

•
•

•




•
•



•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
X
O
CO
0)
CO
U4
0)
4_)
CO
3
U
I-t
CO
c/1
•




•





•



•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Launching Areas/Boating








•

•



•








Camping























Fishing
•


•

•
•
•

•
•


•
•


•

•



Picnic /Refreshments






•
•


•



•








CO
CU
i_)
•H
w
o
•H
J-(
O
.u
en
•H
a:























Children's playgournd

•




•
•




•








•
•
Bike Trails









•
•
•
•
•









OJ
T-H
•H
CO
^
H
oa
c
iH
j;
rH
to
»























Lookout Tower




•



















-------
            Existing Recreational Facilities:
            Boston Harbor Shoreline
Source'-  MDC
Facilities
Boston
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

CD

-------
       Location  map:  Boston Harbor Islands
DEM as port- of Shxfe
        includes <5reen.
     4 H^&yiofl's l&lo*td

                                                Fi'^ure 17

-------
Location map: Shoreline recreational areas
                                       Figure 18>

-------
12.3.1.4  Current Recreational Plans

     A.    General

     Since the 1960's, several reports have been published on the
harbor islands and recreation.  In 1967, the Metropolitan Area Planning
Council (MAPC) published the Open Space Recreation Program for Metro-
politan Boston.  Volume 2 of this report looked at the problem and
potential of the harbor, and recommended protecting and developing the
Boston Harbor and Islands for recreation.

     Through the passing of Chapter 742 of the Acts of 1970, the
Massachusetts Legislature empowered the Department of Natural Resources
(now Department of Environmental Management) to take by eminent domain
islands of the harbor, and to maintain and improve them pending the
completion and approval of a comprehensive plan.

     Since then, there have been formal plans produced in 1972 and
1984.  Over this period of time, OEM's attitude has changed little
about the value of the Boston Harbor Islands for recreation; however,
there has been a change in the extent of new construction and in the
priorities of which islands are to be developed first.

B.   1972 Comprehensive Plan

     The  1972 Comprehensive Plan, which was published by the Metro-
politan Area Planning Council (MAPC) under contract to the Massachu-
setts Department of Natural Resources (now DEM), outlined an intensive
development scheme for the harbor islands.  Included in the plans were
new  facilities such as restaurants, conference  centers, athletic
buildings, swimming pools, theaters and museums.  Also included were
plans to  restore and  rehabilitate the many military fortifications and
to develop camping facilities and picnic grounds.

     In the 1972 Plan, Long Island Head was to  be developed as a major
terminus  on ferry routes serving the Harbor Islands State Park.  In
                                   26

-------
addition, the plans called for a large Visitor Center as well as a
restaurant, conference and recreation center, dance hall, theater,
educational facility, multi-purpose athletic building, playfields, a
major outdoor recreation facility and group camping sites.  These
facilities relied on the assumption that the Long Island Hospital was
to be relocated and that land area utilized for recreation.

     The program for Deer Island included parkland, playgrounds,
trails, a swimming beach, picnic areas, a boat dock and mooring area,
and a fishing pier.  The plan assumed the relocation of the prison and
the utilization of that land area for expansion of the MDC sewage
treatment plant, plus an additional 10 acres of filled land.

     For Nut Island, the MAPC considered making the peninsula acces-
sible to the public and constructing a fishing pier.  The plan
assumption was that the sewage treatment plant use would remain and
become a recreation resource in the sense of allowing educational
visits.

     On Moon Island, the plans advocated reusing the wastewater
reservoir as a fish hatchery (among several other alternatives), as
well as the development of an open area on top of the drumlin, for
informal recreational activities, such as picnicking.  The existing
fishing pier was also to have been improved.

     Much of the recreational development proposed in the 1972 Compre-
hensive Plan carried a distinctive water orientation.  Some develop-
ment,  such as the development of beach areas for swimming was linked to
then proposed efforts to improve water quality in the harbor.  A wide
variety of both active and passive recreational facilities were
included in the Comprehensive Plan to provide a breadth of recreational
activities.

     To transport park patrons to the islands, there was to be a
publicly-regulated but privately-owned ferry system consisting of four
interconnected routes, as follows:
                                  27

-------
     Route  1:   Main Line  Run:
     Boston Waterfront -  Long  Island -  George's Island   Peddock's
     Island -  Nantasket

     Route  2:   Inner Harbor-Dorchester  Bay
     Boston Waterfront -  Deer  Island -  Long Island - Thompson's Island
     -  Spectacle Island - South Boston

     Route  3:   Serving Small Islands
     George's  Island - Lovell's Island  - Gallop's Island
     George's  Island - The Brewsters -  Calf Island
     Peddock's Island - Grape  Island -  Bumpkin Island

     Route  4:   Neighborhood loop (for future addition).
     Stops  not specified

     Three  other neighborhood  loops were described as having con-
siderable merit within the transportation system as a whole.

     The first was a loop around Hingham Bay.   It would serve Grape,
Bumpkin, and  Peddock's Island  from the  Hewitts's Cove terminal.  The
second neighborhood loop  would cruise through Dorchester Bay and land
at Thompson's, Spectacle, and  Long Islands.  It would stop at mainland
terminals located at Kelley's  Landing (South Boston), Columbia Point,
and Commercial Point (Dorchester).  Finally, a third neighborhood loop
would link  East Boston with the Chelsea Yacht Club, the Little Mystic
Channel, and  the Charlestown Navy Yard.

C.   1984 Master Plan Update
     Boston Harbor Islands State Park Master Plan

     The 1984 update is largely a continuation of the 1972 Compre-
hensive Plan,  but there are several notable differences.  To a great
extent, the differences reflect the realities of ever rising develop-
ment costs  and clearer definitions of the Harbor Island goals in
relation to the unique experiences available.  The plan focuses
                                  28

-------
development priorities on the actual islands and on substantial
improvements to the two primary embarkation points.

     Development programs in the 1984 plan generally recommend a lesser
extent of construction and fewer high cost facilities.  At the same
time, the carrying capacities have been reexamined to allow a higher
density of use.  The combination of these changes obviously allows for
a much improved cost/benefit with the new plan.

     The major themes that guide the development continue to include an
emphasis of natural forces, harbor geography, and harbor history.
Also, the theme of harbor transportation is now exploited positively by
recognition of the amount of time that an island park visitor spends on
the  trip to the island and utilization of that for its interpretive
value to emphasize the uniqueness of the Harbor Island experience.
"Navigation aids, such as lighthouses and buoys, can be seen and
explained from the numerous vantage points within the harbor.  Watching
the  parade of freighters, tankers, tugs, fishing and lobster boats,
commuter boats and pleasure boats offers enormous interpretive
potential and focuses on the majority of the harbor which is water
                     *
rather than islands."   Additionally, the normally negative sounds of
Logan's air traffic can be made more positive by its inclusion as a
dramatic sight and sound segment of the overall transportation theme.

     Other than Long Island, none of the Harbor Islands from the 1972
plan that have land access are part of the 1984 update.  This
presumably is both a development cost recognition and a development
priority status for Deer, Moon and Nut Islands.  DEM staff note that
the  absence of these three islands is not an indication of their
programmatic deletion from the Harbor Islands State Park System.  They
are  to be reviewed by DEM and updated once substantial completion of
the  1984 plan is achieved.  Perhaps the wastewater treatment consider-
ations affecting those islands would also be resolved by then.
     WFA, p. 14.
                                  29

-------
     Total annual visitation to the islands is projected to increase
from the present 170,000 to about 600,000 by the year 2000 and with the
development and transportation improvements.  The present private fleet
of five 350-400 passenger capacity ferrys will need to be increase to a
fleet of twelve.  Seven service schedules will be necessary and are to
provide separate schedules for Long, Georges, Peddocks and Spectacle
Islands.  Water taxi service is also to be expanded and is to include a
pair of 250 passenger capacity ferrys that will travel circuits among
the four major island centers.  Smaller water taxis, with a volume of
service comparable to that of today, will provide connections to the
smaller islands.

D.   The Affected Islands: Long, Deer, Nut, Moon

     These four islands are being considered to varying extents and
combinations for the siting of expanded primary and/or secondary
wastewater treatment facilities.  The following descriptions of
proposed recreational development on the same islands are from two
different sources.  Long Island is an element of the soon to be
published 1984 Boston Harbor Islands State Park Master Plan, which is
an update of the 1972 Boston Harbor Islands Comprehensive Plan wherein
Deer, Nut and Moon Islands are elements.

1.   Proposed Long Island Plan

     Development for Long Island, as depicted in Figure l*^ , proposes
high itensity uses for the head and moderate uses for the southern
half.  All of Long Island is proposed for recreation development and
use except for the Long Island Hospital compound which is assumed to
remain.

     The primary access to and from the island during the summer months
would be the scheduled ferries.  Internal access between the Head and
the southern portion would be shuttle van.  Some controlled access
through the Squantum community for bicycles would be permitted.
                                  30

-------
          Long Island
                                                             LONG  ISLAND Hll
                     LONG ISLAND HOSPITAL
WEST HEAD
Boston Harbor Islands a
State Park '
r Commonwealth of Massachusetts
* Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
J Department of Environmental Management
Long Island
fig. H

-------
Extended season access for spring and fall could be provided by shuttle
bus from the mainland.

     Major new elements to be developed on Long Island Head are to
include a pier and visitors center, a transportation exhibit in the
historic lighthouse, the major gun emplacements from Fort Strong, a
cultural museum (proposed by the City), major picnic and sitting areas,
play fields and interpretive trails with viewing nodes.  Development
costs are estimated at $5.5 million for the Head.

     For the southern portion of the island, the new major elements
include an environmental study complex, a swimming beach, and an
extensive system of hiking and bicycling trails with numerous
overlooks.  The development generally focuses on sensitively exploiting
the natural features which include a large wet meadow, a dune
environment, a large succession meadow and a large grove of mature
pines.  Should use levels indicate a need, the beach area could be
expanded and a day camp established at the former Nike site.
Development cost for the southern portion is estimated at $2.1 million.

     The $7.6 million total development cost for Long Island is
scheduled to largely take place during the first three-year phase
1985-1987 - of the twenty-year program for the Boston Harbor Islands
State Park system.

     Future use is projected at 2,500 visitations per average weekend
day for the Head area and 1,500 at the southern end with most of the
latter occurring on the beach.  Of the 600,000 annual visitations
projected for the Harbor Islands Parks, Long Island could accommodate
about 240,000.

2.   Proposed Deer Island Plan

     The second largest island in the overall harbor island system,
Deer Island as proposed in the 1972 plan assumed that relocation of the
                                  31

-------
prison and the expansion of the treatment plant from 26 acres to up to
130 acres, including 10 acres of made land.

     The level of use is generally moderate with an area of intense use
which included a major ferry landing and interpretive center as
illustrated on Figure 20.  The southern end of the island is a large
passive use informal park with open grassed areas, picnicing, viewing
areas and interpretive restoration of the World War II bunkers.  An
extensive planting program would reforest the shore edge and the Signal
Hill drumlin to enhance the island as the primary entrance to Boston
Harbor from the President Roads shipping channels.

     The swimming beach along the sandy east shore would utilize the
bathhouse and comfort station in the interpretive center.  A three-
mile-long bike trail would follow the shore edge.

     The 1,000 maximum daily visitations projected for Deer Island in
the 1972 Plan would likely increase to 1,500 or more if the plan were
subjected to a review and update comparable to the 1984 Plan.  Con-
sidering that Deer Island access is not limited to seasonal ferrys but
obtainable year-round over public streets, the annual visitations could
easily exceed 100,000.  The 1972 Plan noted a cost for development of
about $2 million.

3.   Proposed Nut Island Plan

     The 1972 Plan for Nut Island assumed that the wastewater treatment
plant would remain, and, therefore, recreational development was
limited to a public fishing pier and a slightly enlarged visitors
parking area.  Unlike the Harbor Islands Parks System in general, Nut
Island was seen as a local recreational resource and was not included
in the water transportation planning.  The 50 maximum daily visitations
projected in 1972 is perhaps optimistic, but with the islands year-
round access it would still be a few thousand annual visitations.
                                  32

-------
                          _•?€. ?*- N. ' TC.
.ft'/y  -  \
 •^-// --;,   \
=^-"Lv. ' -> i
«ea  DEER ISLAND
BOSTON  HARBOR ISLANDS COMPREHENSIVE f\M
                                        0 iX 4«
              ftg
zo

-------
     A main emphasis of the 1972 Plan was plantings along the shore
edge, and particularly as a screen for the residential area, to "soften
the island's man-made appearance and reduce the contrast between the
                                                                     *
natural character of the Harbor and the important man-made facility."
The construction cost was estimated to be about $30,000 in 1972, and
the plan is illustrated in Figure 21.

4.   Proposed Moon Island Plan

     The 1972 Plan for Moon Island assumed that the City of Boston fire
fighting academy would be retained and the police pistol range was
recommended to be relocated due to its obvious conflicts with public
recreational use.  The Plan, illustrated in Figure 22, focused on the
two dominant features of Moon Island, which are the drumlin and the
four cut granite 1880's sewage reservoir tanks.

     The top of the drumlin was to be left open to allow capture of
visitors from the many viewing areas connected with walking trails and
a 25 table picnic area.  Of the several alternatives for the reuse of
the sewage tanks, the plan found a fish hatchery to be the most viable
and attractive.  Other facilities included a marine exhibit and an
interpretive center with parking for 20 cars and a bus stop.

     It is not clear whether the 1972 construction cost of $326,800
includes modification to the reservoir for fish hatchery use.

     The projected annual visitation for Moon Island was estimated to
be about 30,000 in the 1972 plan.
     MAPC, p. 114.
                                  33

-------
                          HANGMAN  ISLAND
                          PUBLIC FIJUIM6


                          PAPKIMfi
                                                   RACCOON  ISLAND
          NUT, RACCOON and

          HANGMAN ISLANDS
BOSTON HARBOR  ISLANDS  COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
  ZOO

n-i
0    400
MiSSACBUSETTS D!P«BTM(IIT OF NATURil  RtSOUBCIS





BMC Meuopolilln Am Plinning Council

-------
FI5WINI6 PIER. CLEAHINJS FACILITIES.
COMFORT 5TATIC7M, < SWELTER

PICN/C AREA. 15 TABLES

           W CARS <  &U3 ST.S'P-
                                                                        EXISTIM& FIRE TKAIMINJ& ACAPEMV

                                                                                   CVEP
                                                                                         LCE7P

                                                                         F/5M WATCWEKV.  5ALMOM. MxA(?lkJE
                                                                                   INJTERPKETIVE CENTER.
                                                                                       (TAR5.  4
                 MOON   ISLAND

BOSTON  HARBOR  ISLANDS  COMPREHENSIVE  PLAN
                                                                    MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT  OF NATURAL RESOURCES

                                                                    OUPC  Metropolitan-Area Planning Council

-------
12.3.2  Visual Quality

12.3.2.1  Overview

     Visual quality is defined in this SDEIS as the fitness or grade of
excellence of a view.   The objective of assessing visual impact is to
develop a basis to evaluate and recommend actions to manage the
appearance of the land in order to provide compatible siting for
wastewater treatment facilities relative to their surroundings.

     "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is a common saying.  If
visual quality is purely subjective as this saying implies, then it
would not be possible to quantify or qualify visual quality impacts.
If, on the other hand, there can be agreement between people on what is
"beautiful" or attractive, then the impacts of a proposed project on
visual quality, albeit subjective, can be used with other more ob-
jectively based measures to make reasoned siting judgements.

     There is a body of research, based on surveys, that has attempted
to discern the preferences of people for particular landscapes or
views.  The methods used in these studies have varied:   some have
involved asking for judgements on photographs and then physically
calculating, for example, the area taken up by water or forest in order
to correlate between the subjective judgment and the area;  others have
asked people to compare photographs and rank them by "beauty" or
preference in order to reach a consensus of visual preferences.

     These studies have shown some degree of consistency in the way
people value landscapes ranging from natural to urban areas.  Based on
these findings, it can be said that many people today,  particularly
those in urban settings, prefer a varied natural landscape  to an
urbanized one and find a "pastoral" landscape to be most pleasant and
inviting.  Varied urban settings, however, such as city skylines,
particularly when integrated with varied features such as water, are
also viewed positively.
                                  34

-------
     Visual preferences,  however, change with time, setting, context,
and viewer background.   It is possible, nonetheless, to apply certain
generalities about how people will react to a particular landscape or
the addition of development to a setting.  A universally accepted
quantified system of detailed visual evaluations is not, however,
available and is not attempted in this analysis.

12.3.2.2  Hypotheses in Landscape Preference

      Because studies have shown there to be common threads in the way
the landscape is perceived, it is possible to perform a general visual
quality assessment on the proposed sites in this project utilizing
these elements.

     To this end, the following hypotheses were considered and accepted
as applicable in visual quality assessment for this project:

a.   As the relative relief of a view becomes more varied, the scenic
     quality of that view is perceived to increase.

     Flat  landscapes are judged to be monotonous and boring.  It is
     this  perception, that makes most people judge a view to an urban
     skyline or mountains as one of high scenic quality.

b.   As the diversity of compatible natural or man-made land uses
     increases, the visual quality of that landscape increases.

     A single land use over a large uniform area is perceived to be
     monotonous.  This can be applied to both urban areas with tract
     homes or rural areas with corn fields.  Logan Airport has some of
     this  negative attribute.

c.   As "naturalness" of a landscape increases, so does its scenic
     quality.
                                  35

-------
     Most people in North America prefer natural, pastoral landscapes
     over urbanized landscapes.

d.   As views of water surfaces increase, the scenic quality increases.
     People greatly admire expansive views over oceans, lakes and
     ponds.  There is a limit however.  In the middle of an ocean, few
     people would find views pleasant.

e.   As the number of "edge conditions" increases, the perceived scenic
     quality increases.

     Views which encompass a variety of edges -- water, shore, forests,
     fields, hills, and man-made features -- are perceived as most
     attractive and having the greatest visual/scenic quality.

f.   As the size of the view increases, the perceived scenic quality
     increases.

     People value wide, expansive views of the surrounding landscape.

g.   As the length of view increases, the scenic quality increases.
     People value views to distant horizons.

h.   As the viewer's position becomes superior to the view, the higher
     the scenic quality becomes.

     People enjoy views from high places, whether tops of buildings,
     hills, or mountains.

     Based on these hypotheses, the following generalizations can be
made with  regard to the siting of wastewater treatment facilities in
Boston Harbor.
                                  36

-------
1.    On whichever island new or expanded wastewater treatment facil-
     ities are sited,  the visual quality of that island will be
     degraded if such  siting involves the removal of significant or
     varied natural features or the noticeable expansion of facilities.
     The greater the degree of removal of features or the expansion of
     facilities, the greater the visual degradation.  Mitigations such
     as plantings, berms, and careful facility design to achieve more
     compatible siting are possible means to reduce negative impacts.

2.    Siting of prominent facilities or structures on high ground (such
     as on the drumlins on Long Island) makes them more visible and
     therefore accentuates their negative values relative to their
     surroundings.

3.    Because people enjoy the landscape when viewing it from a high
     place siting a facility on top of a drumlin that is or could be
     used as a vantage point, for example for park use, will degrade
     the overall visual experience that island visitors can have.

4.    Because a single  undistinguished land use over a large area can be
     monotonous, the visual quality of a large treatment plant will
     likely be more negative than a smaller treatment plant.  Also,
     opportunities to  mitigate a large-scale facility are more limited.

5.    Taking away or otherwise intruding on a view over water reduces
     the range of visual experiences, particularly at recreational
     settings.

6.    On whichever island existing wastewater facilities are reduced in
     size, the visual  quality will improve.  The degree of improvement
     is, however, broadly variable.  Little improvement or enhancement
     of views would be perceived if the abandoned facility area is
     merely demolished, leveled and grassed.  More improvement to
     visual quality could occur if the area were rehabilitated with
     land shaping and  plantings, for example, to introduce a new
                                  37

-------
     element of diversity or to establish site compatibility with the
     shoreline setting.

12.3.2.3  Impacts of Secondary Treatment Alternatives

     A.   Alternative 1:  All Deer Island

     Under this option, all secondary treatment facilities (115 acres)
would be located on Deer Island and the existing Nut Island facility
would be reduced to a two-acre headworks.

     On Deer Island, the 115-acre treatment plant would occupy nearly
all the remaining land south of the existing treatment facility.  It
would require levelling of the Signal Hill drumlin, the demolition of
the remains of Fort Dawes, riprapping of major portions of the
shoreline and construction of piers.

     Winthrop residents and those viewing the site from the harbor
already perceive Deer Island as industrial in character as a result of
the existing 26-acre treatment plant and the 40-acre prison.   Viewers
would perceive that industrial character of the site under this al-
ternative grown to a vast scale encompassing the entire island.
Overall, the existing modest diversity of onsite land uses and the
elimination of the single most positive natural feature of the island
would result in a degraded visual quality and severe adverse impact
primarily from harbor views and to a limited extent from Winthrop
viewing areas.

     Signal Hill, the prominent centrally located drumlin on the island
would be leveled, eliminating the prime topographic and natural visual
feature of the island.  This regrading would remove a prominent natural
feature from view by the closest residents in Point Shirley and Cottage
Hill as well as from the harbor.  The construction of riprap to sta-
bilize the shoreline and construction of piers would alter the edge of
the island to a more unnatural character altering views of the shore-
line from water.
                                  38

-------
     Vegetation on Deer Island is so sparse presently that its removal
would only be a minor visual loss, with the exception of the drumlin
noted previously.  The demolition of the remaining Fort Dawes struc-
tures and the removal of gun implacements would not be an adverse
impact visually, since these features are not perceived from most
viewpoints.

     The expansion of the Deer Island plant will cause the greatest
adverse visual quality impact from the harbor.  Currently, the Deer
Island Treatment Plant and the House of Correction are partly or
intermittently hidden from view from most of Winthrop residents and
recreational uses by intervening land uses and topographic elevations.
Views to the site over much of Boston Harbor are also limited by the
interposition of Signal Hill and other harbor islands.  The leveling of
the drumlin and the subsequent expansion of the treatment facility
across the island, will change the view from the harbor to Deer Island
from one that is currently perceived as a mixture of industrial and
open space,  to one that is predominantly industrial in appearance.
Also, as the island lies low to the water, including the southerly end
which would be only slightly higher, views from the water would be
readily obtainable from the smallest boats.

     On Nut Island the reduction of treatment facilities from 12 acres
to a 2 acre headworks will potentially free up the remaining part of
the island for other uses, among them recreation.  It must be noted
that the visual quality of the island could improve only if demolition
of the abandoned treatment plant facilities and rehabilitation of the
site were performed.  The visual impact of a 2-acre headworks would
generally be slight and that size facility could be easily made
visually compatible with the site.  Views from Houghs Neck across Nut
Island to the harbor are available from numerous locations.  Approxi-
mately 12 to 20 homes along Quincy Great Hill would have direct views
of the treatment plant site along with larger views of the harbor.
Other locations in North Quincy and along Wollaston Beach would also
have somewhat improved views of the site within the harbor setting
under this option.
                                  39

-------
     B-    Alternative 2:  Split Deer Island and Nut Island

     This alternative would site expanded secondary treatment facili-
ties on Deer Island (up to 115 acres) and expanded primary treatment
facilities on Nut Island (approximately 18 acres).

     With this alternative, the impacts on the visual quality of Deer
Island by a large-scale facility expansion would be the same as that
discussed for Alternative 1 above.  Existing open space, natural
features and mix of perceived land uses would be replaced by a single
industrial appearing land use that would be more visible and cause a
decline in the visual quality of the site.

     For Quincy residents, the visual impacts of a Nut Island expansion
encompassing the entire site will be an increase to the existing
severely adverse condition.  Expansion of the land area of Nut Island
by filling of the Bay (1-3 acres) and construction of a primary treat-
ment plant to approximately 18 acres will cause an additional decline
in the visual quality of that portion between shoreline Quincy Bay and
Hingham Bay.  This area is readily viewed from portions of Houghs Neck,
North Quincy and Wollaston Beach.  It is also viewed from the West Head
of Peddock's Island, an important island within the Boston Harbor
Islands State Park, as well as from other parts within the southern
harbor.   Adequate site compatibility utilizing visual screening or
plantings is not expected to mitigate this alternative's adverse
quality due to the limited site size available and the major facility
expansion required.

     C.    Alternative 3:  All Long Island

     Under this alternative, all primary and secondary treatment
facilities would be sited on Long Island (96 acres) with a headworks/
pump station on Deer Island (5 acres) and a headworks (2 acres) on Nut
Island.
                                  40

-------
     This alternative would have severe adverse visual impacts on Long
Island and the proposed Boston Harbor Island State Park recreational
area from the siting of major treatment facilities there.  There would
be, however, an opportunity to reduce existing facilities on and
improve the visual quality of both Deer Island and Nut Island.

     On Long Island the entire central drumlin area, which is a high
point of the site, would need to be utilized for a portion of the
96-acre treatment facility.  Regrading of the site would alter present
varied and rolling topography by flattening and lowering it.  The
existing hospital and grounds with its campus-like visual quality would
be demolished and replaced by facilities of an industrial appearance.
The  former Nike missile site would also be demolished although its
visual presence is negligable.  The Civil War Cemetery historical area
would remain, but its present area would be adversely affected either
directly by treatment facility siting or roadway relocation, or in-
directly by the alteration of the visual character of this area of the
island.

     Large expanses of undeveloped land would lose their existing
natural qualities.  The brackish and fresh water wetlands and barrier
beach area adjacent to the proposed plant site would lose their natural
settings and relationship to the existing undeveloped southern part of
the  island.  The large central drumlin would be regraded flat or
possibly terraced to support the new facilities.  Riprap would be
required along portions of the shoreline to stabilize presently steep
slopes.  Large expanses of scrubby grasses, thickets, and groves of
mature trees would also have to be removed.  These changes to the
natural topography and vegetative cover of the island would eliminate
much of that area's natural diversity and pastoral quality which is a
positive overall visual quality.  It would be replaced with major
treatment facilities and recontoured land area distinctly negative in
visual quality and not conducive to the existing compatibility between
recreational park uses and natural features.
                                  41

-------
     Due to its central location in the harbor, treatment facilities on
Long Island would be clearly in view from the nearby islands,
principally Spectacle, Thompson, Rainsford, Gallops, George's,
Peddocks, and Deer.  These locations figure prominently in the Boston
Harbor Island State Park plan and their visual context would become
adversely altered.  Views of Long Island are also afforded from many
parts of Winthrop, Boston, Quincy and Hill.  Long Island Head, which is
proposed by DEM as an intensive use recreation area able to support up
to 150,000 annual visitations, would afford clear views of the
treatment plant located just to the south.

     On Deer Island, the reduction of the existing 26-acre facility to
a 5-acre headworks/pump station will be somewhat beneficial, but it
will not improve visual quality on Deer Island to a major extent.  The
Deer Island headworks and pump station, though smaller in size, will
still be a significant structure comparable to the present pump
station-power building and will continue to be perceived visually along
with the 40-acre prison.  Therefore, there will continue to be a
significant adverse visual factor both from land and harbor views.

     On the positive side the overall visual quality of Deer Island
would be somewhat improved by the removal of such negatively perceived
elements as tanks and steelwork.  The potential installation of
plantings to screen the facility and the prison would further improve
the visual quality of the site.  Additionally, if the southern part of
the island could  remain as open space, perhaps developed in the future
for recreation, then there would be a positive visual quality benefit
to veiwers.

     The reduction of Nut Island facilities to a 2-acre headworks would
potentially improve the visual quality of Nut Island from adjacent
Quincy Great Hill and from North Quincy areas and recreational beaches.
A full description of this benefit is found under Alternative 1.
                                  42

-------
     D.    Alternative 4:   Split Deer Island and Long Island

     Under this alternative,  secondary facilities (82 acres) would be
located on Long Island,  primary facilties (52 acres) would be located
on Deer Island, with a headworks (2 acres) on Nut Island.

     This alternative would improve the visual quality of Nut Island by
the reduction of facilities to a 2-acre headworks, although it would
severely impact Long Island.   Deer Island impacts would be moderate.

     The visual impacts on Nut Island would be largely beneficial as
described under Alternative 1 above.

     On Deer Island, the treatment facilities would be doubled in size
to approximately 52 acres.  Expansion would be located to the northeast
of Signal Hill drumlin and adjacent to the present facility and the
40-acre prison.  This expansion would newly expose the treatment
facility to harbor views from the east and to somewhat increased views
from those residences along the edge of Cottage Hill which presently
view treatment facilities.  However, this expansion would likely be
perceived as generally comparable with the visual quality of the
existing facilities and the prison, thereby minimizing any appreciable
perceived gain of adverse effects.

     The major adverse visual quality impacts of this alternative oh
Long Island would be similar to these described in Alternative 3 above.
The slightly reduced size of facilities (14 acres smaller) would not
reduce the visual impact to any appreciable extent since views would
still perceive the major alterations and recontouring of the site, and
the alterations to the site and its present setting would remain.  From
Long Island Head (DEM's proposed intensive use recreation site) and the
West Head, the treatment plant will continue to dominate views on the
island; while from the water or other nearby islands signficant visi-
bility of the treatment plant would remain.
                                  43

-------
12.3.2.4  Impacts of Primary Treatment Alternatives

     A.    Alternative 1:  All Deer Island

     The impacts of this alternative on visual quality are slightly to
moderately beneficial on Nut Island and moderately adverse on Deer
Island.   Nut Island benefits, resulting from the reduction of facil-
ities to a 2-acre headworks, are similar to that described for Nut
Island under secondary treatment Alternative 1 above.  On Deer Island
the expansion of treatment facilities to 62 acres results in similar
impacts  as those for the 52-acre facility (as described in secondary
Alternative 4) since the slightly increased size does not appreciably
alter the drumlin or the site's character with the prison use
remaining.  The perception of this larger expanded treatment facility
would be generally comparable to the visual quality of the existing
treatment plant.

     B.    Alternative 2:  Split Deer Island and Nut Island

     This alternative continues the current situation by maintaining
primary treatment facilities on both Nut and Deer Islands, although in
each instance they will be expanded.  The visual quality of both
islands  and views to the sites from adjacent neighborhoods and water
areas would be an increase to the severely adverse condition at Nut
Island and the moderately adverse condition at Deer Island.

     The adverse impacts on Deer Island of a 52-acre facility are
described under secondary treatment Alternative 4 above.  Similarly, on
Nut Island, adverse visual impacts are described under secondary
treatment Alternative 2 above.

     C.    Alternative 3:  Split Deer Island and Long Island

     Under this alternative, visual quality would improve at Nut Island
from the reduction of treatment facilities to a headworks (2 acre), it
                                  44

-------
would be moderately degraded on Long island, and would be moderately
degraded on Deer Island also.

     For Nut Island, the impacts of a headworks are similar to other
Nut Island headworks alternatives described above (see Secondary
Alternative 1).  On Deer Island, the adverse impacts of a 52-acre
treatment plant are similar to that described under secondary Alter-
native 4 above.

     On Long Island, the introduction of an 18-acre treatment facility
would moderately degrade the visual quality of the island setting in
the vicinity of the plant site, negatively affecting some on-site views
in this southern portion of the island, as well as some views to the
island from the harbor.  Of all the Long Island alternatives, this one
would negatively impact the visual quality of Long Island the least.
It may be, moreover, that views from the harbor could be effectively
screened except for the pier.  This would leave the most significant of
these impacts  to onsite views on the vicinity of the site and from the
hospital grounds.

     The degree of design sensitivity applied to the facility and its
siting, including screenings and plantings, will determine the extent
and significance of adverse visual impact experienced by viewers.  The
DEM plan for this southern portion of the island is highly dependent on
the visual continuity of the many natural features that the plan weaves
into a sequence of moderate intensity recreational experiences.  The
treatment plant siting and operations will be disruptive to these experiences

     Siting the treatment plant on the former Nike Base and adjacent
grounds, which have low visual quality at present, would provide visual
screening of the facility from the high intensity recreational uses
proposed on Long Island Head.  However, there would be a dimunition of
the quality of some of the views from the hospital and from portions of
the central roadway.  Any additional visual quality effects would be
dependent on the more detailed final design studies conducted  for the
project.  Careful planning and site design may mitigate these  effects
                                  45

-------
somewhat with screening and plantings necessary to limit negative
visual quality.
                                   46

-------
     BIBLIOGRAPHY/SOURCES

Cambridge Systematics,  Inc.  Boston Harbor Islands State Park Master
Plan Update, Draft Transportation Plan, 1983.

Environmental Assessment Council, Inc.  Environmental Inventory -
Boston, EIS, 1977(7).

Environmental Protection Agency, Draft Environmental Impact Statement
on the Upgrading of the Boston Metropolitan Area Sewerage System, Vol.
I, 1978.

Kales, Emily and David.  All About the Boston Harbor Islands, Herman
Publishing Co., Boston, 1976.

Mass. Department of Environmental Management.  Boston Harbor Islands
State Park.  Newsletter, September 1983.

Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. Nut Island Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities
Planning Project, Phase I, Site Options Study Volume II, 1982.

Metropolitan Area Planning Council Boston Harbor Islands Comprehensive
Plan, 1972.

Metropolitan District Commission, Recreational Facilities, July 1982.

Metropolitan District Commission, Transcript of Public Hearing, July
29, 1982.

Randall, Debra A., Archaeological Survey of the Proposed MDC Sludge
Management Plant at Deer Island, Massachusetts, 1981.

Sweetser, M.F., King's Handbook of Boston Harbor.  Moses King
Publisher, Cambridge, MA, 1882.
                                  47

-------
Task Forces to Mayor Flynn, Boston in Transition, A Program and
Policy Analysis,  Office of the Mayor, January, 1984.

Wallace, Floyd, Assoc., Inc. Boston Harbor Islands State Park - Draft
Concept Plan, 1983.

Wallace, Floyd, Assoc., Inc. Boston Harbor Islands State Park - Review
of Park Development, 1983.

Wallace, Floyd, Assoc., Inc. Boston Harbor Islands State Park -
1984 Master Plan, 1984.
                                   48

-------
12.4 Engineering
 Cost Estimates

-------
                             Section 12.4
                           TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                                 PAGE NO.
1.0  SUMMARY                                                        1

     1.1   Introduction                                              1
     1.2   SDEIS Alternatives Considered                             1

2.0  DEVELOPMENT OF ENGINEERING AND SITING ALTERNATIVES             3

     2.1   Evaluation of MDC Alternatives from the Nut Island
            Site Options Study (1982)                               3
     2.2   Alternatives Considered from Other Studies                5
     2.3   New Alternatives Not Previously Studied                   6


3.0  FACILITIES DESIGN CRITERIA                                     1


4.0  DEVELOPMENT OF INITIAL PRELIMINARY COSTS OF ALTERNATIVES       8

     4.1   Capital and O&M Costs Update                              8
     4.2   Costs of New Alternatives                                II
     4.3   Assumptions Made on Engineering Cost Analysis            18
     4.4   Operations and Maintenance Costs                         18


5.0  REVISED COSTS FOR SCREENED ALTERNATIVES                       2.1

     5.1   Updated Costs from Site Options Study                    Zl
     5.2   Use of EXEC/OP Computer Model for Verification           2.2.
     5.3   Survey of Existing Facilities and Other Cost Sources     2.5
     5.4   Revised Capital Cost Estimates                           2.6
     5.5   Revised O&M Costs                                      35
     5.6   Costs to be Developed During Final Facility Design       3&

-------
1.0  SUMMARY

1. 1  Introduction

     This report describes the basis of the preliminary cost estimates
applied in the Supplemental Draft EIS (SDEIS) for the wastewater
treatment facility alternatives being proposed for Boston Harbor.  It
identifies the method followed for initial development of facility
costs for a wide range of treatment facility options considered by the
MDC or proposed by others during the EIS process, and explains the
methods and assumptions applied to revise these initial cost estimates
once a smaller set of alternatives was reached.  The impact analysis
done in the SDEIS does not encompass all costs associated with harbor
treatment facilities.  For example, costs of sludge disposal are not a
part of the capital costs developed for wastewater treatment plants;
likewise, costs for associated barging of equipment, busing of con-
struction workers, unforeseen site constraints, and mitigation measures
are not part of the facility capital costs presented in this section,
nor are costs for other projects (such as CSO or I/I improvements)
included.  These costs will be developed either as part of separate
facility plans or during final facility design of harbor treatment
plants.

 1.2  SDEIS Alternatives Considered

     The preparation of a Supplemental Draft EIS of proposed wastewater
 treatment facilities in Boston Harbor began with a review of the
 facility engineering requirements and the development of associated
preliminary costs for all viable treatment alternatives.  The deter-
mination of which alternatives were to be considered in the SDEIS
 required the review of all potential siting alternatives for Boston
 Harbor wastewater treatment facilities.
                                 12.4-1

-------
     This review was based on:

          alternatives studied  by the MDC and their consultants in the
          Nut Island Site Options Study (1982) report;

          other siting alternatives and treatment options which were
          previously studied;  and

          new alternatives not  previously considered which have been
          identified as part of this SDEIS analysis.

     Preliminary analysis of these siting alternatives defined such
criteria as the level of treatment, acreage required, site environment
and the neighboring community,  and the number of sites and facilities
involved.  Costs for construction and for operation, maintenance and
replacement (0, M & R) were examined initially as a means of comparing
the alternatives within either  a primary level or secondary level of
treatment.

     To compare the relative viability of the options at this early
stage of analysis, a general screening process was used to reduce the
number of alternatives for further, more detailed study.  Environmental
and community impacts were found to be of greatest concern among
options.  Costs of the options  were found not to be a principal deter-
minant in the screening process.  A separate report describes the
screening process and its results (see Section 12.12).

     Eight alternatives were selected from the screening process.
These were then reanalyzed in greater detail to independently establish
preliminary capital costs and 0, M & R costs for both primary and
secondary options.  In certain  instances, revisions were made to the
preliminary costs based on the  findings of this re-analysis.  Table
12.4-1, which follows, summarizes these estimated costs as they now
stand.  Further final design details may further refine these costs at
that last phase of the facility design process.  The set of final
                                12.4-2

-------
                                                    TABLE 12.U-l



                                 BOSTON HARBOR SDEIS:  SUMMARY  OF OPTIONS AND THEIR COSTS
Option Ho.
Sitea, Level of Treatment, and
(Acreage Required)
Nut Island Deer Island Long Island
Costs in
SMillion* 1 Present^
Worth *•
Capital OfcM ($Millions)
SECONDARY ALTERNATIVES
U.2
U> .2*
2b.l
2b.3
PRIMARY
4*. 2 D
4b.2 D*
5*. 2 D
• ( 2) • m§ (115)
• (18) • M (115)
• ( 2) • ( 5) • •• ( 96)
• ( 2) 0 ( 52) £ •§ ( 82)
ALTERNATIVES
• ( 2) + ( 62)
• (18) £ ( 52)
• ( 2) • ( 52) 0 ( 16)
Sb.2 D** • ( 2) • ( 5) • ( 52)
595.04 43.59 1019.06
650.40 45.18 1089.93
705.98 44.63 1140.13
738.33 53.12 1255.07

751.99 21.10 957.28
810.22 22.01 1024.31
816.23 23.52 1044.97
871.55 21.51 1080.74
KEY:
              • headwords only
                                                                  • secondary treatment
                                    •9 = primary treatment

                                                   1
D - deep oce^n outfall     * -  HDC'a preferred options    POW-I ~^j          ,--.
                                                    Revised costs reflect refinements  to  earlier facility  r^ans

** = This  option dropped during  final  screening.  as dlscussed in  section 12.4 of Volume  II.   These costs  do
                                                    no_t include sludqc  disposal, barging, busing, or  special  noise

                                                    mitigation  measures  (see Sections  4.5 and 5.2).

Source:   CE Maguire,  Inc.,   November,   1984.     2Assumes 10%  interest over 20 years.

-------
capital and 0, M & R costs shown here and in Volume 1 of the SDEIS are
the basis for the cost analysis presented.

2.0  DEVELOPMENT OF ENGINEERING AND SITING ALTERNATIVES

2.1  Evaluation of MDC Alternatives from the Nut Island Site Options
    ' Study (1982)

     The MDC Nut Island Site Options Study (1982) report was the
principal source of facility design criteria and cost data applicable
to the possible sites being considered.  It presented capital and O&M
cost tables for 12 options analyzed in detail for the MDC by their
consultants, Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.  The SDEIS review process required
the examination of each alternative to verify the level of treatment
proposed, acreage required, site environment, including the neighboring
community, and the number and type of facilities involved.  Evaluation
of facilities siting also included the determination of individual unit
processes requirements, the treatment facilities for north and south
system flows, and the overall usage and characteristics of the sites.

     For example, the MDC Nut Island Site Options Study (1982) "Option
5" provides secondary treatment.  Under this option, a primary-
secondary treatment facility for the north system flows would be
located on Deer Island, a primary treatment facility for south system
flows would be located on Nut Island, and a companion secondary treat-
ment facility for south system flows would be located on Long Island.
Therefore, three distinct sites with varying levels of treatment would
be involved under this option.  The use of Deer Island could impact
neighboring Port Shirley in Winthrop, the use of Nut Island could
impact neighboring Houghs Neck in Quincy, and the use of Long Island
could impact neighboring Squantum also in Quincy.  Such combinations of
wastewater treatment engineering and siting considerations were
evaluated during the initial review of alternatives.
                                12.4-3

-------
     In general, the alternatives presented in the MDC Nut Island Site
Options Study (1982) involved both primary and secondary treatment.
They involved the use of Deer and Nut Islands to varying degrees in all
cases, and the use of Long Island for three options, all of which are
secondary treatment options.  The choice of alternatives studied by the
MDC and their consultants was based on the circumstances and decision
process in effect at that time.  Subsequent developments, notably the
opportunity to apply to EPA for a waiver from secondary treatment,
resulted in a need to reconsider these MDC facility plan options, and
in certain instances, develop new ones as described in Section 2.3
below.

2.2  Alternatives Considered from Other Studies

     Other studies conducted prior to the MDC Nut Island Site Options
Study  (1982) also examined options for wastewater treatment facilities
siting in Boston Harbor.  These included:

          MDC, Wastewater Engineering and Management Plan for Boston
          Harbor - Eastern Massachusetts Metropolitan Area, EMMA Study,
          Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., March, 1976.

          EPA, Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Upgrading
          of the Boston Metropolitan Area Sewerage System, Greeley and
          Hansen and Environmental Assessment Council, Inc., August,
          1978.

     The MDC EMMA Study (1976) was the original facility plan for
siting of treatment facilities and it recommended a plan which provided
wastewater treatment at four sites.  Secondary and advanced treatment
facilities would be located at Deer Island, Nut Island, the Middle
Charles River, and Upper Neponset River.  The study also considered
siting along the Aberjona River.  These proposed sites were then
evaluated by EPA prior to approval of federal funds.
                                12.4-5

-------
     The EPA Draft EIS (1978) written following the MDC EMMA Study
(1976) plan, initially considered eleven sites in the vicinity of
Boston Harbor for the location of wastewater treatment facilities.
These sites were:  Deer Island, Spectacle Island, Long Island, Moon
Island, Squantum, Peddocks Island, Nut Island, Broad Meadows, Kings
Cove, Lower Neck, and Broad Cove.  Of these sites, only Deer Island,
Long Island, Squantum Point, Nut Island and Broad Meadows were found to
be suitable for further consideration.

     As is apparent, conditions had changed sufficiently from the date
of these studies, and particularly the EPA Draft EIS (1978), to warrant
a new facility planning effort by the MDC, as evidenced by the MDC
Nut Island Site Options Study (1982), and a supplemental environmental
review by EPA in this SDEIS.

     Chief among the options developed in these prior plans which were
carried in the SDEIS were the proposal from the EMMA Study to site
"satellite" advanced treatment facilities on the Charles and Neponset
Rivers, and the recommendation from the EPA Draft EIS (1978) for
consolidated secondary treatment facilities on Deer Island.

2.3  New Alternatives Not Previously Studied

     After reviewing the range of alternatives presented in the MDC
Nut Island Site Options Study (1982), the MDC EMMA Study (1976), and
the EPA Draft EIS (1978), public and agency comment was invited during
the EPA scoping period for the SDEIS.  It became apparent from the
comments received that several additional options should also be
considered.  Some of these options involved variations of treatment
process locations for both primary and secondary treatment.  Sites
considered were primarily those at Deer, Nut, and Long Islands.  These
included:

          Primary treatment at Deer and Nut Island with a combined
          secondary facility on Long Island,
                                 12.4-6

-------
          Converting Nut Island to a headworks and providing primary
          treatment at Long Island,

          Converting both Deer and Nut Islands to either headworks or
          pumping facilities and providing either primary or secondary
          treatment facilities on Long Island.

     Other new alternatives considered looked at utilization of other
sites in Boston Harbor including Thompson Island, Lovell Island, or the
Brewster Islands.

     Besides the presentation of new options relating to siting of
facilities, the comments received during scoping suggested optional
treatment processes as possible additional alternatives to be examined.
For example, an intermediate level of treatment greater than primary,
but less than secondary, could be achieved through chemically assisted
primary treatment (or advanced primary).  Though initially considered,
these intermediate treatment levels were dropped because no proposal to
utilize such treatment had been made.

     After reviewing all of the existing and new siting and treatment
alternatives, twenty-two options (including some similar options having
only slight variations in their facility layout) were analyzed for
preliminary screening.  This screening reduced the number of viable
alternatives to eight.  A separate report describing the screening
process and the results was distributed in June, 1984 (see Section
12.12).  These eight were then reanalyzed to establish independent and
revised costs as appropriate.

3.0  FACILITIES DESIGN CRITERIA

     The MDC Nut Island Site Options Study (1982) presented in detail
the individual facility components required for each treatment
alternative.  These components are designed to provide optimum removal
of coarse solids, suspended and floating solids, grease, and organic
matter.  Other components also provide for disinfection and odor
                                12.4-7

-------
control.  Land acquisition and other associated site development costs
were also developed in the prior study.

     After reviewing established design guidelines, the generalized
design criteria presented in the MDC Nut Island Site Options Study
(1982) were found to be accurate for the treatment alternatives
presented.  These design criteria applied to such treatment components
as screens, grit chambers, primary tanks, aeration tanks and equipment,
secondary tanks, sludge pumps and thickeners, and digesters.

     Design criteria used to determine the individual component dimen-
sions were developed from those used in the MDC Nut Island Site
Options Study (1982) for each option presented.  In order to facilitate
the comparison of the treatment alternatives in the SDEIS, the
component dimensions established for a given volume were carried over
to the new options, when applicable.  Otherwise, new component
dimensions were derived based on the established design criteria and
assumptions presented in the MDC study.  The dimensions of these major
treatment facility components utilized in the SDEIS are presented in
Table 12.4-2.  A general comparison of treatment components is
presented in Figure 12.4-1.

4.0  DEVELOPMENT OF INITIAL PRELIMINARY COSTS OF ALTERNATIVES

4.1  Capital and O&M Costs Update

     The MDC Nut Island Site Options Study (1982) included a table of
capital costs for each option.  The cost table presented detailed costs
for each option component, as well as other construction-related costs
such as removal of unsuitable materials and land acquisition.  Since
this study was completed in June 1982, the costs presented in that
report were based on an Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost
Index of 3600, reflecting then current prices.
                                12.4-8

-------
                                                                                        TREATMENT FACILITY DIMENSIONS BY OPTION(1) Table 12.4 '
                                                                                                                                                               TABLE   12.4-2
Treatment System Description
Option Site, island
la.
Ib.



Ic.



2a.



2a




Deer (existing)
Deer (new)
Nut (new)
Deer (existing)
Deer (new)
Nut (existing)
Nut (new)
Deer (existing)
Deer (new)
Nut (existing)
Nut (new)
1 Deer (existing)
Deer (new)
Nut (new)
Long (new)
.2 Deer (existing)
Deer (new)
Nut (existing)
Nut (new)
Long (new)
Preliminary Treatment
Upgraded Primary Treatment
Aerated grit chamber Primary sedimentation Gravity thickening Anaerobic sludge digestion Activated sludge
No. - width x length x depth No. - width x length x depth No. - diameter No. - diameter x depth No. - widttr ' x
2,5,20 x 34 x 15
2UJ - 20 x 28 x 15
4 - 25 x 80 x 15
2,5,20 x 34 x 15
2u; - 20 x 28 x 15
-
4 - 25 x 80 x 15
2,5,20 x 34 x 15
2u; - 20 x 28 x 15
-
4 - 25 x 80 x 15
2,5,20 x 34 x 15
2u; - 20 x 28 x 15
4 - 25 x 80 x 15
-
2,5,20 x 34 x 15
2( ' - 20 x 28 x 15
-
4 - 25 x 80 x 15
-
8 - 100 x 240 x 11.3
20 - 96 x 200 x 11.3
4 -
6 -
55
80
8 - 100 x 240 x 11.3 4,7^55
12 -

12 -
8 -
12 -

12 -
8 -
12 -

8 -
8 -
12

96 x 200 x 11.3
-
64 x 185 x 10
100 x 240 x 11.3
96 x 200 x 11.3
-
64 x 185 x 10
100 x 240 x 11.3
96 x 200 x 11.3
-
96 x 200 x 10
100 x 240 x 11.3
96 x 200 x 11.3
-
12 - 64 x 185 x 10

-
5W
-
2 -
4 -
4 -
-
2 -
4 -
4 -
-
2 -
4 -
4 -
-
2,7
2(
- 80

80
55
80

80
55
80

80
55
80

,80
' - 55
4 -
8 -
4 -
4 -
4 -

4 -
4 -
4 -

4 -
4 -

4 -
4 -
4 -
4 -


106 x 30
105 x 30
108 x 30
105 x 30
110 x 30
-
108 x 30
105 x 30
110 x 30
-
ice x 30
105 x 30
-
105 x 30
108 x 30
105 x 30
110 x 30
-
-
22 -

22 -



16 -

6 -

16 -

6 -

16 -


6 -
120 x 185 x
_
120 x 185 x
-
-
.
120 x 185 x
-
120 x 185 x
.
120 x 185 x
-
120 x 185 x
_
Secoi
idary Tireataent

Disinfection
aeration Secondary sedimentation Contact Tank
length x depth 	 |p. - width x length x depth width x length x depth
20

20



20

20

20

20

120 x 185 x 20
-
-
120 x 185 x


20
SO -

50 -



38 -

12 -

38 -

12 -

38 -


12 -
80

80



80

85

80

85

80


85
x 260 x
.
x 260 x
-
-
-
x 260 x
-
x 260 x
-
x 260 x
-
x 260 x
.
x 260 x
-

x 260 x
12

12



12

12

12

12

12


12
340 x

340 x



294 x

170 x

294 x

170 x

294 x


170 x
660 x 15
4
-
680 x 15
-
—
-
588 x 15
-
340 x 15
+
588 x 15
-
340 x 15
-
588 x 1.5
-
.
340 x 15
2b.l Deer (existing)
     Deer (new)
     Nut (new)
     Long (new)
2,5,20 x  34 x  15
2V ' - 20 x 28 x 15
4 - 25 x  80 x  15
                             30 - 96  x  200 x 11.3
                             8-80
                   12 -  305 x 30
                           22  -  120 x 185 x 20
50 - 80 x 260 x 12
                                                                                                                                                                         340 x 680 x 15
2b.2 Deer (existing)
     Deer (new)
     Nut (existing)
 '   Nut (new)
     Long (new)

3a.  Deer (existing)
     Deer (new)
     Nut (new)
     Lovel (new)

3b.  Deer (existing)
     Deer (new)
     Nut (new)
     Brewsters  (new)

4a.  Deer (existing)
     Deer (new)
     Nut (new)

4b.  Deer (existing)
     Deer (new)
     Nut (existing)
     Nut (new)

5a.  Deer (existing)
     Deer (new)
     Nut  (new)
     Long (new)

 5b.  Deer (existing)
     Deer (new)
     Nut (new)
     Long (new)
2,5.20  x  34 x 15
2u; -  20 x 64 x 15

4 - 25  x  80 x 15
2,5,20 x 34 x  15
2U' - 20 x 28 x  15
4 - 25 x 80 x  15
2,5,20 x 34 x 15
2UJ - 20 x 28 x  15
4 - 25 x 80 x 15
 2,5,20 x 34 x 15
 2(  ' - 20 x 28 x 15
 4 - 25 x 80 x 15

 2,5,20 x 34 x 15
 2u; - 20 x 28 x 15

 4 - 25 x 80 x 15

 2,5,20 x 34 x 15
 2V  ' - 20 x 28 x 15
 4 - 25 x 80 x 15
 2,5,20 x  34 x 15
 2UJ  - 20 x 28 x 15
 4 - 25 x  80 x 15
8 - 100 x  240 x 11.3
12 - 96 x  200 x 11.3

12 - 64 x  185 x 10
                             30 - 96 x 200  x  11.3
 30 - 96 x 200 x 11.3

 8 - 100 x 240 x 11.3
 20 - 96 x 200 x 11.3
 8  -  100 x 240 x 11.3
 12 - 96 x 200 x 11.3

 12 - 64 x 185 x 10

 8  -  100 x 240 x 11.3
 20 - 96 x 200 x 11.3

 12 - 64 x 185 x 10
                              30 - 96  x  200 x 11.3
4
4

2(

- 55
- 80
-
,7,80
V° - 80
4 -
4 -
4 -


108 x 30
105 x 30
110 x 30
-
-
                             8-80
8-80

4 - 55
6-80
4 - 55
4-80

2-80

4-55
6-80

2-80
                              8-80
                   12 - 105 x 30
12 - 105 x 30

4 - 108 x 30
8 - 105 x 30
4 - 108 x 30
4 - 105 x 30
4 - 110 x 30
4 - 108 x 30
8 - 105 x 30

4 - 110 x 30
                    12 -  105 x 30
                                                                                                        22(2)  -  120 x 185 x 20
                                                                                                        22 - 120  x  185 x 20
                                                                                                        22 - 120 x 185  x 20
 1.   Dimensions  given in feet.
 2.   New construction involves expansion of aerated grit chambers  at  the Winthrop Terminal Facility.
 3.   Width includes multiple passes in aeration tanks.
 4.   Includes  the  capability to rethicken digested sludge which has been diluted and pumped from  another primary treatment plant
 5.   Local outfalls only.
 6.   One tank  240  x 480 x 15 feet, would be constructed at Deer Island  if  Deep Ocean Outfall is utilized for this Option.
 Source:  CE Maguire,  Inc. based on information contained in MDC, Site Options Study (June 1982).
                                                                                                           50  - 80 x 260 x 12
                                                                                                           50 -  80 x 260 x 12
                                                                                                           50 -  80  x 260 x 12
                                                                                                               340 x 680  x  15
                                                                                                                                                                         340 x 680 x 15
                                                                                                                                                                         340 x 680 x 15
                                  340 x 680 x 15
                                  294 x 588  x  15

                                  170 x 340  x  15
                                  294 x 588 x
                                  170 x 340 x
                                                (6)
(6)

(6)
                                                                                                                                                                          340 x 680  x 15
                                                                                                                                                           (5)
                                                                                                      site.

-------
WASTEWATER TREATMENT  COMPONENTS BY TREATMENT  LEVEL
                        COMPONENT
FLOWS
NORTH SOUTH COMBINED
SYSTEM SYSTEM


econdar
CO

i

>.
i_
CO
E
k.
0.
1
I 1 w
•o I * Aerated ,^-. ,~ ,
« \o Grit 4UJ 4 8UJ
xi^ Chambers
Primary (2} (2}
Sedimentation 20V } 12 28V y
Tanks
Gravity ( . (3}
Sludge 8IJ; 2 10^;
Thickeners
Anaerobic 8(3) 4(4) 12(5)
r Digesters
Aeration 16 6 22
Tanks
Secondary
Sedimentation 38 12 50
f Tanks
   (1)  2  of these are existing at Deer Island
   (2)  8  of these are existing at Deer Island
   (3)  4  of these are existing at Deer Island (4)  4 of these are existing
   at Nut  Island
   (5)  4  of these are existing at Deer Island and  4 at Nut Island


   Source:  Based on MDC, Nut  Island Site Options Study (1982) Volume 1
   Table 5-5.
                                Figure  12..4-

-------
     In order to facilitate the presentation of relative costs for all
of the options under consideration in the SDEIS, the MDC Nut Island
Site  Options Study (1982) cost table was first updated to an ENR
Construction Cost Index of 4200, reflecting 1984 prices.  Table 12.4-3
presents these costs for all options considered.  The project costs
presented in the SDEIS reflect current 1984 dollars and will change
accordingly to reflect future inflation beyond 1984 at the time when
project construction begins.

     Operation and maintenance (O&M) cost tables were similarly pre-
sented in the MDC Nut Island Site Options Study (1982) to reflect
prices then in effect.  Therefore, these costs were also updated to
1984 prices.

4.2  Costs of New Alternatives

     In developing costs for new options, individual component charac-
teristics for each option were compared with those presented in the MDC
Nut Island Site Options Study (1982).  When an identical process
capacity was involved, the cost from the MDC study (updated) was
carried over and assigned to that component for the new option.   For
cases where identical process capacities did not exist, costs were
developed utilizing the MDC study data applied as a ratio of volume to
costs.  In such cases, the resultant figures were examined to assure
consistency.  It was determined that for this stage of preliminary
conceptual design and associated cost analysis such an approach was
reasonable.

     For example, under SDEIS Option 2b.l at Long Island, the influent
pump station would be identical to that required for "Option 11" of the
MDC Nut Island Site Options Study (1982).  Therefore, the costs were
assumed to be the same.  However, under Option 2b.l at Long Island, 30
primary tanks would be required.  The greatest number of tanks to be
constructed at any location for any MDC study alternative was twenty;
therefore, the estimated preliminary cost for primary tanks at Long
Island was calculated based on a proportionate cost.

                                12.4-11

-------
 Table  12.4-3
                           UPDATED  SITE OPTIONS   STUDY  COSTS (  ENR 4200 )
Influent Pump Station
Screens & Grit Chambers
Primary Sedimentation
  Tanks
Gravity Thickeners
Anaerobic Digesters
Gas Storage
Secondary Aeration
  Tanks
Blower Building
Secondary Sedimentation
  Tanks
Electrical Generator
  BuiIdi ng
Engine Generators
Administration &
  Maintenance Building
Scum Incinerator
Odor Control Facilities
Chlorination Equipment
Chlorine Contact Tanks
Utility Company Power
  to Site
Pier Facilities
Interisland Wastewater
  Tunnel
Effluent Pump Station
Outfalls
Miscellaneous Civil
Channels and Dikes
Removal Unsuitable
  Materials
Earth Fill
Foundation Preparation
Demo 1i t i on
Subtotal by Site
Cjp ila 1 Cost
Land Acquisition
Sludge Processing
Total Capital Cost
Option la. 2
Deer Nut
29,677
315 9,129
30,051
3,506
22,059
3,105
80,317
44,743
248,614
2,066
6,080
7,560
7,245
17,073 741
3,443 1,402
13,857
1,772
11,528
82,819
29,413
47,723
756
3,141 275
27,353
-
-
2^835
639,670 98,973
738,643
2,077
1 1 ,924
852,644
Option lb.2
Deer
29,677
315
18,031
2,921
12,920
3,150
80,317
44,743
248,614
-
1 ,216
6,615
3,623
-
3,443
13,857
-
11,528
-
29,413
47,723
709
3,141
26,514
-
-
-
588,470
773
2,077
111 ,924
887
Nut
2,993
9,129
17,918
1,169
-
-
-
-
-
1 ,540
4,864
4,442
3,885
17,814
1,402
-
1,969
8,892
82,819
-
-
-
6,297
-
2,442
15,730
1,575
184,880
,350


,351
Option 1C
Deer
16,881
315
18,031
2,337
12,920
3,150
59,012
31,319
183,974
-
1 ,216
6,615
3,623
-
2,835
10,409
-
11,528
-
22,411
41,265
599
3,141
20,731
-
-
-
452,312
770
1,820
111,924
884
Nut
2,993
9,129
17,918
1,169
-
-
21,307
13,422
64,639
1,540
4,864
5,355
3,885
17,814
1 ,591
3,469
2,048
8,892
_
8,710
49,397
552
15,666
-
13,262
49,167
1,575
318,364
,676


,420
Deer
16,881
315
18,031
2,337
12,920
3,150
59,012
31,319
183,974
-
1,216
6,615
3,623
-
2,835
10,409
-
11,528
-
22,411
41,265
599
3,141
20,731
-
-
-
45273T2

1 ,820
111 ,924

Option 2a . 1*
Nut
2,993
9,129
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
741
1 ,402
-
1,772
-
46,459
-
-
-
275
-
-
-
2_j_835
65,606
783,081


897,875
Long
10,432
~
17,918
1,169
12,920
3,150
21,307
13,422
64,639
2,066
4,864
6,615
3,623
17,073
2,066
3,469
-
8,234
-
8,710
53,019
552
1,245
973
2,008
5,689
-
265,163

1 ,050



-------
 Table  12.4-3  cont.
Influent Pump Station
Screens & Grit Chambers
Primary Sedimentation
  Tanks
Gravity Thickeners
Anaerobic Digesters
Gas Storage
Secondary Aeration
  Tanks
Blower Building
Secondary Sedimentation
  Tanks
Electrical Generator
  Building
Engine Generators
Administration &
  Maintenance Building
Scum Incinerator
Odor Control Facilities
Chlorination Equipment
Chlorine Contact Tanks
Utility Company Power
  to Site
I'ier Facilities
Interisland Wastewater
  Tunnel
Effluent Pump Station
Outfalls
Miscellaneous Civil
Channels and Dikes
Removal Unsuitable
  Materials
Earth Fill
Foundation Preparation
Demolition
Subtotal by Site
Capital Cost
Land Acquisition
Sludge Processing
Total Capital Cost
Option 2a.2*
Deer
16,881
315
18,031
2,337
12,920
3,150
59,012
31,319
183,974
-
1,216
6,615
3,623
-
2,835
10,409
_
ll,r>28
-
22,411
41,265
599
3,141
20,731
-
-
-
452,312

1,820
111 ,924
Nut
2,993
9,129
17,918
1,169
-
-
-
-
-
1,540
4,864
4,442
3,885
17,814
1,402
-
1 ,969
8,892
45,892
-
-
158
6,297
-
2,442
15,730
1,575
148,111
801,008


Long
10,432
-
-
810
-
-
21,307
13,423
64,639
-
-
4,725
-
-
2,066
3,469
-
8,234
-
8,710
53,019
394
687
973
2,008
5,689
-
200,585

735

Option 2b.l*
Deer
16,881
315
_
-
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
_
-
223
189
-
-
-
68,156
-
-
-
642
-
-
-
6,606
93,012



Nut
.
9,129
_
-
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
_
-
741
1,402
-
1,772
-
46,459
-
-
-
275
.

-
2,835
62,613
844,022


Long
10,432
-
45,077
4,675
33,089
3,150
80,317
44,743
248,614
2,066
6,080
8,978
7,245
17,073
3,443
13,857
-
8,234
-
29,413
91,855
630
11,118
2,270
4,679
11,359
-
688,397

2,450
111,924
Deer
16,881
315
18,031
2,337
12,920
3,150
-
-
-
-
1,216
5,670
3,623
-
189
-
-
11,528
68,156
-
-
410
1,260
1,462
-
-
-
147,148

607
111,924
Option 2b.2*
Nut
2,993
9,129
17,918
1,169
-
-
-
-
-
1,540
4,864
4,442
3,886
17,814
1,402
-
1,969
8,892
44,990
-
-
158
6,297
-
2,442
15,730
1,575
147,210
886,937


Long
37,589
-
-
2,429
-
~
80,317
44,743
248,614
-
-
8,978
-
-
3,443
13,857
-
8,234
-
29,413
91,855
630
11,118
-
-
11,359
-
592,579

2,380

915,487
958,396
1,001,848

-------
 Table  12.4-3  cont.
Influent Pump Station
Screens & Grit Chambers
Primary Sedimentation
  Tanks
Gravity Thickeners
Anaerobic Digesters
Gas Storage
Secondary Aeration
  Tanks
Blower Building
Secondary Sedimentation
  Tanks
Electrical Generator
  BuiIding
Kngine Generators
Administration &
  Maintenance Building
Scum Incinerator
Odor Control  Facilities
Chlorination Equipment
Chlorine Contact Tanks
Utility Company Power
  to Site
Pier Facilities
Interisland Wastewater
  Tunne1
Effluent Pump Station
Outfalls
Miscellaneous Civil
Channels and Dikes
Removal Unsuitable
  Materials
Earth Fill
Foundation Preparation
Demolition
Subtotal by Site
Capital Cost
Land Acquisition
Sludge Processing
Total Capital Cost

Deer
16,881
315
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
223
189
-
-
-
45,375
-
-
-
642
_
-
-
6,606
70,231




Option 3a*
Nut

9, 129
_
-
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
-
-
741
1 ,402
-
1,772
-
67,200
-
-
-
275
_
-
_
2,835
83,354 1 ,
1,400,995


1 ,512,919

Love 11
37,589
-
45,077
4,675
33,089
3, 150
80,317
44,743
248,614
2,066
6,080
8,978
7,245
17,073
3,443
13,857
*
11 ,528
_
29,413
91 ,855
*
11,118
*
547,500
*
-
247,410

*
111 ,924

Option
Deer Nut
16,881
315 9,129
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
223 741
189 1,402
-
1,772
-
102,850 86,400
-
-
-
642 275
_
-
_
6,606 2,835
127,706 102,554
1,922,670


2,034,594
3b*
Brewsters
37,589
-
45,077
4,675
33,089
3,150
80,317
44,743
248,614
2,066
6,080
8,978
7,245
17,073
3,443
13,857
*
11 ,528
_
29,413
91,855
*
11 ,118
*
992,500
*
-
1,692,410
-
*
111,924
-
Option 4a . 1
Deer Nut
29,677
315 9,129
30,051
3,506
22,059
3,150
-
-
-
2,066
6,080
6,615
7,245
17,073 741
3,443 1,402
13,857
2,363 1,772
11,528
82,819
29,413
47,723
457
1,517 275
2,190
-
-
2,835
240,328 98,973
339,301
840
50,388
390,529
Option
Deer
29,677
315
30,051
3,506
22,059
3,150
-
-
-
2,066
6,080
6,615
7,245
17,073
3,443
6,940
2,363
11,528
-
41,252
411,847
457
1,517
2,190
-
-
-
609,374
708
840
50,388
759
4a.2
Nut
_
9,129
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
741
1 ,402
-
1,772
-
82,819
-
-
-
275
-
-
-
2,835
98,973
,347


,575

-------
 Table  12.4-3  cont.
Influent Pump Station
Screens & Grit Chambers
Primary Sedimentation
  Tanks
Gravity Thickeners
Anaerobic Digesters
Gas Storage
Secondary Aeration
  Tanks
Blower Building
Secondary Sedimentation
  Tanks
Electrical Generator
  Building
Engine Generators
Administration &
  Maintenance Building
Scum Incinerator
Odor Control Facilities
Chlorination Equipment
Chlorine Contact Tanks
Utility Company Power
  to Site
Pier Facilities
Interisland Wastewater
  Tunnel
Effluent Pump Station
Outfalls
Miscellaneous Civil
Channels and Dikes
Removal Unsuitable
  Materials
Earth Fill
Foundation Preparation
Demolition
Subtotal by Site
Capital Cost
Land Acquisition
Sludge Processing          50,388
Total Capital Cost
Option 4b. 1
Deer
16,881
315
18,031
2,337
12,920
3,150
-
1 ,216
5,670
3,623
-
2,835
10,409
2,363
11,528
-
22,411
41,265
410
1,260
1,359
-
-
-
157,983
323
607
50,388
374
Nut
2,993
9,129
17,918
1,169
-
-
1,540
4,864
4,442
3,886
17,814
1,591
3,469
2,204
8,892
-
8,710
49,397
158
6,297
-
3,256
15,730
1,575
165,034
,017


,012
Option 4b.2
Deer
16,881
315
18,031
2,337
12,920
3,150
-
1,216
5,670
3,623
-
2,835
6,940
2,363
11,528
-
41,462
411,847
394
1,260
1,359
-
-
-
544,131
723
607
50,388
774
Nut
2,993
9,129
17,918
1,169
-
-
1,540
4,864
4,442
3,886
17,814
1,591
-
1,772
8,892
77,433
-
-
158
6,297
-
2,442
15,730
1,575
179,645
,776


,771
Option 5a . 1*
Deer
29,677
315
18,031
2,337
12,920
3,150
-
1,216
5,670
3,623
-
2,835
10,409
2,363
11,528
-
22,411
41,265
410
1,260
1,359
-
-
-
170,779

607
50,388

Nut
_
9,129
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
741
1,402
-
1,772
-
46,459
-
-
-
275
-
-
-
2,835
62,613
294,463


445,983
Long
10,432
-
17,918
1,169
12,920
3,150
2,066
4,864
6,615
3,623
17,073
2,066
3,469
-
8,234
-
8,710
53,019
158
1,245
487
1,004
2,849
-
161,071

525
50,388

Deer
29,677
315
18,031
2,337
12,920
3,150
-
1,216
5,670
3,623
-
2,835
6,940
2,363
11,528
-
41,462
411,847
394
1,260
1,359
-
-
-
556,927

607


Option 5a.
Nut
_
9,129
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
741
1,402
-
1,772
-
46,459
-
-
-
275
-
-
-
2,835
62,613
750,798


802,318
2*
Long
10,432
-
17,918
1,169
12,920
3,150
2,066
4,864
6,615
3,623
17,073
1,402
-
-
8,234
36,049
-
-
158
1,245
487
1,004
2,849
-
131,258

525



-------
 Table 12.4-3  cont.
Influent Pump Station
Screens & Grit Chambers
Primary Sedimentation
  Tanks
Gravity Thickeners
Anaerobic Digesters
Gas Storage
Secondary Aeration
  Tanks
Blower Building
Secondary Sedimentation
  Tanks
Electrical Generator
  Building
Engine Generators
Administration &
  Maintenance Building
Scum Incinerator
Odor Control Facilities
Chlorination Equipment
Chlorine Contact Tanks
Utility Company Power
  to Site
Pier Facilities
Interisland Wastewater
  Tunnel
Effluent Pump Station
Outfalls
Miscellaneous Civil
Channels and Dikes
Removal Unsuitable
  MateriaIs
Earth Fill
Foundation Preparation
Demolition
Subtotal by Site
Capital Cost
Land Acquisition
Sludge Processing
Total Capital Cost
 Deer

16,881
   315
                                    5b.l*
                                      Nut
           9,129
   223       741
   189     1,402
           1 ,772
68,156    46,459
   642
 6,606
93,012
             275
  2,835
 62,613
454,689
         506,302
           10,432
                    45,077
                     4,675
                    33,089
                     3,150
            2,066
            4,864

            6,615
            3,623
           17,073
            3,443
           13,857
 29,413
 91,855
    368
 11,118

  1,135
  2,339
  6,638

299,064

  1 ,225
 50,388

Deer
16,881
315
_
-
-
-
_
-
-
_
-
-
-
223
189
-
_
-
68,156
-
-
-
642
-
-
-
6,606
93,012



5b.2*
Nut
_
9,129
_
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
741
1,402
-
1,772
-
46,459
-
-
-
275
-
-
-
2,835
62,613
779,613


Option 2b.3*
Long
10,432
-
45,077
4,675
33,089
3,150
_
-
-
2,066
4,864
6,615
3,623
17,073
3,443
6,940
_
8,234
-
41,252
411,857
368
11,118
1,135
2,339
6,638
-
623,988

1,225
50,388
Deer
16,881
315
18,031
2,337
12,031
3,150
_
-
-
-
1,216
5,670
3,623
-
189
-
_
11,528
68,156
-
-
410
1,260
1,462
-
-
-
147,148

1 ,820
111,924
Nut
_
9,129
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
741
1,402
-
1,772
-
46,459
-
-
-
275
-
-
-
2,835
62,613
865,675


Long
37,589
-
17,918
1,169
12,920
3,150
80,317
44,743
248,614
2,066
4,864
8,978
3,623
17,073
3,443
13,857
_
8,234
-
29,413
91,855
630
11 , 118
973
2,008
11,359
-
655,914

2,180

                              831,226
                                                  981,799

-------
* Footnotes  to  Table  12.4-3:   See Attachment 1 at end of




      this section.

-------
     Some cost items from the MDC Nut Island Site Options Study (1982)
did not have associated sizes or quantities specified, such as removal
of unsuitables.  Therefore, the cost for removal of unsuitables and
other similar site requirements was estimated based on comparative
facility sizing and/or land area.  In all cases, at this stage of the
analysis, no unique site problems which affect estimation of prelimi-
nary construction costs were established for any of the new alterna-
tives developed (with the exception of the man-made island option which
was dropped from further consideration due to higher costs and con-
struction problems).

     It was recognized, further, that certain cost items established
could be more dependent on site-specific conditions.  For example,
removal of the drumlin at Deer Island would increase the cost of site
preparation in relation to the resultant acreage.  At Nut Island,
construction on piles would increase the cost of foundation preparation
there.  Therefore, cost comparisons for individual components were made
with those for the same site whenever possible to reflect such known
conditions or circumstances.  Where base costs were utilized to estab-
lish costs at other sites, adjustment was made to provide consistent
estimating or reflect known variations in sites.  Again, such adjust-
ment was made within the broad limits of accuracy for preliminary costs
developed in the MDC Nut Island Site Options Study (1982).

     In the case of Long Island, some uncertainty exists with regard to
site subsurface conditions and construction/foundation requirements.
Because approval of access to the site was delayed it has not been
possible to investigate these conditions fully in order to verify their
existence.  Since the MDC Nut Island Site Options Study (1982) located
secondary treatment facilities on Long Island in the same general
location as the options now being considered, it is assumed that such
facilities are, in general, feasible at this site with no special
problems that could significantly affect site costs.  Detailed
conditions at Long Island, during final design, will be verified should
that site be selected.
                                12.4-17

-------
4.3  Assumptions Made on. Engineering Cost Analysis

     Reflecting the preliminary nature of the cost estimates being
made, as noted above, many basic assumptions were made in order to
estimate the costs of these alternatives.  The foremost assumption is
that costs for new options can be reasonably developed, at this stage
of the analysis, based on a comparative ratio of design criteria
involving flow, acreage, or quantity (of tanks) to a given cost as
developed in the prior MDC study.  Other assumptions which were made,
involving elements of site or operations, are described in Attachment 1
to this report.

4.4  Operations and Maintenance Costs

     Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for the new options were
developed similarly to the capital costs.  That is, each cost item
under a new or different option was compared to those for the MDC Nut
Island Site Options Study (1982) alternatives, and costs were developed
based on applicable ratios.  Revised operation and maintenance costs
are presented in Table 12.4-4.  The following description highlights
the key elements of O&M costs.

4.4.1  Chlorine

     Costs established in the Site Options Study (1982) for chlorine
were found to be inconsistent with the description of the chlorine
volume estimates at the given price per ton.  These were therefore
adjusted to reflect the corrected and updated estimates.  Preliminary
O&M costs were established based on the further assumption that post-
chlorination will take place 6 months per year for deep ocean outfalls.
                                12.4-18

-------
Annual Operation  & Maintenance Costs
       (thousands of dollars  per year)

                                                                              Tabl« 12..
Option
Item/Site
Power
Chlorine(2)(5)
Labor(3)
Materials and
Suppl ies
Subtotal by
Site
Subtotal by
Option
Sol ids
Handl ing
TOTAL
la.
Deer Nut
24,700 279
2,454 480
6,977 607
1,353 212
35,484 1,578
37,062
6,633
43,695
Ib.
Deer Nut
24,382 363
2,454 480
6,522 2,518
1,320 512
34,678 3,873
38,551
6,633
45,184
2b.l
Deer Nut Long Deer
650 279 24,050 9,377
1,120 480 1,334 1,120
208 607 5,772 3,579
319 212 1,035 807
2,297 1,578 32,191 14,833
36,066
6,633
42,699
2b.3
Deer Nut Long
9,377 279 17,229
1,120 480 982
3,579 607 6,067
807 212 1,145
14,883 1,578 25,423
41,884
6,633
48,517
(1)  Based on Site Options Study, Table  7-13; Updated to EMR 4200.
(2)  Based on a unit  cost of chlorine at $3SO/ton.
(3)  Based on Site Options Study, Table  7-13 and  Table 7-15, revised to reflect updated  facility components.
(4)  Does not include the anticipated additional  cost of transporting workers.
(5)  These chlorine costs reflect seasonal post-cblor ma t ion for deep ocean options.

-------
                      Annual  Operation &  Maintenance Costs
                            (thousands of  dollars  per year)
                                                               (1)
TabU 12,4-4
Option
Item/Site
Power
Chlorine(2)(5)
Labor(3)
Materials and
Supplies
Subtotal by
Site
Subtotal by
Option
Sol ids
Handling
TOTAL
Aa.2
Deer Nut
9,423 279
2,717 480
4,125 607
995 203
17,260 1,569
18,829
2,275
21,104
4b.2
Deer Nut
8,633 363
2,237 959
3,579 2,518
933 512
15,382 4,352
19,734
2,275
22,009
5a.2
Deer Nut Long
8,633 279 84
2,237 480 480
3,579 607 1,638
933 212 300
15,382 1,578 2,502
19,462
2,275
21,737
5b.2
Deer Nut Long
650 279 8,750
1,120 480 1,598
208 607 3,328
319 212 677
2,297 1,578 14,353
18,228
2,275
20,503
(1)   Based on Site Options Study, Table 7-13; Updated to ENR 4200.
(2)   Based on a unit cost of chlorine at $3SO/ton.
(3)   Based on Site Options Study, Table 7-13 and Table 7-15, revised to reflect  updated facility components.
(4)   Does not include the anticipated additional cost of transporting workers.
(5)   These chlorine costs reflect seasonal  post-chlorination for deep ocean options.

-------
4.4.2  Staffing

     Operation costs for each option are directly related to the number
of personnel required, which in turn is dependent upon the size of the
facility and number of locations involved.  Staffing requirements were
estimated for the new alternatives based on the staffing requirements
and costs presented Table 7-15 of MDC Nut Island Site Options Study
(1982).

4.4.3  Power

     Costs presented for power are based on those presented in the MDC
Nut Island Site Options Study (1982) updated to ENR 4200.  Power costs
for new options were calculated by proportioning flows for similar
facilities.

4.4.4  Materials and Supplies

     Cost estimates for this item were also based on those presented in
the MDC Nut Island Site Options Study (1982) updated to ENR 4200.
Estimates for new options were calculated by proportioning flows for
similar facilities.

5.0  REVISED COSTS FOR SCREENED ALTERNATIVES

5.1  Updated Costs from Nut Island Site Options Study (1982)

     In reviewing the preliminary component list and associated cost
estimates (as shown in Table 12.4-3) for the various options being con-
sidered in the SDEIS, it was not feasible to study each of the more
than twenty alternatives in detail.   Therefore, as described in
previous sections of this report, initial review focused only on
updating of these costs from the previous MDC study or developing
comparable facility costs where necessary with minimal recosting of
components.   The costs developed in the MDC Nut Island Site Options
Study  (1982) were, therefore, accepted as reasonable at this stage of

                                12.4-21

-------
preliminary analysis.  These were found, moreover, to be comparable
within treatment levels and thus not a major screening criteria.

5.2  Use of EXEC/OP Computer Model for Verification

     Once the alternatives were screened down to eight options — four
primary and four secondary—more detailed analysis and verification of
the cost estimates could proceed.  One method of cost verification used
was a computer model entitled "EXEC/OP".  This model was applied to
develop independent, hypothetical construction costs for the key unit
processes involved in both primary and secondary treatment facilities.
The model was developed by the EPA Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory in Cincinnati and utilized as its basis the experience of
more than sixty separate treatment facilities across the country (see
Bibliography).   EXEC/OP was used to compare such treatment component
costs as settling tanks, digesters, thickeners, and screening/degrit-
ting facilities.  It was also considered for site-specific issues like
foundation work, excavation, and energy costs.  Odor control, sludge
disposal, and land acquisition was not an output of the model.

     The first step in using EXEC/OP is the preparation of a multi-
option flow diagram of the system being analyzed.  Such a typical
multi-option flow diagram is shown in Figure 12.4-2.

     From this, the EXEC/OP model then develops costs based on data
from selected recently built treatment plants in the U.S.  Costs are
developed using input such as current construction cost index (ENR 4200
used), wholesale price index, interest rate (a rate of 8-1/8% was
used), and cost escalator for engineering and contingencies (a rate of
35% was used).   Other input parameters include flow quantity plus
wastewater quality indicators such as BOD , suspended solids, nitrogen,
phosphorus, and alkalinity.  While these latter inputs can vary, the
parameters applied were not expected to significantly affect the basic
focus of comparing such hypothetical costs with the estimates made in
the MDC study.
                                12.4-22

-------
     EXEC/OP can be utilized in two ways.  When the specific unit pro-
cesses at a location are known, the model can supply a detailed per-
formance report of the facility in terms of facility output in volume
or costs or energy produced.  If, however, it is questionable as to the
benefits of utilizing a particular unit process, or if two processes
are to be compared, EXEC/OP will select the combination of unit pro-
cesses that best meets a stipulated set of prioritized criteria of
cost, energy, land utilization, a subjective index of system desir-
ability, and/or effluent quality.  Sample outputs of both of these
situations are shown in Attachments 2 and 3.  These are provided as
examples of the model's output only.  Not every value derived from
EXEC/OP is applicable to the costing process.

     Because the basis of the EXEC/OP model was treatment facilities
between 1 and 100 MOD of flow and since not all components identified
by the MDC study are covered by EXEC/OP, it was decided to apply the
model solely as a method of initial cost comparison with the MDC
facility costs.  None of the other performance parameters of EXEC/OP
were considered, although, as the examples of the model's output show,
these are readily produced and provide useful indications of a fa-
cility's performance.

     While some bias in results may be introduced from the case studies
used in the model due to their smaller size  (composed to the MDC
system), the application of a cost comparison based on unit processes
should, it was felt, still provide reasonably comparable costs for the
process components being compared.  It should be pointed out, moreover,
that cost graphs developed for the wastewater treatment facilities
which were the basis of the model, showed that facility process costs
become  linear for plants over 20 MGD.  Therefore, the assumption of the
model's applicability to larger facilities was considered valid.
                                 12.4-23

-------
                  TYPICAL MULTI-OPTION FLOW DIAGRAM
SCREENING &



DEGRITTING
PUMPING
          FLOTATION




          THICKENING
           GRAVITY




          THICKENING
   PRIMARY




  TREATMENT
               ANAEROBIC




               DIGESTION
         I	
  NULL



PROCESS






Figure
SECONDARY




TREATMENT
CHLORINATION
                                                      CONDITIONING &




                                                       DEWATERING
                                                      INCINERATION

-------
     Utilizing the model, cost comparisons were generated for the
facility process components as noted above.  In most cases, the costs
provided from EXEC/OP were within a reasonable range (about 25%) of the
original cost estimates from the MDC study.  Where the updated MDC
costs were within this range, the figures derived from the MDC
Nut Island Site Options Study (1982) were utilized.  In a few cases,
however, the variation between the two cost sources was greater than
this limit indicating the need for additional review and clarification
from the MDC and their consultants, as well as further verification of
costs from other sources.

5.3  Survey of Existing Facilities and Other Sources

     As a follow-up to the EXEC/OP model, several telephone surveys
were made of other secondary and primary facilities to establish their
actual  construction costs for the most significant discrepancies found
to exist.  One item that was signalled by the comparison with EXEC/OP
to be a significant discrepancy involved the costs of secondary sedi-
mentation tanks.  The information compiled from the survey of treatment
plants  (most of which varied in size, yet were smaller than the pro-
posed   500  MGD plant of the MDC) indicated a range of consistent and
comparable costs well below the initial MDC estimates.  A summary of
these costs are as follows:
                                                      Secondary
                                Primary(P)or        Settling Tank
         Facility               Secondary (S)          Unit Cost
         Location               Flow  in MGD              1984
      Providence, R.I.           210P,  77 S          $ 40/Sq. Ft.
      Meriden, Conn.                 10 S            $ 51/Sq. Ft.
      Philadelphia, Pa.              210 S            $ 89/Sq. Ft.
      1978 EPA DEIS
        (Greeley & Hansen)           500 S            $112/Sq. Ft.
      1982 MDC Site Options
        Study  (Metcalf & Eddy)       500 S            $230/Sq. Ft.
      Recognizing  the variability  of  these  facilities,  their  charac-
 teristics,  and  their construction costs, it  is  possible,  nonetheless,
 to consider the range  of  costs  shown above versus  the  significantly

                                 12.4-25

-------
higher magnitude of costs represented by the costs estimated for the
MDC.  The range of costs for other plants did include projects with
unique construction and siting problems which resulted in higher costs
than usual at the cited facilities.  A higher cost approaching the cost
developed in MDC Nut Island Site Options Study (1982) may, in fact, be
generated when such factors as barging, construction schedule delays,
other special contingencies, or mitigation measures are applied to the
costs of the project overall.  However, it was deemed not appropriate
to include such outside costs in the preliminary estimate of costs for
sedimentation tanks.  Any such additional cost factors should be
factored in separately to show their specific influence on costs at all
levels of treatment.

     Based on a review of the information available, it was estimated
that a total cost of $241.5 million for secondary treatment be used.
This estimated total cost is derived from the data developed in the
1978 EPA Draft EIS based on secondary sedimentation tanks valued at
$116.5 million (updated costs equal to $112/sq.  ft.) and aeration tanks
and blower building valued at $125 million.   The costs utilized for
settling tanks are derived from an established method of engineering
estimating which independently sizes the tanks,  their volume of con-
crete and steel, and cost per cubic yard.  The costs for aeration tanks
and blower building remain consistent with the estimates from the MDC
Nut Island Site Options Study (1982).

     In addition to this source, other component costs considered to be
a significant variation were reexamined.  Such costs were revised
utilizing similar engineering approaches as  noted above for the sedi-
mentation tanks as well as established cost tables (see Bibliography).
The specific components thus revised are discussed in the following
section.

5.4  Revised Cost Estimates

     Based on the reanalysis and revision of costs conducted at this
time for the remaining eight options, as described above, a set of

                                12.4-26

-------
"revised" preliminary costs was developed.  Table 12.4-5 presents these
costs consolidated for all sources utilized.  Attachment 1 at the end
of this section lists the assumptions used in developing these revised
cost estimates.  Table 12.4-1 (noted previously) uses these revised
construction costs, adds annual O&M costs, and calculates present worth
for these eight options.  As apparent from a comparison of the
initially updated MDC costs and the revised costs, MDC derived costs
were used for the most part in the SDEIS with only a few instances of
revised costs developed from other sources.

     Upon comparison of EXEC/OP cost estimates with those updated from
the MDC Nut Island Site Options Study (1982),  several component
categories were found to vary.  Chief among these were the following:
prechlorination, screening and degritting, influent pumping, secondary
sedimentation tanks, digestion, flotation thickening, and effluent
pumping.  Upon consideration of the reasons for these variations, it
was determined that the EXEC/OP figure or some other available cost
basis  (see Bibliography) was a more reasonable estimate.  For example,
the following factors influenced the revision of costs in some of the
more significant component categories:

          Influent and Effluent Pumping, Prechlorination - The costs
          from the MDC study included "credit" for reuse of existing
          treatment facilities.  In order to maintain consistency among
          siting options at the initial stages of analysis, such
          site-specific influences (as well as others) were not in-
          cluded as part of the option capital costs.  It was assumed
          for comparative purposes that all sites would be evaluated on
          an equalized facility cost basis.

          Upon further revision to the remaining options, this assump-
          tion was dropped in order to reflect the actual site condi-
          tions existing at each location so that the assessment of
          impacts by option could be made,  for this smallet set of
                                 12.4-27

-------
                              TABLE 12.4-5
                           Revised Capital Costs (Mill $)
Prechlorination*
Screen & Degrit*
Influent Pumping
Primary Settling
Gravity Thickeners ,
Anaerobic Digesters''
Gas Storage
Secondary Settling*
Aeration
Blower Building
Chlorination
Piers*
Tunnels
Outfalls
Channels & Dikes
Power to Site
Demolition
Remove Unsuitables
Generators & Bldg.
Admin. Bldg.
Effluent Pumping*
Misc. Civil
Earth Fill
Foundations
Land
Odor Control
Scum Incinerator

Subtotal by Site
Option Total
Option
Deer
3.43
1.86
29.68
30.05
3.51
22.06
3.15
116.38
80.32
44.74
17.11
11.81
--
47.72
3.14
--
--
27.35
8.15
7.56
10.00
.76
--
--
2.08
17.07
7.25
495.18
la. 2
Nut
1.47
9.94
—
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
82.82
--
.28
1.77
2.84
--
—
--
--
--
--
--
--
.74
—
99.86
Option
Deer
3.43
1.86
29.68
18.03
2.92
12.92
3.15
116.38
80.32
44.74
17.11
11.81
--
47.72
3.14
—
--
26.51
1.22
6.62
10.00
.71
--
--
2.08
17.07
3.62
461.04
lb.2
Nut
1.47
9.94
2.99
17.92
1.17
--
--
--
--
--
--
12.49
82.82
--
6.30
1.97
1.58
--
6.40
4.44
--
--
2.44
15.73
--
17.81
3.89
189.36
595.04
650.40

-------
                                       Table 12.4-5  (cont.)

                                 Option 2b.1               Option 2b.3
                             Deer	Nut	Long     Deer	Nut	Long

Prechlorination*             3.43     1.47      --      3.43     1.47
Screen & Degrit*             1.86     9.94      --      1.86     9.94
Influent Pumping            16.88      --     10.43    16.88      --     37.59
Primary Settling              --       --     45.08    18.03      --     17.92
Gravity Thickeners            --       --      4.68     2.34      --      1.17
Anaerobic Digesters           --       --     33.09    12.92      --     12.92
Gas Storage                   --       --      3.15     3.15      --      3.15
Secondary Settling-           --       --    116.38      --       --    116.38
Aeration                      —       --     80.32      --       --     80.32
Blower Building               --       --     44.74      --       --     44.74
Chlorination                  --       --     17.11      --       --     17.11
Piers-                        --       --     13.93    11.81      --     13.93
Tunnels                     68.16    46.46      --     68.16    46.46
Outfalls                      --       --     91.86      --       --     91.86
Channels & Dikes              .64      .28    11.12     1.26      .28    11.12
Power to Site                 --      1.77      --       --      1.77
Demolition                   6.61     2.84      --       --      2.84
Remove Unsuitables            --       --      2.23     1.46      --        .97
Generators & Bldg.            --       --      8.15      --       --      6.93
Admin. Bldg.                  --       --      8.98      --       --      8.98
Effluent Pumping-             --       --     10.00      --       --     10.00
Misc. Civil                   --       --       .63      .41      --        .63
Earth Fill                    --       --      4.68      --       --      2.01
Foundations                   --       --     11.36      --       --     11.36
Land                          --       --      2.45      —       —      2.38
Odor Control                  .22      .74    17.07    17.07      .74    17.07
Scum Incinerator              --       --      7.25     3.62      --      3.89

Subtotal by Site            97.8     63.50   544.68    162.40    63.50   512.43
Option Total                        705.98                     738.33

-------
                                 Table 12.4-5 (cont.)
                           Option 4a.2
                             Deer      Nut
                    Option 4b.2
                      Deer      Nut
Prechlorination*
Screen & Degrit*
Influent Pumping
Primary Settling
Gravity Thickeners ,
Anaerobic Digesters
Gas Storage
Secondary Settling*
Aeration
Blower Building
Chlorination
Piers-
Tunnels
Outfalls
Channels & Dikes
Power to Site
Demolition
Remove Unsuitables
Generators & Bldg.
Admin. Bldg.
Effluent Pumping*
Misc. Civil
Earth Fill
Foundations
Land
Odor Control
Scum Incinerator

Subtotal by Site
Option Total
  3.
  1.
  .43
  .86
29.68
30.05
 3.51
22.06
 3.15
1.47
9.94
651.74   100.25
     751.99
 3.43
 1.86
29.68
18.03
 2.34
12.92
 3.15
                   626.45
 1.47
 9.94
 2.99
17.92
 1.17
10.19
11.81
--
479.50
1.52
2.36
--
2.19
8.15
6.62
10.50
--
--
--
.84
17.07
7.25
--
--
82.82
--
.28
1.77
2.84
—
--
--
--
.39
--
--
--
.74
—
9.59
11.81
--
479.50
1.26
2.36
--
1.36
1.22
5.67
10.50
.16
--
--
.61
17.07
3.62
--
12.49
77.43
--
6.30
1.77
1.58
--
6.40
4.44
--
--
2.44
15.73
--
17.81
3.89
                   183.77
                        810.22

-------
                                       Table 12.4-5 (cont.)
                                 Option 5a.2
                             Deer     Nut      Long
Prechlorination*
Screen & Degrit*
Influent Pumping
Primary Settling
Gravity Thickeners ,
Anaerobic Digesters'"
Gas Storage
Secondary Settling""
Aeration
Blower Building
Chlorination
Piers*
Tunnels
Outfalls
Channels & Dikes
Power to Site
Demolition
Remove Unsuitables
Generators & Bldg.
Admin. Bldg.
Effluent Pumping^
Misc. Civil
Earth Fill
Foundations
Land
Odor Control
Scum Incinerator

Subtotal by Site
Option Total
3
1
29
18
2
12
3
9
11

479
1
2

1
1
5
10




17
3
616
.43
.86
.68
.03
.34
.92
.15
.59
.81
--
.50
.26
.36
--
.36
.22
.67
.50
.39
--
--
.61
.07
.62
.37
1.47
9.94
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
46.46
--
.28
1.77
2.84
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
.74
--
63.50


10
17
1
12
3

13
36

1



6
6


1
2

17
3
136

--
.43
.92
. 17
.92
.15
--
.93
.05
--
.25
--
__
.49
.93
.62
--
.16
.00
.85
.53
.07
.89
.36
816.23
  Option 5b.2
Deer     Nut      Long
3.43
1.86
16.88
--
--
--
--
--
--
68.16
--
.64
--
6.61
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
.22
--
97.8
1.47
9.94
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
46.46
--
.28
1.77
2.84
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
74
--
63.50


10
45
4
33
3
10
13

518
11


1
6
6
10

2
6
1
17
7
710

--
.43
.08
.68
.09
.15
.19
.93
--
.50*
.12
--
--
.14
.93
.62
.50
.37
.34
.64
.23
.07
.25
.25
       871.55
 ^Based on longer distance from LI site.

-------
Notes

*These costs were revised based on initial review of EXEC/OP estimates
followed by verification or substitution using other sources including
recent construction costs.  (see Bibliography).  In most cases, revisions
to costs applied consistently across all options within a treatment level
so that no significant alterations to the siting criteria resulted.

 Costs originally estimated in the MDC Nut Island Site Options Study  (1982) for sludge
disposal facilities (and shwon in Table 12.4-3) are no longer being carried due to the
 lack of a sludge management decision at this time.   Sludge planning is ongoing.
of sludge options being conducted by the Commonwealth.  These costs will be
estimated separately under a sludge management facility plan and environmental impact
 assessment.
2
 Digestion equipment and associated components may not be required under
a composting method of sludge disposal, but may be used in other
sludge disposal methods being considered by the State.  Costing of digestion
and related other components in this analysis is based on the conclusions in MDC Site
 Options Study (1982).

Source: CE MAGUIRE,  INC.  (October 12, 1984).

-------
          possible alternatives,  including all reasonable character-
          istics  and conditions  that would apply to a siting location.

          Secondary Settling - A major difference in the estimate of
          the cost of secondary  settling tanks is a result of differing
          cost factors as  described in the previous section.  As  a
          result  of further analysis, a revised cost was arrived  at.

          Piers — These costs were increased at Nut Island to reflect
          the view that added dredging would be needed due to the
          shallower depths encountered there.

          Screening and Degritting--The original estimates were found
          to be somewhat lower than other sources indicated were
          appropriate.  This difference was relatively small overall;
          however, to maintain consistency, the costs were adjusted.

          Odor Control—The MDC  Site Options Study (1982) did not
          include odor control equipment at either Deer Island or Long
          Island  treatment facilities.  Such available design measures
          as covered headworks and enclosed digester operations with
          ventilation blowers to capture escaping gases were not
          uniformaly applied at  all sites.  It was concluded, for
          purposes of the  SDEIS  analysis, that odor control must  be a
          feature of all options at every location, and these costs
          were factored into the estimates.

     In addition, several  component categories costed originally  in the
MDC Site Options  Study (1982) and carried in the initial SDEIS cost
update (Table 12.4-3), were found to be inconsistent because they no
longer would be required under some of the sludge disposal choices
based on the Commonwealth's newly proposed sludge disposal plan.   This
resulted in further interim revisions to costs from the preliminary
SDEIS figures initially developed.
                                12.4-33

-------
     For example, if composting were selected as the method of sludge
disposal, sludge thickening, digestion, and gas storage facilities may
not be required (although it may occur if proven to be cost effective).
While if incineration were used digestion would only occur under
primary treatment options.  Therefore, final cost estimates for the
options including sludge handling and disposal will vary according to
the sludge disposal method to be selected.  At this stage for the SDEIS
analysis, preliminary costs for each of the wastewater treatment
alternatives does not include sludge handling and disposal methods.
Costs for sludge processing and disposal will be developed separately
by the MDC in upcoming facility planning.

     At this stage of the analysis, as the figures (in current dollars)
summarized in Table 12.4-1 show, the primary treatment options are
estimated to cost between $752 million and $872 million; the secondary
treatment options are estimated to cost between $595 million and $738
million.  Present worth values, combining annual 0, M & R costs with
the amortized construction debt payback are estimated to be between
$1,019 million and $1,255 million for secondary options, and between
$957 million and $1,081 million for primary options.

     This range of costs should not be compared between treatment
levels since, as has been stated from the outset of this project, the
decision on whether secondary or primary treatment would be required
rests solely with the review by EPA of the MDC's 301(h) waiver ap-
plication.  However, some clarification of these estimated costs is
needed.

     The significant reduction in secondary treatment costs for all
options from those shown in Table 12.4-3 was a result primarily of:
reduction of estimated costs for secondary sedimentation tanks as noted
in the previous section.  By comparison, primary treatment costs were
not reduced since the question of sedimentation tank costs did not
affect the primary options.  Additionally, the costs of a long
outfall — estimated to be $480 million -- which affected only the
                                12.4-34

-------
primary options was further increased late in the SDEIS analysis as a
result of the MDC extending the outfall location from 7 to 9 miles.

     It must be remembered that the capital costs for any of the
options will increase from those presented in Table 12.4-5 by the added
costs of sludge disposal facilities involving either composting, incin-
eration, ocean disposal, landfilling, or some combination of these.
Likewise, there will be added contingency costs, in some cases
amounting to significant amounts, from the need to barge equipment and
materials, provide shuttle bus service for workers, provide noise
mitigation measures, or otherwise mitigate potential adverse impacts
during facility construction and operations.

     For the purposes of the SDEIS analysis, the costs presented in
Table 12.4-5 are intended to reflect updated and revised facility
capital costs developed consistently across all sites and consistent
with the assumptions noted in Attachment 1.  Such a baseline analysis
was a necessary preparation for the SDEIS in order to verify the costs
presented in MDC Site Options Study (1982), establish a consistent and
reasonable cost basis for all options being studied in detail, and
provide a framework for the impact assessment.

5.5  Revised 0 & M Costs

     The operations and maintenance costs shown in Table 12.4-6,
following, reflect a combination of factors.  Costs shown for the seven
options selected following the screening process are final estimates
based on further analysis made of the operational conditions under each
remaining alternative.  In particular, staffing levels and power costs
were refined to reflect more accurately the likely conditions at each
site under each of the alternatives.  The costs shown for the last
primary option (5b.2) which is not under active consideration at this
time are those developed as part of the initial screening review.
                                 12.4-35

-------
                                                    TABLE 12.4-6




                                         0,M&R COSTS (Thousands of Dollars)
Option
LABOR
//Staff
$1000/yr.
CHLORINE
Tons/yr .
$1000/yr.
POWER
1000 Kw. Hr/Mo
$1000/yr
MAT'LS & SUPP.
$1000/yr
Subtotal
by Site
$1000/yr.
Option
Sub-Total
Solids Handling
Deer
227
$6,872
7,010
$2,454
23,760
$24,700
$1,353

$35,379
$36,
6,
la. 2
Nut
20
$607
1,370
$480
90
$279
$212

$1,578
957
633
lb.2
Deer Nut
215
$6,522
7,010
$2,454
23,620
$24,382
$1,320

$34,678
$38
6
83
$2,518
1,370
$480
170
$363
$512

$3,873
,551
,633
2b.l
Deer Nut Long
34 20 219
$1,031 $607 $6,629
3,196 1,370 3,811
$1,120 $480 $1,334
5,450 90 18,560
$5,664 $279 $19,288
$319 $212 $1,035

$8,134 $1,578 $28,286
$37,998
6,633
2b.3
Deer Nut
118 20
$3,579 $607
3,196 1,370
$1,120 $480
9,120 90
$9,478 $279
$807 $212

$14,984 $1,578
$46,489
6,633
Long
209
$6,340
2,806
$982
20,650
$21,460
$1,145

$29,927

Total                  $43,590            $45,184               $44,631                   $53,122

-------
                                               0,M&R COSTS  (Continued)
Option

LABOR
# Staff
$1000/yr
CHLORINE
Tons/yr
$1000/64
POWER
1000 Kw-hr/mo
$1000/yr
MAT'LS & SUPP.
$1000/yr
Subtotal
by Site
$1000/yr
Option
Sub-Total
Solids Handling

Deer

136
$4,125

7,762
$2,717

9,380
$9,423

$995


$17,260

$18
2
4a.2
Nut

20
$607

1,370
$480

90
$279

$203


$1,569

,829
,275

Deer

118
$3,579

6,392
$2,237

8,480
$8,633

$933


$15,382

$19
2
4b.2
Nut

83
$2,518

2,740
$959

170
$363

$512


$4352

,734
,275

Deer

118
$3,579

6,392
$2,237

8,480
$8,633

$933


$15,382



5a.2
Nut

20
$607

1,370
$480

90
$279

$203


$1,569

$21,240
2,275

Long

63
$1,911

1,370
$480

740
$1,598

$300


$4,289



5b.2
Deer Nut

34 20
$1,031 $607

3,196 1,370
$1,120 $480

5,450 90
$5,559 $279

$319 $203


$8,029 $1,569

$19,230
2,275

Long

102
$3,093

4,566
$1,598

4,180
$4,264

$677


$9,632



Total                  $21,104            $22,009               $23,515                    $21,505
Source:  CE Maguire, Inc.                                                            (Revised October 12, 1984)

-------
5.6  Costs to be Developed During Final Facility Design

     The types of capital and 0,M&R costs involving wastewater
treatment facilities siting to be developed further involve several key
parameters.  Foremost among these is the estimate of costs for the
sludge management and disposal options being considered by the
Commonwealth.  Final costs of sludge disposal will be made as part of
an upcoming MDC facility plan and EPA supplemental environmental
review.  The SDEIS has considered the effects of each sludge option
as it may influence siting of treatment plants and has found sludge
siting issues not to be a determinant in siting of treatment plants.

     Other costs have been considered, but are not incorporated to the
capital costs of alternatives in the SDEIS.   These include such things
as barging operations to reduce the need for trucking through local
communities and busing of construction workers to minimize auto
traffic.  Possible mitigation measures may include roadway repaving or
new traffic signals, added roadway safety measures, possible financial
compensation for direct impacts to local communities, improvements to
land areas around the treatment plants afforded by buffer areas and
screening, possible varied construction schedules and added noise
mitigation, or other special measures which may also be applied to the
project and would add to the overall costs.

     Another unresolved issue that will be studied as part of the
facility final design and may alter cost estimates is the method of
disinfection applied to wastewater.  Current practice of the MDC
involves the addition of chlorine to wastewater both prior to treat-
ment, to control odors, and following treatment, to further disinfect
prior to discharge.   This current practice requires the regular
delivery by truck of chlorine gas to both existing treatment plants.
Concerns about potential safety problems during truck delivery through
local neighborhoods  and onsite storage of chlorine gas have been raised
by local residents,  and have led to consideration of other possible
alternative methods  for disinfection.
                                12.4-38

-------
     One such method examined is the onsite production of sodium
hypochlorite.  Using preliminary information developed by the MDC's
facility planners (Havens & Emerson, Draft Deer Island Facility Plan,
1984) it was found that this alternative offended several advantages
over chlorine gas, notably in terms of elimination of the trucking and
storage safety issues.  Such a system would essentially be an onsite
generation process to manufacture sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) at the
site of treatment facilities.  In the case of consolidated treatment
facilities, this system would be located at one location; however, it
would be developed for split systems.  The chief comparative differ-
ences of this process are its potentially higher capital costs
(depending upon the specific process components and number of facili-
ties), and its associated greater O&M costs (particularly for power),
compared to chlorine use.  However, the magnitude of difference must be
more carefully analyzed for the particular process components, dosage
requirements, and operational elements under each alternative method.
These details will be examined during the final design stage of
treatment  facility design and will  alter the final facility  costs
(capital and 0,M&R) for the project.
                                 12.4-39

-------
                             Attachment 1
             ASSUMPTIONS MADE IN COSTING THE ALTERNATIVES

1.    MDC Nut Island Site Options Study (1982) prepared by Metcalf &
     Eddy, Inc., hereafter referred to as the Site Options Study, is
     the basis for the preliminary engineering and cost analysis
     carried out by CE Maguire, Inc. in the initial review of available
     information leading to the first-tier screening of alternatives.
     All inherent assumptions and engineering factors used in the MDC's
     facility planning for the sites considered by their consultants
     are maintained in the assessment of new sites and/or facilities
     with the exceptions noted below.

2.    Capital costs developed by the MDC's facility planner, as pre-
     sented in Section 7 of the Site Options Study (and appearing in
     Table 7-12) which utilized an ENR of 3600, have been updated to an
     ENR of 4200.

3.    For alternatives being considered which were also considered
     previously  (by MDC or EPA), the approach used was to review the
     basic engineering and cost parameters presented in order to verify
     available criteria and assumptions utilized previously.  Once
     accepted, these factors were updated as necessary and then util-
     ized to develop the list of both previous and new alternatives.

4.    Construction costs utilized are based on wastewater flow volumes
     and capacities developed for the MDC in the Site Options Study;
     any changes to the assumptions on volumes and capacities for
     treatment facilities will affect those costs accordingly either up
     or down.

5.    Costing of  facilities associated with new options assumes that
     construction of similar treatment facilities at different loca-
     tions will be of a comparable nature; no abnormal variations in
     surface/subsoil/geologic conditions or other factors are factored
     in unless these are stated in the Site Options Study or became

                                12.4-40

-------
     known in the impact analysis for the SDEIS.   Any such variations,
     if identified, are factored into the cost analysis.

6.    Costs for power to the site of treatment facilities  is developed
     based on the criteria used in the Site Options  Study.

7.    Costs utilized for channels, and dikes in all alternatives where
     applicable are based on conservative costs developed and presented
     in the Site Options Study for these construction elements.

8.    Inter-island tunnel costs for transport of effluent were developed
     from Site Options Study based on a unit cost of appproximately
     $3,200/ft for 10-foot diameter and $6,050/ft for 16-foot diameter
     tunnels.  These costs will be updated in the SDEIS cost analysis.

9.    Construction costs of new facilities on Long Island assume no
     additional costs for foundation preparation beyond those utilized
     in Site Options Study.

10.  Costs do not reflect any additional land acquisition  costs, should
     these prove necessary, beyond those assumed the Deer  Island and
     Long Island in the Site Options Study.

11.  Costs do not include major movement of materials by barge  (based
     on assumptions in Site Options Study) as now is being required;
     they also do not include movement of personnel by shuttle  bus.

12.  Assumptions on manpower and staffing contained  in the Site
     Options Study have been maintained  in the update of  alternatives;
     staffing levels for headworks/pump  station at Deer  Island were
     further revised to reflect  current  MDC  staffing levels.

13.  Assumptions in the Site Options Study regarding staff vehicle
     trips and  construction worker vehicle trips  are maintained in the
     analysis  carried  out  for  the  screening.   Similarly,  construction
     truck trips per  day  are  carried forward based  on  the presentations

                                 12.4-41

-------
     in the MDC study,  and are the basis for developing a barge al-
     ternative which now eliminates most of the prior trucking
     assumptions.

14.   Costs for chlorine contact tanks are carried forward from the
     Site Options  Study based on the apparent facility criteria
     utilized.

15.   Costs for chlorine (annual) are likewise carried forward based on
     the assumptions presented in the MDC study; however, there is an
     apparent inconsistency in the unit cost factor used by the fa-
     cility planner which has been adjusted to be consistent with the
     volumes presented.

16.   Digestion costs were accepted as reasonable for purposes of this
     analysis, however, these would not be expected to result under a
     composting sludge  disposal method, or for processing of secondary
     sludge.

17.   Revised costs shown for process components (denoted by a * in the
     table) refect a variety of outside sources including equipment
     manufacturers, existing facility costs, and modelling analysis as
     noted in the  body  of this report.   For the most part, costs
     developed for the  MDC by Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.  were found to be
     reasonable and based on sound engineering judgement.
                                12.4-42

-------
        ATTACHMENT  2                   *    EXEC/OP
                                          *               *
                                          *  VERSION  1.2*
                                          *               +
                                          •f + :fr :f :f :f :f * * + 'f * -t + *
                                        EXECUTIVE PROGRAM
                                     '.•OPTIMIZATION VERSION)
                                                FOR
                      PRELIMINARY  SYNTHESIS  OF WASTE  TREATMENT SYSTEMS
                             U.S.  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                          MUNICIPAL  ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
                             SYSTEMS AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS SECTION
                                     CINCINNATI, OHIO  45268
:fc * rf * * if. * * * * * :f. * * * * * * * * * * * t- * * * * * * * * * -fc * 't. * '*• * * :f * +. :f * -t :f. * * :f * * * * * * .* •* * * * * * :t: * '* + * * + :f
+
* OPTION IB & 4B.2  - NUT ISLAND  PRIMARY
*
                       :4( :f. + * + ***%* + * -f. * + *+ + ** :f- * -f. * + **++ + •+(****+ + + * + * + * * * * + * + "f.

-------
                                              PROCESS  ALTERNATIVES
OPTION  PROCESS
  HO,      MO .
STAGE  SIDESTREAM
 HO,    DESTINATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
12
1
15
2
8
f.
1
2
3
4
5
f>
5
5
5
5
4
4
                                                                         REMARKS
                                     PRECHLORINATIOH
                                     PRELIMINARY TREATMENT
                                     RAW WASTEWATER PUMPING
                                     PRIMARY SEDIMENTATION
                                     GRAVITY THICKENING
                                     DIGESTION OF PRIMARY SLUDGE

-------
                                              EFFLUENT  DISCHARGE
 5TAGE
 NO ,
PROCESS
OPTION
           3
        -",} 4
           s
 SLUDGE
TONS/DAY
               , 00
               , 00
               , 00
                12
                12
                38
   91
   91
   88
:• YSTEM VALUES
                     91  1
5- DAY BOD, MG/L
SUSPENDED SOLIDS, MG/
AMMONIA - N, MG/L
NITRATE - H. MG/L
PHOSPHORUS, MG/L
20 0 ,
L 200,
10000,
1 0 0 0 0 ,
10000,
00
00
00
00
00





SELECTION CRITERIA
CRITERION
INITIAL CONSTR. COST, ttt
ANNUAL 0 8, M COST, */MG
TOTAL ANNUAL COST, */MG
ENERGY CONSUMED, KWH/MG
ENERGY PRODUCED, KWH/MG
NET ENERGY CONSUMED, KWH/MG
LAND REQUIRED, ACRES
UNDES1REABILITY INDEX
WEIGHT
00
00
1 00
00
00
00
00
00
LIMIT
10000,00
1 00000, 00
100000,00
1 0 000,00
00
10000.00
10000.00
10000,00









ECONOMIC DATA
CONSTRUCTION COST INDEX
WHOLESALE PRICE INDEX
DIRECT HOURLY WAGE. */HR
FRACTION CHARGED TO INDIRECT
COST ESCALATOR FOR MISC. FEES
COST OF ELECTRICITY, */KWH
BTU TO KWH CONVERSION EFF
DISCOUNT RATE
CAPITAL RECOVERY FACTOR
CONSTR ANN OS.M TOTAL ANN
COST M* COST */MC COST */MG
1 4699 38 . 26 41 . 02
3,2734 37.38 43.52
23, 7575 12.14 56 , 75
7,8493 21 10 35,8?
, 6822 1 ,84 3,12
1 1 , 9435 29 , 37 52 . 29
48,98 140,58 232.54
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SLUDGES



WAGES





EMER USE
KWH/MG
34 , 71
1 , 74
42 ,35
7 . 64
,26
111,71
1 98 , 91
MIXED AT
2.1770
3 . 0630
45 . 0000
.6667
1 , 3500
. 0720
.0900
,0312
1 028
ENEP PROD NET EHER LAND REOD
KUH/MG K'WH/MG ACRES
00 34.71 0 0
0 0 1.74 0 0
0 0 42.35 0 0
00 7,64 00
0 0 , 2 6 0 0
459,01 -347,30 00
4 5 '3 , 0 1 -260. 0 9 , 0 0
STHGE 15









UHDE3IRE-
ABILI TV
, 00
, 0 0
. 0 0
. 0 0
, 0 0
0 0
o o

-------
                                        PROCESS  PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS
                                                 VOLUME FLOW,  MGD
                                                 CONCENTRATION,  MG/L
               CONSULT  PROGRAM  REFERENCE  MANUAL  FOR MEANING OF PROCESS INPUT' AND OUTPUT DESIGN DATA,
                                              STAGE   1
                                                         PROCESS OPTION  1
          1
    6963, 013
         i 1
         , 000
 INFLUENT'
 EFFLUENT-
 SIDESTRM:

 INFLUENT'
 EFFLUENT;
 SIDESTRM:
         1
        , 000
        1 1
        , 000
INFLUENT!
EFFLUENT:
SIDESTRM:

INFLUENT:
EFFLUENT:
SlDESTRM:
                      1
                   12,000
                      9
                     , 000
2736.405
    12
    , 000
     Q
 150.000
 150.000
    , 000
   DOC
  43.000
  43.000
    . 000
                      1
                   1 . 000
                      9
                     . 000
     2
    .000
    t2
    . 000
 150,000
 150.000
    . 000
   DOC
  43,000
  43.ODO
    ,000

2

3
.500 320, 000
1 0
, 000

3
, 000
13
, 000
INFLUENT
SOC
1 05. 000
1 05. 000
. 000
DNBC
1 1 . 000
1 1 000
. 000


2
. 000
1 0
.000

3
, 000
13
, 000
INFLUENT
SOC
1 05, 000
1 05, 000
. 000
DNBC
1 1 . 000
1 1 . 000
.000
1 1
, 000

4
, 000
14
. 000
INPUT DESIGN DATA:
4 5
,000 .000
12 13
.000 . 000
OUTPUT DESIGN DATA:
5 f>
,000 . 000
15 16
.000 .000

6
, 000
14
, 000

7
. 000
17
. 000
/ EFFLUENT f SIDESTREAM CHARACTERISTICS:
SHBC
3t>, 000
30. 000
, 000
DN
25, 000
25. 000
. 000
STAGE

3
. 000
1 1
. 000

4
, 000
14
, 000
SON SOP
15.000 3,000
15,000 3,000
. 000 . 000
DP DFM
5. 000 300. 000
5,000 300.000
,000 .000
2 PROCESS 'OPTION 2
INPUT DESIGN DATA;
4 5
,000 ,000
12 13
,000 .000
OUTPUT DESIGN DATA:
5 6
,000 .000
15 16
.000 .000
,- EFFLUENT s SIDESTREAM CHARACTER I
SNBC
30. 000
30. 000
,000
DN
25. 000
25. 000
.000
SON SOP
15,000 3.000
15,000 3.000
.000 .000
DP DFM
5.000 300,000
5.000 300.000
,000 .000
SFM
55. 000
55, 000
.000
ALK
100.000
100.00 0
,000


6
. 000
14
. 000

7
, 0 0 0
1 7
000
STIC5 :
SFM
55. 000
55. 000
000
ALK
100.00 0
100. 0 0 0
.000
                                                                              7
                                                                             . 000
                                                                             15
                                                                            2,070
     8
    . 000
    18
    . 000
 SBOD
.150,000
 150.000
    , 000
 DBOD
 55.000
 55,000
    . 000
                                                                             . 000
                                                                             15
                                                                             . 000
     8
    .000
    18
    .000
  SBOD
 150.000
 150,000
    .000
  DBOD
  55.000
  55.000
    .000
                 8
                ,000
                16'
               1 , 000
    9
   ,000
   19
   . 000
  VSS
205,000
205.000
   , 000
  NH3
 25 . 000
 25, 000
   ,000
                 8
                ,000
                16
               2, 070
    9
   , 000
   19
   ,000
  VSS
205.000
205.000
   .000
  NH3
 25,000
 25.000
   . 000
   1 0
   .000
   20
   . 000
  TSS
220.000
220,000
   .000
  NO 3
   , 0 0 0
   . 000
   . 0 0 0
   1 0
   , 0 0 0
   20
   . 0 0 0
  TSS
220.000
220,000
   , 0 0 0
  NO 7.
   . 0 0 0
    000
    0 0 n

-------
STAGE
           PROCESS  OPT I OH






1
1 73 , 323
1 1
,000

1
10,200
9
, 000

2
, 000
12
, 000

O
.000
1 0
, 000

3
,000
13
. 000
INPUT
3
,000
1 1
, 000
OUTPUT
4
.000
1 4
,000
INFLUENT / EFFLUENT f

INFLUENT ;
EFFLUENT •
SIDESTRN;

INFLUENT •
EFFLUENT'
SIDESTRM i

NOTE






t
645. 376
1 1
,000
Q
150,000
150,811
, 000
DOC
43, 000
43,000
,000

: INFLUENT

1
,650
9
000

2
233.498
12
,000
soc
1 05, 000
1 06.512
. 000
DNBC
1 1 , 000
11.000
, 000

< EFFLUENT

2
2, 000
1 0
000

3
1823 , 036
1 3
000
DESIGN DATA:
4
,000
12
.000
DESIGN
5
. 000
15
, 000
5
,000
13
000
DATA :
6
.000
16
. 000
6
0 0 0
1 4
. 0 0 0

-.
, 0 0 0
1 7
000
7
, 000
15
,000

g
.000
18
.000
g
, 0 0 0
1 6
2,600

9
, 0 0 0
19
,000
SIDESTREAM CHARACTERISTICS :
SHBC SON
30,000 15
30,432 15
, 000
DN
25 . 000 5
25.000 5
, 000
STAGE 4
FROM PREVIOUS STAGE
INPUT
3
168, 000
1 1
. 000
OUTPUT
4
,000
14
000
INFLUENT ,- EFFLUENT

INFLUENT;
EFFLUENT •
SIDESTRM :

INFLUENT •
EFFLUENT;
SIDESTRM :
Q
150.811
149, 717
1 . 094
DOC
43 , 000
43.000
43. 000
SOC
1 06,512
37,551
9545 . 455
DNBC
11,000
11 ,000
11 .000
SHBC S
30,432 15
1 0 . 729 5
2727.273 1363
DM
25,000 5
25.000 5
25 . 000 5
, 000
,216
, 000
DP
. 000
. 000
, 000
PROCESS
SOP
3, 000
3. 043
. 000
DFM
300,000
300,000
000
OPTION 4
SFM
55. 000
55.792
.000
ftLK
100.000
too, ooo
, 000

) INCLUDES RETURN SIDESTREAMS
3BOD
150.000
152. 160
.000
DBOD
55, 000
55. 000
, 000

FROM SLUDGE
VSS
205 , 000
207 , 952
,000
NH3
25 . 000
25. 000
,000

TREATMENT
DESIGN DATA:
4
, 000
12
, 000
DESIGN
S
,000
1 5
, 0 0 0
5
, 000
13
.000
DATA :
6
. 000
1 6
, 000
SIDESTREAM CHARACTERI
ON
.216
. 365
.637
DP
.000
,000
, 000
SOP
3 . 043
1 . 073
272.727 5
DFM
300. 00 0
3 00,000
300.000
6
,000
14
0 0 0

"••
, 0 0 0
1 7
0 0 0
STIC S :
SFM
55,792
1 9 . 6 7 0
000. 0 0 1
ALK
100. 0 0 0 '
1 0 0 . 0 0 0
1 0 0 . 0 0 u
-7
,000
1 5
2,400

3
.000
13
000

3 BOD
152 . 160
53 , 645
1 3636 . 367
DBOD
55, 000
55, 000
55. 000
8
,000
16
1.00 0

9
. 0 0 0
19
, 0 0 0

V S S
207,952
73,315
1 8636 . 367
HH3
25, 0 0 0
25,0 0 0
2 5 . U 0 0
                                                                          1 0
                                                                          . 0 0 0
                                                                          20
                                                                          .000
                                                                         T3S
                                                                       320. 0 00
                                                                       223 , 163
                                                                          , 0 0 0
                                                                         N03
                                                                          . 0 0 0
                                                                          .000
                                                                          , 0 0 0
                                                                        TSS
                                                                       73 ,679
                                                                    ~'_ 0 u 0 0 , 0 0 4

-------
                                             STAGE
                                                        PROCESS  OPTION
INPUT DESIGN DATA:





1
13849.529
11
, 000
1
970
9
7.500

2
. 000
12
. 000
2
800,000
10 .
25. 000

3
7.500
13
. 000
3
7 .500
1 1
000

4
25. 000
14
, 000
4
. 000
12
, 000
OUTPUT DESIGN
5
, 000
15
, 000
5
, 000
13
, 000
DATA:
6
. 000
16
. 000
6
25, 000
14
.000

7
, 000
17
.000
7
.000
15
000

8
, 000
18
. 000
8
,000
16
1 ,900

9
,000
19
, 000





t 0
.000
20
000
INFLUENT!
EFFLUENT:
SIDESTRM:

INFLUENT:
EFFLUENT:
SIDESTRM:
                                  INFLUENT /  EFFLUENT  /  SIDESTREAM  CHARACTERISTICS:
0
1 , 094
,233
.81 1
DOC
43, 000
43. 000
43. 000
SOC
9545.455
3579-5.445
386.282
DNBC
1 1 . 000
t 1 . 000
t 1 , 000
SNBC
2727,273
1 0227,273
1 1 0.366
DN
25.000
25. 000
25. 000
SON
1363.637
5113,637
55, 183
DP
5. 000
5. 000
5, 000
SOP
272.727
1 022,727
1 1 . 037
DFM
300. 000
300. 000
300, 000
SFM
5000. 00?
18750. 000
202.338
ALK ,
1 00, 000
1 00. 000
t 00, 000
SBQD
13636.367
51 136,367
551 .832
DBOD
55.000
55. 000
55. 000
VSS
i 8636, 367
69886,359
754.170
NH3
25. 000
25. 000
25. 000
TSS
20000, 004
75000, 000
809.353
N03
.000
, 000
,000
                                             STAGE
                                                        PROCESS  OPTION
         1
        ,500
        1 1
        . 000
                     1
                  15.000
                     9
                    ,500
   2
15,000
  12
  .000
                     INPUT DESIGN DATA!
    2345
 32,000       1.000        .000       i.OOO
   10          11           12          i3
 15.000        .000        ,000        .000

                     OUTPUT DESIGN DATA:
    3456
851,075  809964.250  425373,250        .000
   13          14           15          16
   ,000        .000        .000        ,000
                                                               6
                                                              ,300
                                                              14
                                                              , 000
,000
17
 000
                                  INFLUENT  f  EFFLUENT  /  SIDESTREAN  CHARACTERISTICS:
             7
            .500
            15
            . 000
, 000
18
. 000

INFLUENT:
EFFLUENT:
SIDESTRM:

INFLUENT:
EFFLUENT!
SIDESTRM!
Q
.283
,283
. 000
DOC
43, 000
2567.816
. 000
SOC
35795.445
17897,723
. 000
DNBC
1 1 , 000
1 1 , 000
. 000
SNBC
1 0227.273
1 0227,273
.000
DN
25. 000
1686,932
. 000
SON
51 13.637
3451 ,705
, 000
DP
5.000
516.364
. 000
SOP
1 022. 727
51 1 .364
. 000
DFM
300. 000
300. 000
. 000
SFM
18750, 000
18750, 000
, 000
ALK
100.000
6033. 097
000
3BOD
51 136 .367
15340.904
. 000
DBOD
55. 000
4394.527
. 000
             3
           7,500
            16
           1 .500
 9
.000
19
. 000
1 0
,000
20
,000
                                                                                                       VSS          TSS
                                                                                                   69886,359    75000.000
                                                                                                   34943.180    53693,180
                                                                                                        ,000         ,000
                                                                                                       HH3          N03
                                                                                                      25.000          000
                                                                                                    1686.932         .000
                                                                                                        .000          000

-------
                                     ***************
                                     *             *
          ATTACHMENT 3              „   EXEC/OP
                                     *             *
                                     * VERSION 1.2*
                                     *             *
                                     ***************
                                    EXECUTIVE PROGRAM
                                 (OPTIMIZATION VERSION)
                                           FOR
                    PRELIMINARY SYNTHESIS OF WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS
                          U,S,  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                       MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
                          SYSTEMS AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS SECTION
                                 CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
****************************************************+**************+*++*************
*                                                                                  *
* OPJIOR 1A_^ DEER. ISLAND.SEC-ONDARY WITH DIGESTION OPTION. W/ECF                    *
*                                                                                  *
*************************i»**********************»***********************************

-------
                                              PROCESS ALTERNATIVES
OPTION  PROCESS  STAGE  SIOESTREAM
  NO.      HO.      NO.    DESTINATION
t
2
3
4
5
6
9
7
8
2
3
12
13
B
6
0
7
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
6
7
S
5
4
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
REMARKS
                                     PRIMARY SEDIMENTATION
                                     ACTIVATED SLUDGE - FINAL SETTLING
                                     CHLORINATION
                                     FLOTATION THICKENING
                                     GRAVITY THICKENING
                                     DIGESTION Of PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SLUDGES
                                     NULL PROCESS
                                     CONDITIONING AND DEWATERING
                                     INCINERATION

-------
                  EFFLUENT DISCHARGE STANDARDS
                5-DAY BOD, MG/L            30.00
                SUSPENDED SOLIDS, MC/L     30,00
                AMMONIA - N, MG/L        10000,00
                NITRATE - N, MG/L        10000.00
                PHOSPHORUS, MG,'L         10000,00

                      SELECTION CRITERIA
      CRITERION
                                        WEIGHT
                                                         LIMIT
1.  INITIAL CONSTR, COST, M$
2.  ANNUAL 0 «. M COST, */MG
3.  TOTAL ANNUAL COST, $/MG
4.  ENERGY CONSUMED, KUH/MC
5.  ENERGY PRODUCED, KWH/MG
6.  NET ENERGY CONSUMED, KUH/MG
7.  LAND REQUIRED, ACRES
8.  UNDESIREABILITY INDEX
 .00
 . 00
1 , 00
 . 00
 ,_00
 ,00
 .00
 .00
     10000,
    100000,
    100000,
     10000,

     10000,
     10000,
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
     1 0000,00
                         ECONOMIC DATA
        CONSTRUCTION COST INDEX
        WHOLESALE PRICE INDEX
        DIRECT HOURLY WAGE, */HR
        FRACTION CHARGED TO INDIRECT WAGES
        COST ESCALATOR^FOR MISC. FEES
        COST OF ELECTRICITY, */KWH
        BTU TO KUH CONVERSION EFF.
        DISCOUNT RATE
        CAPITAL RECOVERY FACTOR
       2
       3
      45
1770
0630
0000
6667
3500
0720
0900
0812
1028

-------
                                                2 BEST DESIGNS
                                                   DESIGN   1
 STAGE   PROCESS   SLUDGE
  NO.    OPTION   TONS/DAY
 SYSTEM VALUES
                  297.80
                  164.99
                      .00
                  164.95
                  297.60
                  440.62
                  283,40
                  339.08

                  462.79
                           COHSTR
                           COST M*

                            22.5798
                            69.5697
                            17.3294
                            19.1220
                               ,0189
                               .9390
                            10.0349
                            18.8882
                     2.
                    51
EXACT SYSTEM VALUE
ANN Old
COST */MG
11 .14
26.62
IS. 62
34.28
1.16
31 .49
96^36
38.51
TOTAL ANN
COST */MG
23.86
65.81
25.38
45.05
2.30
60.74
102.01
49.15
374
ENER USE
KWH/MG
8.87
135.89
14.81
62.38
.20
163.93
24.25
58.17
.297
ENER PROD
KWH/MG
.00
. 00
.00
.00
.00
607.84
.00
184.71
                             211.48     255.1.7     374.30     468.50     792.55

                               PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SLUDGES HIKED AT STAGE  6
                                                                          NET ENER  LAND REOD  UNDESIRE-
                                                                           KWH/MG     ACRES     ABILITY
                                                                        8.87
                                                                      135.89
                                                                       14.81
                                                                       62.38
                                                                         .20
                                                                     -443.91
                                                                       24.25
                                                                     -126.54

                                                                     -324.05.
                                                  .00
                                                  , 00
                                                  .00
                                                  ,00
                                                  .00
                                                  .00
                                                  .00
                                                  .00

                                                 Too
                                               .00
                                               . 00
                                               .00
                                               .00
                                               .00
                                               ,00
                                               .00
                                               .00

                                               . 00
                                                   DESIGN
                                       EXACT. SYSTEM VALUE
                                                                  387.110
STAGE  PROCESS
 NO.   OPTION
2
3
4
5
7
8
     Fit
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
SYSTEM VALUES
 SLUDGE
TONS/DAY

  297.80
  154.53
     .00
  154.53
  297.80
  431.03
  478.72

  452.32
CONSTR
COST M*
22.5798
68.0367
17.3259
17.9701
2.0189
6.5737
23.2223
ANN Ottl
COST */MG
H .14
26.06
15.62
31 .76
1 .16
119.63
92.89
TOTAL ANN
COST */MG

    23.86
    64.39
    25.38
    41 .89
     2.30
   123.33
   105.98
                                                            ENER USE  ENER PROD
                                                             KUH/MG     KUH/MG
  8.87
130.15
 14.80
 59.16
   .20
 15.47
 46.40
                             157.73     298.26     387.11     275.05     397.99

                               PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SLUDGES MIXED AT STAGE  6
                                                                          NET ENER  LAND REQD  UNDESIRE-
                                                                           KUH/MG     ACRES     ABILITY
. 00
.00
.00
. 00
.00
.00
397.99
8.87
130.15
14.80
59.16
.20
15.47
-351 .59
,00
.00
.00
,00
,00
,00
.00
. 00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
                                                                                     -122.94
                                                                                                     00
                                                                                                     .00
                                            BEST DESIGN IS NUMBER
                                                                    1
                                SEARCH EFFORT WAS 369.73692 OF TOTAL ENUMERATION

-------
12.5 Financial Impacts
        by Alternative

-------
                    12.5 FINANCIAL IMPACTS




                       TABLE OF CONTENTS










12.5.1    Introduction




12.5.2    Treatment Facility Costs




12.5.3    Overview of the Regulatory Framework

-------
12.5  FINANCIAL IMPACTS

12.5.1  Introduction

     This section analyzes in two parts the costs of the eight waste-
water treatment options remaining after initial screening and an
analysis of the financial impacts on the users of sewer service who
would pay the costs of new harbor wastewater treatment facilities.  The
first part summarizes the approach followed in updating and revising
preliminary facility cost estimates for each of the options considered
(as detailed in Section 12.4), plus the regulatory and administrative
context of treatment facility construction and operations.  The second
part estimates the annual costs to users of new treatment facilities
and the financial impacts on households in the MSD.  This analysis is
based upon assumptions made for the SDEIS regarding the funding levels
and capital borrowing for such a project over the next several years
which were applied to be consistent with other studies by the
Commonwealth of wastewater treatment facility siting as one part of a
larger State capital budget program as described later in this section.

12.5.2  Treatment Facility Costs

     This section highlights the method followed in developing prelim-
inary cost estimates of the eight wastewater treatment facility options
studied in detail following initial screening of the twenty-two
alternatives considered in the SDEIS.  Each of the four primary and
four secondary treatment options was analyzed to determine whether the
design basis developed originally and cost factors applied were
reasonable under present circumstances.  Updating of costs was done
based on an ENR Construction Cost Index of 4200.  This measure is
commonly used to provide a consistent cost index for projects of this
type taking into account inflation and is comparable to a constant 1984
dollars valuation.  Revisions to prior cost estimates were also made
reflecting changes in the assumptions regarding sludge disposal, cost
of  secondary treatment components, or other associated engineering
                                 12.5-1

-------
issues.  A detailed discussion of the method followed and analysis of
facility costs developed is presented in Section 12.4 of this volume.

12.5.2.1  Updated Facility Costs

     In reviewing the preliminary costs for the numerous options being
initially considered in the SDEIS, it was not feasible to study each of
the more than twenty alternatives in detail.  Therefore, to provide a
cost basis for the screening process (see Chapter 4.0), initial fi-
nancial review focused primarily on updating of the costs devloped in
the MDC facility plan entitled, Nut Island Site Options Study (1982).
The facility design criteria and preliminary costs developed in the
Nut Island Site Options Study  (1982) were accepted as reasonable at the
preliminary stage of analysis.  Where comparable facility costs for new
alternatives not examined by the MDC were necessary, these were de-
veloped based on consistent engineering design criteria, but with
minimal redesign of facility components.  The costs derived from the
this MDC facility plan are detailed in tables found Section 12.4.

12.5.2.2  Revised Cost Estimates

     Based on further detailed analysis of the eight options remaining
after  screening, revised alternative costs in current dollars, as shown
in Table 12.5-1, were developed for each option.  This table shows that
secondary treatment options are estimated to cost between $595 million
and $738 million, and primary  treatment options are estimated to cost
between $752 million and $872  million.  Operation, Maintenance and
Replacement (OM&R) costs are projected to be between $44 and $53
million for secondary treatment options, and between $21 million and
$24 million for primary treatment options.  The Present Worth calcul-
ations of options, which combine 0,M&R costs with the option capital
costs  (including costs of borrowing) over the twenty-year operational
period of the proposed facility, are estimated to be between $1,019
million and $1,255 million for all secondary options, and between $957
million and $1,081 million for primary options.  The borrowing interest
and period rate used to derive these figures are 10% over 20 years.
                                 12.5-2

-------
                                                    TABLE 12.5-1



                                 BOSTON HARBOR SDEIS:   SUMMARY OF OPTIONS AND THEIR COSTS
Option No.
Sites, Level of Treatment, and
(Acreage Required)
Nut Island Deer Island Long Island
Costs in
$Millions 1 Prese
worr
Capital OtM ($Mill
nt
h 2
ions)
SECONDARY ALTERNATIVES
la. 2
Ib . 2*
2b.l
2b.3
PRIMARY
-4a.2 D
4b.2 D*
5a.2 D
• ( 2) • IB (115)
• (18) • •§ (115)
• ( 2) • ( 5) • •• ( 96)
• ( 2) • ( 52) • • ( 82)
ALTERNATIVES
• ( 2) + ( 62)
• (18) £ ( 52)
• ( 2) • ( 52) £ ( 16)
5b.2 D** • ( 2) • ( 5) • ( 52)
595.04 43.59 1019.
650.40 45.18 1089.
705.98 44.63 1140.
738.33 53.12 1255.

751.99 21.10 957.
810.22 22.01 1024.
816.23 23.52 1044.
871.55 21.51 1080.
06
93
13
07

28
31
97
74
KEY
                headworks only
I = secondary treatment
                                    £ = primary treatment

                                                   1
D - deep ocean outfall     * = MDC's preferred options    RP,H =o,q ^^^.j-     
-------
     Costs for alternatives should not be compared between primary and
secondary treatment levels since, as has been stated from the outset of
this SDEIS, these treatment process differences are not being compared
in the decision on whether secondary or primary treatment would be
required.  This decision will be based solely on the independent
scientific water quality review of the MDC's 301(h) secondary waiver
application being conducted by EPA.

     The chief factor which influenced revised estimates of facility
costs was the receipt of updated information involving treatment
components, including prechlorination, secondary sedimentation tanks,
digestion, and effluent pumping.  For example, the costs from the MDC
facility plan were revised to reflect updated costs of secondary
sedimentation tanks based on final costs at other treatment plants.  It
was also assumed initially, for comparative purposes and to maintain
consistency among siting options, that all sites be evaluated
regardless of the potential cost advantage of existing facilities'
expansion.  Upon further analysis and refinement of the remaining eight
alternatives, based on the actual site conditions and facility charac-
teristics including so called fast-track improvements now underway at
both Deer Island and Nut Island facilities,  these costs were reduced to
reflect lower pump station costs that would in fact be required at
those sites.   (See Section 12.4).

     In addition, costs originally developed in the Nut Island Site
Options Study (1982) for sludge disposal by incineration were sub-
sequently eliminated from this analyis because they no longer reflect
the State's proposed priorities for sludge disposal alternatives now
being analyzed.   The state is now considering sludge management
alternatives  among composting, landfilling,  and ocean disposal in
addition to incineration options.

     For example, if either ocean dumping or landfilling were selected
as the method of sludge disposal, sludge thickening, digestion, and gas
storage facilities may not be required.  The other sludge disposal
methods considered, composting or incineration, would similarly require
                                12.5-4

-------
alternate facility components having variable costs.   Therefore, final
cost estimates for sludge disposal options will vary according to the
disposal method and facility site selected.  These issues are described
in Section 5.2 of Volume 1.  The costs of sludge disposal facilities
and associated components will be developed in the upcoming MDC
facility planning and EPA environmental review process.

     Final costs for all options, including sludge, will necessarily
increase from those presented in this section by the addition of costs
for a selected sludge disposal alternative involving either composting,
incineration, ocean disposal, landfilling, or some combination of
these.  Likewise, there will be added capital costs to those presented
here from the requirement to barge equipment and materials, and bus
workers to the sites both of which actions are being required by EPA
and the Commonwealth to the maximum extent feasible.   It may also be
necessary to provide mitigation measures beyond these actions to
minimize adverse effects of the project.  These may include such things
as staggering the construction work force, repairing roadways and
improving traffic controls, requiring special noise mitigations, or
otherwise mitigating potential adverse impacts on nearby residences and
the community during facility construction and operations.  Added costs
for such measures would apply in a similar fashion to all the siting
options being considered, and would not alter the impact analyses
conclusions on siting being made.

12.5.3  Overview of the Regulatory Framework

     The costs presented in this section have been developed based upon
two underlying requirements which must be met in order to be eligible
for EPA construction grant funds.  The first is that a potential
grantee must demonstrate that it has the financial and management
capability to manage, operate and maintain the treatment works.  The
second is that all facility operation, maintenance and replacement
costs (0,M&R) must be paid for by the users of the treatment facilities
based upon their proportionate use.  Such funding methods as statewide
or local taxes (unless an ad valorem user charge system has been
                                12.5-5

-------
approved) or other subsidies may not be applied to pay for the 0,M&R
portion of facility costs.

     While these are prerequisites to receiving EPA funding, they also
are essential aspects of the utility management concept of which EPA is
a strong advocate.  This concept implies that the treatment facilities
are self-sustaining with all costs, including debt retirement costs
remaining after Federal and State grants, paid for by those receiving
the utility's services.  Therefore, costs presented reflect this
concept, as well as the EPA funding requirement.  Thus, all project
costs (after grants) have been assumed to be paid only by the system
users.

     The existing MDC management structure has been independently
reviewed in a State-funded analysis prepared by the Bank of Boston.
One conclusion of this review was that the MDC does not currently meet
EPA's financial capability requirements.  In addition, current
compliance of the MDC with EPA 's user charge regulations is
questionable.

     Recently proposed and passed legislation to establish an inde-
pendent authority would remedy these deficiencies by implementing the
utility management concept through a water and sewer authority.   EPA
would require a new sewer authority to fully comply with the user
charge  regulations and demonstrate adequate financial capability as a
prerequisite to any grant applications for the proposed treatment
facilities.  The 0,M&R costs of such new facilities would still  be
required to be paid for solely by the users of the system.   This will
require a change from the present State financing method.   Section
12.5.3.4 describes the management structure and administration of the
previous MDC system with a brief highlight of the recently passed
legislation for a new independent sewer authority.  The details  of this
new legislation will be provided, as necessary, in the final EIS.
                                12.5-6

-------
12.5.3.1  Financial Impacts on Users

     The financial costs to users of building major sewage treatment
facilities in Boston Harbor are presented here in terms of the
estimated annual dollar charges to an average household within the MSD
service area.  These costs represent the local share of capital
expenditures and borrowing needed to finance the construction of
treatment facilities, and the operation, maintenance, and replacement
(0, M, & R) costs necessary to run these facilities once they are built
for their 20-year design life.

     The estimate of annual household user costs (in 1984 dollars) for
the project  (assuming application of a middle range of 50 percent local
cost share,  as noted below) would increase between $91 and $111 for
secondary treatment facilities, and between $74 and $82 for primary
treatment facilities (see Table 12.5-2 following).   Project user
charges would become applicable over several years  time so that the
projected increases to users would be gradual.  The first year of full
plant operations, in 1995 assuming a 1988 start and seven year con-
struction period, would be the first year when the full costs for these
facilities  (capital debt service plus 0,M&R) would be applied.

     In addition to the capital costs of treatment facilities, there
will be additional costs to users for associated sludge disposal
facilities and construction or operations requirements such as barging,
busing, and possible mitigation measures (as noted in Section 4.3).  As
noted previously, these costs are not incorporated at this time.
Sludge management capital costs will be added to treatment plant
capital costs when a sludge disposal method is determined.  Project
barging and busing costs and applicable mitigations are estimated to
represent between five and ten percent of total project capital costs
depending upon the extent and final costs of such measures.  These
combined additional costs are estimated at $45 million on average.
Added costs  of treatment facilities from actions being applied to
minimize the harmful effects of the project, such as barging  during
                                12.5-7

-------
                                                    TABLE 12.5-2
                             ESTIMATED ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD USER CHARGES (1984 $)  BY OPTIONS'
  Assumed Level of

 MDC Share of Costs
           SECONDARY OPTIONS

    Secondary Treatment Facilities

la.2       lb.2       2b.l       2b.3
                                            PRIMARY  OPTIONS

                                      Primary  Treatment  Facilities

                                 4a.2        4b.2       5a.2       5b.2
        10%
        70%
 60.27
 62.90
 62.95
 73.61
35.12
36.96
 38.86
 37.15
50%2
90.
76
96
22
99
12
111
45
73
.66
78
48
80
69
81
81
106.00
112.88
117.21
130.36
92.92
99.24
101.61
104.14
 Costs beginning in first-year of plant operations (assumed to be 1995)  based on 30-year borrowing period at 10%
annual interest rate; estimates shown are for additional costs to household users of new wastewater treatment
facilities only, not including current MDC and local sewer charges,  proposed sludge disposal  facilities,  or
construction requirements such as barging, busing, noise mitigation or other mitigation measures.
2
 The 50% local share values were assumed for purposes of impact analysis.
Source:  CE Maguire, Inc., (October 12, 1984).

-------
construction,  while significant,  would not have a major affect on the
annual household estimates presented here.

     Major capital expenditures separate from the harbor wastewater
treatment plants being analyzed in the SDEIS are also being planned by
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and by local MSB member communities
to clean up Boston Harbor.  These projects, include the collection and
treatment of combined sewer overflows (CSO), repairs to sewers to
reduce infiltration and inflow (I/I), and other collector system
rehabilitation.  This will also add to the overall costs of coordinated
federal, state and local efforts  to improve water quality in Boston
Harbor.  Moreover, such costs will be borne in large part by the users
of the system.  Preliminary estimates of the costs of total harbor
cleanup projects are approximately $1.7 billion (including the costs of
the wastewater treatment facilities examined in the SDEIS report).

     This financial impact analysis, therefore, includes only the costs
of the wastewater treatment facilities being planned by the MDC.
Implementation of these facilities are a major step in the cleanup of
Boston Harbor, recognizing, however, that they represent only a portion
of the total costs necessary to improve water quality in Boston Harbor.
Based on the comprehensive nature of the total harbor cleanup program,
this SDEIS financial impact analysis provides estimates of annual
household sewer charges which will be lower than the charges which
will, ultimately, result from a total harbor cleanup program which may
be implemented over a period of many years.  At a minimum, new
treatment facilities, for either upgraded primary or expanded secondary
treatment, are required by law.  The expenditures of capital funds and
collection of increased user charges to construct, operate, and
maintain new treatment facilities will be necessary regardless of
whether or not the MDC or a new independent sewer authority is
empowered to manage these facilities.
                                12.5-9

-------
12.5.3.2  Estimate of Household Sewer Service Charges

     As described in Section 12.5.3.4 (below), existing sewer service
charges are comprised of the MDC charges to the forty-three member
communities of the Metropolitan Sewerage District (MSB) plus the local
charges by municipalities to individual residential, commercial and
industrial users of the system.  Since there is no uniformity in how
these separate community charges are derived in each of the forty-three
municipalities, the Boston Water and Sewer Commission (BWSC) charges
for the City of Boston are presented here as representative of current
average household sewer service costs throughout the MSB.

     Boston is the largest user in the MSD contributing about 40
percent of the system's flow.  According to the 1984 Bank of Boston
Study, Protecting Water Resources:   A Financial Analysis,  a Boston
average household of four paid a total annual bill of $80.00 (1983
average).   Of this total, $46.00 was for the local city share of sewer
service costs, while $34.00 was the share of MDC charges for sewer
service passed on by Boston to the homeowner.  Of this $34.00, a
portion is attributable to the existing treatment plants,  while the
rest covers other MDC operations costs.

     These user cost estimates must be further qualified due to their
exclusion of the industrial user share of service costs.  These were
not factored into the analysis due to the unavailability of data.
Boston currently is on a flat rate basis for sewer charges so that all
users pay the same rate, with charges varying only according to their
volume of flow.  It is expected that the BWSC will be implementing an
added "sewer strength" cost factor to account for industrial flows.
Therefore, these estimates of residential user costs would be reduced
by the significant contributions to flows being made by industrial
users.

     The financial impact of constructing new wastewater treatment
facilities was analyzed using three separate funding assumptions.   All
three assumptions reflect varying financial grant levels applied to

                                12.5-10

-------
project capital costs.   The first assumes that the level of federal and
state aid will stand at 55% and 35%, respectively, of the total cost of
construction.  The associated MDC share of capital costs would be 10%.
The second assumption still reflects a federal funding eligibility of
55%, however, because of the amount of these Federal grant funds
available each year to Massachusetts the entire project could not be
funded at the 55% level if the projected five to eight year construc-
tion schedule is adhered to.  Therefore, this assumption reflects a 50%
MDC share of total project capital costs with the remainder being
funded by Federal and State grants.  The third assumption considers the
effects on local users of a 70% MDC share.  This limited grant level
would result from future reductions or elimination of federal aid with
some State aid still provided.

     While it is impossible to predict which of these (or other)
assumptions will apply at the time of the project's implementation, the
range of funding levels presented here is considered to be a reasonable
representation of possible user costs under various funding conditions.
These asumptions are, moreover, consistent with the user cost projec-
tions made for the State by the Bank of Boston in their overall
assessment of the future MDC capital program.

     Table 12.5-3 shows the amount of each year's amortization costs
for a hypothetical $800 million project.  The cumulative annual cost of
borrowing (or debt service) is shown for installments of $200 million
each, beginning in 1988 when construction is assumed to start.  The MDC
share of the annual debt service cost in shown under the three separate
funding level assumptions, increasing cumulatively until the full
borrowing level is reached.  This calculation method was used to
estimate user charges beginning in 1995 for each of the eight option's
costs.  The actual project costs of each alternative (from Table
12.5-1) were applied to the calculations with the addition of the
household share of 0,M&R costs to derive the values shown in Table
12.5-2.
                                12.5-11

-------
                             TABLE 12.5-3

                    CALCULATION METHOD FOR DERIVING

            PROJECTED AVERAGE ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD SEWER COSTS

        FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES

           (ASSUMES A HYPOTHETICAL $800 MILLION FACILITY)1
Capitalization
    Year	

    1988

    1990

    1992

    1994
 Cumulative
Amortization
   Total
 (By Year)

$21,200,000

 42,400,000

 63,600,000

 84,800,000
                                                MDC Share of
                                       Capital and Debt Service Costs
                                               (in Constant $)
  Average       Average        Average
 Household     Household      Household
  Charges       Charges        Charges
70% Share, or  50% Share, or  10% Share
  $17.92
   35.84
   53.77
   71.69
$12.80
 25.60
 38.40
 51.20
$ 2.56
  5.12
  7.69
 10.25
Source:  CE Maguire, Inc.  (8/1/84)
 This table illustrates the calculation method employed to derive
annual household user costs for each of eight options; it does so using
a hypothetical $800 million facility capital cost (1984 $).   In
actuality, the individual project capital costs for each alternative
(from Table 12.5-1) were used to derive the projected household user
costs which appear in Table 12.5-2.
2
 This schedule assumes a 1988 start of construction with borrowing to
start in the same year and continue in four equal installments.  The
actual borrowing schedule of the project will, in all likelihood, vary
according to the specific project requirements at the time.
3
 The total capital budget shown in this table is $800 million divided
into four installments of $200 million each.  The amortization period
is 30 years at a 10% annual interest rate.  Debt service costs are
shown cumulative with preceding years held constant.  The actual
capital costs for each option (from Table 12.5-1) are used in cal-
culating the household user charges shown in Table 12.5-2.
4
 An estimated 828,000 households/users in the MSD metropolitan area are
the basis for these costs; no industrial user charges are reflected in
these figures.  Household user charges shown include annual 0,M&R costs
for each facility (divided by the total number of households in the
MSD) which were added to the amortization share of costs.

-------
     To develop an estimate of the total projected household sewer
service charge, the existing MDC and local 0,M&R user charges must also
be considered.   As noted above, these costs were estimated at $80
currently (1983) for an average family of four in Boston.  However, for
purposes of this analysis, these costs are not factored into the
calculations appearing in Table 12.5-2, since no accurate measure of
such costs in the future and across each of the 43 member communities
is available.  Moreover, future 0,M&R charges would be calculated based
on the replacement of existing treatment plants with new treatment
plants.  Therefore, the estimated total household charges attributable
to the project  (as defined above) is based in this analysis solely on
the capital debt service and 0,M&R costs of new wastewater treatment
facilities.

     Again, it  should be remembered that these estimated costs do not
reflect the costs of associated sludge disposal facilities or of
associated construction requirements, such as barging, busing, or noise
mitigation.

12.5.3.3  Conclusions Regarding Financial Impact on Households

     The preceding tables show that the total estimated average annual
household sewer service charge will increase from an estimated average
$80 currently  (1983), to an additional amount (in 1984 dollars) between
$90 and $111 for secondary treatment, or between $74 and $82 for
primary treatment facilities, in 1995 (50% local share assumed).  This
is the year in which it is assumed the full annual payment, of both
debt service and 0,M&R, is reached for this project.

     User sewer charges will steadily increase beginning at the start
of construction (1988 assumed) reflecting the anticipated phased
borrowing of construction funds.  Annual household user charges for
this project will peak in the year when new MDC wastewater treatment
facilities become operational (1995 assumed) reflecting the addition of
project 0,M&R costs to the established schedule of debt service costs.
Additionally, capital spending for sludge disposal, CSO abatement, I/I

                                12.5-13

-------
removal, or related sewage system improvements that are being
considered separately, as part of an overall harbor cleanup program,
would further increase the sewer service charges to users during this
period beyond the cost estimates shown here.

     For the majority of households within the MSD, reported by the
Census (1980) to have annual incomes above $15,000 (median), a gradual
increase in sewer charges ranging between approximately $74 to $111
annually (using a 50% local share assumption for either primary or
secondary treatment alternatives) does not appear to be a difficult
financial cost for most households to absorb.  It represents less than
one percent of the MSD median household income.  Additionally, for
homeowners, this added cost could be spread over two or more install-
ment payments annually depending upon the billing cycle of individual
municipal sewer departments.   For those who rent, if increased sewer
charges are passed on by landlords, these costs could be budgeted over
twelve payments in the monthly rent.

     If the MDC funding share were to be 50%, as assumed, household
user charges for this project would gradually add approximately $100
(average) for secondary facilities, or $80 (average) for primary
facilities to homeowners' annual bills by 1995.  Even a greater (70%)
local share of costs would not greatly increase project user costs in
real dollar terms, while lower user charges from a smaller (10%) local
share would pose little difficulties of payment to users.  Projected
increases in sewer user charges would still be relatively low when
considered over the course of the next several years and given the
relatively low costs charged in the past.

     Past charges for sewer service in the MSD have been far below
those in other areas where such charges more closely reflect actual
system costs.  For example, comparing the estimated $80 annual average
household rate, Boston sewer charges ranked 29th out of 35 major U.S.
cities surveyed by the Bank of Boston.  Current sewer rates in other
cities include:  Philadelphia - $136, Buffalo - $140, Baltimore - $148,
Washington, D.C. - $158, and Cincinnati - $100.  The projected

                                12.5-14

-------
increases in user charges from the project will bring MSB charges to
levels comparable with many other cities.   Compared to other utility
costs such as electricity and gas, estimated to be about $600 and
$1,000 annually per household, respectively, increased sewer user
charges of the project are considered to be affordable.

     As noted previously, it is important to remember that these
capital costs being considered in the SDEIS represent only a portion of
a larger capital program planned for Boston Harbor and the MDC system
which will require additional local financing.   The addition of the
remaining designated projects of the Commonwealth, plus other projects
of the individual cities and towns in the MSB,  are expected to increase
user charges beyond the estimates presented here.

     Financial impacts on households under a total Harbor clean-up
program beyond this project alone would depend on the timing of addi-
tional projects, their O&M costs, and the availability of other off-
setting funds at either the federal or state levels.

     Financial impacts must additionally be considered relative to fi-
nancially sensitive populations within the MSB service area.  Those
with fixed incomes, such as many elderly residents and families with
low income, share a sensitivity and financial limits to increases, in
their living costs.  The expected gradual increases in sewer service
charges for this project alone, over a period of several years, will
help to lessen any financial burden on citizens whose ability to pay is
limited.  There may still be cases, however, of financial burden
resulting from this project's implementation.

12.5.3.4  MDC Management Structure and Administration

1.   Introduction

     This Section begins with a description of the management and
administrative structure of the current Sewerage Bivision of the
Metropolitan Bistrict Commission  (MBC).  It is included here to show

                                12.5-15

-------
how the MDC has operated to provide sewer service to the 43 cities and
towns within the Metropolitan Sewer District (MSB).   This section goes
on to briefly identify the new sewer authority legislation recently
passed as a replacement to the MDC Sewerage and Water Divisions.  This
description is based on a preliminary review of the legislation, and
may not reflect subsequent amendments or modifications to be made prior
to full implementation in the coming months.  The legislation creates
an independent sewer authority to serve as a new state entity with the
power to sell bonds and collect revenues to construct, operate and
maintain the proposed (and existing) wastewater treatment facilities of
the MDC.

2.   Existing MDC Structure

     The Metropolitan District Commission (MDC) provides sewer service
to 43 cities and towns which make up the Metropolitan Sewerage District
(MSD).   The MSD is divided into a northern and southern service area
corresponding to the existing network of local and interceptor sewers.
Northern and southern system sewers convey raw sewage to the Deer
Island and Nut Island treatment plants, respectively.  Individual
municipal assessments for MDC sewer services are based on assessment
ratios established for each member community to cover the costs of
operation and maintenance of treatment facilities plus debt service.
Actual billing of the municipalities and collection of their payments
is handled by the State Treasurer.

     As presently constituted, the MDC Sewerage Division maintains and
operates two treatment plants, ten pumping stations, four pre-treatment
headworks, three detention and chlorination stations for combined
stormwater and sewage overflows,  and 226 square miles of trunk sewers.
More than 5,300 miles of local sewers, owned and operated by the
individual municipalities, connect to the MSD trunk lines at 1,805
connections.  Average daily sewage load throughout the system is
approximately 380 million gallons.
                                12.5-16

-------
     Like all agencies of the Commonwealth, the MDC receives annual
appropriations from the Legislature to fund operations, and must
receive State authorization for all capital outlays as well.  Unlike
most other State agencies, however, the MDC reimburses the State for
maintenance and operating expenses and debt service through an as-
sessment process set by statute (M.G.L. Chapter 814, Acts of 1975).

     Each year the various divisions within the MDC prepare budget
requests following general guidelines established by the Executive
Offices for Administration and Finance (A & F) and the Executive Office
of Environmental Affairs (EOEA) under which MDC is administered.  Oper-
ation and Maintenance (0 & M) and capital outlay budgets are prepared
separately.  The former is generally based on historical costs adjusted
by inflation factors determined by A & F.  It may also include requests
for new expenditures deemed necessary by the Agency to maintain appro-
priate levels of service.  Capital outlay budgets are required for the
acquisition, construction, reconstruction or repair of land or facili-
ties if their costs will exceed $10,000.

     Both the 0 & M and capital outlay budgets are reviewed and ap-
proved by the Commission and then submitted to EOEA.  Following
informal consultations between the MDC, EOEA and A & F, adjustments are
made to reflect both EOEA and the Governor's budget priorities.  The
entire EOEA budget is then submitted to the A & F Bureau of the Budget
for final review and adjustment.  It is subsequently incorporated into
the total budget for the executive, legislative and judicial branches
of government presented by the Governor to the Legislature each
January.

     The Legislature considers 0 & M and capital outlay budgets in-
dependently.  Hearings are held on each by the Senate and House of
Representatives.  After passage by both Houses, the budgets are sub-
mitted to the Governor.  Once signed, they become the basic fiscal
management tool for each executive office and operating agency.  Figure
12.5-1 graphically illustrates the budgeting and funding process of the
Sewerage Division.  Political factors come into play at each stage of

                                12.5-17

-------
             Figure  12.5-1
      Sewerage Division
      Budgeting/Funding
        INTERNAL/ANTICIPATORY
              PLANNING
                    L
     SEWERAGE DIVISION DIRECTOR
             DIRECTOR OF
          PROJECT PLANNING
          MDC COMMISSIONER
                 AND
         DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
           BUDGET BUREAU
          EXECUTIVE OFFICE
         OF  ADMINISTRATION
             AND FINANCE
      START
             GOVERNOR'S
               OFFICE
             LEGISLATIVE
            MODIFICATION
            AND APPROVAL


SECRETARY
EOEA


          ENACTED BUDGET
  REPAYMENT
      TO
COMMONWEALTH
    INTERIM
   FINANCING
   THROUGH
COMMONWEALTH
     MEMBER
   COMMUNITIES
  TREASURER
     BILLS
  43 MEMBER
  COMMUNITIES
                       SEWERAGE
                        DIVISION
                     DIRECTION FOR
                        MEMBER
                      COMMUNITY
                        BILLING
                    FUNDS  TO
                    SEWERAGE
                     DIVISION
            , Deer Island Facilities Plan, Vol.1 (Sept., 1983)

-------
the legislative and executive process.  These affect the level of
budget requested, sometimes significantly reducing funding levels.
Inadequate funding has been identified as a primary cause of the recent
maintenance and operation problems experienced by the MDC.

a.    Assessments

     Annual State appropriations for 0 & M expenses and debt service
for the MDC are reimbursed through the assessment process.  This
process varies by division.  Included in the assessments levied by each
division are their proportionate share of costs for both EOEA and the
administrative and staff units within the MDC.  The basis for alloca-
tion is set by State law.

     Chapter 92 of the General Laws, as amended by Chapter 814, Acts of
1975, requires that each of the 43 cities and towns in the MSD pay
annually to meet total costs of operation and maintenance plus debt
service for the MDC Sewerage District.  The total amount assessed is,
however, subject to the limitations of the recently enacted state and
local tax limits of "Proposition 2%" (M.G.L. Chapter 580, Acts of 1980
as  amended by Chapter 782, Act of 1981).

     Allocation of 0 & M expenses is based on contributing residential
population and derived population equivalents of industrial users.
(The law defines industrial wastes as those user wastes discharged into
the system which would be subject to cost-recovery provisions of
federal law with respect to any federal grant that might be made for
construction of works that treat such wastes.  While the cost-recovery
provisions have been abolished, the definition still stands.)  Costs
for debt service are assessed based on the latest State census.
Population equivalents are used for industrial wastes.  Table 12.5-4
presents the 1984 population and population equivalent totals for the
43 MSD members.

     While this system was designed to be user-based, with each cus-
tomer paying according to the amount of sewage contributed, it may not,

                                12.5-19

-------
                                Table    12.5-^
                      THE METROPOLITAN  SEWERAGE DISTRICT
                                                Currtnt (IDC Assusient Nithadclocy - 1783 A«uiss*nts lj)
  Ceinnity
Total 1980
Population
Arlington
Atnland
Briford
Biliant
Boston
Sriintrn
Brooklint
Burlington
Caaoridgt
Canton
QltlSU
Dtdau
ETirttt
Fraiingnai
Hi again
MISTOOK
Lningten
lUldn
Ktdf ord
Rtlrait
Hilton
Hittck
Mndhu
Ntwtan
Memmd
floincy
Randal en
Ruding
Rtvtrt
SOMTVillt
Ston*hu
Staugaton
HakiHild
Ulpoli
ValtbM
Vatirtow
Killtslcy
litstMad
Viyioath
Viliingtoa
Uincntittr
Minthrog
Kobwm
48,219
9,165
13,067
26,100
562,994
36,337
55,062
23,486
95,322
18,182
25,431
25,298
37,195
65,113
20,339
11,140
29,479
53,386
58,076
30,055
25,860
29,461
27,901
83,622
29,711
84,743
28,218
22,678
42,423
77,372
21,424
26,710
24,895
18,859
58,200
34,384
27,209
13,212
55,601
17,471
20,701
19,294
36,626


1984 MDC
Sewer Charges
(Actual $)

571,496
72,229
167,971
313,961
8,707,237
440,281
656,285
271,479
1,404,590
196,123
316,481
273,204
501,725
734,221
68,676
50.996
343,042
652,435
704,796
361,272
300,422
309,299
319,070
1,029,442
393,339
1,043,343
276,555
233,230
488,955
954,399
255,344
199,115
297,351
198,144
883,177
421,042
294,750
97,351
528,800
118,559
231,129
232,615
505,510


Contributing
Population

47,433
2,ra
4,334
3,517
340, in
11,410
34,7*7
19,374
94,843
u,a?i
23,304
21,23
57,009
32,807
5,248
m
22,22
53,119
57,784
29,903
24.127
21,507
23.883
81,531
29,542
B4,31f
20,823
18,210
40,314
74,985
21,124
12,044
24,571
5,493
57,909
Z4.212
3, 427
3,747
33,309
210
18,507
19,198
27,579


Assigned
Nonindujtnal
Sanitary
Snagt
M
1,473.42
91.10
213.88
784.34
17,39?. 12
1,104.04
1,701.48
401.82
2,943.88
349.2
783.94
459.23
1,149.30
1,440.18
143.42
30.78
787.43
1,449.37
1,794.83
928.83
749.38
448.01
741.80
2,532.35
918.19
2,418.94
444.82
545.40
1,258.34
2,391.15
434.11
374.13
743.17
174.89
1,798.43
1,042.42
727.44
178.50
1,189.87
4.52
574.33
394.29
834.40
Industrial
Sanitary
Stttgt
8at«d Uaoa
Vatir
VoltlMS
•4
14.40
34.44
343.53
48.57
4,011.14
115.80
45.22
217.34
1,754.22
174.03
80.49
34.49
390.42
272.23
0.00
0.00
147.42
44.44
95.84
48.30
47.29
114.14
98.40
300.83
328.44
141.53
13.90
0.00
0.00
243.57
17.24
9.03
27.42
394.23
1,053.97
85.90
11.21
30.00
37.28
312.84
30.53
31.37
898.18

Total
Sanitary
Stvagt
VolUH
Riipaimbtlity
»9
1,489.82
127.74
537.41
834.91
23,410.24
1,221.84
1,744.90
319.14
4,702.10
545.34
344.43
495.74
I,5j9.92
1,912.43
143.42
30.78
934.85
1,714.51
1,890.47
971.15
794.47
782.17
840.40
2,833.'1B
1,244.45
2,780.47
642.72
543.40
1,33.34
2,434.72
473.37
383.18
790.59
573.12
2, 354.42
1,148.52
738.33
:oa.5o
1,229.15
319.38
405.34
627.44
1,734.78
      Tat si
                                                  1,878,025
                                                          14,174.34     72,SOS.44
              2,070,021
                   17,712,704
              (a) Volum thowi do not ineludi any infiltration, inflow, or stormattr quantitin.
Source:  Black  &  Veatch,"Report on Annual Cost  Assessment Methodology...",
           (June, 1981).

-------
in the opinion of the EPA,  meet the federal guidelines governing the
collection of operational,  maintenance and replacement (0, M & R) costs
through a user charge, which must be determined based on both contri-
buted sewage flow and, in the case of non-residential users, the
concentration of contaminants discharged ("strength").

     User charge guidelines, rules and regulations promulgated in
accordance with the Federal Clean Water Act (Public Law 92-500, as
amended by Public Law 95-217 and Public Law 97-117) require that user
charge systems be developed to recover operation and maintenance costs
(including costs for replacement of necessary equipment) from the users
of the sewerage system in proportion to contributed sewage flow and
strength.  The present user charge system of the MDC was implemented in
Fiscal Year 1982.  However, it has not yet been approved by State and
federal authorities, nor has the application of sewer strength sur-
charges been fully implemented.  For example, the City of Boston which
makes up about 40 percent of the MDC flow, has not yet implemented
sewer strength costing.  All users in the City are charged only on the
basis of flow.

     Specific details on the MDC's assessment methods and management
structure are contained in the reports listed below.  These studies
have been prepared by consultants to the State during the course of
work on the SDEIS and are incorporated in this DEIS by reference.

     1)   Black & Veatch, "Report on Annual Cost Assessment Methodology
          to MSD Member Communities Including User Charge Systems,"
          June, 1981.

     2)   ibid, (1984).

     3)   Bank of Boston, Protecting Water Resources:  A Financial
          Analysis, February 8, 1984.
                                12.5-21

-------
     4)   Havens & Emerson/Parsons Brinkerhoff, MDC, Deer Island
          Facilities Plan, Volume I, Fast-Track Improvements,
          Appendix B:  Administration and Management, January, 1984.

b.   Funding of MDC Sewerage Assessments at the Community Level

     MDC assessments are levied annually on member communities via the
"Cherry Sheet," which provides each community a summary of local aid
coming from the Commonwealth as well as payment due for a variety of
services provided, including sewerage.  The Cherry Sheet is used by
city and town officials in planning local revenue requirements and
setting local tax rates.

     Each of the 43 municipalities that make up the Metropolitan
Sewerage District uses its own system for billing individual sewer
users.  Some charge for both the costs of local sewerage service and
the community's share of the MDC annual costs.   Some municipalities do
not bill for sewer service at all, preferring instead to cover these
costs through local property taxes.   Others bill based on water con-
sumption.  No metering of sewage flows is done in the MSB,  therefore,
it is unknown if billing coincides with actual costs of services.   This
variation in assessments is a factor in the current deliberations  on
funding for the new sewer authority.

     According to a survey conducted by the Bank of Boston (1984),
thirteen communities still finance both local costs as well as the  MDC
assessment through general property taxes.   The remaining thirty MSD
members have some type of user charge, i.e., individual bills are  sent
to all customers, both residential and non-residential, who use the
local sewer system.   Bills are usually based on water consumed, and
rates vary widely by community, ranging from 30C per 100 cubic feet to
75C per 100 cubic feet.   In addition,  some  communities simply charge a
flat rate.   There is also considerable variation in these changes.   The
lowest annual charge is $8.00 per connection; the highest,  $50.00.
                                12.5-22

-------
     In some cases,  sewer user charges cover both local  costs and the
MDC assessment.   In other cases, only local costs are  covered, and the
MDC assessment is paid out of property tax receipts.   In still others,
fees support operating expenses and the MDC assessment,  but  debt
service comes out of general revenues.  In most communities, however,
revenues received from sewerage user charges do not fully finance all
the costs, both direct and indirect, associated with the provision of
sewerage services.  These must be covered, therefore,  from other- local
revenues.  It is this variability which may not conform  to existing.
Federal guidelines for grant eligibility.  Table 12.5-5  presents the
sewer  rates for each of the MSD communities.

3.   Legislation Establishing an Independent Sewer (and  Water)
     Authority

     Legislation has recently been passed by the Massachusetts
Legislature and signed by the Governor to establish a  new, independent
sewer  and water authority to replace the existing MDC  Water  and
Sewerage Divisions.  This legislation is, in part, a response to the
past problems encountered by the MDC in the provision  of sewer services
to  its member communities (as discussed elsewhere in the SDEIS).  The
legislation is one approach to more effective delivery of sewer service
to  the member communities of the MSD.  As such, it is  an important
element of the overall Boston Harbor cleanup program.  It is antici-
pated  that this legislation will provide the reforms and management
reorganization necessary to meet Federal guidelines for  financial and
administrative management of a sewer authority.

     In 1984, the Bank of Boston prepared a study entitled Protecting
Water  Resources:  A Financial Analysis for the Massachusetts Executive
Office of Environmental Affairs, as noted previously.  The study
examined the financial implications of creation of an  independent new
state  authority combining the former MDC Sewerage and  Water  Divisions.
The advantage of  such an independent authority would be  that it could
be  given power to sell revenue bonds to  finance capital  projects, and
power  to collect  revenues directly  from  the user communities to cover

                                 12.5-23

-------
                                                                          Table
                           12.5-5
                                                                 SUHHttl Of NK 5EHEU6E 5»SIEH NEHKI UMHUNIIIES
                                                                       LOCK CBSI lECOVtK IHfflUMIION
                                                                             SEHA6E SISIEHS
                   Httkod Uud tl Itcom Sntft Syitu Cult
       Cuttour Seugt lilliif
Uud 1*1*4 HUT Ckir|i
Couiuitf lacil HC IK«| HK

Arll09to« 1 1
Atblud 1 I

ltdlord 1 1


Itlioal 1 1
koitoa 1 1
Irmtrii B 1
iraaklut 1 1
lurli»|lac 1 1
Ciitrid|i I I
Cintaa 1 1
Ctiliei 1 1
Dtdhu 1 S
(vtrtil I 1
ha..*.. I I
Mugtui 1 8
Cuiliwer lilliaf Coipultfiud
Htttrtd CliiiM frequency Illliif
1
100 III, COM, lad Siti-Aiui«il In
IM to Stii-Aewiil In

IM to Stii-Aamul In


IM to liurtirlr III
IM III hi/ttflf In
IM In lutftirl; In
IM lit liurliflf In
IM a»,Cou,Ud ln:S»i-AMu*l In
IM lit Irs Annujlly In




IM Bo Iri-Aonuilly to
l(x) Rii,CoM,lid Aanuilly fit
EM
kVMlt

In
to

Applltd


III
IM
In
to
In
to
In
IM
to
Ha
to
Ha
EM Ihtr
Ckuit
Sytlii

Approved
to

Sukiiltid


App,..id
*„.,«
Appravid
Approved
to
to
Subiilled
Suhiildd
Subntlid
to
ip proved
to
S.«,i bl..

M.40 pir Ccl
lit UM cl - 115.0* IIBIIUI
Over UM cl - 40.41 per Ccl
III 2,M» cl - ti.dOS per cl
Over 2,500 cl - 10.0125 per cl
Service cbwot - 15. M pir (llhif ptriod
4«.U pir Ccl
IS. 44 per IOM cl
Ml. 15 per Ccl
M.40 per Ccl
401 el Mttr kill
10.42 pir Cci
Ad Vilorto
Ad Vilorea
Ad Vilorei
Ad Vilort.
751 el mler kill
450.00 ptr dtilliof wit
                                                                                                                                  ISO.00 pir ti»jli
                                                                                                                                  IIM.OO per l>o
                                                                                                                                  »!5('.Wi ptr Ihrti
                                                                                                                                  Ifif,Schools t COM - 15.(id per I,OM il
                                                                                                                                  tjO.Ot) •iniiui
Hoii(oak
jrl lies.    Hfs,',oi»,lnJ
 lad I Con
                                                                                                  Its
                                                                                                                        Approvtd    le&: M.On ptr i,uirUr
                                                                                                                                  CM I lid: HA
   Source:  Black  &  Veatch,(June,  198l),

-------
                                                                           SUIHIMU Of HOC SEHEM6E SISKN N£MKI CONHUNIIIES
                                                                                  IflCAL COSI RECOVER! INfOMMHUI
                                                                                         HUGE SISIENS
                       Nttkol Ufri li licour Smi|l Sritto Caili
Cmtooir SiHjt III 11*| ItlorutiM
luil tuti
CoMUiity local NIC

Liiin|lM 1 1
Nildto
Nidfor* 1 1
Nilroii 1 1
III loo
Nitick 1
NndkM I 1
Ntiilu 1 1
Normal 1 I
dinner 1 1
lindalgk I
UMT Cktroi
	 fuclAM* lillinii rauiutwiirf FPA
Ixil HOC Ncttrri CUiuc frifiitnc) lilli»| Crult
1
»t»
1 1 100 No Sni-«nou*l >it Iti
No
No
1 1 100 lit t M Stil-«enyil In No
1 100 No luiHtrly Kit VM
ApDliH
I 1 100 No SiM-«anuS linltui oir tonlk
U Vilof 11
IJIol Mlfr kill ilut Uiti
M Vilorn (Hill oui UC U
tllitt ii l«ei>
Hjjor 1 In it. - 11.49 itr Ccl
Ml Otkir - M Vilord
110 air iiaglf luily
livir*
                                                                                        Vis        hurt tr ly      in
                                                                          J.Ot'O     S(.. lisclurqe     Quarterly      Vis
                                                                        Unietcred     Cusloiert
                                                                      160 oer 2
                                                                      HO fti 1 I MI I r
                                                                      COM I ikovi 1 luily - 10.0015 fn cl

                                              «H         Subnittd    10.10 pir Ccl Milk  101 liscoutt
                                                                      il filt mlkin 30 ti^ - 11.50 oioiouo
                                                                      lekl service Iroi Utet

                                               No            No       U Valor 10

                                              IK         tffiatet     10.6u ftt Ccl

-------
                                                                         SUHHttl  Of MK SEKRASE SlSUN HERBEI COHNUNIUES
                                                                                 LOCM COSI  IKOVCRI IHfOKIUIIQN
                                                                                        UUttE SUSHIS
hiked ttud U Itcovif SM*|I Syitii Caitt
I U id littd ttiir Ckirfi
Cauuiity loul IK locil IK

Stonthii I I
Stouiktat 1 1
Kiktittld 1 1
Hilpoli Hi HI » «
Viltku 1 1
"""'«
Utlltiliy 1 1
VlltKOOd I I
CutlMir Semg,l
Cuilo4cr
Hitirid Clittif
1
luO IK
100 IK

M tf
n IK i ud
IM In
IM IK

lillU| lot or ill ion
lillina Coipulir ind tM
fri»uti)cy lillii| irwlt

SMI-AMM! Ill IK
llf.Siil-ibayil lit *P»lii4
Ho
W U M
Bwlerlt In Ha
Se*i-Auu*l In
li-Honikly lit In
lit

EPA U»r
Ckirgi
Syitit

Appr...d
Appro vid
Ha
HI
Appravid
Appravid
Approvid
Approvid


SlNlfl

10. /I pir Ccl
10.10 pir Ccl
125.00 ueliui pir t
Ad Vilorii
W)
10.55 pir Ccl
10.42 pir Ccl tpplii
151 al Kitir titir r
ill al niter kill
II. If linuiu per 1
Ad Vilaria (DC tppra


lilii


IMtbi



d la
»di*|
•onlki
vid lor
Ueriautk
MiltlQ|tu


Minchnlir

Hinthrop


Voburn
                                                                                                                                                         Jinuirj 1,  19851
                                                                         IM
                                                                                       In         Aamiillr       lit
                                                                                                                                  In
                                                                                                                                                          Aiuuil  I
                                                                                                                                                           110.00
                                                                                                                                                           155.60
                                                                                                                                                           175.00
                                                                                                                                                           HO. 00
                                                                                                                                                           II5.1*
                                                                                                                                                                 Ritidentul
                                                                                                                                                                  2 litily
                                                                                                                                                                  I U*il(
                                                                                                                                                                  4 l»lly
                                                                                                                                                               lick idd. UBI|
                                                  Olker
                                                firii ll,f«f  cl
                                                Up to 21,m  c<
                                                Up la 7l,f«f  cl
                                                Up to I4,m  cl
                                                Eviry tdd. 5,000 cl
                                                                         IM
                                                                                       In
                                                                                                  tujrlcfl)      lit
                                                                         1(10
                                                                                       *"
                                                                                                  Annuilly       In
III


lit

In


lit
Approvid


   Ha

   Hg


Sutidtltd
Hk - oo rupomi
lu.?5pir  Ccl
M.00 uniiui

Ad Vllortt

Ad Vilari* IDC to ki idapttd
    ky nilH84I

hittlu:ltt 10,000 cl  - 10.10 pir 1000 ci
(Kir  10,000 cl   lu.20  pir  1000 cl
18.00 tinliui ptr yeir
Industriil'.Ut 500,000  cl - 10.60 ptr  1000 il
Heil  500,WO cl - 14.40 per IdOO cl
Over  I,(*1>,<>OG cl - 10.li irr 1000 cl
125.00 unitLi per ,eif

-------
its costs.   Additionally,  the new authority would establish consistency
among members in the collection of user charges and conformance with
applicable federal guidelines.   The most significant changes arising
from a new sewer authority are that:

     1.   Metropolitan sewer operations would be financed totally
          through user charges that are uniform; and,

     2.   Capital funding  for the sewer system would be raised from
          sale of revenue  bonds.

     It should be noted that the current legislation signed by the
Governor may be amended over the course of implementing the new
authority.   Any pertinent  changes and effects on the project of a new
sewer and water authority  will be examined in the final EIS.
                                12.5-27

-------
                       THE  METROPOLITAN  SEWERAGE  DISTRICT
                                                     Current HOC Assesstent tletnoficlocy -  1933 ftssessaents  la)
Conunity
Total  1980
Population
Arlington
Ashland
Bedford
Biliont
Boston
Braintree
Grookhne
Burlington
Caibridge
Canton
Chelsea
Dedhai
Ettrett
Fraeinghai
Hinghai
riolbrooic
Lexington
Hal den
Bedford
Nelrase
Hilton
Natick
Needhai
Nenton
Mcruood
Quincy
Randolph
Reading
Revere
Soierville
Stonehai
Stoughton
Hakefield
Halpole
Malthas
VatertoM
Kellesley
liestuoad
Ueyiouth
Vilnngton
Winchester
Ninthrap
Uoburn
48,219
9,165
13,067
26,100
562,994
36,337
55,062
23,486
95,322
18,182
25,431
25,298
37,195
65,113
20,339
11,140
29,479
53,386
58,076
30,055
25,860
29,461
27,901
83,622
29,711
84,743
28,218
22,678
42,423
77,372
21,424
26,710
24,895
18,859
58,200
34,384
27,209
13,212
55,601
17,471
20,701
19,294
36,626


1984 MDC
Sewer Charges
(Actual $)

571,496
72,229
167,971
313,961
8,707,237
440,281
656,285
271,479
1,404,590
196,123
316,481
273,204
501,725
734,221
68,676
50,996
343,042
652,435
704,796
361,272
300,422
309,299
319,070
1,029,442
393,339
1,043,343
276,555
233,230
488,955
954,399
255,844
199,115
297,351
198,144
883,177
421,042
294,750
97,351
528,800
118,559
231,129
232,615
505,510


Contributing
Population

47,438
2,933
6,886
23,317
560,179
33,610
34,787
19,376
94,845
11,891
23,304
21,225
37,009
32,807
5,268
991
23,332
53,119
57,786
29,905
24,127
21,307
23.863
81,331
29,362
84,319
20,823
18,210
40,514
76,983
21,124
12,046
24,371
3,695
37,909
34,212
23,427
3,747
38,309
210
18,307
19,198
27,379


Assigned
Nonindujtrul
Sanitary
Senage
•Q
1,473.42
91.10
213. aa
786.34
17,399.12
1,106.04
1,701.68
601.82
2,943.88
369.33
783.94
639.23
1,149.30
1,640.18
163.62
30.78
787.43
1,449.37
1.794.83
928.83
749.38
668.01
741.80
*) ^'^ **
Xf Jw^« JJ
918.19
2,618.94
o46.82
565.60
1,258.36
2,391.13
656.11
374.13
763.17
176.89
1,798.65
1,062.62
727.64
178.50
1,139.87
6.52
374.33
396.29
856.60
Industrial
Sanitary
Sewage
Based Uaon
Kater
Voluies
•9
16.40
36.66
343.53
48.37
6,011.14
113.80
65.22
217.34
1,756.22
176.03
80.49
36.49
390.42
272.25
0.00
0.00
147.42
66.64
95.84
41.30
47.29
114.16
98.60
300.83
328.46
161.33
15.90
0.00
0.00
243.57
17.26
9.03
27.42
396.23
1,055.97
85.90
11.21
30.00
39.28
312.86
30.33
31.37
898.18

Total
Sanitary
Senage
Voluae
Responsibility
•9
1,489.82
127.76
337.41
834.91
23,410.26
1,221.84
1,766.90
819.16
4,702.10
343.36
866.43
695.74
1,339.92
1,912.43
163.62
30.78
934.85
1,716.51
1,890.67
971.13
796.67
782.17
840.40
2,833.18
1,246.65
2,780.47
662.72
565.60
1,259.36
2,634.72
673.37
383.18
790.59
573.12
2,354.62
1,148.32
738.85.
208. 5fl'
1,229.15
319.38
605.36
627.66
1,734.78
    Toul
                                                       1,878,023
                                                      33,331.32'
14,174.34
72,505.66
             2,070,021
                      17,712,704
              (a) Voluies shann do not  include my infiltration, inflo*,  or stor«»ater quantities.

-------
                                                               TABLE 11

                                           SUNHARY OF HOC SEWERAGE SYSTEM MEMBER COMMUNITIES
                                                 LOCAL BILLING INFORMATION AND RATES
                                                             HATER SYSTEMS
                                     Customer Hater Billing Inforeation
 Couunity



Arlington

Ashland


Bedford



Beliont
Chelsea
Dedhai
Everett


Fraiinghu

Hinghaa
  Ntterid

     1

    100

    100


    100



    100
Boston
Braintree
Brook line
Burlington
Cartridge
Canton
99.9
100
100
100
100
100
     Unicttrtd

         1

         0

         0
                                   0.1

                                     0

                                     0

                                     0
    100
Served by Oedhae Hater Co.
    100


    100

    100
          0
Hinqhai Hater  Co.
 CultOMT
  ClaiStl
 Billing
Friqutncy
Res, COM, Ind    SMI -Annual

   No           SMI -Annual
                      No
                      No
                Sni-Annual
                 Quarterly
Computerized
   Billing
                   Yn

                   Yis


                   Yes



                   Yes
                                                                                                      Mater Rates
              10.90 per Ccf

              1st 1400 cf - $15.00 linieui
              Over 1400 cf - «0.45 per Let

              1st 2000 cf - 10.005 per cf
              Over 2000 cf - 10.01 per cf
              Service charge - IS.00 per billing period

              1st 800 cf - tt.50 per quarter liniiui
              Over BOO cf - 10.45 per Ccf
Yes
Yes
Yes
Res, COM, Ind







Yes
Res I Ind

No







No

No
Res, COM, Ind
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Res: Soi -Annual
Other: Quarterly






Tri -Annually
Res:Seei -Annual
IndlMonthly
Quarterly

Res: Quarterly
Other:Nonthly




Quarterly
Sow IndlBontnly
Tri -Annually
Quarterly
Yes 17. 4B per 1000 cf
Yes 11.00 per Ccf
Yes 10.95 per Ccf
Yes Res: 1st 20,000 gal - 112.00 unitu* s/a
Next 15,000 gal - 10.70 per 1000 gal
Next 145,000 gal - 10.80 per 1000 gal
Over 200,000 gal - 10.90 per 1000 gal
COM I Ind: 1st 10,000 gal - 16.25 iinitui qtr
Next 7,500 gal - 10.70 per 1000 gal
Next 82,500 gal - 10.80 per 1000 gal
Over 100,000 gal - 10.90 per 1000 gal
Yes 10.44 per Ccf
Yes 10.85 per Ccf

No 1st 1000 cf - 18.50 liniiui
Over 1000 cf - 10.85 per Ccf
1st 4,500 cf per qtr - 11.848 per Ccf
Next 13,500 cf per qtr - 10.845 per Ccf
Over 18,000 cf per qtr - 10.483 per Ccf
5/8* liniwe - 124.42 per qtr; allowance - 900 cf per qtr
3/4* linieui - 141.13 per qtr; allowance - 1500 c< per qtr
Etc. for other icter sizes up to 4 inch - 1802.54 per ctr
Yes 10.40 per Ccf
niniMU >8.00 per year for 2,000 cf
No 10.40 per Ccf
Yes 5/8' ainina - 115.3l;allowance - 7 Ccf
                                                                                          1st 5 Ccf - 11.750 per Ccf
                                                                                          Next 10 Ccf - 11.577 per  Ccf
                                                                                          Next 20 Ccf - 11.437 per  Ccf
                                                                                          Next 50 Ccf - 11.124 per  Ccf
                                                                                          Next 50 Ccf - 10.839 per  Ccf
                                                                                          Over 135 Ccf - 10.555 per M
                                                                                          Niniiut,allowance,and blocks  vary by icter size up to
                                                                                          8* nnitui - «731.62!allowance - U46 Ccf
                                                                                          All usaoe - 10.555 per Ccf

-------
                                                           TABLE 11  (continued)

                                           SUWARY Of (IDC SEKERAffi SYSTEJ1 HEWER COmUNITIES
                                                 LOCM. BILLIH6  INFORMATION AND RATES
                                                             MTER SYSTEM
                                    DittOMr Hater Billing  Infortation
 Cowunity
Holbrook
Lmngton
flalden
Bedford
Helroie
Hilton
Natick
Needhai
Neaton
Nornood
Bumcy


Randolph


Reading



Revert

Retired Unentered
I I
Ret: 33 Rei: 67
id V Cot: 100
100 0

100 0

100 0

100 0





100 0

99 1

100 0

100 0
CuitDMr Billing
CiaiiM Frequency

RH, COM, Ind Quarterly

YH Sen-Annual

No Stu -Annual

Yei Stti -Annual

Yti Sen -Annual





Rti k Ind SMI -Annual

No Quarterly

Yti Sen -Annual

No SMI -Annual
Computerized
Billing

Yn

YH

YH

No

YH





Yei

YH

YH

Yei

Hater Ratei

Ret: $22.00 per Barter
Ind I COM: $1.00 per Ccf
lit 2,000 cf - $11.00 unitui
Over 2,000 cf $0.55 per Ccf
$0.60 per Ccf
$15.00 tinitui
$8.00 per 1000 cf
122.00 unitui
lit 5,000 cf - $0.45 per Ccf
Ntit 5,000 cf - $0.75 per Ccf
Neit 5,000 cf - $0.85 per Ccf
Over 15,000 cf - $0.90 per Ccf
$16.25 uniiui per 6 tenths
Baud on annual mage/tulled sen-annual
lit 1600 cf $13.50 tinitut
Over 1600 cf - $0.75 per Ccf
$0.70 per Ccf
$1.75 uniiui per tenth
1st 2,000 cf - $14.50 uniiui
Over 2000 cf - $0.72 per Ccf
lit 4,000 cf $0.55 per Ccf
                     100
99.6
  99
99.9
                     100
               0.4
               0.1
                                  3,000
                                Unietered
                                                YH            Quarterly         Yn
                                                           Urge: Itonthly
                             No
                            YH
                            YH
   SHI-Annual
Over 2'-»onthly

   Seu -Annual
    Quarterly
                          RH I Ind    Rei: Sen -annual
                                        Ind: ninthly
                                                                                No
                                                             Ho
                                                             Yn
                                                                                Yn
Ntit 4,000  cf  -  $0.45 per Ccf
Over 8,000  cf  -  $0.75 per Ccf
5/8'-3/4'    99.00  uniiut
1'   $13.50 unnui
Etc. thru fl" uterj   $99.00

Quarterly:  $7.50 unitui per Barter
lit 6,000 cf   td.1,4 per Ccf
Ntit 240,000 cf    $0.55 per Ccf
Over 244,000 cf  -  $0.44 per Ccf
Large cuitoiert: $7.50 tinieut per tenth
lit 2,000 cf - $0.64 per Ccf
Ntit 80,000 cf   $0.55 per Ccf
Over 82,000 cf - $0.44 per Ccf

$0.90 per Ccf
$18.00 unitui

10.42 per Ccf
120.00. per  year  tinitut

$1.50 per Ccf  mth 101 discount
if paid "ittun 30  day*
17.50 unitui

10.65 per Ccf
$21.00 per  6 tonthi unitui
Stonthai
                     100
                             No
                                                Yei
    Quarterly
                                                             Sen-Annual
                                                                                YH     $0.88  per  Ccf
                                                                                YH
                                                                     1st 2,100 tf
                                                                     Ovtr 2100 cf
                                            $15.00 unitui
                                            $0.85 per Ccf

-------
                                                          TABLE 11  Icontinutd)

                                          SUMMARY OF NIC SEKRASE SYSTEM NEWER CDW1UNITIES
                                                LOCAL BILLING INFORMATION  AND  RATES
                                                            MTER SYSTEMS
                                    Cuitottr Hattr Billing Inanition
CoMuntty
Stouahtofl
Nitirid
1
too
UnutKtd
I
0
Cuituir Billing Cotputtriztd
Claitfi FriqutKY Billing Hattr Rate*
Rts,CoM,lnd Rts: SMI -annual YH 1st 1,000 cf - 120.00 lininii
Naktfitld


Valpoli

tfalthat
                    100


                     NR

                     99
VitirtOM
•til til ty
                     100
                     100
tttituod          Sirvid by  Otdhat Kattr Co.
 Htyiouth
                     100
 Kiliington
                    100
 Hinchtittr
Hinthrop
                     100
                     100
 Hoburn                BO

     KR  - no  rtipontt
                      Cot/Ind-fluarttrly.             Nnt  1,000  cf -  $0.80 ptr Ccf
                                                    Nnt  3,200  cf -  «0.90 ptr Ccf
                                                    Nut  6,600  cf -  11.00 ptr Ccf
                                                    Nut  6,600  cf -  It. 10 pir Ccf
                                                    Nnt  6,600  cf -  11.20 ptr Ccf
                                                    Ntit  25,000 cf - «1.30 pir Ccf
                                                    Nnt  50,000 cf - *1.40 ptr Ccf
                                                    Ovtr  100,000 cf  - $1.65 ptr Ccf

0           Yn           Stti-Annual        Yts     lit 1,500 cf - 125.00 liniiui
                                                    Ovtr  1,500  cf -  11.25 ptr Ccf

NR           NR               NR             MR      NR

1         RN l>  Ind        Buarttrly         Yti     lit 100,000 cf - 10.80 ptr Ccf
                       Largt: Monthly               Nnt  1,900,000 cf -  10.72 ptr Ccf
                                                    Ovtr  2,000,000 cf -  10.70 ptr Ccf
                                                    5/B1  - 18.00 ptr gtr un » 112.00 ptr ytar rental
                                                    3/4*  - 115.00 ptr qtr tin * $18.00 ptr ytar rental
                                                    Etc.  for othtr ttttr sizti up to 10' - $1500 t «900

0           Ytf           Stti-Annual        Yti     10.64 ptr Ccf
                                                    116.00 tiniw*

0           YK           Bi-flonthly         Yti     13.00 cuitottr chargt
                                                    11.10 ptr Ccf
                                                    Suwtr tenths:
                                                    lit 2500 cf - 11.10  ptr Ccf
                                                    Ovtr 2,500  cf -  11.60 ptr Ccf

                         Rts:8uarttrly               1st 4,500 cf  ptr otr - 11.848 ptr Ccf
                         Othtrlltonthly               Nnt  13,500 cf ptr  qtr - 10.845 ptr Ccf
                                                    Over 18,000 cf ptr  qtr - to.483 ptr Ccf
                                                    5/8*  liniiut  - 124.42 ptr qtr; aUraanct - 900 cf  ptr gtr
                                                    3/4* iinitut  -  $41.13 ptr qtr; illovanct - 150C cf ptr qtr
                                                    Etc.  for othtr  itttr sues up  to 6 inch - S802.56 pir qtr

 0            Yts          Tri-Annually        Yti     lit  150,000 cf  - 11.15 ptr Ccf
                        Largt: Itanthly               Nnt 330,000  cf  -  $1.05 ptr  Ccf
                                                    Nnt 1,000,000  cf  - $0.95 pir  Ccf
                                                    Ovtr  1,500,000 cf  - $0.85 pir  Ccf
                                                    5/8* - $3.00  pir ionth uniiui includts 200 cf
                                                    3/4* - $4.50 pir tenth uniiui includli 200 cf
                                                    Etc. for othtr  wttr lizts up  to  10  inch  - $240

 0            Yts            Quartirly        Yn     lit  9,000  cf -  11.04 ptr  Ccf
                                                    Nnt 81,000 cf  - $0.70 ptr Ccf
                                                    Ovtr  90,000 cf  • $0.64 ptr  Ccf
                                                    5/8* - $12.48 uniiui  includts 1,200  cf
                                                    !• - $37.44 tinjiut includli 3600 cf
                                                    Etc. for othtr   ttttr Ji:u up  to  8  inch -  $597.60

 0            YH           SMi-annual        VH     $0.65 ptr  Ccf
                        Largt:Buarttrly             $3.00 iinitui ptr ouarttr
                                                    $6.00 iininu iMi-annual ly

 0             No            Buarttrly        No     lit  6667 cf ptr yr  - $60.00 ainitu
                                                    Ovtr  6667  cf -  $0.90 pir Ccf

20            YH           SMi-annual        Yti     RM:  $13.00 flat ratt
                                                    Othtr:  $0.50 ptr Ccf

-------
                                                                                                   IPBlt 111

                                                                                SUHHARY OF MDC SENERAGE SYSTEM HENBER COMMUNITIES
                                                                                        LOCAL COST RECOVERY INFORHAIIDN
                                                                                                SEWAGE SYSTEMS
                        Hcthod Usid to Recover Seiiage Systei Costs
           Custoier Seirage Billing Intonation
Taied Based User Charge
Couunity Local HDC Local HOC

Arlington I I
Ashland 1 I

Bedford I I
Beliont 1 I
Boston I I
Braintrei I 1
Brook lint I I
Burlington I I
Caibridgi I I
Union I 1
Chelsea 1 I
Dedhai I I
Everett I I
Frannghai I I
Hinghai I I

Custoser Bl 1 1 ) ng
Hetered Classes Frequency
1
100 Res,CoM,lnd Sell -Annual
10(1 No Sen-Annual

100 No Sell -Annual
100 No Quarterly
100 Yes Quarterly
100 Yes Quarterly
100 Yes Quarterly
100 Res,Con,lnd Res:Seii-Annual
Other Quarterly
100 Yes Iri-Annually




100 do Iri-Annually
100 Res, Con, Ind Annually

Coiputeri zed
Billing

Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes




No
res
rpA
trn
Grants

Yes
No

Applied
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
EPA User
Charge
Systei

Approved
No

Subntted
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
No
No
Subntted
Subntted
Subntted
No
Approved
No

Seiiage Rates

(0.40 per Ccf
1st 1600 cl - 115.00 linnui
Over 1600 cf - J0.45 per Ccf
1st 2,500 cf - 10.005 per cf
Over 2,500 cf - 10.0125 per cf
Service charge - 15.00 per hilling period
«0.38 per Ccf
»5.46 per 1000 cf
10.85 per Ccf
»0.40 per Ccf
601 of Hater bill
10.62 per Ccf
Ad Valorei
Ad Valorei
Ad Valorei
Ad Valorei
751 of Hater bill
150.00 per duelling unit
Hoi brook
                                                                                                                                                                   150.00 per  eingle  faeily
                                                                                                                                                                   1100.00  per  (no  lanly
                                                                                                                                                                   (150.00  per  three  fanly
                                                                                                                                                                   Ind,Schools I  Con  -  (5.00  per  1,000  c(
                                                                                                                                                                   (50.00
  Part  Res,      Res,',on»,lnJ     Duarttrl*
All  Ind I  [OKI
                                                                                                                          Ves
                                                                                                                                          No
                                                                                                                                                      Approved      Res:  (9.0U  per  quarter
                                                                                                                                                                   Co« S  lid:  NS

-------
                                                                                             TABLE 111 (continued)

                                                                                  SUMMARY OF HOC SEHERA6E SHIED HEHDER COMMUNITIES
                                                                                         LOCAL COST RECOVERY INFORMATION
                                                                                                 SEHAGE SYSTEMS
                         Method Used to Recover Seuge Syitei Costs
         Customer Seiiage Billing Intonation
Tared Based User Charge
Caiunity Local HDC Local HOC

Lexington I I
Halden 1 I
Bedford 1 I

Nelrose I I
Hilton I I
Naticfc I I
Needhai I 1
Newton I 1 1 I
Nor Mood I I
Buincy Kill
landolph I I

Custoier Billing Coiputerized EPA
Metered Classes Frequency Billing Grants
1
Ves
100 No Seii -Annual Ves VBS
No

No
100 Res 1 Ind Seii -Annual Ves No
100 No Duarterly Ves Ves
Applied
100 No Seii -Annual Ves No
Ves
99.6 Major, Tan Ex., No Ves
t all other
9V Ves Seti -Annual No Ves.
EPA User
Charge
Systei

No
Approved
No

Submitted
Approved
No
No
Submitted
No
Approved
Approved

Sewage Rates

Ad Valorei
tO. 10 per Ctl
110.00 liniiui
Ad Valorei
Minimi tax - 114.50 (or 4 lonths
Ad Valorei
1st 1600 cf - 112.50 liniiui
Over 1600 cl - 10.70 per Ccf
10.30 per Ccf
10.75 liniiui per lonth
Ad Valorei
75Z of Hater bill plus taxes
Ad Valorei (Hill put DC in
effect in 1984)
Major 1 Tax Ex. - 11.4? per Ccf
All Other - Ad Valorei
130 per single faiily
Reading



Revere

Soierville
                                                                                99.9
                                                                                                Yes
                              Quarterly
                                                                                                                           Ves
  5,000     Sp.  Discharge     Quarterly
Unietered     Custoiers
Ves
                          160 per 2 faiily
                          190 per 3 faiily
                          Con I above 3 faiily  -  10.0015 per cf

Ves          Submitted    10.80 per Ccf with  IOZ discount
                          if  paid Kitbin JO days - 11.50 uniiui
                          Debt service froi taxes

 No             No        Ad  Valorei

Ves          Approved     fO.&O per Ccf

-------
                                                                                            TABLE  III  (continued)

                                                                                SUMMARY OF HOC SEWERAGE SYSTEM MEMBER COMMUNITIES
                                                                                        IOCAL COST RECOVER*  INFORMATION
                                                                                                5EMA6E SYSTEMS
                        Method Used to Recover  Semae  Systei Costs
Cusloier Seuage Billing  Intonation
Tiied Based User Charge
Commit y local HOC Local NDC

Stonehai I 1
Stoughton I I
Uakefield I I
Nalpole NR NR l« NR
Hal thai I I
VatertOMi I I
Helleiley I I
KestMODd I I
Veyiouth I I
Miliington I I
Ninchester 1 I
Ninthrop 1 I
Custoier Billing Computerized
Netered Classes Frequency Billing
I
100 Yes Seii -Annual Yes
100 Yes Res: Seii -annual Yes
Coi/lnd:Duarterly

NR NR NR NR
99 Res I Ind Quarterly Yes
Large:Monthly
100 Yes Seii -Annual Yes
100 Yes Bi -Monthly Yes

100 Yes Annually Yes
100 Yes Quarterly Yes


EPA
Grants

Ves
Applied
No
NR
No

Yes
Yes
Yes
Ves
Yes
Yes
EPA User
Charge
Systei

Approved
Approved
No
NR
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
No
No

Seoage Rates

10.78 per Ccf
tO.BO per Ccf
175.00 liniiui per & ionths
Ad Valorei
NR
10.35 per Ccf
10.42 per Ccf applied to
831 of niter leter reading
631 of Hater bill
II. B9 liniiui per 2 ionths
Ad Valorei IDC approved for
January 1, 1985)
Annual 1 Residential Other
130.00 1 faiily First 13,999 cf
155.00 2 faiily Up to 21,999 cf
»75.00 3 faiily Up to 28,999 cf
190.00 4 faiily Up to 34,999 cf
t!5.00 each add. unit Every add. 5,000 cf
10.75 per Ccf
19.00 liniiui
Ad Valorei
Ad Valore* IUC to be adopted
Noburn
    NR - no response
                                                                               by nd-19841

        Yes         Annually       Yes            Yes          Subiitted     Domestic:1st 10,000 cl - 10.30 per  1000 cf
                                                                            Over  10,000 cf - J0.20 per  1000 cf
                                                                            18.00 liniiui per year
                                                                            Industrialist 500,000 cf  - 10.60 per  1000 cf
                                                                            Next  500,000 cf - iO.40 per 1000 cf
                                                                            Over  1,000,000 cf - »0.15  per  1000 cf
                                                                            125.00 linitui per year

-------
12.6 Noise Analysis

-------
12.6  NOISE ANALYSIS

12.6.1  Ambient Noise Levels

     Three sources of information have been used to characterize existing
levels of noise on-site and in the neighborhood of each proposed site for
wastewater treatment facilities.  For the Deer Island site and nearby
Winthrop community, field monitoring of noise levels was done recently by
Havens & Emerson for the MDC (memorandum dated June 14, 1984, addressed
to the Deer Island Citizens Advisory Committee).   Results are shown in
Table 12.6-1 and in Figure 12.6-1, reproduced from the memo.

     Additional data for Deer Island and vicinity, as well as Long
Island, were reported in the MDC, Site Options Study (1982) by Metcalf
and Eddy, Inc.   For the sites at Long Island and Nut Island, field
measurements were taken by CE Maguire, Inc. in Squantum, Houghs Neck,  and
Adams Shore in Quincy.   These tests were taken on 7/12/84 using a Genrad
model 1551-C sound level meter calibrated before and after testing with a
Genrad model 1567 sound level calibrator.  Tests were made on the A
weighted spectrum.  Field sheets and computation sheets are shown in
Attachment I.   Testing locations are shown in Figures 12.6-2a and 2b and
results are summarized in Table 12.6-2.

     At each testing site in the Maguire analysis, 50 to 100 samples were
taken, one every 10 seconds.  After 50 samples, a test at the 95th
percentile was  undertaken to determine if the sample set was statistic-
ally valid.  If not, 50 more samples were taken and the set was tested
again.  Statistically valid sets were obtained at all sites within 100
samples.   From these sets, L    L   L   and Leq sound energy levels were
calculated.
     L   corresponds to the sound energy level exceeded 10 percent of the
time, L   to the level exceeded 50 percent of the time, L   to the level
exceeded 90 percent of the time and Leq is the equalized or "average"
overall sound energy level.
                                 12.6-1

-------
                              TABLE 12.6-1
            NOISE LEVELS IN THE VICINITY OF DEER ISLAND, 19841
   LOCATION

Revere Beach Rotary
Sawmill @ Floyd
Sagamore
Cora St.
Main @ Banks
Court
Bellevue
Park
Winthrop Shore Drive
Orlando Ave.
Orlando @ Shore
Washington @ Bates
River @ Washington
Tewksbury St.
Cottage Ave.
Macy Ave.
Brewster Ave.
Causeway to Deer Isl.
Deer Island
EARLY AM
MID AM
Lee
48
48
36
34
38
36
36
36
52
34
38
36
39
38
39
40
42
43
58
50
57
50
65
41
58
52
82**
50
50
55
61
54
55
52
53
48
                          65-70
                          65-80
                          65-75
                          65-70
""Construction equipment at this location
 Reported by MDC, June 14, 1984.  Locations are reported in order by
distance from Deer Island, farthest to closest.  Statistical sampling
techniques were not used in this MDC study.  Levels reported are from
instantaneous field readings.
2
 From MDC, Site Options Study, Vol. II (Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., pg. 2-48,
1982).   These selective readings are based on computer modelling results
                                 12.6-2

-------


                                                                                        SOUND PRESSURE SURVEY

                                                                                                In the

                                                                                          TOWN of WIKTHROP
                                                                                            MASSACHUSETTS
                                                                                                April ». 1*«4
                                                                                                 «<
                                                                                              LEGEND
H> - oonttnictlon equipment
                                                                                    | - Muffler Noli* Complaint
                                                                                    NEWSPAPER SURVEY (July 1083)
                                                                                    I - Frequent Nolee Complaint*
                                                                                    I - Occeekmel Nolee Complalnf*
                                                                                    ) - Rare Nolie Complalnte
                                                      Of  WINTHROP  MQI&g

-------
                                 TABLE 12.6-2
                    AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS IN THE VICINITY OF
                      LONG ISLAND AND NUT ISLAND.  19841
     SITE                            L10     L50     L90     Leg     Leg2
1. Long Island                       --      --      —      —      65-70

2. Sguantum-Dorchester/Shoreham Sts  64      56      49      59      <65

3. Sguantum-Jordan Access Rd.         67      58      50      61

4. Houghs Neck - Nut Island Gate     56      55      54      55

5. Houghs Neck - Sea St.              59      54      52      56

6. Adams Shore, Quincy -  Sea St.     68      64      58      65
    A-weighted sound pressure levels,  recorded by CE Maguire,  Inc.  during
   mid-morning and afternoon of 7/12/84 (see Attachment I field sheets).
   2
    From MDC, Site Options Study,  Vol.  II (Metcalf & Eddy,  Inc., pg.  2-92,
   1982).   These selective readings are based on computer modelling results
                                    12.6-4

-------
                                      O -^
                  T°--\^.>^^N^>^^^^ :>-
                  ^ *\S$^%^^       :
                  V^IS^
                  l>^^>%! xX^>^»A^s /
                  W \\\ A;  x ^/ /^^CH ^^^
-,v*

-------
NOISE ^ONITORINQ
          ATIONS
         i

-------
     Noise levels measured in both these separate studies are generally
comparable to the ranges reported by Metcalf & Eddy in the MDC Site
Options Study (1982).  Statistical comparison among results is not
possible due to inconsistency of sampling locations times of tests and
lack of statistical validity in the various noise measurements done for
the MDC.

     These sources of noise information for the three sites under
consideration indicate that ambient noise levels in Quincy were generally
at the upper ranges of daytime standards for community noise (see
following section).   Levels in Winthrop (remembering the limitations of
these data) are also at the upper ranges of community noise.  These noise
measurements reflect the urbanized nature of the communities surrounding
the proposed treatment plant sites.

     In addition to these measured readings, noise monitoring was
conducted by Massport as part of their ongoing noise measurement and
abatement program.  Figure 12.6-3 shows the location of Massport
microphones used to measure noise energy levels of aircraft operations.
Figure 12.6-4 shows noise contours taken from Massport's Generic
Environmental Impact Report on operation of Logan Airport published in
October, 1984.  Noise generated by airport operations is -a significant
part of the background noise in Winthrop,  and also contributes to noise
in Quincy, though to a lesser degree, based on the flight paths followed.
While none of the proposed alternatives will result in any alteration of
airport noise, airport noise levels are included here to indicate
existing noise impacts on the local adjoining communities, and to place
the proposed treatment plant siting actions in the Harbor setting.

12.6.3  Relevant Standards and Criteria

     The applicable noise control standards which would govern the
proposed treatment plant sites and their surroundings are the City of
Boston Noise Control Regulations, EPA recommended noise exposure limits,
and Massachusetts statewide noise regulations.  Tables 12.6-3 and 12.6-4
show maximum allowable noise levels under the first two standards.
                                 12.6-7

-------
                                                     Dedham Street
                                              #-15-Slgelow Street^
                                              12-Conley Terminal
                                               jfl- O/East 3rd Seeta
                                                       #10-Revere Beach
                                                          Parkway

                                                         #ll-Bass Point Road
                                                            014-Crescent Street


                                                            #3-Central/Shawnut Streets
                                                            #7-Morton/Russell Streets

                                                            t/6-Bayswater Street
                                                            #13-Court Road

                                                            #5-on Airport
                                                            08-Harbor View Avenue

                                                            #12-Marginal Street
                                                            #9- Elliot/Otis Streets
                                                                          HUH.
                                                          *17
            MASSPORT MICROPHONE  LOCATIONS
Source: Massport,  Generic Environmental Impact statin.-  (Oct. 19M)

-------
  *,#&>
  c«r-
   NAHANT'
LOGAN
 NIGMT
   BO
AIRPORT

CONTOURS
             .'-;tt
             *W

-------
     Noise requirements established by the Massachusetts DEQE under
Regulation 10 of their Air Pollution Regulations provide that approval
for installation or modification of a noise source will be granted if it
does not:

     1.   Increase the broadband noise level in excess of 10 dB(A) above
          ambient (corresponding to Lqn); or,

     2.   Produce a puretone condition, where a puretone is any given
          octave band center frequency that exceeds the two adjacent
          center frequencies by three (3) or more decibels.

     These standards apply primarily to operations noise.  For con-
struction generated noise, there are no specific standards that apply at
the state level; however, the State would require application of all
reasonable noise mitigation measures (as noted in Section 12.6.5 below).

     Most pertinent of these controls is the Boston Noise Control
Regulation.  This applies to Deer Island and Long Island.  Under the
Boston noise limits, maximum noise levels would apply during construction
and operations.  These standards do not, however, apply on Nut Island or
in Quincy.  They also do not apply in Winthrop, although their appli-
cation on Deer Island would serve to protect that site's neighbors.
State regulations apply at all locations.  Both Quincy and Winthrop would
be covered by noise regulations of the Commonwealth.  The guidelines set
by the City of Boston noise regulation and by the State's regulations
were used as the basis for assessing potential noise impacts at all
sites.
                                 12.6-10

-------
                              TABLE 12.6-3

                    BOSTON NOISE CONTROL REGULATIONS

                                               Maximum Allowable
                                                 Noise Levels

Residential
     7:00 A.M. - 6:00 P.M.*                         60 dBA
     All other times                                50 dBA
Residential/Institutional
     7:00 A.M. - 6:00 P.M.                          65 dBA
     All other times                                55 dBA
Business
     Any time                                       65 dBA
Industrial
     Any time                                       70 dBA

*Except Sundays and holidays when special permit to operate is needed.


                     Construction Noise Regulations"'

                                                           Maximum Noise
                                                         Level at Affected
Lot Use of Affected Property              L   Level        Property Line
Residential or Institutional               75 dBA            86 dBA
Business or Recreational                   80 dBA
Industrial                                 85 dBA
Note:  L   defines the noise level that is exceeded 10 percent of the
~~.	    10
time.

""Construction noise standards apply to the 7 A.M. to 6 P.M. period; work
during other times and on Sundays requires a permit.
SOURCE:  Regulations for the Control of Noise, City of Boston,
Boston Department of the Environment, (Jeff Boehm 725-4416), personal
communication 11/5/84.
                                 12.6-11

-------
                                                   Table JO.. 6--3
                       YEARLY AVERAGE*EQUIVALENT SOUND LEVELS IDENTIFIED AS
                       REQUISITE TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE WITH
                                     AN ADEQUATE MARGIN OF SAFETY

Residential with Out-
side Space and Farm
Residences
Residential with No
Outside Space
Commercial
Inside Transportation
industrial
Hospitals
Educational
Recreational Areas
Farm Land and
General Unpopulated
Land
Measure
Ldn
Leq(24)
Ldn
Leq(24)
Leq(24)
Leq(24)
Leq(24)(d)
Ldn
Leq(24)
Leq(24)
Leq(24)(d)
Leq(24)
Leq(24)
Indoor TQ protect
Activity Hearing Loss Against
Inter- Considera- Both £f
ference tion ^ (b)
45
45
(a)
(a)
(a)
45
45
(a)

70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70

45
45
70(c)
(a)
70(c)
45
45
70(c)

Outdoor
Activity Hearing Loss
Inter- Considera-
ference tion
55

(a)

(a)
55
55
(a)
(a)
70

70

70
70
70
70
70
To Protect
Against
Both Ef-
fects (b)
55

70(c)

70(c)
55
55
70(c)
701 c)
                 Code.

                 a.   Since different types of activities appear to be associated with different levels, identifi-
                     cation of a maximum level for activity interference may be difficult except in those
                     circumstances where speech communication is a critical activity. (See Figure  D-2 for
                     noise levels as a function of distance which allow satisfactory communication.)
                 b.   Based on lowest level.
                 c.   Based only on hearing loss.
                 d.   An Leq(g) of 75 dB may be identified in these situations so long as the exposure over
                     the remaining 16 hours per day is low enough to result in a negligible contribution to
                     the 24-hour average, i.e., no greater than an Leq of 60 dB.

                 Note:    Explanation of identified level for hearing loss:  The exposure period which
                 results in hearing loss at  the identified level is a period of 40 years.

                 'Refers to energy rather than arithmetic averages.
Source:   Identification of  Levels  of  Environirental  Noise  Requisite  to Protect
            Public  Health  and  Welfare with  an Adequate Margin of Safety  (EPA
            550/9-74-004)
                                                     12.6-12

-------
12.6.4  Potential  Impacts of Siting Alternatives

     There are three aspects of noise associated with proposed treatment
plant alternatives: noise from plant operations, construction noise and
traffic noise.  In assessing the impacts of associated project noise on
nearby abuttors, several factors were considered.  For operations noise,
the standards of the Massachusetts Noise Regulations and City of Boston
Noise Regulations were applied (see previous section).   In the case of
the State regulation, an increase of less than 10 decibels above existing
background noise levels was allowable.  The Boston regulation provided
maximum allowable noise limits of between 55 and 65 dBA.   For construc-
tion noise, the Boston regulations were applied with a maximum limit of
75 (L,0) and 86 dBA used.  For traffic noise, consideration was given to
the noise level,  its frequency and duration as the basis for evaluating
impacts.  The impacts of each alternative are discussed below.

a.    Noise from Plant Operations

     Noise from the operation of proposed treatment facilities is not
likely to represent a widespread or significant impact at either Deer
Island,  Nut Island or Long Island.   The MDC,  Site Options Study (M&E,
1982) determined that noise from the Deer Island wastewater treatment
facility would result in an increase of less  than one decibel in back-
ground noise at the nearest residence in Point Shirley (about one half
mile away).  At the prison (within 700 feet), noise level increases  were
within two decibels of background levels.  The range of instant on-site
readings recorded on Deer Island were a low of 38 dBA at  the  old pump-
house to a high of 88 dBA at the existing pump station.

     Recent MDC studies indicated that the noise of muffler throb from
the existing diesel engines at Deer Island resulted in a  2 dBA oscil-
lation over a background reading of 41 dBA at the nearest Point Shirley
residence (about 2,200 feet).   Proposed new improved treatment facilities
utilizing electric motors to replace the current diesel engines will
result in a noise reduction of about this magnitude from  present
conditions.

                                 12.6-13

-------
     EPA criteria (EPA - 430/9-76-003, January 1976) state that changes
in noise level of 0 to 3 dBA are expected to cause little or no impact.
State noise regulations allow an increase in ambient noise levels by up
to 10 dBA.

     The City of Boston regulations allow noise levels of 55 to 65 dBA
from operations, which, based on the noise levels recorded at the site,
indicate that operations noise from the existing facilities is a slight
impact at Winthrop residences and is within allowable limits set by the
regulations.  Operations of proposed new treatment facilities with
improved equipment would result in better operations with reduced noise
impacts expected at nearby residences.  Noise impacts during operations
of new facilities on the adjacent prison population would also be
expected to result in noise levels below those recorded at existing
facilities and well within maximum allowable Boston or State noise
standards.

     On Long Island, the distance between the site and the nearest resi-
dences is about 12,000 feet (or six times the distance between Point
Shirley and Deer Island).   No significant noise impact on residences from
proposed treatment facility operations is anticipated.  The hospital at
Long Island would be within 1,500 feet of a proposed 18-acre primary (150
MGD) treatment plant site and within 200 feet of a larger 52-acre
consolidated primary (500 MGD) plant site (although the location of
potential noise generating equipment would vary).  Noise levels from
operations of either size treatment plant nearby to the hospital would
result in noise level increases over background levels of less than one
decibel to no more than three decibels.  Noise increases of this
magnitude would have only a slight effect on hospital residents or staff
and are within the limits set by the Boston Noise Regulations.  Noise
levels would likewise be slight relative to possible on-site recreation
activities.

     At Nut Island, there are a small number of residences on Quincy
Great Hill in Houghs Neck within 1,000 feet of the potential operational
noise sources at proposed treatment facilities.  Peak operational noise

                                 12.6-14

-------
 levels  generated on-site at a  primary  treatment plant  were  assumed to be
 78  dBA  (based on peak measurements  of  75 to 80 dBA  taken  at Nut  Island
 and at  other treatment plants).  Operations noise at Nut  Island  under
 primary treatment alternatives may  lead to noise levels at  the nearest
 homes (about 1,000 feet from potential noise generating facilities)  of
 approximately 52  dBA.   This is an insignificant increase  above existing
 conditions and does not exceed levels  specified by  State  noise control
 guidelines (greater than 10 dBA above background).  This  is  not  expected
 to  constitute appreciable local annoyance.  Noise control measures,
 including containment  of major noise generating equipment within enclosed
 buildings, will keep noise of operations within acceptable  levels  at
 nearby  residences  (see  Section 4.3.3).

     Noise levels at the nearest residences to Nut  Island under  a
 headworks option would  be less than 50 decibels (based on an increased
 distance of  1,500 feet)  and below existing background levels.  This level
 of  noise would result  in no appreciable effect offsite (given a back-
 ground  in the range of  55 dBA).

     A  "puretone condition" is a factor addressed in the State's  noise
 standards which relates  to constant monotones, and  can be a problem due
 to  constant motor whine  or engine muffler throb.   Proposed new treatment
 facilities at all sites  would result in no significant puretone con-
 ditions.  Existing problems with engine and muffler noise will be
 eliminated by electric  motors.

b.    Construction Noise

     Table 12.5-7  (from  the 1978 Draft EIS) shows  typical sound pressure
 levels generated by construction equipment without added noise mitiga-
tion, such as special mufflers.  The mid-range of  these values is 88 dBA,
the highest is for pile  driving at 101 dBA.  Other construction acti-
vities may also approach peak noise levels.

     Since it is not possible to predict what combination of equipment
noises will be operating at a given time over a site during construction,

                                 12.6-15

-------
                           Table  1^.  -

  TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION SITE EQUIPMENT SOUND LEVELS  (in dBA)

                                        Typical
                                      Sound Level
 Construction Equipment                at 50 Feet
 1.  Dump truck                           88
 2.  Portable air compressors             81
 3.  Concrete mixer  (Truck)               85
 4.  Paving Breaker                       88
 5.  Scraper                              88
 6.  Dozer                                87
 7.  Paver                                89
 8.  Generator                            76
 9.  Pile driver                         101
10.  Rock drill                           98
11.  Pump                                 76
12.  Pneumatic tools                      85
13.  Backhoe                              85
SOURCE:  EPA 1975

-------
we have expressed this value as a range between 88 dBA, which  is assumed
to be typica1 noise of construction equipment without mitigation (the
mode of the values presented), and 101 dBA, which represents a peak
value, based on a pile driver without special noise mitigation applied.

     Additionally, separate noise calculations were made  for construction
equipment assuming the application of noise mitigation measures (see
Section 12.6.5 below).  Based on predicted construction practice as
indicated by the Commonwealth, a reduction in equipment noise of 10
decibels to 78 dBA (typical) and 90 dBA (peak) was used to reflect
mitigated noise levels, assuming the application of noise mufflers and
quieter construction equipment which may be available on  a construction
project of this scale.

     For the prediction of noise levels offsite, the following formula
was used.  This formula will account for the attenuation  of noise with
distance without corrections for temperature, humidity, barometric
pressure or topography.  The sound pressure level (dBA )  at any given
distance d  from a generating source can be calculated on the basis of
known noise levels (dBA ) at a known distance d  by the formula:

                         dBA2=dBA1-20 Iog(d2/d1)

     This formula has been used to estimate probable noise levels  at the
nearest residences or population groups to each of the wastewater  treat-
ment facility sites under various distances as shown in Table 12.6-8.
"Typical" values shown in this table represent noise levels due only to
construction assuming construction noise equal to 88 dBA without
mitigation or 78 dBA with mitigation.   "Worst case" values represent
noise levels likely to result from pile driving or comparable peak
construction noise activities at 101 dBA without mitigation and 90  dBA
with mitigation.  The impact assessment was made using mitigated  con-
struction noise levels since the MDC has reportedly carried out
mitigation practices in other construction projects and EPA and the
Commonwealth have indicated that they will require the application of
                                 12.6-17

-------
                                                                      TABLE 12.6-8

                                             PREDICTED CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS NEAR CONSTRUCTION SITES

SITE

Deer Island


Long Island



Nut Island




Receptor

Prison
Nearest Residence
Center of Point Shirley
Hospital

Nearest Residence
In Squantum
Nearest Residence


Center of Houghs Neck
Approx.
Distance
(feet)

200
2,000
3,000
200
1,500
12,000

50
100
1,000
3,000
With no Noise
"Typical"
Noise Level fdBAJ
	 ^» — r~
75
56
52
75
57
40

88
82
62
52
Mitigation
"Worst Case" Max. Allowable
Noise LevelfdBAT Noise Levels ^dB^
	 	 Si — -J- 	 k — f
89 75 ain)-86
69 10
65
89 75 (Lin)-86
71
53

NA 75 (Lin)-86
95 1U
75
65
With Noise
"Typical"
f Noise Level

66
46
42
66
48
30

78
72
52
42
Mitigation
"Worst Case"
(dB^? Noise Level £dBA'

78
58
54
78
60
42

NA
84
64
54
 Assumes construction noise equivalent  to  88  dBA  the mode of equipment noise levels shown in Table 7.
2
 Assumes noise generated by pile driving at 101 dBA; this noise value assumes normal equipment operations without any special alteration or  muffler
applications which would lower noise  levels.

 Boston Noise Regulations,  maximum allowable  construction noise level at receptor boundary; this standard is used as a guideline  for  Nut Island,  and
in Quincy where only the State regulations would  apply.
4
 Assumes construction noise equivalent  to  78  dBA  with use of standard noise mitigation practices as determined by the Commonwealth and  MQC.

 Assumes construction noise equivalent  to  90  dBA  with use of special noise mitigation practices as determined by the Commonwealth and MDC.

 A 1,500 foot  distance assumes a primary  plant (150 MGD) located at the Nike base; alternately, a treatment plant sited adjacent to  the hospital at
a distance of 200 feet would generate higher  noise levels as shown in table above.

 At 50 feet, which can only occur under a  primary option which does not utilize filling of Quincy Bay and does not relocate residents (not a likely
outcome), noise levels would be highest as shown  in the table above; such a value may also result under options where the open space  at the  entrance
to the site is used as a staging area,  but such activity would result in noise levels of limited duration under the "typical" category  with  a "worst
case" not applicable (NA).   The successively  greater distances shown above reflect varying potential noise levels under various alternatives and
construction options.
                                                                                         Source: CE  Maguire,  Inc.   (Nov.,  1984).

-------
maximum noise mitigation measures, to the extent feasible, in this
project.

     Under typical operations with noise mitigation, noise levels
generated by construction activities at Deer Island, Long Island, and Nut
Island would be slight to moderate and well within maximum Boston and
State limits for construction activity.  At the nearest residences in
Point Shirley, at the prison on Deer Island, at the hospital on Long
Island (either an 18- or 52-acre primary treatment plant), and at nearby
residences on Houghs Neck, the noise levels generated during construction
would be between 46 to 78 dBA, all well below the acceptable limits at
the respective sites.

     For the limited duration of operation of peak noise generating
equipment with noise mitigation, noise levels in Point Shirley, at the
Deer Island prison, and at the Long Island hospital (as noted above) are
slight to moderate increases and still within allowable noise limits at
between 58 and 78 dBA at the respective locations.

     The sensitivity of the hospital population on Long Island may
require further mitigation of noise levels beyond the construction
practices which will be required at other sites.  These may be needed,
even though projected noise levels there (at 60 to 78 dBA) would be
within maximum allowable limits as set by Boston.   This is particularly
true for a larger facility closer to the hospital.   Special mitigation
measures, in addition to those discussed below, may be necessary at  this
site.

     Peak construction noise with mitigation,  at nearby residences  to Nut
Island, would have the greatest potential impact,  even though it would
not exceed maximum noise control guidelines.  Under certain circum-
stances, noise levels at this site may approach allowable limits and
could have a potentially disruptive effect on neighbors.   In the case  of
a primary facility on Nut Island (with filling) noise levels may,  under
peak conditions, become moderately adverse (at 84 dBA) at abutting
locations, approaching maximum allowable levels.  Without filling,  it  is

                                 12.6-19

-------
assumed that relocation of nearby residents will be accomplished so that
peak noise levels will not exceed the standards set and would not pose
greater noise impacts on the closest remaining homes.  In the case of a
headworks facility at Nut Island, peak noise levels would be slightly
adverse, well below the maximum allowable limits.

     In the case of construction noise without mitigation applied, a
situation not expected to occur, typical construction noise levels would
be higher than those noted above (see Table 12.6-8); however, they would,
in most cases, still be within the limits of the allowable standards.
The only exception to this would be noise to nearby residences at Nut
Island under primary treatment alternatives (as noted above).  It is
expected, therefore, under such a circumstance, that relocation of nearby
residents will be carried out in order to avoid potentially severe
adverse impacts, among them noise, and reestablish adequate buffer areas.

     Even though typical noise levels are within maximum guideline limits
(as set by the City of Boston),  construction noise is likely to represent
a significant annoyance and occasional disruption to nearby residents and
other groups around all three sites based on their proximity to the
construction sites.  This impact, which is unavoidable, is common to any
construction project and would require mitigation measures to lessen
adverse effects.

     Mitigation actions to lower construction noise to more acceptable
levels would, therefore, be employed at all sites where potentially
sensitive receptor groups reside.  This would include the hospital
population at Long Island, the prison population at Deer Island, and
nearby residences at both Nut Island and Deer Island.  The types of
mitigations that could be employed are discussed in Section 12.6.5
following.

c.    Traffic Noise

     Because of the decision to barge equipment and construction ma-
terials to the sites, and to bus and/or ferry workers to and from the

                                 12.6-20

-------
sites to the maximum extent feasible, the minimal traffic resulting from
construction activities is not expected to be a significant increase over
existing traffic levels (see Section 12.2).  It, therefore, is not
expected that truck or bus traffic will result in appreciable sustained
increases in overall traffic noise levels on the way to and from the
respective sites.

     The additional small numbers of trucks and buses to and from the
sites may result in occasional increased noise immediately adjacent to
the streets along which the trucks and buses will travel, particularly in
the case of residential streets.  From Table 12.6-7, it can be seen that
heavy trucks typically generate maximum noise levels of 85 to 88 dBA at a
distance of 50 feet.  Buses would be less noisy and more readily absorbed
by existing traffic noise levels.  It is clear that, during passage of
heavy trucks, instantaneous noise levels at nearby abuttors may be as
high as those noted above.  However, the duration of this noise is very
brief and given the small numbers of trucks (projected at 8 or less per
day on average) and buses (between 2 and 14 daily on average) only
moderate noise disruption and annoyance is expected to result.   In the
case of the peak traffic levels when the number of buses may double,  the
potential disruption will increase, but would still be within moderate
impact levels given the existing traffic flows.

     Indications are that as the proportion of trucks in the traffic  mix
increases, annoyance increases at an even greater rate (Langdon 1976).
Some complaints relative to traffic activities and traffic noise should,
therefore, be expected at all locations.  Moreover,  general neighborhood
dissatisfaction with a project has been shown to increase hostility to
noise interference (Taylor and Hall, 1978).  If fear and/or anger is  as-
sociated with the source of the noise,  annoyance is also increased
(Griffiths, et al 1980).  Given the high level of concern and dissatis-
faction apparent in the potentially affected neighborhoods adjacent to
all sites, negative perceptions to the project should be expected
resulting in likely complaints about construction traffic.
                                 12.6-21

-------
12.6.5  Mitigations

     The most obvious means to mitigate noise impacts is to minimize the
source of the noise.  This is especially appropriate during construction
when noise levels are likely to be highest, both on-site and at nearby
receptors.

     To reduce onsite construction noise, particularly involving peak
noise generating equipment such as pile drivers, noise mitigation
measures should be provided at a minimum on Nut Island and Deer Island
with further investigations on Long Island to establish the extent of
construction work necessary involving the need for special foundation
work, such as pile driving.

     Noise mufflers, selection of less noisy equipment, alternate con-
struction methods which minimize noise levels (such as augering or use of
forms in place), and other noise reduction practices are commonly
available and have been used by area contractors and the MDC in other
projects to limit noise.  Such methods, if required, could be implemented
to set a noise limit that is within applicable standards at the nearest
receptor boundary.  Such mitigations may increase the costs of con-
struction above the levels estimated in the SDEIS; yet, with these
mitigation practices applied, population groups around the three sites
would not be exposed to noise levels in excess of allowable limits set by
existing standards.

     Additionally, scheduling of work during daylight hours (7 A.M. to 6
P.M.) will be applied; at Deer Island and Long Island, work beyond these
hours or on Sundays and holidays requires a special permit from the City
of Boston.

     Scheduling of traffic to minimize on-site concentrations of heavy
trucks is also expected to be an effective means of reducing noise.
Annoyance has been shown to increase as more leisure time activities are
affected  (Jonah et. al 1981).  The waterfront location of these sites may
cause conflicts between construction activities and people's leisure

                                 12.6-22

-------
pursuits.  Careful scheduling of noise generating activities should,
therefore, be used to minimize interference with leisure activities and
reduce potential noise annoyance at nearby recreational areas.

     Citizens are also less annoyed if they perceive that their com-
plaints are taken seriously, adequate efforts to reduce noise are being
made, and there is some control exerted over the noise (Langdon 1976).
This suggests that a mechanism for receiving, recording and processing
complaints should be instituted and that measures taken to reduce noise
should be publicized from the outset (see mitigation discussion in
Section 6.3.3).

     During operations, slight noise impacts (or less) are expected (as
noted above).  However, at sites where noise may be a special concern,
such as Nut Island or Long Island, additional noise buffers and further
design measures to limit noise may be appropriate.
                                 12.6-23

-------
                                 SOURCES
EPA, 1976, USEPA Direct Environmental Factors at Municipal  Wastewater
Treatment Works (EPA - 430/9-76-003, January, 1976).

EPA, 1978, USEPA Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the  Upgrading
of the Boston Metropolitan Area Sewerage System, August 4, 1978.

Griffiths et al, 1980, I.D. Griffiths, F.J. Langdon,  and M.A.  Swan,
"Subjective Effects of Traffic Noise Exposure:  Reliability and Seasonal
Effects," Sound and Vibration, Vol.  71(2), 1980, p.  351-386.

Havens & Emerson, 1984, Draft Deer Island Facilities  Plan (unpublished)
1984.

Jonah et al, 1981, Brian A. Jonah, J.S. Bradley, and  N.E.  Dawson,
"Predicting Individual Subjective Response to Traffic Noise,"  Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 66(4), 1981, p. 490-501.

Langdon, 1976, F.J. Langdon, "Noise Nuisance Caused by Road Traffic Noise
in Residential Areas: Part III," Journal of Sound and Vibration,  Vol.
49(2), 1976, p. 241-256.

Massport 1984, Generic Environmental Impact Report,  Operation of
Logan Internation Airport, Massachusetts Port Authority, Boston,  M.A.,
October 1984.

Metcalf & Eddy 1982, Nut Island Wastewater Treatment  Plant Facilities
Planning Study Phase I, Site Options Study Pgs.  2-47, 2-48.

Taylor & Hall, 1978, S.M. Taylor and F.L. Hall,  "Regulatory Implications
of Individual Reactions to Road Traffic Noise," Transportation
Research Record 686, 1978, p. 27-33.
                                 12.6-24

-------
Weetman, 1984, David G. Weetman, memo to Citizens Advisory Group/
Interested Members of the Public, June 14, 1984.
                              12.6-25

-------
           ATTACHMENT I




Field Sheets and Computation Sheets

-------
GENERAL
Ooerator .7)ftW/fi(3|
Date 7htf«U
Time '/I 'fit, ' rt-
Day S M T W (Tp F S
Wind Speed | j^. Direction
Temp. <$O Rel. Hum. 3Q
Other Weather
Surtny ,"RfcN6$T&K £>.
•**-- -*-^ -~^_ _£- "
EQUIPMENT
Round Level Meter 1£S/- C
Manufacturer

Serial #

Serial #

other..

""•*•-> -
'J?r*-
SITE
Site No. J-
Location 5(^i/AiJr^M

Site Description
rec,cfe/Y,A/



MISCELLANEOUS
Traffic Count: Autos
Trucks
Other Total
Comments 1f(>Vi.J|
^-/D^G^Ji L^>D=^^'

10       15       20       25
      NUMBER OF  READINGS
30
35

-------
GENERAL
Operator
DWO

Date "?-//2-/&lf
Time 12'.
Day S M
Wind Speed
Temp. g<£>
T W tJlv' F S
|0 Direction \£>
Rel. Hum.
Other Weather
SITE SKETCH /
i*
EQUIPMENT
Sound Level Meter
Manufacturer

Serial *
fal -ih-at-nr
Serial 1
SLM Settinci PAS-*- <;ir.w
Other

//.
; ^
•-J f
¥ t
/<* hJ
SITE
Site No. C-
Location s^)/> ^V^J/^/ZA

Site Description
(U^oifcR^/f? ^ /V*eA



MISCELLANEOUS
Traffic Count: Autos
Trucks
Other Total
Comments
1 ir*>— f — r / fcyN — to
*-IL/- fc./ L— -<-> - Do

S
5
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
_0
9
3
-T
6
5
4
3
2
1
— JL
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
i
_0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
4.
1
_0
9
8
7
6
S
4
3
2
1
-0









\











^
y*
V
v^
W
K

f-
w1
W
V
^
•
/
^
v^
/
^

V
If






























^
?
r
/
v/

V
V
W
?
^
y
V
/
V
V
v
y

^





























k


^
j




y
^
V
^



^

^









































v>

V















































^

















































/

















































»>























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































-
•

























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































10       15       20       25
      NUMBER OF  READINGS
                                                         }0
                                                                  35
                                                    1*0   TOTAL

-------
                FIGURE 2.  SAMPLE L   COMPUTATION WORKSHEET




                        B               C                    0
1.  Sum B
SOUND
LEVEL
dB
100
99
98
97
9«
95
94
93
92
91
93
99
98
87
86"
as
34
S3
35
31
SO
79
78
77
76
75
74
73
72
71
70
69
63
67
66
65
64
63
62
61
60
59
58
37
36
35
54
53
52
51
50
49
48
il
45
45
44
43
42
41
40
39
33
3T
36
3?
I
/Sum B

COUNT
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
:<
X
X
X
X
X
X
' X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1 X
1 x
H x
& *
7

•ji.fey
H.to


















H.Z7
%


-------
GENERAL

Operator
Date  7 /
Time
Day
          'DCb
      I • At?
      TH
           fAA
Wind Speed $   1
Temp.    *1(5     1
T  W mj^ F  S
   Direction	
   Rel. Hum.
Other Weather
 EQUIPMENT

Sound Level Meter_
Manufacturer	
Serial *__	
Calibrator	
Serial f	
SLM Setting
Other	
                                                  SITE

                                                  Site No._
                                                  Location
                                                                         3
                                                              Site Description
                                                                       Of-
                                                                           I \r ~v '._• j-
                                                                         AT A/1-
SITE SKETCH
                                                  MISCELLANEOUS

                                                  Traffic Count:  Autos

                                                  Trucks          Other
                                                                               Total
                                                  Comments
                                                                              L.c
                                                                            -Q.
                                                  25      30      35      1*0
                                                                           TOTAL
                                 NUMBER OF  READINGS

-------
FIGUKE 2.  SAMPLE L   COMPUTATION WORKSHEET
                   eq
SOUND
LEVEL
dB
100
99
38
97
95
95
94
93
92
91
93
99
98
87 "
94
35
34
83
32
91
86
79
78
77
76
75
74
73
72
71
70
69
63
57
55
65
54
63
62
— ^ 5i
60
59
58
37
:5
33
54
53
52
3!
50
49
48
4 '
4s
45
44
4}
42
4!
40
j9
JO
37
Jo
35
1. Sum B
3- Sun D/Sum B
CODNT
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
"3, x
i. x
' 2. X
1 X
Z x
Z. x
1 x
^ x
•£. x
3. x
1 x
•? x
3 x
2 x
2 x
2. x
,2 x
2: x
^ x
T x
2. x
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
m
!3>.3>l

RELATIVE RELATIVE TOTAL
SOUND ENERGY SOUND ENERGY
100,000
79,400
S3, 100
50,100
39,88(3
31,500
25,100
20,000
15,900
12,500
16,380
7,940
5,310
5,010
3,980
3,160
2,510
2,000
1,590
1,260
1, 000
794
631
501
398
316
251
200
159
126
100
79.4
63.1
50.1
39. 3
31. 6
25.1
20.0
15.9
12.6
10.0
7.94
5.31
5.01
3.98
3.16
2.51
2.00
1.59
1.26
1.66
.794
.631
.501
.398
. 316
.251
.200
.159
.126
. 100
. 079
.063
.050
. 040
.'532
































^ft"*1 . *\
\Q D • 
  • 4. L ^/ ^eq

  • -------
    GENERAL
    Operator O/
    ^
    Date •S-/|V)51 F
    Wind Speejj jL Direction
    Temp . fi5 	 Re 1 . Hum .
    Other Weather
    S
    
    
    EQUIPMENT
    Sound Level Meter
    Manufacturer
    Serial
    Calibra
    Serial
    SLM Sett
    Other
    i
    tor
    #
    ;in
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Fast,.
    SITE SKETCH ^^^f^^^ mm m 	 	 	 ,
    9
    8
    7
    6
    5
    4
    3
    2
    9
    3
    6
    , ,,' *" ''J « .1
    \V' 5 >
    tf ,i '-» 09
    — ; — - a
    ~*A * S
    L . rf lYv ^
    (p^VVU 7 — ' 5
    &f& z 4
    o
    ^/i 2
    3GJ
    3: a
    
    V1^
    y
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    \l
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Vfy'
    
    H
    
    y>
    
    
    V
    
    V
    
    ^
    L'V
    y
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    /
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    ^
    
    V
    
    y
    /
    v
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    y
    
    '
    
    V
    y
    y
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    •
    
    
    
    
    
    /
    \*
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    u
    f1
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    vV
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    V*\
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    ;iow
    SITE
    Site No.
    Location
    
    L}
    A-/ "I/1 /^w1 C /*JC£it
    
    Site Descript
    ^,,^-^-1.*^^,^
    .ion
    0^^^~
    
    
    
    MISCELLANEOUS
    Traffic Count
    Trucks
    : Autos
    Other Total
    Comments
    L/0-
    -B°l L5O--5H
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    //*
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    i
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    !
    1
    1
    |
    1
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    I
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    |
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    I
    i
    
    I
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    3 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 
    -------
                                                                  V
    FIGURE 2.  SAMPLE L   COMPUTATION WORKSHEET
                       eq
    SOUND
    LEVEL
    dB COUNT
    100
    $9
    98
    $7
    96
    9^5
    94
    93
    92
    91
    90
    89
    Ae
    87
    86
    35
    84
    83
    32
    31
    80
    79
    78
    77
    76
    75
    74
    73
    72
    71
    70
    69
    68
    67
    66
    65
    64
    63
    62
    61
    60 . w
    59 ^
    58 C,
    57 z.
    — ^ 56 B
    55 -7
    54 £
    53 "A
    52 (3
    51 Z.
    50
    49
    48
    4*
    46
    45
    44
    43
    42
    41
    40
    39
    38
    37
    36
    35
    1. Sum B ^ I
    3 • Sum n/Sim p 3> i"7 7
    
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    
    
    RELATIVE
    SOUND ENERGY
    100,000
    79,400
    63,100
    50,100
    39,800
    31,600
    25,100
    20,000
    15,900
    12,600
    10,000
    7,940
    6,310
    5,010
    3,980
    3,160
    2,510
    2,000
    1,590
    1,260
    1,000
    794
    631
    501
    398
    316
    251
    200
    159
    126
    100
    79.4
    63.1
    50.1
    39.3
    31.6
    25.1
    . 20.0
    15.9
    12.6
    10.0
    7.94
    6. 31
    5.01
    3.98
    3.16
    2.51
    2.00
    1.59
    1.26
    1.00
    .794
    .631
    .501
    . 398
    . 316
    .251
    .200
    .159
    .126
    .100
    .079
    .063
    .050
    .040
    .032
    2. Sun 0 \\l
    4. l__ -&
    RELATIVE TOTAL
    SOUND ENERGY
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    HO
    §9
    £*
    Jt^>OZ.
    _/n . 1
    £ .32-
    1$ ,5S
    1 r» . oo
    y f\ C"7
    ? i5i2.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    .J7
    e»
    

    -------
    GENERAL
    operator ORW /06|
    Date ^//T^JBH
    Time iVXO ^\
    Day S M T W / F S
    Wind Speed Direction
    Temp. Rel. Hum.
    Other Weather
    
    SITE SKETCH
    
    
    
    
    
    EQUIPMENT
    Sound Level Mete:
    Manufacturer
    Serial i
    Calihrat-or
    Serial i
    SLM Setting Fa
    
    Other
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    r
    
    
    
    
    •
    
    
    MISCELLANEC
    Traffic Coi
    Trucks
    Comments
    L \O
    
    SITE
    S
    Site No.
    Location fe^T \3iAW ft dum*-*
    ' v/
    Site Description
    ^£A ST ^>T>.ii;£(<.5i6fe.
    ApA^ SlWife »fc»«A« Pr
    t-| &j'xM \ Y
    
    JUS
    int : Autos
    Other Total
    
    s £&> l-^ -^
    
    9
    8
    7
    6
    5
    4
    3
    2
    9
    8
    7
    6
    2
    TJ
    5
    £
    6
    4
    2
    9
    a
    6
    c
    4
    sj
    c
    (
    6
    1
    4
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    r
    
    •
    K
    
    
    
    
    y
    ^
    r
    V
    V
    V
    /
    /
    V
    y
    V
    V
    /
    ^
    /
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    ^ . .
    
    &y y '
    ^y v
    ' V Sr ^
    ' V
    ' ?^9
    <
    t*2*
    ti/V
    f
    
    4
    t
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    i
    
    
    2^^k
    
    
    
    
    •
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    ^V
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    y
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    !
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    !
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    -
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    "T
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    P
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    10       15       20       25      30
          NUMBER  CF  HEADINGS
    35
    
    -------
    FIGURE 2.  SAMPLE L   COMPUTATION WORKSHEET
                       eq
    SOUND
    LEVEL
    dB
    100
    99
    98
    97
    96
    95
    94
    93
    92
    91
    90
    89
    38
    87
    86
    35
    34
    33
    32
    31
    80
    79
    78
    77
    76
    75
    74
    73
    72
    71
    70 ~t
    69
    08 1
    67 1
    66
    -^ 65
    64 |
    63 i
    62 S
    61 *-
    60 . «
    59
    58 ;
    57 i
    56 1
    55
    54
    53
    52
    51
    50
    49
    48
    4 /
    4s
    45
    44
    43
    42
    41
    40
    j^
    3s
    37
    3€
    35
    COUNT
    X
    x
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    '— X
    1 X
    •f x
    i *
    A x
    T, X
    1 x
    X
    i X
    i x
    t x
    X
    ' X
    t. x
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    RELATIVE
    SOUND ENERGY
    100,000
    79,400
    63, 100
    50,100
    39 ,800
    31,600
    25,100
    20,000
    15 , 900
    12,600
    10,000
    7,940
    6,310
    5,010
    3,980
    3,160
    2,510
    2,000
    1, 59C
    1,260 •
    1,000
    794
    631
    501
    398
    316
    251
    200
    159
    126
    100
    79.4
    63.1
    50.1
    39.3
    31.6
    25. 1
    20.0
    15.9
    12.6
    10.0
    7.94
    6. 31
    5.01
    3. 98
    3.16
    2.51
    2.00
    1.59
    1.26
    1.00
    .794
    .631
    .501
    . 398
    . 316
    . 251
    .200
    .159
    .126
    .100
    .079
    .063
    .050
    .040
    .032
    RELATIVE TOTAL
    SOUND ENERGY
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    *2~C£O
    '76\"H
    ^ c^g -H
    2LG>C> tW
    JUQ
    Qi/.ft
    £+~1i& • I
    L{O
    -**.«=»
    sft M
    ~if>
    7'lf
    \"J C-?
    ID. 07
    •^ C»6S
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1.  Sum B
    
    
    
    3.  Sum D/Sum
                      2.   SumD
    $1C.E>C*
           i 1 ^
    

    -------
    12.7 Odor Analysis
    

    -------
    12.7  ODORS
    
         Odors caused by normal operations of new treatment facilities would
    be slight at any of the sites.  Odor control measures will be required at
    all sites, including enclosed facilities and special ventilation systems
    for treatment components where odors may be produced.  Infrequent odor
    problems will occur in spite of these measures as a result of inadequate
    maintenance, equipment breakdowns, or process upsets.  At these times
    odors will likely reach offsite.   The extent of their impact will depend
    on the intensity of odors produced, site conditions, weather conditions,
    and the promptness with which actions are taken to eliminate the source
    of odor.
    
         The types of odors which may be perceived offsite are a result of
    odor causing substances in the wastewater   Hydrogen sulfide gas
    (sometimes likened to the smell of rotten eggs) is the most common cause
    of odors in wastewater collection and treatment systems.   It can be
    produced by slime growth or sludge deposits associated with wastewater
    treatment facilities, or wherever anaerobic conditions occur during the
    treatment process.  Other less common odors can include ammonia smells
    from biological activity in wastewater,  gases released during the sludge
    digestion process, or chlorine vapors from the onsite disinfection
    practices.  With prompt remedial  action and close operational super-
    vision, odor releases will be infrequent and of limited duration.
    
         The current wastewater treatment facilities at Deer  Island and Nut
    Island include little or no odor  control equipment.   Odor problems being
    experienced at the two sites differ.   At Deer Island, the odors resulting
    in the most complaints are diesel fumes  from generators and occasional
    chlorine vapors from chlorination system leaks.  On Nut Island, odors are
    produced by wastewater which has  become  anaerobic (septic) during the
    long travel time from outlying parts of  the southern MSD  system to the
    site.   In both cases, proposed new treatment facilities would improve
    existing conditions and would eliminate  these problems.
                                     12.7-1
    

    -------
         Diesel engines would not be used for the new facilities; therefore,
    no further problems with odors from diesel fumes would occur.  New
    chlorination facilities would eliminate existing problems of chlorine
    vapor leaks and new headworks would be enclosed and ventilated, thereby
    improving conditions at the proposed treatment facilities which could
    lead to odor problems.
    
         When odors do occur, the severity of their impact will depend on:
    
              the intensity and nature of the odors produced;
              site conditions, including
                   temperature
                   wind direction
                   wind velocity
                   weather system stability
                   topography
                   proximity of receptors to the odor source; and
              actions taken on the site to minimize odor impacts.
    
    To evaluate the potential odor impacts of the alternatives, it is
    therefore necessary to consider these factors as they relate to each of
    the sites.
    
         At any site, the potential for odor problems will vary directly with
    the size of the facilities and the number of treatment components located
    at each site.  A headworks by itself may be a source of occasional odors,
    resulting in moderate impacts at nearby receptors, largely the result of
    incoming wastewater which has become anaerobic ("sour") during the long
    passage to the site.  Periodic cleaning of headworks can also release
    odors.  If chlorine is applied at a headworks, the potential for chlorine
    vapor leaks also exists.
    
         Primary treatment facilities also contain sources of occasional,
    moderate odors.  Settling basins may produce odors if inadequately
    maintained.  Sludge handling and treatment processes may also produce
    odors and chlorine leaks may occur at chlorination points.
                                     12.7-2
    

    -------
         Secondary treatment processes by themselves are not normally a
    source of offensive odors.  However, all secondary siting options would
    include some primary treatment also.  Secondary facilities also produce
    more sludge than primary systems.  Sludge may cause infrequent odor
    problems (especially  if not properly handled and treated) leading to
    moderate odors during times of process upsets or during some maintenance
    procedures.
    
         Conditions which are most likely to affect impacts of odors offsite
    are wind direction and weather.  The occurrence of wind patterns likely
    to affect the population concentrations at each site are shown in Figure
    12.7-1.  From this figure, it can be seen that prevailing wind directions
    at Deer Island and Nut Island are away from the nearby populations.   The
    percentage of occurrence of winds which could carry odors to nearby homes
    or institutions are relatively low on a year-round basis.  On Long
    Island, the prevailing winds are towards the concentrations of people and
    would, therefore, carry potential odors towards them.
    
         The ability of workers on the site to reduce the  impacts of odors
    will depend upon the timeliness of worker response to  odor incidents,
    availability of methods for odor abatement, and the effectiveness of the
    application of these methods.  Responses to odor problems will vary at
    each site according to the size of facilities in operation there.  In
    general, a smaller facility, such as a headworks or small primary plant,
    could more readily respond to odor problems than a larger facility.
    However, at all sites it is expected that odor problems will be dealt
    with as quickly and fully as possible according to the particular events
    that trigger odor releases.  The following discussion  considers the odor
    impacts at each site which would occur during times of operational
    problems or other instances of odor releases.
    
    12.7.1  Deer Island
    
         Infrequent odors from problems at proposed treatment facilities at
    Deer Island will generally result in moderate impacts  at the Deer Island
    Prison, and moderate impact at residences in Point Shirley.  Impacts on
                                     12.7-3
    

    -------
                                FIG.12.7-1
    
          TYPICAL WIND PATTERNS IN  BOSTON HARBOR
    
                        SUMMER AND  WINTER
                      Percentages of Seasonal Winds
                         Shown for Each  Direction
                    5.3
                               1.8
                                  1 7
                 6.3
                                  E LESEE6-8
             11 5
                      10.9
                            10.4
        Summer
     Prevailing Winds
    from the Southwest
                      7.9
                                  2.3
             10.3
                                  1.6
                   5.0
                               1.5
                                       Winter
                                    Prevailing Winds
                                   from the Northwest
    SOURCE: Metcalf and Eddy,
    Inc. (1982). from 'Climatology
    of the U.S., No. 82-19*. U.S.
    Department of Commerce.
    National Climate Center.
                                                            LEGEND
                                                             0 3 KNOTS
    
                                                             4-6
    
                                                             7 10
    
                                                             11-16
    
                                                             17 - 21
    
                                                              > 21
    

    -------
    the prison which is within 700 feet of possible odor sources at the
    treatment plant are most likely at times when summer weather inversions
    or relatively infrequent southeasterly winds coincide odor releases.
    Under these circumstances, odors may also spread to residences in Point
    Shirley; however, the greater distance of these residences to the site
    (2,200 to 4,000 feet) would attenuate these effects somewhat.
    
    12.7.2  Long Island
    
         Infrequent odors from treatment facilities at Long Island will
    result in moderate impacts at the Long Island Hospital (under primary
    treatment options) and on recreational visitors (assuming recreational
    development proceeds).  Prevailing winds will tend to move odors directly
    from the wastewater treatment facilities to the hospital (1,200 feet with
    an 18-acre primary plant sited at the Nike base) and towards Long Island
    Head and the area of proposed intensive park use (2,000 to 3,000 feet
    away).  When odors do occur, moderate impacts to on-site populations are
    likely under either primary or secondary treatment alternatives.
    
    12.7.3  Nut Island
    
         Infrequent odors from treatment facilities at Nut Island are
    expected to result in moderate impacts on the closest Houghs Neck
    residences.  Prevailing winds will, under most conditions, conduct odors
    produced at the site away from nearby residences.   However, because of
    the proximity of some residences on Quincy Great Hill to the site, odors
    produced at times of little wind, summer inversions, or less common
    northerly wind, are likely to result in moderate impacts on these
    residences.
                                     12.7-4
    

    -------
    12.8 Area Geology
    

    -------
    12.8 GEOLOGY
    
    12.8.1  Background
    
         This section describes the geology of Deer Island and Long Island in
    terms of their construction suitability and possible constraints that may
    exist.  Nut Island, by virtue of its extensive man-made condition, is not
    examined in this section.
    
         The entire New England region has been blanketed by glaciers for at
    least one active stage of glaciation.  The last of these, the Wisconsin
    Stage of the Pleistocene Epoch, occurred over 13,000 years ago.  At that
    time the glacial ice covering the study area was greater than 1,000 feet
    thick and probably moved in a southwesterly direction.  It is likely that
    the glacial landforme found on Long Island and Deer Island were a direct
    result of this most recent glacial period.
    
         Four predominant soil types have been identified on Long Island and
    Deer Island and provide their geologic framework.   The oldest deposit,
    glacial till, is the material that constitutes the drumlin landforms.   A
    drumlin is generally a smooth oval hill of glacial origin and composed of
    boulder clay, sand and/or gravel.  This material is probably an unstratified
    dense deposit of glacial drift in a silty matrix based on the references
    cited on the end of this section and a visual observation of other excavated
    drumlins in the area.  A second Pleistocene soil deposit identified by Kay
    (1977) is the stratified drift consisting of sand, gravel and clay,  includ-
    ing some till, in areas covered with swamp.  This  material would also  be
    expected to be medium dense, although less dense and more pervious than the
    till.  This was identified on Deer Island.
    
         A third type of soil identified as the recent or Holocene age is  the
    beach deposits of sand with occasional gravel.  These sediments may reveal
    some stratification due to major storms or other changes in the average
                                       12.8-1
    

    -------
    environmental conditions.   They are deposited directly by the ocean and are
    generally topographically flat and low lying.  They may also occur as
    shallow deposits around the very stable drumlins,  possibly within a few feet
    above or below sea level.   These deposits may be displaced by storms and
    gradually reformed later under the more commonly occurring quiet conditions
    presently existing.
    
         The fourth soil type identified by LaForge (1932) is a local area in
    the southern part of Long Island, which is especially low-lying and composed
    of marine silt, muck and possibly peat.  This isolated section is likely in
    the salt marsh.
    
    12.8.2  Long Island
    
         LaForge (1932) identified three drumlins on Long Island.  Small drum-
    lins are located at both ends and a larger one makes up the central hill
    portion of the island.  Figurel2.8-l from Kay (1977) presents the surficial
    geology of the area which identifies a fourth drumlin south of the main
    central drumlin.
    
         Based on known general characteristics of these land form types, the
    most desirable areas on the island for major construction are those at
    higher elevations which generally are underlain by the glacial drumlins.
    
    12.8.3  Deer Island
    
         The major formation on this island is a drumlin.  LaForge (1932)
    indicates the central area of highest elevation, including the area of the
    prison complex, is part of a drumlin formation.  He indicates the remainder
    of the island as beach sand.  His plan indicates that at that time the
    island was not connected to Point Shirley by beach sands.  Kay (1977) does
    show the connection to Point Shirley, but identifies three individual
    drumlins joined by the stratified drift.  These Pleistocene deposits make up
                                       12.8-2
    

    -------
                                         HULL  QUAD
      MADE. LAND ;  -fill over salt
    '- BEAGH  DE=Ptf£?IT6
    = 5ALT  MAESH
      E£>KE-f2.-,  sand
    = STRATIFIED
                             i'n by
    = DRur-lLlfsJ ^
                                                                       X i
                                                                 ', mosH
                                                                         -h'fl.
                                                   CiROUMD MORAIWE;
                                                                        bedrock.
                                                  Source  Clifford. -A.
                                                          0.6.
    

    -------
    nearly the entire island with, the exception of the northwest corner of beach
    sand in an area north of the prison.
    
         As a result of preliminary investigation, it appears that major con-
    struction on Deer Island is most desirable on areas underlain by the drumlin
    formations generally in the area of the present facilities.   The depth to
    bedrock and the degree to which leveling of the large drumlin is required
    would dictate the costs of construction.
    
                                     REFERENCES
    I.   Aerial Data Reduction Associates,  Inc.  "Togographic Survey of Long
         Island, Boston Harbor, MA",  April,  1981.
    
    2.   Kay, Clifford A.,  "Boston Area Surficial",  US Geological Survey,
         November 1977,
    
    3.   LaForge, Laurence,  "Geology  of the  Boston Area,  Massachusetts," U.S.
         Geological Survey,  1932.
                                       12.8-4
    

    -------
    12.9 Sludge Disposal
              Overview
    

    -------
    12.9  SLUDGE DISPOSAL OVERVIEW
    
    12.9.1  Summary
    
         As noted in Section 2.5 of Volume 1 of the SDEIS, the siting of
    sludge disposal facilities for the MDC treatment system is a separate
    planning and environmental review process involving an analysis, now
    underway, of alternative sludge management processes, their respective
    costs, and environmental impacts.   A full environmental assessment of
    the sludge alternatives will be made prior to a siting decision on the
    location of sludge disposal facilities,  either at sites in the harbor
    or inland.
    
         When the impacts of siting of wastewater treatment facilities are
    viewed from the perspective of possible  additional requirements for
    siting of sludge facilities, it is clear that:  The treatment plant
    siting decision is not driven by sludge  siting requirements, as none of
    the sludge disposal actions would alter  the respective treatment plant
    siting alternative's relative impacts, and none of the treatment plant
    options would foreclose a sludge management solution.
    
         Therefore, this section examines, in a preliminary fashion, the
    various sludge disposal alternatives now under study by the State and
    EPA as these relate to siting of wastewater treatment facilities.  The
    operational characteristics of these disposal methods are considered
    generically, and descriptions are provided.
    
    12.9.2  Introduction
    
         Analysis of alternatives for sludge disposal was undertaken for
    the SDEIS only to the extent necessary to evaluate whether the possible
    sludge treatment and disposal methods affect the siting of wastewater
    treatment facilities.  As such, disposal alternatives were considered
    generically.
                                    12.9-1
    

    -------
         The disposal methods considered for this analysis were:
    
         1)   Composting
         2)   Incineration
         3)   Ocean Disposal
         4)   Landfilling
    
         The issues for siting of sludge facilities associated with each of
    these disposal methods are varied according to the regulatory and
    operational factors governing each method.   In general, sludge disposal
    would require additional land area, equipment and staffing, and costs
    (capital and O&M), and would introduce added potential environmental
    impacts including noise, public health, odor, truck traffic, and air
    quality.  However, these added effects would not alter the relative
    impacts of the treatment plant siting alternatives discussed in Section
    4.0 of Volume 1.
    
         For example, land intensive methods of sludge management, such as
    composting, may be constrained at the Nut Island site because the
    island is too small to readily accommodate such facilities with
    residences abutting the site; composting facilities could be accom-
    modated onsite at either Deer Island or Long Island with associated
    traffic volumes.  Alternatively, composting can be relocated off-site,
    either to another harbor location or to an inland area with associated
    transportation volumes and costs utilizing either barging or trucking.
    All the sites being considered for treatment plants could accommodate
    sludge transfer facilities (truck or barge) if an alternate off-site
    location for sludge is recommended.  In either case, whether sludge
    management activities are assumed to occur on-site or off-site, the
    siting of sludge disposal facilities would not be expected to alter the
    comparative siting advantages or disadvantages of the wastewater
    treatment facility alternatives.
    
         The following sections discuss regulatory background of sludge
    management and identify currently proposed sludge management
    alternatives.
                                    12.9-2
    

    -------
    12.7.3  Regulatory Background
    
    12.7.3.1  Overview
    
         Both EPA and The Commonwealth Executive Office of Environmental
    Affairs  (EOEA) consider composting of sludge to be a beneficial
    treatment method.   A pilot plant to compost about 5 dry tons of sludge
    daily (about 7% of the total existing MDC sludge to be disposed of) is
    being funded by EPA and the Commonwealth (DWPC and the MDC), and has
    begun operations in the fall of 1984.  EPA had issued a Record of
    Decision on proposed sludge disposal by incineration in a previous
    sludge EIS.  Alternatively, EOEA is currently analyzing ocean disposal
    of sludge as an adjunct and backup method to composting.   In assessing
    the impacts of the various sludge management alternatives on the
    wastewater treatment siting decision, primary consideration is given to
    composting alternatives,  with the remaining disposal options also
    considered.
    
    12.7.3.2  Federal and State Policy
    
         Since the passage of the Clean Water Act (Public Law 92-500) in
    1972, Federal Regulations favored the placement of sludges on the land
    or disposal by incineration (Federal Register, Vol. 49, No. 114 pp.
    24358-9).  EPA's policy on sludge disposal was explained in the prior
    EIS for the Metropolitan District Commission's Proposed Primary
    Sludge Management Plan (1979).   The Record of Decision for this EIS,
    issued in 1980, emphatically ruled out ocean disposal of sludge and
    recommended incineration at Deer Island.  This record of decision also
    required the MDC,  as a condition of the EPA grant, to:
    
         "Investigate the feasibility of composting the primary sludge and
         to  dispose of as much sludge by composting as is practicable."
                                    12.9-3
    

    -------
    12.7.3.3  State Policy
    
         The Commonwealth, through EOEA,  has developed a sludge management
    strategy which recommends composting  as the primary sludge disposal
    option.  This policy is based on an agreed upon schedule developed
    jointly with EPA,  in response to court actions, to begin planning for
    sludge management  and develop solutions to the present unlawful
    discharge of sludge to the harbor.
    
         The State policy declares incineration to be the least preferred
    of all sludge disposal options.   It identifies ocean disposal options
    as likely to have  "the least direct impacts on public health" and
    clearly favors ocean disposal as a  backup to composting.  Landfilling
    as a disposal method is not addressed, although the State does have
    provisions to allow such a disposal method.
    
    12.7.5.2  Environmental Impacts
    
         a.   General
    
              Site-specific environmental impacts of possible sludge
         management methods, as noted above, which may affect a sludge
         facility siting decision, involve operational characteristics
         primarily. The construction effects of sludge facilities are
         relatively minor compared with the greater construction activities
         and costs associated with a treatment plant.   The operational
         characteristics of sludge management facilities include:
    
                   air quality
                   noise
                   traffic
                   site acreage and  land  use compatibility
                   cultural resources
                   visual quality and recreational resources
                   health effects
                   costs
                                    12.9-4
    

    -------
         These are discussed generically below in order to identify
    the potential issues which may affect a sludge site selection.
    
    b.   Air Quality
    
         Odors produced by composting, or noxious gases produced by
    incineration, could affect adjacent land uses.  In Boston Harbor,
    prevailing summer winds which are from the southwest would tend to
    carry potential odors or gases produced out to sea and away from
    population concentrations.  However, during less frequent periods
    of onshore winds, odors or gases may be carried towards resi-
    dential areas and population concentrations.
    
    c.   Noise
    
         Residents or others situated close to composting or transfer
    facilities may hear the noise of operations (typically machinery
    noises or backup beepers on equipment) .   Increased noise levels
    would, therefore, be a potential impact, depending upon receptor
    distance tc a facility site.  It is expected that all applicable
    noise regulations would be complied with.
    
    d.   Traffic
    
         Traffic is a potentially significant adverse impact insofar
    as trucking deliveries or pickups are required.  In the case of
    composting facilities, this may involve two to four deliveries per
    week of wood chips to a site and another fourteen to twenty trucks
    daily to pick up a finished compost product for distribution.
    Such truck volumes can be a significant adverse impact on local
    residential areas closest to a site if the access and local
    roadway conditions are not adequate to accommodate such traffic.
    Barging would minimize these impacts, and is, therefore,
    recommended for all sludge management methods to the maximum
    extent feasible.
                               12.9-5
    

    -------
    e.   Site Acreage and Land Use Compatibility
    
         Both the size/acreage needed for sludge facilities and their
    compatibility with other on-site uses is a potential siting issue.
    The need for additional acreage to accommodate sludge facilities
    on a site where treatment facilities are located may pose a
    greater likelihood of significant disruption to other on-site use,
    environmentally sensitive areas (if any exist), and adjacent
    residential areas.
    
    f.   Cultural Resources
    
         Recent archaeological and historical investigations in Boston
    Harbor have revealed prehistoric and historic resources of major
    significance on some of the islands.  Sites on several islands may
    be eligible, individually or collectively, for listing in the
    Federal Register of Historic Places.  Siting of sludge facilities
    may impact on these resources.  Sludge management in Boston Harbor
    will have to consider, therefore,  potential encroachment on and
    disruption to any historic and prehistoric areas.
    
    g.   Visual Quality and Recreation Resources
    
         Visual quality at a site may be impacted by the addition of
    sludge facilities.  In particular, under an incineration option
    the addition of an incinerator smokestack (possibly up to 150 feet
    high) would present a major change in a site's appearance and
    would become a landmark.  The need to light such a tall structure
    in order to provide safety to planes may necessitate use of
    24-hour safety lights which would be highly visible from distant
    locations.   Since Boston Harbor is on the direct flight path to
    Logan Airport, such an incinerator smokestack must be closely
    coordinated with the FAA at this location.
                               12.9-6
    

    -------
         Compost facilities may not pose as great an adverse visual
    impact depending on their site layout.  However, such facilities
    may impact a site if their appearance appreciably alters a site's
    visual quality or intrudes on other nearby activities or uses.
    Barge or truck transfer facilities for ocean disposal or land-
    filling of sludge would introduce added industrial appearing
    elements to a site, but these would be of relatively minor visual
    significance.
    
    h.   Health Effects
    
         The public health effects of all sludge disposal methods are
    regulated and monitored by State and Federal authorities.  None of
    the sludge alternatives would be permitted unless all potential
    health concerns were examined and shown to be acceptable.  In the
    absence of final plans for sludge disposal, no such medical or
    scientific analysis has been conducted.
    
    i.   Costs
    
         The range of costs for the various sludge options will depend
    upon the alternative(s) selected and associated equipment and
    process requirements.   The costliest sludge option is inciner-
    ation, which also is the most technically sophisticated.
    Composting and landfilling are next costly, although their cost
    elements and their long-term viability differ.  Ocean disposal
    appears to be the least costly.  Any cost estimates to be made
    during the facility planning stage will reflect design plans and
    site considerations at locations to be identified at a later stage
    of the analysis.
                               12.9-7
    

    -------
        12.10 Archaeological
    and Historical Resources
          Report and NHPA
       Compliance Summary
    

    -------
    12.10.1  NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT (NHPA) REVIEW
             PROCESS (Section 106)
    
    12.10.1  Background
    
         "The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 and its
    supporting regulations are intended to help ensure that no significant
    archaeological or historical properties are irretrievably lost as a
    result of federally-funded construction projects."""  Section 106 requires
    federal agencies take into account what effect a federally funded,
    licensed or assisted project will have on any historic or archaeological
    properties either listed or eligible for listing in the National Regis-
    ter.  As a result, before the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can
    issue a construction grant, the Section 106 review process must be
    completed.
    
         There are essentially three phases (see Figure 12.10-1) to the
    Section 106 review process, as follows:
    
         1.   Determination of eligibility of the property for inclusion on
              the National Register (now underway).
    
         2.   Determination of the effect of the proposed project on the
              property.
    
         3.   Preparation of mitigating measures for inclusion in the grant
              conditions.
    
    12.10.2  NHPA Phases of Study
    
    a)   Phase I:  Eligibility
    
         In Phase I, the determination is made whether the property in
    question should be included on the National Register.  This requires an
    archaeological reconnaissance survey to identify any sensitive areas
    within the project area.  If it appears eligible for inclusion according
    
                                     12.10-1
    

    -------
    r
    *\
    \2.\0-\
                                                               C E
    

    -------
    to the National Register criteria (36 CFR 60.4), then EPA sends a formal
    request under 36 CFR 63 to the Keeper of the National Register for
    inclusion.   If the Keeper agrees, then the next phase, the determination
    of effect,  is set to begin.
    
    b)   Phase  II:   Effect
    
         In Phase II, EPA in consultation with the State Historical
    Preservatin Officer (SHPO),  applies the Advisory Council Criteria of
    Effect (36  CFR 800.3[a]).   If there is an effect according to this
    criteria, EPA and the SHPO apply a different set of criteria to determine
    whether the effects are adverse (36 CFR 800.3[b]) .   If the effects are
    not adverse, then EPA sends  to the Advisory Council its documentation.
    If, however, under 36 CFR 800.3(b) the effects are  adverse,  then certain
    mitigating  measures will be  incorporated into the project.
    
    c)   Phase  III:   Mitigating  Measures
    
         After  EPA sends its documentation of no adverse impacts to the
    Advisory Council, the Executive Director may either concur or not concur
    with EPA's  findings.  If the Executive Director agrees, then Section 106
    requirements are satisfied.   However, if the Executive Director disagrees
    with the finding of no adverse impact, then the Executive Director may
    suggest migitation measures  which, if agreed upon by EPA, are included in
    the grant conditions.
    
         If EPA does not agree with the conditions, then the project's impact
    is considered adverse.   EPA  must then prepare a Preliminary  Case Report
    (the contents of which are described in 36 CFR 800.13[b]), and a des-
    cription of mitigation measures.
    
         There  are two routes a  project can now take:  the quick route and
    the slow route.   In the former, if the adverse impacts are customarily
    mitigated in a standard manner, and all the parties can agree with the
    proposed mitigation measures, then the requirements of Section 106 can be
                                     12.10-2
    

    -------
     quickly satisfied.  In this case, an on-site visit and public  information
     meeting are usually waived.
    
          In the slower route, projects must go through the consultation
     process.  All the parties meet in an attempt to produce a Memorandum  of
     Agreement.  A site visit and public information meeting are usually
     required.  If an agreement is struck, the parties ratify it, fulfilling
     the  106 requirements.  If no agreement is made, the Advisory Council
     issues comments which EPA may accept.  If EPA does not, then EPA must
     explain in a written report why the project should proceed.
    
     12.10.3  SDEIS Archaeological and Historical Analysis
    
          In applying these review elements to the EIS process, several steps
     have  been initiated and others will be continued during the course of our
     analysis.  Discussions have been held with the Massachusetts Historical
     Commission (MHC) to establish their involvement in and procedures for
     potential archaeological/historical resources associated with the sites
     in the Boston Harbor Island State Park.''5'  The MHC is involved in several
     reviews relative to the Boston Harbor Islands State Park which have a
     direct bearing on the SDEIS analysis.
    
          MHC had indicated that information known at the outset of the SDEIS
     work  suggested that both Deer Island and Long Island have potentially
     significant archaeological and historical sites that required further
     investigation and possible inventory.  Nut Island is not considered
     significant.
    *Ms.  Barbara Luedtke, Professor of Anthropology, University of
    Massachusetts, is a Coordinator of the SDEIS effort and will lead the
    summer excavation project.  Mr. Duncan Ritchie, Project Archaeologist for
    PAL,  Inc., is in charge of the archaeological analysis.
                                     12.10-3
    

    -------
         Deer Island was found to be largely disturbed and therefore of low
    significance/sensitivity.   Surveys have been conducted on Deer Island as
    part of the MDC' s previous facility planning work and again for the
    SDEIS.   Parts of the island including the drumlin area were evaluated.
    
         Long Island is considered to be of particular significance based on
    past and recent site investigations.  It has been studied for the SDEIS
    during an archaeological excavation project by faculty of the University
    of Massachusetts-Boston and key archaeologists of the Public Archaeology
    Lab, Inc.
    
         This effort and indeed any activities on the island is subject to a
    review process that involves the Thompson Island Archaeological Board,
    an advisory group to the MHC made up of prominent academics and other
    professional experts in this field.
    
         The overall significance of the islands in the Boston Harbor Islands
    State Park as viewed by the State relates to their past geography and
    usage by Pre-settlement Indians and siting for post industrial facili-
    ties.  Several sites are considered as Indian habitats during the 16th
    and 17th centuries.  The Deer Island Wastewater Treatment Plant is noted
    for its still-operating steam pumping station, and the Long Island
    Hospital Facility is noted for its examples of modern architecture.
    Based on these combinations of prominent elements, the State is prepar-
    ing to nominate the entire Boston Harbor Islands State Park to the
    National Register of Historic Places.
    
         That proposed nomination, as well as the significant elements of
    these sites as expressed by the State, establishes a specific sequence of
    steps for the EIS analysis to follow.  First, as part of a Step I, Phase
    I review, our on site walkover survey is needed to identify any potential
    areas of archaeological and historical significance (Phase II, Step 1).
    If any such locations are found, a written summary is submitted to MHC
    and the Thompson's Island Archaeological Board for their review and
    comment.  This report is contained in the SDEIS (see following section).
    Next, depending upon the results of this initial survey, a more detailed
    
                                     12.10-4
    

    -------
    site analysis may be required (Phase II,  Step  2).   The location of
    proposed new development in relation to potential  resource sites would
    improve a judgement in this regard.
    
         Then, if further survey is required  and if  notable resource elements
    are identified, a detailed site inventory and  resource mitigation pro-
    cedure may be called for (Phase III).  Such mitigation procedures can
    range from comprehensive inventory of on-site  resources to actual
    excavation and removal of found artifacts, or  avoidance of resource areas
    according to the degree of significance and uniqueness of  the  resources
    identified and their site characteristics.
    
         For the EIS process now underway,  the investigations  have  been
    carried out  (through Phase II, Step 1)  and these review elements  will
    entail a division of the Federal-State  coordinating steps.
    
         Following the site excavations carried out during  the  summer, and
    comments on the SDEIS during the upcoming Public Hearing period,  the
    remaining inventory descriptions,  site  evaluations, and  regulatory
    reviews under the Phase II and Phase III  (if necessary) process will be
    incorporated into an Addendum Report to the SDEIS.   This will be
    developed, as necessary, in the Final EIS to be completed in 1985.  If
    deemed necessary, Phase III mitigation  analysis will be carried out in
    conjunction with facility final design  and reviews.
    
         It will be necessary to submit site survey and project information
    to the National Advisory Council in Washington, D.C.  for their Federal
    "106" review concurrence, in light of the proposed  National Register
    nomination.   It is anticipated,  at this time,  that  such Federal review
    will follow the State review and comment,  as described above, in order to
    assure full compliance with the MHC priorities  and  findings as a basis
    for subsequent evaluations and recommendations  on siting options,
    particularly if these would involve mixed use.
                                     12.10-5
    

    -------
                                  12.10.2
                AN  INTENSIVE LEVEL ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY ON
            DEER AND LONG  ISLANDS, BOSTON  HARBOR,  MASSACHUSETTS
                              Duncan Ritchie
                              Joan Gallagher
                          With a contribution by
                            Barbara E. Luedtke
                        Department of Anthropology
                    University of Massachusetts, Boston
                               Prepared for:
    
                             CE Maguire, Inc.
                             One Davol Square
                      Providence, Rhode Island 02903
    
                      Under EPA Contract #68-04-1010
                               Prepared by:
    
                  The Public Archaeology Laboratory, Inc.
                             217 Angell Street
                      Providence, Rhode Island 02906
                              September 1984
    PAL, Inc. 51-01
    

    -------
                             TABLE OF  CONTENTS
    
    
    MANAGEMENT ABSTRACT 	  vi
    
    
    INTRODUCTION  	   1
    
    RESEARCH DESIGN 	   8
    
    SURVEY STRATEGIES AND METHODOLOGY  	  15
    
       Background Research   	  16
       Walkover Survey  	  17
       Subsurface Testing 	  19
    
    ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 	  22
    
    PREHISTORIC LAND USE AND SETTLEMENT  PATTERNS  	  27
    
    HISTORIC LAND USE AND SETTLEMENT PATTERNS	38
    
       Deer Island	38
       Long Island	41
       Changes in Land Use	50
    
    RESULTS OF THE INTENSIVE SURVEY  	  68
    
       Deer Island	71
       Long Island	76
    
    SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS  	  82
    
       Deer Island	83
       Long Island	84
    
    
    REFERENCES CITED  	  97
                                     11
    

    -------
                              LIST OF FIGURES
    Figure
    
      1.  Location of Boston Harbor, Massachusetts ........  2
    
      2.  Location of project areas on Deer and Long Island;
           USGS Hull quadrangle, 7.5' series ...........  3
    
      3.  Early nineteenth century map of Deer Island
           (Wadsworth 1817)  ................... 51
    
      4.  1830 map of Deer Island (Hales 1830) .......... 52
    
      5.  Early nineteenth century map of Long Island
           (Wadsworth 1817)  ................... 55
    
      6.  1830 map of Long Island (Hales 1830) .......... 56
    
      7.  Plan of Long Island, June 1868 showing Long Island Hotel
           and land purchased by U.S. Government from Long Island
           Land Company  ..................... 58
    
      8.  Location of cemetery in parcel of land purchased by
           City of Boston in 1900 from "Plan showing a portion
           of Long Island," Hyde and Sherry, Civil Engineers,
           August 1899.  1 inch = 50 feet  ............ 59
    
      9.  USGS Boston Bay quadrangle, 1892, 1:62,500 scale .... 60
    
     10.  USGS Boston Bay quadrangle, 1903, 1:62,500 scale .... 62
    
     11.  USGS topographic map of Deer Island, 1904
           (Source:  Randall 1981) ................ 63
    
     12.  USGS Hull quadrangle, 1946; revised 1950 7.5' series
           showing large cemetery on southern end of Long
           Island  .................. ......64
    
     13.  Stratification of the Deer Island project area in
           zones of archaeological sensitivity .......... 72
    
     14.  Location of subsurface testing within Deer Island
           project area  ..................... 73
    
     15.  Stratification of the parade ground section, Fort
           Strong on Long Island in zones of archaeological
           sensitivity ...................... 77
                                    111
    

    -------
                        LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
    
    Figure                                                        Page
    
     16.  Location of subsurface testing within parade ground
           section,  Fort Strong on Long Island	79
    
     17.  Stratification of southern end of Long Island in
           zones of  archaeological sensitivity 	 81
                                    IV
    

    -------
                              LIST OF TABLES
    Table                                                         Page
    
      1.  Prehistoric Cultural Chronology for Southern
           New England	   29
    

    -------
                           MANAGEMENT ABSTRACT
    
    
    
          In June and July, 1984,  an intensive level  archaeological
    
    
    survey was conducted on sections  of Deer and Long Islands in Boston
    
    Harbor,   Massachusetts  by  the Public Archaeology Laboratory,  Inc.
    
    (PAL,  Inc.).  Two project areas ranging from about 60 acres  on Deer
    
    Island to between 20 and 115 acres on Long Island  were  stratified
    
    into zones of  expected  archaeological sensitivity on the  basis of  a
    
    comprehensive  literature  search  and  walkover  survey.   Both  project
    
    areas  had  been  subjected  to  several  episodes  of  previous
                                        V
    disturbance and  it was  expected that there would be large areas of
    
    moderate to low archaeological sensitivity.  Background research on
    
    the Long Island  Hospital was also done and provided information on
    
    the complex history of this institution over the last century.
    
    Limited  subsurface  testing  verified  that both  the Deer and  Long
    
    
    Island project areas  had  been  extensively modified during the
    
    construction of  recent  (World War I  and  II) military installations
    
    (Fort Dawes  and  Fort Strong,  respectively).  Areas  with high
    
    archaeological sensitivity  were  located  on  Long Island  including
    
    several  historic  cemetery areas  associated  with  Long  Island
    
    Hospital  and undisturbed sensitive areas on  the southern half of
    
    Long Island.
    
          Survey  efforts on Long Island were  coordinated with the
    
    University of Massachusetts,  Boston field school  in archaeology.
                                   vi
    

    -------
    The field school surveyed the  southern  end  of  Long Island in June
    
    
    
    
    and July, 1984  and located five prehistoric sites.  These sites
    
    
    
    
    show  evidence of important occupations during the Terminal Archaic
    
    
    
    
    (ca. 3,600 to 2,500 B.P.), Middle and Late Woodland (ca.  1,650 to
    
    
    
    
    500 B.P.)  periods.  One site  (Hull-11)  may have been used in the
    
    
    
    
    Early Archaic period,  ca.  8,500 years ago.
    
    
    
    
          From the  combined results  of  the  Phase I survey by the PAL,
    
    
    
    
    Inc. and the UMass  Boston field  school,  Long Island is  considered
    
    
    
    
    to be  a significant  complex of prehistoric and historic  period
    
    
    
    
    cultural resources.   All  of  the  identified sites may be  eligible
    
    
    
    
    for  inclusion  in the National Register of Historic  Places  as
    
    
    
    
    elements of a multi-resource district.   The cluster of prehistoric
    
    
    
    
    sites on Long Island  may  be  one of the  most  intact in  the harbor
    
    
    
    
    district and the integrity of  their physical setting is an integral
    
    
    
    
    part  of  their research  value  and  significance.    All  the
    
    
    
    
    archaeological sites and standing structures on Long Island must be
    
    
    
    
    viewed collectively.  It has been strongly  recommended  that plans
    
    
    
    
    for any development on Long  Island  consider  the  relative  costs of
    
    
    
    
    the large scale  data  recovery program that  would  be necessary to
    
    
    
    
    mitigate impacts  to the  cultural resources on that island versus
    
    
    
    
    the feasibility  of  alternate locations.   The  Deer  Island project
    
    
    
    
    area is not considered to be archaeologically sensitive  due to the
    
    
    
    
    extent of previous disturbance  and  no   further  investigation has
    
    
    
    
    been recommended.
                                   vn
    

    -------
                               INTRODUCTION
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
          This final report presents the findings  and  conclusions of  an
    
    
    
    
     intensive level archaeological survey of two project  areas  on Deer
    
    
    
    
     Island and Long Island in Boston Harbor,  Massachusetts (see  Figures
    
    
    
    
     1  and 2).  This Phase I, Step II study was conducted  by the Public
    
    
    
    
     Archaeology Laboratory,  Inc.  (PAL, Inc.)  under contract  with CE
    
    
    
    
     Maguire,  Inc.
    
    
    
    
          CE  Maguire  has  been conducting  analyses  and preparing
    
    
    
    
     materials to complete an environmental assessment  for  the siting of
    
    
    
    
     wastewater treatment  facilities in Boston Harbor.  Preparation of a
    
    
    
    
     Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact  Statement (SDEIS) is being
    
    
    
    
     done by  CE Maguire,  Inc.  for the U.S. Environmental Protection
    
    
    
    
     Agency.   The preliminary  findings  of  the  Phase  I  survey were
    
    
    
    
     described in two previous management summaries prepared as interim
    
    
    
    
     reports  during  work  on the  SDEIS.   The  conclusions  of this
    
    
    
    
     inventory  and  analysis of  archaeological  and  historic  resources
    
    
    
    
     presented in this report is incorporated into the Supplemental
    
    
    
    
     Draft EIS document.
    
    
    
    
          A series of  plans to upgrade  Boston's wastewater  treatment
    
    
    
    
     facilities and replace the  inadequate facility presently  operating
    
    
    
    
    on Deer Island and Nut Island have been proposed over the last
    
    
    
    
    several years.  A recent plan (Nut Island—Site Options Study 1982)
    
    
    
    
    developed for the Metropolitan  District Commission (MDC) by Metcalf
    
    
    
    
    and Eddy,  Inc. identified numerous  alternative  siting options  for
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
                                       1
    

    -------
    Figure 1.  Location of Boston Harbor,  Massachusetts
    

    -------
                                 ?X~i-">' Winthrop Head
                                     '
                                                                       -surveyed by  PAL, Inc.
                                                                        historic cemetery area
                                                                        surveyed by PAL,  Inc.
                                                                        surveyed by UMass archaeological
                                                                        field school
                                                        "DCCft ISLAND L H
            -77  '* FRONT ft'HGE L H
                *H£APflAHGl t-H
                Spectacle
    
                Island
     X*.
      V
    n I
                                       j? O A D S
                                      LOHG ISLAHD HEAD LH-$ ^.'Oi^\
                                                 ~--  '''
                \
          •\ ..  Moon Head
             Moo-> island
                                ead
                                                      Q us rant me
                                                     -c Rocks
                                                                      . Nixes Mate
    *$»
    
    ^r
    *$>
    X^^gairuPS
    ^/ Island
    \*
    X
    (
    \
    FT WAf*f*EN\
    >^ ,
    V.,-
    -t>-
    •*?
    *£ t
    -^
    -7^^ ^
    // Wasj-^—ZN rv
    /^M\Ge°rges
    &=^;ilsland
                                                                        O
    /
                                  Peinl
                                                                                             Windm.M Pt'X^;.
                                                                                             • ' • -r AHDRLWS
             Figure 2.   Location of  project  areas on Deer and Long Islands,
    
             USGS Hull quadrangle  7.5'  series.
                                                         3
    

    -------
    new wastewater treatment facilities  to be located in Boston Harbor.
    
    
    
    
    These  siting options  and some  additional  new  locations  were
    
    
    
    
    reviewed and  eight  alternatives were  selected  for detailed  study
    
    
    
    
    and environmental impact assessment.  Included in the list of
    
    
    
    
    alternatives are  sites on Nut,  Deer and Long Island which encompass
    
    
    
    
    various levels of treatment and range in size from  2 acres  to in
    
    
    
    
    excess of 100 acres.
    
    
    
    
          The Phase  I,   intensive level  archaeological  survey  was
    
    
    
    
    limited to sections of Deer and Long  Islands that might be impacted
    
    
    
    
    by construction of proposed treatment facilities.   On Deer  Island
    
    
    
    
    an  area covering the  central  drumlin  which  had  never  been
    
    
    
    
    investigated was surveyed.   An  earlier Phase  I archaeological
    
    
    
    
    survey  conducted  by  the  Institute  for  Conservation Archaeology,
    
    
    
    
    Harvard University,   covered a small area on the  southern  tip of
    
    
    
    
    Deer  Island  (Randall 1981) and the  existing  treatment  plant site
    
    
    
    
    made  up  the  remainder of  the  project area.   A larger project area
    
    
    
    
    reflecting  the  lack of  prior  investigation   and undisturbed
    
    
    
    
    condition was surveyed on Long Island (see  Figure 2).   Nut  Island
    
    
    
    
    was considered by the Massachusetts  Historical Commission to have
    
    
    
    
    no cultural  resource  potential  because of extensive  previous
    
    
    
    
    disturbance  and was excluded from the archaeological survey.
    
    
    
    
          Several  different   treatment  sizing  options   requiring
    
    
    
    
    approximately 18, 62,  82 and 100+ acres were  originally  under
    
    
    
    
    consideration  for Long Island.   These were initially  sited based on
    
    
    
    
    the MDC's facility plans (Nut  Island  Site Options  Study  1982).  The
    
    
    
    
    smaller, 18 acre  primary treatment design option  took advantage of
    

    -------
    an abandoned Nike missile base on the southwestern  side of the
    
    
    
    
    island  and some  adjacent open  land.   The  middle sized  62 acre
    
    
    
    
    primary option required a  substantial portion of  the  open  land in
    
    
    
    
    addition to the Nike base  on  the southwestern side of the  island.
    
    
    
    
    The two largest options of  82  to  100+ acres for secondary treatment
    
    
    
    
    alternatives encompassed  the  entire southern half  of  Long Island
    
    
    
    
    and the area in the center of the  island now occupied  by the Long
    
    
    
    
    Island hospital complex.
    
    
    
    
          The middle  sized 62  acre  option  was subsequently determined
    
    
    
    
    to be unacceptable and is no longer under active  consideration.
    
    
    
    
    Upon  review of the  remaining seven options  involving  all sites,
    
    
    
    
    revisions were made to siting plans for the  Long  Island  treatment
    
    
    
    
    facility.   Based on the unacceptable adverse  environmental  impacts
    
    
    
    
    that would result from the initial siting  locations, current plans
    
    
    
    
    include the 18, 82 and  96  acre  options.   The largest  alternatives
    
    
    
    
    involve utilization of  the  hospital grounds and  the northwest side
    
    
    
    
    of Long Island.
    
    
    
    
          An essential component  of the archaeological assessment  of
    
    
    
    
    Long Island was coordination  of  the PAL,  Inc. survey  effort  with
    
    
    
    
    the University of Massachusetts, Boston  (UMass) archaeological
    
    
    
    
    field school conducted on  the  southern  end of the  island  in June
    
    
    
    
    and July,  1984.  The  field school was directed by Barbara Luedtke,
    
    
    
    
    Associate  Professor  at UMass  who  also served  as overall
    
    
    
    
    archaeological  technical coordinator for CE  Maguire on the SDEIS.
    
    
    
    
    All stages of  the intensive  survey, including analysis  of survey
    

    -------
    results and preparation  of  the final report were coordinated with
    
    
    
    
    Ms.  Luedtke by PAL, Inc..   In  a preliminary meeting in  May,  1984,
    
    
    
    
    it was decided  that  the  UMass field  school  would  survey the
    
    
    
    
    southern half  of Long Island for prehistoric sites and the PAL,
    
    
    
    
    Inc.  survey would  cover the parade  ground  section  of  Fort  Strong,
    
    
    
    
    the hospital complex and the  historic cemetery  areas  south of the
    
    
    
    
    hospital.   The  remaining portions of Long Island were  not involved
    
    
    
    
    as potential siting locations.
    
    
    
    
          The  intensive survey  by  PAL,  Inc. and the UMass  field school
    
    
    
    
    were both performed under permit #634 issued by the Massachusetts
    
    
    
    
    Historical   Commission  (State  Archaeologist)  and  approved  by the
    
    
    
    
    City Archaeologist  (Boston).
    
    
    
    
          Background research for  the survey began  in April,  1984.
    
    
    
    
    Fieldwork on the Deer  Island project area was  carried  out in  June,
    
    
    
    
    1984.   Intensive survey  fieldwork on Long Island was  completed  in
    
    
    
    
    August, 1984, when permission  to carry out  field  investigations was
    
    
    
    
    granted by the City of Boston and by the  Division of Health and
    
    
    
    
    Hospitals,   Director of the Long  Island Hospital.   The  overlapping
    
    
    
    
    schedules  of the PAL,  Inc. intensive survey  and  the  UMass field
    
    
    
    
    school on Long Island  allowed  in-field  consultation and
    
    
    
    
    coordination between PAL,  Inc. staff and Ms. Luedtke.
    
    
    
    
          PAL,   Inc.  personnel for  the Deer  Island and  Long Island
    
    
    
    
    survey were Duncan  Ritchie, Joan Gallagher (Senior Archaeologists)
    
    
    
    
    and Ann Davin  (Project Archaeologist).
    
    
    
    
          The  PAL,   Inc.  would like to acknowledge  the assistance
    
    
    
    
    provided by a number of individuals who shared  their  knowledge  of
    

    -------
    the history of Deer and Long Islands.  Steve Krueger  (Deer  Island
    
    
    
    
    Plant  Manager)  and Ken  Donovan  of the Metropolitan  District
    
    
    
    
    Commission described the history and operation of the Deer  Island
    
    
    
    
    treatment  facility and the  earlier (1890s) pumping station and
    
    
    
    
    screening plant.  Meribah  Stanten  (Director),  Ruth Sullivan and Lt.
    
    
    
    
    Kearney (security)  of  the  Long Island Hospital provided  PAL,  Inc.
    
    
    
    
    researchers with documentary  material  relevant  to  the   twentieth
    
    
    
    
    century  history of the hospital complex and military  activity
    
    
    
    
    during World War II.  Peter Scarpignato, City  of Boston, Department
    
    
    
    
    of Public Facilities,  assisted on numerous occasions by  providing
    
    
    
    
    background  information and  coordination with  City  Hall,
    
    
    
    
    particularly during  the  difficult  deliberations  involved in
    
    
    
    
    granting  access  to  Long Island.
    

    -------
                              RESEARCH DESIGN
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
          The research design  for  the intensive  level  survey of Deer
    
    
    
    
    and Long Islands was based  on several current models of prehistoric
    
    
    
    
    and historic land use/settlement systems.   Those research problems
    
    
    
    
    felt to be  most  appropriate  for the  interpretation of prehistoric
    
    
    
    
    activity in  the  project areas  were  discussed with  the technical
    
    
    
    
    advisor for the project (B. Luedtke).   An important  aspect  of the
    
    
    
    
    research  design  was  the  core-periphery model  employed  by the
    
    
    
    
    Massachusetts Historical Commission in the statewide survey program
    
    
    
    
    (MHC 1982,  1984).  This  model has been applied to the study of both
    
    
    
    
    prehistoric and historic land use  patterns and also provided a way
    
    
    
    
    to coordinate the  findings  of this survey  with large-scale cultural
    
    
    
    
    resource management planning.
    
    
    
    
          For the prehistoric period elements  of  three general  models
    
    
    
    
    describing adaptation to  gradual  changes  in  coastal  environments
    
    
    
    
    were  the  basis for interpreting  sites  located during the  survey.
    
    
    
    
    Luedtke's  (1980) diachronic model  of  changes  in the use  of inner
    
    
    
    
    versus  outer Boston  Harbor islands  and Braun's  (1974)  model of
    
    
    
    
    shifts  in prehistoric  exploitation of shellfish species  in the
    
    
    
    
    Harbor provided a solid framework for discussing land/resource use
    
    
    
    
    patterns  at the  local  level.    Some other recently  developed
    
    
    
    
    hypotheses  about observed  differences between Middle/Late Archaic
    
    
    
    
    and  Late  Woodland  period  settlement  patterns in coastal
    
    
    
    
    
    environments of  Narragansett  Bay were  useful  for  a broad  scale,
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
                                       8
    

    -------
    regional perspective  on  sites  in the  Boston  Harbor district  (Cox
    
    
    
    
    and Thorbahn 1982; Cox, Thorbahn and Leveillee  1983).
    
    
    
    
          In summary, Luedtke's  model  suggests  that throughout the
    
    
    
    
    prehistoric past the  islands were used as base camps for procuring
    
    
    
    
    and processing various plant,  animal and lithic resources from the
    
    
    
    
    surrounding coastal  zone environment.   During the Late  Archaic
    
    
    
    
    period in particular,  inner harbor islands,  like Deer and Long
    
    
    
    
    Islands,  would  have  seen the most  repeated short term use, due
    
    
    
    
    primarialy  to  their larger size  and  accessibility.   Outer  islands,
    
    
    
    
    i.e.,  Calf  Island,  were also used to a lesser extent,  possibly for
    
    
    
    
    special resource  procurement  trips.   With  populations  in  coastal
    
    
    
    
    zones  like  Boston Harbor  steadily  increasing in  the  Middle/Late
    
    
    
    
    Woodland periods (after 1500  years ago) inner islands may have been
    
    
    
    
    intensively used for  horticulture.   These inner islands  would have
    
    
    
    
    been included in  the territories  of mainland groups and should have
    
    
    
    
    some  evidence of  long term use by  the  end of the Late Woodland
    
    
    
    
    period (Luedtke 1980:72-73).
    
    
    
    
          Braun's  (1974)   model suggests that at  the  local  level
    
    
    
    
    prehistoric  groups in coastal  southern New England had developed
    
    
    
    
    adaptations  which were responsive to variation in the availability
    
    
    
    
    of several  species of shellfish by about 4,000  years ago.   In
    
    
    
    
    Boston Harbor a pattern of gradual  decline  in  the  exploitation of
    
    
    
    
    oyster,  quahog and bay scallops  beginning in the Terminal  Archaic
    
    
    
    
    peiod ca.  3,000 years ago  is  matched by a  marked  increase in the
    
    
    
    
    use of soft  shell clam.  This trend continued through the Early and
    

    -------
    Middle Woodland periods and by the Late Woodland,  ca.  1,000  years
    
    
    
    
    ago,  soft shell  clam  was used  almost  exclusively  over  other
    
    
    
    
    shellfish  species  (Braun  1974:591).    This  model  will  be
    
    
    
    
    particularly appropriate  for any shell  midden  sites which  are
    
    
    
    
    expected  to  be present on Long Island.  Long Island is also  the
    
    
    
    
    largest of the inner harbor islands and is  most likely to  contain
    
    
    
    
    evidence of  intensive  occupation  during  seasonal exploitation  of
    
    
    
    
    shellfish  resources.
    
    
    
    
          From recent  surveys in Narragansett Bay there are  indications
    
    
    
    
    of high site  densities and intensive  land use during the Terminal
    
    
    
    
    Archaic period,  ca.  4,000  to 3,000 years  B.P.  The  same coastal
    
    
    
    
    river drainages and  offshore  islands  do not  appear  to have  been
    
    
    
    
    important  to  previous,  Middle Archaic  populations,  ca.  7,000  to
    
    
    
    
    6,000 years  ago.   The apparent  low density of  sites dating  to
    
    
    
    
    before  4,500 B.P.  cannot be  explained  by  inundation  of  site
    
    
    
    
    locations  due to  rising sea  level.   A final  episode of  intensive
    
    
    
    
    settlement in coastal/estuarine environmental  settings took  place
    
    
    
    
    during the Late Woodland  and  Contact periods,  about 1,000 to  500
    
    
    
    
    years ago (Cox, Thorbahn and Leveillee 1983;  Cox  and Leveillee
    
    
    
    
    1984).   This  concentration of Late  Woodland subsistence/settlement
    
    
    
    
    
    activities in  close  proximity to  more  recently  formed  estuarine
    
    
    
    
    environments is  probably a regional pattern covering  much  of
    
    
    
    
    southeastern  New England.
    
    
    
    
          An important research question regarding the increased use of
    
    
    
    
    the Boston Harbor  islands  during  the  Middle/Late Woodland period
    
    
    
    
    
    concerned  how  these  sites  may have  fit  into a  larger  settlement
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
                                      10
    

    -------
    system.  These harbor island procurement/processing locations  could
    
    have formed the outer perimeter of settlement systems  with centers
    
    or  cores focused on the heads of estuaries along the Neponset,
    
    Charles,  Mystic,  Fore,  and Saugus  River drainages.   For  example,
    
    Long Island lies just off the mouth  of the Neponset River and  could
    
    have been part of the  seasonal  round of prehistoric  groups  based
    
    further  up the drainage.
    
           For  the historic period cultural resources on Deer  and Long
    
    Islands  the  basic research  questions  guiding the  Phase I survey
    were:
           (1)  The role  of  the  islands  in  providing  support  facilities
               for the adjacent urban core  of Boston.
    
           (2)  The extent and different types of change in land use  on
               the islands through time.
    
           (3)  The   degree  and  type  of  variability  among  the
               developmental histories of the harbor  islands.
          In  examining these  questions,  the  resources  employed were
    
    both  primary  and secondary  sources,  including city histories,
    
    previous research  reports,  harbor  charts and maps.   These  sources
    
    place the islands  within  an historic  context,  allow an assessment
    
    of  natural  and cultural  topographic  alteration,  and  identify  the
    
    configuration of  structures and types of  land  use  present on  the
    
    islands at varying chronological periods.
    
          The model used in creating a  framework for addressing  these
    
    questions was  the  core-periphery model used successfully in  other
    
    regional studies (Gallagher and  Davin  1983) and compatible with  the
                                      1 1
    

    -------
    research orientation of the  Massachusetts  Historical Commission's
    
    
    
    
    (MHC)  statewide  survey program  (MHC 1982, 1984).  This insured that
    
    
    
    
    the results of the  intensive (Phase I) survey  could  be  integrated
    
    
    
    
    
    with  MHC  plans  for  preservation and  management  of historic
    
    
    
    
    resources  within the proposed Boston Harbor National Regional
    
    
    
    
    District.
    
    
    
    
          The  definition  of  a  core  area is  essentially  a  zone
    
    
    
    
    characterized by overlapping focal points  of  activity,  which  can
    
    
    
    
    include population,   civic/ecclesiastical/institutional,   transpor-
    
    
    
    
    tation,  or  economic  activities.  Peripheral areas are characterized
    
    
    
    
    by few  or  no focused  activities.   Those  that  do  occur are  usually
    
    
    
    
    specialized and  relate  to  a specific  core,  or may  be perceived as
    
    
    
    
    unpleasant  or undesirable.   Fringe areas  are  peripheral  zones that
    
    
    
    
    are  specifically  characterized by  negative   or  undesirable
    
    
    
    
    activities,  whether  social,  industrial  or institutional  (MHC
    
    
    
    
    1982:8-9).
    
    
    
    
    
          For much of their history,  the Harbor Islands have been used
    
    
    
    
    as peripheral areas.   At different periods, they became  fringe
    
    
    
    
    areas,  when  their spatial  isolation within close proximity to the
    
    
    
    
    core led to  the  placement of  institutions and facilities  on  the
    
    
    
    
    islands  that can be  described  as the  less  desirable elements
    
    
    
    
    (prisons,  quarantine stations,  chronic disease hospitals,   sewage
    
    
    
    
    
    treatment plants)  of complex urban centers.
    
    
    
    
          From  other investigations of urban historic sites  in Boston,
    
    
    
    
    archaeologists have  found that  historic land modification processes
    
    
    
    
    and the  way they change  over time  is an  important  factor in
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
                                      12
    

    -------
    predicting site survival in  an  urban  or  intensively  developed area.
    
    
    
    
    A basic model  of archaeological site survival for the Boston urban
    
    
    
    
    core area was developed from several  recent projects  in
    
    
    
    
    Charlestown.   The St.  Mary's Elderly Housing  (Bower,  Cheney,
    
    
    
    
    Gallagher 1984), Town Hill Condominium  (Cheney and Mrozowski 1983)
    
    
    
    
    and Central Artery Phase II (Pendery et al. 1981) projects were
    
    
    
    
    located in  three  different  topographic  zones.   It was  found  that
    
    
    
    
    the lowest rate of  site survival was  in the most elevated zone
    
    
    
    
    (Town Hill) where  extensive grading  of  a hillside  had taken place
    
    
    
    
    in  the  nineteenth  and twentieth centuries.   Successively  higher
    
    
    
    
    rates of  site  survival  were found in the moderately  elevated  (St.
    
    
    
    
    Mary's Elderly  Housing)  and lower (Central  Artery) project areas.
    
    
    
    
    The most intensive  grading  and  alteration of  the  original
    
    
    
    
    topography  had taken place  on hillsides  while  seventeenth/
    
    
    
    
    eighteenth century ground surfaces and fill/construction sequences
    
    
    
    
    were well preserved in  the less elevated zone  (Bower, Cheney,
    
    
    
    
    Gallagher 1984).  Both the Deer and  Long Island project  areas  had
    
    
    
    
    elevations (glacial drumlins)  that  were extensively  modified  for
    
    
    
    
    various  institutional,  military and other (reservoir)  uses.
    
    
    
    
          Archaeological investigation of  one   of  the  major  military
    
    
    
    
    sites in  Boston Harbor  (Fort Independence,  South  Boston)  provided
    
    
    
    
    numerous   examples  of   large-scale  demolition,   grading  and
    
    
    
    
    construction  sequences.   Castle Island has  been the site  of seven
    
    
    
    
    different  fortifications  beginning in the early seventeenth century
    
    
    
    
    and  with  each fort there  were  modifications to the  island's
                                      13
    

    -------
    topography  (Ritchie and Moran  1976;  Stokinger  1978).   Military
    
    
    
    
    installations  may be more  likely  to undergo numerous episodes of
    
    
    
    
    grading,  demolition or construction than  other kinds  of sites
    
    
    
    
    because of the necessity  for an active fort to contain up-to-date
    
    
    
    
    weapon  systems or ordnance.  The  longer a location  or  facility
    
    
    
    
    remains in active use the  greater  the  probability of  modification.
    
    
    
    
    Islands like Deer and Long  that are  well  situated  for use  as harbor
    
    
    
    
    defensive  sites could be expected  to  show evidence of sequential
    
    
    
    
    military development.
                                     14
    

    -------
                     SURVEY STRATEGIES AND METHODOLOGY
    
    
          The primary objective of  an  intensive  archaeological  survey
    
    is to locate any previously unknown prehistoric and historic sites
    
    within the project area.   In order to achieve this result a testing
    
    strategy,  designed  to investigate  a representative sample  of  the
    
    project area (as well  as  the  sites  within it)  was  employed.   The
    
    strategy used by the PAL, Inc. divided the  Deer and Long  Island
    
    project  areas  into  zones  of  expected  archaeological  sensitivity.
    
    This  is  defined as the probability of  locating prehistoric  and
    
    historic cultural  resources from surface  finds  or  subsurface
    
    testing.   Prior to this  survey, one  prehistoric  site had been
    
    identified on the southern end of Long Island, but none were known
    
    in the project  area  itself.
    
          In order  to determine  the probability  of  sites occuring in
    
    the project area two different strategies were employed:
          (1)   Stratify  the project  area in  terms of  its  expected
               archaeological sensitivity on the basis  of  comprehensive
               background research and a preliminary walkover  survey or
               surface  inspection.
    
          (2)   Conduct  limited subsurface  testing  within  the
               archaeologically sensitive sections of the project area
               of  a  level sufficient to identify any previously unknown
               prehistoric or historic cultural resources.
    This section  of  the final report contains a description of how
    
    these strategies  were integrated to provide an  accurate  inventory
    
    and  assessment  of  the project areas  on Deer  and Long Island.
    
    
                                      15
    

    -------
    Succeeding  sections discuss implementation of these strategies  and
    
    evaluate  the results of the survey.
    
    
    Background  Research
    
          Background research provided the primary information  for
    
    assessing  the expected  archaeological  sensitivity of  the  two
    
    project areas.   By reviewing known prehistoric cultural  resources
    
    and comparing their locational attributes with  the  environmental
    
    settings  in  the  project areas  some  base  line estimates  of
    
    sensitivity could be made.
    
          Review of the historic  developmental/land  use  sequences on
    
    both islands provided  the data necessary to assess the  extent of
    
    previous modification or disturbance of soil conditions  in  the
    
    project  areas.   A wide  range of  documentary  and  cartographic
    
    sources were consulted during the background  research phase.   These
    
    include:
    
    
          (1)   State and city level archives.
    
          (2)   Reports of  state and city  commissions or boards  for
               various institutions.
    
          (3)   Maps  and charts of Boston Harbor including Deer and Long
               Islands.
    
          (4)   State level cultural resource inventories/site files
               maintained  by  the Massachusetts Historical Commission.
               This  included  sites or properties listed on  or  in  the
               process of  being  nominated  to  the National  Register of
               Historic Places.
    
          (5)   Previous reports on the  history  and archaeology of
               Boston Harbor  including  cultural resource  management
               studies.
                                     16
    

    -------
    In addition, informants familiar with  the  history  and development
    
    
    
    
    of Deer and Long Islands were consulted to collect information not
    
    
    
    
    available from documentary  sources.
    
    
    
    
          The physical environmental  setting of  the Deer and  Long
    
    
    
    
    Island project areas was  investigated  by reviewing data from the
    
    
    
    
    
    fields of geology/geomorphology/  paleoenvironmental reconstruction
    
    
    
    
    and ecology.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Walkover Survey
    
    
    
    
          In general,  a synthesis of environmental criteria and  data
    
    
    
    
    from all five of the data  categories  listed above was  used to  make
    
    
    
    
    an initial  stratification of the  Deer and Long  Island project
    
    
    
    
    areas.   Locational  data from  both  prehistoric  and  historic  sites
    
    
    
    
    (cemetery)  identified by the  UMass field school was  particularly
    
    
    
    
    helpful for  stratifying  these areas  and estimating  construction
    
    
    
    
    related impacts.   This  stratification  scheme was  further refined
    
    
    
    
    during the preliminary walkover  survey and surface inspection of
    
    
    
    
    the project  areas.   Maps based on aerial reconnaissance photographs
    
    
    
    
    (1 inch - 200 feet) with  topographic  information   (5  foot contour
    
    
    
    
    interval) provided by CE  Maguire,  Inc.  were used to guide the
    
    
    
    
    walkover survey.   These  maps provided  information  on  general  land
    
    
    
    
    form and were particularly useful for locating buildings, military
    
    
    
    
    structures  and roadways  for assessing the  degree  of  previous
    
    
    
    
    disturbance  in the project areas.  Environmental settings and
    
    
    
    
    topographic features noted during the background research were
    
    
    
    
    investigated  in more detail.  The  walkover included a surface
                                     17
    

    -------
    inspection of  beaches,  wave  cut  slopes  along  the perimeter  of both
    
    
    
    
    islands and other  exposed soil profiles for evidence of prehistoric
    
    
    
    
    cultural materials or  features  (shell  midden) or  historic  trash/
    
    
    
    
    fill deposits.  Examples  of eroded  prehistoric  sites were  known
    
    
    
    
    from Thompson and Calf Islands where  features  have been exposed.
    
    
    
    
    Erosion rates of as much  as 1/2 foot  (15 cm)  per year had been
    
    
    
    
    recorded at West Head on Long Island  and it was  expected  that some
    
    
    
    
    sites might be found in eroded condition (Kaye 1967; Luedtke 1980;
    
    
    
    
    Barber  1983).   The historic cemetery area south  of  the  hospital
    
    
    
    
    grounds was  also inspected during the walkover;  its general
    
    
    
    
    condition and probable  original  extent were noted.
    
    
    
    
          The  original plan for the walkover survey described  in the
    
    
    
    
    technical proposal was  to use  Hoffer soil augers  to  examine soil
    
    
    
    
    profiles at fixed intervals  along transect lines.   Attempts to use
    
    
    
    
    soil augers on the compacted,  rocky glacial till derived  soils
    
    
    
    
    found in both the  Deer  and Long  Island project areas were generally
    
    
    
    
    unproductive.   The augers were  barely  able to penetrate  the rocky
    
    
    
    
    topsoil left in  the project areas  after extensive grading and
    
    
    
    
    landscaping.
    
    
    
    
          In less rocky soil conditions the 40 cm deep  auger cores are
    
    
    
    
    an  effective  means of  identifying  soil anomalies  resulting from
    
    
    
    
    past cultural activity, such as charcoal,  shell fragments,  brick,
    
    
    
    
    coal or oxidized subsoil.  Subsurface testing during the survey was
    
    
    
    
    done with small  shovel test pits which exposed  a full topsoil/
    
    
    
    
    subsoil profile.
    
    
    
    
          Following the  walkover inspection the  Deer  and Long  Island
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
                                      18
    

    -------
    project areas were given a final  stratification into zones of high,
    
    
    
    
    moderate to  low  archaeological sensitivity or previously disturbed
    
    
    
    
    areas with  no  archaeological  potential.   More  intensive
    
    
    
    
    investigation consisting of subsurface testing was planned for
    
    
    
    
    those zones of moderate  to  low  sensitivity within both project
    
    
    
    
    areas.   The only areas of high  archaeological  sensitivity were
    
    
    
    
    several  historic  cemetery areas  which  were investigated  through
    
    
    
    
    documentary and cartographic  sources.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Subsurface Testing
    
    
    
    
          Sections   of   the  project   areas  considered  to  be
    
    
    
    
    archaeologically  sensitive were investigated with shovel  test pits
    
    
    
    
    placed at  20  m intervals along random and  judgementally oriented
    
    
    
    
    transects.   Since the PAL,  Inc.  intensive  survey did not  include
    
    
    
    
    any  of  the  Long Island  project  area considered to  have high
    
    
    
    
    archaeological sensitivity,  10 m  test pit intervals were not used
    
    
    
    
    and the 20  m interval  was  felt to provide sufficient coverage.
    
    
    
    
          This  procedure  was  consistent  with  the  subsurface  testing
    
    
    
    
    scheme used  by  the  UMass field  school on  the more  sensitive
    
    
    
    
    southern half of Long Island.   For that survey  shovel test pits
    
    
    
    
    were  placed  at  10 m intervals in  zones of  greater  expected
    
    
    
    
    sensitivity such  as areas  close to sources of fresh water or where
    
    
    
    
    test  pits  encountered prehistoric  cultural material.   A  testing
    
    
    
    
    interval of  20 m was  used in areas  showing visible evidence of
    
    
    
    
    
    previous  disturbance   (see Appendix).   For the  random  transects  a
    
    
    
    
    standardized system for  selecting  random angles  which  were then
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
                                     19
    

    -------
    converted to  compass headings  was used to  orient the transect
    
    
    
    
    
    locations.
    
    
    
    
          Test pits averaged 50 x 50  cm in  size and were excavated with
    
    
    
    
    a shovel in  10 cm  arbitrary levels.  All soil  from the shovel test
    
    
    
    
    pits was hand screened through 1/4 inch mesh hardware cloth to
    
    
    
    
    recover any  cultural  material.   Prehistoric and historic  cultural
    
    
    
    
    material from test pits and soil profiles were recorded  in the
    
    
    
    
    field on standardized  forms.  Munsell  Soil Color  charts were used
    
    
    
    
    to standardize descriptions  of  soil horizons  observed  in test pit
    
    
    
    
    profiles.   Following  subsurface  investigation the  location  of the
    
    
    
    
    random and judgemental  test  pit transects was  field mapped.
    
    
    
    
    Cultural features  (roadways,  concrete  bunkers,  demolition  rubble,
    
    
    
    
    dump  areas,  historic foundations,  etc.)  relating  to previous
    
    
    
    
    episodes of  historic/recent activity were also mapped.
    
    
    
    
          At the  completion of the subsurface testing phase  of the
    
    
    
    
    survey, documentary photographs in both black/white and color were
    
    
    
    
    taken  of  the most   significant  and  representative  historic
    
    
    
    
    structures  within  the  project areas.  On Deer Island this included
    
    
    
    
    the pumping/screening building from the  earlier (1890)  treatment
    
    
    
    
    plant,  wood frame  carriage  house  and  various military facilities
    
    
    
    
    such  as the  radar station/command  post  on  Signal Hill.   The
    
    
    
    
    historic cemetery  area,  representative building facades within the
    
    
    
    
    hospital complex  and concrete bunkers were documented on Long
    
    
    
    
    Island.  Prehistoric and historic  cultural material collected from
    
    
    
    
    the surface or excavated from test pits was placed in marked bags
                                     20
    

    -------
    in the field and  returned to the PAL,  Inc.  for processing.   The
    
    
    
    
    initial stages  of  laboratory processing involved washing,  measuring
    
    
    
    
    and cataloging  all the historic  cultural material recovered during
    
    
    
    
    fieldwork.
    
    
    
    
          Historic  cultural  materials found as small fragments of field
    
    
    
    
    trash were cataloged according to material (glass,  ceramic, brick,
    
    
    
    
    iron)  and  functional  categories   (bottle,   plate,   building
    
    
    
    
    materials).  More temporally sensitive artifact  ceramics were
    
    
    
    
    identified  as to type  such as redware, creamware, pearlware, etc.
    
    
    
    
          Following cataloging and analysis all cultural  materials were
    
    
    
    
    packed  in  sealed and  labelled polyethylene bags  and  durable
    
    
    
    
    cardboard boxes for  curation at the PAL,  Inc.,  in Providence,  Rhode
    
    
    
    
    Island.
                                     21
    

    -------
                           ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
          Extending out from  the  northern edge of  Boston  Harbor in a
    
    
    
    
    southeasterly direction,  Deer  Island  is separated from Long Island
    
    
    
    
    by Presidents Road,  the main shipping channel in the harbor.  Long
    
    
    
    
    Island is located in  the  approximate center of  Boston Harbor and
    
    
    
    
    because of its northeast/southwest orientation Long Island Head is
    
    
    
    
    only about 1520 m (5,000 ft) south of  the tip of Deer Island.  Deer
    
    
    
    
    Island currently forms a large peninsula connected at  its northern
    
    
    
    
    end  with the  mainland  in Winthrop.   This  island  was  always
    
    
    
    
    separated from Winthrop by Shirley  Gut,  a  shallow channel that
    
    
    
    
    gradually silted in during the late nineteenth  century,  while the
    
    
    
    
    present causeway is a recent  development completed in 1936.
    
    
    
    
          Boston  Harbor is  a continuation of  the Boston Basin,  a
    
    
    
    
    structural and geologic basin.   The topography within the basin is
    
    
    
    
    typical of glacial outwash with numerous drumlins.  There are about
    
    
    
    
    180  drumlins  in the general basin area (La  Forge 1932).   Bedrock
    
    
    
    
    outcrops occur mostly in the upland sections of the basin where the
    
    
    
    
    cover  of  glacial drift  is thin.  A  few  outcrops appear  in the
    
    
    
    
    harbor such as  Squaw  Rock in  Squantum  and others  on Slate Island
    
    
    
    
    and in Hingham  Harbor in the southern part of the  submerged basin.
    
    
    
    
    Most of the  islands are drumlins; some of  the smaller  ones may
    
    
    
    
    represent the tops  of larger drumlin  features that  are  submerged or
    
    
    
    
    buried in  deposits  of marine  clay.   The  distribution of drumlin
    
    
    
    
    
    islands within  the  harbor  may be related to the topography of the
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
                                      22
    

    -------
    buried bedrock  surface.   Those  large islands  with  northeast/
    
    
    
    
    southwest orientations like Long and Peddock's Islands  occupy
    
    
    
    
    higher bedrock ridges that follow the strike of several  local fault
    
    
    
    
    zones.   The drumlins  themselves  do not appear to have bedrock
    
    
    
    
    cores.  The Boston Harbor drumlins are typically composed of dense,
    
    
    
    
    green-grey glacial till and silty  clay  with some  gravel layers and
    
    
    
    
    containing pebbles, cobbles and  few boulders.  The pebbles and
    
    
    
    
    cobble  inclusions  are  generally of  locally  derived grey  argillite
    
    
    
    
    or  slate from the Cambridge Argillite,  the major bedrock  unit
    
    
    
    
    underlying the harbor.   The upper  surface  of the till  is usually
    
    
    
    
    oxidized to a light tan or buff  color (Kaye  1976:46-51).
    
    
    
    
          The  prominent  drumlin on  Deer  Island,  Signal  Hill,  is
    
    
    
    
    oriented S 75o E, the  general direction of movement of  the glacial
    
    
    
    
    ice sheet that covered the Boston  area  during the latest Wisconsin
    
    
    
    
    period  glaciation  ca.  14,000  years  ago  (Brenninkmeyer 1976:207).
    
    
    
    
    Long  Island is a drumloidal complex composed of a small, well-
    
    
    
    
    formed  drumlin at the  northeast end (Long Island Head),  a large,
    
    
    
    
    central complex and a remnant of a small drumlin at the southwest
    
    
    
    
    end (West Head).   The  drumlin  complex in the center of the island
    
    
    
    
    is  compound  in  structure,  made  up of three  drumlins grouped
    
    
    
    
    together.   The three sections of  Long Island are connected by other
    
    
    
    
    glacial and littoral  deposits (Kay 1967:158,  1976:521).  The cobble
    
    
    
    
    covered beaches  and eroding shoreline  of  the islands  probably
    
    
    
    
    provided some lithic resources  such as large cobbles and boulders
    
    
    
    
    of felsite  that  would  have been used by  prehistoric groups as
                                     23
    

    -------
    sources of raw material for chipped  stone tools.  Glacial till
    
    
    
    
    deposits or  saltmarsh  sediments were  probably  the source of clay
    
    
    
    
    used by prehistoric potters  for  the  manufacture  of  ceramic vessels.
    
    
    
    
          The shallow offshore waters surrounding Deer  Island  contain a
    
    
    
    
    large mud  flat on the protected harbor  side (west/southwest)  and
    
    
    
    
    rocky shoals  on the east/northeast  side.   Great Fawn  and Little
    
    
    
    
    Fawn shoals extend out  from  the  northeast shore of the island where
    
    
    
    
    they are exposed  at low tide and provide  temporary feeding areas
    
    
    
    
    for various species of  shore birds.   Similar flats  extend  out from
    
    
    
    
    the  east/southeast  shores  of Long  Island  and  evidently  provided
    
    
    
    
    suitable habitat for  formation of  shellfish  beds that were  an
    
    
    
    
    attraction  to prehistoric populations.
    
    
    
    
          During most of the extended period of prehistoric  use of the
    
    
    
    
    Boston  Harbor  Islands,  Deer and Long  Island  would have presented
    
    
    
    
    somewhat different environmental  settings than  they do today.
    
    
    
    
    Lowered  sea  level  during  the  post   glacial  period roughly 11,000
    
    
    
    
    years ago would have left both  islands  as  elevated drumlins above
    
    
    
    
    the floodplain of the Charles, Mystic  and Neponset Rivers.   By
    
    
    
    
    7,000 years ago marine inundation had  covered estuaries now under
    
    
    
    
    Boston Harbor and over the  next several  thousand years  salt water
    
    
    
    
    proceeded up the Charles and other  river drainages  flooding former
    
    
    
    
    
    freshwater  wetlands. This process appears to  have stopped by about
    
    
    
    
    2,500 years ago allowing  the formation  of tidal mudflats in Boston
    
    
    
    
    Harbor.  This was  an important environmental event since  the
    
    
    
    
    shellfish beds which  occupied  the  tidal  flats  became  a  focus  of
    
    
    
    
    prehistoric settlement/ subsistence  patterns.  Minor changes in the
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
                                     24
    

    -------
     configuration of the harbor and the temperature and/or salinity of
    
    
    
    
     its  waters  appear to have continued over the  last 1,500 years.
    
    
    
    
     Prehistoric sites were located near tidal  flats or covets that have
    
    
    
    
     been  altered or disappeared behind beach  ridges.   Changes in the
    
    
    
    
     species  composition of the  shellfish  beds  near  these sites due to
    
    
    
    
     various  environmental  factors  also appears  to  be reflected in the
    
    
    
    
     shell  remains found in midden deposits (Dincauze  1974;  Braun 1974).
    
    
    
    
           Prehistoric  groups visiting sites  on  Calf  and Thompson
    
    
    
    
     Islands  caught a wide variety of fish from Boston Harbor including
    
    
    
    
     cod,  tautog,  dogfish  and sturgeon and the  offshore  waters around
    
    
    
    
     Deer and Long Island probably contained a similar range of species
    
    
    
    
     (Luedtke  1980:56-57;  Barber 1983:9).   Both Deer and Long Islands
    
    
    
    
     had  small sources of fresh water,  either in wetlands or  small
    
    
    
    
     springs.  On Deer  Island  two ponds, now  filled  in,  were in active
    
    
    
    
     use during the nineteenth century  (Cow  Pond, Ice Pond) and may have
    
    
    
    
     been   created  by  artificially  enlarging  existing  springs  or
    
    
    
    
     freshwater marshes.
    
    
    
    
          There ^are  two areas  of  existing freshwater and saltwater
    
    
    
    
     marshes  on the west end of Long Island, one adjacent to the barrier
    
    
    
    
     beach  on the southwest  shore and another cattail marsh at Bass
    
    
    
    
     Point on the southeast side of the island.  Prehistoric sites were
    
    
    
    
     found along the edges of  both wetlands by the UMass archaeological
    
    
    
    
     field  school and they  were  clearly an important resource  for the
    
    
    
    
    prehistoric hunter/gatherer  groups using  the harbor islands.
    
    
    
    
          These two islands were  originally  forested but this natural
                                      25
    

    -------
    resource was  rapidly depleted  in the  seventeenth and  eighteenth
    
    
    
    
    centuries due to the demand for timber  and  firewood in the rapidly
    
    
    
    
    urbanizing Boston core.
    
    
    
    
          Palynological analysis of a  sediment  core taken from  a salt
    
    
    
    
    marsh on Calf Island indicated  that the  former forest cover on that
    
    
    
    
    outer harbor island  may  have  been mostly pine and  oak with  maple,
    
    
    
    
    birch, walnut/hickory,  basswood and sassafras (Kaplan 1975).
    
    
    
    
          On Thompsons  Island,  just  north of Long Island, the present
    
    
    
    
    vegetation includes a  grove  of  large oak  trees that  probably
    
    
    
    
    approximates the  original appearance of  the harbor  islands.   The
    
    
    
    
    present vegetation on Long Island consists mostly of  smaller,  tree
    
    
    
    
    species typical of  early succession  in  abandoned farmland such  as
    
    
    
    
    chokecherry,  aspen,  pitch pine  and  black  locust.   Common  shrubs
    
    
    
    
    include  sumac  and bay  laurel.   Some stands  of  mature trees  also
    
    
    
    
    remain around the Long Island Hospital complex.
    
    
    
    
          On Deer Island, the continuous  processes of historic land use
    
    
    
    
    including the prison,  treatment plant  and  military  installations
    
    
    
    
    have  been  responsible  for  maintaining  land  in  cleared  condition.
    
    
    
    
    Most  of  the project  areas  covered  in the Phase I survey  were  open
    
    
    
    
    meadow-like  areas  with tall grasses  and  various weeds (goldenrod,
    
    
    
    
    milkweed,  etc.).
                                      26
    

    -------
               PREHISTORIC LAND USE AND SETTLEMENT PATTERNS
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
          The  prehistoric  cultural resources of  the  Boston  Harbor
    
    
    
    
     district are  an  important component of the available data base of
    
    
    
    
     cultural resources in coastal, eastern Massachusetts.  These sites
    
    
    
    
     have survived several hundred years of  varying degrees and types of
    
    
    
    
     historic  land use.   To  fully understand  and appreciate  the
    
    
    
    
     prehistoric sites which were identified in the  Phase  I survey it is
    
    
    
    
     necessary to view them in the broader interpretive context provided
    
    
    
    
     by the known data base.
    
    
    
    
          The  Boston Harbor islands  have not  been the  subject  of
    
    
    
    
     investigations by avocational archaeologists like the coastal areas
    
    
    
    
     to  the north (Salem/Beverly, Ipswich)  and south  (North River
    
    
    
    
     drainage, Plymouth)  of Boston or the Blue Hills and  Neponset River
    
    
    
    
     drainage on the southwest edge of the Boston Basin.
    
    
    
    
          The Boston  metropolitan area is unusual in  comparison  to
    
    
    
    
     other  urban  areas because  some early  collections of  prehistoric
    
    
    
    
     material were preserved from sites that are now gone.  Collections
    
    
    
    
     assembled in the late nineteenth century from sites along the lower
    
    
    
    
     Charles and Mystic  River drainages by  local prehistorians  (J.  W.
    
    
    
    
     Fewkes,  G.  B. Frazar,  F. Putnam)  have been valuable sources  of
    
    
    
    
     information about sites  long since  destroyed.  Sites  located at  the
    
    
    
    
     confluence  of  various streams with the Charles  River  near Magazine
    
    
    
    
    Beach and Mt.  Auburn Hospital in Cambridge, Watertown  Arsenal  and
    
    
    
    
    the Perkins  School  for the Blind  in  Watertown  were visited  by
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
                                     27
    

    -------
    collectors during various episodes of development and construction.
    
    
    
    
    An important locus of prehistoric activity at the confluence of the
    
    
    
    
    Mystic River and Alewife Brook in Arlington  was  also the source of
    
    
    
    
    at least one (G.  B.  Frazar) large collection.
    
    
    
    
          The Boylston  Street  fish weir was  first  discovered  during
    
    
    
    
    subway  construction  in 1913.   Several later multi-disciplinary
    
    
    
    
    studies  (1939,   1946)  were among  the  first paleoenvironmental
    
    
    
    
    reconstructions  carried out in  southern New England and outlinend
    
    
    
    
    the  process of  marine  inundation  of the  lower  Charles River
    
    
    
    
    (Johnson 1942).
    
    
    
    
          Dincauze's  survey  of  archaeological resources  in  the greater
    
    
    
    
    Boston  area conducted in 1967-1968 was  the first  large-scale
    
    
    
    
    inventory and  assessment of  prehistoric  sites.  This  survey
    
    
    
    
    included the Boston Harbor  islands revealing  some of the important
    
    
    
    
    research  potential  contained  in the sites  located in  the  harbor
    
    
    
    
    district  (Dincauze 1974:39).
    
    
    
    
          A later investigation of twelve harbor islands was the first
    
    
    
    
    archaeological  survey  to  focus specifically  on the islands.   An
    
    
    
    
    important product  of this  survey was  a model of  how  prehistoric
    
    
    
    
    land use/settlement patterns  changed  from  the Late  Archaic to Late
    
    
    
    
    Woodland periods  (Luedtke 1975,  1980).
    
    
    
    
          With the exception of  the earliest Paleo-Indian  period  (ca.
    
    
    
    
    11,000 B.P.),  a complete  sequence of  prehistoric  occupation within
    
    
    
    
    the Boston metropolitan area  can now  be constructed from available
    
    
    
    
    data (see Table  1).
                                      28
    

    -------
        Table 1.  Prehistoric Cultural Chronology for Southern New England.
     General Period
    Identified Temporal
       Subdivisions*
          Cultural Aspects
     Paleo-Indian
      12000-8000 B.P.**    (1)
     (10000-6000 B.C.)     (2)
        Eastern Clovis
        Piano
    Big-game  hunting  in  small
    groups  with  a specialized and
    uniform lithic technology was
    the  rule  for a  few,  highly
    mobile  groups of  small size.
     Early Archaic
    
      9500-7000 B.P.
     (7500-5000 B.C.)
    (1) Bifurcate-Base
        Point
        Assemblages
    Socioeconomic patterns unknown
    but  the basic Archaic  lithic
    technology  was  established.
    Small,  widespread populations
    were  probably  practicing
    diversified   hunting  and
    gathering.
    Middle Archaic
     8000-4500 B.P.
     (5500-2500 B.C.)
    (1)  Neville
    (2)  Stark
    (3)  Merrimack
    (4)  Otter Creek
    (5)  Vosburg
    Hunting   and   gathering
    especially  within  drainage
    systems.  Fishing gear appears
    and local lithic sources used.
    Social  organizations  probably
    at band level.
    Late Archaic
     4500-3000 B.P.
    (2500-1000 B.C.)
    (1)  Brewerton
    (2)  Sguibnocket
    (3)  Small Stemmed
        Point
        Assemblages
    Intensive  hunting  and
    gathering was  the  rule over
    entire  region  in  diverse
    environments.    Shellfish were
    exploited for  first (?)  time.
    Perhaps  population  and  group
    sizes were at maximum for  the
    Archaic period.
     *Termed Phases  or Complexes
    **Before Present
                                         29
    

    -------
                             Table 1.  (Continued).
    General Period
    Identified  Temporal
       Subdivisions*
          Cultural Aspects
    Transitional
    
     3600-2500 B.P.
    (1600- 500 B.C.)
    (1)  Atlantic
    (2)  Watertown
    (3)  Coburn
    (4)  Orient
    Same  economy as  the earlier
    periods,  but there  may have
    been groups migrating into New
    England,  or  local  groups
    developing technologies
    strikingly  different  from
    those previously used.   Trade
    in soapstone became important.
    Burial rituals became complex.
    Early Woodland
    
    2600-1500 B.P.
    (600 B.C.-300 A.D.)
    (1)  Meadowood
    (2)  Lagoon
    There was  apparent  population
    decline.   Sites  of this period
    are rare.  Pottery  was first
    (?)  made.   Little is known of
    social   organization  or
    economy.
    Middle Woodland
    1650-1000 B.P.
    (300- 950 A.D.)
    (1)  Fox Creek
    Economy focused on  coastal
    resources.   Horticulture may
    have appeared  late  in period.
    Hunter-gathering  was  still
    important.    Population in-
    creased from the previous low
    in the Early Woodland.
    Late Woodland
    1000- 450 B.P.
    (950-1500 A.D.)
    (1)  Levanna
    Horticulture was  established
    by now.  Coastal areas  seemed
    to be preferred.   Large  groups
    sometimes  lived  in  fortified
    villages and were organized in
    complicated political  al-
    liances. Some groups may  have
    still relied solely on hunting
    and  gathering.
                                        30
    

    -------
                             Table 1.   (Continued).
    General Period
    
    Proto-Historic
     and Contact
    
      450- 300  B.P.
    (1500-1650  A.D.)
    Identified Temporal
       Subdivisions*
                             Cultural Aspects
    (I!
    Algonquian
    Groups
    Groups such as the Wampanoags,
    Narragansetts, and  Nipmucks
    were  decimated by disease(s)
    just prior to arrival of  Euro-
    pean  settlers.    Political,
    social and economic  organiza-
    tions were  very  complex,  but
    collapsed in face of disease
    and European expansion.
                                        3 1
    

    -------
          The  discovery  of  a  potential Early Archaic component on  the
    
    
    
    
    Hull-11  site on Long Island during the Phase I survey filled in  one
    
    
    
    
    minor gap in this  sequence.  This site is  particularly  important
    
    
    
    
    because the other  coastal locations used  around 8,500 to 8,000
    
    
    
    
    years ago  are under  Boston  Harbor.   A few sites representing other
    
    
    
    
    aspects  of Early Archaic settlement patterns in the Boston area  are
    
    
    
    
    located  on large river  systems  draining  into coastal waters.   A
    
    
    
    
    large terrace of glacial outwash sand/gravel  above the Charles
    
    
    
    
    River in East Watertown  was  apparently  occupied by Early  Archaic
    
    
    
    
    groups; a single bifurcate base projectile point  was collected
    
    
    
    
    there in the late nineteenth century  (Dincauze 1973:32).
    
    
    
    
          Along  the  Saugus  River north of Boston Harbor,  Early  Archaic
    
    
    
    
    hunter/gatherers were  among the first groups to extract fine
    
    
    
    
    grained, red-pink volcanic material  (Saugus  jasper)  from the Saugus
    
    
    
    
    Quarry site,  a  small  lithic  source  area within the Lynn Volcanic
    
    
    
    
    complex.    Several other bifurcate  base  point  find  spots
    
    
    
    
    representing  temporary  camps  used  by Early Archaic hunter/
    
    
    
    
    gatherers were recorded from the  three  major river drainages
    
    
    
    
    (Mystic,  Charles,  Neponset) emptying into  Boston Harbor (Dincauze
    
    
    
    
    1974:45).
    
    
    
    
          Marine transgression  and the creation of  Boston Harbor
    
    
    
    
    drowned most of the  sites located near  the  coastal/estuarine
    
    
    
    
    environmental  settings  of 7,500  to 6,000 years ago.   The available
    
    
    
    
    information  on  Middle Archaic period settlement patterns and  other
    
    
    
    
    activities  in  the harbor  district is limited in comparison to
    
    
    
    
    adjacent,  inland  sections  of  the  Boston  Basin.    One  of  the
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
                                     32
    

    -------
    prehistoric sites located on the southern end of  Long  Island by the
    
    
    
    
    UMass  field school, Marsh Locus 1-2,  yielded  a broken  Neville point
    
    
    
    
    (see Appendix I).   If this large non-midden site does contain more
    
    
    
    
    Middle Archaic material  it  could  be  an  important source  of
    
    
    
    
    information needed to reconstruct  settlement and  resource use
    
    
    
    
    patterns in the harbor around 7,000 years ago.  Earlier survey work
    
    
    
    
    in the Boston Basin  suggested that the  majority of Middle Archaic
    
    
    
    
    sites  not under shallow, offshore waters were in three general
    
    
    
    
    environmental settings,  adjacent to  rivers,   lakes and marshes  or
    
    
    
    
    bogs  (Dincauze  1974:45).
    
    
    
    
          Extensive Middle  Archaic  depositions possibly  the result  of
    
    
    
    
    brief but intense seasonal use of favored  site locations have been
    
    
    
    
    located  in the Neponset and Cochata River  drainages along the
    
    
    
    
    southern  boundary  of  the  Boston  Basin.   At the  Green  Hill,
    
    
    
    
    Ponkapoag and Gill's  Farm sites,  Middle Archaic groups carried out
    
    
    
    
    a  wide range of activities  including manufacture of  chipped and
    
    
    
    
    ground stone tools from  lithic  raw  materials obtained in  the Blue
    
    
    
    
    Hills and at  other lithic source areas  along the Neponset River.
    
    
    
    
    Processing of other  resources (fish,   meat,  plants) collected  from
    
    
    
    
    riverine  wetlands or  other  environments was  carried  out  on  these
    
    
    
    
    sites creating  numerous  pit and hearth  features.  Middle Archaic
    
    
    
    
    groups quarried  large amounts of  matamorphosed slate (hornfels) and
    
    
    
    
    rhyolite  from lithic source areas in the Blue Hills and many sites
    
    
    
    
    around the perimeter  of this area were used as temporary workshops.
    
    
    
    
    At the Green  Hill, Ponkapoag  and other  Neponset drainage  sites
                                      33
    

    -------
    hundreds of  broken, discarded preforms for chipped and ground stone
    
    
    
    
    tools  (projectile points,  adzes/gouges,   semi-lunar  knives)  have
    
    
    
    
    been excavated from Middle Archaic contexts (Cote 1958;  F. Carty,
    
    
    
    
    personal communication 1983).
    
    
    
    
          Like  many other  areas of  coastal southern New  England,
    
    
    
    
    significantly  more data is available  on  Late  Archaic  activity in
    
    
    
    
    Boston Harbor in  comparison  to  earlier  time periods.   Relatively
    
    
    
    
    high densities  of Late Archaic sites have been recorded in the
    
    
    
    
    Boston  metropolitan  area.   The  Boylston Street  fish weir  was
    
    
    
    
    constructed early in this period (ca.  4,500 years  B.P.)  in  the
    
    
    
    
    recently  formed  Charles River estuary.   This wood and brush
    
    
    
    
    facility for trapping  fish in the  inter-tidal zone appears to have
    
    
    
    
    been maintained/repaired on a seasonal basis by hunter/gatherers of
    
    
    
    
    the Small Stem Point tradition.   Investigation of a shell midden on
    
    
    
    
    Peddock's  Island uncovered a vary unusual  Archaic inhumation burial
    
    
    
    
    under the midden deposit.  A radiocarbon  date  of 4135  +_ 225 years
    
    
    
    
    ago  (GX-2528) indicated that it was probably affiliated with a
    
    
    
    
    Small Stem Point deposition pre-dating the formation of the midden
    
    
    
    
    (Dincauze 1974:48).
    
    
    
    
          Other  Late Archaic populations,  particularly those affiliated
    
    
    
    
    with the Susquehanna tradition,  used  the  Boston  Harbor islands and
    
    
    
    
    other locations  along  the Charles  River estuary.   One of the sites
    
    
    
    
    (Hull-11) on  Long  Island was  apparently used  by Susquehanna
    
    
    
    
    tradition people (see Appendix I).  The  Calf Island site in the
    
    
    
    
    outer harbor probably  contained  a  fairly  substantial Late  Archaic
    
    
    
    
    deposition  that  was  mostly destroyed  by  rising sea  level and
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
                                      34
    

    -------
    subsequent erosion.  One  of  the subsistence related activities
    
    
    
    
    carried out  by  Late Archaic  hunter/gatherers  may  have  been
    
    
    
    
    construction and operation  of  a fish  trap or  weir between Calf and
    
    
    
    
    the Brewster  Islands.   Sea level would  have been  about five feet
    
    
    
    
    lower than at present and Calf, Little Calf and the  Brewsters would
    
    
    
    
    have been  connected creating  a  funnel-like  channel with its apex
    
    
    
    
    near the Calf Island site.   This would have  made this  site area a
    
    
    
    
    good location for a weir or fish trap facility (Luedtke 1980:64).
    
    
    
    
          By around 3,000 years ago,  Terminal Archaic populations were
    
    
    
    
    still using some  of  the  same  site locations  that had been parts of
    
    
    
    
    earlier Archaic settlement patterns  in  the  harbor  district.   The
    
    
    
    
    Hull-11 site on Long Island  is a good example; steatite  vessel
    
    
    
    
    sherds found there by the  UMass  field school probably  belong to a
    
    
    
    
    Terminal Archaic  or Early  Woodland  component.   The  largest sites
    
    
    
    
    possibly  representing  the  cores  of Terminal Archaic  (Orient
    
    
    
    
    complex) and  Early Woodland  settlement  patterns in some  coastal
    
    
    
    
    drainages  were near the head of estuaries  along  the  Mystic  and
    
    
    
    
    Charles Rivers (Dincauze  1974:50).  There  are indications  that  the
    
    
    
    
    harbor islands contain important  Early Woodland sites, mostly shell
    
    
    
    
    middens.  Small midden  sites  probably occupied around  2,500 years
    
    
    
    
    ago were recorded on Thompson  Island  (Shaw  1984)  and during  the
    
    
    
    
    1984 UMass  field  school on Long Island.   The Early Woodland  and
    
    
    
    
    first half  of  the  Middle Wodoland period mark an important shift in
    
    
    
    
    basic subsistence/settlement patterns not  only in Boston Harbor but
    
    
    
    
    across  the  southern New England region as  well.
                                      35
    

    -------
          Exploitation  of  several species of shellfish  (soft shell
    
    
    
    
    clam,  scallop, oyster,  quahog)  intensified rapidly during the
    
    
    
    
    Middle  Woodland period  in  response to the stabilization of sea
    
    
    
    
    levels and establishment  of  suitable  habitat  (tidal flats) for the
    
    
    
    
    formation of shellfish beds.  Some  large  shell  midden sites were
    
    
    
    
    created in the Boston Harbor district and they have a much wider
    
    
    
    
    distribution  across  the  islands than  sites of most preceding time
    
    
    
    
    periods.   Both midden and non-midden Middle Woodland sites were
    
    
    
    
    located near  estuarine  environments  along  the shore of the harbor
    
    
    
    
    and at  the estuary head base camps used by previous   Terminal
    
    
    
    
    Archaic and Early Woodland groups in the Charles and Mystic River
    
    
    
    
    drainages (Braun  1974:589-591; Dincauze 1974:51).   Surveys by both
    
    
    
    
    avocational  and professional archaeologists along the  southern
    
    
    
    
    shore of  the harbor district in Weymouth have also identified
    
    
    
    
    significant Middle Woodland sites  (Huntington 1979).
    
    
    
    
          The concentration of settlement/subsistence  activities  in the
    
    
    
    
    coastal/estuarine  and off-shore  island environments of the harbor
    
    
    
    
    district continued into the Late Woodland period,  after about 1,000
    
    
    
    
    years ago.  It is estimated that a  majority of the  small shell
    
    
    
    
    midden sites  in the harbor district of unknown cultural affiliation
    
    
    
    
    are probably  Late Woodland sites  (Dincauze 1974:53).  This estimate
    
    
    
    
    seems to  be  supported  by recent survey  information  from  various
    
    
    
    
    harbor  islands which  has identified many  large  and  small  midden
    
    
    
    
    sites of  probable Late Woodland  affiliation.  Calf Island in the
    
    
    
    
    outer harbor appears to have functioned as a base  for specialized
    
    
    
    
    resource  procurement   and  processing  activities.    Recently
    
    
    
    
    
    
                                     36
    

    -------
    discovered sites  on Long  Island include similar procurement/
    
    
    
    
    processing loci and possibly a Late Woodland farmstead.  On nearby
    
    
    
    
    Thompson  Island  most of the  midden  sites appear to  contain  some
    
    
    
    
    Late  Woodland deposits  resulting from  intensive  collection  and
    
    
    
    
    processing of shellfish (Luedtke  1980;  Barber 1983;  Shaw 1984).
    
    
    
    
          In  general,  the  Boston Harbor  islands seem  to  contain  many
    
    
    
    
    different elements of Late Woodland settlement  systems  that would
    
    
    
    
    have been based at large estuary head base camps.  During the  late
    
    
    
    
    prehistoric period just prior to  European contact  it  appears  that
    
    
    
    
    the ecologically  diverse  estuary head environments were selected as
    
    
    
    
    the location for  major base camps  forming the  core  of river basin
    
    
    
    
    territories.   Certain inner  harbor islands were used for intensive
    
    
    
    
    shellfish processing and  probably  for  farming  (Long  Island,
    
    
    
    
    Peddocks  Island,  Thompson Island,  etc.) and could  have been
    
    
    
    
    important parts of the territories of groups based in the Charles,
    
    
    
    
    Mystic, Neponset  or other river basins.  Outer harbor islands,  like
    
    
    
    
    Calf Island and the  Brewsters  would  have  been  occupied  on brief,
    
    
    
    
    seasonal  trips for exploiting specific  marine resources (fish,
    
    
    
    
    shellfish,  sea  birds)  (Dincauze 1974:53; Luedtke 1980:72-73).
                                     37
    

    -------
                HISTORIC LAND DSE AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
          The historic development of Deer and Long Islands is directly
    
    
    
    
    related to urban processes  in the  city of Boston and  reflects
    
    
    
    
    various stages of its growth and expansion.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Deer Island
    
    
    
    
          Deer Island's role in supporting  the functioning of the city
    
    
    
    
    was  examined  within the  core-periphery  framework.   Preliminary
    
    
    
    
    research indicated that from  the  time of the earliest recorded use
    
    
    
    
    of the  island  by Europeans,  it served  as a resource  base  for the
    
    
    
    
    inhabitants of  Boston  (Sweetser 1882:194).   It was  granted  to the
    
    
    
    
    city, along  with Long,  Hog and later Spectacle  Islands,  in  1634.
    
    
    
    
    Later,  funds generated by the  rental  of  the island went toward the
    
    
    
    
    support of the Boston school fund.
    
    
    
    
          The island's use as  a fringe zone  within Boston's  periphery
    
    
    
    
    began in 1675-76,  when many  Native  Americans were  interned there
    
    
    
    
    during King Phillip's War.   These people  were  placed on the  island
    
    
    
    
    under extremely  harsh  conditions, and  petitioned the Court  to  be
    
    
    
    
    sent elsewhere,  citing a lack of  food and firewood that threatened
    
    
    
    
    their lives (Massachusetts  State Archives 1676:30/200a).   They were
    
    
    
    
    to remain there until the end of the war,  however,  when the island
    
    
    
    
    was used to imprison defeated Native American soldiers.
    
    
    
    
          The role  of the  island  as  the location  for  individuals and
    
    
    
    
    institutions  considered undesirable  within the core continued for
                                      38
    

    -------
    many years.   It was used  to quarantine seamen suspected of carrying
    
    
    
    
    smallpox  (Massachusetts  State Archives  1677:61/166),  and later for
    
    
    
    
    the quarantine of  great  numbers  of  Irish immigrants in the  1840s.
    
    
    
    
    The quarantine  area was  subsequently used as the  site  of  the new
    
    
    
    
    Almshouse,  built  in 1850-1852,  and  designed by Luther Briggs, Jr.
    
    
    
    
    The older Almshouse and House of Industry,  in South Boston,  was
    
    
    
    
    removed not  only because the  structures were  dilapidated and
    
    
    
    
    overcrowded,  but  because it  was contributing to  the  decline of  a
    
    
    
    
    core  area neighborhood  (Committee on  Public  Buildings,  1847).
    
    
    
    
    Again, Deer Island served as  a convenient location for institutions
    
    
    
    
    considered unsuitable for the city  itself.
    
    
    
    
          The trend continued  throughout  the next  century,  with  a
    
    
    
    
    prison  (1858),  sewage  treatment plant   (1889  and  1968),  cemetery
    
    
    
    
    (1907)  and  other  ancillary structures  constructed since the  mid-
    
    
    
    
    nineteenth  century.
    
    
    
    
          The prison  is now  part of the Suffolk County Correctional
    
    
    
    
    Facility.   In 1896,  it  incorporated the 1850-1852 Almshouse and the
    
    
    
    
    1854 House  of Industry  and  House of Reformation.  By 1904, the
    
    
    
    
    prison complex was  the largest in the  State,  with 1793 prisoners.
    
    
    
    
    In that year,  a new prison  for  women  was added (Board of Prison
    
    
    
    
    Commissioners 1904).
    
    
    
    
          During the late nineteenth  century,  the complex was, like the
    
    
    
    
    hospital complex,  on Long Island,   developed as a self-sufficient
    
    
    
    
    community.  The 1,200 to  1,500 inmates  ranged in age and condition
    
    
    
    
    from adult convicts to  pauper children.   The  institution grew much
    
    
    
    
    of its own food, and maintained a herd of cows and large numbers of
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
                                     39
    

    -------
    pits (Sweetser 1887:198-199).  Cattle were  watered at the Cow Pond
    
    
    
    
    and ice for the institution  taken from the  Ice Pond, two freshwater
    
    
    
    
    
    ponds  that have  now  been filled.   Inmates produced goods  in
    
    
    
    
    workshops and convicts carried out  the traditional penal activities
    
    
    
    
    of breaking rocks.
    
    
    
    
          The self sufficient nature of the  institution was emphasized
    
    
    
    
    by its  spatial  isolation from Boston.   Connected by  a ferry that
    
    
    
    
    crossed the shallow, narrow passage of Shirley Gut, it effectively
    
    
    
    
    removed inmates  from  the community,   one  that  was  seen  as
    
    
    
    
    contributing to their downfall  (Sweetser 1887:200).
    
    
    
    
          The  sewage  treatment  plant  was built  in  1889,  by  the
    
    
    
    
    Metropolitan District Commission  (MDC).   It  was  part of the MDC's
    
    
    
    
    North Sewer District.   In  the 1890s,  effluent was  gravity-fed  to
    
    
    
    
    the East Boston Station,  then pumped up about 12 to 15 feet to Deer
    
    
    
    
    Island  (Kenneth Donovan, personal  communication,  July 1984).   The
    
    
    
    
    
    pumping engines were powered by coal that  was brought in on barges
    
    
    
    
    that drew  up  on wharves in front  of  the  pumping-screening plant.
    
    
    
    
    Associated with  the plant was a  four  to six family wood frame
    
    
    
    
    residence  known  as  the "chief's  building"  and  a large carriage
    
    
    
    
    house with a single family residence on its east end.   The  "chief's
    
    
    
    
    building"  has  been demolished,  and the residence/carriage house  is
    
    
    
    
    in poor repair,  currently used for  storage  by the  MDC.
    
    
    
    
          In 1968,  the pump/screening  station on Deer Island was
    
    
    
    
    upgraded and enlarged.   It now serves  22 communities which made up
    
    
    
    
    the North System of the  Metropolitan  Sewerage District (MSD),  and
                                      40
    

    -------
    is  connected  to  seven area  pump stations  (Commonwealth  of
    
    
    
    
    Massachusetts  1971).   It  covers about  26 acres  of  the central
    
    
    
    
    
    section of the  island.
    
    
    
    
          The cemetery and  other burial grounds were  either  relocated
    
    
    
    
    or  disturbed  in the  subsequent  construction activities  that
    
    
    
    
    occurred on  the island.  Military functions, too,  were peripheral
    
    
    
    
    activities that took  place on the island.   The  large drumlin  in the
    
    
    
    
    north central  section of the  Island was  known as  Signal Hill  for
    
    
    
    
    many years,  having been used as a signal station since the War  of
    
    
    
    
    1812.   Naval engagements took place near  the  island during the
    
    
    
    
    Revolution,  and in the War of 1812, the U.S.S. Constitution was
    
    
    
    
    said  to have  sailed around the  island  in an attempt  to evade
    
    
    
    
    British warships.
    
    
    
    
          The island's  strategic position in  relation  to Boston Harbor
    
    
    
    
    required that it be fortified during World War II.   Fort Dawes was
    
    
    
    
    built by the U.S. Department of Defense  on the  southeastern section
    
    
    
    
    of the island between 1941  and 1943.  It consisted of a series of
    
    
    
    
    concrete bunkers,  gun emplacements,  a small  observation tower, and
    
    
    
    
    a radar station on top of Signal Hill.  Never used  to  house troops
    
    
    
    
    or munitions,  the fort is now under the jurisdiction of the US
    
    
    
    
    Navy,  having   been  placed  under  "caretaker  status"  in  1946
    
    
    
    
    (Massachusetts  Area Planning Council 1972).
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Long Island
    
    
    
    
    
          Long  Island's historical  development was studied within the
    
    
    
    
    same context as that of  Deer Island.  Like  Deer,  Long Island was
                                     41
    

    -------
    first used as a pasturage and wood-collection  area for Boston.
    
    
    
    
    Unlike Deer,  however,  Long Island's  resources  were assigned to 37
    
    
    
    
    different individuals who quickly deforested the  island.  By  1639,
    
    
    
    
    
    it was laid out in lots,  and the land rented  for the benefit of the
    
    
    
    
    town school.  The agreement was not kept up,  however, and the land
    
    
    
    
    passed into private hands by 1667.
    
    
    
    
          Land use on the island was primarily agricultural  in  nature.
    
    
    
    
    Deeds of the mid to late seventeenth century  refer  to  island
    
    
    
    
    properties  comprising  "uplands, meadows,  outhouses  and gardens"
    
    
    
    
    (Tennta  1983:12).   During King  Phillip's War  in 1675-1676,  Indians
    
    
    
    
    confined on Deer Island were given  land for planting on Long Island
    
    
    
    
    (Massachusetts State Archives 30:194).   The  land belonged to Henry
    
    
    
    
    Mayer, who  agreed to allow them to improve 100  acres.
    
    
    
    
          For many years,  almost the entire island was  owned by John
    
    
    
    
    Nelson,   a  famous  military hero, who gave  his  name to the  island.
    
    
    
    
    He began to acquire land on the island in  the 1680s,  but later
    
    
    
    
    mortgaged  it.   His  heirs reacquired his 200 acre estate in 1724,
    
    
    
    
    but it then passed to James  Ivers,  whose  heirs held possession of
    
    
    
    
    most  of the  island until it  was  purchased  by  the Long  Island
    
    
    
    
    
    Company  in 1847.
    
    
    
    
          During this  period it is  difficult to assess  the precise type
    
    
    
    
    of agricultural land use  on the island.   It is  recorded that the
    
    
    
    
    
    Americans  removed the  "cretors" or  livestock  from  the  island in
    
    
    
    
    1775,  consisting primarily of sheep  and cattle.  Assuming that the
    
    
    
    
    inhabitants of  the island  were relatively  self-sufficient,  they
                                      42
    

    -------
     probably  cultivated orchards,  small  vegetable  gardens,  and  some
    
    
    
    
     acreage in grain to  support  themselves.
    
    
    
    
           Military  functions  were peripheral activities that  augmented
    
    
    
    
     the primarily agricultural land use of  the  island  up  to and  during
    
    
    
    
     the Revolution.  The British occupation of  the  island ended with
    
    
    
    
     the American capture of the  livestock  that  sustained  the  garrison.
    
    
    
    
     After   the  British  withdrawal,   the  Continental Army constructed
    
    
    
    
     defenses on the Eastern bluff (Mikal 1973:72).  These  same heights
    
    
    
    
     were later fortified  during the War  of 1812.  A lighthouse and
    
    
    
    
     keeper's house  were built in 1819, on  the  same bluff.  The Long
    
    
    
    
     Island  lighthouse has  been  nominated  to the National  Register of
    
    
    
    
     Historic Places and is under  review by  the  National Park  Service.
    
    
    
    
     This site  is  adjacent to the  proposed siting area.
    
    
    
    
          During  the Civil  War,  the  island  was  used  to quarter  Union
    
    
    
    
     troops.   At  the end of 1863,  there were  1,000  conscripts  and
    
    
    
    
     several companies  of  heavy artillery on  the island (Sweetser
    
    
    
    
     1882:167)  in  what was then known  as Camp Wightman near Long Island
    
    
    
    
     Head.   A battery of guns  was constructed on  the  Head  immediately
    
    
    
    
     before  the war.   Its usefulness as a military  site  was attributed
    
    
    
    
     not  only to its  "sanitary  merits," but  to the "security it affords
    
    
    
    
     against desertions"  (Sweetser 1882:167).
    
    
    
          In 1867,  the  fort on the Head was renamed Fort Strong;  the
    
    
    
    
    original Fort  Strong  was located on  Noddle's  Island.   It  was
    
    
    
    extensively redesigned  during the Spanish American  War, when gun
    
    
    
    
    batteries were installed (Kales 1976:72).  Around 1910,  some of the
    
    
    
    guns were  allegedly removed and taken  to  fortify  the island of
    
    
    
    
    
                                      43
    

    -------
    Corregidor in the Phillipines (R. Sullivan, personal communication,
    
    
    
    
    July 1984).   Troops were again  stationed  in  the Fort during World
    
    
    
    
    War I.  During World  War  II, the Fort served as a mines  operation
    
    
    
    
    center.   The  most recent  military use  of the  island  was the
    
    
    
    
    installation of a Nike missile base on  the southern  end of the
    
    
    
    
    island.   While the missiles  have been removed from the  underground
    
    
    
    
    silos, the base  remains  intact, and has  been  used  as a  temporary
    
    
    
    
    archive for  volumes from  the  Boston  Public  Library.
    
    
    
    
          The peripheral nature of the island was also expressed  in its
    
    
    
    
    use as a  resort  in the 1840s.   While some recreational activities
    
    
    
    
    were carried out on Deer Island between  the  end of the Revolution
    
    
    
    
    and the  1840s,  the scale  of the  Long  Island resort  was  far more
    
    
    
    
    extensive.  It  was  a  speculative venture,  and the Long Island House
    
    
    
    
    and Long  Island  Hotel were  built as part of a planned community.
    
    
    
    
    Its role  was to be an elaborate recreational  community  in close
    
    
    
    
    proximity yet completely  different  in density from Boston.
    
    
    
    
          The Long Island  resort complex was  originally  owned by the
    
    
    
    
    Long Island Company,  a group of speculators  who purchased a major
    
    
    
    
    portion of the  Island between  1847  and  1866.   In that  almost 20
    
    
    
    
    year period, the  company constructed  a hotel building of three
    
    
    
    
    stories,  at least  one  two-story frame cottage,  and several wooden
    
    
    
    
    outbuildings.   They intended to develop  much   of the island as a
    
    
    
    
    seaside community, but did not succeed.   After several changes of
    
    
    
    
    ownership, by  1882,   the planned  streets  were  occupied only by "a
    
    
    
    
    feeble group of shabby cottages" (Sweetser  1882:168).
                                      44
    

    -------
          The  hotel  buildings  were used  as  the  headquarters for Camp
    
    
    
    
    Wightman during the Civil  War.   After  the war,  it  returned to a
    
    
    
    
    recreational  mode,  but  the island's  development as  a  resort was
    
    
    
    
    hindered by its access to petty criminals and gangs.   The  isolation
    
    
    
    
    of  the island from urban stress broke  down in  the 1880s.
    
    
    
    
          Perhaps the  most visible and extensive  cultural  feature on
    
    
    
    
    Long  Island is  the present  Boston City Hospital  complex.  The City
    
    
    
    
    purchased  land  belonging to the  Long  Island  company  in 1882.  The
    
    
    
    
    first  municipal  institution  established  was  the city  almshouse.
    
    
    
    
    Using  the  old hotel property, the city  housed  650 paupers  on the
    
    
    
    
    island in  1885  (Massachusetts Area Planning Council 1972:71).
    
    
    
    
          Like the  institution  on  Deer Island, the  city  almshouse was
    
    
    
    
    located on Long Island to free the city from maintaining municipal
    
    
    
    
    charities and  prisons  in  South Boston and West  Roxbury.   The
    
    
    
    
    pattern  was established when thirty years before,  the city had
    
    
    
    
    moved the almshouse from South Boston  to  Deer Island.
    
    
    
    
          The  history of  the  Long Island institution  is extremely
    
    
    
    
    complex.   It evolved slowly  from a poorly equipped pauper  home with
    
    
    
    
    additional hospital facilities to  a fine  medical facility.  Between
    
    
    
    
    1882 and the  present,  over  20 structures and ancillary facilities
    
    
    
    
    have been constructed,  altered, remodelled  and sometimes  abandoned.
    
    
    
    
    A brief  outline of the institution's  development  is presented
    
    
    
    
    below.
    
    
    
    
          The city purchased land belonging to the Long Island Company
    
    
    
    
    in  1882,  and a  tract  of  182 acres was taken by order of the City
    
    
    
    
    Council  in 1885 (Boston City Document 15 1929).  Initially, the
    
    
    
    
    
    
                                      45
    

    -------
    years of  operation,  there  were close administrative ties between
    
    
    
    
    the two  island institutions.   The laundry  for both was done  on
    
    
    
    
    Rainsford Island, for example,  as no laundry  was built on Long
    
    
    
    
    Island until after 1890.  By 1892,  the  Long  Island complex was made
    
    
    
    
    up of a  large brick administration building (built in 1887),  a
    
    
    
    
    hospital  building  and  a  large farm.   The  complex was  originally
    
    
    
    
    intended  to be a  "Home for  the Indigent."  Women were  transferred
    
    
    
    
    from the Austin Farm in 1887 and men from Rainsford Island in 1889
    
    
    
    
    (Connelly 1932:20).
    
    
    
    
          In  1898, the City of  Boston,  under the personal  sponsorship
    
    
    
    
    of Mayor Josiah Quincy, constructed a summer  camp  for boys  in the
    
    
    
    
    southern section  of the island  "on  the southeast  slope  of the
    
    
    
    
    western  promontory  of Long Island,"  near the present causeway
    
    
    
    
    (Boston  City  Document #144,  1898).   The  boys  were  housed  in
    
    
    
    
    thirteen  tents, and fed in a wooden pavilion.  Plans were made  to
    
    
    
    
    fill lowlying  areas  near the camp,  but there is no record of this
    
    
    
    
    actually  being performed.  At that time, no  road connected the camp
    
    
    
    
    to the hospital complex,  and supplies were brought overland  by
    
    
    
    
    horse and wagon borrowed from the hospital.
    
    
    
    
          In  the 1890s and early 1900s the institution  was  open  to any
    
    
    
    
    "adult  pauper" who applied for admission.  From a  central  office,
    
    
    
    
    
    these individuals could be assigned to any  of the city's charitable
    
    
    
    
    institutions.   They included a  small almshouse section  of the Deer
    
    
    
    
    Island complex,  the  old Charlestown  Almshouse for the Aged,  the
    
    
    
    
    Austin  Farm  for  Women, or  the Rainsford Island Almshouse.  Poor
                                      46
    

    -------
    institutions.  They included a small almshouse section of  the Deer
    
    
    
    
    Island  complex,  the  old  Charlestown Almshouse  for  the  Aged,   the
    
    
    
    
    Austin  Farm for Women,  or the Rainsford  Island Almshouse.   Poor
    
    
    
    
    children were  sent to the Marcella Street home,  when  their parents
    
    
    
    
    were unable or unwilling to care for  them.  Those  applying  for
    
    
    
    
    relief  could be "aged,  sick,  demented,  criminals or  lewd women"
    
    
    
    
    (Boston City Document #122 1892:30).  As a  result,  the Long Island
    
    
    
    
    institution  gained a  reputation as  a haven for  the dissolute.   Of
    
    
    
    
    particular  concern  to reform  minded administrators  was  the pass
    
    
    
    
    system.  Inmates  could  routinely  request passes  to look for work,
    
    
    
    
    visit family  or  any other  reason.   Unfortunately, many of   the
    
    
    
    
    clients exhibited  self-destructive behavior, drinking to excess or
    
    
    
    
    committing  crimes.   Many  were found to rotate  between  the penal
    
    
    
    
    institutions on  Deer Island  and  the Long   Island  Almshouse.    For
    
    
    
    
    years,  then, the medical component of the institution  suffered
    
    
    
    
    somewhat  from  underfunding and overcrowding,  as it  was felt that
    
    
    
    
    "an almshouse hospital is good  enough for the people for whom it is
    
    
    
    
    intended"  (Boston  City Documents #15 1904).
    
    
    
    
          By 1904,  the situation  began to improve.  The institution  was
    
    
    
    
    becoming more  a hospital  for the  treatment of the chronically  ill
    
    
    
    
    than  an almshouse.  Many  of the  patients  admitted at this time
    
    
    
    
    suffered from  tuberculosis,  the disease which predominated as  the
    
    
    
    
    cause of death  for Boston's citizens  in the  late  nineteenth century
    
    
    
    
    (City of Boston Board of Health 1885).    So  many  were admitted,  in
    
    
    
    
    fact, that  the  authorities  were forced to house tubercular patients
    
    
    
    
    with relatively healthy  inmates of the dormitories.
    
    
    
    
    
    
                                      47
    

    -------
          The high  population of severely ill patients  naturally led to
    
    
    
    
    the necessity for  burial of those who succumbed to their  condition.
    
    
    
    
    In some years, hundreds of deaths  took place in  the  hospital.
    
    
    
    
    Friends  and relatives  claimed  many  for  burial  (Boston  City
    
    
    
    
    Documents #29  1904),  but others were interred in  an institutional
    
    
    
    
    cemetery near the  property line with Fort Strong.
    
    
    
    
          By the 1920s,  many of  the existing buildings were  in need of
    
    
    
    
    repair.   They  included the central administration  building,  built
    
    
    
    
    in 1887, the dormitory for women and superintendent's house, built
    
    
    
    
    in 1895 and the chapel, built in 1886.   New  buildings then included
    
    
    
    
    the  1916 men's  ward  buildings  and  nurse's home  and the  1914
    
    
    
    
    domestic buildings.   The funding necessary  for these improvements
    
    
    
    
    was  apparently granted  consistently between 1900  and 1920.   At
    
    
    
    
    least part  of  this public funding,  however,  was offset  by  the
    
    
    
    
    highly productive  farm run in part by male clients.
    
    
    
    
          Until the early twenties, when  rising prosperity made it
    
    
    
    
    difficult  to  procure farm laborers,   the  hospital was able to
    
    
    
    
    produce  much of its own food.  The pasture for  cattle was well
    
    
    
    
    fenced with barbed wire,  and  the  piggery was well stocked.   As a
    
    
    
    
    result,  milk and pork were the most valuable farm products of the
    
    
    
    
    institution in  1904.   The workers also cut  ice for preservation,
    
    
    
    
    and mowed the  fields to produce hay  and fodder  for livestock.   The
    
    
    
    
    land was also heavily cultivated, yielding eighteen different kinds
    
    
    
    
    of vegetables. Such self-sufficiency was also a phenomenon at
    
    
    
    
    other state  institutions, notably the  Worcester  Hospital  for  the
                                     48
    

    -------
    Insane and  the Bridgewater State  Prison.   Deer Island itself
    
    
    
    
    maintained  a thriving  farm in conjunction with the prison complex.
    
    
    
    
    This  agricultural  use  of  the hospital grounds continued well  into
    
    
    
    
    the  1920s,  when cultivation resumed during the early years of  the
    
    
    
    
    Depression.
    
    
    
          New  construction  and alteration of  older buildings  continued
    
    
    
    
    throughout  the  succeeding  decades.  In  1929,  a new  children's
    
    
    
    
    hospital  was built  (Boston City Document *15,  1928).   In 1932, a
    
    
    
    
    new  recreation  building was  constructed  under  the sponsorship of
    
    
    
    
    Mayor Curley.   At this time,  the complex contained  over 1,225
    
    
    
    
    inmates, of which 450 were hospital patients.
    
    
    
    
          A major innovation  was the  creation of a  treatment program
    
    
    
    
    for  alcoholics  in  1941.   From the early years of  the  institution,
    
    
    
    
    superintendents and  visiting physicians  had recommended  the
    
    
    
    
    segregation and  treatment  of alcoholics.
    
    
    
    
          A study of the institutional  population  in 1947 revealed that
    
    
    
    
    even by that date,  the popular perception of the hospital was that
    
    
    
    
    it  was "still  just  the Boston poor farm" (Rosenbluth Associates
    
    
    
    
    1948:13).   In 1948,  the hospital housed  both  chronic  invalids and
    
    
    
    
    destitute  individuals,  415 men and  65 women  in the institutional
    
    
    
    
    section and 480  custodial  patients.   In 1952,  additional facilities
    
    
    
    
    were constructed for  the  care of  chronic  invalids.  It now houses
    
    
    
    
    up to 400  patients and  indigents and has  a staff  of approximately
    
    
    
    
    400.   Many of the  20 buildings  are now  unused,  due to the greatly
    
    
    
    
    reduced client population  and disrepair of the structures.
                                      49
    

    -------
    Changes in Land Use
    
    
    
    
          Deer Island
    
    
    
    
    
          The natural  processes  of  erosion and  subsequent  deposition
    
    
    
    
    have changed the outline of the island.   As early  as  1763, the town
    
    
    
    
    of Boston appointed a committee to determine what measures could be
    
    
    
    
    taken  to prevent  the  encroachment of the  sea upon  the  island
    
    
    
    
    (Massachusetts State Archives 1763:118/104).
    
    
    
    
          The filling  of  Shirley  Gut,   the  former channel  separating
    
    
    
    
    Deer Island from the  mainland, was  initially a natural process.  In
    
    
    
    
    the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the  channel was
    
    
    
    
    fairly deep and distinct.   By  the mid-nineteenth  century,  the
    
    
    
    
    passage was beginning to be passable in  winter.   By the late
    
    
    
    
    nineteenth century, prisoners were  able to swim across  (Sweetser
    
    
    
    
    1882:193),  although it remained navigable.   It was only a few feet
    
    
    
    
    deep  at high tide,  however, by 1935, when it was effectively
    
    
    
    
    filled,  and  Deer  Island joined  in  the mainland (Randall 1981:8).
    
    
    
    
    Other  changes on the island were  culturally determined.   While
    
    
    
    
    residence on the  island occurred as  early as  1642,  with  the
    
    
    
    
    exception of interned Native  Americans,  there  was little  permanent
    
    
    
    
    occupation until the  mid-nineteenth  century.
    
    
    
    
          A map drawn  in 1817 (Figure 3) shows three structures  on the
    
    
    
    
    island and a map of 1830  (Figure  4) shows one structure.   These may
    
    
    
    
    represent the  hotel kept  by William  Tewksbury  in  the  early
    
    
    
    
    nineteenth century  (Snow 1971).   With construction of the almshouse
    
    
    
    
    in 1850-1852, the House  of  Industry  in  1854, and the House of
                                      50
    

    -------
     3".
    
    •f   4
                  &.
    
              J*  **       u,
    *    ~       #.   '    *W
                   W
    3 •* gyi
    •K * * *'
    g
    &
    ex
    so
    ^ t*: «
    9 #,*.„, ** '
    *,/ ••* ™ » v»
    »* rf> ^^- -^ "V -J«» *
    ^-^ o>4 »,^a^^ >
    jpr»^ «*^ ^ ^ y/
    +
    t ^^ .
    ***• ™ /
    .* 	 7- '
    '"•'& m-^PI
    • *ff.<* \,* 01 -•ij^ •••]
    3 W*:?..-;;v;*if
    ^^vii'jir'^
    *^ ' if
    *^ ^
    >W? §a
    ^^^ **- ^>
    •«* •
    "" • «**t
    M>
    ™ ft.
    . * K »'
    £ ** ** *'• •* r< **
    
    f/. <^ *>.
    ^
                                                                                       9*
                                                                * '^
      Figure 3.
       Early 19th century map of Deer Island  (Wadsworth 1817)
       showing location of structures.
    
                                         51
    

    -------
                                                                                                                                                                                  J
    ^
                                                                                                                                                                                            c
                                                                                                                                                                                            rt
                                                                                                                                                                                            Q)
    
                                                                                                                                                                                            (1)
    
                                                                                                                                                                                            Q
                                                                                                                                                                                           O
                                                                                                                                                                                           rn
                                                                                                                                                                                           oo
                                                                                                                                                                                            ro
                                                                                                                                                                                            OJ
                                                                                                                                                                                            ex
                                                                                                                                                                                            rt
                                                                                                                                                                                           o
                                                                                                                                                                                           ro
                                                                                                                                                                                           CO
    ~a-
    
     0)
                                                                                                                                                                                            3
                                                                                                                                                                                            60
    

    -------
     Reformation,  the population swelled to 1,500 by the 1880s (Sweetser
    
    
    
    
    
     1882:194).
    
    
    
    
           The increase in the number of  structures  necessary  to house
    
    
    
    
     this population changed  the  earlier  appearance of  the  island.   The
    
    
    
    
     landscape  was affected by the excavation of  a  great number of
    
    
    
    
     unmarked burials,  the construction  of  ancillary  structures,  the
    
    
    
    
     creation of dumping areas and other  alterations concomittant  with
    
    
    
    
     change in land use.  It was in the twentieth century that  the  most
    
    
    
    
     visible change took place.  A cemetery in the western  section of
    
    
    
    
     the island  was moved in the construction of Fort  Dawes  in 1940, the
    
    
    
    
     old  Cow Pond was  filled  in  and  the  sewage  treatment plant
    
    
    
    
     constructed by the MDC in  1889 was expanded in 1968.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
           Long  Island
    
    
    
    
           The types of land use and the manner  in which they changed on
    
    
    
    
     Long Island through time  has  been studied as a component  of the
    
    
    
    
     project's research design.   In  general,  changes in historic  land
    
    
    
    
     use have been functional in nature (i.e., from  agricultural to
    
    
    
    
     recreational) and relatively undisruptive.   However,  military usage
    
    
    
    
     caused  significant alterations to  the island's topography.   Another
    
    
    
    
     early example  of  this  type of  physical change  was  the  construction
    
    
    
    
     of  seawalls in the nineteenth  century to retard the loss  of shore
    
    
    
    
     frontage.  Thus, relatively little shoreline change has been caused
    
    
    
    
    by erosion or aggregation.
    
    
    
    
          Well  into the nineteenth century,  the landscape of  the island
    
    
    
    
    was  a relatively  treeless plain,  with some low ridges in  the
                                      53
    

    -------
    eastern end.  Early records refer  to dwelling houses, probably
    
    
    
    
    small  farmsteads,  on  the island in  the 1670s and 1680s  (Tennta
    
    
    
    
    1983).   Throughout the  eighteenth and  early  nineteenth centuries,
    
    
    
    
    scattered  dwellings  and  outbuildings  constituted the  low  density
    
    
    
    
    settlement pattern of an  agricultural landscape.
    
    
    
    
          The  use of the island at an early date for the collection of
    
    
    
    
    wood and as pasture  for sheep and cattle created an almost treeless
    
    
    
    
    landscape  by the early  nineteenth century.  At this point,  however,
    
    
    
    
    the number  of structures  began  to  decline from four  in 1817 (see
    
    
    
    
    Figure  5)  to "a single  farmhouse" (Sweetser 1882:161) in 1840.
    
    
    
    
    This single structure appears  on a  map of the harbor  made  in 1830
    
    
    
    
    (see Figure 6).   Evidently, a second growth forest developed on the
    
    
    
    
    southern part of the island by the 1860s, as a Civil War era record
    
    
    
    
    describes  "the  south side,  thickly studded  with  trees" (Sweetser
    
    
    
    
    1882:167).
    
    
    
    
    
          Non-agricultural  land use  was  confined  to the construction of
    
    
    
    
    military fortifications and a lighthouse  until  the  mid-nineteenth
    
    
    
    
    century.   In 1776,  American forces  set up gun emplacements  on East
    
    
    
    
    Head.  During the War of 1812, a  battery of  guns was set up in
    
    
    
    
    approximately  the  same  location,  possibly  reusing  the  old
    
    
    
    
    Revolutionary fortifications.    The  lighthouse  on  Long  Island  was
    
    
    
    
    built on the same bluff in 1819, although some sources refer to an
    
    
    
    
    earlier beacon construction  in 1794 (Tennta 1983:8).
    
    
    
    
          The  island  was virtually abandoned by the 1840s, when the
    
    
    
    
    Long Island Company began to purchase acreage for the construction
    
    
    
    
    of its resort complex.    During  the  hotel construction,  both large
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
                                     54
    

    -------
                  lil^^^m&^^^'%-^ :^:-^
                    ,
            <•
      !>;   ^
    
    ••".$$
    
          Figure 5.  Early  19th  century map of Long Island (Wadsworth  1817)  showing location
          of structures.
    
    
                                                  55
    

    -------
    Figure 6.   1830 map (Hales 1830)  of Long Island
                                            56
    

    -------
    and small structures were built in the central part of the island,
    
    
    
    
    including the  main houses,  cottages  and outbuildings (see Figure
    
    
    
    
    7).   A  colony  of  Azorean  Portuguese  fishermen  occupied  the
    
    
    
    
    coastline hear  the hotel from the 1850s.   They were supposedly
    
    
    
    
    evicted  in  the  1880s  by the  city,  however,   a  contemporary map of
    
    
    
    
    the  island  shows that  their  huts  were  still  extant  in  1900  (see
    
    
    
    
    
    Figure 8).
    
    
    
    
          The most  striking topographic  change  came  with the grading
    
    
    
    
    and  construction necessitated  by  the creation  of Fort  Strong on
    
    
    
    
    Long Island Head.    Above  the  natural   bluff are   abandoned
    
    
    
    
    bombproofs,  a moat and  several low grassy mounds that appear to be
    
    
    
    
    natural in  origin.   By  the  early twentieth century,  the  fort
    
    
    
    
    contained several avenues of officers' houses,  a  rail  spur,  ferry
    
    
    
    
    landing,  fortifications  and  an extensive parade  ground.    Most of
    
    
    
    
    these  structures  were demolished by the  City  of  Boston  after
    
    
    
    
    acquiring part of the US  Government's  holdings  in the  1960s.
    
    
    
    
          The most prominent  feature of the  island's  landscape today is
    
    
    
    
    the complex  of over 20  buildings that comprises  the city's Chronic
    
    
    
    
    Disease Hospital, erected over a period of approximately 70 years,
    
    
    
    
    between the 1880s and the 1940s.  It represents the area of highest
    
    
    
    
    structural density on  the  island.
    
    
    
    
          The increasing  density  of structures  is shown on  USGS
    
    
    
    
    topographic  maps issued between 1900  and  1946.   At the turn of the
    
    
    
    
    century,  the complex  consisted  of  nine structures, without formal
    
    
    
    
    roadways or  any  expansion to the  southern  portion of the island
    
    
    
    
    (see  Figure  9).   By 1903,  the complex had increased in complexity,
    
    
    
    
    
    
                                     57
    

    -------
                   :v
    Figure 7.   Map of  Long  Island
    showing hotel and  property
    owned by Long Island Land
    Company.
                 vv **•
    

    -------
    
    Figure 8.  Location of cemetery in parcel of land purchased by City of Boston 3
    From "Plan Showing a Portion of Long Island" Hyde and Sherry, Civil Engineers,
    August, 1899.  Scale: 1"-50'.
                                            59
    

    -------
                                                                          n    o    s    7
                                                                                        (.-. .-I. Ubuul
                                           Island
                                     .,DCCK ISLAND
                                       BCACON
                                                                           IslauJ  _. ',
                                                           •,. lilLIJl
                            IAND LIGHT .O
          .""••'" SjM-rtarlc Jsldllil     . .
                                                                                   '-/ln-i'jil
                                                                                          l.ilUe llr."
                                                                                         BOSTON LI6K
    'igure  9..  1892  USGS Boston  Bay  Quadrangle  1/62,500   reprinted  1900.
    
                                                     60
    

    -------
    with larger  structures  joined  by a  series  of  roads  and  two
    
    
    
    
    elaborate wharves for the reception of staff and inmates using the
    
    
    
    
    ferries joining the facility to  the  mainland (see Figure 10).   Less
    
    
    
    
    than  a  decade later the hospital had expanded  further, with most
    
    
    
    
    structures interconnected, an elaborate system  of roadways in
    
    
    
    
    place,  and an  extension of  the roads almost to  the southern tip of
    
    
    
    
    the  island of  West  Head (see Figure 12).
    
    
    
    
          The  presence  of  unrecorded  and unmarked  burials is  one
    
    
    
    
    important  component  of  the  island's   land   use.    During  the
    
    
    
    
    Revolution, a naval battle  off the shore of Long Island resulted in
    
    
    
    
    the  deaths of  36 British troops.  They were buried in an unrecorded
    
    
    
    
    location on the  island.  It is  also possible  that  the inhabitants
    
    
    
    
    in  the  late  seventeenth to early nineteenth centuries  maintained
    
    
    
    
    the  kind of small family plot cemeteries that are a common feature
    
    
    
    
    throughout the  New England region.   After  the  Civil  War,  79
    
    
    
    
    veterans who had been buried on  Rainsford  Island were reinterred on
    
    
    
    
    the  southern end of Long Island  (Tennta 1983:10).  A memorial  marks
    
    
    
    
    the  area.  With  the establishment  of  the  city  almshouse and  other
    
    
    
    
    institutions  in 1882, the city began to bury the deceased patients
    
    
    
    
    and inmates of the  facilities.   A map of  1900  shows  a cemetery to
    
    
    
    
    the east of the main hospital buildings,  between the hospital  and
    
    
    
    
    the complex  on East Head  (see  Figure 8).  By the 1940s,  a  large
    
    
    
    
    cemetery was located on  the  southern end,  near the Civil War marker
    
    
    
    
    (see Figure 12).   It is now directly east of  the  abandoned Nike
    
    
    
    
    base to the south  of the hospital  complex.  Over  2,2000  unmarked
    
    
    
    
    graves are said  to  be  located  on the island (Kales 1976:71).   The
    
    
    
    
    
    
                                     61
    

    -------
                         Grovers Cliff
    ^ \LL.& i ixlc^fe'
    ^r^V-4.-^/"^ ^?^
    ^W^Pl
                     "Wrathrop Y •  \ •  • ,',',',
                           •.  .Jr- ,-. •  -\\.-vv • • •
                '  . ~  -t^^.Winthrop Head
    
                Snake I. '<•
          3>N
                                                                                          Roar
                                                                                 ••.Grefen I,
                                         Island
    •Jl(;-O~" X   T  O  ~J\r
                                                     Ram Head
                                                      •.Bar
                                           Nixes
                                                                                •  ,*
                                                                                • -^
    
        '    ^i
      '^fi;     ,   ,
      .   ^Spectacle I.
      ,  >=-.  .-r.
                                         • v" Mate  -.; -
                                         -"•V'    ' v\
                                             rr. WAKRCH
                                    R^insford
                                                     *•  Georgep I.    .^-
                 \
                                »•      '
                                 •Quarantine
                                ,' Rocks
                                     /J
                      Windrr.ilL -i-i
                                                      -X
                                                                         ,  ALLerUH^-_ _ ; . -, "^
                      Hangman
                   ,.  •'•;••/     •' :-
                               I >'   . ''A "^
     ^  Tr / J:\r  C   ^    ^
    
    
    
          21  .A.  Y
             i! .-> i '"-r.oon
    '."/Nut O      c. ,
    \       \      £
    
      i\'".Great
                             '     '-   I
    
                     I   I      >  -     /
                     I                  /
                   ''".,-         '
                   /f :PeddocUsV|
    
                  ' I I s I a n d
                    Harry
                    •-Rocks
    /-  na/r.X   /    -v^^         \  	
    /   --Rocks  /    i  *              *.      Hiii
    .  -    s7J I^G  1J A  M\
    ^•Princa^ead   .  I   \
    Figure 10.   1903  USGS  Boston Bay  Quadrangle  1/62,500   reprinted  1939.
    
                                                   62
    

    -------
    3f    3i   	••"•.:&  35    •"•?$
    
        ic.          ..."•,..,/ V  £
       31      ,^.?-7-	3i
                    •• '•-  '*••«
        "•  -..ft. 	-..
    Figure  11.  1904  USGS topographic map of  Deer Island.  Source:  (Randall 1981).
    
    
    
                                              63
    

    -------
    \
            %*8,1%
                                                                       D
    
    O    U
                                                   *DtXK 13 LA MB L H
                                     O
      < .*
    
     "  /'Spedacle
    \
                               LOMt ISLAND HtAD L
        \
          \
    
    
    \«oor> H«.d \
    
    /         c;
         Island t
                                                                  ,Ni««»M.tt
                                                       •ncfbrd I
                                                                                                       0
    Fieurfi  19   «,,n_ n,,!,Hr?r,oi«.. USG.S,  1946  edition, revised  1950 showine      ^ *
    

    -------
    cemetery  was  subdivided into Catholic and Protestant sections (Mr.
    
    
    
    
    Kearney,  personal  communication),  but graves  in  both areas were
    
    
    
    
    either unmarked or indicated only  by plain concrete markers.
    
    
    
    
          In summary, changes in the island's topography and structural
    
    
    
    
    density through time can be  correlated with discrete changes in  the
    
    
    
    
    institutional administration of the island.  While  in  the  hands  of
    
    
    
    
    private owners,  from  the  late seventeenth  to the  mid-nineteenth
    
    
    
    
    centuries,  the  island was  essentially an agricultural  settlement
    
    
    
    
    with low  structural  density.  After the  acquisition of large
    
    
    
    
    parcels of land for  real  estate speculation by  the Long Island
    
    
    
    
    Company,  many  new structures were constructed  in the northern
    
    
    
    
    section of  the  island.  These  structures were  used  to  some extent
    
    
    
    
    for military purposes during the Civil War.   The encampments were
    
    
    
    
    primarily tents, however,  which had little permanent impact on the
    
    
    
    
    island.   Construction of  a  later military  installation  (Fort
    
    
    
    
    Strong)  after  the Civil  War  did have  a  major impact on the
    
    
    
    
    topography of Long Island Head and the level area north of the
    
    
    
    
    hospital.   Fort Strong remained in active use  through World Wars I
    
    
    
    
    and II.   A  series  of  bunkers  or bombproofs,  gun emplacements and
    
    
    
    
    other structures of reinforced  concrete remain on the parade ground
    
    
    
    
    area and the east head of Long Island (Mikal  1973:74).
    
    
    
    
          The  unique characteristics of Deer and Long  Islands  are more
    
    
    
    
    difficult  to define  than their  similarities.   Both  islands  exist  in
    
    
    
    
    a peripheral relationship to the  city  of  Boston and they  share a
    
    
    
    
    functionally  similar  early   history.    They   contain  fringe
    
    
    
    
    institutions   such  as prisons,   hospitals,  waste   treatment
    
    
    
    
    
    
                                     65
    

    -------
    facilities,   cemeteries  and  military  installations.    Their
    
    
    
    
    topography  has been  altered  to  varying  degrees by  successive
    
    
    
    
    episodes  of  grading, construction and demolition.   On both  islands,
    
    
    
    
    areas of  open  space remain undeveloped, in contrast to the  majority
    
    
    
    
    
    of space  in  the urban  core.
    
    
    
    
          The character of the two  islands, including their  open areas,
    
    
    
    
    are different in both extent of development and nature  of uses.
    
    
    
    
    Deer Island's  continued  institutional expansion makes the  presence
    
    
    
    
    of  these multiple  institutional  uses  and  the effects of
    
    
    
    
    topographical  alteration more  striking.   Previous  archaeological
    
    
    
    
    survey determined that much of the  island has been  so  altered
    
    
    
    
    during previous episodes  of construction that there is little
    
    
    
    
    likelihood of  recovering intact archaeological deposits  or  original
    
    
    
    
    ground surfaces (Randall 1981)  while  the  burials  there had  been
    
    
    
    
    disturbed or  relocated in  prior  activities.   On  Long  Island,
    
    
    
    
    however,   despite extensive  alteration  in the northern  section of
    
    
    
    
    the island,  the southern section  remains relatively intact.    The
    
    
    
    
    major impacts  to the southern section have been the construction of
    
    
    
    
    the causeway  in 1951,  the  establishment of  the  cemeteries after
    
    
    
    
    1939,  and the  construction  of the Nike missile base  in the 1960s.
    
    
    
    
    Here,  archaeological  survey has   shown  that  despite  these
    
    
    
    
    
    activities,  major  prehistoric  archaeological sites remain  intact
    
    
    
    
    (see Appendix I).   Between Deer  and Long Islands,   the  major
    
    
    
    
    difference,  therefore,  lies  in  the  relative  amounts of  disturbance
    
    
    
    
    
    to the islands themselves.
                                     66
    

    -------
          The  similarities  in  both islands are  attributable  to  their
    
    
    
    
    sharing  of  a  common relationship to  the  city  of Boston.   In  the
    
    
    
    
    seventeenth century,  both islands aided in the  functioning of  the
    
    
    
    
    urban core through  their utilization as  collection  areas  for
    
    
    
    
    firewood and as a pasture for  domestic animals.  These were crucial
    
    
    
    
    functions,   as  Boston Neck was almost devoid of firewood  from  the
    
    
    
    
    earliest years  of  settlement,  and  the need for  grazing  and
    
    
    
    
    protection of  domestic  animals  was  an essential component in  the
    
    
    
    
    early agricultural economy of  the urban village.
    
    
    
    
          Rent  paid  by those who used,  improved  and  exploited  the
    
    
    
    
    islands  during this early period was  levied  to  defray the cost of
    
    
    
    
    the Boston School.  The  income derived from the use of the islands,
    
    
    
    
    then, was used to support core institutions.
    
    
    
    
          Native Americans  were  interned on  Deer  Island during King
    
    
    
    
    Phillips War in  the  winter  of 1675-1676.   After the first months,
    
    
    
    
    harsh conditions and meager  supplies  prompted the  authorities  to
    
    
    
    
    consider placing these prisoners  elsewhere.   They were finally
    
    
    
    
    granted  100 acres to improve on Long Island,  although there is
    
    
    
    
    little evidence that  they actually occupied the  island.
                                     67
    

    -------
                     RESULTS OF THE INTENSIVE SURVEY
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
          The  results  of  the  comprehensive  background  research
    
    
    
    
    indicated that  the  Deer Island and Long Island project areas were
    
    
    
    
    within  a coastal environmental  zone with a  complex  record of
    
    
    
    
    prehistoric  and historic period land  use.    The  high  natural
    
    
    
    
    resource potential of the harbor district in general,  made it
    
    
    
    
    attractive  to prehistoric  hunter/gatherer groups over at least the
    
    
    
    
    last 8,000 years and  some fairly high densities of prehistoric
    
    
    
    
    sites are known from various islands.  However,  in  the case of Deer
    
    
    
    
    and the eastern end of Long Island, intensive land use over the
    
    
    
    
    last 300 years  has  eradicated any traces of prehistoric  cultural
    
    
    
    
    resources.
    
    
    
    
          Historic  period  land use patterns on both islands were very
    
    
    
    
    similar primarily  because  of the peripheral position of  these
    
    
    
    
    islands  in relation to  the urban  core represented by the city of
    
    
    
    
    Boston.   Background research  indicated that historic  land use on
    
    
    
    
    Deer and Long Islands  during the seventeenth and eighteenth century
    
    
    
    
    was primarily agricultural and pastoral in nature (planting fields,
    
    
    
    
    pasturage  for  animals) or involved the collection of resources
    
    
    
    
    (wood,   fish,  shellfish).   There was a  small  amount of  short-term
    
    
    
    
    military use  such  as the prisoner-of-war camp on Deer Island  (1675-
    
    
    
    
    1767)  and construction of  a  small gun battery  on Long  Island Head
    
    
    
    
    during the Revolution  (1775-1776).   These activities  probably had  a
    
    
    
    
    relatively  minor impact on the prehistoric sites on the islands.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
                                      68
    

    -------
          In contrast,  later nineteenth and twentieth century land use
    
    
    
    
    patterns and  developments  were  of  types that  caused significant
    
    
    
    
    alteration or modification to  the  topography of these islands.
    
    
    
    
    These  included  construction  of  institutional  (almshouse,  prison,
    
    
    
    
    hospital complex),  military and waste  (sewage) disposal facilities.
    
    
    
    
          On Long Island,  construction  and possibly landscaping/grading
    
    
    
    
    in  connection with  development  of  recreational  facilities  (Long
    
    
    
    
    Island  Hotel)  and  real  estate  speculation  in the  mid-nineteenth
    
    
    
    
    century  was  responsible for some  changes  to the island.   In its
    
    
    
    
    earliest stages  the  institution  reused the  existing  recreational
    
    
    
    
    buildings (hotel) but rapidly expanded beyond it.
    
    
    
    
          On  the basis  of the  background  research,  available
    
    
    
    
    environmental  data  (geomorphology, ecology,  etc.),  a walkover
    
    
    
    
    inspection and the preliminary  findings of  the UMass field school,
    
    
    
    
    the Deer Island and Long Island project areas were stratified into
    
    
    
    
    three  zones  of  high   sensitivity,  moderate  to low  archaeological
    
    
    
    
    sensitivity,  and  previously  disturbed.   In addition, a  large
    
    
    
    
    percentage of the project area on  both Deer Island and lesser
    
    
    
    
    degree on Long  Island had  been previously  disturbed  and therefore
    
    
    
    
    had little  or no archaeological potential.
    
    
    
    
          For the general  purposes of  this Phase I  inventory  and
    
    
    
    
    assessment survey,  the southern end of Long Island investigated by
    
    
    
    
    the UMass field  school  was  included  in the stratification scheme.
    
    
    
    
    In ranked order of known and expected sensitivity  for prehistoric
    
    
    
    
    and historic  period archaeological resources those zones are:
                                     69
    

    -------
          (1)  High  Sensitivity  -  This  included the locations  of known
    
    
    
    
    prehistoric  sites,  historic cemeteries  and suspected  locations of
    
    
    
    
    unmarked  cemeteries  or  burial   grounds.   It  also   includes
    
    
    
    
    undisturbed  areas in environmental  settings that would have been
    
    
    
    
    used by prehistoric or  historic  populations.   These  are generally
    
    
    
    
    areas  suitable  for  settlement or  in close  proximity  to
    
    
    
    
    environmental zones with high natural  resource  potential.   These
    
    
    
    
    conditions would have  led to prehistoric or historic  use resulting
    
    
    
    
    in  the deposition/discard  of  varying  densities  of  cultural
    
    
    
    
    material.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
          (2)  Moderate  to  Low Sensitivity  - In some sections of Deer
    
    
    
    
    and Long Island  this includes  areas  that are relatively undisturbed
    
    
    
    
    but have  locational attributes  that are not  completely favorable
    
    
    
    
    for intensive land use.   For  example,  areas with excessively rocky
    
    
    
    
    or  steeply sloped surfaces  tend  to limit  the kinds  of activities
    
    
    
    
    people might have carried out there in the past.  Other  areas of
    
    
    
    
    poor to moderate sensitivity are  wetlands or places  with poorly
    
    
    
    
    drained soils.   Some of the activities carried out there  (farming,
    
    
    
    
    collecting resources)  may  not have resulted  in  the  deposition of
    
    
    
    
    cultural  materials or construction of  features that  could be
    
    
    
    
    readily  identified  as  archaeological sites.   Other areas of
    
    
    
    
    moderate  to  low  sensitivity  have  somewhat  favorable locational
    
    
    
    
    attributes  but  show  some evidence of  previous  alteration or
    
    
    
    
    modifications.   Sites  can  occur  in these  less sensitive  settings
                                      70
    

    -------
    but they are usually difficult to locate and identify or have lost
    
    
    
    
    some integrity through earlier disturbance.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
          (3)   Previously Disturbed,  Not Sensitive - In  these areas,
    
    
    
    
    historic or recent alterations of the original ground surface have
    
    
    
    
    been severe enough that  any archaeological deposits would have been
    
    
    
    
    substantially disturbed or destroyed.   Within these areas there is
    
    
    
    
    little or no likelihood of finding archaeological  sites.   Examples
    
    
    
    
    are former building sites,  access roads,  borrow pits  or places
    
    
    
    
    where the soil has been stripped by  heavy  machinery.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
          Deer Island
    
    
    
    
          The approximate locations and  extent of  these three strata or
    
    
    
    
    zones on  Deer Island is  shown in Figures  13 and 14.   Figure 13
    
    
    
    
    illustrates the  stratification of the Deer  Island  project  area in
    
    
    
    
    terms of archaeological sensitivity.  The  majority  of the area has
    
    
    
    
    been previously disturbed.  During the  walkover it was  found that
    
    
    
    
    the entire western slope  of the drumlin had been  graded, probably
    
    
    
    
    during the 1967-1968 construction of the  existing treatment plant.
    
    
    
    
    In addition,  borrow material has been excavated from a fairly large
    
    
    
    
    pit on the western end of  the  drumlin crest.  Loam topsoil possibly
    
    
    
    
    stripped from the area of this borrow pit was  found in  several
    
    
    
    
    large  piles  immediately west of the  reservoir occupying the drumlin
    
    
    
    
    crest.  Much of the top  of the drumlin  has  been altered by the
    
    
    
    
    construction  of  the  reservoir  and  a  bunker/radar  facility
    
    
    
    
    associated with Fort Dawes.  Other large bunkers,  including one gun
    
    
    
    
    emplacement have been constructed on  the  north and east facing
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
                                      71
    

    -------
     ooo
     CT-C
     0> H
     (D fO
     o
     t-'t-'
     o oj
    00 .
     H-
     o
     to co
     I-TT
       H
     en cu
     (D rt
     a H-
     W Mi
     H-h^
     n-n
     H-H-
     rt O
       O
       (0
       tD
       tn
       !-•
       •O
       H
       O
        n
        rt
    
        03
        1-1
        n>
        N
        O
        3
        rt>
        en
    

    -------
     Tl
     H-
    OQ
    
     H
     IT1
     O
     O
     O
     P
     (0
    
     a"
     01
     pi
     O
     n>
    
     rt
     
     CO
     rt
     p-
     3
     OQ
    
     3
     H-
     ft
    
     H-
     {3
    
     O
     n>
     (0
     H
    
     H
     CO
     M
    
     §
     &•
    
     •d
     H
     o
     t_u
     (0
     o
     ft
    
     V
     n
     (D
    

    -------
    slopes  (bay side) and around the base of the drumlin.  Construction
    
    
    
    
    of a high granite block seawall and a perimeter road below the
    
    
    
    
    large gun emplacement/bunker  on the east end of the drumlin totally
    
    
    
    
    removed the original  shore  line  within the project  area.   It was
    
    
    
    
    originally  expected prior to actual  fieldwork that  this  might be
    
    
    
    
    the most archaeologically sensitive portion of the project area due
    
    
    
    
    to its  locational  attributes.
    
    
    
    
          The  area  of  low to moderate sensitivity included most of the
    
    
    
    
    upper  slope  of  the  drumlin  on  the  southern,  eastern  and
    
    
    
    
    northeastern  facing sides  below  the  crest  (reservoir  area).
    
    
    
    
    Subsurface testing  was  concentrated in this zone and  consisted of a
    
    
    
    
    series of eight judgementally placed test  pit transects  with a
    
    
    
    
    combined  length of over 1,000  meters.  A total of 50 test  pits
    
    
    
    
    averaging  .5 x .5 m  in  size were  excavated  at 20 m intervals along
    
    
    
    
    these transects.  These test pit transects were oriented to provide
    
    
    
    
    the most even  coverage of the less disturbed  sections of the crest,
    
    
    
    
    southwest and  north/northeast  slopes of  the drumlin  (see  Figure
    
    
    
    
    14).  The soil profiles observed  in the test pits along these
    
    
    
    
    transects  were generally similar, consisting  of  a  dark grey-brown
    
    
    
    
    stony loam  (plowzone)  topsoil  over  compact  rocky,  light yellow,
    
    
    
    
    grey glacial till  subsoils.
    
    
    
    
    
          The  only exception to  this pattern were a few test pits at
    
    
    
    
    the eastern end  of  transect ST-7.  Near the reservoir deep deposits
    
    
    
    
    of loam topsoil extending to 50  cm  below surface were observed in
    
    
    
    
    several test pits not far from the  large loam  piles mentioned
    
    
    
    
    earlier.
                                      74
    

    -------
          In general,  the subsurface testing  confirmed that a majority
    
    
    
    
    of the project area has been disturbed heavily  by several episodes
    
    
    
    
    
    of  construction activity.   The earliest  episode may  have been
    
    
    
    
    during the construction  of the reservoir on  the  drumlin crest.
    
    
    
    
    From  cartographic evidence it appears that  the  reservoir was built
    
    
    
    
    sometime  in the first  half  of the twentieth century,  between 1904
    
    
    
    
    and  the end  of World War  II since  it  first appears  on  a USGS
    
    
    
    
    quadrangle  map issued  in  1946 (see Figures 11  and 12).   The major
    
    
    
    
    construction  episode on the  Deer  Island  drumlin  was  during World
    
    
    
    
    War II when  Fort Dawes  was installed and most of the  observed
    
    
    
    
    disturbance can be  attributed to it.
    
    
    
    
          Test  pits excavated in the central-eastern  portion of the
    
    
    
    
    drumlin showed that  in most  areas the topsoil has been removed or
    
    
    
    
    densely compacted by machinery,  making hand excavation extremely
    
    
    
    
    difficult.   For  example, on transect ST-4 all of the  test pits
    
    
    
    
    located near  a bunker/gun emplacement associated with Fort Dawes
    
    
    
    
    showed compacted soils and the pits closest to the buildings had no
    
    
    
    
    topsoil at all.  All transects had some test pits in which the soil
    
    
    
    
    had been disturbed.
    
    
    
    
          No prehistoric  cultural material of any kind was found during
    
    
    
    
    the course  of the subsurface testing.   Scattered  historic field
    
    
    
    
    trash  (i.e.,  glass,  ceramic sherds) dating to  the mid or late
    
    
    
    
    nineteenth to early twentieth  century was found in a number of
    
    
    
    
    isolated  test pits.   This historic material was recovered from
    
    
    
    
    plowzone contexts  and is  not associated with any specific site or
    
    
    
    
    structure.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
                                     75
    

    -------
          Long Island
    
    
    
    
    
          The  final stratification of the  parade  ground section (Fort
    
    
    
    
    Strong)  of the  Long  Island  project area is  shown in Figure 15.   As
    
    
    
    
    the background  research indicated, the construction of Fort Strong
    
    
    
    
    altered  the original topography over  much  of the  northern  end of
    
    
    
    
    Long  Island.   The  physical  effects of   intensive  military
    
    
    
    
    development were noted during a preliminary walkover of the parade
    
    
    
    
    ground area carried  out in early July,  1984.   Concrete bunker/gun
    
    
    
    
    emplacements,  access  roads  and brick  or  concrete left from  the
    
    
    
    
    demolition of  military structures  occupied a large  percentage of
    
    
    
    
    the parade  ground perimeter.   The parade  ground itself had  been
    
    
    
    
    carefully  graded to  a  level surface suggesting that underlying soil
    
    
    
    
    horizons are altered or  show  truncated  profiles.   Inspection of the
    
    
    
    
    topographic maps (1" = 200') used  to guide the walkover  survey
    
    
    
    
    showed that the present surface  of  the parade  ground only varied
    
    
    
    
    about 1 1/2  ft (113.1  ft to  114.7 ft)  in elevation.   The  initial
    
    
    
    
    stratification  of  the  parade ground  indicated   that  it  consisted
    
    
    
    
    mostly  of areas  with  low to moderate sensitivity and  visible
    
    
    
    
    evidence of previous disturbance.
    
    
    
    
          The  only  area of high  archaeological  sensitivity  in  this
    
    
    
    
    section  of Long Island  was the suspected  location  of an historic
    
    
    
    
    cemetery  just  beyond  the  western  boundary of  the parade  ground.
    
    
    
    
    This  small cemetery  plot appeared on an 1889  map of property
    
    
    
    
    purchased  by the City  of Boston (see Figure 8).   Based on this map
    
    
    
    
    the estimated location of  the unmarked  cemetery was a rectangular
    
    
    
    
    parcel of  land  bounded by  several asphalt  roadways (see Figure 15).
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
                                     76
    

    -------
    Figure  15.   Stratification of
    parade  grotind section,  Fort Strong
    on Long Island in zones of
    archaeological sensitivity.
                   previously disturb*
                     areas
                      noderate to low
                      archaeological
                      sensitivity
    
    
                     high archaeology'
                     sensitivity, hist("
                              area
    

    -------
    This parcel could not be inspected during the walkover survey since
    
    
    
    
    it is enclosed by a chain link security fence.   Subsurface  testing
    
    
    
    
    in  the  parade  ground area  verified  and  slightly  refined  the
    
    
    
    
    original  stratification  scheme by  determining that all  of  the
    
    
    
    
    parade ground  had been  previously disturbed.
    
    
    
    
          Eight  randomly oriented test pit  transects with a combined
    
    
    
    
    length of  600 m  were used to investigate the parade ground and some
    
    
    
    
    adjacent areas.   A total of  37  test  pits averaging 50 x 50  cm in
    
    
    
    
    size were excavated at  20  m intervals  along these transects (see
    
    
    
    
    Figure 16).  Truncated and disturbed soil profiles were observed in
    
    
    
    
    all of these test pits.  No prehistoric  cultural  material was found
    
    
    
    
    and historic  materials consisted entirely of  structural  debris
    
    
    
    
    (brick, concrete,  burnt wood/charcoal, window glass).   Several
    
    
    
    
    transects  crossed extensive deposits of  brick,   concrete and stone
    
    
    
    
    rubble and filled-in foundations resulting from  the  demolition of
    
    
    
    
    structures following World War II.  The  open parade ground area  has
    
    
    
    
    been altered by grading and apparently some filling with  beach
    
    
    
    
    sand/gravel.  Small open areas around demolished buildings  now
    
    
    
    
    covered with brush had  all  been  graded and  disturbed.
    
    
    
    
          On  the  southern  end  of  Long  Island,  inspection  of  the
    
    
    
    
    cemetery along  the  side  of the main  access road showed that  the
    
    
    
    
    presently  unmarked burial  ground north  of  the  Civil War monument
    
    
    
    
    was probably much larger than the area now being maintained.   Small
    
    
    
    
    
    square concrete  blocks  like those visible under  thick grass in  the
    
    
    
    
    burial ground were  found in bulldozed dirt piles beyond the present
    
    
    
    
    
    eastern boundary.  The  depressed  area  (elev.  147.8 ft) containing
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
                                     78
    

    -------
    
    

    -------
    this unmarked  burial  ground also  has several  overgrown asphalt/
    
    
    
    
    gravel pathways.  Several  gravestones including a late  eighteenth
    
    
    
    
    century slate stone have been  found  under dense vegetation in the
    
    
    
    
    overgrown area  east  of the plot  now being  maintained.   Rows and
    
    
    
    
    hummocks marked by a few holes  (collapsed  grave  shafts  ?) were also
    
    
    
    
    very visible in an overgrown meadow  area  east  of  the large white
    
    
    
    
    cross marking the northernmost  cemetery  plot.   This  cemetery also
    
    
    
    
    appears  to  have  originally covered a  much  larger area.   One
    
    
    
    
    informant (Lit.  Kearney)  indicated  that it  formerly extended almost
    
    
    
    
    to the upper edge of the beach  along  this  section  of  the southeast
    
    
    
    
    shore of  the island.   This  description  conforms  to  the L-shaped
    
    
    
    
    configuration for  the  cemetery  shown on a 1946 topographic map (see
    
    
    
    
    Figure  12).
    
    
    
    
          Intensive subsurface  testing  completed during  the UMass
    
    
    
    
    archaeological field school yielded  the  majority  of  the data now
    
    
    
    
    available for  prehistoric  activity  on  the  southern  half  of Long
    
    
    
    
    Island.   The procedures used to locate  the five prehistoric  sites
    
    
    
    
    that were  identified  and a summary  of  the cultural  materials and
    
    
    
    
    features found on those  sites  is presented  in  Appendix  I  of this
    
    
    
    
    report.
    
    
    
    
          A general stratification  of  the southern end of Long  Island
    
    
    
    
    into zones  of  known and expected archaeological sensitivity  is
    
    
    
    
    shown in Figure 17.   This  sensitivity map was based on the  results
    
    
    
    
    of the UMass field school  on combination with  background research
    
    
    
    
    
    and surface inspection by PAL,  Inc.  staff.
                                      80
    

    -------
    oo
                   _Previously disturbed
                     areas
    Figure 17.  Stratification of southern end of Long Island
    in zones of archaeological sensitivity.
       A A A  A
    
      A  /\  A .A  __moderate to low
                      archaeological sensitivity
                     '__high archaeological sensitivity
                      Including locations of known
                      prehistoric and historic sites.
    

    -------
                        SUMMARY  AND  RECOMMENDATIONS
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
          The Phase I,  Step  II survey  of  Deer  and  Loner  Islands
    
    
    
    
    
    assembled and  analyzed a diversified body of  information  from
    
    
    
    
    
    various sources  to  provide an inventory and assessment of cultural
    
    
    
    
    
    resources that should serve  as a useful planning  tool  and  document.
    
    
    
    
    
          Although the  survey  did not  identify  any prehistoric sites on
    
    
    
    
    
    the Deer  Island drumlin or  the  northeastern end  of Loner Island,  a
    
    
    
    
    
    large amount of  information  on historic 'recent period  activities on
    
    
    
    
    
    these islands was reviewed.   This data  should be of some value for
    
    
    
    
    
    future research and cultural resource management  in the  Boston
    
    
    
    
    
    Harbor district.
    
    
    
    
    
          The most  important result of  the  Phase  I  survey was the
    
    
    
    
    
    identification of six prehistoric  sites  on  the southern end of Long
    
    
    
    
    
    Island by the UMass field  school.   As a  group these sites are
    
    
    
    
    
    probably the largest  known  cluster  of  prehistoric   cultural
    
    
    
    
    
    resources on the Boston  Harbor islands.
    
    
    
    
    
          The  general   conditions  encountered  in  the military
    
    
    
    
    
    installations (Fort  Daves,  Fort Strong) on Deer  and Long Islands
    
    
    
    
    
    were quite  similar  in terms of previous  disturbance.   However,
    
    
    
    
    
    there are major differences  between  the two project  areas because
    
    
    
    
    
    of the  hospital  complex  and  the  large,  relatively intact, open area
    
    
    
    
    
    or. the southern half of  Long Island.  The significant  cultural
    
    
    
    
    
    resources on Loner Island and the  potential  impacts to  ther. posed by
    
    
    
    
    
    tne proposed wastewater treatment  facilities require  special
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
                                      82
    

    -------
    consideration.   For this  reason, separate  summaries of survey
    
    
    
    
    results on Deer and Long Islands and  recommendations  for mitigating
    
    
    
    
    project impacts  are  presented in this section of the  report.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Deer Island
    
    
    
    
          In general,  the  results of  the  PAL,  Inc. Phase I survey
    
    
    
    
    paralleled those  of  the  previous intensive survey conducted on Deer
    
    
    
    
    Island by the Institute  for Conservation Archaeology (ICA),  Harvard
    
    
    
    
    University in 1981  (Randall 1981).  Extensive  disturbance was  found
    
    
    
    
    throughout the project area and there was a very low  probability of
    
    
    
    
    locating any archaeological  sites  in good  condition.   It is
    
    
    
    
    unlikely  that any  prehistoric  sites  still  exist on the  southern
    
    
    
    
    half of Deer Island.   Both  the  ICA and PAL,  Inc.  intensive surveys
    
    
    
    
    were  unable  to  identify any  on the  elevated  drumlin or the  lower
    
    
    
    
    area occupied by Fort Dawes.
    
    
    
    
          The various structures belonging to Fort  Dawes are of  some
    
    
    
    
    historical interest as examples of  twentieth century military
    
    
    
    
    development  in Boston Harbor but  would  not  be considered eligible
    
    
    
    
    to the National  Register of Historic  Places  because  they  are less
    
    
    
    
    than 50 years old and lack  integrity.   Given their  poor condition
    
    
    
    
    and the fact that much of the original machinery has been removed,
    
    
    
    
    the same may be true of  the brick pump station/screening
    
    
    
    
    plant  and  wood  frame carriage house/residence associated  with
    
    
    
    
    earlier sewage treatment facilities on  Deer  Island  (Randall  1981).
    
    
    
    
    The pump station was built in 1889 and the historical significance
    
    
    
    
    of this  structure  is related to its role  in  the  technological
                                      83
    

    -------
    advancement of  wastewater  treatment  for the  metropolitan Boston
    
    
    
    
    area.   Further examination  of  the  pump station/screening plant is
    
    
    
    
    necessary to evaluate its present  condition  and integrity.   These
    
    
    
    
    structures were  documented  on  an  MHC area  form  prepared by PAL,
    
    
    
    
    Inc.  as part of  the  Phase  I  survey  on  Deer  Island.
    
    
    
    
          The data on historic period and  recent land use patterns has
    
    
    
    
    been  useful  for  reconstructing the  chronological  sequence  of
    
    
    
    
    development and  its  relationship to the  expansion of Boston as an
    
    
    
    
    urban  core area.   It  could also  be  used  to estimate when the
    
    
    
    
    prehistoric resources that  probably  existed on Deer  Island might
    
    
    
    
    have been destroyed.
    
    
    
    
          In summary, no potential  significant prehistoric or historic
    
    
    
    
    period cultural  resources  were  identified on  Deer Island during the
    
    
    
    
    Phase I,  Step II  archaeological survey  conducted  by the PAL, Inc.
    
    
    
    
    and no further  investigation is  recommended.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Long Island
    
    
    
    
          The  Phase I  survey  on  Long  Island  was  able to  collect
    
    
    
    
    documentary and archaeological  information from  almost the entire
    
    
    
    
    island.   The very  different kinds  of historic/recent  land  use  to
    
    
    
    
    which the northeastern and  southern parts  of  the  island  had been
    
    
    
    
    subjected was  evident after  completing the background research and
    
    
    
    
    walkover  inspection.  Subsurface testing  in  both  sections  of the
    
    
    
    
    island  by PAL,  Inc. and  the UMass archaeological field  school
    
    
    
    
    verified these observations and  led  to the  identification  of six
    
    
    
    
    prehistoric  sites  on  the southern half of the  island.   Recent
                                      84
    

    -------
    structural remains consisting of concrete bunkers, foundations and
    
    
    
    
    brick  demolition  rubble  marking  the  locations  of  buildings
    
    
    
    
    associated with Fort Strong were the only cultural resources found
    
    
    
    
    in the open, parade ground area east of Long Island Hospital.
    
    
    
    
          Fort Strong covers the northeast  end of Long  Island and has a
    
    
    
    
    history of active military use beginning in  the Civil War, however,
    
    
    
    
    no evidence of that first  episode  appears to  have survived within
    
    
    
    
    the project  area.   All  the  structures represented by foundations
    
    
    
    
    and demolition  rubble around  the  perimeter of  the  parade ground
    
    
    
    
    were part of the  World War II garrison.  Earlier  maps  (1892, 1903)
    
    
    
    
    show structures in the parade  ground area of  Fort Strong but they
    
    
    
    
    do not appear to  match  the  locations of foundations and rubble now
    
    
    
    
    bordering the parade ground.  The available  evidence suggests that
    
    
    
    
    earlier structures were  removed  during  extensive  reorganization of
    
    
    
    
    this military  facility prior  to  or  during  World  War  II.   No
    
    
    
    
    standing  structures  with the exception  of concrete bunkers/gun
    
    
    
    
    emplacements remain on the  parade ground.
    
    
    
    
          Like Fort Dawes, the  structural  remains on  the parade ground
    
    
    
    
    of Fort Strong are important as  recent  examples of  the long history
    
    
    
    
    of military  land use  in Boston Harbor.  However,  it is unlikely
    
    
    
    
    that they would  be eligible to  the  National  Register of Historic
    
    
    
    
    Places  since they do not meet the minimum age requirement and lack
    
    
    
    
    integrity.   This area of Long Island would  not  be involved in any
    
    
    
    
    construction of proposed wastewater  treatment facilities and there
    
    
    
    
    are no expected project impacts.
    
    
    
    
          The estimated  location of the small  historic  cemetery plot
    
    
    
    
    
    
                                      85
    

    -------
    east of the hospital complex as indicated  in  Figure 15 is also
    
    
    
    
    outside the  area  that  would  be  affected  by  any proposed
    
    
    
    
    development.  Like the other poorly documented, unmarked cemeteries
    
    
    
    
    associated  with  the  hospital  complex,  it  represents  a very
    
    
    
    
    sensitive  historic period  cultural  resource.  Any  additional
    
    
    
    
    archival or  historic  background  research on the Long  Island
    
    
    
    
    Hospital complex should include  this  cemetery  so  that its exact
    
    
    
    
    location, period of active use and extent can be determined.  This
    
    
    
    
    small plot  may contain some of the 2,000 marked  and unmarked  graves
    
    
    
    
    believed to exist on Long Island.
    
    
    
    
          On the  northeastern  half  of  Long  Island,  episodes  of
    
    
    
    
    intensive institutional and military  construction and development
    
    
    
    
    in the mid  nineteenth to mid twentieth centuries probably destroyed
    
    
    
    
    any prehistoric sites  that  might  have been located  there.   In
    
    
    
    
    general,  the  shift  in  land use on this island from  basic resource
    
    
    
    
    collection  (firewood,  etc.) and agricultural  or  pastoral activities
    
    
    
    
    in  the seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries  to large  scale
    
    
    
    
    institutional and  military  development in the mid-nineteenth
    
    
    
    
    century was probably a critical point.  This  shift almost certainly
    
    
    
    
    reflects important structural changes which  were taking place
    
    
    
    
    simultaneously in  the urban core  area represented by the city and
    
    
    
    
    port of Boston.   Support  facilities  such as  almshouses,  military
    
    
    
    
    defenses  and  prisons  were moved  out  of the  core area itself and
    
    
    
    
    into the  peripheral zone of the harbor  islands.
    
    
    
    
          The significant  cluster of six prehistoric  sites  on the
                                     86
    

    -------
    southern end of Long  Island represent archaeological resources that
    
    
    
    
    survived  the  period of  intensive  institutional  and military
    
    
    
    
    development.  An important factor  in their  survival  seems  to have
    
    
    
    
    been the use  of this part of Long Island for mostly agricultural
    
    
    
    
    purposes.   Agricultural  land  use  is less destructive;  prehistoric
    
    
    
    
    sites  may suffer some  minor physical  alteration (formation of
    
    
    
    
    plowzone)  from cultivation but can  remain essentially  intact.
    
    
    
    
    Other cultural material (historic  ceramics,  glass, coal  ash,  etc.)
    
    
    
    
    seems  to  have been added to these  sites as field trash or  from
    
    
    
    
    minor  episodes of  dumping institutional  refuse  (Long  Island
    
    
    
    
    Hospital)  but their integrity is still  good.  Shell midden deposits
    
    
    
    
    and various other  features (pits,  lithic  workshops) remain on these
    
    
    
    
    sites and have important research potential.
    
    
    
    
          We  know  from  documentary  research  that from  the  late
    
    
    
    
    nineteenth century to about the  1960s  the Long Island Hospital
    
    
    
    
    supported itself by intensive farming  and cultivation  of the open
    
    
    
    
    areas on this  island.  These fields were probably located  for the
    
    
    
    
    most part to the south and west of the hospital complex in the area
    
    
    
    
    surveyed  by  the  UMass archaeology  field school.    From  other
    
    
    
    
    documentary and cartographic sources the construction  date  of the
    
    
    
    
    cemetery (1930s)  and  main  access road (1939-1946)  on  the southern
    
    
    
    
    half of  Long  Island was  established.   These  two  small  scale
    
    
    
    
    developments also appear to have  infringed on prehistoric site
    
    
    
    
    areas.  The  most recent military installation,  the Nike base on the
    
    
    
    
    southern end of Long  Island,  may have  destroyed  a  site  due  to its
    
    
    
    
    location on an elevation overlooking a  wetland.   Subsurface testing
    
    
    
    
    
    
                                     87
    

    -------
    around the  perimeter of the base by the UMass field school revealed
    
    
    
    
    evidence of disturbance  but the area northwest of the Nike base is
    
    
    
    
    considered to be archaeologically  sensitive.   Since they  have
    
    
    
    
    survived a  long sequence of historic land use the prehistoric sites
    
    
    
    
    on  Long Island  and  the  categories of  data  they  contain  are
    
    
    
    
    important  resources  for  reconstructing  the prehistory of  the
    
    
    
    
    greater Boston area.
    
    
    
    
          The results of preliminary analysis  of the prehistoric sites
    
    
    
    
    found by the UMass field school, interpretations of  their probable
    
    
    
    
    function and some explanation  of their significance is presented in
    
    
    
    
    Appendix I.   The following information is a general summary of
    
    
    
    
    these findings.
    
    
    
    
          The  six  prehistoric  sites investigated  by  the UMass  field
    
    
    
    
    school are  considered  to  be a major contribution  to  the  data  base
    
    
    
    
    for the Boston metropolitan area.  As the original Phase I,  Step II
    
    
    
    
    management summary mentioned,  any newly discovered  sites  on  Long
    
    
    
    
    Island would be  important  for  investigating  research problems and
    
    
    
    
    current models of  prehistoric subsistence/settlement patterns  at
    
    
    
    
    both  local and regional  scales.  The City  Archaeologist  (Boston,
    
    
    
    
    Department  of  the Environment)  has  indicated  that because of  the
    
    
    
    
    scarcity of intact prehistoric sites like  these in greater Boston,
    
    
    
    
    it is essential that these sites be preserved.   At  this time,  there
    
    
    
    
    is  insufficient information  available to  be able to  evaluate
    
    
    
    
    adequately the significance  of these resources, which  include
    
    
    
    
    unique classes  of data.  The best example is Hull-11,  which is  now
                                     88
    

    -------
    the only known site with an Early Archaic component in the Boston
    
    
    
    
    metropolitan area.  A data recovery or  mitigation program only
    
    
    
    
    collects what is judged to be  a  statistically  adequate  sample of
    
    
    
    
    any site.   The  lack of comparable sites  in  this environmental
    
    
    
    
    setting makes the  determination  of an adequate  sample  extremely
    
    
    
    
    difficult.
    
    
    
    
          Investigation  of Hull-11,  the only  previously  known site,
    
    
    
    
    revealed evidence  of several  older,  Archaic components underlying
    
    
    
    
    the Woodland shell  midden deposit.  An Early Archaic bifurcate base
    
    
    
    
    projectile  point  (ca. 8,500  years  old) was recovered from this site
    
    
    
    
    and is a very significant discovery.  This is the  first evidence of
    
    
    
    
    Early Archaic occupation found in the Boston  Harbor  district  and
    
    
    
    
    Hull-11  may contain  important  data  needed   to  reconstruct
    
    
    
    
    settlement/subsistence  patterns  for this  time  period.   Steatite
    
    
    
    
    (soapstone)  vessel fragments  of probable Terminal  Archaic  (ca.
    
    
    
    
    3,200  to 2,500  B.P.)  affiliation  and  sherds  of typical  Early,
    
    
    
    
    Middle and  Late  Woodland  ceramic wares were  also found.   In
    
    
    
    
    addition to midden  deposits resulting from  intensive processing of
    
    
    
    
    shellfish  (softshell clam),  this site  also  contained  evidence
    
    
    
    
    suggesting  that large,  glacial erratic  boulders  of  felsite  were
    
    
    
    
    quarried for raw  material.  Very  high densities (roughly 400 pieces
    
    
    
    
    per square  meter)  of  felsite chipping debris and boulders  with
    
    
    
    
    large  flake  scars were  found  during  the  UMass  field  school
    
    
    
    
    investigation.
    
    
    
    
          The five smaller prehistoric sites generally consisted of low
    
    
    
    
    density clusters  of chipping debris and  burnt  rock,  although one
    
    
    
    
    
    
                                     89
    

    -------
    site yielded a midsection fragment of  a  bifacial  tool blade that
    
    
    
    
    may  be  of  Late  Archaic affiliation (Susquehanna  tradition, ca.
    
    
    
    
    3,800 to 3,000 B.P.).   Some small  hearth  features  were also found
    
    
    
    
    that contain  charcoal suitable  for  radiocarbon dating.   One of
    
    
    
    
    these  small sites  near the  southern end of  the  island  has  a
    
    
    
    
    northerly aspect  and  is  apparently the  first site to be identified
    
    
    
    
    on the north side of a Boston Harbor  island.  Ceramic vessel sherds
    
    
    
    
    from this site indicate  it  was occupied during the Middle and Late
    
    
    
    
    Woodland periods, ca. 1,500 to 500 B.P.
    
    
    
    
          The "Hill" site, a Late Woodland period camp was found in an
    
    
    
    
    unusual  location far from any freshwater source, but  on light,
    
    
    
    
    sandy soil  that might have been well suited to  horticulture.  Small
    
    
    
    
    Late Woodland  agricultural sites were predicted as  part of  a model
    
    
    
    
    of Woodland period land  use/settlement patterns on the  harbor
    
    
    
    
    islands  and this site could  be used to test that model  (Luedtke
    
    
    
    
    1980 and personal communication,  July  1984).  In general,  the five
    
    
    
    
    small sites appear  to  be  camps  occupied  for  specific activities
    
    
    
    
    (resource  collection/processing,  farming)  and  are  important
    
    
    
    
    additions to the data base  for the metropolitan Boston  area.
    
    
    
    
          Light  scatters of prehistoric chipping debris found along the
    
    
    
    
    shovel  test pit  transects  are an  indication  that  prehistoric
    
    
    
    
    hunter/gatherer  groups were using the whole island rather  than
    
    
    
    
    restricting activity to only specific site  areas.
    
    
    
    
         From  the available data  and results  of  preliminary analysis
    
    
    
    
    we are  recommending  that all  the  prehistoric  sites  on  Long Island
                                     90
    

    -------
    be considered together as elements  of  a multi-resource National
    
    
    
    
    Register District such as the Boston Harbor District now being
    
    
    
    
    assembled  by the Massachusetts  Historical Commission.   A more
    
    
    
    
    detailed survey  and examination of these  sites at the Phase II
    
    
    
    
    level of investigation should be conducted to determine  the extent
    
    
    
    
    and evaluate  the  significance of these sites.  Their  research value
    
    
    
    
    is greatly  enhanced because they can be viewed together  as integral
    
    
    
    
    components  of prehistoric  settlement/land use systems  rather than
    
    
    
    
    as single sites.
    
    
    
    
          Like  the prehistoric  cultural  resource, the Long  Island
    
    
    
    
    Hospital can be  most effectively evaluated  as  a  complex  of
    
    
    
    
    interrelated  structures  and  sites.   This complex is an excellent
    
    
    
    
    example of a fringe  or  peripheral zone  institution  providing
    
    
    
    
    support for an adjacent urban  core  and "fits" well with the theme
    
    
    
    
    of the proposed  Boston Harbor National Register  district.  Its
    
    
    
    
    significance at   the  local  level  lies  primarily  in  the  major
    
    
    
    
    position this institution  has  held  in  serving  the  city of Boston
    
    
    
    
    and it would be an integral  part  of any historic district.  At the
    
    
    
    
    state-wide,  regional level the Long Island Hospital  complex is
    
    
    
    
    representative  of  a  pattern of relatively economically self-
    
    
    
    
    sufficient  institutions that took care  of those  persons  in need of
    
    
    
    
    state  support (the insane,  chronically ill,  indigent-paupers,
    
    
    
    
    prisoners).
    
    
    
    
          The architecture of the hospital complex reflects its history
    
    
    
    
    of institutional  use  and  the  functional  changes  that   took place
    
    
    
    
    there  during the  last  century.   For example, the core  of the
    
    
    
    
    
    
                                     91
    

    -------
    hospital complex is a large building built as a dormitory that  now
    
    
    
    
    contains administrative offices.   Other  buildings  have  designs  that
    
    
    
    
    reflect specific  functions  and contain  wards,  medical  treatment
    
    
    
    
    areas or maintenance/physical plant facilities such as  the  laundry
    
    
    
    
    and heating system.   The entire plan and appearance  of  the hospital
    
    
    
    
    complex reflects constant  construction and/or  alteration of
    
    
    
    
    buildings  beginning  in 1904  and  continuing  steadily  through  the
    
    
    
    
    1920s and 1930s until the early 1970s.
    
    
    
    
          Preservation of this complex should be  considered  as a future
    
    
    
    
    management option.  The hospital  still  serves as a treatment center
    
    
    
    
    for chronically ill and alcoholic  persons for  the  city  of Boston.
    
    
    
    
          The  entire  complex may  be  National Register  eligible,   and
    
    
    
    
    this would include associated  cemetery  areas on  the southern  half
    
    
    
    
    of  the  island.  The  open,  southern end  of Long  Island  represents
    
    
    
    
    the original physical setting for  these historic  resources  and  any
    
    
    
    
    development would  be  an alteration of their context.
    
    
    
    
          These cemeteries  were in active  use  until fairly recently
    
    
    
    
    (1940s)  and are an integral component of the complex.   Cemeteries
    
    
    
    
    like these are inherently sensitive, especially  more recent plots
    
    
    
    
    because  of the legal procedures  involved  in  reinterment.   In
    
    
    
    
    addition,  human burials are  protected  by a recently enacted state
    
    
    
    
    law  (Chapter  659  of  the  Acts of the  1983  Legislature).  This
    
    
    
    
    protection  is extended  to  unmarked burials  such as those  in  the
    
    
    
    
    large plot  south of the  hospital.  Even if  it were possible  to move
    
    
    
    
    these cemeteries,  the expense in  terms  of project delay and actual
    
    
    
    
    dollar  cost of  archaeological monitoring would be  tremendous.
    
    
    
    
    
    
                                      92
    

    -------
          To provide a base  line  of  information for National Register
    
    
    
    
    nomination processes  the Public Archaeology Laboratory,  Inc.  has
    
    
    
    
    completed an Area form (Massachusetts Historical Commission record)
    
    
    
    
    for the  Long  Island  Hospital.   A large amount  of  additional data
    
    
    
    
    exists  and an in-depth study beyond  the  scope  of this Phase I
    
    
    
    
    inventory is  needed  to  assess this data.    To  record  the hospital
    
    
    
    
    complex adequately,  the  expertise of an architectural historian and
    
    
    
    
    archive quality photographic documentation is needed.
    
    
    
    
          At present, three design options  for wastewater treatment
    
    
    
    
    facilities involving project areas of approximately 18,  82  and 96
    
    
    
    
    acres  are under  consideration.   The former  Nike Missile  Base
    
    
    
    
    located on the southern  end of Long Island  has  been identified as
    
    
    
    
    the most  likely  site for a portion of a  treatment  facility  which
    
    
    
    
    would occupy  roughly  18  acres.  Archaeological  survey  work  in the
    
    
    
    
    areas surrounding the Nike base was conducted as part  of the  UMass
    
    
    
    
    field school.   Subsurface  testing  with shovel  test pit transects
    
    
    
    
    covered the entire perimeter  of  the base  and sections of the open
    
    
    
    
    area  to the  northeast.   Although  no prehistoric  or historic
    
    
    
    
    archaeological resources were  identified by  the  field school survey
    
    
    
    
    there is a  strong possibility that sites may  exist in  areas not
    
    
    
    
    covered by this survey  (B.  Luedtke, personal communication).
    
    
    
    
          Even if  the 18  acre size option  were selected not all of the
    
    
    
    
    proposed facility would  fit  within the area occupied  by the Nike
    
    
    
    
    base.  An additional area of five or  six acres west  of the main
    
    
    
    
    access road would probably be necessary to  accommodate components
    
    
    
    
    of the facility such  as  sedimentation  tanks and provide space for
    
    
    
    
    
    
                                      93
    

    -------
    storage of  construction materials and machinery.  Secondary impacts
    
    
    
    
    during construction could  involve  as much  as 25 acres  and  would
    
    
    
    
    extend beyond the Nike base into areas which  are considered  to be
    
    
    
    
    archaeologically sensitive.  One favorable aspect of this option is
    
    
    
    
    that  it  would  not require  any  relocation  of  the  existing access
    
    
    
    
    road  further east.  Relocation would adversely affect  a  Civil  War
    
    
    
    
    monument/cemetery along the road and at least one prehistoric site
    
    
    
    
    area on Bass Point.
    
    
    
    
          The 18 acre option  poses  a less severe  potential  impact to
    
    
    
    
    cultural resources than the two larger options but  it  would still
    
    
    
    
    require  some additional  archaeological  investigation.   Due to its
    
    
    
    
    smaller  area it  may  be possible to develop a  mitigation plan for
    
    
    
    
    this  size  option.    At a  minimum,  this  plan  should  include
    
    
    
    
    additional  archaeological  survey  work in  the area northeast of the
    
    
    
    
    Nike  base  to supplement the data  collected  by the UMass  field
    
    
    
    
    school.  Time constraints on the field school limited the amount of
    
    
    
    
    subsurface testing that could be  carried out  there,  but  it is
    
    
    
    
    considered   to  be archaeologically  sensitive.   Certain  locational
    
    
    
    
    attributes  such as the  small  wetland just  north  of  the  Nike base
    
    
    
    
    and a  small ridge beyond it  are  favorable  for prehistoric  sites.
    
    
    
    
    More  intensive  survey work  is needed to  establish the  presence or
    
    
    
    
    absence of  archaeological sites  in this area.
    
    
    
    
          The larger proposed facilities requiring project  areas of 82
    
    
    
    
    and 96 acres would necessitate the removal  of the Long  Island
    
    
    
    
    Hospital  complex  and  would involve  large  areas  known to contain
    
    
    
    
    prehistoric sites and historic period cemeteries.   To properly
    
    
    
    
    
    
                                     94
    

    -------
    document and mitigate project  impact on the entire hospital complex
    
    
    
    
    prior to demolition would require large expenditures of both state
    
    
    
    
    and  federal funds.   This would probably  have a  net effect  of
    
    
    
    
    prolonging project planning  and design of  the  wastewater  treatment
    
    
    
    
    facilities for  a  minimum of  several years.
    
    
    
    
          Other major alterations  to the  present configuration of Long
    
    
    
    
    Island such as relocation of the main access  road  to  the hospital
    
    
    
    
    could lead  to  serious adverse affects on  prehistoric  sites (Hull-
    
    
    
    
    11,  Hill  site,  etc.) which  are considered  to be  potentially
    
    
    
    
    eligible to  the  National and  State Registers  of Historic Places.
    
    
    
    
    Equally as important is the  large unmarked cemetery plot  bordering
    
    
    
    
    the east side of the access  road.  Selection of either large scale
    
    
    
    
    option  would require  extensive Phase II site examination  level
    
    
    
    
    archaeological  investigations  to delineate  accurately the  extent
    
    
    
    
    and content of both  prehistoric  site  areas  and  unmarked  cemetery
    
    
    
    
    plots on the southern half of Long Island.  The cemeteries present
    
    
    
    
    a  particularly  difficult  situation since  the available  data
    
    
    
    
    suggests  that other  unmarked graves may  be  located beyond the
    
    
    
    
    presently maintained  plots bordering the road.
    
    
    
    
          In general,  the  82  and 96 acre size options may not  represent
    
    
    
    
    a  situation in which  avoidance of  cultural  resources  is possible.
    
    
    
    
    Given their large scale  relative to the total  area  of Long Island
    
    
    
    
    these proposed options  could pose a serious disruption  to the
    
    
    
    
    physical context  of various  cultural  resources  and  may prove to  be
    
    
    
    
    difficult to mitigate.
    
    
    
    
          As we have  discussed in  several  previous  management summary/
    
    
    
    
    
    
                                      95
    

    -------
    memoranda,  several  very  important  issues  regarding  the  adverse
    
    
    
    
    effects of this project  on  cultural  resources  must be  considered
    
    
    
    
    while  the project is in  the  planning  stages.  Resolution of these
    
    
    
    
    issues will require negotiation between  the  various  federal  (EPA,
    
    
    
    
    Advisory Council on Historic Preservation)  and state agencies  (MHC,
    
    
    
    
    MDC)   involved  and the City of  Boston   (Department  of  the
    
    
    
    
    Environment).   Since  construction  designs  for the  proposed
    
    
    
    
    treatment facility have  not been finalized, it  is difficult to
    
    
    
    
    discuss  impacts to specific  archaeological sites  or  historic
    
    
    
    
    structures.  However,  it appears that any planned construction
    
    
    
    
    regardless of size will constitute  some form  of impact to  resources
    
    
    
    
    on Long Island.   Even at  the  smallest  scale  (18  acre facility) the
    
    
    
    
    proposed sewage treatment  facility may affect the overall  integrity
    
    
    
    
    and character of Long Island.   Much of  the significance of both the
    
    
    
    
    prehistoric and  historic resources  lies  in the fact  that  Long
    
    
    
    
    Island  is the  largest island in Boston  Harbor with relatively
    
    
    
    
    intact, open areas.   Groups  of  prehistoric  and  historic sites  in
    
    
    
    
    physical settings that retain  most of  their  original integrity are
    
    
    
    
    rare in the Boston metropolitan area.   Given its  restricted  area
    
    
    
    
    and distinct geographic boundaries  it may be  appropriate  to  discuss
    
    
    
    
    context for cultural resources on Long  Island  in  terms of the whole
    
    
    
    
    island.  In real terms,  this would mean that any mitigation of
    
    
    
    
    project impacts or  data  recovery program may need  to  include the
    
    
    
    
    entire  island.   At a  minimum,  it should focus  on  the site areas and
    
    
    
    
    zones of direct and secondary impact from proposed construction of
    
    
    
    
    wastewater treatment facilities.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
                                     96
    

    -------
                             REFERENCES CITED
    Barber, Russell
       1983  Archaeological Survey and Testing  on  Thompson  Island,
          Boston Harbor:   The  1982  Field Season.   Unpublished ms.  on
          file  at Thompson Island Education Center.
    
    Board of Prison Commissioners
       1904  Public Document Number 41, 4th Annual Report of the  Board
          of Prison Commissioners  of Massachusetts for the year ending
          September 30,  1904.   Wright and Potter Printing Company,
          Boston.
    
    Boston Board of Health,  City of
       1885  14th Annual  Report.
    
    Boston City Document, No. 122
       1892  Final  Report of  the Special  Committee  Appointed by  the
          Mayor to Inspect the  Public Institutions of Boston.
    
    Boston City Document, No. 144
       1898  Report on the Boston Municipal Camp  for Boys  on Long
          Island; Initial Season ending September 3, 1898.
    
    Boston City Document, Numbers 15 and 29
       1904  Volume 2, Annual  Report  of  Pauper Institutions Trustees,
          Document 29.
    
    Boston City Document, No. 15
       1928  Annual Report of Institutions Department, 1928.
    
    Bower, Beth, John  Cheney and Joan Gallagher
       1984  Intensive Survey of  St.  Mary's  Housing for the  Elderly
          Project Area,  Charlestown, Massachusetts.   Submitted to  the
          Archdiocese  of  Boston,  Office  of  Planning.   Prepared by  The
          Public  Archaeology  Laboratory,  Inc.,  Providence  and  the
          Museum of Afro-American History, Roxbury.
    
    Braun, David P.
       1974  Explanatory  Models for the Evolution  of Coastal Adaptation
          in Prehistoric Eastern  New England.   American Antiquity
          39:582-596.
    
    Brenninkmeyer, Benno  M.
       1976  Dynamics of Sedimentation and Coastal Geology from Boston
          to Plymouth.   In  Geology of Southeastern New England, edited
          by Barry Cameron, pp.  205-223.   68th Annual Meeting  New
                                      97
    

    -------
          England  Intercollegiate Geological  Conference.   Science
          Press,  Princeton.
    
    Cheney,  John  and Stephen  Mrozowski
       1983   Archaeological  Investigations  for  the Town Hill
          Condominium Project.   The Public Archaeology Laboratory,  Inc.
          Report.   Submitted to  Paramount Develpoment Association,
          Framingham.
    
    Connelly,  Patrick J.
       1932   Islands  of_  Boston  Harbor,  1630-1932.  Chappie  Publishing
          Company,  Dorchester.
    
    Committee  on  Public Buildings
       1847   Report on the Removal of the  Houses  of  Industry  and Other
          Public  Institutions at  South Boston  to Deer  Island.   Boston
          Committee on Public Buildings, J. H.  Eastburn,  Boston.
    
    Cote, W. C.
       1958   Observations and Conclusions Regarding the  Archaeology  of
          the  Cochato River Valley Area.  Bulletin of  the  Massachusetts
          Archaeological  Society 19(2):22-26.
    
    Cox, Deborah  C. and Peter F. Thorbahn
       1982  Archaeological Investigations  in  Narragansett,  Rhode
          Island,  the Campbell and Sprague  1^ Sites.  Department  of
          Anthropology,   Brown  University  Report.   Submitted to  Lee,
          Pare  and  Associates, Inc., Pawtucket,  Rhode  Island.
    
    Cox, Deborah  C., Peter Thorbahn and Alan Leveillee
       1983   An Archaeological  Assessment  of  the Pettaquamscutt River
          Basin.  The Public Archaeology Laboratory,  Inc., Report  #12-
          1.   Submitted to Rhode  Island  Historical  Preservation
          Commission.
    
    Cox, Deborah, Ann Davin and  Alan Leveillee
       1984   Final  Report on the  Archaeological Data Recovery Program
          at the  Jamestown  Bridge Site  (RI-711).   The Public
          Archaeology Laboratory, Inc.  Report.   Submitted to R.  A.
          Cataldo and Associates,  Inc., Pawtucket.
    
    Dincauze, Dena  F.
       1972   The  Atlantic  Phase:    A  Late  Archaic  Culture  in
          Massachusetts.   Man jjn the Northeast  4:40-61.
    
       1973   Prehistoric   Occupation  of  the Charles  River Estuary:   A
          Paleographic Study.   Archaeological  Society  of Connecticut
          Bulletin  38:25-39.
    
       1974  An  Introduction  to  Archaeology in the Greater Boston Area.
          Archaeology of   Eastern  North America 2(l):39-67.
                                      98
    

    -------
    Huntington,  Frederick
       1979  Archaeological  Investigations  at the W. K. Webb State
          Park,  Weymouth,  Massachusetts.   Institute  for Conservation
          Archaeology,  Peabody Museum, Harvard University.
    
    Johnson, Frederick  (editor)
       1942   The  Boylston Street  Fish Weir.   Papers of  the R._ S._
          Peabody  Foundation  for  Archaeology 2.  Andover, MA.
    
    Kales, Emily and David
       1976  All  About  the Boston Harbor  Islands.   Harman Publishing
          Co., Inc., Boston.
    
    Kaplan, Lawrence
       1975  Paleoethnobotany.  In Final Report  on the Archaeological
          and Paleobotanical  Resources  of 12 Islands in Boston  Harbor,
          pp.  112-127.    Report submitted  by Barbara  Luedtke  to
          Massachusetts Department of Natural Resources.
    
    Kaye, Clifford A.
       1967  Erosion of a  Sea Cliff,  Boston Harbor, Massachusetts.  In
          Economic Geology in Massachusetts, edited by  O.  C.  Farquhar.
          University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
    
       1976a  Outline of the  Pleistocene Geology  of the Boston  Basin.
          In Geology of Southeastern New England,  edited  by Barry
          Cameron,   pp.  46-63.   68th Annual  Meeting  New  England
          Intercollegiate Geological  Conference.   Science  Press,
          Princeton.
    
       1976b  The  Surficial Geology of  the  Boston Basin.  In Geology of
          Southeastern  New England,  edited  by Barry Cameron, pp. 158-
          159.   68th  Annual  Meeting  New  England  Intercollegiate
          Geological Conference.   Science Press, Princeton.
    
    LaForge, L.
       1932  Geology of the Boston Area,  Massachusetts.  USGS Bulletin
          839, 105 p.
    
    Luedtke, Barbara
       1980  The  Calf  Island Site and the  Late  Prehistoric Period in
          Boston Harbor.   Man in  the Northeast 20:25-76.
    
    Massachusetts  Historical  Commission
       1982  Historic and  Archaeological Resources  of  the Boston Area.
          The Massachusetts Historical  Commission,  Boston.
    
       1984  Historic  and  Archaeological  Resources of  the  Connecticut
          Valley.   The  Massachusetts Historical  Comission,  Boston.
                                      99
    

    -------
    Massachusetts  State  Archives
       1676-1763   Manuscript  on file  at  the  State House, Boston.
    
    Metropolitan Area  Planning Council
       1972  Boston Harbor  Islands  Comprehensive Plan.   On File at
          Massachusetts  Department  of Natural  Resources.
    
    Mikal,  Alan
       1973  Exploring  Boston  Harbor.    Christopher  Publishing  House,
          North Quincy.
    
    Pendery,  Steven; Claire Dempsey;  Edward  Gordon; John Cheney;  and
       Russell  Barber
       1982  Phase II  Archaeological Site  Examination  of the Project
          Area for  the  Central  Artery,  North  Area,  Charlestown,
          Massachusetts.  Institute for Conservation  Archaeology,
          Peabody  Museum,  Harvard University,  Cambridge, Massachusetts.
    
    Randall,  Debra
       1981   Archaeological  Survey   of the  Proposed  MDC  Sludge
          Management Plant,   Deer Island,  Massachusetts.  The  Institute
          for Conservation Archaeology,  Harvard University.   Submitted
          to  MDC and Havens and Emersn,  Inc.,  Boston.
    
    Ritchie,  Duncan and  Geoffrey Moran
       1976    Phase  _!  Archaeological Investigations  of   Fort
          Independence,   South  Boston,   Massachusetts.   Department of
          Anthropology,   Brown  University  Report.   Submitted to
          Metropolitan District Commission,  Boston.
    
    Rosenbluth  and Associates
       1948  Finance  Commission of the  City of Boston,  Administrative
          Survey of  the Government of the City of Boston.  Report No.
          36, parts 1  and 2.
    
    Snow,  Edgar R.
       1971  The  Islands of_  Boston Harbor,  1630-1971.   Dodd,  Mead and
          Company, New York.
    
    Snow,  Leslie C.
       1984  Archaeological Survey  and  Testing  on Thompson Island,
          Boston Harbor:   The 1983  Field Season.  Unpublished  report on
          file  at  Thompson Island Education Center, Boston.
    
    Stokinger,  William
       1978  A Final  Report  of_ Archaeological  Investigations of  Fort
          Independence:   1976-1997.   Department of Anthropology,  Brown
          University  Report.   Submitted to Metropolitan  District
          Commission.
                                      100
    

    -------
    Sweetser, M. F.
       1882  King's Handbook of Boston Harbor.  Moses King, Cambridge.
    
    Tennta, Lisa
       1983  Long  Island Research  Project.   Unpublished ms.  on file at
          University of  Massachusetts,   Boston,   Department  of
          Anthropology.
                                      101
    

    -------
    12.11 Legal and Institutional
                  Constraints on
                 Long Island and
                     Deer Island
    

    -------
           WARNER & STACKPOLE
    
             RESEARCH MEMORANDA
    LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS
            TO THE SELECTION OF
        THE LONG ISLAND ALTERNATIVES
    
              August 28,  1984
    
                    and
    
        THE DEER ISLAND ALTERNATIVES
    
             November 27,  1984
               PREPARED FOR
              C.  E.   MAGUIRE
                Prepared by
            Warner & Stackpole
              28 State Street
             Boston,  MA  02109
              (617)  725-1400
       Under  EPA  Contract  #68-04-1010
    

    -------
                         Table of Contents
    
                                                              PAGE
    
                            Long  Island
    
      I.    INTRODUCTION 	      1
    
     11.    QUESTIONS PRESENTED 	      2
    
    III.    STATEMENT OF FACTS 	      3
    
     IV.    SUMMARY 	      4
    
      V.    DISCUSSION 	     6
    
           A.    MDC Authority 	     6
    
                1.    Statutory Authority 	     6
                2.    Prior Public Use Doctrine 	     7
                3.    Article 97 of Massachusetts Constitu-
                       tion 	    10
                4.    Department of Environmental Management
                       Consent 	    11
                5.    Restriction on Acquisition of Burial
                       Places 	    12
                6.    Massachusetts Division of Capital
                       Planning and Operations Jurisdic-
                       tion 	    14
                7.    Applicability of Federal Executive
                       Orders 	    16
    
           B.    Proposed Metropolitan Water Resource
                Authority 	    18
    
           C.    Legal and Administrative Impediments to the
                Use of Long Island 	    21
    
                1.    Massachusetts Historic Commission 	    21
    
                     (a)  Summary of M.G.L. c.9, §26-27D  ...    22
                     (b)  Effect on State Registry
                            Property 	    23
                     (c)  Adverse Effect and Consultation ..    25
                     (d)  Impediments Presented by the Act .    27
                     (e)  Unmarked Skeletal Remains:  M.G.L.
                            c.9,  §27C 	    28
    
                2.    National Historic Preservation Act  ....    29
    
                     (a)  Introduction 	    29
                     (b)  Summary of NHPA  	    30
                                -i-
    

    -------
                                                               PAGE
    
                      (c)   Effect on Listed or Eligible
                             Property	    32
                      (d)   Adverse Effect Consultation 	    32
                      (e)   Impediments Posed by NHPA	    34
    
                 3.    Coastal Zone Management	    35
    
                      (a)   Introduction	    35
                      (b)   State Consistency Issues 	    37
                      (c)   Federal Consistency Issues 	    42
    
                 4.    Executive  Orders on Wetlands and
                        Floodplains	    42
                             Deer Island
    
      VI .    INTRODUCTION	    43
    
     VII.    SUMMARY	     44
    
    VIII.    PUBLIC PROTECTION OF DEER ISLAND PROPERTIES ....     45
    
            A.    History of  Deer Island	     45
    
            B.    Applicability of Article  97	     47
    
            C.    Applicability of the Prior Public  Use
                 Doctrine	     47
    
                 1.    Deer Island Correctional  Facility ....     48
                 2.    Land Outside  the Correctional
                        Facility 	     50
    
            D.    Protection  Afforded by the Doctrine  	     53
    
            E.    Applicability of M.G.L. c.114  §17E 	     54
    
            F.    Comparison  to Long Island Issues 	     56
    
      IX.    PRISONER RIGHTS  IMPACT	     59
    
       X.    CONCLUSION	     61
                                -11-
    

    -------
    INTRODUCTION
    
    
    
    
         We  have  been requested to conduct a preliminary analysis of
    
    
    
    
    the legal  and institutional constraints affecting the acquisition
    
    
    
    
    and use  of Long  Island,  in Boston Harbor,  for a sewage treatment
    
    
    
    
    facility serving all  or  part of the Metropolitan Boston area.
    
    
    
    
    The request is made  in the context of a larger analysis being
    
    
    
    
    conducted  as  part of  the alternatives analysis prepared for inclu-
    
    
    
    
    sion in  the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) required by the
    
    
    
    
    National Environmental Policy Act,  42 U.S.C.  4321 et seq.  (NEPA).
    
    
    
    
    The use  of Long  Island is being considered in conjunction with
    
    
    
    
    several  alternatives  for sewage disposal in Boston Harbor,  some
    
    
    
    
    of which involve the  further use of Deer Island and Nut Island.
    
    
    
    
         There are issues common to the use of any harbor island,
    
    
    
    
    such as  the generally applicable standards established to issue
    
    
    
    
    state and  federal permits.   These needed approvals include  wetlands
    
    
    
    
    protection, waterways, and ocean disposal permits from state
    
    
    
    
    agencies,  and dredge  and fill,  construction in navigable waters,
    
    
    
    
    and effluent  discharge permits from the United States Environmental
    
    
    
    
    Protection Agency (EPA)  and the United States Army Corps of
    
    
    
    
    Engineers  (Corps).   They will be discussed in this memorandum
    
    
    
    
    only to  the extent that  significantly different issues or concerns
    
    
    
    
    can be anticipated with  respect to Long Island which would  not be
    
    
    
    
    raised with Deer Island  or Nut Island.
    
    
    
    
         In  general,  our  objective has been to identify both legal
    
    
    
    
    and administrative issues which may affect the use of Long  Island
    
    
    
    
    for a sewage  treatment facility,  recognizing that many of these
    
    
    
    
    issues may be contested  in litigation.   In most cases, we have
    

    -------
    not attempted to predict  the  outcome  of  such controversies,  but
    
    
    
    
    have merely offered  an  estimate  of  the magnitude of the problem
    
    
    
    
    presented.
    
    
    
    
         Our  analysis relies  upon the accuracy  of certain facts  with
    
    
    
    
    respect to environmental  conditions,  legal  ownership,  and positions
    
    
    
    
    taken by  various public bodies.  Because  of time and cost limita-
    
    
    
    
    tions involved in this  effort, we have not  conducted an independent
    
    
    
    
    verification of many of these matters.  We  have  attempted to
    
    
    
    
    identify  those assumptions in this  memorandum, and can discuss
    
    
    
    
    what might be done to clarify these points.
    
    
    
    
         Every effort has been made  to  avoid  bias in favor of or
    
    
    
    
    against selection of the  Long Island  alternative.   As  will become
    
    
    
    
    apparent  below, the  ultimate  selection will depend very heavily
    
    
    
    
    on political considerations and, possibly,  actions taken or  not
    
    
    
    
    taken by  the Massachusetts legislature.   Because of this,  many of
    
    
    
    
    the issues discussed herein may  be  seen as  merely creating the
    
    
    
    
    landscape upon which the  debate  will  take place.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    QUESTIONS PRESENTED
    
    
    
    
         A.    Does the Metropolitan  District  Commission (MDC)  presently
    
    
    
    
    have the  authority to acquire, by eminent domain,  all  or part of
    
    
    
    
    Long Island to construct  and  operate  a sewage treatment facility?
    
    
    
    
    Would the proposed Metropolitan  Water Resources  Authority have
    
    
    
    
    such power?
    
    
    
    
         B.    Assuming the MDC has the  requisite statutory authority,
    
    
    
    
    what legal and institutional  impediments  exist to construction of
    
    
    
    such a facility?
                                 -2-
    

    -------
    STATEMENT OF FACTS
    
    
    
    
         In responding to the questions presented we have found it
    
    
    
    
    important to rely upon certain facts regarding Long Island.
    
    
    
    
    Foremost among these are the ownership of Long Island and the
    
    
    
    
    current use and condition of the property.   At present,  all of
    
    
    
    
    Long Island is held in fee by the City of Boston,  under the care,
    
    
    
    
    custody and control of the City of Boston Department of Public
    
    
    
    
    Health and Hospitals (Health and Hospitals).   In the event Health
    
    
    
    
    and Hospitals no longer uses the island for health and hospital
    
    
    
    
    purposes, care and control will revert to the City of Boston
    
    
    
    
    Public Facilities Commission (Public Facilities).   Public Facil-
    
    
    
    
    ities could subsequently transfer care,  custody and control to
    
    
    
    
    another city agency,  lease the property to any private or public
    
    
    
    
    entity, or begin the process of selling the property.
    
    
    
    
         Historically..  Long Island has been used for residential and
    
    
    
    
    agricultural purposes,  and several public institutional uses,
    
    
    
    
    including an alms house (poor house),  a defense installation,
    
    
    
    
    recreation,  and public health and hospital uses (its current
    
    
    
    
    use).  It contains many historic and archaeologic  artifacts and
    
    
    
    
    up to 2000 unmarked graves,  which may be scattered across the
    
    
    
    
    island.  A formal cemetery has been identified on  one part of the
    
    
    
    
    island, which is known to contain the remains of civil war soldiers
    
    
    
    
         The island consists of an upland area, known  as the "head,"
    
    
    
    
    and a lower expanse on which the former military installation and
    
    
    
    
    hospital are located.   The island contains an area considered to
    
    
    
    
    be a barrier beach, and areas which are wetlands as defined by
                                 -3-
    

    -------
    the Wetlands Protection Act.   It  is probable  that  some  portions
    
    
    
    
    of the island provide a habitat for wildlife,  and  that  some
    
    
    
    
    fisheries and shellfisheries resources  can be found  off the
    
    
    
    
    island's shore.
    
    
    
    
         Some sources have reported that the hospital  building complex
    
    
    
    
    is being considered for nomination to the State  and  National
    
    
    
    
    Register of Historic Places.   We  have,  however,  been unable to
    
    
    
    
    verify these reports.
    
    
    
    
         The most recent draft of  the Boston Harbor  Island  State Park
    
    
    
    
    Master Plan Update, prepared by the Department of  Environmental
    
    
    
    
    Management (DEM), proposes to  develop all of  Long  Island except
    
    
    
    
    for the hospital area as part  of  the Boston Harbor Islands State
    
    
    
    
    Park.  Katherine Abbott of DEM has indicated  that  only  preliminary
    
    
    
    
    discussions between the DEM and the City of Boston have taken
    
    
    
    
    place regarding a long-term lease of parts of Long Island for
    
    
    
    
    this purpose.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    SUMMARY
    
    
    
    
         The availability and future  uses of Long Island are affected
    
    
    
    
    by a number of important legal and administrative  requirements
    
    
    
    
    discussed in this memorandum.  Because  the City  of Boston Depart-
    
    
    
    
    ment of Public Health and Hospitals has been  given care, custody
    
    
    
    
    and control of Long Island, any subsequent public  use of the
    
    
    
    
    Island may be subject to the applicability of the  Prior Public
    
    
    
    
    Use Doctrine, which requires a majority of the legislature to
    
    
    
    
    approve the transfer of use.   Similarly, the  legislature is
                                 -4-
    

    -------
    required to approve the acquisition of burial grounds in Massachu-
    
    
    
    
    setts;  there may be areas of Long Island which might be defined
    
    
    
    
    as a burial ground.   The Massachusetts Department of Environmental
    
    
    
    
    Management has been given control over the use and disposition of
    
    
    
    
    the Boston Harbor Islands by a special act of the legislature,
    
    
    
    
    thus requiring the Metropolitan District Commission to obtain
    
    
    
    
    approval of its proposed acquisition of Long Island from that
    
    
    
    
    state agency.   Under the provisions of a relatively recent state
    
    
    
    
    law, the Executive Office of Administration and Finance must
    
    
    
    
    approve the acquisition of land by state agencies, including
    
    
    
    
    MDC takings for waste water treatment purposes.  The proposed
    
    
    
    
    Metropolitan Water Resources Authority, intended to assume the
    
    
    
    
    water and sewer responsibilities of the Metropolitan District
    
    
    
    
    Commission, would be subject to these same legal requirements,
    
    
    
    
    with the possible exception of Administration and Finance
    
    
    
    
    approval.
    
    
    
    
         Both the Massachusetts Historic Commission Act and the
    
    
    
    
    National Historic Preservation Act require the applicable state
    
    
    
    
    and federal agencies to consider alternatives which would avoid
    
    
    
    
    or mitigate adverse effects of the proposal on properties listed
    
    
    
    
    or nominated for listing on the state or national Register of
    
    
    
    
    Historic Places.   This process does not mandate adoption of any
    
    
    
    
    particular alternative,  but does impose consultation processes,
    
    
    
    
    and at the federal level,  may involve a determination by the U.S.
    
    
    
    
    Secretary of Interior.   The state and federal Coastal Zone Manage-
    
    
    
    
    ment consistency determinations similarly involve consultative
    
    
    
    
    processes designed to ensure that state and federal actions are
                                 -5-
    

    -------
    consistent with the policies of the  state  Coastal  Zone  Management
    
    Program.  Conflicts between state  agencies on  this consistency
    
    issue are resolved by the state Secretary  of Environmental Affairs
    
    conflicts between state and federal  agencies may be resolved by
    
    the U.S. Secretary of Commerce.  Finally,  the  federal Executive
    
    Orders on Wetlands and Floodplains are  applicable  to the proposed
    
    project if federally funded, and require that  EPA  avoid direct
    
    and indirect support of floodplains  and wetlands development
    
    wherever there is a practicable alternative.
    
         To the extent that proposed construction  activities on Long
    
    Island could be restricted to areas  away from  sensitive environ-
    
    mental resources, historic and archaeologic resources and existing
    
    hospital activities, impacts on these resources can be  minimized,
    
    perhaps avoiding some regulatory problems.  Some of the issues
    
    discussed herein may also apply to a lesser extent to the Deer
    
    Island alternative.
    
    
    
    DISCUSSION
    
         A.    MDC Authority to take Long Island by Eminent  Domain for
    Construction and Operation of a Sewage  Treatment Facility
    
         1.    Statutory authority
    
         The MDC is statutorily empowered to take  land by eminent
    
    domain.   M.G.L. c.92 §77 grants the MDC the power  to "take by
    
    eminent domain .  .  . any lands . . . necessary for carrying out
    
    the provisions of this chapter relative to the construction,
    
    maintenance and operation of systems of sewage disposal .  . . •"
    
    In addition,  sections 78 through 80  of  this chapter grant the MDC
                                 -6-
    

    -------
    eminent domain power for the purpose of establishing and maintain-
    
    
    
    
    ing reservations,  metropolitan water systems,  and boulevards.
    
    
    
    
         The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) has character-
    
    
    
    
    ized the breadth of the MDC's eminent domain powers under these
    
    
    
    
    statutes as "extensive."  Commonwealth v.  Massachusetts Turnpike
    
    
    
    
    Authority.  346 Mass.  250,  255 (1963).  There  have been no re-
    
    
    
    
    ported successful challenges to land takings by the MDC on grounds
    
    
    
    
    that the MDC has attempted to take land outside the bounds of its
    
    
    
    
    authority.
    
    
    
    
         2.    Prior Public Use Doctrine
    
    
    
    
         The well-accepted Massachusetts common law doctrine of Prior
    
    
    
    
    Public Use states that public lands devoted to one public use
    
    
    
    
    cannot be diverted to another inconsistent public use without
    
    
    
    
    plain and explicit legislation authorizing the diversion.  Robbins
    
    
    
    
    v. Dep't of Public Works,  335 Mass 328, 330 (1969); see also,
    
    
    
    
    Higginson v. Treasurer of Sch. House Comm'rs of Boston, 212 Mass.
    
    
    
    
    583 (1912).  An important threshold question,  then, is whether
    
    
    
    
    the circumstances surrounding the ownership and use of Long
    
    
    
    
    Island support the contention that the island is protected by
    
    
    
    
    this Doctrine.  If it is so protected, the Massachusetts legisla-
    
    
    
    
    ture must approve the transfer of use from hospital use to sewage
    
    
    
    
    treatment facility use.  Because of this Doctrine's importance,
    
    
    
    
    we will examine its application in some detail.
    
    
    
    
         Two questions arise in determining whether the Prior Public
    
    
    
    
    Use Doctrine would bar the MDC from taking Long Island for the
    
    
    
    
    construction of a sewage treatment plant without explicit legis-
                                 -7-
    

    -------
    lative authorization:   (a) has  Long  Island been devoted to a
    
    specific public use, and  (b) would the  construction of a sewage
    
    treatment facility be an  inconsistent public  use?
    
              (a)  Has Long Island  been  devoted to  a specific  public
    use?
    
         Long Island presently contains  a state hospital,  an abandoned
    
    federal defense base and  undeveloped land.  It  could be argued
    
    that the headland areas,  and possibly the  defense  base area, are
    
    not used, and thus not  "devoted" to  a public  use.   If these areas
    
    were not devoted to a particular public use,  one might argue that
    
    the geographic scope of the Doctrine's  application was limited
    
    only to the hospital area.
    
         One test, however, for discerning whether  a prior public use
    
    exists is whether the land has  been  appropriated to a particular
    
    public use by some governmental body.  Newburyport Redevelopment
    
    Authority v. Commonwealth, 9 Mass. App. Ct. 206, 239 (1980).  In
    
    the case of Long Island,  however, the legislature  has reportedly
    
    placed the island, in its entirety,  under  the care,  custody and
    
    control of the City of Boston Department of Public Health  and
    
    Hospitals.  It could alternatively be argued, therefore, that a
    
    public use of the entire  island presently  exists,  regardless of
    
    any lack of actual use of portions of the  island.
              (b)  Will the construction and operation  of  a  sewage
    treatment facility on Long Island be "inconsistent"  with the
    prior public use?
    
         The Prior Public Use Doctrine does not  address  all  changes
    
    in use, but only those that create a new use "inconsistent" with
                                 -8-
    

    -------
    the original use.   Case law indicates that uses are not necessar-
    
    
    
    
    ily inconsistent simply because the later taking may impair the
    
    
    
    
    original use.   Op.  Att'y Gen.  May 25, 1967,  223, citing Easthamp-
    
    
    
    
    ton v.  County Commissioners of Hampshire, 154 Mass. 424 (1891).
    
    
    
    
         The courts have set a high threshold for determining that an
    
    
    
    
    inconsistency exists.   For example, in Easthampton, the court
    
    
    
    
    held that a strip of land could be taken from a schoolhouse lot
    
    
    
    
    for a needed town way without legislative approval, despite the
    
    
    
    
    fact that taking the strip would "injure the lot considerably for
    
    
    
    
    school purposes,  but [would]  not prevent its use .  .  .  ."  East-
    
    
    
    
    hampton, 154 Mass,  at 424.
    
    
    
    
         In another case,  Muir v.  City of Leominster,  2 Mass. App.
    
    
    
    
    514, 317 N.E.2d 212 (1974), the court's analysis of this issue
    
    
    
    
    focused on whether the land in question was clearly devoted to a
    
    
    
    
    public use at the time of the proposed transfer.  The Court
    
    
    
    
    reasoned that because the property was not presently in public
    
    
    
    
    use, and could be devoted to any number of public uses, no further
    
    
    
    
    legislative action was required.
    
    
    
    
         In the case of Long Island, proposed configurations of the
    
    
    
    
    primary sewage treatment facility would not physically and directly
    
    
    
    
    involve the actual hospital buildings area.   Configurations of
    
    
    
    
    the secondary treatment facilities would involve relocation of
    
    
    
    
    the hospital.   If one considered the geographic scope of Health
    
    
    
    
    and Hospital's use to include only the buildings and associated
    
    
    
    
    grounds, or assumed that the construction and operation of a
    
    
    
    
    sewage treatment facility on adjacent land would not prevent the
                                 -9-
    

    -------
    use of the hospital buildings, then it could be argued  that the
    
    
    
    
    Prior Public Use Doctrine would not apply in the case of primary
    
    
    
    
    facilities, either because the particular area on which the
    
    
    
    
    sewage facility would be constructed was not devoted to a prior
    
    
    
    
    public use, or because the new use would not be inconsistent with
    
    
    
    
    the hospital use.
    
    
    
    
               (c)  Protection afforded by the Doctrine
    
    
    
    
         If the protection of the Prior Public Use Doctrine is trig-
    
    
    
    
    gered, the Doctrine requires legislative approval by a  majority
    
    
    
    
    vote of the legislature.  Op. Att'y Gen. April 12, 1976, 159.
    
    
    
    
    The legislation authorizing the diversion in use must explicitly
    
    
    
    
    identify the land to be taken, the existing public use  and the
    
    
    
    
    new use.  Brookline v  Metropolitan District Commission, 357
    
    
    
    
    Mass. 435, 440-41 (1970).
    
    
    
    
         3.    Article 97 of the Massachusetts Constitution
    
    
    
    
         Article 97 of the Massachusetts Consititution (amending
    
    
    
    
    Article 49 of the Constitution) creates a codified variation of
    
    
    
    
    the Prior Public Use Doctrine applicable to certain resources.
    
    
    
    
    In brief,  Article 97 provides that public land taken or acquired
    
    
    
    
    for conservation, scenic, historic or recreation purposes may not
    
    
    
    
    be used for other purposes or otherwise disposed of without a
    
    
    
    
    two-thirds vote of the legislature.  Op. Att'y Gen. April 12,
    
    
    
    
    1976, 157.  The scope of applicability of Article 97 is therefore
    
    
    
    
    narrower than that of the Prior Public Use Doctrine, since Arti-
    
    
    
    
    cle 97 applies only to those public uses specifically enumerated
    
    
    
    
    in the article.  Furthermore, regardless of subsequent  use,  the
    
    
    
    
    land in question must specifically have been taken or acquired
                                 -10-
    

    -------
    for one of the enumerated purposes,  and not merely devoted to
    
    
    
    
    such use.   Newburyport Redevelopment Authority v. Commonwealth, 9
    
    
    
    
    Mass.  App.  Ct. 206 (1980) (land used by public to provide access
    
    
    
    
    to National Historic District was not taken or acquired for that
    
    
    
    
    purpose and therefore not subject to Article 97).
    
    
    
    
         The potential applicability of Article 97 to Long Island
    
    
    
    
    turns on whether Long Island was ever taken or acquired for any
    
    
    
    
    of the public purposes enumerated in Article 97.   Although it is
    
    
    
    
    known that the City of Boston operated a summer camp on Long
    
    
    
    
    Island in 1898,  the records do not indicate that any land was
    
    
    
    
    taken or acquired for that purpose.   No research has revealed
    
    
    
    
    that any portions of Long Island have been acquired in a manner
    
    
    
    
    which would invoke the provisions of Article 97.
    
    
    
    
         The SJC has opined that the operation of Article 97 is
    
    
    
    
    retroactive,  and therefore applies to property acquired prior to
    
    
    
    
    the effective date of the 1972 constitutional amendment.   Opinion
    
    
    
    
    of the Justices, 1981 Mass.  Adv. Sh. 1361,  1384.   However,  it is
    
    
    
    
    clear that the passage of Article 97 has had no effect on the
    
    
    
    
    separate requirements and applicability of the Prior Public Use
    
    
    
    
    Doctrine.   The Attorney General has concluded that,  where the
    
    
    
    
    Prior Public Use Doctrine applies but Article 97 does not,  the
    
    
    
    
    common law requires simple majority approval.  Op. Att'y Gen.
    
    
    
    
    April 12,  1976,  159.  Article 97 was designed to supplement,  not
    
    
    
    
    supplant,  the common law doctrine of prior public use.  Op. Att'y
    
    
    
    
    Gen. June 6,  1973, 139,  146.
                                 -11-
    

    -------
         4.   Consent required by  the Department  of Environmental
    Management
    
         The MDC's authority to acquire  Long  Island is  affected  also
    
    by chapter 742 of the  1970 Acts  and  Resolves  of the Massachusetts
    
    legislature.  Section  8 of that  Act  provides:
    
         [I]n, under or bordering  Boston Harbor there shall be
         no acquisition of land by any  .  .  .  public agency or
         instrumentality other than  the  [Department of  Environ-
         mental Management (DEM)]  without the approval  of the
         [DEM], and no public land on or bordering  said area may
         be ... used as  a . . .  refuse disposal area,  and no
         sand, gravel or soil may  be removed  therefrom  or depos-
         ited thereon, and no structure  may be built thereon,
         without the approval of the [DEM].
    
    Because Long Island lies within  Boston Harbor,  the  OEM's approval
    
    is required to allow both the  MDC's  "acquisition" of the land,
    
    which term appears broad enough  to encompass  an eminent domain
    
    taking by the MDC, and the construction of the  facility.
    
         Any decision by DEM with  respect to  the use and disposition
    
    of Long Island is likely to be affected by the  OEM's plans to add
    
    areas of the island to the Harbor Islands  State Park, and by
    
    comments made by other state and local agencies in  the Coastal
    
    Zone Management consistency review process.  As discussed later
    
    in this memorandum,  under the  state  Coastal Zone Management regu-
    
    lations, the Secretary of the  Executive Office  of Environmental
    
    Affairs is generally empowered to resolve these conflicts between
    
    state agencies.   However,  it is possible  that the provisions of
    
    chapter 742 would diminish the Secretary's authority under those
    
    regulatory provisions.
                                 -12-
    

    -------
         5.    Restriction on the Acquisition of Burial Places
    
         As  discussed earlier,  Long Island may contain up to 2,000
    
    unmarked graves,  in addition to a known civil war cemetery.
    
    M.G.L. c.114 §17  provides as follows:
    
              A town  shall not alienate or appropriate to any
         other use than that of a burial ground,  any tract of
         land which has been for more than one hundred years
         used as a burial place;  and no portion of such burial
         ground shall be taken for public  use without special
         authority from the general court.  "Burial place",  as
         referred to  in this section, shall include unmarked
         burial grounds known or suspected to contain the remains
         of  one or more American Indian.  (emphasis added)
    
         Thus, legislative approval would  be required for the MDC's
    
    taking of any portion of Long Island which constitutes a "burial
    
    ground."  Because the exact locations  of the graves are not
    
    known, but are suspected to be clustered in several different
    
    locations on the  island, it is conceivable that much land on the
    
    island is subject to the legislative approval requirement.   It is
    
    also possible that further examination and research may reveal
    
    only a few identifiable "burial places" on Long Island,  as that
    
    term is  narrowly  defined.  The M.G.L.  c.114 §17 requirement is
    
    considered to be  a legislative confirmation of the Prior Public
    
    Use Doctrine, requiring a majority vote of approval by the legis-
    
    lature.   Op Att'y Gen., June 6, 1973,  p. 139.  However,  should
    
    the MDC  determine that it can avoid use of any "burial ground,"
    
    or if it determines that the proposed  use is not inconsistent
    
    with use as a burial ground,  the MDC might proceed without legis-
    
    lative approval.
                                 -13-
    

    -------
         One issue which may arise is whether areas of unmarked,
    
    
    
    
    random burials of persons constitutes  "burial  grounds" within the
    
    
    
    
    above statute.  In interpreting the definition of "burial ground"
    
    
    
    
    under the statute, the case of Town of Sudbury v. Dept. of Public
    
    
    
    
    Utilities, 351 Mass. 214 (1966), should be noted.  In Sudbury the
    
    
    
    
    Department of Public Utilities (DPU) concluded after a hearing
    
    
    
    
    that the remains of one human being (in this case, an American
    
    
    
    
    Indian) and the possibility of others  scattered throughout the
    
    
    
    
    area were not, in its opinion, a basis for designating the land
    
    
    
    
    as a burial ground within the statute.  Id. at 226.  The Sudbury
    
    
    
    
    court affirmed the DPU's finding on the basis  that the statute,
    
    
    
    
    at the time consisting of only the first sentence of the present
    
    
    
    
    version, "plainly refers to a tract of land definable and readily
    
    
    
    
    identifiable as a burying ground."  Thus, the  existence of randomly
    
    
    
    
    buried American Indians was held to fall outside the coverage of
    
    
    
    
    the statute.
    
    
    
    
         The Sudbury case apparently was the impetus for the 1983
    
    
    
    
    amendment to the statute, which added  the definition of "burial
    
    
    
    
    place."  Read literally, that definition states only that areas
    
    
    
    
    containing the remains of one or more  American Indians shall fall
    
    
    
    
    within the ambit of the statute.  Presumably,  however, most or
    
    
    
    
    all of the persons thought to be buried on Long Island are not
    
    
    
    
    American Indians.  The amended statute therefore serves only to
    
    
    
    
    alter the narrow Sudbury holding, since neither the amended
    
    
    
    
    statute nor case law defines whether the remains of one or more
    
    
    
    
    randomly buried non-American Indians,  as may exist on Long Island,
                                 -14-
    

    -------
    constitute a burial ground under the statute.  Consequently, it
    
    is not clear whether the statute as amended would create any
    
    stronger presumption that any random burial sites on Long Island
    
    are entitled to the protection afforded by the law.
    
         6.    Massachusetts Division of Capital Planning and Opera-
    tions Jurisdiction
    
         The deputy commissioner of the Massachusetts State Division
    
    of Capital Planning and Operations (DCPO) has the discretionary
    
    power to approve or disapprove acquisition of real property by
    
    state agencies such as the MDC.  This power is given to the deputy
    
    commissioner by chapter 579 of the Acts of 1980,  which created the
    
    Division of Capital Planning and Operations within the Massachusetts
    
    Executive Office of Administration and Finance.  The authority of
    
    the DCPO is described in M.G.L. c.7,  §§39A-43G.
    
         The deputy commissioner performs both a coordination function
    
    and an acquisition function.  He is responsible for the "integrated
    
    and coordinated planning and budgeting of capital facilities on
    
    an annual and long-term basis."  M.G.L. c.7,  §39B(a).  A water
    
    resource improvement by the MDC,  such as a sewage treatment
    
    facility, is specifically included within the definition of a
    
    "capital facility."  Id.  at §39A(f).
    
         The deputy commissioner is also responsible for the "acqui-
    
    sition,  allocation and disposition of real property."  Id.  at
    
    §39B(b).  To carry out this responsibility, the deputy commis-
    
    sioner of the DCPO has the authority to acquire and control real
    
    property on behalf of state agencies.  Id. at §40E.  This power
    
    is given by section forty E (40E) notwithstanding previous
                                 -15-
    

    -------
    similar delegations to the agencies themselves,  including  the
    
    
    
    
    MDC.
    
    
    
    
         The deputy commissioner may re-delegate this power to state
    
    
    
    
    agencies but for this delegation to be effective, the deputy
    
    
    
    
    commissioner must give written approval before the transaction is
    
    
    
    
    finalized.  M.G.L. c.7, §40E.
    
    
    
    
         By withholding approval, and thus refusing  to delegate, the
    
    
    
    
    deputy commissioner of the DCPO could block the  acquisition of
    
    
    
    
    property that the MDC wishes to use for a wastewater treatment
    
    
    
    
    facility.  The Massachusetts legislature could remove this impedi-
    
    
    
    
    ment by adopting legislation authorizing the MDC to acquire the
    
    
    
    
    necessary real property notwithstanding the provisions of chapter
    
    
    
    
    seven.
    
    
    
    
         Purchase or acquisition by eminent domain by the new Metro-
    
    
    
    
    politan Water Resources Authority (the "Authority") of land for a
    
    
    
    
    sewage treatment facility appears not to require approval by the
    
    
    
    
    deputy commissioner of the DCPO.  The Metropolitan Water Resources
    
    
    
    
    Authority Act,  House Bill 5915,  would apply only four relevant
    
    
    
    
    sections of chapter seven to the Authority: sections thirty-nine C
    
    
    
    
    (39C) (information filing requirements); forty A (40A) (record
    
    
    
    
    keeping and reporting); forty J (40J) (disclosure statements);
    
    
    
    
    and forty K (40K) (inventory of public property  and central
    
    
    
    
    depository for deeds and records of public property).  These
    
    
    
    
    serve only to provide information to DCPO in its role of coordi-
    
    
    
    
    nator of state capital projects, and specifically do not re-
    
    
    
    
    linquish power to DCPO.
                                 -16-
    

    -------
         7.    Applicability of Federal Executive Orders to the Land
    Acquisition
    
         We  have reviewed the possiblity that an acquisition of Long
    
    Island by the MDC might be subject to the federal Executive
    
    Orders on Floodplains (E.G. 11988) and Wetlands (E.G. 11990) on
    
    the theory that the acquisition might constitute a federal action.
    
    The Executive Orders, and regulations of EPA promulgated there-
    
    under (at 40 C.F.R. 6.302) provide that the Orders shall apply to
    
    federal  financial assistance as well as direct federal activities.
    
    The MDC's purchase of land to be used for the sewage treatment
    
    facility, however, appears to be entirely independent of the
    
    federal  government, since the costs of land acquisition will not
    
    be reimbursed by EPA.
    
         Although it may be argued that the state's purchase is an
    
    "integral part" of major federal action, see,  e.g., Citizens for
    
    Balanced Environment and Transportation, Inc.  v  Volpe, 376
    
    F. Supp. 806, 813  (D. Conn.), aff'd per curiam, 503 F.2d 601 (2d
    
    Cir. 1974), or that the state is a "partner" of the federal
    
    government, see, e.g.,  Monarch Chemical Works, Inc. v. Exxon, 452
    
    F. Supp. 403, 501  (D. Neb. 1978), and that, therefore, the state
    
    may be enjoined from exercising its power to acquire land, the
    
    instances in which injunctions have been appropriate all involved
    
    more federal action than is present here.  See, e.g., Monarch
    
    Chemical, 452 F. Supp.  at 501-02  (city to use federal funds to
    
    purchase land and to be reimbursed by state);  Greenspon v. Federal
    
    Highway Administration, 488 F. Supp. 1374, 1381-82 (D. Md. 1980)
    
    (relocation expenses of railroad, including acquisition of land
                                 -17-
    

    -------
    by City of Baltimore, to be  reimbursed  by federal  government).
    
    No eminent domain cases have been  located in  which the  taking was
    
    considered to be a  "federal  action" without substantial federal
    
    funds being involved in the  actual purchase of  the land.   There
    
    are a great many cases in which private parties have  unsuccess-
    
    fully attempted to  enjoin projects after the  state agency  acquired
    
    the land.  See, e.g., Citizens for Balanced Environment and Trans-
    
    portation, Inc. v.  Volpe, 376 F. Supp.  806; see also, Citizens
    
    for Responsible Area Growth v. Adams, 680 F.2d  835 (1st Cir.
    
    1983) (airport expansion not "federal"  if no  federal  funds in-
    
    volved); Friends of the Earth, Inc. v.  Coleman,  518 F.2d 343 (9th
    
    Cir. 1975) (individual parts of airport expansion  may be sever-
    
    able).  Based on existing case law, it  appears  that all obligations
    
    under the Executive Orders will arise only after the  state acquires
    
    the land.  A discussion of the impact of these  Orders is included
    
    later in this Memorandum.
    
         B.    Proposed  Metropolitan Water Resources Authority  Statutory
    Power to acquire all or parts of Long Island  by eminent domain
    
         As part of our analysis regarding  the feasibility  of  a state
    
    agency acquiring all or part of Long Island to  construct a sewage
    
    treatment facility,  we have examined the most current proposed
    
    bill to create the Metropolitan Water Resources Authority  (the
    
    "Authority"),  House Bill 5915 (the "Bill") submitted  to the
    
    legislature April 19, 1984 by Governor  Michael  Dukakis.  Several
    
    sections of the Bill contain provisions relevant to the Authority's
    
    power to acquire real estate for its statutory  functions,  includ-
                                 -18-
    

    -------
    ing the provision of sewage treatment and disposal services.
    
    These sections are discussed below.
    
         Section 6 of the Bill contains  the general powers provision
    
    for the Authority-  Section 6 (j)  provides that the Authority may
    
    "acquire and take and hold title in  its own name by purchase of
    
    any [real]  property and to exercise  the power of eminent domain"
    
    in the same manner as is presently afforded to the MDC for similar
    
    purposes.   No other statutory limitations are proposed in the
    
    Bill with respect to exempt properties or areas which would
    
    preclude the full exercise of the  right to acquire real property
    
    by eminent domain.
    
         By express statutory provision,  the Authority would be
    
    subject to the provisions of the Prior Public Use Doctrine, and
    
    Article 97 of the state Constitution,  where the Authority sought
    
    to acquire land devoted to a prior public use, or acquired for
    
    certain public purposes.   Section  4(c) of the Bill provides that:
    
              Under this act (i) no lands or easements taken or
         acquired for the purposes authorized by article ninety-
         seven of the amendments to the  constitution of the
         Commonwealth shall be used for  other purposes or dis-
         posed of,  and (ii) no lands devoted to a public use
         shall be diverted to another  inconsistent public use,
         except in all instances in accordance with the laws and
         the constitution of the Commonwealth.
    
         This provision of the Bill appears to codify the provisions
    
    of Article 97 and the Prior Public Use Doctrine,  and expressly
    
    subject the Authority to their requirements.
    
         More notable, however,  is a provision contained in Section 9(a)
    
    of the Bill,  which modifies the requirements for approval under
                                 -19-
    

    -------
    the Prior Public Use Doctrine applicable to the Authority.  That
    
    section states:
    
              (a)  In addition to every manner of acquiring
         interests in property authorized generally by this act
         or by other law, the authority may acquire from any
         person  [defined by the Bill to include cities and
         towns]  real .   . .  property  ... by eminent domain in
         accordance with the provisions of chapter seventy-nine
         or chapter eighty A of the General Laws; provided,
         however, that no property or rights already appropri-
         ated to public use shall be so taken without the prior
         approval of the governor.   (emphasis added)
    
         This requirement for approval by the governor, apparently to
    
    be applied to proposed takings of property protected only by the
    
    Prior Public Use Doctrine, is unlike the present statute governing
    
    the MDC, and adds another level of independent governmental
    
    approval before a taking of lands appropriated or dedicated to
    
    public use will be allowed.  Thus, while the proposed Authority
    
    would have the same powers as the MDC to acquire Long Island by
    
    eminent domain, to the extent parts or all of Long Island have
    
    been appropriated to public use, not only the legislature, but
    
    the executive branch must authorize the acquisition.  While it
    
    may be possible for the legislature to override a governor's veto
    
    of a Prior Public Use Doctrine bill, the Bill would give the
    
    governor absolute veto power.
    
         Finally, the Authority would be subject to all of the statu-
    
    tory and regulatory requirements discussed in later sections of
    
    this Memorandum.   Although the Authority is intended to be an
    
    independent entity,  it has not been made exempt from the applica-
    
    bility of state environmental or historic statutes and regulations
                                 -20-
    

    -------
    It has,  however,  apparently been proposed to be exempt  frorr,  the
    
    requirements for  approval by the DCFO.
    
         C.    Legal and Administrative Impediments to the Use  of  Long
    I siand
    
         Although the MDC may be able to acquire Long Island with the
    
    approval of the legislature, DCPO and DEM, the construction  and
    
    operation of a sewage treatment facility at Long Island would be
    
    subject to a number of state and federal requirements ^imiting
    
    the island's development.  The most important problems  expected
    
    to be encountered in facility siting,  design, and construction
    
    are raised by the Massachusetts Historical Commission Act, M.G.L.
    
    c.9 §§26-27D,  the National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C.
    
    §470 et seq.,  the Coastal Zone Management Act, 15 U.S.C. §1451 et
    
    seq. ,  the Executive Order on Wetlands, E.G. 11990, and  the Execu-
    
    tive Order on Floodplains, E.G.  11988.  Each of these major
    
    issues is discussed below.
    
         1.    Massachusetts Historic Commission Jurisdiction
    
         The Massachusetts statute establishing the Massachusetts
    
    Historical Commission (MHC), M.G.L. c.9 §§26-2"D (hereinafter  the
    
    "Act"),  establishes procedures which require each stare agency
    
    which undertakes  a project to determine if the project will
    
    "affect" a property on the State Register of Historic Places  (the
    
    "Stare Register").   If a project will affect a State Register
    
    property,  the state agency is to seek comments from the MHC,
    
    including whether the project will have an adverse effect  on  the
    
    State Register property.   If the MHC finds such an "adverse
    
    effect"  the state agency is required to consult with the MHC  and
                                 -21-
    

    -------
    consider alternatives to the project which would minimize those
    
    
    
    
    adverse effects.
    
    
    
    
         The Act, which closely parallels its federal counterpart,
    
    
    
    
    the National Historic Preservation Act  (NHPA), 16 U.S.C. 470 et
    
    
    
    
    seq. (1976), is primarily a notification and  comment statute.
    
    
    
    
    The Act does not require the state agency to  accept modifications
    
    
    
    
    and alternatives put forth by the MHC.  Nonetheless, the Act
    
    
    
    
    poses several obstacles to the MDC project if the Act's procedures
    
    
    
    
    are applicable.  First, there is the potential for long delays
    
    
    
    
    during the review and consultation process, during which period
    
    
    
    
    the project may not proceed.  Second, if an "adverse effect" is
    
    
    
    
    found by MHC, the MDC and other state agencies involved will be
    
    
    
    
    required to consider alternatives mitigating  the adverse effects,
    
    
    
    
    and to document the reasons for not accepting them.  Because of
    
    
    
    
    the potential significance of this law,  we will explain its
    
    
    
    procedures in some detail.
    
    
    
    
                   (a)  Summary of the Act
    
    
    
    
         The threshold question governing applicability of the Act is
    
    
    
    
    whether the project "affects any property listed on the state
    
    
    
    
    register of historic places."  The State Register contains (1) all
    
    
    
    
    districts, sites, buildings, or objects determined eligible for
    
    
    
    
    listing or listed in the National Register of Historic Places;
    
    
    
    
    (2) all local historic districts established  pursuant to M.G.L.
    
    
    
    
    C.40C,  or a special law; (3) all landmarks designated under local
    
    
    
    
    ordinance or by-law; (4) all structures and sites subject to a
    
    
    
    
    preservation easement approved or held by the MHC pursuant to
                                 -22-
    

    -------
    M.G.L.  c.184 §32;  and (5) all historical or archaeological land-
    
    
    
    
    marks certified pursuant to M.G.L.  c.9 §27.
    
    
    
    
         At the present time, Long Island is not listed in the State
    
    
    
    
    Register.   However,  subsequent listing of all or part of the
    
    
    
    
    island is a possibility.  Because of the possible presence of
    
    
    
    
    significant historical and archaeological features, Long Island
    
    
    
    
    may be placed on the State Register through eligibility for the
    
    
    
    
    National Register or designation as a landmark district by the
    
    
    
    
    Boston Landmark Commission (BLC).   Although Long Island may
    
    
    
    
    contain archaeological or historical landmarks,  certification as
    
    
    
    
    a historical or archaeological landmark is a consensual procedure
    
    
    
    
    and requires written consent of the person claiming ownership and
    
    
    
    
    others with recorded interests in the site or structure.   M.G.L.
    
    
    
    
    c.9 §27.
    
    
    
    
         With respect to National Register listing or eligibility,
    
    
    
    
    which would place the site on the State Register, the Massachu-
    
    
    
    
    setts regulations list the federal procedures which, if followed,
    
    
    
    
    will suffice to list a property.  The procedures are those listed
    
    
    
    
    in the federal regulations implementing the NHPA (36 C.F.R.
    
    
    
    
    Part 60 (listing on the National Register) and 36 C.F.R.  Part 63
    
    
    
    
    (eligibility for listing on the National Register)).  The criteria
    
    
    
    
    for eligibility are also listed in the federal regulations (36
    
    
    
    
    C.F.R.  60.4).
    
    
    
    
         As to landmark status, the Boston Landmarks Commission
    
    
    
    
    ("BLC"), has the authority to designate landmarks,  landmark
    
    
    
    
    districts, architectural conservation districts, or protection
                                 -23-
    

    -------
    areas in the Boston Harbor.  Thus, all or part  of  Long  Island
    
    
    
    
    could be designated a landmark district or  landmark by  the BLC
    
    
    
    
    pursuant to the procedures and criteria in  the  statute  creating
    
    
    
    
    it.  St. of 1975, c.772 §4.
    
    
    
                   (b)  Effect on State Register Property
    
    
    
    
         Under state law, the affected state agency must determine if
    
    
    
    
    the project will "affect" any property listed on the State Register
    
    
    
    
    as early as possible in the planning process, prior to  such state
    
    
    
    
    agency funding, licensing or construction.  The determination
    
    
    
    
    must occur prior to any action that would foreclose alternatives
    
    
    
    
    that could eliminate, minimize or mitigate  adverse effects, or
    
    
    
    
    would limit the MHC's ability to comment.   (950 C.M.R.  71.07(11)).
    
    
    
    
         The regulations of the MHC prescribe a two-step procedure of
    
    
    
    
    identification and assessment of effect to be undertaken by the
    
    
    
    
    state agency to determine if there is an effect on a State Register
    
    
    
    
    property.  Initially, each state agency is to identify  any State
    
    
    
    
    Register properties within the area of potential impact of the
    
    
    
    
    project, defined as that geographic area within which direct and
    
    
    
    
    indirect effects generated by the project could reasonably be
    
    
    
    
    expected to occur and thus cause a change in the historical,
    
    
    
    
    archaeological or cultural qualities possessed  by  the State
    
    
    
    
    Register property.  (956 C.M.R. 71.03).  The regulations provide
    
    
    
    
    that not only are properties actually listed on the State Register
    
    
    
    
    which are within the area of potential impact of the Project to
    
    
    
    
    be identified, but also, "to the extent feasible," those proper-
    
    
    
    
    ties which "may be eligible for listing on  the  State Register"
                                 -24-
    

    -------
    (950 C.M.R.  71.07(1)(a)(2)).   The  MHC is charged with maintaining
    
    an Inventory of  Historic  and  Prehistoric Assets and is to assist
    
    state agencies in  identifying them.
    
         If there are  State Register properties within the area of
    
    impact,  a  determination is  to be made by each state agency whether
    
    the project  will have  an  effect on the characteristics which
    
    qualified  the property for  inclusion on the State Register.   950
    
    C.M.R.  71.07(1)(b).  This requirement of determination of effect,
    
    on its face  including  only  properties listed on the State Register
    
    appears more limited in scope than the requirement of identifica-
    
    tion of properties, including properties which may be "eligible"
    
    for listing  on the State  Register.   The criteria of effect to be
    
    applied to make  this determination are quite broad:
    
         "a project  shall  be  considered to have an effect when-
         ever  the project  causes  or may cause a change in the
         integrity of  the  location, design,  setting,  material,
         workmanship,  feeling or  association of property listed
         in the  State  Register.   The effect of a project on a
         State Register property  is evaluated in the context of
         the historical, architectural,  archaeological or cultural
         significance  possessed by the property.   A project
         shall be considered  to have an effect whenever the
         project causes or may  cause any change,  beneficial or
         adverse, in the quality  of the historical,  architectural,
         archaeological or cultural characteristics that qualify
         the property  to be listed on  the State Register.   An
         effect  may  be direct or  indirect."
    
    950 C.M.R. 71.05(1) .
    
         It,is possible that  the  proposed construction of the treat-
    
    ment plant on Long Island would be deemed to have an effect on
    
    State Register property,  if any part of Long Island were being
    
    considered for inclusion  on the State Register.
                                 -25-
    

    -------
                   (c)  Adverse Effect and Consultation
    
         If the state agency determines the project will have an
    
    effect on a State Register property, notice (on a form provided
    
    by MHC) so stating is to be sent to MHC, triggering the MHC
    
    review process. The Executive Director of the MHC then has thirty
    
    (30) days to determine if the project will have an "adverse
    
    effect" on the State Register properties.  M.G.L. c.9 §27C.
    
    "Adverse effect" is not defined in the statute or the regulations,
    
    but each of the listed examples included in the regulations might
    
    be applicable to the Long Island situation:
    
              1.    the destruction or alteration of all or part
         of a State Register property;
    
              2.    the isolation or alteration of a State Regis-
         ter property from its surrounding environment;
    
              3.    the introduction of visual,  audible or atmos-
         pheric elements that are out of character with the
         State Register property;
    
              4.    the neglect of a State Register property
         resulting in deterioration or destruction; or
    
              5.    the transfer or sale of a State Register
         property without adequate conditions or restrictions
         regarding preservation,  maintenance or use.
    
    950 C.M.R. §71.05(2).
    
         If MHC finds an "adverse effect" a consultation and negotia-
    
    tion process between the state agency and the MHC commences, in
    
    which the state agency and the Executive Director of the MHC
    
    discuss alternatives to the project and means of mitigating any
    
    adverse effect.  The Act and regulations do not make clear whether
    
    "alternatives" may be limited to different site configurations,
    
    or whether consideration of other sites is required.
                                 -26-
    

    -------
         Because of an inconsistency between the state law and imple-
    
    
    
    
    menting regulations,  it is not clear whether the state agency
    
    
    
    
    must adopt the mitigation measures recommended.   Although the
    
    
    
    
    regulations require the state agency to "consider alternatives to
    
    
    
    
    the project that could eliminate,  minimize or mitigate adverse
    
    
    
    
    effects on the State  Register property." (950 C.M.R.  71.07(3))
    
    
    
    
    the Act requires the  state agency,  in implementing its final
    
    
    
    
    plans,  to adopt all prudent and feasible measures that eliminate
    
    
    
    
    the adverse effect.   M.G.L.  c.9 §27C.  If the state agency fails
    
    
    
    
    to agree to comply with alternatives suggested by the Executive
    
    
    
    
    Director of the MHC,  and the Executive Director refuses to accept
    
    
    
    
    the adverse effect because there are no prudent and feasible
    
    
    
    
    alternatives (950 C.M.R.  §71.07(3)(b)),  then the full MHC must
    
    
    
    
    meet to consider the  Executive Director's proposal of prudent and
    
    
    
    
    feasible alternatives,  and may prepare its own statement of
    
    
    
    
    prudent and feasible  alternatives.   If the state agency still
    
    
    
    
    refuses to agree and  to sign a Memorandum of Agreement so indicat-
    
    
    
    
    ing, the state agency may proceed with the project,  but it can do
    
    
    
    
    so only after submitting an explanation of its position on the
    
    
    
    
    MHC comments,  and only after a ten day waiting period.
    
    
    
    
                   (d)  Impediments Presented By The Act
    
    
    
    
                        (i)  Suspension of activity on project.
    
    
    
    
         If there is no State Register property within the project's
    
    
    
    
    area of potential impact,  or if the state agencies find no affect
    
    
    
    
    on a State Registry property,  the project may proceed.  The state
    
    
    
    
    agency  may also agree with the suggested measures to avoid or
                                 -27-
    

    -------
    minimize the adverse affects and then may proceed.  See e.g., 950
    
    C.M.R. §71.07(5)(e).   However,  if the MHC is required to comment,
    
    i.e. if there is an effect, the state agency is effectively
    
    precluded from proceeding with the project until the administra-
    
    tive process is completed.  Section 950 C.M.R. 71.07(1)(b)(4)
    
    provides that until the Commission issues its comments, "the
    
    state agency shall not take or sanction any action or make any
    
    irreversible or irretrievable commitment that could result in an
    
    adverse effect on a State Register property or that would fore-
    
    close the consideration of modifications or alternatives to the
    
    proposed project that could eliminate, minimize or mitigate such
    
    adverse effects." It should be noted that if the state agency
    
    ultimately refuses to accept the MHC's alternatives, "no state
    
    agency may proceed with the project until 10 days after the
    
    submission" of reasons for such failure to accept comments to the
    
    MHC.  950 C.M.R. 71.07(5)(e).   It would appear that all state
    
    agencies,  (DEM,  DCPO,  DEQE) and not just the state agency submit-
    
    ting the statement of reasons,  are precluded from proceeding with
    
    the project.
    
                   (e)  Unmarked Skeletal Remains Suspected of Being
    100 Years Old or More:   M.G.L.  c.  9 §27C
    
         An additional, related impediment may be raised by M.G.L.
    
    c.9 §27C,  wich provides that all activity, including construction
    
    activity,  cease until such time as the state archaeologist has
    
    completed a site evaluation and until disposition of the remains
    
    has been agreed upon if "any person,  corporation, agency or
    
    authority of the commonwealth or any of its political subdivisions
                                 -28-
    

    -------
    discovers unmarked human burial or skeletal remains suspected of
    
    being one hundred years or more."  In addition,  in arranging for
    
    the disposition of such human remains,  the state archaeologist is
    
    required to consult with the site's owner and other interested
    
    persons to determine whether "prudent and feasible alternatives"
    
    exist to avoid, minimize or mitigate harm to the burial site.
    
    If the skeletal remains are suspected of being an American Indian
    
    burial site,  the Commission of Indian Offices is to be notified
    
    and will have a role in the consultations.  M.G.L. c.7 §38.   If
    
    no prudent and feasible alternative is agreed to, the state
    
    archaeologist is permitted to excavate the site  and recover  the
    
    remains.  The project is then allowed to proceed.
    
         It is possible, given the history of Long Island and the
    
    results of recent archaeological studies indicating the existence
    
    of numerous unmarked burial sites on Long Island, that human
    
    burial and skeletal remains will be found during the pre-construc-
    
    tion and construction phases of the sewage treatment facility.
    
    If such conditions are encountered, construction activity will be
    
    unable to proceed without state archaeologist involvement.
    
    However, the provisions of this section do not appear to pose any
    
    permanent impediment to site development.
    
         2 .   Applicability of the National Historic Preservation Act
    of 1966
    
                   (a)  Introduction
    
         In addition to MHC jurisdiction, procedures under the National
    
    Historic Preservation Act of 1966 ( "NHPA" ) will  be implicated if
    
    the project is federally funded or permitted.  NHPA' s procedures
                                 -29-
    

    -------
    closely parallel the Act involving the Massachusetts Historic
    
    Commission, and the potential legal and institutional impediments
    
    posed by NHPA are similar to those described earlier.  The key
    
    section of NHPA for purposes of the proposed Long Island treatment
    
    plant states:
    
         "the head of any Federal agency having direct or indi-
         rect jurisdiction over a proposed federal or federally
         assisted undertaking in any state and the head of any
         federal department or independent agency having author-
         ity to license any undertaking shall, prior to the
         approval of the expenditure of any federal funds on the
         undertaking,  or prior to the issuance of any license,
         as the case may be, take into account the effect of the
         undertaking on any district, site, building, structure,
         or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion
         in the National Register.   The head of any such Federal
         agency shall afford the Advisory Council on Historic
         Preservation ... a reasonable opportunity to comment
         with regard to such undertaking."
    
    16 U.S.C. §470(f).
    
    The MDC's Long Island project,  which will require EPA approval if
    
    federally funded,  is clearly such an undertaking.  36 C.F.R.
    
    §800.2(c).  Further, language in 40 C.F.R. 6.602(a), regulations
    
    governing EPA's obligations to participate in impact assessments,
    
    specifically provide that even NPDES permit approvals require
    
    such review.
    
                   (b)   Summary of NHPA
    
                        (i)  Listed on or Eligible for Listing on
                             National Register.
    
         The NHPA, its implementing regulations, and Executive Order
    
    11593 require EPA to identify all properties within or about the
    
    project area that are listed in or are eligible for inclusion in
    
    the National Register of Historic Places which may be affected by
                                 -30-
    

    -------
    the project.  16 U.S.C. §470(f);  see 36 C.F.R. 800.4(a);  Romero-
    
    
    
    
    Borcelo v. Brown, 643 F.2d 835, 839 (1st Cir. 1981),  rev'd on
    
    
    
    other grounds,  456 U.S. 305 (1982).  Listing of a site or district
    
    
    
    
    on the National Register is accomplished by certain nomination
    
    
    
    and review procedures.  See 36 C.F.R.  60.  Because of conflicting-
    
    
    
    
    federal district court interpretations, it is unclear whether a
    
    
    
    site or district must be identified for study by EPA only where
    
    
    
    there has been a determination by a state or Federal agency that
    
    
    
    the site or district is eligible, or where it merely meets the
    
    
    
    "eligibility criteria."  (Compare Committee to Save the Fox Build-
    
    
    
    ing v. Birmingham Branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta,
    
    
    
    497 F. Supp. 504, 512 (1980)(requiring determination) with Hough
    
    
    
    v. Marsh, 557 F. Supp. 74,  88 (D. Mass. 1982)(no determination
    
    
    
    needed)).  Some support for the latter interpretation, however,
    
    
    
    may be found in EPA regulations at 40 C.F.R. 6.301(a), which
    
    
    
    require the identification of properties "potentially eligible
    
    
    
    
    for listing on the National Register."
    
    
    
         The specific area to be examined for eligible properties is
    
    
    
    the "area of the undertaking's potential environmental impact"
    
    
    
    (36 C.F.R. 800.4(a)), which is defined as the "geographical area
    
    
    
    within which direct and indirect effects generated by the under-
    
    
    
    taking could reasonably be expected to occur."  36 C.F.R. 800.3(o).
    
    
    
    EPA must consult the State Historical Preservation Officer ("SHPO")
    
    
    
    when determining the area of potential environmental impact and
    
    
    
    the scope of surveys needed to identify eligible properties
    
    
    
    within that area.  36 C.F.R. 800.3(o), and 800.4(a)(2).  The
                                 -31-
    

    -------
    extent of the studies required to determine if there is an elig-
    
    
    
    
    ible property will vary, but a standard of reasonableness seems
    
    
    
    
    to have developed.  Wilson v. Block, 708 F.2d 735, 754 (D.C. Cir.
    
    
    
    
    1983; .
    
    
    
    
         The determination in each case of a property's eligibility
    
    
    
    
    is the responsibility of the agency and of the SHPO:   See C.F.R.
    
    
    
    
    800.4(a)(3).  In the absence of an abuse of discretion, their
    
    
    
    
    application of the regulations to the facts will be sustained.
    
    
    
    
    Wilson v. Block, supra at 746.
    
    
    
    
         Section 800.4(a)(3) of 36 C.F.R. states that when a "question"
    
    
    
    
    exists as to a property's eligibility,  the Secretary of the
    
    
    
    
    Interior shall be requested to make a final determination.  Sec-
    
    
    
    
    tion 63.2(c) of 36 C.F.R. states that a "question" exists "when
    
    
    
    
    the  [federal] agency and the State Historic Preservation Officer
    
    
    
    
    disagree or when the agency determines that a question exists."
    
    
    
    
                   (c)  Effect on Listed or Eligible Property
    
    
    
    
         Section 800.4(b) of 36 C.F.R. requires each agency,  in
    
    
    
    
    consultation with the SHPO,  to determine for each listed or
    
    
    
    
    eligible property within the potential environmental impact area,
    
    
    
    
    whether the project will affect the historical, archaeological,
    
    
    
    
    or other characteristic of the property that qualified it for
    
    
    
    
    inclusion in the National Register.  The agency is to determine
    
    
    
    
    whether an effect is present according to the criteria of 36
    
    
    
    
    C.F.R.  §800.3(a).  36 C.F.R. 800.4(b)(l).  If, however, the
    
    
    
    
    agency determines merely that the project will have no adverse
    
    
    
    
    effect, the agency1s determination must be submitted to the
                                 -32-
    

    -------
    Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for review and comment,
    
    
    
    
    36 C.F.R. 800.4(d), 800.6(b).
    
    
    
    
                   (d)  Adverse Effect Consultation
    
    
    
    
         If EPA finds an adverse effect pursuant to the criteria of
    
    
    
    
    36 C.F.R. 800.3(b), which are identical to the State criteria of
    
    
    
    
    adverse effect, then the Federal Agency official, the State
    
    
    
    
    Historic Preservation officer,  and the Executive Director of the
    
    
    
    
    Advisory Council of Historic Preservation (the "Executive Direc-
    
    
    
    
    tor") must formally commence the consultation process to consider
    
    
    
    
    feasible and prudent alternatives to the undertaking that could
    
    
    
    
    avoid,  mitigate,  or minimize adverse effects on a National Regis-
    
    
    
    
    ter property or eligible property.  36 C.F.R. Part 800.6.  EPA is
    
    
    
    
    obligated to provide all information necessary to consider altera-
    
    
    
    
    tions and modifications which could avoid or mitigate the adverse
    
    
    
    
    effects  (36 C.F.R. §800.4), but an important limitation may be
    
    
    
    
    that alternative sites need not be considered,  only changes to
    
    
    
    
    the existing proposal.  Wicker Park Historical District Preserva-
    
    
    
    
    tion Fund v. Pierce,  56'5 F. Supp 1066, 1074-75 (N.D. 111., 1982).
    
    
    
    
    Upon the failure of the consulting parties to agree upon the
    
    
    
    
    terms of a Memorandum of Agreement which would incorporate feasible
    
    
    
    
    and prudent alternatives to avoid or satisfactorily mitigate the
    
    
    
    
    adverse effects of the undertaking, the Executive Director may
    
    
    
    
    recommend that the entire Council undertake consideration of the
    
    
    
    
    proposed undertaking to the chairman of the Council.  The chairman
    
    
    
    
    is to decide,  within fifteen days, that such a meeting would be
    
    
    
    
    beneficial.  If so, a panel representing the Council will consider
                                 -33-
    

    -------
    the matter within thirty (30) days of the chairman's decision or
    
    
    
    
    the full Council will consider it not less than sixty (60) days
    
    
    
    
    from the date of the chairman's decision.  The Council or the
    
    
    
    
    panel is to issue its comments within fifteen (15) days after its
    
    
    
    
    meeting.  If EPA decides not to follow the panel's comments, the
    
    
    
    
    chairman of the Council may convene the full Council to consider
    
    
    
    
    the matter within thirty (30) days after receipt of the notice
    
    
    
    
    that the Agency will not follow the comments.  After receipt of
    
    
    
    
    the Council's comments, the EPA Administrator is obligated to
    
    
    
    
    take the comments into account in reaching a final decision with
    
    
    
    
    regard to the proposed undertaking.  36 C.F.R. 800.6(d)(7).   In
    
    
    
    
    addition, although EPA may not accept the Council's comments, EPA
    
    
    
    
    must submit a detailed written report to the Council including
    
    
    
    
    the actions taken in response to the Council's comments and the
    
    
    
    
    effect that the actions will have on the effected National Regis-
    
    
    
    
    ter or eligible property.   The Council may issue a final report
    
    
    
    
    to the President detailing EPA's action and making recommendations
    
    
    
    
    for changes in Federal policy and programs.   36 C.F.R.  §800.6(d)(1)
    
    
    
    
    Once this final report has been given to the Council,  EPA will
    
    
    
    
    have satisfied its obligations under the NHPA, and may proceed.
    
    
    
    
                   (e)  Impediments Posed by NHPA
    
    
    
    
                        (i)  Suspension of Activity.
    
    
    
    
         NHPA,  like its Massachusetts counterpart, contains provisions
    
    
    
    
    that preclude EPA from taking any action that could result in an
    
    
    
    
    adverse effect on a National Register or eligible property during
    
    
    
    
    the pendency of the review and consultation process.  See 36
                                 -34-
    

    -------
    C.F.R. 800.4(e); 36 C.F.R. 800.6(c)(3); 36 C.F.R. 800.6(d)(6).
    
    
    
    
    NHPA also contains statutory review periods: the Executive Director
    
    
    
    
    has 30 days to object to Determinations of No Adverse Effect, 36
    
    
    
    
    C.F.R. 800.6(a); the Executive Director has 15 days to  recommend
    
    
    
    
    consideration by the Council if the consulting parties  cannot
    
    
    
    
    agree, 36 C.F.R. 800.6(b)(7); the Chairman has 15 days  to deter-
    
    
    
    
    mine whether the undertaking will be considered by the  Council,
    
    
    
    
    36 C.F.R. 800.6(d)(l); the panel meets within 30 days of the
    
    
    
    
    Chairman's decision to consider, 36 C.F R. 800.6(d) (2)(i); the
    
    
    
    
    full Council will consider the project at the next regularly
    
    
    
    
    scheduled meeting, but not less than 60 days after the  Chairman's
    
    
    
    
    decision to consider, 36 C.F.R. 800.6(d)(2)(ii); the Council is
    
    
    
    
    to issue comments within 15 days after a meeting, 36 C.F.R.
    
    
    
    
    800.6(d)(5); the Council may meet to review the project within 30
    
    
    
    
    days of notice that EPA will not follow the Panel's recommendations,
    
    
    
    
    36 C.F.R. 800.6(d)(6).
    
    
    
    
         However, the consultation process itself has no specific
    
    
    
    
    time limit and the NHPA requires EPA to provide the information
    
    
    
    
    necessary for an adequate review of the effect of a proposed
    
    
    
    
    undertaking or a National Register or eligible property and for
    
    
    
    
    adequate consideration of modifications or alterations  to the
    
    
    
    
    proposed undertaking that could avoid,  mitigate or minimize
    
    
    
    
    adverse effects.  36 C.F.R. 800.4.
    
    
    
    
                         (ii) Public Participation, Litigation.
    
    
    
    
         The NHPA, like the Massachusetts Act, encourages public
    
    
    
    
    participation, 36 C.F.R. 800.15 (public participation encouraged);
                                 -35-
    

    -------
     36 C.F.R. 800.5(b)(3)  (public  information meeting to be held
    
    
    
    
     during consulting process if requested by one of the consulting
    
    
    
    
     parties).   Such public participation and the thorough procedures
    
    
    
    
     for the  consideration of alternatives to avoid or mitigate adverse
    
    
    
    
     effects  have created significant delays because of  litigation.
    
    
    
    
     See,  e.g.,  Wicker Park Historical District Preservation Fund v.
    
    
    
    
     Pierce,  supra at 1074-1075, listing several potential causes of
    
    
    
    
     action,  and standards of review.
    
    
    
    
          3.   Coastal Zone Management Issues
    
    
    
    
                    (a)  Introduction.
    
    
    
    
          The Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP) is
    
    
    
    
     an administrative program approved under the provisions of the
    
    
    
    
     Federal  Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended,  16
    
    
    
    
     U.S.C. 1451 et seq.  As an administrative program,  no state
    
    
    
    
     statutes specifically empower the Massachusetts Office of Coastal
    
    
    
    
     Zone  Management to review and regulate activities in the coastal
    
    
    
    
     zone; rather, Coastal Zone Management policies were developed to
    
    
    
    
     be administered within the existing state permitting and licensing
    
    
    
    
     framework to ensure compliance with the objectives of the Coastal
    
    
    
    
     Zone Management Act.  Although the Massachusetts CZMP has been in
    
    
    
    
    place since 1978,  only in 1983, by Chapter 589 of the Acts of
    
    
    
    
     1983,  was the Office of Coastal Zone Management formally placed
    
    
    
    
    within the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs.
    
    
    
    
     See Ch.  589 of the Acts of 1983, 4A.
    
    
    
    
         Regulations of the Massachusetts CZMP are promulgated at 301
    
    
    
    
    C.M.R. 20.00 (state consistency program) and 301 CMR 21.00 (federal
                                 -36-
    

    -------
    consistency program).   The state consistency program requires the
    
    
    
    
    application of CZMP policies to state permitting and licensing
    
    
    
    
    activities (to which only the regulatory policies apply) and
    
    
    
    
    state financial assistance and direct state actions (to which
    
    
    
    
    both regulatory and non-regulatory policies apply).  The federal
    
    
    
    
    consistency program requires the determination of consistency
    
    
    
    
    between the CZMP policies and federal activities (direct federal
    
    
    
    
    actions), federal permitting and licensing, and federal financial
    
    
    
    
    assistance to state and local government.  Because the proposed
    
    
    
    
    construction of a new sewage treatment facility at Long Island or
    
    
    
    
    Deer Island will involve direct state action (construction by the
    
    
    
    
    MDC), state permitting and licensing (issuance of state wetland
    
    
    
    
    permits and water pollution discharge permits,  among others)
    
    
    
    
    federal permitting  (NPDES permit) and possible federal financial
    
    
    
    
    assistance to state and local government (the EPA Construction
    
    
    
    
    Grant), both state  and federal consistency regulations are appli-
    
    
    
    
    cable.  Further, subsequent federal permits required for facility
    
    
    
    
    construction, including section 404 and section 10 permits, would
    
    
    
    
    also be subject to  federal consistency review.   Because these
    
    
    
    
    federal permits are issued by the U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers,
    
    
    
    
    however, it will be the Corps of Engineers which must make the
    
    
    
    
    consistency determination for those permits.
    
    
    
    
                    (b)  State Consistency Issues
    
    
    
    
         Under the  state program, three EOEA agencies are potentially
    
    
    
    
    subject to the CZMP policies and must make their actions conform
    
    
    
    
    to the policies to  the greatest extent possible.  The actions of
                                 -37-
    

    -------
    the MDC, a defined EOEA agency, are required by 301 C.M.R. 20.06
    
    to be consistent with the CZMP policies to the fullest extent
    
    practicable.  The MDC actions involved in the proposed Project
    
    include both the acquisition, by eminent domain or purchase, of
    
    land needed for the sewage treatment facility, and the construc-
    
    tion of the facility-  The Department of Environmental Quality
    
    Engineering (DEOE), an EOEA agency, will be required to issue
    
    approvals for the project under state waterways,  water pollution
    
    and wetland protection statutes.  It can be argued that the DEM,
    
    as the agency empowered by Section 8 of Chapter 742 of the Acts
    
    of 1970 to control the use and disposition of the Boston Harbor
    
    Islands (including Long Island and Deer Island),  must ensure that
    
    its decision under that authority is consistent with the CZMP
    
    policies,  although it is not clear whether the statutory provi-
    
    sions of chapter 742 may allow the DEM to act in contravention of
    
    CZMP policies without recourse.  In addition,  the DCPO may be
    
    subject to the consistency requirement, although its action would
    
    be substantively identical to that of the MDC.
    
         In determining whether any of the above-described actions
    
    are consistent with the CZMP, the agencies concerned must give
    
    special attention to all of the regulatory policies of the CZMP.
    
    However, four of these policies deserve specific mention:
    
              Regulatory Policy number 1:  Protect significant
         resource areas (salt marshes, shellfish beds, dunes,
         beaches,  barrier beaches, and salt ponds) for their
         contributions to marine productivity and value as
         natural habitats and storm buffers.
    
    301 C.M.R.  20.05(3).
                                 -38-
    

    -------
         The implementation of this policy is focused on actions
    
    taken in areas subject to the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts
    
    Wetlands Protections Act, M.G.L. c.131 §40, and the Coastal
    
    Wetland Restriction Program, M.G.L. c 130 §105; on the issuance
    
    of Waterways licenses under M.G.L. c.91,  and in reviews by the
    
    Division of Marine Fisheries (where impacts on shellfish areas
    
    are involved) and by DEM (where impacts on an ocean sanctuary
    
    will be considered).  Long Island is known to contain a coastal
    
    wetland and barrier beach.   In evaluating the siting alternatives,
    
    these resources may suggest that this policy would discourage use
    
    of Long Island.  Note that impacts on ocean sanctuaries may be
    
    the same whether Long Island or Deer Island is involved in the
    
    decision;  however, new shellfish areas adjacent to Long Island
    
    may raise concerns with the Division of Marine Fisheries not
    
    raised at Deer Island.  Similarly, the fisheries and shell
    
    fisheries values protected by M.G.L. c.242 §40 may be more signif-
    
    icant at Long Island than at Deer Island.
    
              Regulatory Policy number 2:  Protect complexes of
         marine resource areas of unique productivity (Areas for
         Preservation or Restoration (APRs)/Areas of Critical
         Environmental Concern (ACECs); ensure that activities
         in or impacting such complexes are designed and carried
         out to minimize adverse effects on marine productivity.
         habitat values, water quality, and storm buffering of
         the entire complex.
    
    301 C.M.R. 20.05  (3).
    
         Although no part of the Boston Harbor Islands is presently
    
    classified as an APR or ACEC, such a proposal for designation has
    
    been made in past years and could be made again on a limited,
    
    island-specific or harbor-wide basis.  The policy specifically
                                 -39-
    

    -------
    provides that direct discharges from new sewage treatment facil-
    
    ities are prohibited within the water bodies comprising an APR/ACEC
    
    (once the water segments are classified anti-degradation), and
    
    that the siting of new municipal sewage treatment plants are
    
    prohibited within APRs.  The presence of scenic quality, historic
    
    significance, recreation value and the presence of or habitat for
    
    rare, threatened or endangered species make areas likely candidates
    
    for designation as an APR/ACEC.  All of these characteristics are
    
    thought to exist on Long Island.
    
              Regulatory Policy number 12:  Review proposed
         developments in or near designated or registered his-
         toric districts or sites to ensure that federal, state
         and private actions requiring a state permit respect
         their preservation intent and minimize potential adverse
         impacts.
    
    301 C.M.R. 20.05 (3) .
    
         This policy is intended to protect significant historic and
    
    cultural features in the coastal area.  It should be noted that
    
    the word "near" includes activities within 300 feet of the historic
    
    site or district.   Implementation of this policy will be achieved
    
    through MEPA determinations that all practical means and measures
    
    have been taken to minimize damage to the environment, including
    
    destruction,  damages or impairment, actual or probable,  to historic
    
    districts or sites.   Further,  implementation of the Massachusetts
    
    Historic District Act,  M.G.L.  c.40C, and the National Historic
    
    Preservation Act,  both discussed above, are intended to support
    
    administration of this policy.   At the present time, however, no
    
    part of Long Island contains a designated or registered historic
    
    site or district.
                                 -40-
    

    -------
              Regulatory Policy number 13:   Review developments
         proposed near existing public recreation sites in order
         to minimize their adverse impacts.
    
    301 C.M.R. 20.05(3).
    
         Although it is known that DEM has  proposed inclusion of
    
    parts of Long Island in its revised Boston Harbor Islands State
    
    Park Plan, no area of the island is presently used as a public
    
    recreation site entitled to protection  under this policy.  However,
    
    in the event the DEM plan is implemented prior to the MDC actions,
    
    this policy may raise problems in consistency review.  One may
    
    argue that the development of Long Island would affect the recre-
    
    ational use of the Boston Harbor Islands State Park in general,
    
    as enjoyment of the State Park may be considered to involve not
    
    only the land areas (islands) of the park, but the water areas as
    
    well.  However, it could also be argued that without any new
    
    treatment facility in the harbor, the environmental conditions in
    
    the Park will deteriorate.
    
         Considering the anticipated positions of the various EOEA
    
    agencies expected to be involved in the selection and development
    
    of a site for a new sewage treatment facility, it is possible for
    
    a conflict to arise between EOEA agencies.  While the MDC may
    
    desire to select Long Island for the proposed facility, the DEM
    
    and DEQE may oppose this action on a number of environmental
    
    quality or other state policy reasons (including recreation and
    
    historic/archaeologic resource protection).   Further, the Office
    
    of Coastal Zone Management may independently raise the issue of
    
    consistency of the MDC action, creating a need for resolution of
                                 -41-
    

    -------
    conflict between the EOEA agencies.  When and if inconsistency
    
    
    
    
    between agency positions arises, the CZMP regulations provide a
    
    
    
    
    means of dispute resolution, described at 301 C.M.R. 20.06 (2)
    
    
    
    
    through (12).  The Secretary of EOEA has the power and duty to
    
    
    
    
    resolve administrative or jurisdictional conflicts between two or -
    
    
    
    more EOEA agencies under M.G.L. C.21A §4, in a process intended
    
    
    
    to accomodate and foster political compromises.   As noted earlier,
    
    
    
    
    however, it is not clear whether the Secretary could override a
    
    
    
    decision of the DEM made under chapter 742 of the Acts of 1970.
    
    
    
         The State prograim regulations also contain provisions for
    
    
    
    continuing consultation with local, regional and other state
    
    
    
    agencies.   See 301 C.M.R. 20.06 (27) through (34).  Specific
    
    
    
    public notice, comment and consultation procedures are required
    
    
    
    for EOEA actions that conflict with any local zoning ordinance,
    
    
    
    decisions or other local actions.   The state actions subject to
    
    
    
    this requirement specifically include a taking by eminent domain
    
    
    
    or purchase of land in the coastal zone.  301 C.M.R. 20.06 (31)(d).
    
    
    
    A procedure for conflict resolution in these instances is also
    
    
    
    
    provided in 301 C.M.R. 20.06 (34).
    
    
    
                   (c)  Federal Consistency issues
    
    
    
         Federal consistency procedures are addressed in 301 C.M.R.
    
    
    
    21.00. These procedures track the requirements for federal con-
    
    
    
    sistency determinations set forth in Section 307 of the federal
    
    
    
    Coastal Zone Management Act and regulations promulgated thereunder
    
    
    
    
    at 15 C.F.R. 930.00 et seq.
                                 -42-
    

    -------
         The substantive issues which might be raised in federal
    
    
    
    
    consistency review are the same as those discussed above with
    
    
    
    
    respect to state consistency review and the applicability of the
    
    
    
    
    identified CZMP policies.  Many of the environmental policies
    
    
    
    
    discussed above have a relationship to federal permitting and
    
    
    
    
    licensing requirements, and to Executive Orders, such as the
    
    
    
    
    Executive Orders on Wetlands and Floodplains.
    
    
    
    
         Because the triggering mechanism for federal consistency
    
    
    
    
    review is federal financial assistance to state and local govern-
    
    
    
    
    ment, relatively abbreviated procedures may be followed, described
    
    
    
    
    at 301 C.M.R.  21.23 through 21.25, and at 15 C.F.R. 930.90.  In
    
    
    
    
    the event that a state agency objects to the federal assistance
    
    
    
    
    on the grounds that it would be inconsistent with a CZMP policy,
    
    
    
    
    the Secretary of Commerce may resolve the dispute by determining
    
    
    
    
    that the activity is consistent with the objective or purposes of
    
    
    
    
    the Coastal Zone Management Act, or is necessary in the interest
    
    
    
    
    of national security-  15 C.F.R. 930 subpart H.  This procedure
    
    
    
    
    may require public notice, comment and hearings.
    
    
    
    
         4.   Executive Orders on Wetlands and Floodplains
    
    
    
    
         Federal funding of this project will be subject to Executive
    
    
    
    
    Orders 11988,  Floodplain Management, and 11990, Protection of
    
    
    
    
    Wetlands.  These Orders direct federal agencies to examine the
    
    
    
    
    impact of major federal actions on floodplains and wetlands, and
    
    
    
    
    to seek practical alternatives.  Both Orders adopt NEPA policies
    
    
    
    
    and procedures and authorize regulations by affected agencies.
                                 -43-
    

    -------
         EPA has promulgated regulations on both Floodplains and
    
    
    
    
    Wetlands Executive Orders at 40 C.F.R. 6.302(a),  (b) .   These
    
    
    
    
    regulations incorporate the EPA's Statement  of Procedures on
    
    
    
    
    Floodplain Management and Wetlands Protection (Jan.  5,  1979)
    
    
    
    
    (Appendix A to 40 C.F.R. 6),  Under the statement of  procedures,
    
    
    
    
    no substantive distinction is made between floodplains  and wetlands
    
    
    
    
    The stated policies are to avoid destruction of wetlands,  to min-
    
    
    
    
    imize occupancy and alterations of floodplains and wetlands, and
    
    
    
    
    to withhold support from development of floodplains  and wetlands
    
    
    
    
    whenever there is a practicable alternative.   40  C.F.R.  6,  app. A,
    
    
    
    
    sec. 3(a).  An EIS for a project proposed near a  floodplain or
    
    
    
    
    wetland must address compliance with both Wetlands and  Floodplains
    
    
    
    
    Executive Orders, and the subsequent agency  decision must satisfy
    
    
    
    
    the Orders' concerns.  Specifically,  the agency must provide:
    
    
    
    
    (1) a determination that the proposed action is located on or
    
    
    
    will likely effect floodplains or wetlands;  if no adverse effects
    
    
    
    
    are identified, the action may proceed without meeting  further
    
    
    
    
    requirements;  (2) public notice at an early  stage;  (3)  an assess-
    
    
    
    
    ment consisting of the proposed action, its  effects on  floodplains
    
    
    
    
    and wetlands,  and a discussion of alternatives; (4) public  review
    
    
    
    
    of the assessment pursuant to the requirements of NEPA;  (5) if no
    
    
    
    
    practicable alternative exists, a statement  of action by the
    
    
    
    
    agency to minimize the potential harm to floodplains and wetlands;
    
    
    
    
    and (6) a public decision by the agency, accompanied by a state-
    
    
    
    
    ment of findings, which shall include:  (a)  reasons why the
    
    
    
    
    proposed action must be located in or affect the  area;  (b)  the
                                 -44-
    

    -------
    facts considered in making the decision on location; (c) a state-
    
    
    
    
    ment indicating whether the action conforms to local standards;
    
    
    
    
    (d) a description of the steps taken to minimize the harmful
    
    
    
    
    effects; and (e) an indication of how the action affects the
    
    
    
    
    floodplains and wetlands.  40 C.F.R. 6, app.  A, sec. 6.  To the
    
    
    
    
    extent possible, these requirements are to be satisfied in the
    
    
    
    
    existing NEPA process.
    
    
    
    
         The heart of these requirements is the investigation of
    
    
    
    
    alternatives.  If a "practicable" alternative exists, the agency
    
    
    
    
    is barred from proceeding with the original proposal.  Notably,
    
    
    
    
    the statement of procedures includes a definition of practicabil-
    
    
    
    
    ity:  "'Practicable' means capable of being done within existing
    
    
    
    
    constraints.  The test of what is practicable depends upon the
    
    
    
    
    situation and includes consideration of the pertinent factors
    
    
    
    
    such as environment, community welfare, cost, or technology."
    
    
    
    
    40 C.F.R. 6, app. A, sec. 4(g).  Thus, EPA will have to make a
    
    
    
    
    finding that Long Island is the most "practicable" option for
    
    
    
    
    siting the facility, considering all factors identified above.
    
    
    
    
    Failure to make and adequately support this finding will create a
    
    
    
    
    risk of litigation on this basis.
                                 -45-
    

    -------
                    LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS
              TO THE SELECTION OF THE DEER ISLAND ALTERNATIVE
    VI.  Introduction
    
    
    
        In  the  course  of  preparation  of  the   Supplemental  Draft
    
    Environmental  Impact  Statement  for  the  development  of  sewage
    
    treatment  facilities  in  Boston  Harbor,  several  questions have
    
    been raised  regarding  legal issues affecting use of Deer Island.
    
    These  questions  have   been posed  to  us for  our  research   and
    
    review, with the expectation that  our analysis will be  considered
    
    in the  selection  of  a  site or  sites for treatment facilities.  A
    
    similar memorandum has been prepared by this  office  to discuss
    
    issues  affecting  the development of Long Island; that  memorandum
    
    is entitled "Legal and  Institutional  Constraints to the Selection
    
    of the Long Island Alternative", dated August 28, 1984.
    
        The   Long    Island  memorandum   presented  a   considerable
    
    discussion of  the  application  of the Massachusetts "Prior  Public
    
    Use" Doctrine  and Article  97  of the  Massachusetts Constitution,
    
    as well  as several  other  provisions  of  state  and  federal law.
    
    Available  time   and   resources   preclude   a  similar   complete
    
    assessment  of  all  of  these   laws  as  they  affect Deer  Island.
    
    However, we have  been   requested to discuss  the applicability of
    
    the Prior Public Use Doctrine  and  Article 97  to Deer  Island,   and
    
    to conduct a  preliminary assessment  of  the  relationship between
    
    proposed  sewage  facility  expansion  and  the  existing  House  of
    
    corrections on Deer Island.
                                       -43-
    

    -------
        In reviewing  these  issues,  we  were  provided with  the draft
    
    
    
    archaeological report entitled "An Intensive Level Archaeological
    
    
    
    Survey on Deer  and Long Islands, Boston  Harbor,  Massachusetts",
    
    
    
    by Duncan Ritchie  and  Joan Gallagher, dated September  1984.   We
    
    
    
    were  also given several plans of  Deer Island, obtained  by C.E.
    
    
    
    Maguire.    From  these  documents  and materials  we  have  drawn
    
    
    
    certain conclusions  regarding the  applicability  of  various laws.
    
    
    
    We did not  attempt,  however,  to  verify the information presented
    
    
    
    in  these  materials  independently.   Similarly, much  information
    
    
    
    regarding present land  ownership  on  Deer  Island  was  obtained
    
    
    
    through  interviews  with  various   persons  identified  in  the
    
    
    
    memorandum.   Because of our resource limitations,  no confirmation
    
    
    
    of their statements was obtained, except where noted.
    
    
    
    VII.  Summary
    
    
    
        The presence  of  public lands on Deer  Island  have  raised the
    
    
    
    possibility  that   the  siting decision  would  be  subject  to  the
    
    
    
    applicability of Article 97  of the  Massachusetts  Constitution or
    
    
    
    the Prior Public  Use Doctrine.   Although  all  municipal lands on
    
    
    
    the island   are   charged  to the  authority of the Boston Penal
    
    
    
    Institutions Department, current  case law  suggests that  in this
    
    
    
    instance legislative approval may not be  required  because there
    
    
    
    is  no  active   use of  the  land  outside  of  the prison  fence.
    
    
    
    Article 97  is  not applicable because  no  lands were acquired for
    
    
    
    any of  the  purposes  protected by  that constitutional  provision.
    
    
    
    The existing  cemetery  on  Deer Island  is   protected  by the state
    
    
    
    statute governing  acquisition of burial grounds,  but at this time
    
    
    
    development  plans  would   not require  the acquisition   of  the
    
    
    
    cemetery.
    
    
    
                                      -44-
    

    -------
        Developmental  constraints include  the possible  discovery  of
     unmarked  skeletal  remains,  which  could  be  discovered  on  the
     island.   Historic  and  archaeological  resources on Deer  Island are
     very  limited,  and  do not  appear  to be a significant  limitation  on
     development.   Natural  resources,  such as wetlands,  are not  as
     predominant  on Deer Island  as they are on other  harbor  islands.
     While   facility   development  will   still  be  subject  to   the
     provisions   of  the   Wetlands   Protection   Act    (for  coastal
     structures),   Coastal   Zone   Management   and   Department    of
     Environmental  Management   review,  the  substantive issues  and
     concerns  appear to be manageable.
     VIII.  Public  Protection, of  Deer  IsJ.an.cLPjrppgrtj.es
        A.  History of Deer Island
        The  historic/archaeologic  report  prepared  as  part  of  the
     Environmental  Impact Statement indicates that the land now known
     as Deer  Island was granted  to the  City of Boston in 1634 by the
     Crown.   During  the  King  Phillip's war,  in  1676,  a prison was
     constructed to hold captured  Indians.   This prison was apparently
     constructed  of stone and  mortar,  and  a  portion  of  the original
     wall  is  reportedly  still   observable  near  the   present  prison
     facility.
        In the eighteenth  century parts of Deer Island were used for
     agricultural use,  including  wood gathering and grazing.  Records
     indicate that  profits  from  leases of  the land from the city were
     used to support  the  Boston School, but  that  no land was sold  by
    the city during this time.   One  history reports that a hotel was
    located on  Deer  Island  in  the  early  1800's  (William  Tewksbury
                                       -45-
    

    -------
    Hotel,  reported  in  Snow,  Tbe_Lsl.ajricis,  pf__ JBos_t_Qn__Harbor.  1630-
    
    
    
    1971.)  The  Registry  of  Deeds,  however,  contains  no  deeds  or
    
    
    
    leases  from the  City of  Boston from  1800  to  1850  which  would
    
    
    
    provide evidence  of  that  use or  structure.
    
    
    
         In  1847,  a  smallpox  hospital was established on Deer  Island,
    
    
    
    primarily  to quarantine  large  numbers of  Irish immigrants  with
    
    
    
    that  disease.   The history notes  that  many  hundreds of  unmarked
    
    
    
    graves  could be found  in  the grounds surrounding the hospital.
    
    
    
         Construction  of  a city  almshouse began  in  1849,  and was
    
    
    
    completed  in  1852.   The  poorhouse was  used only until 1858,  when
    
    
    
    the  structure  was  used  as  a  reformatory,  run  by   the  city.
    
    
    
    Reformatory  use  continued  until  1896,   when  penal  department
    
    
    
    reorganization designated the  structure as the Deer Island  House
    
    
    
    of Correction.  Maps of the Boston Redevelopment Authority  (BRA),
    
    
    
    useful  in  reconstructing  building locations  on  Deer   Island,
    
    
    
    indicate that the present correctional facility  is located  in the
    
    
    
    same area as the  reformatory, and before that, the hospital.
    
    
    
        Sewer  facilities  serving  the City of  Boston were originally
    
    
    
    constructed  on  Deer  Island  in  1879  near  the present  sewage
    
    
    
    facility  location.    The  southeastern  point  of  Deer   Island
    
    
    
    contains  Fort  Dawes,   constructed  by  the  U.S.  Department  of
    
    
    
    Defense in  1941.   This  property,  however,  is  now  classified  as
    
    
    
    surplus  property,  and is  controlled  by  the  General   Services
    
    
    
    Administration (GSA).   All records  reviewed for this memorandum
    
    
    
    indicate that  the City of  Boston  has  owned all  of  Deer  Island,
    
    
    
    except  for  Fort   Dawes and the  Metropolitan District Commission
    
    
    
    (MDC) parcels, since the  seventeenth century.
                                      -46-
    

    -------
         B.   Applicability  Qf_ Ag t
         Article   97   of  the  Massachusetts   Constitution   (amending
    
    
    
     Article  49 of the  Constitution)  provides that public  land  taken
    
    
    
     or   acquired  for  conservation,   scenic,  historic  or  recreation
    
    
    
     purposes may  not  be used  for  other  purposes  or  otherwise  disposed
    
    
    
     of  without a two-thirds  vote  of  the legislature.   Op. Atty  Gen.
    
    
    
     April  12,  1976,  157.  Mere use by the public of public lands for
    
    
    
     these  enumerated  uses is  not sufficient to  invoke the  protection
    
    
    
     of  Article 97, nor  is  governmental  "dedication"  of  public  land
    
    
    
     for  those  uses  adequate.   Newburyport Redevelopment, Authojity v.
    
    
    
     Commonwealth. 9 Mass. App. Ct. 206  (1980).
    
    
    
         Reviewing  the   uses  of  Deer  Island,  only   the   hotel   and
    
    
    
     recreation   uses    reported   in   the  early   1800's   raise   the
    
    
    
     possibility of Article 97 application.  However, because  the  City
    
    
    
     of   Boston   received  the  Deer   Island  property  for   purposes
    
    
    
     unrelated to  the  hotel uses, and  in  fact appears to have  acquired
    
    
    
     all  of Deer   Island  by  royal  grant,  there is  nothing  to support
    
    
    
     the  application of  Article 97 to  any  portion of Deer Island owned
    
    
    
     by the City of Boston.
    
    
    
         C .  Applicability of  the Prior Public. Use Doctrine
    
    
    
         The Prior  Public Use  Doctrine,  a long-standing Massachusetts
    
    
    
     common  law doctrine,  states  that  public lands  devoted  to  one
    
    
    
     public use cannot be diverted to another inconsistent public use
    
    
    
     without a majority  vote of  approval by the legislature.  Robbins
    
    
    
     v. Department -of -Public Works. 335  Mass  328, 330  (1969).   As the
    
    
    
    MDC  considers  a  substantial  expansion  of  sewage  treatment
    
    
    
    facilities on Deer  Island,   it  is  important  to  identify which
                                       -47-
    

    -------
    properties,  if any,  are  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  this
    Doctrine,  possibly  requiring  legislative  actions  for  facility
    expansion.
        There  are  two questions  to  be  answered in  determining the
    Doctrine's applicability.   First,  what  portions  of  Deer Island
    have been  devoted to  a prior  public  use?   And  second,  is the
    construction   of   expanded   sewage   treatment   facilities   an
    "inconsistent"  public  use?    We  are  asked  to  look  at  the
    applicability of the Doctrine to  Parcels A,  B and C, as shown on
    a plan  entitled " Deer  Island,  Boston Harbor",  City  of Boston,
    Public Works Department, dated May 26,  1977.
        Parcel A contains  the  Deer  Island House  of Correction,  a 40
    acre facility  separated from  the rest of  the parcel by security
    fencing.   Parcel  B, an  18 acre  parcel,   is  located  along  the
    southwest boundary of Parcel A,  between  the House of Corrections
    and the Mean Low Water line of  Boston Harbor.  Parcel C, a 6 acre
    parcel  near  the southerly end  of  Deer Island,  is surrounded by
    the land  now  controlled by the General  Services Administration.
    Our analysis looks at the subject property  in two parts: the land
    contained   within   the  Deer   Island  House    of   Correction,
    approximately 40 acres, and the balance  of  land in Parcels A fB,
    and C outside the prison fence.
        1.   Deer Island Correctional Facility
        The  Deer  Island  Correctional Facility,  also  known  as  the
    Suffolk County  House of Correction, is  run by and  is  under the
    jurisdiction and control of the  City of Boston Penal Institutions
    Department.  The facility  is contained within a fenced area, and
    consists of several buildings  and related structures.
                                      -48-
    

    -------
         The  first question posed  is  whether  the 40 acre  area  within
    
    
    
     the  prison  fence  is  land  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the Prior
    
    
    
     Public  Use  Doctrine,  dedicated or devoted to a  particular  public
    
    
    
     use.    In  this   instance,  the  land  within the  fence  is  used
    
    
    
     exclusively  for   prison  purposes, and  is apparently  devoted  to
    
    
    
     prison  use.   Further,  according to Peter  Scarpignato,  Director  of
    
    
    
     Planning  and Development  for  the  Boston  Public  Facilities
    
    
    
     Department,  the  land within  the  fence  has been administratively
    
    
    
     charged  to   the  care,  custody  and  control  of   the  Boston  Penal
    
    
    
     Institutions  Department,  and  is  thus  administratively  dedicated
    
    
    
     to   a  particular  public  use.    From  these  facts,   it  is not
    
    
    
     difficult to conclude  that the area within  the fence is subject
    
    
    
     to  and  entitled   to  the  protection  provided by  the  Prior  Public
    
    
    
     Use  Doctrine.
    
    
    
         After   determining   that   the   land   is    subject   to  the
    
    
    
     jurisdiction  of   the  Doctrine,  however,   one  must still   decide
    
    
    
     whether  the  proposed use  would constitute an inconsistent  public
    
    
    
     use,  prohibited   without  the  consent  of  the  legislature.   The
    
    
    
     question  of  inconsistency  is  one of  fact,  to  be  determined in
    
    
    
     consideration of  the existing  and proposed uses.  Not all  public
    
    
    
     uses  may be  considered   to  be  inconsistent   with  each   other.
    
    
    
     Further,  the initial  responsibility for  the  determination lies
    
    
    
    with the agency proposing the new use.
    
    
    
        Because   the   integrity  of  the  prison  facility  would  be
    
    
    
    affected  by  any  physical   intrusion   into  the   prison  yard,
    
    
    
    diverting part or all  of  the  prison facility  inside  the  prison
    
    
    
    fence  for   sewage   treatment   expansion  would  fairly   clearly
                                       -49-
    

    -------
    constitute  an  inconsistent  public  use.    The nature  of  secure
    correctional  facilities would seem to support  the  conclusion  that
    the present prison  use would be adversely affected by the loss  of
    prison space  for another public use.  Consequently, a proposal  to
    construct  additional  treatment  facilities   involving   physical
    encroachment  into  the  active  prison  facility  would   require
    legislative approval.  It is noted that none of the proposals for
    the construction of primary  or  secondary treatment facilities  on
    Deer Island would' involve the land inside the  prison fence.
        2 .  Land Outside
        Information  on  the  current  ownership  and  administrative
    status of the balance  of  Parcels  A,  B and C has been provided by
    Peter  Scarpignato  and  Paul  Roche, counsel  for  the Boston Public
    Facilities Department.  According to the Boston Public Facilities
    Department,  the  rest of  Parcels  A,  B  and  C is under  the care,
    custody and  control  of  the  Boston Penal Institutions Department,
    although  the property outside  the  correctional facility  is  not
    actively used for any municipal purposes.
        As described by  Peter Scarpignato, land held  by  the City of
    Boston is  often  transferred to the  care, custody  and control of
    various municipal  agencies  and  departments  for  particular public
    purposes, and  is considered to  be  "devoted" to  those purposes.
    These  lands,  however,  can  be  cleared of such  dedication  by  the
    controlling  agency declaring  the property  to  be  surplus land.
    When  such a declaration  is made,  the Boston  Public Facilities
    Commission must  approve  that  determination, whereupon the matter
                                      -50-
    

    -------
     is  referred  to the  City Council.   The  City  Council  may  then
    
    
    
     approve  the transfer  of  the parcel  from  the original agency  to
    
    
    
     the Public  Facilities  Department,  which  holds the  land  as  surplus
    
    
    
     property, and may  dispose  of  the  property  by  sale.
    
    
    
        If  we assume  that all of  Parcels  A,  B  and  C are under  the
    
    
    
     care,  custody  and control of  the Penal Institutions Department,
    
    
    
     an argument can be made that such land  has been administratively
    
    
    
     dedicated or  devoted to a public use (in  this case,  correctional
    
    
    
     use),  and that  the  lands are  subject   to the  protection  of  the
    
    
    
     Prior  Public  Use Doctrine.   However,  one  might also argue  that,
    
    
    
     notwithstanding  the  administrative jurisdiction  into  which public
    
    
    
     land  has been  placed, the Doctrine  would not  apply unless  the
    
    
    
     land  was actually  used  or  developed   for  a  particular  public
    
    
    
     purpose.  Some  support may be found  for this argument in Muir v.
    
    
    
     City  of  Beomlnster,  	 Mass.App.  	,  317 N.E.2d 212  (1974), in
    
    
    
     which active use was required to  invoke  the Doctrine,
    
    
    
        An application of  the Doctrine as interpreted in  Muir,  supra,
    
    
    
     may discount the fact  that the Penal Institutions Department has
    
    
    
     administrative  charge  of  the  open   areas of  Deer  Island,  and
    
    
    
     restrict the Doctrine's applicability to the active prison area.
    
    
    
    With respect to  the  issue of administrative jurisdiction,  we note
    
    
    
     that  the  administrative assignment  of   the Deer  Island property
    
    
    
     appears  to  bear  no  relationship  to  either  the present  use  or
    
    
    
     future plans for the Penal Institutions  Department.  As described
    
    
    
    by Mr. Scarpignato,  there  are  no  present plans to  use any  of the
    
    
    
     land outside  the prison fence  for  prison use,  and  there  are no
    
    
    
    institutional or  administrative  purposes served by continuing to
                                       -51-
    

    -------
    extend  the  Penal Institutions Department's  authority beyond the
    
    
    
    prison  fence.    In  Muir,  the  court  required  some  existing
    
    
    
    functional  use of  property  to  invoke  the  applicability  of the
    
    
    
    Prior  Public  Use  Doctrine,  and  was not  persuaded  by  the past
    
    
    
    public  use  of the  parcel.   Because the land  outside the prison
    
    
    
    serves  no  function to  the  correctional  facility,  the  MDC may
    
    
    
    determine that  the Doctrine does not apply.
    
    
    
        Even  assuming  the  land is  subject  to the jurisdiction of the
    
    
    
    Doctrine,  the  Doctrine's  protection   would  continue   to   apply
    
    
    
    unless  or  until  (i)  the  land   was transferred  to the  Public
    
    
    
    Facilities  Department  as  surplus  property,  or   (ii)  it  was
    
    
    
    determined  that  another  proposed use  (such as  expanded  sewage
    
    
    
    treatment  facilities)   was  not   inconsistent  with  the  present
    
    
    
    public   use.      In   Inhabitants   of   Eas,thanipton  v.   County
    
    
    
    gommissiorters  of  Hampshire,   154  Mass.  424  (1891) ,   the   court
    
    
    
    determined  that  the taking  of a portion  of a schoolyard  for  a
    
    
    
    town  way was not  so  inconsistent  as to  require  legislative
    
    
    
    approval,  notwithstanding  its  finding that  the  taking  would
    
    
    
    "injure  the  lot  considerably."    In   a  recent  opinion of the
    
    
    
    Attorney General, 79 Op.  Atty. Gen.  141 (Mass)  January 11,   1979,
    
    
    
    the  Attorney  General   concluded  that  the  Massachusetts  Port
    
    
    
    Authority's  present use of Belle  Isle  Marsh as  a  "runway   clear
    
    
    
    zone"  (a passive use)  was not  inconsistent with the Metropolitan
    
    
    
    District Commission's  (MDC's)  proposed use  of the  same land for
    
    
    
    conservation  and passive  recreation  uses,  notwithstanding the
    
    
    
    fact that the Port Authority  might have  used  the  land   in the
    
    
    
    future  for   runway  expansion.    (The  Attorney  General  noted,
                                      -52-
    

    -------
     however,   that   state   environmental   regulations   would   have
    
     effectively  prohibited  such  development  of  the  property  involving
    
     the  alteration  of the wetlands).   The opinion referred to an 1898
    
     Massachusetts decision,  stating:
    
                 The  question whether  such  interference
                 or  inconsistency would  arise  is not to
                 be   settled  with  reference  to   every
                 possible manner in which the  land  might
                 be used  for  the purpose  for  which  it  had
                 been acquired,  but  with  a  reasonable
                 regard   to  the  way   in  which  it  would
                 naturally   and   reasonably   be  used  in
                 putting  it to  that  purpose.  Boston v.
                 Inhabitants  of  Brooklioe,  156 Mass, at
                 176  (1898).
                                                     IlL.
         From  these  opinions,  one  may  reasonably  conclude  that no
    
     inconsistency  would  arise between the  present  use of the city's
    
     property  (outside the  prison  fence) and  the  proposed treatment
    
     facility.    Even assuming  that  the Prior  Public  Use  Doctrine
    
     applies,  a  new treatment facility would  not affect the existing
    
     passive  "use",  and would only  limit speculative  future  uses of
    
     the land.
    
        D.  Protection Afforded by the Doctrine
    
        If  the  protection  of   the  Prior   Public  Use  Doctrine  is
    
     triggered,  the  Doctrine requires approval by a  majority  vote of
    
     the  legislature.   Op.  Atty.  Gen.  April 12,  1976,  159.    The
    
     legislation  authorizing  the  diversion in  use must  explicitly
    
     identify  the land  to be taken,  the  existing public use  and the
    
     new  use.    Brookline  v.  Metropolitan  District Commission.  357
    
    Mass. 435, 440-41 (1970) .
                                       -53-
    

    -------
        E.  Applicability of M.G.L. c.114 §17E
    
        The historical survey indicates that Deer Island contains one
    
    known cemetery, which was connected with the prison, and may date
    
    back  to the  smallpox  quarantine  hospital.   A  second cemetery,
    
    located near Fort Dawes, was relocated to an area off Deer Island
    
    during  construction of the military facilities.  The existence of
    
    this cemetery raises the potential applicability of M.G.L. c.114.
    
    that statute provides as follows:
    
                     A town shall not alienate or appropriate
                     to any  other  use than that  of  a burial
                     ground, any tract of land which has been
                     for more than  one hundred years used as
                     a burial  place;  and JTO  portion^ of such
                            g£o u n d_ _shjLLL _be_ _tak.eji_f_QX public
                     use  without  spe cial authority  from the
                     general ___  court.     "Burial  place",  as
                     referred   to   in   this  section,   shall
                     include unmarked burial grounds known or
                     suspected  to  contain  the  remains of one
                     or   more   American   Indian.    (emphasis
                     added) .
    
    
        Thus,  legislative approval would  be required for  the MDC's
    
    taking of  any  portion of  Deer  Island which constitutes a  "burial
    
    ground."   Although  the  exact location  of all  graves  are  not
    
    known, preliminary research has placed the graves in an area near
    
    the prison.   The cemetery  is  more  than 100 years  old and would
    
    thus  be  subject to  the legislative  approval  requirement.   The
    
    M.G.L. c.114  §17 requirement  is  considered to  be  a legislative
    
    confirmation  of  the  Prior  Public Use  Doctrine,  requiring  a
    
    majority vote of approval by the legislature.  Op. Atty Gen. June
    
    6, 1973, p.  139.   However, should  the  MDC determine that it can
    
    avoid use  of  any "burial ground,"  no  legislative approval would
    
    be necessary.   Based upon  the  proposed plans for sewage facility
    
    
                                      -54-
    

    -------
    construction,  it appears  that  no  burial  grounds would  be  used  for
    
    
    
    project development.
    
    
    
        Although  no evidence of  other human  remains  has  been  found
    
    
    
    during  past  work on Deer Island,  there is some possibility that
    
    
    
    other   human   remains  may  be   discovered   in  the  course   of
    
    
    
    construction.  Random burials  of  persons  may  constitute  "burial
    
    
    
    grounds" within the above statute, and bring other areas  of Deer
    
    
    
    Island  within  the  scope of  the   statute.   In  interpreting  the
    
    
    
    definition of  "burial ground"  under the  statute, the case  of Town
    
    
    
    of  Sudbury  v.  Dept.  of  Public.Utilities, 351  Mass.  214  (1966),
    
    
    
    should  be noted.    In SudbuEy  the Department of Public Utilities
    
    
    
    (DPU)  concluded after a  hearing   that  the remains  of one human
    
    
    
    being  (in this case, an  American  Indian)  and  the possibility  of
    
    
    
    others  scattered throughout  the area  were not,  in its opinion, a
    
    
    
    basis  for  designating  the  land  as   a  burial  ground with   the
    
    
    
    statute.   Id.  at   226.   The  Sudbury  court  affirmed  the DPU's
    
    
    
    finding on the basis that the  statute, at the time consisting  of
    
    
    
    only the first sentence  of  the present  version,  "plainly refers
    
    
    
    to  a  tract   of  land  definable   and   readily  identifiable  as a
    
    
    
    burying ground."  Thus, the existence  of randomly buried American
    
    
    
    Indians was held to  fall  outside the coverage of the statute.
    
    
    
        The  Sudbury case  apparently   was  the impetus  for  the  1983
    
    
    
    amendment to  the  statute, which  added  the definition  of  "burial
    
    
    
    place."  Read literally,  that definition  states  only  that areas
    
    
    
    containing  the remains of one or more American Indians shall fall
    
    
    
    within the ambit of the  statute.    The amended  statute therefore
    
    
    
    serves only  to alter the narrow  Sudbury  holding,  since   neither
                                       -55-
    

    -------
    the amended statute  nor  case law defines  whether  the remains of
    
    
    
    one or  more randomly  buried non-American  Indians,  constitute a
    
    
    
    burial ground  under  the  statute.  Consequently,  it  is not clear
    
    
    
    whether  the   statute  as   amended   would  create  any  stronger
    
    
    
    presumption that  any random burial  sites which may  be  found on
    
    
    
    Deer Island are entitled to the protection afforded by the law.
    
    
    
        The  effect  of  M.G.L.  c.114  §17  on  plans  for  facility
    
    
    
    development  appear  to  be  limited  because  the  known  cemetery
    
    
    
    location  does   not  conflict  with  the  proposed  facility  site.
    
    
    
    However,   should  several   skeletal   remains  be   discovered,
    
    
    
    presenting  evidence  of   a  burial  ground,  further  legislative
    
    
    
    action may be required.
    
    
    
        F.  Comparison to_Long_ Island Issues
    
    
    
        In the research memorandum covering the potential development
    
    
    
    of  Long  Island,  the  analysis was separated  into  a  discussion of
    
    
    
    those  issues  applicable  to  site acquisition,  and  those  issues
    
    
    
    which   may  affect  subsequent   facility  development.     This
    
    
    
    memorandum has addressed  only  the  legal  and institutional issues
    
    
    
    raised   in  site  acquisition.     However,   in   providing  some
    
    
    
    comparative  analysis  of  the  legal   and  administrative  hurdles
    
    
    
    affecting  the  implementability  of each  site,  it  is  necessary to
    
    
    
    briefly  mention  non-acquisition  issues  as  they  relate  to  Deer
    
    
    
    Island.
    
    
    
        Many   issues   and   potential  problems   discussed  in  this
    
    
    
    memorandum  are  also relevant  to  the  consideration of  sewage
    
    
    
    treatment  facility expansion on  Long Island.   Although  neither
    
    
    
    island  appears  to  contain  parcels  which  have been taken  or
                                      -56-
    

    -------
    acquired for purposes  triggering  the  applicability  of  Article  97,
    
    
    
    both  islands  contain land dedicated or devoted to  a prior  public
    
    
    
    use.   In  the  case  of  Long Island,  the  entire  island  has been
    
    
    
    administratively  placed under  the  care,  custody  and  control  of
    
    
    
    the  city  Department  of  Public  Health  and  Hospitals.    Since
    
    
    
    hospital  relocation is  a  pre-requisite to  siting  the secondary
    
    
    
    waste water treatment  facilities  currently under consideration  on
    
    
    
    Long  island,  legislative approval will probably be required.   On
    
    
    
    Deer  Island,  all  city-owned land is  under  the care,  custody and
    
    
    
    control of the Penal Institutions Department.  However, it  should
    
    
    
    be  noted  that  the current prison use  on  Deer Island may provide
    
    
    
    support for an argument  that sewage treatment  use of land outside
    
    
    
    the  prison fence  is not inconsistent  with prison  use.   As such,
    
    
    
    legislative approval may not be required.
    
    
    
        Both  islands  are known  to  contain cemeteries  more  than one
    
    
    
    hundred years  old,  which are subject  to the protection of  M.G.L.
    
    
    
    c.114  §17.   On  Deer  Island,  the  only  known cemetery  has been
    
    
    
    generally  located,   and  does not  appear to   interfere with  the
    
    
    
    proposed  location  of   sewage   treatment  facilities.    On  Long
    
    
    
    Island,  however,   there  is  both  a   known   Civil  War  cemetery
    
    
    
    occupying  land affected  by  the  facility proposal,  and  also large
    
    
    
    areas  near the hospital buildings and  elsewhere  on  the  island
    
    
    
    which may contain a significant number of unmarked graves and may
    
    
    
    constitute a "burial ground" as that term is defined by the law.
    
    
    
        In  addition   to  the  factors  affecting   the  acquisition  of
    
    
    
    development  sites,  there   are  several   implementation-related
    
    
    
    issues to  consider.   Historic and  archaeologic  resources  may  be
                                       -57-
    

    -------
    found  on  both  islands.    Because  of  Long  Island's  significant
    archaeologic  value  and  the  possible  eligibility  of  the  Long
    Island   Hospital,   including   grounds,   for   Historic  Register
    listing,  the  Long  Island site may  be subject  to administrative
    delays  under  the  state and  federal Historic  Preservation  Acts.
    Assuming  that   these   resources  justify  eligibility  under  the
    National Historic  Preservation  Act,  section  106 of that Act  would
    require  consideration  of alternative sites to avoid  impacts.   In
    contrast,  the Deer  Island  site contains  only  one structure,  an
    abandoned  pump  station, which may  be eligible  as  a historic
    structure,  although  its historic  integrity is  limited.    Deer
    Island  is  also less likely to  present  significant administrative
    delay because of its limited  historic or archaeologic values.
        Massachusetts General Law chapter 9 section 27C, the Unmarked
    Skeletal  Remains  statute,  has potential  applicability to  both
    proposed sites.    The  law requires that all  excavation and earth
    moving  cease  once skeletal  remains greater than 100 years old are
    found   to   allow  the   State   archaeologist   to   conduct  a  site
    evaluation,   and  to   determine   whether  prudent  and  feasible
    alternatives  exist  to avoid,  minimize or  mitigate  harm  to the
    burial  site.   The Ritchie study indicates  that  almost all of Deer
    Island  has  been  disturbed by  major construction there in the past
    one  hundred years,  and that  discovery of additional  remains  is
    unlikely.   Long  Island, however,  contains  several areas which may
    not have been disturbed by construction activity,  and  which  may
    contain  significant  American  Indian  remains.    Based  on   this
    information,  it  is more likely major construction  on Long Island
    will encounter delays  caused by M.G.L.  c.9 §27C.
                                      -58-
    

    -------
        The  location  of environmental resources,  such  as inland and
    coastal  wetlands,  and barrier beaches,  will  affect the specific
    siting  proposals  on  both  islands.     To  avoid   administrative
    requirements imposed  by  state and federal regulations protecting
    wetlands  and  land  subject  to   flooding,  the  facility  siting
    proposals should minimize effects on these wetland  areas.
    IV.  Prisoner Rights Impacts
        We have also been requested to determine whether the proposed
    expansion of sewage treatment facilities would be affected by any
    outstanding  court  orders  regarding  the  Deer  Island  House  of
    Correction.  Specifically a question has been raised with respect
    to  the  possible  existence  of   a   judicial   order which  would
    prohibit any  reduction of  the size  of the Deer  Island House of
    Corrections,  or otherwise  prohibit  the expansion of  a  sewage
    treatment facility on Deer  Island.
        In   researching   this  matter,   we  have   interviewed  Diane
    McLaughlin,  of  the  Massachusetts  Correctional  Legal  Services
    Office, Mary Prosser,  Director of the Deer  Island Legal Services
    Office,  and  John Larivee,  of  the Crime and  Justice Foundation,
    who  served  as  Special   Court  Appointed  Master  in  the  recent
    Massachusetts  case  concerning prison conditions  at Deer Island.
    We  have  also  reviewed the  Department  of  Environmental Quality
    Engineering  (DEQE)  inspection reports for  Deer  Island, provided
    to us by Ms. McLaughlin.
        We  are  informed  that  over  the  past  several  years  the
    operations  of   the  existing  sewage  treatment  facility on  Deer
    Island have  caused  a number  of environmental  problems  at  the
                                       -59-
    

    -------
    House  of  Correction,  including  smoke,  odor,  and  other  air
    
    
    
    pollution  problems.   Because  of the  proximity  of  the  diesel
    
    
    
    powered pumps  at  the  sewage facility,  smoke and oil-laden diesel
    
    
    
    exhaust   reaches   the   prison,   reportedly  causing   respiratory
    
    
    
    problems.   It  was reported,  but has  not been  confirmed,  that
    
    
    
    perhaps  one-third of  all  prisoners at the  facility  experience
    
    
    
    respiratory  problems  possibly related  to  the  sewage  facility
    
    
    
    emissions.  In addition, there  has been at least one  incident of
    
    
    
    a  significant  chlorine  gas  leak  at the  sewage  facility  which
    
    
    
    required the evacuation of portions of the prison.
    
    
    
        John  Larivee   stated  that  the  Massachusetts  Superior  Court
    
    
    
    proceeding,  Department  of	Corrections  v.  Penal  Institutions
    
    
    
    Department of  City of  Boston -and  Public Facility Department, its
    
    
    
    Director  and   Members.  C.A.  474-63  (Fine,  J.)   (April  30,  1981,
    
    
    
    June,  1984)  was  completed  in  July  1984,  and  that none  of the
    
    
    
    orders  issued  by the  Court  addressed  or  affected  the  sewage
    
    
    
    treatment  facility or  related  environmental conditions  at  Deer
    
    
    
    Island.   He  noted,  however,  that  the  judge  in the  case  often
    
    
    
    commented  during  numerous  on-site inspections  that the existing
    
    
    
    operations of  the  sewage facility exacerbated the poor conditions
    
    
    
    in the House of Corrections.
    
    
    
        Because  the   objectionable   environmental   impacts  of  the
    
    
    
    existing sewage treatment  facility are related  not to its size,
    
    
    
    but to its age and malfunction, it is generally believed by those
    
    
    
    we  interviewed that  an  enlarged but  modern   sewage treatment
    
    
    
    facility  would improve environmental  conditions  by  eliminating
    
    
    
    the diesel smoke problems.   None of those interviewed  anticipated
                                      -60-
    

    -------
    any  adverse  impacts  caused by a large treatment  facility,  unless
    
    
    
    the  expansion  would affect prison  crowding or conditions  inside
    
    
    
    the  fenced  area.   Neither  of these are  proposed by the present
    
    
    
    plans; further, both the U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency and
    
    
    
    the  MDC view relocation of prison as desirable.
    
    
    
    V.   Conclusion
    
    
    
         Unlike Long  Island,  only restricted  portions of Deer  Island
    
    
    
    appear to  be subject  to  the jurisdiction  and  protection of the
    
    
    
    Massachusetts  Prior  Public Use  Doctrine, and  the  provisions of
    
    
    
    M.G.L. c.114 §17.  A strong argument may  be made  that legislative
    
    
    
    approval will be  required  only  if the active prison facility and
    
    
    
    nearby cemetery  must  be  acquired for  sewage  treatment facility
    
    
    
    construction.       This    memorandum     has    suggested   that,
    
    
    
    notwithstanding Boston Penal  Institutions Department control over
    
    
    
    all  municipal  lands  on Deer  Island, the  land  outside  the prison
    
    
    
    has  no  function   requiring  protection,  or,  alternatively,  the
    
    
    
    proposed development  would not  be  inconsistent  with  the land's
    
    
    
    current  use.   Administrative transfer  of the  property  has also
    
    
    
    been  suggested   as  a means  for   avoiding  the  necessity  of
    
    
    
    legislative action.
    
    
    
        Available   information   suggests   that   there  is   little
    
    
    
    possibility that  sewage  facility expansion would be affected by
    
    
    
    "prisoner   rights"   claims,   provided   that   non-construction
    
    
    
    environmental conditions  (smoke, noise,  odor)  are  made better,
    
    
    
    and  that prison facilities are not  made  smaller.   It is expected
    
    
    
    that short  term impacts from construction activities will occur.
                                       -61-
    

    -------
        12.12 SDEIS
    Screening Report
    

    -------
                BOSTON  HARBOR
    
             SUPPLEMENTAL  DRAFT
    
       ENVIRONMENTAL  IMPACT  STATEMENT
    
    
    
      REPORT OF FINAL SCREENING RESULTS
                 Prepared for:
    U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency
                  Region  I
      Environmental Evaluation  Section
      John F. Kennedy Federal Building
        Boston, Massachusetts   02203
                May  16,  1984
                 Prepared by:
    
             CE MAGUIRE, INC.
             Architects • Engineers • Planners
             One Davol Square, Providence, Rhode Island 02903
      MOUP
    

    -------
                                TABLE OF CONTENTS
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1.0  SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS                                      1-1
    
    
    
    
    2.0  BACKGROUND                                                  2-1
    
    
    
    
         2.1  Previous Wastewater Studies                            2-1
    
    
    
    
         2.2  Previous Sludge Studies                                2-5
    
    
    
    
         2.3  Legal and Institutional Background                     2-6
    
    
    
    
    3.0  REPORT OBJECTIVES                                           3-1
    
    
    
    
    4.0  SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS                                       4-1
    
    
    
    
    5.0  FORMULATION OF INITIAL OPTIONS                              5-1
    
    
    
    
         5.1  Introduction                                           5-1
    
    
    
    
         5.2  Secondary Treatment Alternatives                       5-2
    
    
    
    
              5.2.1 Deer Island-Nut Island Treatment Facilities      5-2
    
    
    
    
              5.2.2 Nut Island-Deer Island-Long Island
    
    
    
    
                    Treatment Facilities                             5-3
    
    
    
    
              5.2.3 New Island Option                                5-4
    
    
    
    
         5.3  Primary Treatment Alternatives                         5-4
    
    
    
    
              5.3.1 Deer Island-Nut Island Treatment Facilities      5-4
    
    
    
    
              5.3.2 Deer Island-Nut Island-Long Island
    
    
    
    
                    Treatment Facilities                             5-4
    
    
    
    
    6.0  EVALUATION OF THE OPTIONS                                   6-1
    
    
    
    
         6.1  The Matrix of Findings                                 6-1
    
    
    
    
         6.2  Screening Criteria                                     6-1
    
    
    
    
         6.3  Findings of the Screening Process                      6-7
    
    
    
    
              6.3.1 Options Recommended for Further Study            6-8
    
    
    
    
              6.3.2 Alternatives Eliminated                          6-10
    

    -------
    7.0  DETAILED DESCRIPTIONS OF FINDINGS                           7-1
    
    
    
    
         7.1  Summary of Analysis Results                            7-1
    
    
    
    
         7.2  Options Recommended for Further Study                  7-2
    
    
    
    
              7.2.1  Secondary Options                               7-2
    
    
    
    
              7.2.2  Primary Options                                 7-12
    
    
    
    
         7.3  Options Not to be Studied Further                      7-19
    
    
    
    
              7.3.1  Secondary Options                               7-19
    
    
    
    
              7.3.2  Primary Options                                 7-26
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    8.0  REFERENCES                                                  8-1
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
         APPENDIX
    
    
    
    
              A.   Public Participation Summary                      A-l
    
    
    
    
              B.   Feasibility of Sub-Regional "Satellite"
    
    
    
    
                   Treatment Facilities (under separate cover)
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
         ATTACHMENTS
    
    
    
    
         1.   Matrix of Findings                                     4-4
    
    
    
    
         2.   STEEPLI Impact Categories                              6-2
    
    
    
    
         3.   Summary of Options and Their Impacts                   7-2
    
    
    
    
         4.   Summary of Options and Costs                           7-3
    
    
    
    
              4a.   Revised Cost Summary                              7-4
    
    
    
    
         5.   Summary of Screening Results                           7-6
                                       11
    

    -------
    1.0  SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
         This  report defines  the process  followed in the first phase of the
    
    
    
    
         Supplemental Draft EIS  (SDEIS)  analysis  by which eighteen siting
    
    
    
    
         options for wastewater  treatment facilities to serve  the  Boston
    
    
    
    
         metropolitan area  were  screened  to select the eight most  feasible
    
    
    
    
         for further detailed study.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
         These eight alternatives include four primary treatment and four
    
    
    
    
         secondary treatment  options.   Siting of  major treatment facilities
    
    
    
    
         are proposed either  at  Deer  Island (DI),  Nut Island (NI)  or Long
    
    
    
    
         Island (LI) in varying  combinations  as follows:
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
         Secondary Treatment  (with harbor outfalls)
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
         Option No.
    
    
    
    
         la.2         Secondary Treatment  at DI, Headworks at NI.
    
    
    
    
         lb.2         Secondary Treatment  at DI, Primary Treatment  at NI.
    
    
    
    
         2b.l.       Secondary Treatment  at LI, Headworks at DI and NI.
    
    
    
    
         2b.3.       Secondary Treatment  at LI, Primary Treatment  at DI,
    
    
    
    
                     Headworks at NI.
                                       1-1
    

    -------
         Primary Treatment (with extended  outfall)'"
    
    
    
         Option. No.
    
         4a.2.        Primary Treatment  at  DI, Headworks  at  NI.
    
         4b.2.        Primary Treatment  at  DI, Primary  Treatment  at  NI.
    
         5a.2.        Primary Treatment  at  DI, Primary  Treatment  at  LI,
    
                     Headworks  at NI.
    
         5b.2.        Primary Treatment  at  LI, Headworks  at  DI  and NI.
    
    
    
         These  alternatives  were selected  on the basis of an analysis  of
    
         social, technical,  economic, environmental, political,  legal,  and
    
         institutional  impacts  with  input  from  those involved  in the public
    
         participation  process  and comment by federal, state and local
    
         agencies.
    
    
    
         The most important  criteria  used  in determining the feasibility  and
    
         suitability of options were:
    
    
    
         1.   Engineering  feasibility and  economic cost.
    
    
    
         2.   Environmental  impacts  as  they affect the people  living and
    
             working in the communities impacted by the construction  and
    
             operation of the  proposed facilities.
    '•'Extended outfall  with primary  treatment  is  the  stated  preference of the
     Massachusetts  Executive  Office of  Environmental Affairs  and is  the
     alternative  submitted by the MDC under the  federal  review of a  waiver
     from secondary treatment.
                                       1-2
    

    -------
         3.    Site suitability,  including size and accessibility,  and the
    
    
    
    
              availability of buffer areas.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
         4.    Potential for consolidation of treatment facilities  to limit
    
    
    
    
              impacts,  provide centralized construction and operations,  and
    
    
    
    
              facilitate sludge  disposal.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
         5.    Opportunities for  mitigation of adverse impacts.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    The following sections address the background studies leading  to this
    
    
    
    
    SDEIS analysis,  the objectives and scope of the analysis,  formulation of
    
    
    
    
    the initial set  of  options,  evaluation of the options,  and  detailed
    
    
    
    
    descriptions of  the findings under each option.
                                       1-3
    

    -------
    2.0  BACKGROUND
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
         2.1  Previous Wastewater Studies
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
         The SDEIS study now underway will supplement a prior EPA Draft EIS
    
    
    
    
         (DEIS) completed in 1978 and titled Draft Environmental Impact
    
    
    
    
         Statement on the Upgrading of the Boston Metropolitan Area Sewerage
    
    
    
    
         System.  The DEIS examined a variety of wastewater management
    
    
    
    
         proposals presented by the Metropolitan District Commission  (MDC) in
    
    
    
    
         the report, Wastewater Engineering and Management Plan for
    
    
    
    
         Boston Harbor - Eastern Massachusetts Metropolitan Area (EMMA Study)
    
    
    
    
         completed in 1976.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
         The principal recommendations of the EMMA Study report were:
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
         1.   To upgrade the existing Deer Island and Nut Island treatment
    
    
    
    
              plants from primary to secondary treatment.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
         2.   To dispose of sludge by means of incineration, as recommended
    
    
    
    
              in a separate report prepared for the MDC in 1973 entitled
    
    
    
    
              A Plan for Sludge Management.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
         3.   To alleviate combined sewer overflows (CSO).
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
         4.   Construction of two advanced waste treatment plants on the
    
    
    
    
              Charles and Neponset Rivers.
                                       2-1
    

    -------
    5.   Extension and improvement of the MDC's interceptor system.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    After analysis and assessment of the impacts of the MDC's proposals,
    
    
    
    
    the Draft EIS (1978) concluded that some elements of the EMMA Study
    
    
    
    
    (1976) were not suitable.  The Recommended Draft EIS (1978) Plan
    
    
    
    
    included:
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1.   Centralized secondary treatment of all wastewater flows at a
    
    
    
    
         new facility on Deer Island with discharge to Boston Harbor.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    2.   Sludge disposal of primary sludge by incineration and ash land-
    
    
    
    
         filling at Deer Island (as recommended by EPA in a separate
    
    
    
    
         Final EIS on primary sludge disposal completed in 1979).
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    3.   Sludge disposal of secondary sludge by a combination of incin-
    
    
    
    
         eration at Deer Island, landfilling at an unspecified MDC
    
    
    
    
         landfill, and composting at Squantum in Quincy.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    4.   Upgrade of the existing interceptor sewer systems for the
    
    
    
    
         northern and southern Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD) areas
    
    
    
    
         to provide for expansion of the MDC system.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    5.   No construction of satellite advanced waste treatment plants
    
    
    
    
         discharging to tributary rivers at inland sites.
                                  2-2
    

    -------
    6.   No specific proposals for alleviating CSO problems; separate
    
    
    
    
         CSO plans beyond the scope of the Draft EIS (1978) were being
    
    
    
    
         formulated and reviewed by the State and EPA.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    The recommendations of the Draft EIS (1978) were controversial and
    
    
    
    
    drew considerable public comment.  Also, changes to the federal
    
    
    
    
    Clean Water Act occurred at that time which included provisions for
    
    
    
    
    waivers from secondary treatment levels (§301(h) waiver).
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    As a result of these events, EPA and the MDC reached agreement that
    
    
    
    
    detailed facilities planning should proceed on the  upgrading of the
    
    
    
    
    wastewater treatment facilities in a flexible segmented fashion in
    
    
    
    
    order to accelerate actions needed to remedy the chronic problems
    
    
    
    
    and immediate upgrade needs of the MDC wastewater treatment plants
    
    
    
    
    and still provide for sequential decision making on an overall
    
    
    
    
    program for Harbor cleanup.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Meanwhile, the MDC began work on a 301(h) waiver application for its
    
    
    
    
    proposed harbor treatment plant(s).  .This entailed  an extensive
    
    
    
    
    analysis of water quality in Boston Harbor and designation of an
    
    
    
    
    extended effluent discharge location approximately  seven miles into
    
    
    
    
    the ocean.  An assessment of further wastewater treatment
    
    
    
    
    alternatives was also undertaken by the MDC in development of their
    
    
    
    
    facilities plans.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    First-phase recommendations were presented in the Nut Island
    
    
    
    
    Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Planning Project, Phase I
                                  2-3
    

    -------
         Site Options Study,  June 1982.   This plan,  referred to hereafter as
    
    
    
    
         the Site Options Study (1982),  was prepared by Metcalf & Eddy,  Inc.
    
    
    
    
         consultants to the MDC.   It concluded that  upgrading to primary
    
    
    
    
         treatment at both Deer Island and Nut Island with discharge via
    
    
    
    
         harbor outfalls was  both environmentally sound and economically
    
    
    
    
         preferable.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    2.2  Previous Sludge Studies
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
         EPA undertook a separate Draft  and Final Sludge Management EIS  which
    
    
    
    
         was concluded in 1979.  This document provided an environmental
    
    
    
    
         evaluation of the MDC's  proposals for sludge disposal and concluded
    
    
    
    
         that incineration at Deer Island was the most cost-effective and
    
    
    
    
         environmentally acceptable sludge disposal  method.   EPA issued  a
    
    
    
    
         Record of Decision on sludge management in  1980.   The Record of
    
    
    
    
         Decision directed the MDC to continue environmental evaluation  of
    
    
    
    
         incineration, as well as to examine further the feasibility of
    
    
    
    
         composting for the MDC system.   This included EPA's funding of  a
    
    
    
    
         pilot composting facility located at Deer Island.   MDC then issued a
    
    
    
    
         Sludge Management Update (1982) report to address these issues.
    
    
    
    
         Study of sludge management options continued by MDC and the State,
    
    
    
    
         focusing primarily on alternate disposal methods  of composting,
    
    
    
    
         incineration, and ocean disposal.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
         A state policy on sludge management has recently been formulated.
    
    
    
    
         It states that the preferred disposal method is composting, with
    
    
    
    
         ocean disposal and incineration as possible back-up methods.  The
                                       2-4
    

    -------
         SDEIS will review the three options under study to determine their
    
    
    
    
         influence on siting of harbor treatment facilities and any
    
    
    
    
         associated impacts resulting from sludge disposal facilities.   EPA
    
    
    
    
         has not, as yet, reached a final decision on those issues remaining
    
    
    
    
         following the Record of Decision on sludge disposal and expects to
    
    
    
    
         conclude this review jointly with the State following development of
    
    
    
    
         sludge disposal facility plans.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    2.3  Legal and Institutional Background
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
         While these studies were under way, a series of legal actions  and
    
    
    
    
         State initiatives were instituted to improve water quality and
    
    
    
    
         coordinate State, Federal, and local facility planning efforts.   The
    
    
    
    
         City of Quincy instituted a lawsuit against the MDC because of
    
    
    
    
         pollution of Quincy Bay by the Nut Island treatment plant.   The
    
    
    
    
         Conservation Law Foundation instituted a separate lawsuit,  also
    
    
    
    
         aimed at addressing the problems of pollution in Boston Harbor,
    
    
    
    
         against EPA, MDC and the Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution
    
    
    
    
         Control (DWPC) for alleged deficiencies in administrative and  regu-
    
    
    
    
         latory reviews required of these agencies.   This legal suit is still
    
    
    
    
         pending.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
         The State court under the Quincy lawsuit appointed a Special Master
    
    
    
    
         to establish the facts in this suit.   Following submission of   his
    
    
    
    
         Findings of Fact in the case,  the Court issued a ruling outlining a
    
    
    
    
         10-year plan to clean up the harbor.   The schedule for completion of
    
    
    
    
         the SDEIS conforms with this plan.
                                       2-5
    

    -------
    Also, an independent advisory committee, known as the Boston Harbor
    
    
    
    
    Water Quality Committee (or Sargent Committee),  was appointed by
    
    
    
    
    Governor Dukakis to examine programs and plans to improve water
    
    
    
    
    quality in Boston Harbor and to make recommendations to the Governor
    
    
    
    
    on the overall clean-up of the harbor.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    In further actions, on June 8, 1983, EPA issued a tentative decision
    
    
    
    
    denying the MDC's application for a waiver from secondary treatment
    
    
    
    
    requirements.  This tentative finding was issued because of expected
    
    
    
    
    water quality and marine life impacts at the proposed outfall
    
    
    
    
    locations.  The MDC has formally stated to EPA that it will
    
    
    
    
    reexamine those water quality impacts which led to a denial, and
    
    
    
    
    resubmit the application to EPA within one year.  A final decision
    
    
    
    
    by EPA on the MDC Waiver Application will be made by March 1985.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Concurrent with these events, the preparation of a SDEIS and Final
    
    
    
    
    EIS conforms with the overall schedule established by the Court.
    
    
    
    
    This schedule coordinates the various facilities planning elements
    
    
    
    
    which are being developed by federal, state and local parties.   The
    
    
    
    
    SDEIS will be prepared and a draft copy reviewed during August of
    
    
    
    
    1984.  A final copy of the SDEIS will be distributed in October and
    
    
    
    
    a Public Hearing scheduled sometime that month or the next.  Once
    
    
    
    
    all comments have been received following the close of the comment
    
    
    
    
    period, a Final EIS will be prepared and distributed in January of
    
    
    
    
    1985.  A Record of Decision by EPA on siting of wastewater treatment
    
    
    
    
    plants will consolidate the question of level of treatment and
    
    
    
    
    siting preference and is expected to be issued in March of 1985.
                                  2-6
    

    -------
    3.0  REPORT OBJECTIVES
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
         The SDEIS being prepared will enable EPA to provide funds for
    
    
    
    
         facilities proposed for the MDC System in Boston Harbor.   The
    
    
    
    
         objectives of this report are to clearly define the first-phase
    
    
    
    
         screening process of the SDEIS by which the numerous siting options
    
    
    
    
         for wastewater treatment facilities to serve the Boston metropolitan
    
    
    
    
         area were narrowed to those judged to be most feasible.  The report
    
    
    
    
         describes the steps followed in the analytical process leading to a
    
    
    
    
         determination of the most feasible options which will be subject to
    
    
    
    
         further detailed study.  Supporting criteria and data utilized to
    
    
    
    
         reach these conclusions are presented.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
         The results of this screening process are a final set of eight
    
    
    
    
         siting alternatives for further study, whose impacts will be
    
    
    
    
         analyzed in greater detail in the second phase of the SDEIS
    
    
    
    
         analysis.  This set of eight options was derived from an initial
    
    
    
    
         listing of eighteen siting alternatives which were proposed at both
    
    
    
    
         coastal and inland sites.
                                       3-1
    

    -------
    4.0  SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
         Data from existing studies was used to perform the preliminary
    
    
    
    
         screening of all reasonable alternatives for the SDEIS.   The
    
    
    
    
         principal sources used were:
    
    
    
    
              EPA Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Upgrading of
    
    
    
    
              the Boston Metropolitan Area Sewerage System (August 1978) .
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
              MDC Nut Island Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Planning
    
    
    
    
              Project, Phase 1, Site Options Study (Metcalf & Eddy, June,
    
    
    
    
              1982) [Site Options Study].
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
              MDC Wastewater Engineering and Management Plan for  Boston
    
    
    
    
              Harbor - Eastern Massachusetts Metropolitan Area (Metcalf &
    
    
    
    
              Eddy, 1976) [EMMA Study].
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
              MDC Application for Modification of Secondary Treatment
    
    
    
    
              Requirements for Its Deer Island and Nut Island Effluent
    
    
    
    
              Discharges into Marine Waters (Metcalf & Eddy,  1979 and 1983)
    
    
    
    
              [reapplication due in June 1984].
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
              MDC Wastewater Sludge Management Update (Havens & Emerson,
    
    
    
    
              1982).
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
              MDC Deer Island Facilities Plan, Vol. I, Fast-Track
    
    
    
    
              Improvements (Havens & Emerson/Parson Brinckerhoff, January
    
    
    
    
              1984).
                                       4-1
    

    -------
    Most of the data came from the MDC Site Options Study  (1982).  This
    
    
    
    
    data was updated and refined where applicable, and all previous cost
    
    
    
    
    figures were updated to an ENR of 4200.  Meetings and  discussions
    
    
    
    
    were also held with representatives of a variety of governmental and
    
    
    
    
    private organizations to obtain current information and copies of
    
    
    
    
    work in progress.  These additional sources included:
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
         Metropolitan District Commission
    
    
    
    
         Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
    
    
    
    
         Department  of Environmental Quality Engineering
    
    
    
    
         Division of Water Pollution Control
    
    
    
    
         Department  of Environmental Management
    
    
    
    
         Coastal Zone Management Office
    
    
    
    
         Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.  (Consultants to the MDC for Nut Island
    
    
    
    
         Facility Plan and 301(h) waiver application)
    
    
    
    
         Havens & Emerson/Parsons Brinkerhoff (Consultants to the MDC
    
    
    
    
         for  Deer Island Facility Plan)
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
     In addition to the above named sources, further analysis, data
    
    
    
    
     manipulation, and collection of new data was  carried out during this
    
    
    
    
     first  phase of the SDEIS.  This was done because in some cases
    
    
    
    
     existing  information was out of date or inapplicable to the  current
    
    
    
    
     evaluation of options; in  other cases, new options not previously
    
    
    
    
     examined, such as man-made islands in  Boston  Harbor, satellite
    
    
    
    
     treatment facilities discharging to wetlands, and primary treatment
    
    
    
    
     on Long Island,  were identifed for evaluation.  The process  was
    
    
    
    
     structured to use existing data where  available and new data where
                                   4-2
    

    -------
    necessary to select an optimal set of alternatives for further
    
    
    
    
    detailed study based on the application of defined screening
    
    
    
    
    criteria.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    The assessment undertaken was comparative in nature.   The screening
    
    
    
    
    process enabled EPA to determine an optimal set of alternatives for
    
    
    
    
    further detailed study.  The wastewater treatment facility options
    
    
    
    
    were examined for a determination of which options warranted further
    
    
    
    
    detailed study in the SDEIS.  This was based on the application of
    
    
    
    
    the defined screening criteria, as noted above, and through the
    
    
    
    
    conduct of an evaluation of each option across several impact
    
    
    
    
    categories.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    The information that was compiled in this screening process has been
    
    
    
    
    summarized and presented in a condensed matrix shown in this report
    
    
    
    
    (Attachment 1).  The matrix summarizes the options and their impacts
    
    
    
    
    with data reported in the matrix referenced by its source.  Where
    
    
    
    
    data gaps or inconsistencies exist, this is noted in the matrix.   A
    
    
    
    
    copy of the full matrix is available upon request from EPA.
                                  4-3
    

    -------
    5.0  FORMULATION OF INITIAL OPTIONS
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
         5.1  Introduction
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
         This Supplemental Draft EIS (SDEIS) in large part constitutes an
    
    
    
    
         environmental impact analysis of the facilities proposed in the
    
    
    
    
         MDC's Site Options Study (1982).  This facility plan evaluated
    
    
    
    
         eleven options for siting primary or secondary wastewater treatment
    
    
    
    
         facilities in Boston Harbor.  The siting options evaluated in this
    
    
    
    
         facilities plan provided the initial definition and basis for
    
    
    
    
         options to be examined in the SDEIS.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
         At the outset of the SDEIS analysis, a series of public scoping
    
    
    
    
         meetings was conducted to solicit input from citizens groups and the
    
    
    
    
         public at large, plus federal, state and local agencies.  Comments
    
    
    
    
         were received on the various site options proposed and on the
    
    
    
    
         critical issues which should constitute the primary basis for an
    
    
    
    
         evaluation of impacts.  As a result of those scoping meetings, the
    
    
    
    
         following additional options were considered for evaluation:
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
         1.    Primary or secondary wastewater treatment facilities con-
    
    
    
    
              structed on a new man-made island in Broad Sound (near the
    
    
    
    
              Brewsters or Lovells Island).
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
         2.    Consolidated primary and/or secondary wastewater treatment
    
    
    
    
              facilities sited on Long Island.
                                       5-1
    

    -------
         3.    Separate  primary wastewater treatment facilities  sited  on  Long
    
    
    
    
              Island  and Deer Island.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
         4.    Sub-regional "satellite"  facilities  based upon recommendations
    
    
    
    
              previously presented in the MDC EMMA Study (1976)  and the  EPA
    
    
    
    
              Draft EIS (1978).
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
         5.    A proposal for satellite  facilities, recently developed by the
    
    
    
    
              Quincy  Shores Association Inc., with discharge into wetlands
    
    
    
    
              for effluent polishing and groundwater recharge.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
         The complete list of prior and new alternatives determined to be
    
    
    
    
         most appropriate for analysis  in this first phase screening process
    
    
    
    
         are described in the following section.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    5.2  Secondary Treatment Alternatives
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
         5.2.1 Deer Island - Nut Island Treatment  Facilities
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
              a.   Convert Nut Island to a headworks and construct secondary
    
    
    
    
                   treatment facilities (either separate or combined system
    
    
    
    
                   flows) at Deer Island; inter-island transport of effluent
    
    
    
    
                   via tunnel.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
              b.   Construct upgraded primary treatment at Nut  Island and
    
    
    
    
                   construct secondary treatment facilities (either separate
                                       5-2
    

    -------
              or combined system flows) at Deer Island; inter-island
      i
    
              transport of effluent via tunnel.
    
    
    
    
    
         c.   Separate secondary treatment facilities at Nut Island and
    
    
              Deer Island.
    
    
    
    
    
         d.   Satellite AWT treatment facilities on the Neponset River,
    
    
              Charles River, or other locations in association with one
    
    
              of the above options.
    
    
    
    
    
    5.2.2 Nut Island - Deer Island - Long Island Treatment Facilities
    
    
    
    
    
         a.   Construct secondary treatment facilities (for north system
    
    
              flows) on Deer Island and secondary treatment facilities
    
    
              (for south system flows)  on Long Island with preliminary
    
    
              treatment (either headworks or primary) facilities on Nut
    
    
              Island; inter-island transport of effluent via tunnel.
    
    
    
    
    
         b.   Construct secondary treatment facilities on Long Island
    
    
              for combined system flows with preliminary treatment
    
    
              facilities (either headworks or primary) on Deer Island
    
    
              and Nut Island;  inter-island transport of effluent via
    
    
              tunnels.
    
    
    
    
    
         c.   Satellite AWT treatment facilities as noted above.
                                  5-3
    

    -------
         5.2.3 New Island Option
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
              a.    Construct a new island site for secondary treatment
    
    
    
    
                   facilities in an appropriate outer harbor location.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    5.3  Primary Treatment Alternatives
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
         5.3.1 Deer Island - Nut Island Treatment Facilities
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
              a.    Construct combined primary treatment facilities at Deer
    
    
    
    
                   Island with a headworks at Nut Island (and either a harbor
    
    
    
    
                   or extended outfall); inter-island transport of effluent
    
    
    
    
                   via tunnel.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
              b.    Construct separate primary treatment facilities on Deer
    
    
    
    
                   Island and Nut Island (and either separate harbor outfall
    
    
    
    
                   or combined extended outfall).
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
         5.3.2 Deer Island - Nut Island - Long Island Treatment Facilities
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
              a.   Construct separate primary treatment facilities at Deer
    
    
    
    
                   Island (for north system flows) and Long Island (for south
    
    
    
    
                   system flows) with headworks on Nut Island.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
              b.   Construct combined primary treatment facilities on Long
    
    
    
    
                   Island (with extended outfall) with pump station on Deer
                                       5-4
    

    -------
    Island and Headworks on Nut Island;  inter-island transport
    
    
    
    
    of effluent via tunnels.
                       5-5
    

    -------
    6.0  EVALUATION OF THE OPTIONS
    
    
    
         6.1  The Matrix of Findings
    
    
    
         A matrix was developed to compare all options on the basis of a
    
         specified list of impacts-".  The impacts were defined in seven cate-
    
         gories—social, technical, environmental, economic, political,
    
         legal, and institutional  ("STEEPLI").  These formed the matrix rows
    
         while the options formed  the columns.  Within each impact  category,
    
         several  sub-categories were defined  (see Attachment 2).  The
    
         expected impact of  each  alternative  was then noted in the  appro-
    
         priate cell  of the  matrix.  For each impact and  option, data  was
    
         displayed either  numerically or entered as  a written description.
    
         The configurations  of the various  levels  of treatment are  displayed
    
          graphically  in  the  matrix to  show  either  headworks, primary  or
    
          secondary treatment facilities.
    
    
    
          6.2  Screening Criteria
    
    
    
          The next step in the screening process was to  develop  a basis for
    
          elimination and/or consolidation of the options.  A set of screening
    
          criteria was developed with input from both the CAC (Citizens
    
          Advisory Committee) and the TAG (Technical Advisory Group) partici-
    
          pating  on the project.
      ''Satellite treatment  facilities  are  an  adjunct to harbor treatment sites
       and  are evaluated  in a  separate technical  report (Appendix B)  to this
       report.
                                         6-1
    

    -------
                                  ATTACHMENT 2
                 Impact Categories and Sub-Categories (STEEPLI)
    Social/Community
              Construction impacts
              Traffic and safety
              Noise/air quality/odor
              Property value
              Land use
              Social consequence
    Technical
    Economic
              Level of treatment and acres required:  Nut, Deer, Long, and
              other islands
    
              Average and peak daily flows and level of treatment in design
              year:  north, south and combined systems
    
              Construction period
    
              System operation during construction
    
              Energy requirements
    
              Long-term viability and opportunity for expansion/upgrade
    
              Relationship to other facilities'  plans (including immediate
              upgrade of system)
    
              Sub-regional systems and their relationship to harbor treatment
              facilities
              Capital cost
              Operation and maintenance costs
              Present worth/annualized costs
              Local share (by town)
              User charges (per capita/family)
              Affordability
              Employment and wages
              Secondary economic benefits
                                       6-2
    

    -------
    Environmental
              Water quality standards
              Recreational resources and visual quality (regional)
              Fisheries
              Habitats
              Air quality/health
              Other natural resources
    Political
              Federal:  EPA EIS
                        EPA 301(h)
                        Army Corps of Engineers
                        Other agencies
    
              State:    MEPA
                        MDC
                        DEQE/DWPC
                        CZM
                        Other agencies
                        Legislature
                        Governor
                        Boston Harbor Water Quality Committee (Sargent Comm.)
    
              Local:    City of Boston/Suffolk County
                        City of Winthrop
                        Town of Quincy
                        Other MDC member communities
    
              Other:    CACs
                        Houghs Neck and other Quincy residents
                        Point Shirley and other Winthrop residents
                        Quincy Shores Association
              Permits required
              Statutory requirements/limits
              Compliance with court actions
    Institutional
              Institutions involved/affected
              Policies
              Management of facilities
              Other planning elements
              Site ownership and acquisition
                                       6-3
    

    -------
    The CAC was asked to comment on the importance and relative weight
    
    
    
    
    of each of the "STEEPLI" impacts.  They ranked the categories in the
    
    
    
    
    following order of importance:  social, environmental, technical,
    
    
    
    
    institutional, economic, political, and legal.  Within each
    
    
    
    
    category, the sub-categories considered significant to the siting
    
    
    
    
    process were identified as follows:
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
         Social - construction activities, odor, property values, and
    
    
    
    
         land use;
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
         Environmental - water quality, marine life, air quality,
    
    
    
    
         fisheries, and wildlife;
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
         Technical - engineering feasibility,  land availability,  infil-
    
    
    
    
         tration/inflow impacts; and
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
         Institutional - future planning,  and growth/expansion of
    
    
    
    
         system.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    A Public Workshop was also held to solicit comment from the general
    
    
    
    
    public.  The workshop audience placed  a greater relative importance
    
    
    
    
    on economic impacts (cost of alternatives) than did the CAC,  but in
    
    
    
    
    other areas expressed priorities and concerns comparable to those of
    
    
    
    
    the CAC.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    The TAG was also consulted for agency views on the alternatives.  A
    
    
    
    
    questionnaire was used to identify TAG preferences for final
                                  6-4
    

    -------
    alternatives.  The majority of responses indicated a clear
    
    
    
    
    preference of TAG members for use of the Deer and Nut Island sites
    
    
    
    
    with various combinations of wastewater treatment.  A minority of
    
    
    
    
    responses indicated that Long Island options should be studied
    
    
    
    
    further.  No support was received for the outer harbor options.  The
    
    
    
    
    factors most cited in support of these conclusions were costs,
    
    
    
    
    continuation of established land uses, environmental impacts, and
    
    
    
    
    management advantages of consolidating facilities.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Upon review of the data developed, as arrayed in the matrix, and
    
    
    
    
    with consideration of comments from those participating in the EIS
    
    
    
    
    process, EPA and its consultants then determined which of the impact
    
    
    
    
    categories in the "STEEPLI" matrix were most critical to the
    
    
    
    
    screening process.  These impacts, along with three other factors
    
    
    
    
    mentioned below, became the basis for the final screening.  The
    
    
    
    
    principal impact categories that were applied to the screening
    
    
    
    
    process which distinguished the more feasible options were:
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1.   Technical:  site suitability, including adequate land area and
    
    
    
    
         appropriate buffer; access; and engineering feasibility.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    2.   Engineering:  consolidation of major treatment facilities in
    
    
    
    
         the harbor to take advantage of centralized construction and
    
    
    
    
         operation activities; reduced operation and maintenance
    
    
    
    
         requirements; and consolidation of sludge handling and
    
    
    
    
         disposal.
                                  6-5
    

    -------
         3.   Social:  reducing construction and operations impacts on
    
              abutting residential neighborhoods, primarily as a result of
    
              increased traffic, duration of construction, and associated
    
              disruption; opportunities to apply mitigation measures to
    
              reduce adverse impacts.
    
    
    
         4.   Environmental:   environmental effects of large-scale dredge and
    
              fill activities; recreational resources and visual quality
    
              impacts.
    
    
    
         Economic impacts are also an important criteria in selection of a
    
         final recommended plan, but were shown during the screening process
    
         to be secondary to the above criteria.  This was based on estimated
    
         annualized costs for all of the various site options within their
    
         respective treatment levels which were within 10% of each other
    
         (with the exception of the new island alternatives)*.  Thus cost
    
         could not be used to select between alternatives at this stage of
    
         review.
    
    
    
         In addition to the impact categories of the "STEEPLI" matrix,  three
    
         other elements were factored into the screening criteria.   These
    
         included:
    *This narrow cost range is reflected in a comparison of the acceptable
     primary and secondary options, respectively.  The range for primary
     treatment options with a harbor outfall (no longer considered
     acceptable) reflect a 25% cost range.
                                       6-6
    

    -------
    1.   MDC's preferred primary and secondary options, as identified in
    
    
    
    
         the Site Options Study (1982), and the proposed option in the
    
    
    
    
         301(h) waiver application included to address the recommenda-
    
    
    
    
         tions of the grantee.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    2.   State policy regarding the location of the primary treatment
    
    
    
    
         outfalls which led to exclusion from further study of alter-
    
    
    
    
         natives involving primary treatment with harbor outfalls.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    3.   Public comment on the preliminary screening recommendations
    
    
    
    
         circulated for review at meetings in Quincy and Winthrop.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Analysis of these options during this phase of the SDEIS was based
    
    
    
    
    on a comparison of the screening criteria, preliminary analysis of
    
    
    
    
    impacts, outfall policy considerations, and public comment to
    
    
    
    
    develop a discreet set of options for further study in the following
    
    
    
    
    phase of the SDEIS analysis.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    6.3  Findings of the Screening Process
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    In screening the numerous options being considered for wastewater
    
    
    
    
    treatment facilities in Boston Harbor, several important elements
    
    
    
    
    associated with review of siting alternatives became clear.   First,
    
    
    
    
    it was found that no alternative siting or treatment option is
    
    
    
    
    without potentially significant adverse impacts.   Such impacts are
    
    
    
    
    associated with the effects of construction and operation activities
    
    
    
    
    upon nearby residential areas and the adjacent community at large,
                                  6-7
    

    -------
    the effects upon the natural environment, cost of the proposed
    
    
    
    
    actions, and the potential incompatibility of wastewater treatment
    
    
    
    
    facilities with surrounding land uses.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    It must be noted also that none of the options satisfied all of the
    
    
    
    
    screening evaluation criteria. The combination of the size and
    
    
    
    
    complexity of the proposed project, the difficulty of siting such
    
    
    
    
    facilities in an urban area such as Boston, and the past poor
    
    
    
    
    performance of existing facilities has limited the acceptability of
    
    
    
    
    every option to one or another constituent group and neighboring
    
    
    
    
    community.  Nonetheless, the alternatives selected best represent
    
    
    
    
    viable and realistic choices for further study of the siting
    
    
    
    
    feasibility of major wastewater treatment facilities in Boston
    
    
    
    
    Harbor.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    6.3.1 Options Recommended for Further Study
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Options recommended for more detailed study were those which best
    
    
    
    
    met the established criteria, when compared to other alternatives
    
    
    
    
    recognizing that no alternatives could fully meet all the critieria.
    
    
    
    
    Options lacked sufficient analysis at this stage to determine their
    
    
    
    
    full impacts and were carried to allow such a more detailed analysis
    
    
    
    
    to be conducted in the next phase.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Briefly summarized, the eight alternatives to be studied will
    
    
    
    
    examine both primary and secondary treatment options located at
    
    
    
    
    either Deer Island, Nut Island, or Long Island.  Under secondary
                                  6-8
    

    -------
    treatment levels, two options (la and Ib) consider secondary
    
    
    
    
    treatment at Deer Island with either headworks or primary treatment
    
    
    
    
    at Nut Island; one option (2b.l)proposes either headworks or pumping
    
    
    
    
    facilities at both Deer Island and Nut Island with consolidated
    
    
    
    
    treatment at Long Island; and one option (2b.3) would site primary
    
    
    
    
    treatment at Deer Island, secondary treatment at Long Island and
    
    
    
    
    headworks at Nut Island.  For primary treatment levels, two options
    
    
    
    
    (4a.2 and 4b.2)  consider primary treatment at Deer Island with
    
    
    
    
    either headworks or primary treatment at Nut Island; one option
    
    
    
    
    (5a.2) would  site primary treatment at both Deer Island and Long
    
    
    
    
    Island and headworks at Nut Island, and one option (5b.2) proposes
    
    
    
    
    either headworks or pumping facilities at both Deer Island and Nut
    
    
    
    
    Island with consolidated treatment at Long Island.  Two of these
    
    
    
    
    options  noted above  (Ib and 4b.2) involving expansion at Nut Island
    
    
    
    
    were  also retained because they were the preferred plans of the MDC.
    
    
    
    
    Section  7.0 discusses these options in detail.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    In  order to reach a final recommendation in the SDEIS, subsequent
    
    
    
    
    detailed analysis in the second phase of the work plan will examine
    
    
    
    
    in  greater detail the benefits and adverse effects of facilities at
    
    
    
    
    each  of  the three sites:  Deer Island (DI), Nut Island (NI) and Long
    
    
    
    
    Island (LI).  Each siting option will also be evaluated with
    
    
    
    
    analysis of mitigation measures to eliminate or limit potential
    
    
    
    
    adverse  impacts.
                                  6-9
    

    -------
    6.3.2 Alternatives Eliminated
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    This section sets forth the options that have been dropped and the
    
    
    
    
    major reasons for their elimination from further consideration (as
    
    
    
    
    specified by Federal CEQ guidelines S1502.I4(a)).   The following
    
    
    
    
    section of the report also discusses these  options in detail.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Four options (4a.l, 4b.l,  5a.l and 5b.l) which included primary
    
    
    
    
    treatment and harbor outfalls were eliminated because of likely
    
    
    
    
    adverse impacts on water quality and the stated policy of the
    
    
    
    
    Commonwealth of Massachusetts that the harbor outfalls will not be
    
    
    
    
    considered further under primary treatment  levels.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Two options (3a and 3b) which provided for  creation of man-made
    
    
    
    
    islands seaward of Boston Harbor were eliminated because of
    
    
    
    
    excessively high costs, and limited engineering and operational
    
    
    
    
    feasibility.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Three options (Ic, la.2 and 2b.2) which provided for expansion of
    
    
    
    
    the Nut Island wastewater treatment facility to secondary level
    
    
    
    
    were dropped because of lack of land availability and general
    
    
    
    
    absence of buffer space between the site and nearby residential
    
    
    
    
    neighborhoods.   These plans would also require the greatest degree
    
    
    
    
    of decentralized plant operations and maintenance and would have
    
    
    
    
    resulted in adverse impacts across the broadest area of the harbor
    
    
    
    
    and land based areas.
                                 6-10
    

    -------
    One option (2a.l) involving separate secondary treatment facilities
    
    
    
    
    on Deer Island and Long Island was also eliminated because it too
    
    
    
    
    resulted in scattered, multiple impacts and decentralized plant
    
    
    
    
    operations and maintenance.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Subregional treatment or "satellite" facilities have been dropped
    
    
    
    
    from further study at this stage of analysis, because the
    
    
    
    
    anticipated benefits of such facilities are insufficient to offset
    
    
    
    
    their significant costs, questionable benefits and uncertain
    
    
    
    
    environmental impacts.  Negligible system flow reduction would
    
    
    
    
    result from such plants.  This conclusion is further documented in
    
    
    
    
    Appendix B issued as a separate volume to this screening report.
                                 6-11
    

    -------
    7.0  DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF OPTIONS
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
         7.1  Summary of Analysis Results
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
         The following tables (Attachments 3 and 4) summarize the key impact
    
    
    
    
         findings and costs for the options considered.   The impact
    
    
    
    
         categories listed reflect those identified as having the greatest
    
    
    
    
         significance, based on analysis and public comment, for the
    
    
    
    
         comparative screening phase.   These results show those impact
    
    
    
    
         categories by option which are projected to have the greatest
    
    
    
    
         impacts and, in some cases, unacceptable impacts in comparison to
    
    
    
    
         other options available.  The final eight options selected for
    
    
    
    
         further study cover a range of possible alternatives for treatment
    
    
    
    
         plant siting among those alternatives which appear must suitable
    
    
    
    
         based on the established criteria and impact comparisons.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
         In addition, Attachment 4a presents a summary of recently revised
    
    
    
    
         costs for the eight preferred options to be studied in detail.
    
    
    
    
         These revisions reflect more recent reviews of the facility costs
    
    
    
    
         and O&M costs for the preferred options carried out as part of the
    
    
    
    
         impact assessment analysis.  This was carried out following
    
    
    
    
         selection of the preferred options and was based in part on further
    
    
    
    
         analysis and verification of the data developed in both the MDC Site
    
    
    
    
         Options Study (1982) and EPA Draft EIS (1978).   As a result of these
    
    
    
    
         further reviews, the costs shown in Table 4a update those in Table
    
    
    
    
         4.   It should be noted, however, that these updated costs do not
    
    
    
    
         alter the prior screening conclusions since the relationship of
                                       7-1
    

    -------
                                                             SUMMARY  OF OPTIONS  AND  THEIR  IMPACTS1
    ATTACHMENT 3
    
    Option No. Nut
    (17s
    SECONDARY
    Wmf* <
    TECHNICAL IMPACTS
    Sites, Level of Treatment, and (Acreage Required)
    Island Deer Island
    c. exist) (210ac. exist)
    • ( 2) •••(115)
    • £«) «MKli»>
    lc • MS (36) • •• (104)
    2a.l • ( 2) • •• (104)
    2a.2 • (18) ••1(104)
    »;i* • 1?) • (i)
    2b.2
    3a/b**
    PRIMARY
    *r.«Vt „ ,
    Ab.l*
    ,jfo,%k* *^_ -
    5a.l
    5b.l
    ^*#« : ^
    • (18) • ( 52)
    • ( 2) • ( 52)
    • ( 2) • ( 2)
    • ( 2) • ( 62)
    • ( 2.) • ( 62)
    • (18) • ( 52)
    • 4
    7 *>•
    9i 9±
    8 3-4 7
    8 5-6 7
    .5 3-4 SMi
    5 5-6 8
    5 3-6 *
    5 3-4 14+
    NA
    ',*•* ***
    NA
    -ft* 5-6
    NA
    NA
    *'*'' ^ ?
    Construction Impacts
    construction operations
    r workers /trucks/ staff
    Major traffic a»cl disruption
    I&JOP tut* r fit *id disruption
    Severe traffic and disruption
    (335/920/230)
    Severe traffic and disruption
    (413/1065/227)
    Severe traffic and disruption
    (435/1060/210)
    ' Jilajo* traffic wad jdis ruction
    ^iCJi /"J A-lfl.iWft'^ " 	 	
    'f •3'M/-***-* ™-f&f V ^
    Severe traffic and disruption
    (490/1125/181)
    g«Jor traffic and dis£aptt*fl! ^
    jTA't'i J"ift i fV/T"?ft ^i -.
    \*«>j^jr * U JL y/ -t. i\i J
    Moderate traffic and disruption
    NA
    > ^^riiiiie **A 4i«apti«ft
    NA
    Daj«>r «r«ffic *ad disrstptioa
    NA"
    ;(43^/ijf/m>% * ''
    NA
    '^ss-i/^s/iiO)'"^';' "
    ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
    Environmental
    Impacts of Recreational/Visual
    Dredge & Fill Impacts
    Hfc - * I*ppoy«4 *t NI j impistls *t &I
    B*y filling Impacts at 81 and DI
    Bay filling Max. adverse at NI ;! impacts at DI
    (20ac.) j
    NA Improved at NI ; impjacts at DI and LI
    Bay filling Adverse at NI , DI and LI
    (l-3ac.)
    SA Imiiroved at KI & 51 j inpacts at t!
    Bay filling Adverse at all sites
    (l-3ac.)
    »A Adverse at SI & LI; iaproved jtt MI
    NA Improved at DI & NI; adverse at site
    Eliminate NA
    - m / i**™* ** **J5 ***** * w • .
    Same as 4a NA
    8*y fiUiag , f--Adv«rs« *t Ail #it«.s
    Same as 4a NA
    Same as 4a NA
    _-*,-: ^^^««*^^-**«
    ENGINEERING & ECONOMIC
    IMPACTS
    Consolidation
    Benefits
    ,,™
    Miai*u«
    None
    None
    None
    Maxim**
    None
    Maximum
    NA
    Maxiwia
    NA
    Bone
    NA
    Moae
    NA
    ***•*•;',
    Mitigation
    Opportunities
    teMiM.
    Unlikely
    Unlikely
    Limited
    Unlikely
    Limited
    Unlikely
    Limited
    Unlikely
    NA
    Possible
    NA
    UMU4
    NA
    - ^ MlftMlM* '
    NA
    - '""' '~- , -'
     ^^'       • = headworks/puimping only       • = primary treatment      •§ = secondary treatment
     D = deep ocean outfall; NA = not applicable; + = preferred options for detailed study    *•**  = Based on estimates in HOC Site Options Study (1982)
       = MDC's preferred options                                               **** = Assumes no barging during construction
     **a  = alongside Lovells Island; b  = alongside the Brewsters            •             ,                 , ,   ,   ,
     -^                              °                                          shading • selected for further study
      Note  that some  values in this table reflect preliminary data,  current  at  that time,  which  was  the basis of the review
    j of the 20 options shown above.  This data was consistent across all the options, therefore it  was adequate for the in-
            screening carried out at that time.  Subsequent analysis of the  eight options  remaining  updated  and revised this
           as reflected in the previous sections of 'this SDEIS.
                                                                                                                                          Sourcej  CE Maguire,  Inc.  (May 16,  1984)
    

    -------
                                                            ATTACHMENT 4
    
    Option No.
    SECONDARY
    + i*. ji62) ;
    +•' u» (4&2j*~/':;"
    lc
    2a.l
    2a.2
    + »aV. :/":>:.
    2t.2
    BOSTON HARBOR SDEIS: SUMMARY OF OPTIONS AND THEIR INITIAL OOSTS^
    Sites, Level of Treatment, and Costs in
    (Acreage Required) (Millions
    Other
    Nut Island Deer Island Long Island Island** Capital O&H
    H ( 3J ••• (115) ~ 852,6 «.7
    • «38) • SB (115) 867.4 43.3
    9 HB (36) ^ Bl (104) 884.4 43.4
    H ( 2) % SB (1°4> ® Si ( 36) 897.9 46.0
    9 (IB) % SB (104) RBI ( 21) 915.5 46.1
    ;;./: " m .< a» '.'; ••'. . .•;(.«) ..:.; " ® •• ms> • :.," ; ' •';. we.s 43.?:
    ® (18) $ ( 52) HI ( 68) 1001.8 46.9
    Annual ired
    Costs***
    ($Millions)
    131.3
    136.4' ;
    134.3
    138.3
    1-0.2
    '14S,4
    151.9
    + >,* , ' •.; p j;^:o;0:v:;: © < »> ^ • w t tt> ."": ?;; ;;'/ »»,* ;;.>;«.' : ; '•*«.« :
    3a/b«
    PRIMARY
    8(2) m ( 2) @BM(154) 1515.9/2037.6 42.9+
    Si { 2} @ ( 62) 390.5 22.7
    198.7/252.3
    62.9
    + 4a,2 < B ( 3} $H ( 62J - ' - ?59 ..6 D 31, 1 99.2
    4b.l*
    + 4b,2* *
    5..!
    V*. 3
    5b.l
    + Si>,2
    H! (18) ^ ( 52)' 374.0 22.6
    • war' _=/••'.'; "V@ '**«> ' ' /" ;;.. w.s D 22.0'
    3J ( 2) ® I 52) H ( 18) 436.2 22.3
    SI • ( 2S '04 52S @ ( 1$) '• . ' 792,5 D 21,7 •
    ^ ( 2) S ( 2) ® ( 62) 536.5 22.1
    m in • « f ->r. •"'; ;::;.• ® c wi.,- . w>.4 p '20.5
    61.1
    101,7
    67.2
    . 103,2'
    77.3
    109.1
    K£V:          S| - headworks only        ^ - prioary treatment        Hi = secondary treatment
    
    D - deep ocean outfall     « - MDC's preferred options     **a - alongside Lovells  Island     b - alongside Brewster Islands
    
    **» - Assumes 8-1/8% interest rota over 20 years.     =  preferred  options for detailed study
    
    
    lAssumes all costs updated only from  those developed in the MDC Site  Options Study  (1982);
     these costs for the eight options have been revised based on the detailed  analysis done
     subsequent to this preliminary screening.  Revised costs are discussed  in  Section  12.4
     of the SDEIS.
    

    -------
         costs  between options  has  not significantly changed,  and,  as  stated
    
    
    
    
         previously,  costs  were not a primary determinant in screening.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
         The  following discussion describes  in greater detail  each  of  the
    
    
    
    
         options  considered and explains the basis  for its inclusion or
    
    
    
    
         exclusion in further SDEIS analysis.   The  preferred eight  options
    
    
    
    
         are  listed first,  followed by the remaining options considered.  For
    
    
    
    
         each option, the information is summarized by the major  impact
    
    
    
    
         categories analyzed -  technical,  social/community,  engineering  and
    
    
    
    
         economic,  and environmental - with  specific data presented by
    
    
    
    
         subcategories determined to be most significant.   Attachment  5
    
    
    
    
         further  summarize  these findings  and conclusions for  all options.
    
    
    
    
         For  the  category of impacts dealing with traffic and  construction
    
    
    
    
         activities,  no assumptions regarding barging of materials  or  workers
    
    
    
    
         have been factored into the analysis at this stage.  This  will  be
    
    
    
    
         addressed in the detailed  impact  analysis  for the SDEIS.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    7.2   Options Recommended for Further  Study
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
         7.2.1.   Secondary  Alternatives
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
         la.2.  Secondary Treatment  (Separate Waste  Flows) at PI,
    
    
    
    
         Headworks  at NI.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
         Technical:   This option would convert the  17-acre Nut Island  (NI)
    
    
    
    
         site owned by the  MDC  to a 2-acre headworks to screen and  pump  waste
    
    
    
    
         flows  of the southern  MSD  to a consolidated secondary treatment
                                       7-5
    

    -------
                                    Attachment  5
                      SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE  SCREENING RESULTS
                        Facility Siting
                   NI    DI     LI    Other
    SECONDARY
    TREATMENT
    
    la (1 & 2)
      H    P/S
    Ib (1 & 2)
      P    P/S
    Ic
    P/S    P/S
    2a.l
      H    P/S
    P/S
    2a.2
      P    P/S
                                    Screening Comments
    Recommended for further study;
    1978 Draft EIS preferred option;
    improvements at NI; community
    benefits in Quincy; consolida-
    tion of facilities; increased
    impacts of DI; lowest cost.
    
    Recommended for further study;
    preferred by MDC for secondary
    treatment; increased impacts at
    NI and in Quincy; higher costs;
    greater impacts at DI and in
    Winthrop.
    
    Major construction and opera-
    tions impacts at NI and DI;
    legal and environmental impacts
    to filling of Quincy Bay; higher
    costs; major separate plants at
    both sites; no apparent advan-
    tages .
    
    Major construction and opera-
    tions impacts at DI and LI;
    possible preclusion of other
    uses at both sites; conflict
    with prison and hospital;
    higher costs; dispersed facili-
    ties at three sites; does im-
    prove conditions at NI, but not
    to any greater degree than
    other less costly more advan-
    tageous options such as la, Ib,
    or 2b.
    
    Increased construction and
    operations impacts at NI with
    no appreciable advantages at
    DI or LI compared to prior
    choice;  higher cost; major
    facilities at all sites; Op-
    tions la, Ib, and 2b appear
    preferable.
                                     7-6
    

    -------
                        Facility Siting
    Option         NI	DI	LI	Other       Screening Comments
    
    2b.l           H      H    P/S          Recommended for further study;
                                            significant potential benefits
                                            at NI and DI;  consolidation
                                            advantages; among the highest
                                            cost; greatest impacts at LI
                                            with possible preclusion of
                                            other present and future uses;
                                            adverse impacts likely to occur
                                            in Squantum/Quincy with pos-
                                            sible mitigation opportunities
                                            to minimize traffic or other
                                            effects.
    
    2b.2           P      P      S          Additional impacts at DI; from
                                            expanded facility size; in-
                                            creased NI and LI impacts;
                                            higher costs;  no advantage over
                                            Option 2b.3.
    
    2b.3           H      P    P/S          Recommended for further study;
                                            improved at NI; DI increase in
                                            facility size and potential
                                            impacts in nearby community;
                                            major new impacts at LI with
                                            possible preclusion of other
                                            uses and likely conflict with
                                            the hopsital;  higher cost; most
                                            removed from nearby residential
                                            areas.
    
    3              H      H            P/S  Highest potential impacts;
                                            highest costs; difficult and
                                            long construction; greatest
                                            operational difficulties; envi-
                                            ronmental impacts high; im-
                                            provements at NI and DI not suf-
                                            ficient to offset impacts/costs;
                                            other options afford better bal-
                                            ance and likely acceptable cost
                                            effectiveness.
                                  7-7
    

    -------
                         Facility Siting
                    NI     DI     LI    Other
                                   Screening Comments
     PRIMARY
     TREATMENT
    
     4a.l
    H
     4a.2
    H
     4b.l
     4b.2
    5a.l
    5a.2
    H
    H
     P  (Harbor  Out-
         falls)
     P  (Extended
        Outfall)
         P  (Harbor Out-
             falls)
         P  (Extended
            Outfall)
    5b.l
    H
         P  (Harbor
            Outfalls)
    
         P  (Extended
            Outfall)
    H    P (Harbor
            Outfalls)
    Harbor  outfalls  not recommended
    based on  State 301(h)  reapplica-
    tion preference;  independence of
    outfall from siting decision.
    
    Recommended  for  further study;
    improved  conditions at NI  with
    reduced impacts  in Quincy;  im-
    pact at DI in Winthrop;  consoli-
    dated facilities;  comparable
    costs considering  long outfall.
    
    Not considered as  noted above;
    MDC's Site Options Study pre-
    ferred  option.
    
    Recommended  for  further study;
    MDC's 301(h)  preferred option;
    increased impacts  at NI; in-
    creased impacts  at DI;  separate
    facilities with  associated  con-
    struction effects  and  staffing/
    maintenance  requirements;
    higher  costs; maintins  present
    facility  siting; no consolida-
    tion.
    
    Not considered as  noted  above.
    Recommended for further study;
    improved conditions at NI and
    on Houghs Neck; community im-
    pacts in Quincy and in Point
    Shirley/Winthrop area; impacts
    introduced to LI, however, mini-
    mal (18 acre) area required;
    possible conflict with recrea-
    tional plans; higher costs;
    separate treatment facilities
    with potential for mitigation of
    adverse impacts.
    
    Not considered as noted above.
                                7-8
    

    -------
                        Facility Siting
    Option         NI	DI	LI	Other       Screening Comments
    5b.2           H    H    P (Extended    Recommended for further study;
                                Outfall)    reduced impacts at NI and DI
                                            with major facilities removed
                                            from proximity to residential
                                            areas; greatest impacts at LI
                                            with preclusion of some land
                                            uses, and possible conflict
                                            with hospital; adverse impacts
                                            likely in Squantum/Quincy with
                                            possible mitigation opportuni-
                                            ties for the optins;  higher
                                            costs potential benefits at NI
                                            and DI.
                              7-9
    

    -------
     facility on Deer Island (DI).  In this option, some buffer area
    
    
    
    
     would be available on NI to better separate the proposed facility
    
    
    
    
     from abutting residences.  The headworks facility would be located
    
    
    
    
     on the site of the present treatment plant in the vicinity of the
    
    
    
    
     existing administration building.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
     On DI, the 210-acre site under multiple ownership could accommodate
    
    
    
    
     a proposed secondary treatment plant encompassing about 115 acres.
    
    
    
    
     The present primary treatment plant covers about 26 acres.  Most of
    
    
    
    
     the expanded facility construction on DI would occur towards the
    
    
    
    
     southern portion of the site which is vacant.  Additional buffer
    
    
    
    
     areas on DI would be limited due to the short causeway leading to
    
    
    
    
     the site from nearby residential areas, and the close proximity of
    
    
    
    
     the Suffolk County/City of Boston prison just to the north of the
    
    
    
    
     existing treatment plant.  Some encroachment of an expanded treat-
    
    
    
    
     ment plant on the prison could occur, although future consolidation
    
    
    
    
     of the prison would make available additional land for siting of
    
    
    
    
     treatment facilities.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
     Social/Community:  During construction, impacts would occur at both
    
    
    
    
    Deer and Nut Islands and in- the adjoining communities of Winthrop
    
    
    
    
    and Quincy.  At NI, an average of about 13 workers and 35 trucks
    
    
    
    
     daily would travel to the site.  Construction activities would last
    
    
    
    
     3 to 4 years, and impacts would be limited to the site, with
    
    
    
    
    moderate additional traffic in Quincy and through Houghs Neck.
    
    
    
    
    During future operations of the headworks, a total staff of 20 would
    
    
    
    
    be maintained over three daily shifts.  This option would improve
                                 7-10
    

    -------
    conditions on the site through a reduced facility use and minimize
    
    
    
    
    impacts upon abutting residential uses in Hough's Neck and in
    
    
    
    
    Quincy.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    At DI,  the construction period would last about 7 years.  Major
    
    
    
    
    impacts would result from the daily transportation of an average of
    
    
    
    
    415 construction workers, and up to a peak of 940 truck trips per
    
    
    
    
    day through Winthrop (as well as through Boston and other
    
    
    
    
    neighboring communities).  This estimate and those for all options
    
    
    
    
    assumes (at this stage of the preliminary analysis) that no barging
    
    
    
    
    activity or other mitigation to reduce the truck or auto traffic is
    
    
    
    
    employed.   Operations staff at DI would increase to 230 persons from
    
    
    
    
    the 160 presently employed at the plant.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Engineering and Economic:  This option would consolidate treatment
    
    
    
    
    at a single facility on DI, thereby affording benefits of
    
    
    
    
    centralized operations and maintenance.  Sludge disposal would
    
    
    
    
    likewise be consolidated at a single site.  Treatment facilities
    
    
    
    
    proposed in this option would be located at the site of an existing
    
    
    
    
    treatment  plant, allowing possible reuse of certain components at
    
    
    
    
    the site.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Preliminary cost estimates for this option are among the lowest of
    
    
    
    
    the secondary treatment options.  Construction costs are estimated
    
    
    
    
    to be $852.6 million with operations and maintenance (O&M) costs at
    
    
    
    
    $43.7 million.   The annualized costs for debt service (20 years at
    
    
    
    
    8-1/8%) and O&M are $131.3 million.
                                 7-11
    

    -------
    Environmental:  This option would impose no additional adverse
    
    
    
    
    impacts upon the use, water quality,  or recreational resources of
    
    
    
    
    the Harbor beyond the limited,  controlled period of its construc-
    
    
    
    
    tion.  Visual quality at DI would be  impacted due to the expansion
    
    
    
    
    in the size and number of treatment works there.  Access to and use
    
    
    
    
    of the site would remain limited by the security requirements of the
    
    
    
    
    prison on the island.  Buffer zones and screening could be
    
    
    
    
    established at DI, however, the expanded size of the facility would
    
    
    
    
    make it visible from numerous locations on land and from water.  At
    
    
    
    
    NI, a reduction in the size of the facility to a headworks would
    
    
    
    
    allow the introduction of plantings or earthwork which may improve
    
    
    
    
    present visual intrusion upon nearby residences.  Noise and odor
    
    
    
    
    problems emanating from the present plant would be lessened.
    
    
    
    
    However, the small size of the island limits its potential as a site
    
    
    
    
    for new recreational areas or other uses of benefit to the
    
    
    
    
    community.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    This option  is recommended for further study based on its having
    
    
    
    
    sufficient area on DI to accommodate expanded treatment facilities,
    
    
    
    
    its utilization of existing treatment sites and the advantages of
    
    
    
    
    consolidation as noted above, and the improvements to the NI site.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    lb.2. Secondary Treatment  (Separate Waste Flows) at DI, Primary
    
    
    
    
    at NI
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Technical:  This option expands the present treatment  facilities  at
    
    
    
    
    both NI and DI.  It  is the preferred choice of  the MDC  for  secondary
                                 7-12
    

    -------
    treatment.  The 17 acre NI site would be converted to a larger
    
    
    
    
    primary treatment plant requiring a total of approximately 18 acres,
    
    
    
    
    of which 1 to 3 acres would be filled land added to Quincy Bay
    
    
    
    
    Expansion at NI would necessitate utilizing the full extent of the
    
    
    
    
    site for expanded facilities, reducing the already limited
    
    
    
    
    separation between the treatment plant and abutting residences.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    The 210-acre DI site could accommodate a secondary treatment plant
    
    
    
    
    of 115 acres.  While there is sufficient area on DI to accommodate
    
    
    
    
    the expanded plant, there may be some encroachment onto the site of
    
    
    
    
    the existing prison facility.  Expansion on DI would utilize most of
    
    
    
    
    the presently vacant land on the island.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Social/Community:   During construction, major impacts would result
    
    
    
    
    at both DI and NI and in the adjacent communities of Winthrop and
    
    
    
    
    Quincy.  At DI, construction would last 7 years with an average  of
    
    
    
    
    412 workers and up to 880 truck trips daily passing through Winthrop
    
    
    
    
    during peak activity.  Operational staff required at DI would be 215
    
    
    
    
    persons.  At NI,  construction would last for 5 years and would be
    
    
    
    
    significant with 36 workers and 40 truck trips daily at peak.
    
    
    
    
    Operations staff at NI would be 83 persons.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Engineering and Economic:  This option maintains separate primary
    
    
    
    
    treatment facilities and consolidates secondary facilities at two
    
    
    
    
    locations in the harbor.  As such, it does not fully consolidate
    
    
    
    
    operations or maintenance and sludge disposal requirements, although
    
    
    
    
    savings are achieved at the secondary level from centralization  at
                                 7-13
    

    -------
    DI.  Preliminary costs of this option are $887.4 million for
    
    
    
    
    construction, $45.2 million for O&M, and $136.4 million annualized
    
    
    
    
    cost.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Environmental:  This option would pose added environmental and water
    
    
    
    
    quality impacts as a result of harbor filling needed to expand the
    
    
    
    
    present site at NI.   Constraints would exist due to the state
    
    
    
    
    prohibitions against harbor filling.  Visual quality would be
    
    
    
    
    altered significantly at NI from the enlarged and expanded
    
    
    
    
    facilities and total utilization of the site with closer proximity
    
    
    
    
    and greater scale of treatment works to abutting residences.  No
    
    
    
    
    buffer zones or screening would be possible.  At DI, this option
    
    
    
    
    would be comparable to option la.2.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    As one of the MDC's preferred facility plan options, this option is
    
    
    
    
    recommended for further study.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    2b.l. Secondary Treatment at LI, Headworks at DI and NI
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Technical:   This option would convert the existing 26-acre DI
    
    
    
    
    treatment plant to a pump station (2-acre) and the 17-acre NI
    
    
    
    
    treatment plant to a headworks (2-acre) to respectively pump and
    
    
    
    
    screen waste flows to a new consolidated secondary treatment plant
    
    
    
    
    of 115 acres on Long Island (LI).  The total area of LI, which is
    
    
    
    
    owned by the City of Boston, is 213 acres.
                                 7-14
    

    -------
    A treatment plant could be accommodated on LI; however not without
    
    
    
    
    encroachment upon existing and proposed future uses there.  The LI
    
    
    
    
    Hospital currently occupies about 26 acres in the central portion of
    
    
    
    
    the island, with the remaining areas of the island vacant.  An
    
    
    
    
    abandoned Nike missle base is also situated in the central part of
    
    
    
    
    the site with a former U.S. defense installation, Fort Strong, and a
    
    
    
    
    lighthouse located at the northern head of the island.  There is a
    
    
    
    
    causeway and bridge connecting LI to Moon Island and Quincy.   The
    
    
    
    
    condition of the bridge will have to be investigated relative to its
    
    
    
    
    use by heavy construction traffic.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Social/Community:  Impacts of this option during construction would
    
    
    
    
    be significant, involving an estimated total peak level of 428
    
    
    
    
    workers and 975 truck trips daily traveling through Quincy to both
    
    
    
    
    LI and NI.   The construction period at these sites would be 3 to 4
    
    
    
    
    years at NI and 9 years at LI.  These levels of construction
    
    
    
    
    activity would impose major adverse impacts upon the Squantum
    
    
    
    
    community and moderate impacts upon nearby residential areas  of
    
    
    
    
    Houghs Neck.  Conditions on-site at NI would be improved with
    
    
    
    
    improvements for abutting residences.  During operations, total
    
    
    
    
    daily staffing levels over these shifts would be 20 persons at NI
    
    
    
    
    and 215 persons at LI.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    At DI, construction activities would require 28 workers and 35 truck
    
    
    
    
    trips per day over a 4 to 5-year period.  This would impose moderate
    
    
    
    
    traffic impacts on the community while it improved conditions
                                 7-15
    

    -------
    on-site and for abutting residential areas.   Operational staff at DI
    
    
    
    
    would be 40 persons over three daily shifts.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Engineering and Economics:   This option consolidates all treatment
    
    
    
    
    at a new site on LI with smaller headworks and pumping facilities at
    
    
    
    
    NI and DI,  respectively.  This would afford benefits of centralized
    
    
    
    
    operations, maintenance and sludge disposal.   Preliminary costs of
    
    
    
    
    this option entail $998.5 million for construction,  $42.7 O&M, and
    
    
    
    
    $145.4 million annualized cost.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Environmental:   Improvements and potential benefits  would result on
    
    
    
    
    both DI and NI from reduction to pump station and headworks
    
    
    
    
    respectively of the present treatment facilities located there.  On
    
    
    
    
    NI,  this would be most beneficial to abutting residences in Houghs
    
    
    
    
    Neck (as noted in option la.2),  while on DI the reduction of the
    
    
    
    
    present treatment plant to a pump station would lessen the visual
    
    
    
    
    impacts and odor and noise problems currently experienced by
    
    
    
    
    residents of Point Shirley in Winthrop.  However, the continued
    
    
    
    
    operation of the prison on DI and size of the pump station would
    
    
    
    
    limit access to and use of the site.  Buffer areas and screening
    
    
    
    
    could be established on both DI and NI.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    On LI, there would be major impacts due to the potential conflict of
    
    
    
    
    treatment facilities with the existing hospital and proposed
    
    
    
    
    recreational use under the Boston Harbor Islands State Park plan.
    
    
    
    
    In addition, known historical and archaeological resources,
    
    
    
    
    including a cemetary, would be impacted by siting of a treatment
                                 7-16
    

    -------
    facility.  Visual impacts on LI and of views from Boston Harbor
    
    
    
    
    would be significant with a large facility as proposed.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    This option is recommended for further study based on its potential
    
    
    
    
    for benefits at DI and NI from reduction of treatment facilities and
    
    
    
    
    the improvements to abutting residential areas in both communities.
    
    
    
    
    It would site major treatment facilities furthest away from
    
    
    
    
    residential areas.  Impacts on LI involving the hospital use,
    
    
    
    
    recreation plans and open space, visual quality, and preclusion of
    
    
    
    
    other use potential on the island will be analyzed in greater
    
    
    
    
    detail.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    2b.3 Secondary Treatment at LI, Primary Treatment at DI, Headworks
    
    
    
    
    at NI
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Technical:  This option would construct new primary treatment
    
    
    
    
    facilities for southern MSD flows and consolidated secondary
    
    
    
    
    treatment facilities at LI.  The size of the treatment facilities at
    
    
    
    
    LI would be about 80 acres of the 213-acre island.  NI would be
    
    
    
    
    converted to a headworks (2-acre).   At DI, the present primary
    
    
    
    
    treatment plant of 26 acres would be expanded to double its size (52
    
    
    
    
    acres) to accommodate an upgraded primary treatment plant for
    
    
    
    
    northern MSD flows as presently is treated.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Land area is available at all three sites to accommodate the
    
    
    
    
    proposed facilities.  At all three sites, also, sufficient area
                                 7-17
    

    -------
    exists to allow for buffer zones with possible screening provided
    
    
    
    
    although NI affords the least opportunity for buffer.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    On DI, expanded facility construction would occur on the vacant
    
    
    
    
    portion of the site to the south; on LI,  construction would be in
    
    
    
    
    the central portion of the island in the  area of the abandoned Nike
    
    
    
    
    installation.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Social/Community:   During construction,  the average number of
    
    
    
    
    construction workers at peak would be 360 at LI, 13 at NI and 80 at
    
    
    
    
    DI.   Truck traffic would involve about 535 vehicle trips through
    
    
    
    
    Quincy, mostly through the Squantum community, and 335 vehicle trips
    
    
    
    
    through Winthrop.   Construction would last about three to four years
    
    
    
    
    on NI, four to five years at DI, and eight years at LI.  Operational
    
    
    
    
    staff for these facilities would number 130 persons at LI, 12
    
    
    
    
    persons at NI  and  41 persons at DI over the three daily shifts.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Impacts from traffic would be greatest in this option on LI and in
    
    
    
    
    Squantum and through parts of Quincy leading to LI.  Access over the
    
    
    
    
    LI bridge would require further investigation.  Impact on DI would
    
    
    
    
    be significant from an expanded and larger sized primary treatment
    
    
    
    
    facility with traffic impacts through the neighboring community.  On
    
    
    
    
    LI,  there would also be potential for impacts on historical and
    
    
    
    
    archaeological resources, like in option 2b.l, and encroachment upon
    
    
    
    
    the hospital site  is possible.  At DI, the treatment plant would
    
    
    
    
    require additional area which presently is unused open space
    
    
    
    
    although encroachment on the prison grounds may occur.  At NI,
                                 7-18
    

    -------
    reduced facilities to a headworks would improve site conditions and
    
    
    
    
    minimize impacts upon abutting residences.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Engineering and Economics:  Separate primary treatment facilities on
    
    
    
    
    LI and DI with consolidated secondary treatment on LI would afford
    
    
    
    
    lessor consolidation advantages at the primary treatment level than
    
    
    
    
    other options noted above.  Some reuse advantages could result on DI
    
    
    
    
    from siting at an existing facility.  Preliminary costs for this
    
    
    
    
    option are estimated at $983.5 million for construction and $48.5
    
    
    
    
    million for O&M, with $149.6 million in annualized costs.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Environmental:   This option's environmental impacts are similar at
    
    
    
    
    LI to those described for option 2b.1.  The acreage requirements
    
    
    
    
    would be slightly less; however, the extent of land area disturbed
    
    
    
    
    to accommodate treatment facilities and a relocated roadway would
    
    
    
    
    approach the disruption under the larger sized option.  At NI, the
    
    
    
    
    impacts would be comparable to those under option la. 2.  At DI,
    
    
    
    
    impacts would result from the expansion of treatment works to double
    
    
    
    
    the present size.  Encroachment upon the prison may occur.  Under
    
    
    
    
    this option reuse potential of remaining open space areas to the
    
    
    
    
    south would be limited by the continued security restrictions of the
    
    
    
    
    prison.  Visual intrusion of the treatment plant (and the prison)
    
    
    
    
    would continue and be increased by the expanded facility size.
                                 7-19
    

    -------
    7.2.2  Primary Alternatives
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    4a.2 Primary Treatment at PI, Headworks at NI  (Extended Outfall)
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Technical:  This option would site an expanded consolidated primary
    
    
    
    
    treatment plant (62 acres) on DI with a headworks (2 acres) on NI.
    
    
    
    
    Present treatment facilities on DI encompass 26 acres of the total
    
    
    
    
    210 acre site, while at NI they cover most of the 17-acre site.
    
    
    
    
    Both sites can readily accommodate a facility of the type proposed.
    
    
    
    
    Sufficient buffer area exists with screening possible to limit views
    
    
    
    
    from nearby residential areas and improve views from points in
    
    
    
    
    Boston Harbor.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Social/Community Impacts:  Construction activities under this option
    
    
    
    
    would last between three and four years at NI and five to six years
    
    
    
    
    at DI.   An estimated 414 workers and 480 truck trips per day would
    
    
    
    
    travel through Winthrop.  In Quincy, there would be 13 workers and
    
    
    
    
    39 truck trips daily.   At NI, construction impacts due to traffic
    
    
    
    
    would be moderate with limited on-site disruption.  Reduction of
    
    
    
    
    facilities on-site would improve conditions relative to abutting
    
    
    
    
    residences.   At DI,  site impacts would be significant from the
    
    
    
    
    expansion of the present facility.   Traffic impacts on local roads
    
    
    
    
    are likely to cause disruption of normal traffic patterns and access
    
    
    
    
    through Winthrop and neighboring communities.  Point Shirley
    
    
    
    
    residents would experience the greatest disruption from both
    
    
    
    
    increased heavy vehicle traffic and on-site activities.  Operations
                                 7-20
    

    -------
    staff at DI would require 136 persons over three daily shifts, while
    
    
    
    
    at NI the figure would 20 persons.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Engineering and Economics:  This option maximizes consolidation
    
    
    
    
    advantages associated with operations, maintenance and sludge
    
    
    
    
    disposal at a single treatment plant on DI.   Preliminary costs under
    
    
    
    
    this option are $759.6 million for construction, $21.1 million O&M,
    
    
    
    
    and $99.1 million annualized cost.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Environmental:   Impacts under this option for DI and NI are
    
    
    
    
    comparable to those in option 2b.3.   The slightly larger
    
    
    
    
    consolidated facility under this option (62 acres) would still be
    
    
    
    
    readily accommodated at DI with open space areas remaining to the
    
    
    
    
    south.  However, the security requirements of the prison would
    
    
    
    
    limit, if not preclude, new recreational or other uses on DI.   There
    
    
    
    
    would be construction impacts as noted on-site and in Winthrop.   At
    
    
    
    
    NI,  the reduced facilities would improve conditions on-site and
    
    
    
    
    lessen impacts  to abutting residences, but the small ara of the site
    
    
    
    
    limits its future reuse potential.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    This option is  recommended for further study based on its
    
    
    
    
    consolidation advantages, the partial improvements expected at the
    
    
    
    
    NI site and benefits to nearby residences at Houghs Neck.
                                 7-21
    

    -------
    4b.2 Separate Primary Treatment at PI and NI (Extended Outfall)
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Technical:  This option would maintain and expand primary treatment
    
    
    
    
    facilities at both DI and NI.   It is the preferred primary treatment
    
    
    
    
    choice of the MDC in their 301(h) waiver application.  At DI, the
    
    
    
    
    present 26-acre treatment facility would be expanded to a 52-acre
    
    
    
    
    facility, while at NI the entire 17-acre site would be utilized for
    
    
    
    
    treatment works, plus new landfill would be required of one to three
    
    
    
    
    acres in Quincy Bay to accommodate an expanded treatment facility.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Sufficient area exists at DI to accommodate new facilities,
    
    
    
    
    including buffer areas and screening opportunities.  However, there
    
    
    
    
    may be some encroachment on the nearby prison grounds.  At NI the
    
    
    
    
    present site is inadequate for expansion, and filling of the harbor
    
    
    
    
    would pose additional constraints to construction (particularly in
    
    
    
    
    light of the local and state legal prohibitions against such
    
    
    
    
    action).   Limited buffer area  would be available at NI, and abutting
    
    
    
    
    residences would be even closer to treatment facilities which would
    
    
    
    
    be larger and more extensive than the presently in operation.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Social/Community Impacts:   Construction activities at DI would
    
    
    
    
    involve and average of 340 workers and 355 daily truck trips through
    
    
    
    
    Winthrop.   Impacts of traffic  on local roads and of construction
    
    
    
    
    activities on site and to adjacent residential areas would be
    
    
    
    
    significant.   The duration of  construction activities would be six
    
    
    
    
    years.   At NI, the number of average daily construction workers and
    
    
    
    
    trucks are 38 and 95, respectively, over the projected five-year
                                 7-22
    

    -------
    construction period.  Impacts on residents of Houghs Neck and in
    
    
    
    
    Quincy during construction from traffic and on-site activities would
    
    
    
    
    likewise be significant.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Operations staffing at DI would be 80 persons and at NI 55 persons
    
    
    
    
    over three daily shifts.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Engineering and Economics:  This option would expand and maintain
    
    
    
    
    separate primary treatment facilities at two locations in Boston
    
    
    
    
    Harbor.  No advantages of consolidation would be achieved in this
    
    
    
    
    option compared to other choices noted above.  The preliminary costs
    
    
    
    
    of this option are estimated to be $774.8 million for construction,
    
    
    
    
    $22 million for O&M and $101.7 annualized cost.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Environmental:   The impacts under this option are comparable for NI
    
    
    
    
    with option Ib.2 and for DI with option 2b.3.  The impacts on the
    
    
    
    
    environmental and water quality resources of Quincy Bay from filling
    
    
    
    
    would be significant.   On DI, the impacts of construction traffic on
    
    
    
    
    local roads in Winthrop and the effects of construction activities
    
    
    
    
    on the residents of Point Shirley would be significant.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    This option is  recommended for further study based on its recom-
    
    
    
    
    mendation by the MDC in their 301(h) waiver application, and the
    
    
    
    
    question of its  possible operational advantages  versus siting
    
    
    
    
    impacts at the  NI site.
                                 7-23
    

    -------
    5a.2 Separate Primary Treatment at PI and LI, Headworks at NI
    
    
    
    
    (Extended  Outfall)
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Technical:  This option would build a new 18-acre treatment plant on
    
    
    
    
    LI for southern MSB flows, a 52-acre treatment plant on DI for
    
    
    
    
    northern MSB flows, and a headworks at NI to screen flows prior to
    
    
    
    
    conveyance to LI.  Sufficient area exists at all three sites to
    
    
    
    
    accommodate the proposed facilities.  Buffer areas would be
    
    
    
    
    available and screening could be provided to minimize or enhance
    
    
    
    
    views of the facility.  Some encroachment of proposed facilities
    
    
    
    
    with other site uses could result at BI with the prison and at LI
    
    
    
    
    with the hospital and recreational plans for the island.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Social/Community Impacts:  Construction activities under this option
    
    
    
    
    are dispersed over three separate sites over a period of three to
    
    
    
    
    four years for the headworks at NI and six years each for treatment
    
    
    
    
    facilities at BI and LI.  Baily average construction workers would
    
    
    
    
    number 77 at LI, 13 at NI, and 340 at BI.   Truck trips during
    
    
    
    
    construction would number a total of 117 vehicles in Quincy at both
    
    
    
    
    NI and LI and 335 vehicles in Winthrop at DI.  These impacts would
    
    
    
    
    be significant, disrupting local traffic and access in both Quincy
    
    
    
    
    and Winthrop and in their respective neighborhoods closest to the
    
    
    
    
    sites.  On-site impacts at NI would be moderate affecting Houghs
    
    
    
    
    Neck in Quincy, while they would be greater at LI affecting Squantum
    
    
    
    
    also in Quincy.  At DI impacts would be greatest impacting most upon
    
    
    
    
    Point Shirly in Winthrop and upon the on-site use of DI and the
    
    
    
    
    prison.
                                 7-24
    

    -------
    Engineering and Economics:   Consolidation would  not be  achieved
    
    
    
    
    under this option.  Separate primary  treatment plants at DI and LI
    
    
    
    
    with further  remote headworks  at NI are proposed.  Additional
    
    
    
    
    operations, maintenance and  sludge disposal  requirements and higher
    
    
    
    
    costs would result.  Preliminary costs under  this  option are
    
    
    
    
    estimated to  be $792.5 million for construction  and $21.7 million
    
    
    
    
    O&M with $103.2 million annualized cost.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Environmental:  Impacts at NI  and DI  under this  option  are
    
    
    
    
    comparable to those described  under option 2b.3.   In addition, at LI
    
    
    
    
    there would be significant impacts from siting of  a 18-acre facility
    
    
    
    
    adjacent to an existing hospital.  Further significant  impacts are
    
    
    
    
    likely from on-site archaeological and historical  resources on LI
    
    
    
    
    and from possible incompatibility with the state's plans for
    
    
    
    
    recreational  uses on the island.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    This option is recommended for  further study based on its potential
    
    
    
    
    benefits at NI and limited expansion  at DI.   Its limited siting on
    
    
    
    
    LI, although  accommodated, requires further analysis to determine
    
    
    
    
    the extent of potentially significant impacts there and in Quincy.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    5b.2 Primary Treatment at LI, Headworks at DI and NI (Extended
    
    
    
    
    Outfall)
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Technical:   This option would  convert DI to a pumping facility and
    
    
    
    
    NI to a headworks (2 acres each), and would consolidate all
    
    
    
    
    treatment on LI (62 acres).   All three sites can accommodate the
                                 7-25
    

    -------
    proposed facilities with available buffer areas based on their
    
    
    
    
    existing acreages of 210 acres at DI,  213 acres at LI, and 17 acres
    
    
    
    
    at NI.   Screening could further limit views of the facilities at all
    
    
    
    
    three sites from nearby residential areas or from Boston Harbor.
    
    
    
    
    Possible encroachment of proposed facilities may occur at LI with
    
    
    
    
    the hospital use there or with recreation plans for the island.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Social/Community Impacts:  Construction activities would be moderate
    
    
    
    
    at DI and NI and greater at LI.  At DI, an average of 28 construc-
    
    
    
    
    tion workers and 39 truck trips occur over a five-year period.  At
    
    
    
    
    NI, an average of 13 workers and 35 truck trips would occur over a
    
    
    
    
    three to four-year period.  On LI, an average of 340 workers and 355
    
    
    
    
    truck trips would last over a seven-year construction period.
    
    
    
    
    Disruption and impacts at DI and NI under this option would be
    
    
    
    
    moderate due to a reduction of facilities and are comparable to
    
    
    
    
    those under option 2b.1.  At LI, traffic impacts in Quincy and to
    
    
    
    
    residents of Squantum would be major.   The greater distance of the
    
    
    
    
    LI site from the nearest residences would minimize the influence of
    
    
    
    
    on-site construction impacts such as noise and dust.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Engineering and Economics:  Consolidation under this option would be
    
    
    
    
    maximized with all treatment at LI, comparable to advantages under
    
    
    
    
    option 2b.l.  Preliminary costs would be $861.4 million for
    
    
    
    
    construction, $20.9 million O&M and $109.1 million annualized cost.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Environmental:  Impacts of this option at DI and NI are comparable
    
    
    
    
    to option 2b.l.  At LI, the proposed facility  (62 acres) could  be
                                 7-26
    

    -------
         accommodated,  but  not  without  impacts  on the  hospital  and  potential
    
    
    
    
         archaeological and historical  resources  in the  vicinity of the  site.
    
    
    
    
         Recreational plans for LI  would possibly also be  in conflict  with
    
    
    
    
         the  proposed treatment plant.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
         This option is recommended for further study  in order  to analyze
    
    
    
    
         issues  such as that of access  to LI  via  the bridge  and the extent  of
    
    
    
    
         improvements on-site at DI and NI,  as  well as to  the neighboring
    
    
    
    
         communities of Winthrop and Quincy  adjoining  the  two sites.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    7.3  OPTIONS NOT TO BE  STUDIED  FUETHER
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
         7.3.1     Secondary Options
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
         la.l Secondary Treatment (Combined  Waste Flows) at  DI,  Headworks
    
    
    
    
         at NI
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
         This option was similar to la.2 as  described  in the previous  section
    
    
    
    
         with only  its  internal piping  of treatment flows  configured
    
    
    
    
         differently.   It was dropped from further consideration, since  it
    
    
    
    
         was  not appreciably different  than  Option la.2  and  it  did  not appear
    
    
    
    
         to offer any significant advantages.
                                      7-27
    

    -------
    Ib.1 Secondary Treatment (Combined Waste Flows) at PI, Primary
    
    
    
    
    Treatment at NI
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    This option is not considered further, since it is essentially the
    
    
    
    
    same as option lb.2 described in a previous section as noted above.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Ic.  Secondary Treatment at PI and NI
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Technical:  This option would expand both existing treatment plants
    
    
    
    
    to separate secondary plants.  At DI,  this would entail a 104-acre
    
    
    
    
    facility; at NI, the proposed facility would require 36 acres.  At
    
    
    
    
    NI,  the existing 17-acre site would require about 20 acres of fill
    
    
    
    
    to Quincy Bay in order to accommodate the proposed larger facility.
    
    
    
    
    Buffer zones or screening would be limited at the NI site under this
    
    
    
    
    option.  Proximity to nearby residential areas at NI would be
    
    
    
    
    greater.  At DI, land is available to accommodate the larger
    
    
    
    
    facilities; however, encroachment on the prison area would likely
    
    
    
    
    occur.  Other uses at DI would be limited under this option.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Social/Community:  Impacts at DI would be comparable to those
    
    
    
    
    described under option lb.2 as described in the previous section,
    
    
    
    
    with the modification of a longer nine-year construction period.
    
    
    
    
    There would be somewhat reduced traffic levels under this option
    
    
    
    
    with an average of 225 workers and 690 truck trips daily.  Impacts
    
    
    
    
    on-site and in Winthrop would be significant.  At NI, the impacts of
    
    
    
    
    such an expanded and larger facility at the site would pose severe
    
    
    
    
    adverse impacts and disruption to residents of Houghs Neck and
                                 7-28
    

    -------
    Quincy.  Traffic during construction at NI would entail a daily
    
    
    
    
    average of 110 workers and 230 truck trips.  Construction duration
    
    
    
    
    at NI would be for nine years also.  Operating staff at DI would be
    
    
    
    
    150 persons and at NI would be 80 persons over three daily shifts.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Engineering and Economics:  This option offers no consolidation
    
    
    
    
    advantages.  Its preliminary costs are estimated at $884.4 million
    
    
    
    
    for construction, $43.4 million O&M, and $134.3 million annualized
    
    
    
    
    cost.  These costs are comparable to other options due to the
    
    
    
    
    elimination of a need for inter-island conduits to convey flows even
    
    
    
    
    though separate major treatment facilities would be built.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Environmental:   This option impacts environmental parameters and
    
    
    
    
    particularly water quality in Quincy Bay, on-site land uses on DI
    
    
    
    
    and NI, and adjoining residential areas and communities to a greater
    
    
    
    
    degree than other options.  It would preclude any on-site mixed uses
    
    
    
    
    and limits establishment of buffer zones. It also advisely impacts
    
    
    
    
    visual quality in the harbor by establishing separate major
    
    
    
    
    facilities of such large scale and visual intrusion.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    This option is not recommended for further study based on its major
    
    
    
    
    on-site and neighborhood impacts and its clear unsuitability of
    
    
    
    
    siting a secondary treatment plant on NI.
                                 7-29
    

    -------
    2a.l Secondary Treatment at PI and LI, Headworks at NI
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Technical:  This option would place separate secondary treatment
    
    
    
    
    plants at two harbor locations, while reducing one present site to a
    
    
    
    
    headworks.  DI would be the site of a major 104-acre facility, while
    
    
    
    
    LI would be the site of a major 36-acre facility.  Both sites can
    
    
    
    
    accommodate such facilities based on their 210 acre and 213 acres
    
    
    
    
    respective areas; however, at DI encroachment on the prison would
    
    
    
    
    result with limited buffer areas available, while at LI encroachment
    
    
    
    
    on potential archaeological and historical resources, proposed
    
    
    
    
    recreational plans and on the hospital are likely.  NI would show
    
    
    
    
    improved site accommodation from location of a proposed 2-acre
    
    
    
    
    headworks.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Social/Community Impacts:  Impacts at NI are moderate and comparable
    
    
    
    
    to those described under option la.2; DI impacts are significant and
    
    
    
    
    comparable to those described under option Ic.  At LI, there would
    
    
    
    
    be an average of 150 construction workers and 340 truck trips daily.
    
    
    
    
    The duration of construction activities would be three to four years
    
    
    
    
    at NI and seven years at LI.  At DI,  construction is estimated to
    
    
    
    
    last eight years.  Construction traffic, involving an average 250
    
    
    
    
    workers and 690 truck trips at DI, and 163 workers with 375 truck
    
    
    
    
    trips at NI and LI, would pose significant impacts on the local
    
    
    
    
    roads in Winthrop and Quincy and would result in major disruption to
    
    
    
    
    the communities of Point Shirley and Squantum with lesser impacts at
    
    
    
    
    Houghs Neck.  Operations staff at these sites would involve 12
                                 7-30
    

    -------
    persons at NI, 75 persons at LI and 140 persons at DI over three
    
    
    
    
    daily shifts.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Engineering and Economics:  This option offers no consolidation
    
    
    
    
    advantages with major facilities sited at two separate island
    
    
    
    
    locations.  Its preliminary costs are estimated at $897.9 million
    
    
    
    
    for construction, $46 million for O&M, and $138.3 million annualized
    
    
    
    
    cost.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Environmental:  At DI and NI this option's impacts are comparable to
    
    
    
    
    those under option la.  Under this option, some uses at LI would be
    
    
    
    
    precluded with significant impacts resulting.  There exists at LI a
    
    
    
    
    potential for adverse impacts upon archaeological and historical
    
    
    
    
    resources, and encroachment on the hospital site is possible.
    
    
    
    
    Recreational uses may likewise be impacted under this plan.  This
    
    
    
    
    option does not meet sufficient criteria relative to other choices
    
    
    
    
    to warrant its further study.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    2a.2 Secondary Treatment at DI and LI, Primary at NI
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Technical:  This option would locate secondary treatment facilities
    
    
    
    
    of 104 acres at DI and 21 acres at LI, while siting a primary
    
    
    
    
    treatment plant of 18 acres at NI.   There is adequate land area at
    
    
    
    
    both DI and LI to site such uses, although at DI a facility would
    
    
    
    
    encroach upon the adjoining prison site, while at LI encroachment
    
    
    
    
    may occur with regard to historical or archeological resources.
    
    
    
    
    Buffer areas are available at both locations with opportunities for
                                 7-31
    

    -------
    screening of the facility from view.  At NI,  the present 17-acre
    
    
    
    
    site would require one to three acres of fill to Quincy Bay to
    
    
    
    
    accommodate a primary treatment plant.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Social/Community:  Impacts of this option are major and wide
    
    
    
    
    ranging, given the distribution of traffic and construction impacts
    
    
    
    
    over three sites and two adjoining communities.  These impacts are
    
    
    
    
    comparable for DI and LI to those described in option 2a.l above.
    
    
    
    
    At NI, impacts would be comparable to those described in option lb.2
    
    
    
    
    described in the previous section.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Engineering and Economic:  No consolidation advantages are attendant
    
    
    
    
    with this option to site three major separate treatment facilities
    
    
    
    
    at separate sites in Boston Harbor.  Preliminary costs are estimated
    
    
    
    
    at $915.5 million for construction, $46.1 million O&M, and $140.2
    
    
    
    
    million annualized cost.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Environmental:  This option would impose major impacts at all three
    
    
    
    
    sites with filling of Quincy Bay a principal  concern.  Land use
    
    
    
    
    impacts and those on adjoining communities would be comparable at NI
    
    
    
    
    to those described under option lb.2 and at DI and LI to those
    
    
    
    
    described under option 2a.l.  This option is  not recommended for
    
    
    
    
    further study based on the extent of impacts  and lack of compliance
    
    
    
    
    with the established criteria relative to other options.
                                 7-32
    

    -------
    2b.2 Secondary Treatment at LI, Primary Treatment at PI and NI
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Technical:   This option would maintain and expand primary treatment
    
    
    
    
    facilities at DI (52 acres) and NI (18 acres) with a new
    
    
    
    
    consolidated secondary treatment facility on LI (68 acres).  These
    
    
    
    
    facilities can be accommodated at both DI and LI with unavoidable
    
    
    
    
    encroachment on abutting land uses and resources at both sites.   At
    
    
    
    
    NI,  the proposed facility could not be readily accommodated
    
    
    
    
    requiring fill to Quincy Bay.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Social/Community:  Construction impacts under this option from
    
    
    
    
    workers and trucking activities would pose major disruption to both
    
    
    
    
    adjoining communities and at each of the three sites.  Impacts at NI
    
    
    
    
    are comparable to those described under option lb.2 in the previous
    
    
    
    
    section.  At DI and LI, impacts would be comparable to those
    
    
    
    
    described under option 2b.3, although the size of the LI facility is
    
    
    
    
    slightly smaller.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Engineering and Economic:  This option affords no consolidation
    
    
    
    
    advantages with major treatment facilities at three separate
    
    
    
    
    locations in Boston Harbor.  Preliminary costs are estimated to be
    
    
    
    
    among the highest at $1001.8 million for construction, $48.9 O&M,
    
    
    
    
    and $151.9 annualized cost.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Environmental:  Impacts under this option would be major and wide
    
    
    
    
    ranging across all three sites and in both adjoining communities of
    
    
    
    
    Winthrop and Quincy.  Filling of Quincy Bay would pose environmental
                                 7-33
    

    -------
    and water quality impacts.  Impacts are comparable at NI to those
    
    
    
    
    described under option lb.2 described in the previous section; DI
    
    
    
    
    and LI impacts are comparable to those described under option 2b.3.
    
    
    
    
    This option is not recommended for further study based on its
    
    
    
    
    greater impacts and lack of compliance with the criteria.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    3a/b. Man-Made Island Adjacent to Lovells Island or The Brewsters
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Technical:  This option introduces unique construction solutions in
    
    
    
    
    order to locate treatment facilities in the outer harbor furthest
    
    
    
    
    away from residential areas.  DI and NI would be converted to
    
    
    
    
    pumping and headworks facilities respectively.  It would require
    
    
    
    
    major dredging, filling and stabilizing of the island's shallow
    
    
    
    
    water areas; all-weather barging with no land backup would be the
    
    
    
    
    sole access; construction of additional storm barriers and
    
    
    
    
    protective jettys are needed; and the existing islands would be
    
    
    
    
    physically altered.  This option would create a filled area of 154
    
    
    
    
    acres adjacent to the existing island sites.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Social/Community:  Construction impacts, in addition to the unique
    
    
    
    
    engineering and special construction practices necessary, would
    
    
    
    
    involve 400 to 500 construction workers at the outer harbor
    
    
    
    
    locations, plus another 13 workers at NI and 28 workers at DI.  More
    
    
    
    
    than 900 truck trips daily would be required and converted to barge
    
    
    
    
    transport.  These requirements alone make this option highly
    
    
    
    
    speculative.  Operations staff would be 140 persons over three daily
    
    
    
    
    shifts to be barged to the treatment plant.
                                 7-34
    

    -------
    The only advantage of such a plan would be the removal of major
    
    
    
    
    treatment facilities furthest away from residential areas.  However,
    
    
    
    
    the limitations of such an approach appear to outweigh its
    
    
    
    
    advantages.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Engineering and Economics:  While this plan consolidates treatment
    
    
    
    
    at a single site, this is not as feasible a solution to achieve that
    
    
    
    
    goal as other options.  Preliminary costs for this option are
    
    
    
    
    significantly higher than all others at $1515.9 to $2037.6 million
    
    
    
    
    for construction, $43 million plus for O&M, and $198.7 to $252.3
    
    
    
    
    million annualized costs.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Enviromental:  The considerable consequences for marine habitat and
    
    
    
    
    water quality during construction, plus the major additional costs
    
    
    
    
    associated with transport of staff and materials to the site during
    
    
    
    
    construction and operations are of such magnitude and uncertainty
    
    
    
    
    that the potential for adverse impacts far outweighs any of the
    
    
    
    
    possible benefits.  In fact, other options offer far greater
    
    
    
    
    benefits at lower costs and with fewer likely adverse impacts.   This
    
    
    
    
    option is therefore not recommended for further study.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    7.3.2 Primary Options
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    41.2 Primary Treatment at PI, Headworks at NI (Harbor Outfall)
                                 7-35
    

    -------
    4b.l Separate Primary Treatment at PI and NI (Harbor Outfall)
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    5a.l Separate Primary Treatment at PI and LI, Headworks at NI
    
    
    
    
    (Harbor  Outfall)
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    5b.l Primary Treatment at LI, Headworks at PI and NI (Harbor
    
    
    
    
    Outfall)
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    All of the above primary treatment options with harbor outfalls into
    
    
    
    
    Boston Harbor are not consistent with the recently stated policy of
    
    
    
    
    the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental
    
    
    
    
    Affairs and the MDC Commissioner, which favor an extended outfall'
    
    
    
    
    with primary treatment.   These options are not, moreover, among
    
    
    
    
    those proposed by the MDC under their 301(h) waiver application.
    
    
    
    
    Therefore, primary treatment options with harbor outfalls are not
    
    
    
    
    recommended for further study.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Since this conclusion only deals with the length and location of an
    
    
    
    
    outfall conduit and does not affect the siting of treatment
    
    
    
    
    facilities, any future change in policy regarding outfall locations
    
    
    
    
    could readily be accommodated to the EIS process at a later date.
                                 7-36
    

    -------
    8.0  REFERENCES
    1.    EPA Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Upgrading of
    
    
    
    
         the Boston Metropolitan Area Sewerage System (August 1978).
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    2.    MDC Nut Island Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Planning
    
    
    
    
         Project, Phase 1, Site Options Study (Metcalf & Eddy, June,  1982)
    
    
    
    
         [Site Options Study].
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    3.    MDC Wastewater Engineering and Management Plan for Boston Harbor
    
    
    
    
         - Eastern Massachusetts Metropolitan Area (Metcalf & Eddy,  1976)
    
    
    
    
         [EMMA Study].
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    4.    MDC Application for Modification of Secondary Treatment
    
    
    
    
         Requirements for Its Deer Island and Nut Island Effluent
    
    
    
    
         Discharges into Marine Waters (Metcalf & Eddy,  1979 and 1983)
    
    
    
    
         [reapplication due in June 1984].
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    5.    MDC Wastewater Sludge Management Update (Havens & Emerson,  1982).
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    6.    MDC Deer Island Facilities Plan, Vol. I, Fast-Track Improvements
    
    
    
    
         (Havens & Emerson/Parsons Brickerhoff,  January 1984).
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    7.    MDC,  Discharges from Moon Island.   Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc.  -
    
    
    
    
         Draft Report  March 28, 1984.
                                       8-1
    

    -------
    8.   MDC, Report on Combined Sewer Overflows  in the  Dorchester Bay Area.
    
    
    
    
         Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc. - October  1980.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    9.   MDC, Combined Sewer Overflow Report, MDC,  Inner Harbor Area
    
    
    
    
         Facilities Plan.  O'Brien & Gere Engineers,  Inc.  - January 1981
                         U. 3. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1985 — 500-6"4 5--61")
                                        8-2
    

    -------
    Mawe* in and
             Me
            DATE DUE
                      0
        3 mi
    

    -------
    
    
    NUT ISLAND
    

    -------